State court denies Detroit's Packard title bid

[LMich]

The former plant dominates the 35-acre site. With Casab's lawyer unable to detail his client's plans and the city unsure of a further appeal, the property's future remains unclear.

City loses site fight

State court denies Detroit's Packard title bid

Doug Guthrie / The Detroit News

DETROIT-- The city has lost a 10-year battle over ownership of the historic Packard Motor Car Co. plant to an old nemesis -- land speculator Romel Casab.

In a blow to the city's efforts to clear the 35-acre site and sell it to developers, the Michigan Supreme Court this week denied Detroit's appeal of a lower court's decision that put the property back in the hands of private owners including Casab.

He's the Commerce Township man fighting the city in court over ownership of the Millennium parking garage near Cobo Center, and with Wayne County over land vital to a $14 million project to build a railroad bridge in Plymouth. Casab bought both parcels at foreclosure sales.

"Being a Rust Belt city, with a lot of facilities like this, some that go back 100 years, what do you do?" asked Matt Allen, spokesman for Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

"Some should be demolished, some can be reused. Somehow, we need to get titles and environmental issues cleared. But, at this point, this one is not a P&D (planning and development) issue so much as it is a legal issue."

The 100-year-old plant is rich in history, built by architect Albert Kahn and producing more than 1.5 million luxury vehicles until 1956. Its recent history has been colored by lawsuits and accusations Detroit used strong-armed tactics to gain possession of the 3.5-million-square-foot complex.

Now riddled with graffiti and broken windows, the plant at East Grand and Mount Elliott has been sought by the city since 1997, when Mayor Dennis Archer tried to foreclose because of more than $1 million in back taxes.

A year later, 89 tenants in the complex claimed Detroit tried to force them out by erecting a 12-foot fence, beginning demolition and posting a 24-hour police guard, according to court papers. The city had secured $3.8 million in state funds to tear it down and hoped to lure developers by placing it in an Empowerment Zone that qualifies for tax breaks.

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that the city couldn't foreclose because $700,000 paid in taxes was enough to retain control.

The future of the once-grand plant is unclear. Allen said he's unsure whether the city will appeal. Casab's attorney, Barry Steinway couldn't detail plans for the facility.

Proposals to build a museum on the site and resume production of the Packard car appeared to dim in November when Dominic Cristini, who also had a financial interest in the plant and pushed the plans, was sentenced to five years in prison for conspiracy to distribute the drug Ecstasy.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ETRO/702020379

[Exodus]

I've always thought the place would make a hell of a loft and retail complex if it was still structurally sound. It sounds to me like the city once again wanted to raze something, maybe it's good they lost the fight to gain control of the property. Maybe just maybe theres still a little bit of hope that a private owner might redevelop it into something viable while saving history.

[apbest]

they only want to demolish some of it ...it is clear they want to make it a feasible development site. What are these private owners doing? nothing

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by apbest

they only want to demolish some of it ...it is clear they want to make it a feasible development site. What are these private owners doing? nothing

"In a blow to the city's efforts to clear the 35-acre site and sell it to developers"

In other words they would raze the whole thing so you would have a 35 acre field, with "hopes" of finding enough developers to redevelop it in one parcel at a time. It would have turned out like The Cadillac plant "redevelopment" corporate park complex(which is still half empty), The Uniroyal site, The Motown Office Bldg., and Hudsons. Frankly I'm tired of seeing the city I grew up in rip down history for urban prairies, parking lots, or cheap light industrial tin sheds. And what was the private owner doing with it ? Tied up in court with the city for years. You can thank the city for that.

[LMich]

I'm actually weighed more towards the city side, on this, at least in the neighborhoods. The guy who owns this is an obvious slumlord with no forseeable plans to do anything with this. It's architectural significance is debatable, but it does have an argument for it it terms of historic significance. How much longer do we let these old car plants ringing the old city stand? It's becoming even more clear now, now that we can measure a little bit more better the speed at which central city revitaliztion is moving, that the renovation of these plants are still far off. Worse yet, these are projects that would require some very detailed and creative reuses in any city, let alone Detroit.

I don't know, in a case-by-case basis some make more sense to save than others. But, I think Matt Allen, Kwame's spokesman, makes a very good argument in that some of this could be saved, but some of it has to go, and this goes for most of these historic plants.

[Exodus]

We will never know what could have happened in the last 10 years if it weren't tied up in court. We do know one thing, because of it being tied up it sat in limbo allowing vandals to do their thing, and even a fire. The cities track record for ripping down certain things are very bad. They have mostly lead to prairies, parking lots, and at the best a few light industrial sheds.

[LMich]

If the property is such a great renovation project, I'm sure the owner would have been more than glad to sell this off to someone who could have completed this. It's obvious he has had no interest in doing anything with this.

You know, I'm not necessarily arguing for saving or destroying this either way, at least not strongly, either way. But, I'm just as mad at do-nothing slumlords as I am the city wanting to tear everything down.

[Exodus]

I'm not pro slumlord, but we may never know 100% sure what someone might or might not have done in the last 10 years. Maybe he didn't want to let it go to someone else because he might have wanted to be part of what might have been. At the very least didn't want to be bullied out of it or forced to sell, we don't really know that for sure. We do know that the city has a bad track record, and shit never gets done when it's tied up in a legal battle. And who is to say that the city might have jumped the new owner if it had been sold, and can someone sell property while it is tied up in a legal battle like this ?? When you weigh the assumptions that the owner wouldn't have done squat with the property in the last decade with the fact that the property got tied up in court due to the action taken by the city; and the track record that the city has on certain properties, then I have to say this is a small victory at least for right now. Anything else will tell with time.

Also, I do think it has architectural significance. Albert Kahn himself designed the building, and he put his signature on buildings like this, and the design was copied throughout the country. He said he wanted work places to have a little bit of detail and to be more than just utilitarian buildings. A lot of people just blow off buildings like this because "it's just a plant after all". If you look close enough at some of these buildings, you can see a certain amount of detail. On top of that the complex has historical significance like you've said yourself. It's been there for a century, what's it going to hurt to wait a little longer to see what happens ?

[Cleveland Brown]

Originally Posted by Exodus

I'm not pro slumlord, but we may never know 100% sure what someone might or might not have done in the last 10 years. Maybe he didn't want to let it go to someone else because he might have wanted to be part of what might have been. At the very least didn't want to be bullied out of it or forced to sell, we don't really know that for sure. We do know that the city has a bad track record, and shit never gets done when it's tied up in a legal battle. And who is to say that the city might have jumped the new owner if it had been sold, and can someone sell property while it is tied up in a legal battle like this ?? When you weigh the assumptions that the owner wouldn't have done squat with the property in the last decade with the fact that the property got tied up in court due to the action taken by the city; and the track record that the city has on certain properties, then I have to say this is a small victory at least for right now. Anything else will tell with time.

Cities almost ALWAYS drop legal claims and enforcement actions against property owners if they come-up with a viable plan of improvement or in this case any productive land use. The city wants a productive urban land use because it increases employment, raises property values (and thus property tax collections), and productive uses abate nuissances. In this case it seems clear that the city on took action and didn't drop because the owner only wants to keep a hulking eyesore for two reasons (1) land specuation; and (2) tax sheltering. Like the article mentioned, 35 acres in any city is valuable because traditional suburban developments (I'm not supporting this) can be supported. A reasonable property owner would work toward the full development of his or her property. A speculator, on the other hand, is a leech, letting their property deteriorate (and indifferent to the neighborhood problems that letting a huge eyesore rots, spawns). This is also a HUGE tax benefit to the speculator, becuase he can deduct expenses and the property taxes. This way he can offset any gains in other productive property venture (i.e. decrease his taxes) while still holding onto a potential windfall should market forces compel another developer to purchase the land at an artificially inflated price.

[Hayward]

The city has always wanted to level the whole place, not just part of it. I don't know. I love the building, but honest God, I could care less how long it stands abandoned. I don't see anything ever working out with it. It's hard enough trying to build lofts downtown, I can only see this one taking forever.

[Exodus]

It has only gotten worse because it was tied up, and that would cause it to take it longer to redevelop. All I was saying is that it has sat there this long, so it's not going to make or break the city by waiting things out a little longer to see what happens.

[EuphoricOctopus]

Why does it seem the city loses a bunch of court cases? Like everytime the city gets sued they lose.

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by The Nerd

Cities almost ALWAYS drop legal claims and enforcement actions against property owners if they come-up with a viable plan of improvement or in this case any productive land use. The city wants a productive urban land use because it increases employment, raises property values (and thus property tax collections), and productive uses abate nuissances. In this case it seems clear that the city on took action and didn't drop because the owner only wants to keep a hulking eyesore for two reasons (1) land specuation; and (2) tax sheltering. Like the article mentioned, 35 acres in any city is valuable because traditional suburban developments (I'm not supporting this) can be supported. A reasonable property owner would work toward the full development of his or her property. A speculator, on the other hand, is a leech, letting their property deteriorate (and indifferent to the neighborhood problems that letting a huge eyesore rots, spawns). This is also a HUGE tax benefit to the speculator, becuase he can deduct expenses and the property taxes. This way he can offset any gains in other productive property venture (i.e. decrease his taxes) while still holding onto a potential windfall should market forces compel another developer to purchase the land at an artificially inflated price.

So what you are saying is that he is trying to capitalize in a capitalist system? Though it is still speculation that he intended for the property to rot or intends for it to rot, which is also speculation on what might or might not have been done in the 10 years it was tied up.

[Cleveland Brown]

Originally Posted by Exodus

So what you are saying is that he is trying to capitalize in a capitalist system? Though it is still speculation that he intended for the property to rot or intends for it to rot, which is also speculation on what might or might not have been done in the 10 years it was tied up.

No, a pure capitalistic system wouldn't provide tax breaks and shelters for economic waste! In your line of reasoning price fixing and market division (i.e. Rockeffeler and AT&T) would be okay even though they have anti-competitive effects to the detriment of consumers and competitors. I think it's clear that he didn't have a plan since the city's actions were sparked by his failure to pay nearly $1,000,000 in taxes.

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by The Nerd

No, a pure capitalistic system wouldn't provide tax breaks and shelters for economic waste! In your line of reasoning price fixing and market division (i.e. Rockeffeler and AT&T) would be okay even though they have anti-competitive effects to the detriment of consumers and competitors. I think it's clear that he didn't have a plan since the city's actions were sparked by his failure to pay nearly $1,000,000 in taxes.

I was basically joking. I still don't see any real proof that the city would have done anything more viable, or that this guy eventually wouldn't have done something to the property or at least sold it to someone that would have. You can drag someone in court over back taxes, but the rest is speculation. I do know that a decade was lost, and that time will only tell for sure what happens. It's obvious that we disagree on this issue, but a couple things we should agree on is that not a damn thing was done by it being tied up in court for so long, and by a city with a very bad track record on property redevelopment and corruption. So for now the "defeat" over this property is at the very least Ambiguous. At least the complex gets one last chance.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by The Nerd

Cities almost ALWAYS drop legal claims and enforcement actions against property owners if they come-up with a viable plan of improvement or in this case any productive land use. The city wants a productive urban land use because it increases employment, raises property values (and thus property tax collections), and productive uses abate nuissances. In this case it seems clear that the city on took action and didn't drop because the owner only wants to keep a hulking eyesore for two reasons (1) land specuation; and (2) tax sheltering. Like the article mentioned, 35 acres in any city is valuable because traditional suburban developments (I'm not supporting this) can be supported. A reasonable property owner would work toward the full development of his or her property. A speculator, on the other hand, is a leech, letting their property deteriorate (and indifferent to the neighborhood problems that letting a huge eyesore rots, spawns). This is also a HUGE tax benefit to the speculator, becuase he can deduct expenses and the property taxes. This way he can offset any gains in other productive property venture (i.e. decrease his taxes) while still holding onto a potential windfall should market forces compel another developer to purchase the land at an artificially inflated price.

I completely agree. I don't buy the argument that we can't, with enough certainty, understand the reasoning behind the owners lack of effort to redevelop the property. And, saying that it was the city that was keeping him from searching for redevelopment opportunities is actually a more far-fetched excuse than what you mentioned above.

[Exodus]

Regardless of what people think or say, I'm glad the building might have a last chance, and I don't trust the city no more than you guys trust the property owner.