^ I hope I'm wrong too but I think this is exactly where this is headed.  It's all about creating a paper trail to bring in some other evidence of value if this goes to ED proceedings.

 

It is nothing new: in the 1990s when the city was circling around Davenport Bluffs with an eye towards a residential development one of the parking lot owners (Kassouf?) hatched, developed and broadcast plans to build a Microtel or some similarly glamorous hotel on the site.  It was widely considered among the planning commission staff to be nothing more than fodder for a predicted ED case.  When the Davenport Bluff plans evaporated (and thus the ED threat) the Microtel plans disappeared too. 

 

I admit one anecdote says little about the current situation in particular but as was pointed out before, this proposal seems too good to be true coming from parking lot guys...

 

I'm afraid I come across as way too pessimistic on this forum.

My first attempt at responding failed to survive an error message. When I went back to try posting it again, my message was gone. And it wasn't the first time that's happened on this site.....

^ I hope I'm wrong too but I think this is exactly where this is headed.  It's all about creating a paper trail to bring in some other evidence of value if this goes to ED proceedings.

 

It is nothing new: in the 1990s when the city was circling around Davenport Bluffs with an eye towards a residential development one of the parking lot owners (Kassouf?) hatched, developed and broadcast plans to build a Microtel or some similarly glamorous hotel on the site.  It was widely considered among the planning commission staff to be nothing more than fodder for a predicted ED case.  When the Davenport Bluff plans evaporated (and thus the ED threat) the Microtel plans disappeared too. 

 

I admit one anecdote says little about the current situation in particular but as was pointed out before, this proposal seems too good to be true coming from parking lot guys...

 

I'm afraid I come across as way too pessimistic on this forum.

 

naw, you're not too pessimistic. 

 

Before you diss the development vision of a surface lot magnet, keep in mind KJP's find. Shaia is card-playing buddies with Asher (co-developer with Stark on the Warehouse mega project).  If they play cards together, then I think that that its not out of the realm of possibility that they could share similar visions for downtown redevelopment.

I'll try writing this again (since my attempt earlier got erased after receiving an error message)...  When I interviewed Victor Shaia last January, he was very reluctant to discuss the project publicly until it was formally submitted to the city for review. He said the plan might be altered by then (it was and in numerous ways). That's pretty typical for most of the serious developers/investors I've come across.

 

To me, that doesn't sound like someone putting forth a trojan-horse development plan to simply wring more money out of Wolstein. If I was merely trying to get $$$ from Wolstein, I'd be issuing press releases frequently about my "development plans" and talking up a storm when the media comes a-calling.

 

But there's only one way we'll find out for certain if this is a serious plan....

11:15 a.m.

 

Christopher Montgomery

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The owners of a parking lot that developer Scott Wolstein wants to include in his $225 million mixed-use project in Cleveland's Flats have launched their own $75 million residential plan for the site.

 

Located between Main Avenue and Front Street, the development would include two condominium towers -- of 18 and 22 stories -- and street-level townhouses.

 

The owners of the parking lot, the Shaia family, would be the developers of the project, dubbed Lighthouse Landing. Members of the family and their architect, Paul Volpe, presented their plans to the Cleveland Landmarks Commission this morning. (See here for the meeting's agenda, which includes a site plan and other graphics on the plan.)

 

Under Wolstein's plan, the site would remain a parking lot. It's not clear yet whether Wolstein approves of the Shaia project. Through the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, he has offered to buy the property for $1.2 million.

 

 

 

 

should we rename this thread??

To me it just sounds like a way to get more money out of the sale for the parking lot...that is by announcing plans of your own.  I could be wrong, but just a thought. 

Yes, it sounds like we need to rename the thread.

 

I was at the Landmarks Commission meeting this morning. After the Lighthouse Landing presentation, the developer headed out into the hallway where the broadcast media turned it into an inquisition. They were certain this was a power play to get money out of Wolstein. I still haven't made up my mind. But I was so embarassed to be part of the rest of media which apparently already had made up theirs. Tom Beres stood there asking questions with his arms folded and a disbelieving look on his face. Paul Orlowski was there too, probing for the answer he wanted. Assholes!

 

I had already spoken briefly to Tom Starinsky from the Historic Warehouse District Inc. and learned a little tibdit of info...  So as the assholes were winding down their interrogation, I asked the developers:  when did you first pitch your proposal to the Historic Warehouse District folks? Their answer:  2000.

