urbanMSP

The city is looking at buying:

http://www.startribune.com/in-hopes-of- ... 422849923/

Many people have been saying KMart is dead for years. This is going to be one of its last stores to go and I don't see that happening any time soon.

So we've been discussing this site for years, across a few different variants of this forum community, but what I don't recall is whether there's any actual reason the city can't just use eminent domain. Obviously a street is legitimate eminent domain usage. It may be extremely expensive, but if they're already willing to pay $8m I can't imagine an eminent domain settlement would be much more than that. Heck, if they wanted they could just take the ROW necessary for the street, and leave Sears with the land, forcing them to actually redevelop with the money they receive since their building would have to be at least partly demolished.

Is it not workable because of some history with the land - for example, the fact that the parcel was actually assembled by eminent domain in the first place - or is it just that the City doesn't want to force Sears' hand and/or pay the higher price that might require?

Lisa Bender has the answer to your question on the Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/lisa.p.bender. ... 22R2%22%7D

I think we'd want to know 'the cost of "making whole" the rest of the property plus legal fees'. We as a city have spent a lot of money on things less worthwhile than this.

Speaking of eminent domain, isn't the 35W access project taking part of SE corner of the property to add new turn lanes and such?

It's taking a bit of the spot where The Good Grocer is currently, which is one block away from the actual Kmart site.

Showing true political acumen, Cano is pledging to vote no unless she gets a broad anti-gentrification platform too. Sigh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Someone should ask her what "anti-gentrification" would actually consist of and look like.

Many have tried (via Twitter) with less than stellar results.

It's a dumb hill to die on. The logic is basically "spending $XX,XXX on YYYY issue is not equitable unless we also have a plan in place to prevent displacement or any bad thing that might happen, and also there are a ton of other things the city should be funding instead." The council approved $20m a year for the foreseeable future to speed up how fast we're reconstructing streets. And another $11m a year for the same time horizon for parks. Cano voted for both of those, even though you could argue that good streets or parks could make low-income areas more attractive for gentrifiers. And while I agree our parks need the love (and there was certainly the hook to focus the money first on areas that need it most), you could argue that's a lot of money that could be spent on affordable housing or rent subsidies or anything else. I'd definitely make that argument when it comes to repaving our side streets.

Anyway, the option to buy the parcel at this price might not be around for very long. The benefit of owning the property outright now gives the city to put in place any number of requirements centered around equity for whenever it's redeveloped.

Cano probably knows that this has the votes in council anyway, so she's using it to push her message/brand. Not that shocking.

Right. My sigh was entirely about what seems like only a PR move rather than an attempt at something constructive.

Just wait until we elect our new slate of council candidates -- Cano's going to have lots of company.

It's really impossible to know how effective any of them will be, but even if 1/3 of them turn out to be half as good as Bender, I would probably call that a win.

Sounds like it's official that the city is buying the Kmart site, for $7.2 million. Now they need to figure out a way to kick Kmart out (or wait for them to go under).

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis- ... 429755363/

The F&C article about the Kmart included the following jaw-droppers:

The current rent that Kmart pays works out to be $1.14 / square foot. (For reference, typical Minneapolis retail rents are in the $15 to $25 / square foot range.)

The lease also gives Kmart the right to sublease the space without the city's approval.

So, hope you like shopping at Kmart (or whoever they sublease it to) through 2053.

That's been Eddie Lampert's entire Sears/Kmart strategy for a while:

1. Get great sq ft deals on rented real estate from land owners afraid of what would happen if Sears/Kmart went under.
2. Transfer the lease to Lampert's other company, Seritage
3. Sublease at market value

Lampert is disgusting, even by Wall Street standards.

In this case it appears to be the original lease that was negotiated back in the 1970's, so I'm not sure that we can blame Lampert for this one.

Not for the original negotiation, no. Milking that negotiation for his own personal gain, however...

Lisa Bender has the answer to your question on the Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/lisa.p.bender. ... 22R2%22%7D

Why not just use the eminent domain to level Kmart and reconnect Nicollet, and then let someone else (even Kmart) build on the rest of the parcel? Or is there something I'm missing? The city has to make the area "whole?"