Posts Tagged ‘Developers’

The developer behind the City Arts building purchases the largest vacant building in Station North

Posted by ameister on Monday, January 30th, 2012

Charm City Current is still live for some reason so I will post here for now.  You should be ready to switch to this site.

Jubilee Baltimore now owns the old theater at 10 East North Avenue in Station North.  This building went to auction in June. The Jubilee Baltimore web site says: “Over the next three or four years, we will work to create a center for the arts, including theatres, studios, galleries, and probably much more”.


10 East North Avenue

You can barely see the building in the background at the 8:44 mark in the following video (although you get a good feel of the surrounding area):

YouTube Preview Image

Jubilee developed the nearby City Arts building.  You can see the City Arts building at the 7:52 mark in the following video:

YouTube Preview Image

Bolton Hill legend Charlie Duff is one of the people behind Jubilee Baltimore.

Green Party City Council Candidate Trashes TIFs

Posted by ameister on Sunday, October 9th, 2011

Yom Kippur took up a big chunk of my weekend so I have not had time to write anything. Below is a press release from Green Party city council candidate Bill Barry. I do not agree with everything in the press release, but I think seeing things from the perspective of a third party can be enlightening. I also think the signature line at the end is pretty funny:


Citizens for Bill Barry

Baltimore City Council—3rd District
4204 Elsrode avenue
Baltimore, MD 21214
(410) 426-3966
wbarrymd@hotmail.com

www.citizensforbillbarry.org

October 7, 2011

PRESS RELEASE

Bill Barry, Green Party candidate for the 3rd District in Baltimore City, attacked the decision of the Baltimore Planning Commission to offer tax giveaways that would benefit the Under Armour Corp. News stories in The Daily Record (October 4) and The Baltimore Sun (October 7) described the approval of the plan to improve the property while allowing the company to pay taxes on the value before the improvements.

Under the system of TIFS (Tax Increment Financing) the city sells bonds to private investors but the city must repay the bonds by diverting property taxes that would otherwise go into the city’s general fund. The largest project using TIFS, the East Baltimore Development Inc. is already struggling to repay the bonds (after leveling blocks of East Baltimore neighborhoods).

“While this waterfront project may benefit some residents of Baltimore City, the conditions of

·        Our public schools, which are crumbling and

·        Our infrastructure, including rutted roads  and  leaking sewer lines and

·        Our city workers, who have endured pay cuts and

·        Our city services, like fire station closures and

·        Increased crime and

·        Massive unemployment and

·        Thousands of vacant houses

should be the priorities.”

Barry accused the mayor and city council of “major giveaways” of tax money, following years of offering PILOTS (Payments in Lieu of Taxes), which gave huge tax cuts to major developers, who also happen—surprise! surprise!—to be contributors to the campaign funds of the mayor and council members.

“At a time when the city cannot expect any significant financial aid from either the state or the federal government, the Mayor and the City Council members need to change their giveaway ways and focus on the residents and neighborhoods of Baltimore City. Every dollar given away to a wealthy developer is one more dollar that is either taken away from city services or is added to our property taxes,” Barry stated.

If a homeowner improves his/her property, the property taxes go up—why should wealthy developers get a better deal?
Bill Barry
www.citizensforbillbarry.org
Go Green – Recycle The Baltimore City Council

Save the Baltimore Arena by making it a city landmark

Posted by ameister on Friday, March 18th, 2011

By now most of you know that I am opposed to building a new $300million publicly funded arena in Baltimore. The Sun published an article that reveals that the arena is profitable. Why take a chance and get rid of a profitable building in uncertain economic times?

The article gave me another idea. If our leaders can not grasp a simple economic fact then perhaps we need use the history of the arena to help save it and save the taxpayers millions of dollars.

The Baltimore Arena has hosted an incredible number of historical musical acts and events including the NBA All-star Game and Championship. The building itself brings musical acts closer to the audience than any modern building. With famous old arenas like the Boston Garden no longer around, the Baltimore Arena has quietly become a classic. The Sun article is the first one I have read that addresses this subject.

I think it is foolish for the city to spend $300million on a new arena when this one is not only functional but PROFITABLE! If it was designated as a city landmark then they could not knock it down and we could enjoy it for generations and save $300million that our city does not even have.  With the right marketing it could become a historic tourist attraction.

Here is the opening clip from the 1969 NBA All-Star game at the Civic Center.  At the 1:30 mark there is a reference to a sadly classic Baltimore sports moment.

YouTube Preview Image

My thoughts about the WBAL TV State Center story

Posted by ameister on Monday, March 14th, 2011

Last Tuesday night WBAL TV aired a story about the State Center project. You can watch it here.  I really do not like the overpriced rental aspect of this project. I think they should knock down all the buildings and rehire as few state workers as possible. They should try and relocate the remaining state workers to existing offices in Baltimore. The land should be used for housing, green space, and businesses. Since this is supposed to be a transit oriented development the tax payers should not be paying for an overpriced multimillion dollar parking garage. If someone wants to build even more office space downtown and their own garage then let them, but the tax payer should not be subsidizing it.

In order to make the new state center development viable (no matter what happens with the lawsuit and the new office buildings and garage) they will have to demolish McCulloh Homes.  McCulloh Homes is an outdated drug infested housing project that no logical resident, business, or investor would want to be located next to.  It is odd how this flawed aspect of the project (keeping McCulloh Homes is part of the plan) is never talked about. McCulloh Homes is not going to improve just because you build shiny new buildings across the street from it.

MICA purchases prime building in Reservoir Hill

Posted by ameister on Monday, February 28th, 2011

The Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) purchased the former “Parks and Recreation Railroad building” at 2560 Madison Avenue in Reservoir Hill on August 19, 2010 for $620,000. I just discovered the news of this potentially major neighborhood improvement. MICA currently plans to use the building for storage, but there are obviously a lot of other positive uses for this building that they might want to explore.

MICA is a major Baltimore institution that has a large development footprint in Bolton Hill. I am glad to see that they have jumped over North Avenue and decided to explore Reservoir Hill. In the past people have mentioned MICA as a potential future owner of the land that the Madison Park North housing project currently sits on. That rumor was just speculation and hope, but with the acquisition of the nearby 2560 Madison Avenue property we now see physical proof that MICA is willing to make a major real estate purchase north of North Avenue.

Downtown Baltimore property owners sue to stop State Center project

Posted by ameister on Saturday, December 18th, 2010

The following breaking news was sent to me in a press release on Friday.  This story has been percolating for a while, and today we finally see some action on the part of the downtown owners. This is a huge story:

Downtown Baltimore City Property Owners Sue

To Stop No-Bid, $1.5 Billion State Center Project

That Circumvents Maryland’s Procurement Laws

A group of prominent downtown Baltimore commercial property owners, supported by the analysis of a highly regarded economist, filed suit today in Baltimore City Circuit Court to halt the heavily taxpayer-subsidized $1.5 billion State Center project on the grounds that competitive bidding laws have been ignored or circumvented.

The project improperly diverts business from the downtown area, with a devastating impact to the City, downtown commercial property owners, retailers and the taxpaying public.

First conceived during the Ehrlich Administration, the State Center redevelopment has evolved into a mammoth mixed-use construction and leasing project a mile north of the City’s downtown business center.  It now envisions over 1.5 million square feet of commercial office and retail space intended primarily for State use but that also will compete with downtown rental and retail businesses.

According to the lawsuit, the State Center project – one of the largest taxpayer-supported developments in City history – will siphon business away from Baltimore’s Central Business District (CBD), leaving the City’s core office and commercial area “blighted and decaying.”

Presently, there are over 2 million square feet of vacant space in the core CBD.  As the lawsuit states, adding “an enormous, commercially unsupportable supply of office space” outside of the core CBD, with favorable taxpayer-supported financing, will cause “long-term commercial vacancies, blight and business flight” from the CBD.

In addition, the state currently leases over 700,000 square feet in the CBD which, according to the Developer’s consultant would need to be largely diverted to State Center for the project to be viable – thus further draining the downtown commercial district.

The suit alleges that the project will have “an immediate, devastating financial impact on the CBD and Commercial Property Owners” who are private entrepreneurs operating without taxpayer support. The result “will be catastrophic, immediate and will impact negatively the CBD for decades” – and will damage the city’s tax base.

According to the lawsuit, “the CBD cannot remain viable under these circumstances.”

The General Assembly’s own Department of Legislative Services, in a May 2009 analysis, noted “high commercial office vacancy rates and a high inventory of housing in Baltimore City raise questions about the viability of this undertaking.”

Indeed, DLS found “there is no compelling reason why the State agencies need to be grouped together at State Center” given the over-abundance of far less expensive, comparable office space downtown.

“The current State Center proposal is not in the best interest of the State,” DLS concluded.

The commercial property owners maintain the entire State Center project is legally flawed because of its failure to comply with State competitive bidding laws and procedures.

According to the lawsuit, the State’s procurement laws, “intended to protect taxpayers,” and prevent “government giveaways” have been “ignored and violated.”

The lawsuit alleges the development and the lease-back deal with the private Developer – selected without competitive bidding – “circumvent[s] the State’s mandatory procurement laws,” providing the Developer and other private parties with “windfalls” worth hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars.

At its inception in 2005, the original Developer was given the Project, including exclusive negotiating rights, without competitive bidding.  Thereafter, on multiple occasions, State agencies have altered the scope of the Project without competitive bidding.

On July 28, 2010, State agencies submitted the First Amendment to the Master Development Agreement. This document extensively changed terms and conditions of the original contract;  substituted new individuals in the Developer group; reassigned multi-million dollar obligations from the Developer to the State, and set in motion up to $314 million in City taxpayer subsidies, known as a Tax Increment Financing plan (“TIF”).  All of this was done without competitive bidding.

Under the proposed TIF, City taxpayers will forego up to $314 million in future property taxes on the office and residential buildings – $10 to $20 million in Phase One alone – funds that are badly needed to support vital City services.

In addition, the State agreed to sign long-term leases with the Developer, thus filling most of the project’s commercial space at prices “substantially above” market rates for “similar” commercial space presently vacant in the CBD.

In the First Amendment to the Master Development Agreement, the State also agreed to assume the Developer’s initial obligation to construct a parking garage at State Center – saddling taxpayers with an additional $28 million debt obligation on a structure the Developer deemed too financially risky to build. On Dec. 15, 2010, the Board of Public Works authorized an increase in the amount of taxpayer-funded, MEDCO garage bonds to $33 million.

According to Dr. Anirban Basu, a noted economist with the Sage Policy Group, Inc., “adding almost a million and a half square feet of new commercial space outside the City’s Central Business District will likely have irreversible, adverse consequences, including blight and commercial flight from the downtown area and an increased tax burden on City businesses and residents.”

David E. Johnson, senior vice president of Lexington Charles Limited Partnership, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, “Commercial property owners have invested tens of millions in revitalizing downtown buildings as part of the vision of Baltimore’s renaissance. It is sad to see there’s so little regard for the future of the Central Business District.

“Those promoting the State Center project don’t understand the devastating impact this will have on the City of Baltimore and its downtown commercial hub, which already is struggling. No city can thrive without a vibrant Central Business District. And it’s not just the property owners who will be devastated. It’s also the downtown shops and restaurants that depend on a high concentration of office workers.”

The downtown commercial property owners are asking the Circuit Court to find this deal “was entered into in violation of State procurement laws” and thus must be declared invalid.

“The State’s procurement laws are intended to protect taxpayers by ensuring that government projects are competitively bid – that’s especially important when taxpayer funds are used to lease and construct State facilities,” said Alan M. Rifkin, lead counsel.

“It is regrettable that we are at this juncture,” Rifkin said. “Compliance with the competitive bidding laws is not optional or discretionary.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the following downtown properties: St. Paul Plaza Office Tower, LLC;  Lexington Charles Limited Partnership; 301 Charles Street, LLC; Park Charles Apartments Associates, LLC; Park Charles Office Associates, LLC; 501 St. Paul Street, LLC; St. Paul & Franklin, LLC; RoboPark, LLC; Charles Plaza, LLC; 39 W. Lexington, LLC; Baltimore Condo 2-8, LLC; Fayette Garage, LLC; Charles Towers, LLC; The Marlboro Classic, LP; and Redwood Square Apartments, LP.

Alan Rifkin is the managing partner of Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, which has extensive experience in state contract and procurement matters. One of his partners, Scott Livingston, is the author of “Contracting with the State of Maryland” as well as many legal articles and a monthly newsletter on the state’s competitive bidding statutes.

For information about the legal aspects of the lawsuit, contact Alan Rifkin, 410-269-5066. “

The Remington Walmart living wage campaign

Posted by ameister on Monday, November 29th, 2010

The Remington Walmart was approved by the city council last Monday despite the mysterious, annoying, and wasteful anti-walmart robocalls.  Councilman Carl Stokes took the easy way out and abstained while all the other councilpeople voted in favor of the project.

In this video you can see the rally that took place in front of City Hall before the vote. Councilman Bill Henry talks about the living wage and jobs in the middle of the video. Henry says that if developments receive tax payer funds then they should have to provide citizens of Baltimore with jobs. I am not opposed to this since in theory if we are paying for it then we should have the opportunity to work there. I doubt that many of the people who would apply for such jobs pay taxes though.

I do have a major problem with forcing large chain stores to pay a living wage. I would think that it would be illegal to discriminate against large chain stores in such a way. The market should dictate how much people are paid.

YouTube Preview Image

Avoid becoming part of the arena hype machine

Posted by ameister on Friday, November 26th, 2010

It appears that the people who are in charge of coming up with stories for the Baltimore Sun are playing right into the hands of the unelected “city business and tourism leaders” who want Baltimore to spend half a billion dollars on a new arena and convention center complex. If you read this story from Sunday’s Baltimore Sun you probably would think that the arena is a done deal and that the location only has to be decided. The people who want to waste tax payers money on this boondoggle that will put us in same league as Kansas City must be loving the mainstream media’s handling of this issue.

The arena hype machine is telling us that a new arena will magically fill the surrounding neighborhood with businesses, development, and foot traffic. Have you ever walked around the Baltimore arena, especially west of the arena? The mysterious unelected “city business and tourism leaders” officials should worry about the lack of development and occupancies around the current arena before they waste half a billion or our dollars on a new arena. Arena patrons are from the counties, they drive into the city, park in a garage, and flee the city in fear with their kids as fast as they can as soon as the event is over.

Instead of starting new projects let us spend tax payer funds on maintaining, improving, and perfecting what we already have. Baltimore is a city with many interesting attractions and neighborhoods that just need a little maintenance and creative target marketing. It will only cost a fraction of what it would cost to build a new arena to appreciate and improve what we already have in Baltimore.

Baltimore cannot afford a new arena

Posted by ameister on Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

The new arena for Baltimore story has crept back into the news again. I have been vehemently opposed to a new sports complex since this story first appeared in the mainstream media. This time they want to spend even more money and include part of the convention center in the project. While logical people are trying to save money, Baltimore leaders want to set a terrible example and waste millions of dollars they do not have on an arena we do not need. Different versions of this story have been bubbling to the surface for three years. There was the new arena to attract an NBA team story, then there was the new soccer stadium story, and now we have this $500million story. The real story is that Baltimore and many other cities in the USA are addicted to borrowing money for unprofitable downtown mega-developments that inflate the egos and pocketbooks of politicians, developers, and unelected leaders who live in the suburbs. Stadiums and arenas are projects that sooth the mindless, give suburbanites an extra reason to visit the city once a year, and allow political leaders to claim major accomplishments.  Baltimore is more than just the harbor and the vast majority of Baltimore will be hurt by wasting money on an arena. How have new sports complexes helped Detroit? Let’s follow the Detroit model! Who in their right mind would want to do that?

We live in a throw away wasteful society that has yet to realize that we can not keep spending money we do not have like drunken sailors.  In some countries they actually have old facilities that they maintain.  I remember the airport in Buenos Aires looked like it was from the 1950′s from the outside. It worked though. Our arena may not be pretty, but it works.

This new arena issue could be a turning point for Baltimore. Are we going to stay addicted to mindless mega-projects or are we going to get creative and try to address neighborhood level blight with inexpensive solutions. This city needs responsible owner occupants to live in its decaying and vacant housing stock.  The harbor area looking prettier is not the solution to getting a person to buy and live in a house in Reservoir Hill, Harlem Park, or Carrollton Ridge.

Anti-Walmart Robocalls

Posted by ameister on Monday, November 15th, 2010

On Friday afternoon I received an anonymous robocall that told me to call Belinda Conaway and tell her not to support the 25th Street Station shopping center. The annoying New York accented male voice said “stop giving away our great city”.  At 3PM on Sunday I received the same call.  I do not live in Remington, Charles Village, or Belinda Conaway’s district so I have no idea how they got my number and why they are calling me. I don’t think that robocalls are the way to excite and awaken the young anti-walmart target audience.