 

The developers e-mailed to me some images and documents which I will download when I get home and see what I can post here.

I vote not to rename the thread out of protest of the cheesy name "Lighthouse Landing".  I think Front Steet Lofts sounds a little cooler.

 

Anyway, not sure if all this info changes my view much but I am happy to hear from you, KJP, that there is some real evidence pointing towards this being a bona fide proposal.  Fingers crossed.

Whether or not this is a bonafide proposal, I'm pretty certain all of you will get kick out of these renderings.

 

The first is the original as supplied by the developer. The second is an enhancement I attempted on Photoshop to make the proposed buildings stand out better....

 

 

wonderful.  these look a lot better than what i thought theyd be.  Seem to kind of compliment the warehouse district with new stuff like the Pinnacle... and those umm other buildings in the distance heh

Me likes!!!

 

Fits well with the warehouse district yet at the same time moves the design of the city into a modern/contemporary mode. 

 

Its "appears" to be a project that would look GREAT in any major city!

 

Now what are the amenties?

I love all of the balconies.  Those will be great with the lake views.

From the PD...

 

2nd project in Flats may replace parking

Friday, April 14, 2006

Christopher Montgomery

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

EDIT:  Article removed - no link and no longer on cleveland.com

 

 

"The parking lot property is absolutely essential to meet the parking requirement for Phase 1," she wrote in an e-mail. "Without it, additional structured parking must be added that cannot be supported economically without additional public subsidy."

 

This is the dumbest shit!  We don't need more parking a train line runs RIGHT THRU the development.  This is the perfecto time for the City, RTA and the WHD to play up the WFL!

yea this is ridiculous.  also i could understand if the development was in the middle of the wolstein proposal but cmon, it was gonna be surface parking either way.  condos are a good thing. 

Also, the top level of the LL parking deck will be for public parking. The top level of the deck's east end will be flush with Main Avenue -- so if you're driving down the hill, it will look like a surface parking from that angle.

 

I suspect Wolstein is less pissed about the parking and more pissed that LL might depress residential sale prices at his development. Sorry chief, but it's called competition. If he really is pissed about the parking, then he needs to pay closer attention to the LL plan -- and give more attention to the Waterfront Line.

Maybe I'm doing some crazy math or something, but with this plan there will be a net gain of roughly 240 parking spaces, which is more than the number of units proposed.  If anything this proposal might help to get the ball rolling on establishing a true neighborhood.  I'd personally feel a bit more confident in my investment if I knew that there were an additional 220 units of a similar price point going up in addition to the Wolstein proposal.  Hopefully this gets hammered out and both parties can continue with their projects and work together in an amicable way that will truly benefit the future of the area.

This project is a stone throw from the proposed District Park, which hasn't happened despite being much further along than the Shaias are.  So I'm less optimistic than I want to be.  I am really miffed at the attitude of the politicians.  They act like two developements are one too many!

CtownD, you beat me to it...  when you consider the argument that's being made by some Wolstein reps about the "absolute necessity" of having the surface parking lot for phase 1 of the FEB, they sound like whiney brats. 

 

Consider that the first phase of this project is proposed to start next year.  Actual construction of FEB buildings (there is still a TON of infrastructure work to be done prior) isn't scheduled to start for another couple years.  The occupancy rates for the first phase of the FSL towers would most definitely not be 100%, so if the FEB starts to open up, there will be far more available parking spaces on the FSL site (in the garage) than there would be if it were still a surface lot.  Plus, there's a glut of parking lots around there anyway...not to mention the freakin waterfront line!

 

And, seriously, how can Wolstein's people NOT acknowledge that another 220-odd units of upscale housing adjacent to their largely retail project wouldn't help validate what they're doing???  I find their immediate opposition to be selfish, short-sighted, and flat out ridiculous. 

 

In any city with a market that's on the up, competitive and clustered development would be the norm.  Construction by multiple developers would be proceeding at the same time and everyone would win.  I'm more than peeved...

 

Then again, if this turns out to be a ploy by Shaia to get more $$$ from Wolstein, then I'd be even more pissed.  But I'm really counting on that not being the case!

^ Excellent points (both MGD and CtownD). I also got the whiney tone from Nancy Lesic -- but she was whiney (and downright nasty) when she worked as Mayor White's spokeswoman.

