  Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6567 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
This subject came up in a thread originally discussing a new Joe Louis Arena. Since the GAR is a topic of interest to a lot of the forum, I'm giving it its own thread. As you may know, the City of Detroit filed a "Complaint to Quiet Title." This means that the City intends to sell the building, but a "cloud" hangs over the title, specifically, that since the building is a Veterans Memorial, state law mandates that the City maintain ownership forever. Here is the Complaint to Quiet Title: http://hotfudgedetroit.com/pic s2/daughtersofunionvets.pdf The case was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court against the "Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, et al." The defendants then removed the case to federal court and filed a counterclaim against the City. (A "counterclaim" is a legal way of saying, "You're suing me? We'll I'm suing you back, pal.") Here is the counterclaim: http://hotfudgedetroit.com/pic s2/case.pdf The parties have spent the last year arguing whether the case should be in federal court or Wayne County Circuit Court. A recent ruling determined that federal court is the proper venue. So now the case will proceed. As more relevant information becomes available, I'll post the documents in this thread. Many thanks to Andy for agreeing to host the documents for us. (Message edited by itsjeff on August 10, 2006) | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2793 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 75.7.133.92 |
Gee I wonder why the City wanted the case heard in Wayne County Circuit Court. | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1389 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 216.203.223.85 |
I'm not reading all that legal crap right now, but from what I remember from reading about the history of the GAR in Detroit, is that when the building was deeded to the city, it had to maintain part of it to be available for a market. Now, if one went down to City Hall and asked that they make the GAR bldg ready so that a market could be opened there, they would have to comply, or vacate the deed if they couldn't. Do I remember this correctly, or just full of it? Once again, ground floor retail rears its ugly head. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6568 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
The Daughters are arguing that the City can never vacate the deed - that the City must maintain ownership of the GAR in perpetuity. You really should read the counterclaim. It has lots of historical data about the GAR, the building and how the City has reneged on its responsibility to maintain it. | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1118 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 68.60.45.70 |
When I was a student at Cass Tech in the late 60s, there was an electronic surplus store in the lower level of the GAR. It was always interesting to see what they had. | ||
Neilr Member Username: Neilr Post Number: 315 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 68.60.139.212 |
Thank you, ItsJeff for posting the legal papers. It will be interesting to see how the case proceeds. As noted in the document, the president of the Michigan Department, Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War is Mrs. Celestine Hollings. She is a real fighter. She began her working career as a nurse on American Indian settlements out west. In mid-life she changed careers, becoming a teacher and moving to Detroit. She became the first, or maybe second, teacher of Afro-American Studies in the Detroit Public Schools. She is enormously proud that one of her direct ancestors served in the Civil War. Since retiring from DPS 30 years ago, she has continued to educate children and further the cause of genealogical research and study in Detroit and nationally. Celestine and her husband Al have lived in the Boston / Edison neighborhood for over 40 years. She is now in her mid 80's and stands less than 5 feet tall; but her opponents will find her to be a formidable, determined soldier in this cause. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 10453 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.246.37.236 |
Please, you are using HFD for factual info now? You must have missed the article in the paper today eh?
