urbanMSP

F&C Reports - Lawsuit won’t stop council vote on Ryan plan
http://finance-commerce.com/2013/12/jud ... z2nNOyPiPC

Woodruff, Cohen and Ostrow believe that the city’s contribution to the Downtown East project should be considered as part of its share in the Minnesota Vikings stadium, since the development is mere blocks from the stadium site, and a parking garage at Downtown East could benefit stadium users.

State law caps Minneapolis’ contribution to the stadium project at $150 million, and the plaintiffs say the additional cost of the Downtown East deal puts the city over that limit.

Ostrow argued that the two projects are closely related Thursday, while deputy city attorney Peter Ginder said their relation is “incidental” and the city’s involvement in each development should be considered separately.

The Stadium legislation mandates a certain number of structured parking spaces connected to the stadium. The stadium legislation caps Minneapolis' contribution at $150M. Minneapolis is financing that stadium-legislation mandated parking with funds beyond the $150M. I don't know how the judge should rule, but this doesn't strike me as a frivolous lawsuit. The city attorney has shown a willingness to make completely meritless arguments to get these deals done; I see no problem making her defend the city's involvement as lawful on the record in front of a judge.

The lawsuit also alleges that the city would make improper use of state port authority laws to fund the project. The laws give cities the power to borrow as a port authority in order to encourage development of “marginal” properties, but the plaintiffs say there’s nothing marginal about the land.

“It’s more than a little remarkable that property next to a stadium is now being referred to as ‘marginal,’” Ostrow said.

Who knows how this stands up as a legal issue, but it does seem like the city is trying to have it both ways. We've justified subsidizing the stadium because it will make the land attractive for development, and now we have to subsidize development adjacent to the stadium and call the land "marginal" to use port authority dollars to redevelopment. Yet, these are downtown blocks at the confluence of two light rail lines that are being purchased for perhaps $40M (final price TBD). They claim it's marginal land because so much of it is surface parking, but the city previously alleged they remained undeveloped because of intentional city policy to concentrate development in the dt core. It does seem like the city is trying to have it both ways, or will at least say anything (without regard to merit) to get this built.

Ryan and city officials including Mayor R.T. Rybak have said City Council approval is needed this month.

Segal said Thursday that deadlines both to purchase land for the development from the Star Tribune and to secure Wells Fargo & Co.’s commitment to the two office towers fall in late December.

“There are real deadlines here,” Segal said. “This whole thing can fall apart because of delay.”

I see this deal passed, but was it really that fragile? This just doesn't make sense, and frankly this fomented sense of urgency is throwing up some red flags. I don't think the public has really had the information to make sense of this deal yet. It doesn't help that our town's main news organization is so dependent on this going down.

I just can't shake the feeling we won't really know all the consequences until it's too late. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm going to be very interested in the order in which they do things for this project. It's entirely possible to build out both blocks of office/residential and the damn parking ramp without touching the two park blocks.

If demo starts on the park blocks early in the process, it's a pretty strong sign that Ryan only cares about getting rid of the Strib building so the view of the new WF "towers" aren't blocked from the front (oh, the horror). If the Strib building demolition is held up for any reason (lawsuit, etc.) and they go ahead with the development to the north, that whole "this entire development hinges on the two full blocks of park" argument looks pretty shitty. I'm fully of the opinion that Ryan/WF are simply stomping their feet and whining over the continued existence of the Strib building and that it has absolutely no bearing on the success of their development at all. Cynical? You bet!

If demo starts on the park blocks early in the process, it's a pretty strong sign that Ryan only cares about getting rid of the Strib building so the view of the new WF "towers" aren't blocked from the front (oh, the horror).

The Star Tribune still occupies that building and will for some time yet. The soonest they intend to begin vacating it is the second half of 2014.

I assumed they'd be there a while and should have stated as much. If Ryan's wrecking ball takes a swing at the building as soon as Sid finishes cleaning out his desk, we'll know how they really feel.

Removing the building is part of the purchase agreement. So it’s a done deal. For all intents and purposes, the wrecking ball has already swung.

Be careful, Sid's desk is load-bearing.

It is cool that in 2014 a Le Corbusierian development will be built in a supposedly major American city, subsidized by its allegedly broke government, for a bailed out mega bank. Good times.

A Toboggon Race to the bottom.

It is cool that in 2014 a Le Corbusierian development will be built in a supposedly major American city, subsidized by its allegedly broke government, for a bailed out mega bank. Good times.

One would assume that you are referring to Wells Fargo. A bank which was forced to take the bailout. And in doing so, paid back every penny as soon as possible.....with interest. Which made the government money. Yup, damn those bailed out mega banks.

The U.S. government could make money on the stock market at any time if it so desired. That is either here nor there.

It is cool that in 2014 a Le Corbusierian development will be built in a supposedly major American city, subsidized by its allegedly broke government, for a bailed out mega bank. Good times.

One would assume that you are referring to Wells Fargo. A bank which was forced to take the bailout. And in doing so, paid back every penny as soon as possible.....with interest. Which made the government money. Yup, damn those bailed out mega banks.

You know this is pretty tangential to this thread, but you're repeating a load of propaganda here. Wells Fargo wasn't the worst due to their focus as a commercial rather than Wall Street bank, but they were complicit in the same fraud that brought the world economy to it's knees and erased trillions of dollars in wealth. They've paid fines, but have not been held criminaly liable for their crimes. Private citizens who did what these banks did would be put in prison.

Wells Fargo has been propped up by massive support from the federal reserve and has borrowed billions at just about 0% interest for years. They were absolutely allowed to take home the profits and push the associated costs onto the public. Then they have the gall to lecture us about moral hazards. Please read some real business reporting on this subject, like the work done by Gretchen Morgenson, before repeating simple talking points.

What's Corbusian about this development? The mixed-use component? I don't think this is meant to be a self-contained community, or have any kind of utopian element.

The architecture seems more like Gravesian pomo to me, only they forgot to be playful.

Bulldozing a serviceable building to put in a flat patch of grass.

nevermind...

I typically think of Corbusian as in towers surrounded by grass, not grass parks abutting mixed-use buildings - even if there is a lot of parking and likely 'not so good' urbanism on the backs and sides of these buildings (most of which could be helped if remaining skyway-level retail went down to the street).

Yeah, I don't think this project is "tower in the park" by any stretch of the imagination.

The city has about 12 weeks to find such a developer in order to incorporate a second use into the ramp's design

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... -plan.html

Lawsuit: denied.
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/235795931.html

Except for the part about the authority of the city to establish a park, which seems a lot easier to fix than whether or not the city could bond for the ramp.

Judge won't stop $400 million downtown east development
http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/235795931.html

The city has about 12 weeks to find such a developer in order to incorporate a second use into the ramp's design

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... -plan.html

Rad. Now get it done!