^ Nancy Lesic -- but she was whiney (and downright nasty) when she worked as Mayor White's spokeswoman.

 

She is a ----!

 

 

By the way, I'm impressed with the drawings you posted, KJP.  When were those from?  Who was the architect?  Do they represent massings or actual renderings?

Volpe is the architect that made the presentation yesterday.

^

The renderings that KJP posted make the project look great so far in terms of massing.  I'm curious as to what types of materials they intend to use when facing the towers and townhomes.  My first instinct seems to go with brick and glass, but then I think of The Pinnacle which used glass and steel with a very nice end result that fits with the neighborhood surprisingly well.

 

This whole project seems to be getting a fair bit of press which makes me lean towards thinking this may be the real deal.  WCPN posted a short blurb which doesn't mention much we haven't heard (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wcpn/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=901220) but its more positive ink for downtown if nothing else.

 

This should be a very interesting one to watch in the near future.  Seems as if the different factions of the city stand divided over this, with the Landmarks Commission in one court, and politicians like Cimperman siding with Wolstein.

Wolstien wants the parking lot, but it should be in the better interests of the city for a building there. It would be a little bit different if wolstien was actualy putting a building there, but he isnt. People are arguing that its better to have one person master planning the area, and all the properties being consolidated under the vision of one. I can agree with that with the buildings all along old river road need to be consolidated to get something done, but the front street lofts is one large consolidated highly developable lot. It alone is about  1/3 -1/4 the size of the wolstien propsed land area. I think wolstien is just making a weak argument to poloticians so he can get a land grab on some highly desirable property under the guise of need more parking.

Is it fair that a parking lot owner, whose property isn't slated for any improvements, would like to propose a "higher and better" use for his property after the announcement that the public sector is putting tens of millions of dollars into infrastructure improvements on adjacent land? 

 

This is also no small plan...228 units and over $80 million would be a BIG boost.  Much more so than someone saying that they're building a new night club or just another parking garage on the site...

 

One thing's for sure, though.  If the planning commission sees this through, they have to get a commitment from Shaia that the project will be built and built well.  He can't just build the garage and call it a day.  That would be f'ed up!

Just from reading the article, it sounds like the port authority is on Wolsteins side and really does not back this project what so ever.  I could be wrong.  With that said, it is hard to say whether or not this project would surface due to that relationship.  Does Wolstein pull out of his plan because the city allows this project to move forward?  Does the port authority get ticked off because this project surfaces?  That is probably something being thrown around right now.  In a way it's a win win situation. 

My biggest worry is Wolstein and the Port.  How will they react?  Will this slow the project?

 

I also think that Wolstein is being an idiot as this will only raise the profile of his development.  It would be a lot easier to sign on big name retail tenants if there are two large residential towers next door. 

This shouldnt stop wolstiens project at all. Lets say front street lofts never materialize, so it remains a parking lot still. Wolstien wants a parking lot, there is no reason to take a parking lot through eminent doman to give it to another person for a parking lot. Its a blatent land grab and strong arming by wolstien to stall his own project and blame it on shaias, and force the public into eminent domain for something wolstien wants rather than needs for development. I hope port authority and city council members see how dumb that looks in its simplest form.

^Exactly.  Will it slow the project...not if they put an end to the Lighthouse Village project.  I think it will be Lighthouse village abandoned.  Then the city will look at Wolstein and say, you better start building right this second because we just crapped on a potentially great project.  Also on a credibility standpoint, Wolstein will want to get going right away after all the controversy that has surrounded his plan.  At this point he is a credible developer nationwide based out of this area.  If Wolsteins project does surface, these towers will come to be sometime and somewhere in the area. 

Well, the biggest problem I see is that the Port is against Lighthouse and it is the agency that will be using ED on behalf of Wolstein.

Well, the biggest problem I see is that the Port is against Lighthouse and it is the agency that will be using ED on behalf of Wolstein.

 

are they against this project?

 

Wolstien wants a parking lot, there is no reason to take a parking lot through eminent doman to give it to another person for a parking lot. Its a blatent land grab...

 

word to that...the only way that this makes any sense is if this is an ABSOLUTELY necessary staging ground for the construction.  That, I doubt!