Sorry, if I visit sites of that nature it's not from work, and it better have more than ONE pornographic image. haha | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6569 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
We aren't relying on anyone for the facts. The pleadings speak for themselves. HFD is simply hosting them for us. As more relevant documents become available, Andy has agreed to host them, too. It's an incredibly nice gesture on his part. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 10456 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.246.37.236 |
I'm afraid if I click on the link that pornographic material may pop up. (must...not...click...on HFD link) Ndavies, can you cut and paste the material? | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1391 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 216.203.223.85 |
Maybe you should click on this link in your post.  | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6570 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
History of the G.A.R. building: http://www.detroit1701.org/G.A .R.Building.htm | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 382 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
Neilr: Do you have contact info on Mrs. Hollings? I'd love for her to come and talk to my students and I know a few other teachers would also love the opportunity to have her in their classrooms. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1355 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.42.251.225 |
Itself---You have presented this thread in a very professional manner. I like your style. Now if you would like to represent jjaba in any furthur legal proceedings following one of his now-notorious( but always interesting) trivia contests, I will be happy to prepare a Substitution of Attorneys document. My retainer now borders on zero. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6572 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
I don't do pro bono work, Rock : ) | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8699 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.53.96.174 |
Thanks to HFD for hosting the Adobe formatted documents. Detroit has failed in a lot of things and this is just one of the minor failures it has "achieved". I do like how the DUVCW consistently points out that Detorit failed to do anything for the buliding. It looks like they have dotted the i's and crossed their t's. On another note, I always thought the bulding was built in 1890 not 1901. Glad to see that someone still cares enough though. Good for them. | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 806 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
Cares? If they care so much, let them pay for it. I could care less about it, and I for one hope the city gains back full control over the building. Lots of non-profits, etc. willed their buildings/land to cities back in the day, as they could not afford to take care of them in perpetuity, but wanted to keep their name on it. Shame on the various municipalities for not knowing that they would one day come back and kick them in the pocketbook, but I don't want to pay in perpetuity for an ancient building that their own group should take care of. Let's not forget that "the City" as everyone keeps talking about in the third person, is YOU! | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1800 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 134.215.223.211 |
There's a ton of facinating history in those legal proceedings, especially the copy of the deed from Lewis Cass, complete with his signature. Very cool stuff. So the Daughters and Sons group wants to hold on to this building on the basis of principal? What the hell are they or the city going to do with it? Why not just make everyone's life easier as well as preserve the building by selling it. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8701 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.53.96.174 |
Selling would IMO, mean demolition. The question remains, is the DUVCW right or wrong? I think they are right. The City of Detroit has not fulfilled their oligation. | ||
Hockey_player Member Username: Hockey_player Post Number: 233 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 207.148.213.218 |
The info in the legal brief seems more aligned with the general history than the detroit1701 link, which features a lot of confidence-shattering phrasing like "I believe," "It is my understanding" and other first person observations. Not to mention they're wildly off on the years given for its construction and abandonment, listing 1887 as the year it was built when even the cornerstone confirms it was begun in 1899. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2750 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 128.36.14.52 |
How about they drop the case for naming rights to the new rink? "The Grand Army of the Republic" Arena ... hmmm .... | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6574 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Cares? If they care so much, let them pay for it. One of the Daughters' claims in the counterclaim is that their organization helped fund and endow the GAR Building, but that the City cannot account for the endowment. Does anyone know more about this Veteran's Memorial Act? I'm assuming that the Veteran's Memorial Building in the civic center is a Veteran's Memorial. Yet somehow it's now a Ford training center. Maybe the City still owns the building, tho. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 743 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 207.200.116.139 |
Great Grampa Ben Downing says:  "Tear that schitt down." | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2612 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.124 |
Yes there does seem to be confusion over the year this was built. I seem to remember seeing a completion date of 1900. Unfortunately W. Hawkins Ferry's book THE BUILDINGS OF DETROIT doesn't even mention the GAR Building. We do need to get the date right... Like I said in the other thread (where this thread originated), the destruction of this building would only make sense if the land was needed for a larger construction, and that would neccessitate the closing of both Adams and Cass, a very unlikely scenario. And even in such an unlikely scenario, this building should be moved, not destroyed. | ||
Hockey_player Member Username: Hockey_player Post Number: 234 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.18.137 |
I would assume the people who built it and laid the cornerstone knew what year they were in - 1899 - and chiseled it accordingly. Most references, apart from the oddly written detroit1701 link, agree with the turn-of-the-century date. (Message edited by hockey_player on August 10, 2006) | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2613 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.124 |
LOL, yeah Hockey_player I think that they would know what year they were in...... So I do think that the 1899 (cornerstone laid) and 1900 (completion date) are correct. The irony here is that by 1900 (35 years after the end of the Civil War), and due to the shorter life span of people back then... that a large percentage of the Civil War vets were already dead. (Message edited by Gistok on August 10, 2006) | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 869 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Let's turn it into a mini-casino with workers wearing War of the Rebellion era clothes that way it can pay for itsjeff, er, I mean itself! Livedog2 | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 907 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 4.229.69.39 |
http://www.detroitfunk.com/200 6/03/29/grand_army_of_the_repu blic.htm My half ass writup of the GAR above - what I found is that Hess died before completion, hence a bit of confusion over date of completion. AIA puts completion date at 1900. The cornerstone could have been prepared earlier in the build or contracted earlier than the delayed finish. An aside question about GAR, it appears to have nooks for statues - anyone know anything about GAR statues ? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8703 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.53.96.174 |
Probably with the other relics as indicated in the lawsuit. Either sold for profit or thrown in the trashbin would be my assumption. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2617 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.72.5 |
The "18" appears a lot smaller than the "99". They obviously didn't know "font sizes" back then!  | ||
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn Post Number: 175 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.88.89.94 |
ItsJeff & HFD thanks for posting the legal documents on the web. It is unquestionably a unique building in downtown Detroit and should be kept and preserved if only to combat the sameness that afflicts other like-size cities. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 874 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Great shots, Mauser765! I am jealous of the shots you got inside!! Does anyone have any old photos of the GAR like maybe during the dedication or there about? I looked on the WSU site but there wasn't one photo there of the GAR! Livedog2 | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1397 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 66.19.22.88 |
Interesting read Itsjeff, thanks to HFD for hosting it. Here is the 1921 Sanborn of the GAR, or as it is known then as the Memorial Building to the Soldiers and Sailors.  An enlargement of a photo from WSU/VMC showing the ground floor retail in the GAR bldg.  That's probably a Detroit Creamery delivery wagon in front on the Grand River side, in the snow. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1813 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.215.247.193 |
The "endowment" in question was only $6,000. You should take a look at your own home heating and electricity bills to figure out how long a $6,000 trust fund would have lasted. Even when you factor in that energy costs were lower a hundred years ago and the interest that would have accrued from said endowment, the fact remains that every penny of the trust fund would have been depleted before Celestine Hollings was born. The City of Detroit has maintained that building for decades beyond the depletion of the trust fund. This, in my opinion, more than meets the requirements imposed upon them by the law. Mrs. Hollings and the other decendants may well have a legal claim for blocking the sale of the building under the Michigan Monument Buildings Act. However, I see no reason why the City should not be allowed to lease the building to a developer or other interest party. (Message edited by fnemecek on August 11, 2006) | ||
Gargoyle Member Username: Gargoyle Post Number: 19 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 24.192.189.109 |
Good point. We all know the COD cannot afford to rehab this structure and I doubt if the Daughters and their affiliates have that kind of cash laying around either. It would be great if the building could be converted into usable office or living space with some meeting rooms and a museum set aside to honor the memory of the veterans. Does anyone think this would be feasible? And would it solve the current dilemma? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6590 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
The City isn't in the business of rehabbing buildings, regardless of how much money it has. It does sense a demand for the private sector to get in there, and that's what this case is all about. The City wants to be allowed to sell the building. I am curious about what the City did in order to allow Ford to take over the Veterans Memorial building. I wish I knew why they couldn't do to the GAR that they did there. | ||
Gargoyle Member Username: Gargoyle Post Number: 20 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 24.192.189.109 |
I agree, Itsjeff. Most investors are not going to want to lay out the kind of money it would take to rehab the GAR without owning the property. And I'm sure the city will not do it without being able to sell it afterwards, like the houses on Alfred in Brush Park. I have no answers, just concerns that no matter what the outcome of the court case, this unique building may be doomed. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 3169 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.248.17.48 |
Perhaps the Veteran's Memorial Building in Hart Plaza was not constructred under the same Public Act? Or perhaps nobody was paying attention when the building became the training center. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6591 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
