Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

The Hub Mixed Use Apartment Development in The Short North - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development The Hub Mixed Use Apartment Development in The Short North – News & Updates

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 901 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #261311

    DCist
    Member

    monadnock wrote >>
    This bears repeating again.
    1) Deposits are not exposed to the same risks as investments. The legal language in the Ohio revised code is very powerful. It says “Shall be held in trust”
    2) The time line doesn’t work. People made deposits AFTER the land was cleared and the plans were drawn up. Nothing had/has changed on the lot since then. Time-line doesn’t work = someone is lying.
    4) The developers have admitted to spending all of the deposit money.
    5) In July of 2007 Ohio revised code was amended to allow for the spending of deposit monies specifically on the building of the actual structure and specifically not for payroll and marketing expenses. Again, nothing has changed on that lot since the deposits were taken/spent.
    Here is the section of Ohio revised code that pertains…

    SO where did all that money go? Over half a million dollars in other people’s money that Apex/Arms or whatever they’re calling themselves has spent and despite multiple requests to show where the money was spent all these guys do is delay and come up with excuses and even veiled threats, telling the depositors that if they don’t play ball they will themselves be responsible for everyone not getting their money back.
    Yes, they care about their depositors. So much so that they’re going to wait for years (also in violation of Ohio revised code) to find SOMEONE ELSE to pay them all back, but not so much that they’re going to pony up a single penny or even offer a payment plan to pay the depositors back.
    If the developer really wanted to do the right thing they would have at least tried for a payment plan over a year ago. The depositors have been MORE than patient and MORE than willing to work with the developers on this.
    We understand that the housing bubble burst. But that isn’t why the developer is in hot water. If the developer had respected the law they would have placed deposits in escrow, the project would have failed the deposits would have gone back to the depositors and the developer would have simply declared bankruptcy and moved on. It is apparent now that the developer did not realize that the law protected everyone involved, not just the depositors, but the developer as well.

    Based on the language in the contract you posted, it stated that “the amounts deposited by buyers and not withdrawn…”

    The rest of the paragraph applies to that statement. The fact is that the money was withdrawn by the sellers. At default or termination, it must be returned in full, but your argument that it must be held in escrow is false, only that money that was not withdrawn (supposedly used for construction, etc) is mandated to escrow.

    I am on the buyers side, but your argument is flawed.

    #261312

    monadnock
    Member

    DCist:


    Based on the language in the contract you posted, it stated that “the amounts deposited by buyers and not withdrawn…”
    The rest of the paragraph applies to that statement. The fact is that the money was withdrawn by the sellers. At default or termination, it must be returned in full, but your argument that it must be held in escrow is false, only that money that was not withdrawn (supposedly used for construction, etc) is mandated to escrow.
    I am on the buyers side, but your argument is flawed.

    Ahh! So wait, you read all of that with your “I am on the buyers side” goggles on and still managed to find the one “business friendly” interpretation in there? Seriously? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

    The way I read it is that the amounts are not to be withdrawn except under very specific and risky circumstances (after all the deposits are supposed to be applied to the mortgage at the time of closing and if they’re spent how can that happen?). These very specific circumstances were bolted onto the law in July of 2007 at the height of the very practices that caused the housing crisis. Further. At this time the law was also amended to redefine the interest owed the depositors to what amounted to less than a dollar every year for every $1000.00 of deposited money. Truly a laughable insult. Somebody really had their way with this law.

    So what do you make of the other 99% of what I wrote? You know, since you’re so pro buyer and all? (BTW buyer is SO two years ago since nobody really bought anything. I think we’re referring to the “buyers” as depositors at this point.)

    #261313

    monadnock
    Member

    DCist:


    Based on the language in the contract you posted, it stated that “the amounts deposited by buyers and not withdrawn…”
    The rest of the paragraph applies to that statement. The fact is that the money was withdrawn by the sellers. At default or termination, it must be returned in full, but your argument that it must be held in escrow is false, only that money that was not withdrawn (supposedly used for construction, etc) is mandated to escrow.
    I am on the buyers side, but your argument is flawed.

    Ok. I’m gonna try this again. I’m going to pretend that an hour after you read my post, you found this interpretation all on your own and that your post bears no relation or resemblance to the emails and press releases posted by Apex to date. You’ve come to these conclusions all of your own volition.

    So. If I am to understand this new interpretation, the deposits are to remain in some place, but not an escrow account, until such time as they are withdrawn for construction purposes only. And only then, after use for construction are these ambiguously held funds supposed to land in an escrow account and accrue interest? Honestly to what end? Why would left over deposit funds end up in an escrow account only shortly before they are to be returned in full to the depositors for application to the mortgage of their units? So, the funds are allowed to be spent if they are required for construction but then they’re supposed to also become available again, in full, with interest, soon after construction is finished? How does that make sense in a macro non-quantum reality? Please explain this to me because I’d really like to know.

    You see, Apex offered precisely this explanation a year ago but they were unable to answer how this was supposed to work. That’s why I can’t help but see a resemblance in your statement to the Apex party line. I have found no one outside this drama (and I have asked dozens) that can find or come to that interpretation in the language above. To date, Apex is the only one pushing that interpretation of this law.

    #261314

    DCist
    Member

    Someone disagrees with you and your only defense is that somehow I am connected with them? I find that hilarious and pointless to this discussion.

    I sympathize with buyers, but my point was that I can see how the wording of this law is favorable to owner/sellers. I don’t condone it, but that is the way it is worded and it is being used to take advantage of “depositors” or “buyers” and that was my only point.

    #261315

    monadnock
    Member

    Dcist. My only defense? Again. Ah… the other 99% of what I wrote? I was referring to your only vector of attack. I cannot determine if you are connected to the developers. I’m pointing out the quickness with which you latched on to the interpretation that I’ve only heard from them and that you’ve ignored all the rest of what I wrote. Your ignoring the timeline for instance and that the deposits were spent after the land wacleared and plans were drawn. Conveinienty you do not address this point.

    Also. I understand the people who write and pass the laws are not infalable and this interpretation simply makes no sense. It cannot work from a functional perspective. It lands thedeveloper in a risky catch 22 if they were to spend the deposit money even for the purposes listed. Therefore I simply reject the interpretation. Besides at this point. Since the catch 22 has been conviently opted for that leaves the developer in violation of the part of the law that requires a prompt refund of the funds. Once again if the developer respected that these laws originally were meant to protect all parties then they wouldn’t have spent moneies originally given in trust on whatever it was they spent it on.and all parties would have been spared this desparate course of events. Any way you slice it the developer is squarely SOL.

    #261316

    monadnock
    Member

    Oh btw, the land is in foreclosure now.

    #261318

    monadnock
    Member

    Oh btw, the land is in foreclosure now. It appears that Apex failed to pay any taxes on the land over the last three years.

    #261319

    DCist wrote >>
    Someone disagrees with you and your only defense is that somehow I am connected with them? I find that hilarious and pointless to this discussion.
    I sympathize with buyers, but my point was that I can see how the wording of this law is favorable to owner/sellers. I don’t condone it, but that is the way it is worded and it is being used to take advantage of “depositors” or “buyers” and that was my only point.

    Well, this just in, a judge has issued a partial judgement in favor of the plaintiff (depositor), stating that the use of the deposit funds was premature and illegal. The funds would allowed to be used once the unit was constructed. In short, APEX is screwed. The hits just keep on coming. Stay tuned. ;)

    #261320

    CMH2579
    Participant

    Via Dispatch

    Failed Ibiza condo project in hands of new developer
    Schiff Capital Group plans retail, office, residential at Short North site

    A Columbus developer plans to build an office and residential tower on the site of the failed Ibiza condominium project in the Short North.

    Schiff Capital Group has assumed control of the site at N. High Street and Hubbard Avenue, said principal Michael Schiff.

    Schiff said he is planning an eight- to 10-story building to include retail and restaurants on the ground floor, three or four floors of office space and some sort of residential – probably apartments – on the upper floors.

    More Information

    #261321

    people211
    Member

    CMH2579 wrote >>
    Via Dispatch

    Failed Ibiza condo project in hands of new developer
    Schiff Capital Group plans retail, office, residential at Short North site
    A Columbus developer plans to build an office and residential tower on the site of the failed Ibiza condominium project in the Short North.
    Schiff Capital Group has assumed control of the site at N. High Street and Hubbard Avenue, said principal Michael Schiff.
    Schiff said he is planning an eight- to 10-story building to include retail and restaurants on the ground floor, three or four floors of office space and some sort of residential – probably apartments – on the upper floors.
    More Information

    Taking this with a grain of salt………………

    #261322

    XLD
    Member

    The same group that is taking over the Atlas building –

    http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2011/03/02/atlas-newest-owner-wants-to-turn-it-into-apartments.html?sid=101

    The Atlas Building – News & Updates

    From that article: “Michael Schiff, principal of Schiff Capital, said it likely will cost about $15 million to renovate the 12-story building with marble lobbies and detailed stonework into 110 to 120 one- and two-bedroom units.

    The vacant upper floors need work to bring the building up to code.

    “The High Street corridor between Downtown and (the Ohio State University) campus is the best real estate in Columbus right now,” Schiff said. “The gaps are closing.”

    He said he’s looking at several other properties in that corridor, particularly in the Short North.”

    When I read the above, Ibiza came to mind. How did they “assume control of the site”?

    #261323
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I’m skeptical, but hopeful about this news.

    Ibiza Site Changes Hands, New Project Planned

    #261324

    michaelcoyote
    Participant

    So I guess the answer to the question posed in the thread title is no.

    #261325
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Well… sorta.

    Sounds like it won’t be called Ibiza, but the new building proposed sounds like nearly the same thing.

    #261326
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    Walker wrote >>
    Well… sorta.
    Sounds like it won’t be called Ibiza, but the new building proposed sounds like nearly the same thing.

    I would like to be the very first to put a deposit down.

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 901 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: