Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

Franklin Park Trolley Barn

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Franklin Park Trolley Barn

This topic contains 272 replies, has 42 voices, and was last updated by News News 7 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 273 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #515130
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Concerned said:
    Snarf,

    What actions can the city take? If it takes the property, will all of the problems that led to court action be solved immediately? Will renovations that lead to development, such as those wonderful artist renderings, take place right away? Someone earlier in these posts mentioned a price tag of 10 million plus — Are you saying that someone out there has that type of financing to develop this property barn, and this person is ready to go with a legitimate offer on the table, and that the property owner turned it down? Or, are you saying that the city is ready to spend 10 million plus to develop the property? Your comments seemed geared toward some type of “punishment” for the owner as opposed to a solution for a historic site, which is one of the reasons I wonder if there is another agenda.

    If the city takes it, I believe it will have a much better chance at both becoming safer and more secure in the short term and have a much better chance of actually becoming something other than McGee’s magic lotto ticket in the long term.

    It’s clear she hasn’t kept it up to code and it’s shameful she maintains it the way she does. That is the agenda, nothing more.

    #515131
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    Snarf said:
    If the city takes it, I believe it will have a much better chance at both becoming safer and more secure in the short term and have a much better chance of actually becoming something other than McGee’s magic lotto ticket in the long term.

    Could always use the North Market model with an initial investment from the city turning control over to a nonprofit development authority over time. Today, the North Market operates in the black without any city subsidy dollars since 2007-ish.

    Columbus quietly does some things really really right (public-private partnerships being one) and we need to do a better job replicating our existing successful models rather than thinking we need to copy another city or recreate the wheel.

    #515132

    NDaEast
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Concerned Wrote : “… If a prospective buyer cannot even get a bank or other financial institution to finance his offer, why should she act as a bank when there are concerns about his ability to develop the property? Looking at pictures on the Trolley Station Facebook Page, it appears the property was “safe” enough to host a public viewing with families in attendance in 2010 – that does not seem to gel with the premise that she has not made efforts to work with the community or that it has been “dangerous” for almost a decade….”

    Concerned: The city is seeking a court order that would allow it to enter the property, tear it down, and put the bill on the property tax duplicate. The owner has refused to do any work to stabilize the deteriorating structures over the past decade, and was quoted recently in the Dispatch as saying she was unable to do so in any reasonable timeframe. There are no good alternatives under her ownership. This property is at a point of crisis.

    Columbus Compact Corporation thus made an offer to purchase the facility from the owner, with owner financing for up to 5 years, at appraised value. The Compact committed to immediately investing up to $75,000 cash over the next six months to maintain and secure the buildings from further deterioration while it pursued development partners and financing. The current property owner would maintain a mortgage on the facility, and would receive mortgage payments from the Compact. If the Compact did not execute, the property — which has been secured and stabilized — would revert back to the current owner. If the Compact secured development partners and financing, the current owner’s mortgage would be paid and the property developed.

    This proposal was done at 100% business risk to the Compact, to secure a “win-win-win” situation. The owner wins through a net turnaround of $20,000 per year to her (mortgage payment, plus Compact assuming stormwater and tax bills), and she gets out from under the prospect of Environmental Court. By providing owner financing, she gains $343,000 from a situation of court-ordered demolition, because the buildings — which she paid $230K for and have a land value of just $87K, would not be demolished leaving a +/-$200K demolition bill on the property — causing her to lose her initial investment of $230K + $200K demo bill – $87K sales price = $343,000 benefit of the deal.

    The community wins because at a minimum historic buildings are preserved, and with a change in ownership with a proven community-based developer at the table there is potential for a great economic revitalziation plan priced at $10.3M (summarized on the Friends of Franklin Park Trolley Barn website at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Franklin-Park-Trolley-Barn/139543339419770?ref=hl). This development is feasible, and would be financed by state and local historic tax credits, private debt, equity and likely some very reasonable amount of government subsidy (the public-private partnership Walker mentioned in an earlier post). This is exactly how these types of things happen.

    In exchange for this, the Compact merely carries a lien on its 100% at-risk and speculative no-interest investment which is only designed to save this historic treasure, but will not of itself generate a dime in revenue. The Compact’s win is certainly not financial, but lies in saving an important Columbus landmark and thus contributing to the revitalization of this great neighborhood.

    The Community Visioning Session held in 2010 was not held at the property — which is clearly too dangerous for such an event — it was held at Central Community House. Nor was the event envisioned, sponsored, or participated in by any way by the owner other than allowing access to the property: it was done by the Compact at our own time and expense. And we did take people on a carefully-guided tour with paths marked by Caution Tape, so they could set foot on the property with well-managed risk. Please look at the pictures on the website to get a sense of the hazards on the site (and those pictures do not show the most dangerous conditions). And, yes, everyone who took the tour was informed of the hazards and required to sign a liability release and waiver to enter the premises.

    The Owner’s cooperation to date has been merely allowing the Compact — at the Compact’s full risk and expense — to access the property to complete environmental, structural, architecture, planning and marketing studies. These efforts by the Compact — for which the Columbus and Ohio Historic Preservation Offices and the Ohio Community Development Finance Fund played critical support roles — are the only concrete attempts beyond the also very critical advocacy that have been undertaken to save this complex. The Compact’s work has given “legitimacy” to the advocacy of neighborhood leaders and groups like the Franklin Park Civic Association and Trolley Barn Block Watch, who are not howling in the wind, but are able to talk with certainty and conviction about a specific, realistic, credible, and financible plan for improvement that they participated in crafting and that they would like to see take place.

