  Quozl Member Username: Quozl Post Number: 1127 Registered: 07-2005 |
Thanks Urb, I appreciate it! | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 2086 Registered: 02-2007 |
Oh, I wasn't talking about the Can of Vernors or Quicken, I was speaking of the Cow Manure out in the Garage and that I need to put it in the Flower Bed before the Summer's over. I appreciate though that you care so much about my beautiul Yard. Because of that, you can have the treat of coming over and helping me put down the Manure and Pull up the weeds. (Message edited by Urbanize on August 04, 2007) | ||
Quozl Member Username: Quozl Post Number: 1131 Registered: 07-2005 |
Np Urb, I just got finished with mine last week. Let's Git R Done. You're over in Warrendale right? | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 2088 Registered: 02-2007 |
HAHA, You're Hilarious!, Warrendale, HAHA! The Westside! HAHA! Really, the NE side. | ||
Quozl Member Username: Quozl Post Number: 1138 Registered: 07-2005 |
Where Urb, 7 Mile and Morang Dr? | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 2091 Registered: 02-2007 |
I'll be easy to find. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 669 Registered: 07-2006 |
Here's the article tony pieroni was talking about: http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070806/BIZ/7 08060321 | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 670 Registered: 07-2006 |
Notice the caption under the picture of the UA building: "The United Artists building is being renovated." nothing we didn't already know, but nice to see some acknowledgment of it in the press. Now if only someone could figure out just what is going on... | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3485 Registered: 02-2005 |
This makes it sound like preservationists may suffer some defeats soon. Plus his tone was sort of negative towards some of the buildings. What's with the owners of the Whitney Bldg. turning down offers? | ||
Quinn Member Username: Quinn Post Number: 1424 Registered: 01-2005 |
I'd say the David-Whitney owners are hedging their bets definitely. If Quicken moves into Hudsons, things Change. If they move into Statler, things change even more. (for them) What amazes me is this shitty map in the article. Can't they get a designer who knows the city? Fine Arts building isn't where it says it is, and the building that is the fine arts shows a crazy set-back. Totally fakakta. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 842 Registered: 01-2005 |
Do not believe one thing the owner of the Whitney tells anyone. Not one thing. (Message edited by 3rdworldcity on August 06, 2007) | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5029 Registered: 08-2004 |
I like how Tony Pieroni has publicly thrown down the gauntlet... if the city is serious about developing the Statler Block, then the DEGC outta get off their ass and offer Pieroni some money for his parcel, rather than dickering with buying expensive foreclosed parcels in Harmonie Park. As for the tone of the article, I don't think that any buildings are in danger of being demolished (save for the AAA Building)... it's just that the author mentioned the 2 Park Ave. & W. Adams Buildings as slumlord owner Ralph Sachs is doing nothing with his parcels, except sit on them. By having the city take him to court over his infractions, it may get the ball rolling. But the article said next to nothing on the United Artists Building. I guess Ilitch Holdings wasn't talking... "no comment". But it's nice to see the Ilitch's working on both the United Artists and the soon to come rebuild of the Fine Arts Building. That way it'll be easier for the city to REALLY crack down on downtown slumlords, without appearing to be showing special treatment for Ilitch owned buildings. It's time for the city to play hardball!! | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 85 Registered: 12-2005 |
Tony Pieroni, yes, throwing down the "gauntlet". Give me money, or I'll just let that shit hole sit there and rot some more. Way to stand up! | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5035 Registered: 08-2004 |
Gotdetroit, since you're obviously not aware of the history here.... Mr. Pieroni has a lawsuit against the contractors (that were demoing the Statler next door) that caught his LEASED building on fire. I do believe that the city is also involved, since they (DEGC) hired the demo folks. So as soon as either A) that lawsuit goes to trial and gets settled, or B) the city buys the building from Mr. Pieroni (which he is willing to do)... then it will remain there to rot. After all why should he pay for their negligence? Mr. Pieroni also has or had a PAYING renter on that building, AAA of Michigan, which leased the building for storage for something like 99 years (lease expiration circa 2015). So one can hardly fault Mr. Pieroni here, since prior to the Statler Demo, this was a maintained and leased building. In fact if anything, Mr. Pieroni (who also owns the Michigan Building) has been the only business owner with occupied buildings along that stretch of Bagley for decades. If anything he should be commended for maintaining his properties, rather than abandoning them, like so many others have done. | ||
Kenp Member Username: Kenp Post Number: 673 Registered: 03-2006 |
I think Gotdetroit knows all about the history | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 434 Registered: 02-2006 |
^^^RIGHT^^^ <313> | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5036 Registered: 08-2004 |
If that's the case why sound ignorant and blame Pieroni? | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 86 Registered: 12-2005 |
I know nothing. Also, you failed to mention he could have had that building demolished along with the Statler. For free, wasn't it? But since he had a tenant and no room to move the "storage operation" to his packed Michigan Building... Anyway, the AAA was in FINE shape before the fire too. Right? | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5038 Registered: 08-2004 |
Moving his tenant to another building would have meant a new lease (which AAA would have loved to skip out on). Why would any business owner want to CANCEL a 99 year lease that he had with a tenant? But since he posts here, I'll let him answer that one for you... | ||
Bumble Member Username: Bumble Post Number: 271 Registered: 11-2004 |
Wasn't the building insured? Damage, loss of rents? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 1774 Registered: 06-2006 |
"But the article said next to nothing on the United Artists Building." It did say the UA was being renovated though | ||
Tony_pieroni Member Username: Tony_pieroni Post Number: 28 Registered: 02-2006 |
Gotdetroit, you're ignorant and misinformed. I'll bet you work for the City or DEGC. | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 87 Registered: 12-2005 |
Okay, fine. But what shape was the building in before the fire? Not sure how that makes me "misinformed" or "ignorant". The other legal crap, sure, I probably don't get it. Also, if it wasn’t evident, my original statement was aimed at the "gauntlet" proclamation. Someone buys the building off of Tony, or....or what? Based on information at hand, I dared guess it would sit there empty, rotting. And, as to the lease arrangement: why couldn't AAA move it's storage operations to a building across the street, the lease slightly modified to allow the AAA building to be rehabbed, and then those stored materials moved back after the rehab...if the intention is not have an eyesore sitting there? Just questions. Call me names, fine. I'm just a curious citizen wondering as to why a building (and it’s not just your building) is allowed to sit there in that shape (both before and after a fire)? Now, how about this question: You win the legal case for the demo damages, get reimbursed for those damages, and Quicken DOES NOT move to the Statler site. What, if any, are your long term plans for that building? As to my employment, no. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4050 Registered: 10-2003 |
"...why couldn't AAA move it's storage operations to a building across the street" Why couldn't they move it to the moon? Ask AAA, it's their building because they have the lease. What's so difficult to understand about that? If someone sets fire to your house should you not seek damages and instead quickly tear it down because the neighbors don't want a burned house in the neighborhood? Let justice take its course and save the rhetoric for the slum lords of dangerous, unoccupied buildings - like the one right across the street - rather than someone who has run occupied and leased property for decades, someone who doesn't shirk explaining the situation to those who care to listen. | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 88 Registered: 12-2005 |
Just asking, dude. Questions have answers. You answered my AAA lease question. But I have others. “If someone sets fire to your house should you not seek damages and instead quickly tear it down because the neighbors don't want a burned house in the neighborhood?” No, I hopefully have insurance, and repair it. If my neighbors get a little pissy or go around asking questions because I do nothing? I can’t say that I would blame them. How would you feel if that happened in your neighborhood? That’s a weird question. Look, I don't have any ill feelings towards the guy personally - and I think there are certainly worse property owners in the downtown area. But if I were to put together a list of properties (yeah, I know, who the hell am I) where I think the situation (lack of any renovations, etc.) has dragged on long enough, that building would be on it. Sorry if that offends the guy, but it is what it is. I think my last question in my last post to Tony was a fair one. Not a shot, but an honest question: If he were to win the lawsuit (coupled with the insurance money) but Quicken doesn’t move to the Statler site, would that building get renovated? What’s so cruel about asking that? | ||
Bumble Member Username: Bumble Post Number: 272 Registered: 11-2004 |
quote: Aren't the plethora of burned out houses hereabouts why people wind up moving to Farmington? Why should actual Detroiters have to happily live next to burned out houses while their owners threaten to leave them as-is if the city doesn't tear them down. Was the building insured? | ||
Tony_pieroni Member Username: Tony_pieroni Post Number: 29 Registered: 02-2006 |
Ok Gotdetroit, I apologize for my comments about your post. You've subsequently asked a couple of reasonable questions. It's a very complicated situation. Before the S-H was demolished it was impossible for AAA to sublet or take any other action regarding the building. The City is the biggest slumlord around and took no meaningful steps to secure the hotel. As a result, vandals repeatedly got into the AAA building by climbing down onto the roof of the AAA building from the S-H. They did about $300,000 of damage. AAA did everything in its power to secure the AAA building but it was not possible to prevent vandals from going thru the roof from the S-H. Pursuant to the lease, AAA was responsible for repairing the damage caused by the vandals. Other than the vandalism, the building was structurally sound and in addition to repairing the vandalism, needed only cosmetic repairs. AAA heated the building during the cold weather months. It could have been renovated with about 6 months of work prior to the fire. My intention was to totally renovate the AAA building after the S-H was demolished. I had been discussing permitting AAA to buy out its lease but could not proceed because my company owned only 50% interest in the building. I filed a partition action against the other owner, who lives in another state, and had for 9 years refused to communicate with me at all. I ended up buying her out under the supervision of a Circuit Court judge. I then set up a meeting with AAA to discuss a lease buyout. However, four days later, and before my meeting with AAA, the building caught on fire. AAA was responsible for rebuilding it. We settled and both sued the demolition contractor. I asserted AAA's claims pursuant to an agreement between