Either scenario is conceivable : ) (Message edited by itsjeff on August 12, 2006) | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 3170 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.248.17.48 |
I do not think that word means what you think it means. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6594 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
I edited it. Better? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6599 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
The Daughters have filed a "Witness List." These are the people that they intend to have testify at the trial. It's quite a list, including the Mayor, the entire City Council, everyone who works for every City soup, "the heirs of Lewis Cass," and Mike, Marian and Denise Ilitch. I also see a forumite on there, as well as a former forumite. And the late Doug McIntosh (This was filed prior to Doug's passing.) 1. All parties including present or former officers, directors, agents, members, employees, and/or independent contractors; 2. George Jackson; 3. Walt Watkins; 4. Representatives and/or keeper of records for: the City of Detroit, Planning and Development Department; the City of Detroit, City Council; the City of Detroit Parks and Recreation Department; the City of Detroit Historic Designation Advisory Board; the City of Detroit Public Library, including, without limitation, the Burton Collection; the City of Detroit Building & Safety Engineering Department; the Detroit Historical Museum; the City of Detroit Assessor’s Office; the City of Detroit Police Department; the City of Detroit Fire Department; representatves and/or employees of the agencies responsible for accounting and finance operations for the City of Detroit, possibly including the Treasurer’s Offices and/or Comptroller’s office; employees, agents, and/or representatives of the City of Detroit Mayor’s Office, including, but not limited to current Mayor Kilpatrick; employees, representatives and/or agents of the City of Detroit, including curators, persons or entities responsible for security, aintenance, and/or other operations in connection with Historic Fort Wayne; the City of Detroit Historic Preservation Review Board; and, any other City of Detroit department or affiliated organization with knowledge of facts relevant to the issues in this case, or possession of information and/or document relevant to same. 5. Jim Conway; 6. William Phenix; 7. Bode Morin; 8. Dennis Zembala; 9. Vicky Kruckeberg; 10. Mark Patrick; 11. Michael Davis; 12. Celestine Hollings; 13. Bill Worden; 14. Christopher Yagley; 15. James Pahl; 16. J. Michael Kirk (Possible Expert); 17. Roger Margerum (Possible Expert); 18. Joseph Schroeder; 19. Keith Harrison; 20. Weldon Petz; 21. David Finney; 22. Leroy Barnett; 23. Bernie McCarthy; 24. Gary Gibson; 25. James Lyons; 26. Michael Nick; 27. Francis Grunow; 28. Doug McIntosh; 29. Royce Yeager (Possible Expert); 30. Kathie Dones-Carson; 31. Jim Zuleski (Possible Expert); 32. Alan D. Selvy; 33. Patience Naughta; 34. Donald Thurber; 35. Boyce Tope; 36. Howard Trenkle, Jr.; 37. William D. Dahling; 38. Anna May Mogielski; 39. John Jones; 40. Tom Shields; 41. Michael Ilitch; 42. Denise Ilitch; 43. Marion Ilitch; 44. Representatives and/or records custodians for Ilitch Holdings, the Detroit Tigers, Olympia Entertainment, Little Ceasar’s Enterprises, Inc. and/or other related Ilitch businesses or entities; 45. Thomas Emerick; 46. Thomas Wightman; 47. Sandra Shapiro; 48. Lynne Marthey; 49. Bill Worden; 50. Jon Domke; 50. Representatives, agents and/or keeper of records for any insurers of the City of Detroit with information relevant to the allegations contained in the pleadings herein; 51. Custodian of the State of Michigan Veterans’ Headquarters; 52. Representatives and/or keeper of records of the State of Michigan Historical Commission; 53. Representatives and/or keeper of records of the Detroit Historical Society; 54. Representatives and/or keeper of records of the: National Trust for Historic Preservation; the National Register of Historic Places; and, the State of Michigan Register of Historic Places; 55. Representatives, officers, employees, agents and/or records custodians of the national and local departments and camps/tents of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, the Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, the Women’s Relief Corps and Auxiliary of the Grand Army of the Republic; the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States; and/or other affiliated organizations or order of the Grand Army of the Republic; 56. Representatives and heirs of Lewis Cass; 57. Representatives and heirs of Augustus F. Chappell; 58. Representatives and heirs of John C. Haines; 59. Representatives and heirs of Albert C. Easterbrook; 60. Representatives and heirs of Martin Warner; 61. Representatives and heirs of Orlando LeValley; 62. Representatives and heirs of Eugene Ownes; 63. Representatives and heirs of David Plumadore; 64. All persons identified in Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and/or Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) in connection with the G.A.R. Building, to be identified in discovery, including officers, employees and/or agents of such persons or entities; 65. Representatives, employees, agents and/or records custodians with information related to the City of Detroit Master Plan, including, without limitation, provisions related to preservation of historic buildings and structures; 66. Keeper of records and/or other witnesses sufficient for authentication, foundation and admission of the Deed of Conveyance from the G.A.R. to the S.U.V.C.W., and other records establishing Defendant’s rights and standing with respect to the G.A.R. Building and the subject matter of Defendant’s Counterclaim; 67. Keeper of records and/or other witnesses sufficient establish the congressional charters for the Defendants’ respective national organizations, affiliated organizations, and the relationship of the subordinate departments, tents/camps thereto; 68. Current and former employees, agents or other representatives of the City of Detroit, to be identified in discovery, with knowledge of facts which support the City of Detroit’s failure to comply with the Monumental Buildings Act, including, without limitation, the multiple breaches of the duties described in Defendant’s Counterclaim; 69. Representatives and/or keeper of records for the City of Detroit, Planning and Development Department; 70. Representatives and/or keeper of records for City of Detroit Law Department; 71. Current and former members of the City of Detroit Council, and/or other representatives and/or keeper of records for the City Council; 72. Keeper of records, representatives, current and former attorneys, accountants, agents and/or employees of the City of Detroit, and/or its affiliated departments, and/or other persons with knowledge of facts and/or circumstances relevant to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant’s Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, and/or Defendant’s Counterclaim herein, including, without limitation, the Plaintiff’s conversion, theft, loss, and/or waste with respect to the perpetual maintenance fund, the neglect and failure to maintain the G.A.R. Building structure, and/or the loss, conversion, theft or waste with respect to the relics, objects, records and property located and to be maintained by Plaintiff therein; 73. Representatives and/or keeper of records necessary to establish the source, title, and ownership of any/all relics, documents, medals, records,uniforms, cannons, furniture, pictures, swords, weaponry, and/or other objects or items of value in the possession, custody or control of the City of Detroit and/or its affiliates, including, without limitation, all such civil war era objects located at Historic Fort Wayne. 74. Representatives of the Smithsonian Institute and/or other possible expert witnesses to establish Defendant’s damages claims, including the value of any identified and/or unaccounted for relics, documents, medals, records, uniforms, cannons, furniture, pictures, swords, weaponry, and/or other objects or items of value; 75. Expert witnesses to be identified upon a Court Ordered inspection of the subject property necessary to establish the component of Defendant’s damages claims related to the costs of restoration and rehabilitation of the G.A.R. Building; 76. Additional expert witnesses and/or other individuals to be named and identified upon a Court Ordered accounting from the City of Detroit, and an audit of records to be produced in discovery; 77. All witnesses identified in the City of Detroit’s witness list; 78. All witnesses whose identity is requested by, named, identified or otherwise disclosed in any pleading, on the record during any deposition, or by any interrogatory, document request and/or request for admission herein; 79. Any witnesses necessary for the purpose of rebuttal, impeachment, foundation and/or authentication of exhibits or admissions of evidence; 80. The custodians and/or keeper of any discoverable records in this matter, (in the event that the admissibility of such records is contested), and such persons that may be identified by those records and/or documents; 81. Rebuttal expert witnesses to be named, if necessary; and 82. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff reserve the right to amend its Witness List as other witnesses are identified through later or supplemental discovery. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1815 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.239.120 |
Okay - so the counterclaim from the Daughters & Sons groups was filed more than a year ago. Has there been a progress on these cases since then? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1816 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.239.120 |
I'm disappointed that Francis Grunow and Royce Yeater made the Witness List, but I didn't. I think I'll have to try harder. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 699 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.42.23.2 |
damn | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6600 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Fnemecek, the parties have spent the time debating which court has jurisdiction, Wayne County or U.S. District Court. A judge ruled in July that U.S. District Court is the correct court. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 105 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 35.8.144.6 |
The city denied my proposal to purchase and renovate the GAR into a community center for my non-profit organization...sheesh, now I see this and just dont know what to think about the direction of this government in terms of their understanding of what the people need. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1818 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.239.120 |
Itsjeff, thanks for the update. I have to confess that I keep feeling the urge enter an amicus curie brief. *Paging FoBC Members: we have a possible agenda item for the meeting this Saturday. Show up and bring your opinions.* | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1819 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.239.120 |
Detroitstar, when was this? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6602 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Detroitstar, the City couldn't sell the building to you. Or to the Ilitches or anyone else until the issue of the title is cleared. Wait'll this case is resolved, then make your proposal. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6603 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Fnemecek, may I ask which position you are taking? That the City be forced to retain ownership, or that they be allowed to sell it? | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 107 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 35.8.144.6 |
This was about 4-6 months ago. It was not as much a proposal as it was a request that they consider trying to clear the title so we could make the proposal a formality. They laughed at us, and said it would probably not happen anytime soon. Now I'm just rolling my eyes...seems like this would not be happening, except Illitch is talking about building. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6604 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
The Complaint to Quiet Title was filed May 12, 2005. Whomever you were dealing with should have told you that the matter was already being litigated and that the City was in no position to entertain offers until the issue of the title was settled. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 108 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 35.8.144.6 |
Itsjeff, it was more like the city knew this was moving forward, but was pretty much not willing to honor our interest in the building (not sure if they could, by law). I'm not the one that was involved with the discussion, so my knowledge of the subject is vague. Just thought I'd throw my GAR frustrations out there. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1820 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.239.120 |
Detroitstar, from what you've told me, I wouldn't read anything into this one. Court cases like this routinely drag on months or years. As for why the City filed its Complaint to Quiet Title, I think they simply want something to happen to the buidling. Itsjeff, my personal opinion is that requiring the City to retain possession for decades beyond depletion of Trust Fund goes beyond the legislative intent of the Michigan Monument Act. However, it's not clear whether or not the Sons & Daughters were given a proper notice of said depletion, therefore they might not have been afforded an opportunity to replenish the Trust Fund with new moneys to pay for the building's on-going maintainence. As I result, I believe an adequate rememedy would be for the Sons & Daughters to be given a reasonable period of time (say 6 months or so?) to raise additional moneys to replenish the Trust Fund. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, there should be no reason why the City should be prohibited from selling the building. Of course, I want to emphasize that this is only my personal opinion. At this point in time, nothing I've said should be construed as being representative of any groups that I may be a member/officer of. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6606 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Offer void where prohibited, member F.D.I.C. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1821 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.239.120 |
LMAO!!! | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1412 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 66.19.20.184 |
Here's my standard disclaimer in case you want to ammend it. Disclaimer - what I express here is personal opinion only. It is not states as, or implied to be fact. The commentary is made only as applied to general principles. Any resemblance to any persons living or dead, or any companies active or gone under, is purely coincidental. No code words of "eye gestures" of secret meaning were used in the presentation of this posting. No animals were harmed in the typing of this post. Actual results may vary. Settling of contents may occur during shipping. Use only as intended. Consult your doctor before starting any debate or flamewar. May cause drowsiness. Please drink responsibly. Professional poster on a closed course. Don't try this at home. Your mileage may vary. Store in a cool, dry place. Always wear appropriate hand, eye, foot, and head protection. Substantial penalty for early withdrawl. Side effects may occur. Any reproduction, retransmission or rebroadcast without the expressed, written consent of Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 275 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
It's interesting that the Daughters have listed as a potential expert witness Roger Margerum. A little hard to believe he'll testify for them. He's the guy that, as principal of the entity that purchased the bldg on land contract from the city in '84. He ended up on the Comerica Park design team, the quid pro quo probably being that he relinquished his vendee's rights to clear the way for Ilitch to acquire the bldg. Itsjeff: It appears you have at least some of the most important pleadings and have posted some of them. I have acquired all the pleadings, motions, briefs, Orders etc and would be glad to send you whatever, if anything, you don't have. Problem is, I won't be back to Detroit until Friday. (There are hundreds of pages, as you may already know.) My view of the case based on a cursory reading of everything, including some fascinating exhibits, correspondence etc, is that the City will win hands down. However, the City's counsel is being out-lawyered by the defendants. If the City had turned the case over to Honigman it would be over by now in my opinion. What say you? My opinion is that the defendants want to make a financial score and that's it. Post here if you want me to send you anything, and where to send it. (I sent an email to Lowell making the same offer but have not heard from him; maybe I had an old email address.) | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6607 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
<---- click here, 3rdworld. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1822 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.62.221 |
If anyone has a documents or files related to this case that they want hosted somewhere, I've got almost a full gig of storage space on my server that's available. I'd be happy to put them on-line. | ||
Fastforce87 Member Username: Fastforce87 Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 71.144.95.234 |
Hey guys, I'm new to this blog. I have been looking at and researching the GAR Building for about 3 years now. I honestly thought I was the only one that wanted this building, or at least see it get restored. I just got done reading all of your comments and it's just amazing the amount of time you all have put into this building. Just as a side note, I have called the city numerous times to ask for square footages and prices and such, and they always seem to act as though the building doesn't "exist." | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1824 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.209.192 |
Fastforce, welcome to the Forum. Unless you're talking to the Law Department, the GAR Bldg. really doesn't exist for most City agencies. There isn't much of anything they can do with/for the building in its current state so it basically falls off their radar screen. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6661 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
Detroit in battle royal over sale of castle DETROIT -- The boarded-up, turreted castle on Grand River, Cass and Adams is the latest city-owned property being readied for sale, but several nonprofits are asserting legal interests that could stall plans to develop the valuable parcel. "Too often, the city just wants to forget history. This shouldn't be forgotten," said Celestine Hollings, president of the Michigan Department of the Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, one of three groups now in a legal fight with the city over the Grand Army of the Republic Building. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060821/M ETRO/608210340 | ||