    The owner has done nothing but patchwork repair under code enforcement order when a portion of the wall collapsed onto the adjacent residential property. She has not capped the exposed brick on the top of that and other walls that allows for water infiltration/freeze-thaw that is destroying the structural integrity of the walls. She has not installed gutters to keep roof runoff from softening the grond and undermining the foundations that is causing the walls to show severe stairstep cracking as they sink and break away from their lateral support. Nor has she done anything to arrest the cave-ins of three roofing structures on the site with the most severe roof collapse looking imminent with another heavy snow load — a roof collapse whose weight, height, and speed could pull down the walls. Nor has she accepted multiple above-market offers to sell or ground lease the property. We have offered reasonable prices on our terms, and we have offered her price on our terms, and she has refused both. She has at times offered owner financing, and then turned around and rejected it. Owner financing does not cost her a dime, and it turns a 10-year money-losing situation for her into an immediate monetary gain: I can see no rational reason why she whould not do it happily. She is in a financial box, and taking the property with her. She just got a lifeline offered by the Compact that will save her money, and save our community treasure.

    My belief is that she has lost about $10K a year, for each of the last 10 years, and wants someone to bail her out of her loss in buying the building ($231K) and losing $100K holding the building. And she wants a profit on top of that. But the facility is only valued at $189K (land and buildings). She simply lost money speculating in the real estate market, continues to lose money on this property every day that goes by, and doesn’t want to realize her speculative business loss. (Then again, Nationwide Arena got bailed out … maybe the City and County will bail her out, too.) We will see if she will accept the help and join in a financial partnership which is nothing but a “win” for her, to save the property.

    So Concerned, those are the true facts.

    #515133

    JamesF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Adaptive Reuse in Toronto, Ontario highlighted in The Columbus Dispatch 12/26/12 “Other cities’ trolley barns”

    #515134

    JamesF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    The continuance of Contempt of Court proceedings in Environmental Court against the owner (Minnie M. McGee) are scheduled for Thursday, January 10 at 11am in courtroom 15C with Judge Harland Hale.

    Members of the community and other interested parties are encouraged to attend!

    #515135

    JamesF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Another Trolley Complex saved in Nashville

    #515136

    JamesF
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    and in Louisville, Kentucky the Kentucky Center for African American History and in Salt Lake City, Utah, Trolley Square[/url]

    #515137

    Concerned
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Here is a link to the Facebook page with information directly from the property owner about the plans for the Trolley Complex:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oak-Kelton-Trolley-Complex/216616348475362

    #515138
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Interesting. What do you think? Certainly timely.

    #515139

    heresthecasey
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    I’ll believe it when I see some action taken on the ground.

    A hastily thrown-together PR campaign consisting of a Facebook page doesn’t get her off the hook for real improvements, IMO.

    #515140

    Concerned
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Well, if she is the owner and the she has the rights to the property and its development, it would seem to me that all interested parties should try to work with her for a resolution that will benefit the neighborhood and get results. Isn’t the goal to get “real” improvements and development the property? Once again, who here has the money to purchase the property outright (and that means today) even for the value on the Auditor’s site ($189,000)? I’m not talking about a “deal” where the owner has to finance the property (because if you’ve got the money or the appropriate financing from a bank, she shouldn’t have to become a mortgagor). Plus, once the property is purchased, who has the 10-20 million dollars in their pocket TODAY to develop the property based on the lovely plans located on the Friends of Franklin Park Trolley Barn site? The answer: no one.

    #515141

    heresthecasey
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Code violations out the wazoo.

    Multiple court orders.

    Contempt charges.

    Refusal to engage with the neighborhood, or work with Columbus Compact, the city, the courts etc.

    Dragging this same shit out for years and years waiting for a big payday.

    Inability to even seal the property properly, secure the buildings’ structure, clean debris, settle criminal complaints, etc.

    The list goes on… I have little faith in a notorious slumlord to be sincerely interested in working for the betterment of this property, or the neighborhood.

    #515142

    Concerned
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Heresthecasey, you seem to know a lot about the owner’s personal business. How do you know she’s waiting for a big payday? Based on information from Columbus Compact, they entered into a contract to purchase the property and didn’t execute the contract. Plus their own website shows that the owner allowed them to enter the property for a planning sessions and to get a grant, along with the City, to get a 2011 grant from the State for a business plan and feasibility study. So, your statement “Refusal to engage with the neighborhood, or work with Columbus Compact, the city, the courts etc.” is highly inaccurate, to say the least. What is sad is that there are people out there who want to put out misinformation to further their own agendas. It’s SO obvious there’s something personal between you and the owner. Work it out or get over it…because if you are TRULY interested in improving the property and not personal attacks, you would focus your efforts elsewhere.

    #515143

    heresthecasey
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Concerned said:
    It’s SO obvious there’s something personal between you and the owner. Work it out or get over it…

    Dude. Get over yourself.

    As Snarf and others have put it, “It’s clear she hasn’t kept it up to code and it’s shameful she maintains it the way she does. That is the agenda, nothing more.”

    #515144

    NDaEast
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    @Concerned: First hand knowledge here: the owner’s behavior has been erratic and irrational — multiple attempts have been made, but nobody could work a business deal with her.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 273 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?