EDIT: I started this post, had to drop it for a little while. Then when I finished I didn't realize others had made the same points above.  So sorry for repeating some of the points above--I agree.

 

I think wolstien is just making a weak argument to poloticians so he can get a land grab on some highly desirable property under the guise of need more parking.

 

Agreed, for him, it's part of his value proposition/business model for this development.  Risk=return.  Wolstein wants to reap 100% of the return for redeveloping the FEB, because he is doing all of the heavy lifting (taking on more risk)--getting public support, redeveloping the infrastructure, generating all of the hype, etc.  If Shaia redevelops that lot, he can piggyback off of Wolstein in a way, lowering his risk, but not his potential return.  His development is more marketable because of the FEB being next door, with the retail, new infrastructure, etc. that the FEB will bring.

 

For Wolstein, the parking lot can fetch big $$$ in a Phase 2 development. It represents very little extra risk because he's going to keep it as surface parking in Phase 1, but huge potential returns if/when Phase 1 finishes/takes off.  In other words, he makes the money off of his hard work on the FEB, instead of Shaia. 

 

The posturing from the "whiner" about parking has to be a ploy because I also agree that parking is not a deal-breaker--the arguments & calculations that others made above have shown that it should be a non-issue. 

 

The question is how hard will Wolstein fight on this one, or will he let it go in favor of the good of the entire project. 

Good points, FrqntFlyr.  Maybe Wolstein has done most of the hard work up to this point, but he's also getting a lot out of it.  He's hasn't in the past and will not in the future buy the properties based on the value that they will have, but rather on the value that they have at present.  That means, prior to infrastructure and other improvements that the City has pledged to do. 

 

This is an interesting question, though, about who gets to reap the benefits.  Basically, the public sector is putting in millions of dollars for improvements that will enable a developer to build a gigantic project that will ultimately increase the city's tax base and pay huge dividends to the developer.  But how can the City deny another developer the right to reap benefits from the public investment as well?  If the dozen or so property owners said they were going to rehab their buildings and ensure viable uses into the future, would that be a good enough reason for the City to commit this much money?  Not likely.  Is it really necessary to bring in a new developer to make all this happen?  At the scale that Wolstein is proposing, probably.  Would he do it without full ownership/control?  Probably not.  Hence, conflict.

 

When it applies to Shaia's property, however, I see less of a necessity for this conflict.  It's on the fringe and is viewed as a long-term prospect for the FEB.  How this is made to fit into the scope of eminent domain proceedings escapes me, but it will definitely make the case a lot more controversial if it goes forward. 

 

The group of property owners that currently exist would be hard-pressed to produce a plan for their properties, one at a time, that is as viable as Wolstein's.  In the case of Shaia's property...on the fringe of the FEB proposal, do we know that Wolstein would be the best person to develop the site?  And as we've speculated on here, how do we know that either one of them will ever build what they say they're going to build?

 

I'm still waiting to hear some sort of official statement from Wolstein.  Hearing from Lesick isn't enough for me!

Let me stop you all from posting further thoughts on this until I've had a chance to fill in some details -- which I will do after I've had a chance to eat dinner (!).

 

I spent much of today on the phone with various parties involved in this whole matter, and while I don't want to preempt my article on Thursday, you should know some issues involved here.

 

So give me an hour or so before I can elaborate.

You're too hungry for my patience. :)

OK, here's the skinny:

 

First off, the Port Authority (PA) is neither pro or anti either side in this situation. The PA's work is defined by legislation passed by Cleveland City Council which has set the physical parameters of the Flats East Bank (FEB) development site. Those parameters include the parking lot owned by Victor Shaia's Main Street Parking LLC, and which is the site of his proposed Lighthouse Landing development. Thus, even if Shaia went to the PA (which he hasn't yet) to request financing for the construction of his parking garage, the PA couldn't respond because he and his proposed project are not a part of the FEB development plan as set forth in Cleveland city law.

 

However, Wolstein, the city and the PA have not yet signed a development agreement for the FEB project. Cleveland City Council's Economic Development Committee is scheduled to meet Tuesday morning to potentially recommend to the full City Council that they should approve the development agreement. However, I am hearing that this agenda item for the committee may be postponed to the next meeting. I cannot yet confirm this nor do I know the reason why it might be postponed.

 

Shaia has something big going for him -- his plan conforms to the Historic Warehouse District's (HWD) masterplan, and the HWD's Design Review Committee approved Shaia's Lighthouse Landing conceptual plan on April 4. Furthermore, the HWD's masterplan was updated several years ago, before before Wolstein's development was proposed in the adjacent Flats district.

 

Ironically, the Flats Oxbow Association didn't even have a development masterplan until Wolstein's FEB was proposed, and the Flats Oxbow Association's masterplan is identical to Wolstein's plan. That's ass-backwards in the planning world. And, the Flats Oxbow Association did not coordinate with the HWD to ensure the shared edges of the two masterplans weren't conflicting with each other. This is the foundation of the disagreement between Wolstein and Shaia. It has not been helped by the fact that Wolstein has refused to discuss the issue with Shaia, saying instead that all discussions need to go through the PA.

 

Ultimately however, this is all about parking. Wolstein says in order for him to proceed with Phase 1 (with demolition, infrastructure and sewers scheduled to start this summer and construction in 2007), he must have the parking lot which Shaia owns.

 

After today, I am convinced that Shaia is serious about developing his property, and the most compelling reason is one I can't share with you yet. Sorry! But take my word for it. But I can share with you another compelling reason... While Victor Shaia doesn't have any development experience (which Wolstein is eager to point out), his two nephews who run Walnut Grove Development Ventures (WGD), based in Richmond, VA, do have a great deal of experience. It is WGD which will be developing Lighthouse Landing. WGD subsidiaries have developed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of projects, including:

 

Charter Commerce Center – Mechanicsville, VA – At this 7-acre site, zoned for office/service, we have completed the first of two 40,000-square-foot buildings and have begun the process of developing the second. The first building is 88% occupied. We currently lease and manage this location.

 

Cokesbury Apartments – Richmond, VA – Historical building that we converted from office/retail into 20 apartments with retail on the 1st floor. Completed in 1998 the apartments are currently 100% leased.

 

W.T. Grant Building – Richmond, VA – The current building is 45,000 square feet and is located across from the newly expanded Richmond Convention Center. We have begun the process developing this historic property into a 100-plus room extended-stay hotel.

 

Charter Creek Apartments – Mechanicsville, VA – This property consists of 150 garden home apartment units. Completed in 1997, it has realized a sustained occupancy of 96% or greater.

 

Kings Charter Planned Unit Development – Mechanicsville, VA – A mixed-use development including office/service, retail, office park, apartments, and residential completed in 1999, we concentrated on the residential portion of the property selling 573 homes. We developed the property for 6 builders and had our real estate company sell the homes for the builders.

 

Stafford Lakes Village – Stafford, VA – This property is a mixed-use development similar to Kings Charter. We developed and sold 445 properties.

 

Stafford Lakes Village Commercial Property – Stafford, VA – Currently we own 92 acres of commercially zoned property. We are working with another developer and have 25 acres under contract for a 200,000 square foot super Wal-Mart. The remaining 67 acres is split between retail and office property. We are marketing 35 acres of the remaining commercial property to a large box, home improvement company. The remainder of the office property will be developed by WGV after the above is underway.

 

Catawba Ridge – Lancaster, SC – This property is currently under contract and is zoned for an 840-acre mixed use property located on a 3,000-acre lake. The expected density will be between 5,000 and 6,200 units. The property is ideally located between Charlotte, NC, and Columbia, SC, a very high-growth area. Our marketing strategy will target those who want a maintenance-free, lake front lifestyle. The property includes access to a marina, several restaurants, a golf course and the lake.

__________________

 

I'm sure I'm leaving out some tidbits, but the greatest irony is that the city bemoans all the surface lots downtown, yet an agreement with another developer is putting at risk an additional investment downtown of $75 million that would turn a parking lot into a more beneficial use. It would seem logicial that the city should step in and facilitate an arrangement to appease both sides of this issue. If that happens, the entire city will win. If it doesn't, it will send the wrong message to developers who haven't invested here before. And on that score, the entire city will lose.

Wow, thanks for that incredibly coherent and comprehensive post, KJP!  There are a few questions answered and many more posed there.  This has become a much more interesting (and significant) proposal than I think most of us would have expected on page one of this thread.

 

On a side note, the Flats Oxbow Association is run by one of the oddest men I've ever met.  Their website is pretty nice, though!  www.clevelandflats.org  Check out the photos by Munroe Copper...

The plot thickens!

Where is the leadership in this town? 

 

Why can't a politician get the parties to the table and make a deal that's best for everyone ... I don't expect Cimperman to do anything, but I hope that Mayor Jackson can show that he's an actual leader and get BOTH the Shaia and Wolstein deals done !!! 

 

Cleveland needs to encourage development.

I suspect they will help resolve things. But this is still a very new issue/predicament. Efforts to resolve it will likely start as early as next week. If I hear anything, I will pass it along.

From the Flats East Bank thread....

 

Apparently, Shaia has the full support of the Historic Warehouse District to develop Lighthouse Landings with extra parking for Wolstein, meanwhile Wolstein is looking for a "land grab" ... something smells funny!!

 

There's nothing funny smelling. Wolstein isn't acquiring property, the port authority is (albeit with Wolstein's money), and they are doing so under the guidelines as defined in eight pieces of legislation recently passed by Cleveland City Council. At least one of those pieces of legislation designates the physical area to be developed, and Shaia's property is part of it.

 

Shaia had been making noise about developing his property for three years, but noise does not equal a pending plan. Thus, Wolstein asked City Council to include Shaia's property in his development area, and he asked the port authority to acquire property and finance the development for him -- guided by the legislation passed by the city.

 

I can understand why Wolstein doesn't yet believe Shaia's plan is nothing more than a trojan horse. He's dealing with 12 other property owners (aka blight brokers) who want nothing more than to get paid. But I think Wolstein will come to realize very soon that the Shaia Family isn't in this for a shakedown.

From the Flats East Bank thread....

 

Apparently, Shaia has the full support of the Historic Warehouse District to develop Lighthouse Landings with extra parking for Wolstein, meanwhile Wolstein is looking for a "land grab" ... something smells funny!!

 

There's nothing funny smelling. Wolstein isn't acquiring property, the port authority is (albeit with Wolstein's money), and they are doing so under the guidelines as defined in eight pieces of legislation recently passed by Cleveland City Council. At least one of those pieces of legislation designates the physical area to be developed, and Shaia's property is part of it.

 

Shaia had been making noise about developing his property for three years, but noise does not equal a pending plan. Thus, Wolstein asked City Council to include Shaia's property in his development area, and he asked the port authority to acquire property and finance the development for him -- guided by the legislation passed by the city.

 

I can understand why Wolstein doesn't yet believe Shaia's plan is nothing more than a trojan horse. He's dealing with 12 other property owners (aka blight brokers) who want nothing more than to get paid. But I think Wolstein will come to realize very soon that the Shaia Family isn't in this for a shakedown.

 

wonderful news!!   KJP, thank you for staying on top of this.....

From the Flats East Bank thread....

 

Apparently, Shaia has the full support of the Historic Warehouse District to develop Lighthouse Landings with extra parking for Wolstein, meanwhile Wolstein is looking for a "land grab" ... something smells funny!!

 

There's nothing funny smelling. Wolstein isn't acquiring property, the port authority is (albeit with Wolstein's money), and they are doing so under the guidelines as defined in eight pieces of legislation recently passed by Cleveland City Council. At least one of those pieces of legislation designates the physical area to be developed, and Shaia's property is part of it.

 

Shaia had been making noise about developing his property for three years, but noise does not equal a pending plan. Thus, Wolstein asked City Council to include Shaia's property in his development area, and he asked the port authority to acquire property and finance the development for him -- guided by the legislation passed by the city.

 

I can understand why Wolstein doesn't yet believe Shaia's plan is nothing more than a trojan horse. He's dealing with 12 other property owners (aka blight brokers) who want nothing more than to get paid. But I think Wolstein will come to realize very soon that the Shaia Family isn't in this for a shakedown.

 

If their not, then what's the Shaia's point?  Was their "making noise" for 3 years for anything tangible, RE-wise, or did these highly-attractive plans suddenly materialize when (or after) Wolstein got City Hall (in accord w/ the PA) behind him?  If their not for real, then what makes them really that different from the Dirty 12 other than the fact the Dirty 12 clearly, and obviously, have been merely sitting on their boarded up properties, while getting sweetheart lower assessments until (if ever) a Mr. Deep Pockets (aka Scott Wolstein) came along so they jerk him, and the tax board, around in order to get paid?  And we know, as the PD clearly noted, that the Dirty 12's sudden 'plans' behind their representative, Mr. Credibility himself: Tom Coyne, are as tangible as a 3 and a half dollar bill.

