Pulaski Bank lawyer "urges" BOA to grant new agreement for Sappington Square (click here for the story from the CALL.)
Another great story from the Call reference why were never going to get anywhere with TDD, CID, TIF's and the curent regime! As you read this please understand that every time we put on on these "tax welfare deals" were shooting ourselves in the foot (no, not John Foote.)
Mr. Jeff Schlink, Alderman, Ward Two makes a very good point as to why these so called tools should NEVER be used, and I agree! Do you know that Mr. Forrest Miller, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission has come out against them as well? Well he sure did at last night's meeting and I applaud him for it!
Pulaski Bank as well as every other Bank on this planet has a duty to it's share holders to make the best decisions possible after gathering ALL the facts before they grant a loan for any project. In this case the decision was a bit off the mark as the Developer was forclosed on in mid project, and now Polaski owns the development!
Was there a CID in place, yes there was but with THE DEVELOPER, not Pulaski Bank. so I opine that an entirely new agreement MUST be drawen up, or forget about it! Mr. King has given a yomans performance in trying to explain to the board that it is entirly possible to pick up a bit of excrement by the clean end, an idea I find challanging at best.
Now after all is said and done, we, the tax payers will be the ones on the hook for a really bad decision by the Bank, the Board Of Alderman, and the Developer! I simply ask, WHY? Tha bank knew (or should have known) what they were getting into, the Developer should have mined the economic data a bit more closely, and the Board has been bitten by this vampire so often they never should have let it back into the house again!
Thank GOD we have intellegent members of the Board (Mssrs. Wallach, Schlink, Miguel, and Duchild) who have and are seeing through this sharade and have the courage to work on our behalf! Gentlemen, I applaud your wisdon, strength, tenacity, and willingness to do what's right for Crestwood!
Mr. Jeff Schlink, Alderman, Ward Two makes a very good point as to why these so called tools should NEVER be used, and I agree! Do you know that Mr. Forrest Miller, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission has come out against them as well? Well he sure did at last night's meeting and I applaud him for it!
Pulaski Bank as well as every other Bank on this planet has a duty to it's share holders to make the best decisions possible after gathering ALL the facts before they grant a loan for any project. In this case the decision was a bit off the mark as the Developer was forclosed on in mid project, and now Polaski owns the development!
Was there a CID in place, yes there was but with THE DEVELOPER, not Pulaski Bank. so I opine that an entirely new agreement MUST be drawen up, or forget about it! Mr. King has given a yomans performance in trying to explain to the board that it is entirly possible to pick up a bit of excrement by the clean end, an idea I find challanging at best.
Now after all is said and done, we, the tax payers will be the ones on the hook for a really bad decision by the Bank, the Board Of Alderman, and the Developer! I simply ask, WHY? Tha bank knew (or should have known) what they were getting into, the Developer should have mined the economic data a bit more closely, and the Board has been bitten by this vampire so often they never should have let it back into the house again!
Thank GOD we have intellegent members of the Board (Mssrs. Wallach, Schlink, Miguel, and Duchild) who have and are seeing through this sharade and have the courage to work on our behalf! Gentlemen, I applaud your wisdon, strength, tenacity, and willingness to do what's right for Crestwood!
posted by Crestwood Independent at 17:13
7 Comments:
I would like to comment about one subject that was dismissed by KING.
SUBJECT: Cannibalizing existing businesses in other Crestwood locations to move to Sappington Square.
I support the statement Mr. Schlink made and point to GREAT CLIPS HAIR CUTS as an example. GREAT CLIPS was located in the HARBOR FREIGHT shopping zone and moved to Sappington Square.
Another example that King is not informed.
Tom,
I attended the meeting and was surprised to hear Mr. King's opinion that the Crestwood Point CID is the city's problem.
The only issue the city has with that development is that the developer did not deliver on his promise to attract high-end retail, and that the development does not generate enough foot traffic to create the promised revenue from sales taxes.
The bank most definitely has a problem - it made a bad loan. According to Mr. King's statement from a prior board meeting, a foreclosure was never anticipated. How could any lender not take foreclosure as a possiblity when the borrower was building in an already-saturated retail market? This project was not demand-driven; therefore, the potential for failure should definitely have been a consideration.
The bank wants its money back, and is attempting to get it using any means at its disposal. Their first act was to sue the developer. Their second act was to approach the city in an effort to change the terms of the CID contract the city made with the developer. If the city agrees
to change the terms, it would allow the bank to receive reimbursement for the development costs that the developer incurred.
Mr. King stated that he is just being reasonable and wants to work something out with the city. It would be interesting to know whether Pulaski bank attempted to be reasonable with the developer and work something out with him before it decided to sue him.
If we are to believe Mr. King, Crestwood will be next in line for a lawsuit from Pulaski.
How does the city correct its own problem at Sappington Square? The only way to do that is to remove the impediment to attracting more shoppers, and that impediment is the CID tax that Pulaski bank is asking the city to keep at that location for the next 20 years. The city has the majority vote on the CID board. All they need to do is make a resolution to repeal the CID tax, and they will have solved the city's problem at that site.
Martha Duchild
6:22 PM Blogger: Martha, as usual you are spot on with your analysis!
As I have said before, and will do so again now, Pulaski bank bought their ticket when they foreclosed on the project. It's not our fault that they failed to understand the retail business climate under the current regime, it's their's!
Thank God so far they are not on the "too big to fail" list in Washington.
I say, bring on the suit Mr. King, I for one want to know just who said this was "a done deal" from the get go. As you know (or should know) as soon as the depositions are completed I will have the information for my fellow Crestwood residents, and we shall go from there!
Now how long will it take before you recommend "emanate domain" to the Board to seize the Schnuck's "cross over?"
I believe we can "escrow" the tax for 20 years and give you nothing sir, so "go for it!"
Tom Ford
I neglected to mention that at a previous board meeting, Mr. King indicated that Pulaski Bank was in discussion with a couple potential tenants, but these potential tenants requested lease rates that were, in the bank's opinion, too low.
If the goal of continuing the CID tax is to attract new tenants, why is the bank turning away potential tenants who have already shown an interest in the Sappington Square development? The bank should be doing everything it can, including lowering lease rates, to generate interest in and foot traffic at that development.
There is nothing preventing the bank from reducing the lease rates now to attract potential tenants. If they choose, they can always raise the rates at some date in the future (once the development is fully leased).
Martha Duchild
Martha,
I have heard the ploy of we are in negotiations with business who want to occupy space when the developer/property manager wants special consideration. Unless documented evidence of said negotiations are available and prove the extent of committment to occupy,the statement has no value.
I can only view King's statement as another shallow promise with no substance and dismiss it.
I think the point to be taken from this is that it is within Pulaski's capacity as property owner to sign on new tenants immediately (if we are to believe they truly are negotiating with potential tenants, as Mr. King claims), and they are choosing not to. What does that say about their commitment to this development, and by extension, to Crestwood?
Martha Duchild
10:47 PM Blogger: Two words Martha "free lunch" I do believe they think they see a way to attempt to have their cake and eat it too!
Guess what dear Pulaski Bank, you are on your own here kids, you wanted to jump, you did jump, and now you are holding the bag!
I trust you will have a full explanation for your shareholders as to how this happened, won't you?
Good luck,
Tom Ford
Post a Comment
<< Home