Baltgar Member Username: Baltgar Post Number: 22 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 67.38.83.5 |
Are the papers pulling story ideas from DetroitYes again? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6666 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
There's nothing wrong with that if they are. It's not like they're copying word-for-word what we're saying. A reporter may have seen the subject posted and thought it worthy of more investigation. If we are the inspiration for the story, then I think that's pretty great. | ||
Baltgar Member Username: Baltgar Post Number: 23 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 67.38.83.5 |
Oh I agree! I just think it is humorous, just like when they pull story ideas from Metro Times news hits section. Maybe with them shining more light on the subject, something will get accomplished. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 277 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
The lawsuit has just been settled. The City agreed to some minor face-saving (for the Daughters) terms, suck as minor zoning restrictions, but thge property is now free to be (re)sold and developed. | ||
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn Post Number: 180 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.88.89.94 |
3rdWorld, thanks for the news. Any details on the minor zoning restrictions and the parts of the settlement favorable to the Daughters of the Union Veterans? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1858 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.112.145 |
Yee-haw!!! Somewhere along the lines, somebody must've talked some sense into the Son's & Daughter's groups. To whomever it was: thank you! | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1194 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.251.28 |
I, too, hope it won't be just another nightclub or bar. That building is special. | ||
Fishtoes2000 Member Username: Fishtoes2000 Post Number: 123 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.14.20.35 |
With a little white paint, it could be turned into a fast food restaurant specializing in economical fair and squarish hamburgers with tiny onions. ;) | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 832 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.252.132.197 |
With a little Cobalt Blue paint, it could also be The Liquor Castle. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1861 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.119.144 |
You guys are so damn funny. | ||
Bobj Member Username: Bobj Post Number: 1031 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.40.89.238 |
The wig shops are getting forced off woodward - maybe it could be one giant wig shop for everyone! | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6798 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Here's the consent judgment entered in the case. http://hotfudgedetroit.com/pic s4/show_case_doc.pdf | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 284 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
The City erred in settling the case in my opinion. The City would have prevailed on the merits and have been freed of any restrictions. Big hole in the deal. What happens if the RFP's fail to generate any proposals? It will just sit there for 50 more years at this stage. It is highly unlikely anyone will propose to renovate it. Having attemopted to buy it in '85-'86, I recall the renovation costs then to be economically unfeasible. That's why we dropped our efforts to do so. BIG PROBLEM...no parking. While the Consent Judgment restrictions would not normally be that onerous, in this case they probably will prove to be a deal killer re: future stand-alone development. Most prospective developers won't be interested in any case until they see what proposed area developments go forward, such as the S-H block, Tuller/United Artists site, possible hockey arena behind the Fox etc. Let's face it, there are few if any viable economic uses for the property w/o parking even w/o the restrictions, "isolated" as it's location is at this time. My prediction: more litigation in 2 years. | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 76 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
"Oh 3rdworldcity..." https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/10041/81491.html?1157485 442 | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 136 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.250.85 |
The building has not had parking for 100 years, why would it matter now unless it was turned into residential? Something in the space can last without parking, especially in the over crowded downtown Detroit. With the right person and right plan, it can be turned into something with all the tax credits available now such as the New Market, SBT, federal historical and downtown Detroit credits. Stop living in the 80's man. I am pretty sure these were not around in the 80's. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4370 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Because automobile transporation is actually a major factor in development and redevelopment now, which wasn't the case 100 years ago. It would be different if there was some effective light rail. As long as there is not, parking is always going to be an issue in downtown Detroit redevelopment. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 45 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
If a developer who bought the GAR could not purchase additional property in the area for parking they would need to set up a lease agreement. This poses a problem when the future of the land surrounding the GAR is so uncertain. The developer would probably want to offer secured parking to any tenants. A considerable investment and loss if a lease agreement is broken and the developer loses the lot a few years later. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 285 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
Firefly: Checked the site and many of the photos, Some gross, some touching. What's it have to do w/ this thread? | ||
Brandon48202 Member Username: Brandon48202 Post Number: 111 Registered: 12-2004 |
That building is a steal at that price with or parking. Congraduations to whoever ends up with it. (Message approved by admin) |