 

Obviously, I hope the Shaia's are for real.  Their proposal sounds sounds stunning.  Wolstein's plan is great and all for him, but the more the merrier, obviously, in terms of high-density housing.  But I just can't believe Wolstein's people are as dumb as they seem.  They must be on to something viz Shaia.  I mean, why would they publically call out the Shaia's over some stupid surface parking when they (Wolstein's) could easily negotiate a 500 (or whatever) space parking garage and after Wolstein, himself, had to delicately steer legislation through the City Council gauntly to get street/sewer reconfig, brownfields clean up and every other concomitant infrastructure  makeover along with handing over sufficient land upon which to work -- including grabbing Shaia's land -- which Wolstein crying about for friggin' parking!!??  2 + 2 = 5 here.  I'm in accord with sky: something's odious here... There's got to be something we're not hearing.  Wolstein's people wouldn't (or shouldn't) be so gauche, esp. when Shaia's Front Street Lofts plan, even as dated by the first article posted in this thread, has been be-bopping around town for several months.  While the 12 shakedown artists have offered nothing but, ... a shake down!

 

Please, 'splain to me, someone...

^ I don't understand your bone of contention here. What exactly are you concerned about?

^ I thought I made myself obviously clear, but I'll try again... Why is Wolstein attacking Shaia's plans' credibility? when: a) Shaia's property, unlike the other 12, is adjacent to where Wolstein's development is and where Wostein's only proposing surface parking there, b) when Wolstein glad-handed City Hall to get his proposal  pushed thru, including plenty of bennies, and c) when Shaia obviously is planning something concrete and clearly is distinguishable from the other 12 do-nothings who ARE sitting in the middle of Wolstein's development area but are ONLY trying to hold him up for property the worth of which the fought for, and won (in reassessment) is only a fraction of what they're asking for now?

 

Adjacent development could only help, not hurt Wolstein, esp viz the retail he's putting in... So unless Wolstein's got some concrete plans to develop that land (which, by the way, he's taking from Shaia through the mechanism of City Hall & the PA, and thus usurping Shaia's Constitutional right to develop and make money on his OWN LAND), which obviously he doesn't, why doesn't Wolstein stick to his plan & attend to his own business (like getting settlement with the troublesome 12) and shut the hell up?

At the risk of speaking on behalf of Wolstein, my understanding is that:

 

A) Wolstein apparently believes that Shaia is not serious about developing his property. Nancy Lesic has noted correctly that Victor Shaia has no development experience, but Wolstein & Co. haven't taken into consideration his nephews' development resume. I suspect they simply aren't aware of their resume yet. For that reason, Lesic has questioned Shaia's timing of advancing his project's plans. They view this not as: Shaia plan vs. that of the other 12, but 13 property owners who are trying to get as much money out of Wolstein as they can.

 

B) Wolstein apparently believes that the surface parking is essential to his project and wants to make sure that Shaia's land stays surface parking, thus his desire to acquire it. Wolstein also believes that additional public funds (such as through the port authority) are NOT available for financing structured parking in that area (that's from a direct quote I have from Nancy Lesic).

 

As for Wolstein smoothing the path for his project by cajoling City Council, there's nothing new there. All developers do that.

 

OK, now here's my two questions:

 

> What difference does it make to Wolstein whether someone else owns the surface parking lot if Wolstein is going to leave it as a surface lot?

 

> And what does it matter to Wolstein if 300 residents move in next door to FEB (on Shaia's land and per Shaia's proposal) or if 300 visitors park on that property?

 

Come to think of it, if Shaia can provide the public parking that Wolstein wants (even though Wolstein doubts he can for the reasons stated above) AND can build Lighthouse Landing, that would be the best of both worlds. That's 300 residents living next door to FEB and 250 public parking spaces next door to FEB. You can't beat that with a stick. Hopefully Wolstein will come to appreciate that in the next day or two (and so will the rest of you when I'm permitted to reveal something else that's happening).

you tease

Sorry KJP, but I am going to have to spill the beans..

 

Tony George is going to build a huge crystal cathedral on the site of Fagan's and go into evangelical ministry. :evil: :-D

^

Thanks for letting us in on the secret :laugh: