 
Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 352
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 3:30 am: |    |
Penobscot is over 70%, as well... as is the downtown collection.
Stott, it looks, is going to be completely redeveloped in residential...
1001 is going residential...
Although Comerica tower lost some employees and JWT, not all of comerica has left it by a longshot...
Guardian looks like it's going to be owned by the county and occupied...
So, drm, is it time to turn out the lights on downtown - as you paint such a bleak picture? The market isn't great right now for ANYONE in the region.
Can you give me an instance where one of these, other than the Book, already-occupied buildings is about to close, or is in danger of closing, in the next year or two? |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 4:14 am: | |
But all these building you guys are mentioning...211, Penobscot, Guardian...are mostly government occupied |
Buddyinrichmond
Member
Username: Buddyinrichmond
Post Number: 219
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 8:13 am: | |
1001 Woodward tossed most of the tenants in the attempt to go residential. That has not went very well in the past 2 years that they have been amateurishly trying to get the project off the ground. Only a fool would give that a go at this point. Look for that building to continue as a ground floor operation, or worse, for a while.
Stott is in a similar situation. |
Monahan568
Member
Username: Monahan568
Post Number: 211
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 10:49 am: | |
does any one know of any new construction besides the casino's that are not receiving some kind of tax credit |
Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 581
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 1:40 pm: | |
Stott and 1001 going residential!?••••••••.come on like always dont believe it until you see the first person move in. Those buildings have been going residential for quite a while...... |
Tony_pieroni
Member
Username: Tony_pieroni
Post Number: 36
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 4:02 pm: | |
A friend called and told me to check out this topic and I'm glad I did.
Drm in his post # 1138 above has not only libeled me, but impugned the financial condition of a couple of my buildings as well. He referred to me as a slumlord, and even though he did not refer to me by name, he did so in connection with my ownership of the Michigan Building and former AAA building and therefore he might as well have referred to me by name because several of you on here know of the relationship.
I am confident I know the identity of the poster, Drm. If I'm correct, it's a guy who fraudulently induced me to rent him space in the Michigan Building for a real estate venture, and then stiffed me on a bunch of rent. I kicked his butt out early on. I should have recognized the guy didn't have the slightest understanding of real estate and so it's partly my fault.
What concerns me is that he states that my real estate has financial problems like so many other downtown buildings. If anyone believes that it could hurt me financially because someone on here needing office space may choose not to consider the Michigan Building (one of Drm's goals, I'm sure.)
Drm doesn't have the slightest knowledge of the specific financial conditions of the Michigan Building, or any of the other buildings he mentions. Keep that in mind when choosing office space.
I bought the Michigan Building 17 years ago when it was in financial distress. The first two years were tough. However, I've never invested a dime of out-of-pocket money since I bought it. The building has made more money EACH YEAR during the last 15 years than I paid for it. I have invested over $1 million dollars in the building during the last 5 years or so OUT OF CASH FLOW. The building has NO DEBT. I have over 1 year's revenue in the bank as a cash reserve. Unlike Drm's lie that the Michigan Building is in distress, it's probably the most financially stable, high occupancy building in the City.
Drm also financially slams my fire-damaged former AAA building. The fact is, I bought that building as an investment because it had at several years remaining on the lease with AAA. The investment was yielding over 15% return per year before the fire. As a result of the fire I settled a claim against one defendant that yielded me a return on the investment which was 12 TIMES the amount of my original investment, and I expect to collect a lot more at the conclusion of the ongoing litigation against the other defendant. So far it's probably been the best real estate investment ever in Detroit.
So much for Drm's knowledge of my finances or the Detroit real estate market.
Finally, the Book Building. It's been in financial distress for 30 years. It is not an asset; it's a liability. However, I am sorry that's it closed, primarily because it's just another nail in the coffin that is the downtown office market and very bad for our immediate area. A couple of brokers have called me and asked if they could solicit the remaining tenants for the Michigan Building. I declined. I have had inquiries from Book tenants for years inquiring about moving over. I rarely have much space available and my rates have always been quite a bit higher than the Book's. I have never raided or attempted to capitalize on its financial problems. However, In the last month or so I have accepted 3 Book tenants (non-profits) into the Michigan Building because some of my tenants have relationships with them, and I cut my rates in order to accomodate them. One tenant can't move over because it can't move its furniture without electricity. I'll loan them some desks.
Drm is a no-nothing with an agenda and a vendetta against me and I would hope that the rest of you will disregard his libelous statements regarding the financial condition of my buildings. Thank you. |
Buzzman0077
Member
Username: Buzzman0077
Post Number: 109
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 4:14 pm: | |
^Thank you for taking the time to clarify and post on this site. It's nice to have insight from your perspective. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4116
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 4:22 pm: | |
DRM has been a very good long standing poster on this forum, very knowledgeable regarding downtown issues, the law and more. So much that I can't believe he posted the above "slumlord" allegation. So much that I have to wonder if someone else has gotten ahold his login and posted the above unknown to him.
Whoever posted that clearly does not know what he or she is alleging and has made a very unfair and innacurate statement. I will await confirmation that it truly was DRM who made wrote that.
Thank you Tony Pieroni for setting the record straight, mostly repeating information you already shared and is well known by those who follow this forum. I am sorry you had to expend time doing so. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 4:41 pm: | |
Yikes! So anyway, trying to simmer down here and nudge the discussion back to the topic of the Book Tower, KCI bought the building recently from Northeast Commercial Services Corp. How can the new owner (KCI) claim that the bill is not their responsibility? When you buy a building, don't you get everything that comes along with--both the bad (liability) and the good? |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4582
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:21 pm: | |
quote:Drm in his post # 1138 above has not only libeled me,
I'm not a lawyer but I have a fairly good layman's knowledge of libel/slander law. It's important thing to know for an abrasive prick like myself.
As an owner of prominent real estate in downtown Detroit, occasionally quoted in or covered by the newspapers about real estate, and as a voluntary contributor to this message board, I suspect Tony Pieroni would be considered, at least, a limited public figure in the context of this dispute.
As such in order to prove libel Tony Pieroni would have to prove "actual malice" or that DRM made untrue statements that DRM knew to be untrue. Of course you couldn't prove actual malice without first defining what DRM meant by the term slumlord.
The on-line legal dictionary at law.com has no entry for slumlord or slum lord. However three separate lay dictionaries on-line offered three similar but different definitions for the term slumlord.
Definition One:
quote:slum·lord (slmlôrd)
n.
An owner of slum property, especially one that overcharges tenants and allows the property to deteriorate.
[slum + (land)lord.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c om/slumlord
Definition Two:
quote:Main Entry: slum·lord
Pronunciation: 'sl&m-"lord
Function: noun
Etymology: 1slum + landlord
: a landlord who receives unusually large profits from substandard properties
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ slumlord
Definition Three:
quote:slum·lord
–noun
a landlord who owns slum buildings, esp. one who fails to maintain or improve the buildings and charges tenants exorbitant rents.
[Origin: 1950–55; slum + lord]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
http://dictionary.reference.co m/search?r=2&q=slumlord
Then you get into questions about what "substandard" means, what "exorbitant" means, what "deteriorate" means etc. There is a lot of gray area here. Clearly one's mans slumlord could be another's responsible property owner. I would find it highly one could even make a prima facie case that DRM libeled Tony Peirone with actual malice by calling him a slumlord. In fact given the facts and the laws accusing DRM of libel it's a pretty reckless allegation in and of itself.
(Message edited by Jelk on September 09, 2007) |
Titancub
Member
Username: Titancub
Post Number: 77
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:44 pm: | |
Tony, you should stay out of the fray abit. Coming back with all your 'impressive' financial info on your buildings comes across as trite and catty, if not also boastful and condescending. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4583
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:45 pm: | |
In fact let me go one further, I don't think calling someone a slumlord is a statement of verifiable fact. It's an opinion and therefor not libel.
Either way Mr. Pieroni would get laughed out of court if he actually tried to bring a libel case against DRM. Seems to me that if DRM gets a tsk-tsk from Lowell for his opinion that Tony Pieroni is a slumlord than I think Lowell should give Pieroni a tsk-tsk reprimand for so recklessly accusing DRM of committing a crime that he so obviously did not commit. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:47 pm: | |
Tony is simply trying to argue his side. He clearly has info that Drm does not. Why is Tony not justified in stating what he knows about his business to prove someone on the forum wrong? |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4584
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:55 pm: | |
quote:Why is Tony not justified in stating what he knows about his business to prove someone on the forum wrong?
That's fine well and good but he went beyond attempting to prove DRM wrong. He accused DRM of libeling him (Mr. Pieroni). It's clear to anyone with even a layman's knowledge of libel law that DRM didn't didn't commit libel. Moreover, I doubt Mr. Pieroni has (or had) any serious intentions of perusing a libel claim against DRM which leads me to think Mr. Pieroni knows full well DRM didn't libel him. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 107
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 6:17 pm: | |
what goes around..... I don't know either Tony or Drm, but T.P. has every right to state his opinion, as well he should. Libel can also be proved if not stated as an opinion and not fact. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4585
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 6:37 pm: | |
quote:I don't know either Tony or Drm, but T.P. has every right to state his opinion, as well he should.
I agree and conversely Drm has every right to state his opinion. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 109
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 8:09 pm: | |
This brings up another related side issue.
Should Detroit build a Nuke plant and make money selling electricity to other cities? |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 8:13 pm: | |
Fermi 1 was never built. Maybe time for a Fermi 3. |
Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 440
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 9:39 pm: | |
I think he meant the more casual sense of the word, not the legal one. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4586
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 9:47 pm: | |
I'm not familiar with casual libel. Can you explain it to me? Did you ever think Drm also called Tony Pieroni a slumlord in the more casual sense of the word, not the legal one. |
Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic
Post Number: 3156
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 10:26 pm: | |
Question for pseudo DRM: who is our favorite slumlord?
I reckon there are 2 possibilities (maybe 3 ... maybe 4 ... h3ll maybe 5 now that I think about it). This is NOT counting Mr. P of course, since he is doubly out of contention as having been (1) already awarded the silver medal and (2) declared ineligible for this competition by Mr Lowell. ... so ... Lessee by my tally ya got Mr I and Mr M as the big two obvo choices, but don't forget Mr H, and of course Ms R has got to have some fans among forumites, you _might_ even get some to vote for one other guy that I can think of if it was a secret ballot ... |
Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 11:52 pm: | |
I know a former Book tenant now in the Michigan Building. The new office is beautiful, clean, the building well taken care of -- after the last few years at the Book, it's a sharp contrast. |
Spiritofdetroit
Member
Username: Spiritofdetroit
Post Number: 569
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 11:58 pm: | |
the Michigan Building could use a little facelift itself.... |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5294
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 12:13 am: | |
Agreed Pffft, I've been in his building many times. It is well maintained.
Mr. Pieroni has just finished some repair work on the great arched window above the facade of the former theatre. He's going to be adding some lighting to give some pizzazz to his building facade.
Before the window repairs, he had all the fancy mirrors behind the window repaired as well. That space has the potential for a night time dazzling light show as seen from the street, a real show stopper (hint hint!  ). But he hasn't yet decided on the lighting.
Spiritofdetroit, probably a powerwashing wouldn't hurt. But the building (non-theatre portion obviously) pretty much retains its 1926 original look without all that mid 20th century "modernization" that has defaced so many downtown buildings (United Artists, Whitney, Michigan Mutual, Lafayette, etc.).
It still retains its original Italian and French Renaissance detailing between floors and windows.
(Message edited by Gistok on September 10, 2007) |
Tony_pieroni
Member
Username: Tony_pieroni
Post Number: 37
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 12:52 pm: | |
"Thank you" to those who have said positive things about the Michigan Building. Your comments are much appreciated.
Titancub, I find it difficult to believe you really feel that in defending the financial status of my properties that you think I come across as trite, catty, boastful and condescending. For God's sake, the guy purposefully claimed that the Michigan Building is in financial stress, for no other purpose than to keep potential tenants from renting from me. Why else would he do it? People looking for office space in Detroit are very concerned about the financial condition of properties under consideration. I posted what I did because I wanted it made clear that no tenant or prospective Michigan Building tenant will ever have to worry about the heat or lights being turned off or that the elevators will be shut down or not continually be maintained. (The elevators are serviced under a long term OTIS maintenance contract, paid yearly in advance to obtain a significant discount.)
I readily admit that I'm a very small player in the real estate business - it's not my primary business - and a lot of people have made a lot more money than I have in this business. However, I'm proud of my properties and the jobs my employees have done to make them so successful. And, admittedly, I wanted to try and show as specifically as I could that Drm doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. I'm sorry if my motives came across the wrong way. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2250
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 1:10 pm: | |
Tony P, that's great news that the Michigan Building has been able to pay for $1 Million in improvements for itself. I do believe that is the definition of a successful building. Thanks for setting the record straight. |
Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe
Post Number: 422
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 1:20 pm: | |
I heard from one of the tenants of the Book Building, hoping the power will be on maybe tomorrow, as negotiations continue. They are still getting their mail there (Fair Housing of Metro Detroit). |
Quinn
Member
Username: Quinn
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 2:42 pm: | |
I don't know Jelk, slum lord sounds pretty harsh. And could negatively affect his income by changing possible renter's perceptions of him.
Tony, what is the latest on the Quicken Loans thing? Are you going to be a part of that by selling your building or no?
Thanks! |
Spiritofdetroit
Member
Username: Spiritofdetroit
Post Number: 571
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 3:28 pm: | |
Gistok-
I agree. A powerwashing, signage/lighting, and a little landscaping out front would do great. The building is indeed in good structural shape for sure. |
Drm
Member
Username: Drm
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 8:25 pm: | |
Tony_pieroni is right. I don't have the slightest knowledge of the specific financial conditions of the Michigan Building, or any of the other buildings I mentioned.
However, there is a user who posts on here named 3rdworldcity who is quite knowledgeable about the downtown real estate market. 3rdworldcity has explained to us at various times that each of the buildings on my list (except for the Michigan Building) were mistakes that shouldn't have been built or are having trouble attracting tenants, etc. I simply relied upon 3rdworldcity's opinions, which I have no reason to believe are not well-founded.
As for why I included the Michigan Building, it's not because I was ever interested in renting Class D office space with a spectacular view of a burned-out building across the street. It's because I had the impression from Tony Pieroni's comments in the press over the years that he felt the downtown real estate market was doing poorly, and I - perhaps incorrectly - applied his sentiment (or what I perceived it to be) to his own building. Perhaps it is true that Tony Pieroni's office building is going gangbusters but nothing else downtown is, in which case I was wrong to include the Michigan Building. But I'm not sure what to think because another thing we've learned from 3rdworldcity is that building owners often exaggerate how well their buildings are doing in order to attract new tenants and keep existing ones.
My "slumlord" comment is based on what I personally think of someone who owns a burned-out building where people are free to smoke crack and perform sexual acts in broad daylight. I can think of other words that would describe a person like this as well, but "slumlord" seems more appropriate in mixed company. To be fair, I only know of past incidences, and know nothing of current conditions there.
Finally, to anyone who is stupid enough to base a decision on where to rent office space upon what they read from an anonymous contributor to an Internet forum, keep in mind these words of Tony_pieroni, with which I agree: "Drm doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about." |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4587
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 10:01 pm: | |
quote:I don't know Jelk, slum lord sounds pretty harsh. And could negatively affect his income by changing possible renter's perceptions of him.
That may be true - I don't know - but Tony Pieroni is a public figure under the law and therefor unless Tony Pieroni can prove Drm knows that Tony Pieroni is not, in fact, a slum lord than he can't prove libel.
It's black letter law. The Warren Court set the precedent 40 years ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. I have a problem with the way libel is thrown around on this forum. It has the potential to create what civil libertarians call a "chilling effect" on free speech.
If people like Drm are threatened with libel suits everytime they express a controversial opinion on this board, any semblance of real discussion on controversial issues is threatened.
Free speech is our most precious civil liberty. It should be protected not diminished. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4132
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 2:34 am: | |
Um, where was DRM threatened with a libel suit?
What an irony! Here is a guy who keeps his building running, works toward its restoration, has tenants, creates jobs, is not some absentee landlord [his office is there] and generously let's everyone in to see its amazing former theater.
Meanwhile, all around him, the beautiful UA, Moose, GAR, Whitney, Broderick, Park Plaza, Chin Tiki buildings are empty rotting eyesores. The formerly rotting Tuller and Statler are empty lots.
And that makes him a slumlord? If that is a slumlord then Detroit needs a whole bunch of them.
As for the jab at the AAA. He has come on this forum and openly made clear the situation of AAA, a building under lease and in litigation after being severely damaged by a fire started by the Statler demolition crew. How many of the owners of the above mentioned properties would explain their vacant ruins, if you could find them? |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4588
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 2:55 am: | |
quote:Drm in his post # 1138 above has not only libeled me, but impugned the financial condition of a couple of my buildings as well. He referred to me as a slumlord, and even though he did not refer to me by name, he did so in connection with my ownership of the Michigan Building and former AAA building and therefore he might as well have referred to me by name because several of you on here know of the relationship.
I don't know how to take that other than as someone threatening to bring legal action. The threat is implicit...keep stating your negative opinion about me and I'll will sue you to shut you up.
Is Tony Pieroni a slumlord? I don't know but I think he'd be more than happy to step on Drm's first amendment rights if it netted him an extra buck. Screw that guy and the "friend" who called him. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 2277
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 10:06 am: | |
Jelk, you're trying to be a firestarter, but it is a non-issue. Everybody understands the connotation in which Tony_P intended his statement. No further clarification is needed, no legal suits were threatened.
(Message edited by johnlodge on September 11, 2007) |
Tony_pieroni
Member
Username: Tony_pieroni
Post Number: 38
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 11:58 am: | |
Thank you, Lowell, for pointing out that I never threatened (or even for an instant considered) suing anybody for libel. Never crossed my mind.
Thank you Drm for your response. Very gutsy. Very classy.
Quinn, there is nothing to report on the former AAA site. I have never been contacted by the Ilitch organization, the City, Quicken, Becker Group or any other potential developer of the site. I only know what I read in the papers just as everyone else.
I agree with a couple of you that the Michigan Building could use a lot of cosmetic work on the exterior. I did spend over $60,000 late last year with ChezCore for work on the exterior, primarily for removing potentially dangerous bricks etc.; the thing every building owner has to do is allocate available resources where they'll do the most good or where they're most necessary. Usually, cosmetic options come in way down the list. Frankly, the next cosmetic thing I'll try to do is put a new decorative fence around the outside parking lot. Under the best of circumstances it is very difficult for an owner of a downtown Detroit office building to run a profitable operation. Without on-site parking as we have at the Michgan, or reasonably priced parking in the immediate area, it's almost impossible to get tenants and stay financially viable. |
Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 899
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 12:36 am: | |
Um, enough of this ridiculous libel talk.
Just looked out my window and saw that the power is back on at the Book Tower. Huzzah!!!!! |
Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe
Post Number: 476
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 8:17 am: | |
Whew! Good news! |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.