us. I spent over $400,000 on the lawsuit. (I let the DEGC out of the lawsuit even though the judge said it had to stay in.) The jury determined that the contractor was negligent although it refused to award damages. An inconceivable result, especially in view of overwhelming, virtually unrebutted eye witness testimony that the contractor started the fire AND the contractor during the trial admitted causing non-fire damage to the building during the demolition process. The decision is now on appeal. The Court committed several reversible errors and I expect to prevail. If there is no development on the S-H site by the time the appeal is decided I'll rebuild the building. If I am approached by the City, Ilitch, Quicken or Becker about a development on the site I will listen. (I have always told anyone that would listen, including the DEGC, that I would negotiate a possible sale directly with a developer rather than with the City but that my preference would be to participate in the development if it made sense to me, throwing in the building as a capital contribution. That would be my preference if the proposed development was an income producing development such as apartments. An outright sale would be a last resort and would have to make sense to me tax-wise.) My conversation with reps of the DEGC was back in 2002 but my view has never changed and it was made clear that I could do nothing unless the AAA lease was terminated and my company was able to acquire 100% ownership. The DEGC has consistently stated that it has never had any plans to purchase the building and that it intended to develop around it when the time came, if ever. I have never discussed a price with the City, DEGC or anyone else in connection with a possible sale of the real estate. The most recent pronouncement along those lines was in May, 2006 by George jackson, CEO of the DEGC, while under oath during a deposition. I will be very surprised if Quicken moves downtown, primarily because it is operating its business in the worst possible economic climate resulting from the sub-prime mortgage mess. I don't see how it can come out of this mess unscathed, but I do hope I'm wrong. If it does relocate downtown, it's hard to envision the location being on the S-H site, primarily because I feel it would be difficult to do so without acquiring the AAA building, and no one from Quicken has evidenced any interest in doing so. I realize that there appears to be much interest in Grand Circus Park development. In his subsequent posts Gotdetroit has asked a couple reasonable questions, and although I'm not too thrilled by discussing my business publicly, I do feel that to the extent I can clarify some of the confusion, I ought to do it in view of the substantial interest in the topic. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5043 Registered: 08-2004 |
Wow, thanks for the update and complete candor Mr. Pieroni! You've given us an insightful glimpse into the background about the Statler site, and your little corner of it. Perhaps the egos at City Hall and the DEGC don't want a minority partner in any Quicken development in Grand Circus Park. It seems reminiscent of a "cutting of your nose to spite your face" mentality at one or both of their entities. For those of you who don't know Mr. Pieroni, let me just say that being a casual acquaintance of his, I know that being a Detroit building owner is NOT his major source of income. So he is not just out to try to make a killing on this tiny parcel of real estate. I believe his interests at being a minority partner (and he's certainly not without resources), are an honest attempt at helping to bring prosperity to a part of downtown where for nearly 2 decades his have been the only functioning business on that stretch of Bagley Ave. It would be interesting to see if any of the Quicken employees on this forum would forward Mr. Pieroni's comments to Mr. Gilbert or one of his subordinates. It might help give them a "complete" picture of the way things stand regarding a possible Statler site development. For all we know DEGC is telling Quicken that they can have the Statler block, but there is one little parcel not included. I don't doubt Mr. Pieroni's sincerity in wanting to participate in a Quicken development, as the tiny AAA Building is small potatoes compared to Mr. Pieroni's "900 pound gorilla", the much larger Michigan Building. And any development of a Statler Quicken site would truly enhance his Michigan Building, both in terms of building value, as well as a more prestigious address to do business. I do hope that IF Quicken moves downtown, that it will be to the Statler site, with a restored (as it is starting to appear) United Artists Building as part of the development. That would be a win for Mr. Ilitch, a win for Mr. Pieroni, and a win for Mr. Gilbert, and best of all... a win for the city to make Grand Circus Park once again live up to its' grand name! | ||
Tony_pieroni Member Username: Tony_pieroni Post Number: 30 Registered: 02-2006 |
Thanks, Gistock, for the kind words. I need to clarify something. My preference would be, if the time ever comes, to participate in the development of the S-H block. That would only be feasible if the development were an income producing one such as apartments, condos (where I have a lot of experience) or something similar. Even then such participation would depend on many tax, valuation, and other factors. I would not expect to consider participating in a single purpose, user-development such as a corporate headquarters. I have not discussed this with the City since 2002 but my intention was made quite clear then, well before the demolition of the S-H was considered a realistic possibility. And, my intentions were irrelevant insofar as the City made it clear that it had no intention of acquiring the property anyway. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 1544 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mr. Pieroni. I'm very impressed and happy that you take the time to enlighten us as to how complicated city development can be. I'm hoping for the best. |
