I attended a meeting last week on the various options for rebuilding Capitol Drive.  There are two main options, one with bike lanes, and one without.  In designing the options, the engineers considered tradeoffs between bike lanes, driving lanes, sidewalks, trees, medians, turn lanes, and other design components.  Needless to say, bike lanes change the amount of space available for other components. 

For more information on the two working designs, visit the Capitol Drive reconstruction information website. 

Rumors have been circulating that up to 50 trees may be removed in the course of this reconstruction no matter which option they go with.  In viewing the website, I do not count this number when viewing the various options.  If anyone can tell us conclusively either way, please go ahead and post a comment. 

At last night’s meeting, the board approved two new consulting projects worth $26,000. 

1. The first ($16,000) is for a plan related to bluff improvements near the Sunrise Facility.  While the details of the study were not at all clear to me, it has something to do with planning for bluff stabilization and foot/bike bath construction.  The purpose of the study was similarly confusing to the members of the board, prompting 30+ minutes of discussion between members of the Board and Village Manager Chris Swartz.  Vote passed: 6-0. 
   
2. The second ($10,000) is for a consultant to create a village-wide plan for bicycle traffic.  This study is prompted by the upcoming changes to Capitol Drive, and the desire to study the possibility of including bike lanes.  This study may not actually occur, since the vote yesterday was to authorize the Village Manager to commission such a study, if necessary, rather than a vote to make the study happen.  Vote passed: 6-0.

I believe TIF funding can be a potential problem for other reasons, but disagree with Dave’s overall assessment that declining residential property values necessarily spell trouble for the TIF.  What would spell trouble would be if the Ravenna developer, the Lakewood Developer, and Sunrise all decided to cancel their projects, and no other developers decided to build or renovate anything in the TIF district.  If none of the commercial properties in the district appreciate, we will indeed be in trouble.  I see that as unlikely, given the genorisity we have shown with public funding, and the several high profile new developments that are now in the works.

We have funded some public improvement, activities, and developer incentives with TIF funds, and have more that we are targeting.  We are planning to pay these off with the tax revenues from the expected rise in the value of the properties that fall within the TIF. 

These will come both from renovation, and new development.  Sunrise, for instance, will bring in a stream of tax revenue well in excess of what Riverbrook and Touhy provide.   The Ravenna will increase the amount that was offered by the Gores house and the office building that was previously on the site.  The Lakewood building will provide a larger stream of tax revenue once the planned renovation is complete.  Other surrounding buildings will likely also appreciate, as the district as a whole grows and improves.  These increases in tax revenue will be used to repay the bonds we have taken out for streetscaping and other TIF activities.

The problem would come if we spent millions on public infrastructure, and saw no rise in the total assessment of the properties within the TIF.   In this case, we residential tax payers would indeed be responsible for funding the improvements we paid for with TIF supported bonds, as Dave suggested.  Given the developer commitments and interest we have seen in the Oakland and Capitol areas, this seems unlikely to me.  

I would argue that there are other dangers of heavy TIF usage, including impact on School Funding, and overpaying current owners for their properties, once the word gets out that the public wallet is open.  But I do not believe that declining residential values necessarily spell trouble for the TIF district. 

This comes by way of a friend at the Legion Post (hat tip, Joe). 

The AB Data Building in Shorewood is now advertised on the CB Richard Ellis website. 

• Sale price: $3.5 million
• Listed as a: "OFFICE BUILDING FOR LEASE OR SALE / REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY." 
• Building size: Approximately 28,609 square feet
• Lot size: Approximately 45,750 square feet or 1.05 acres

Here is the full advertisement.

The AB Data building on Port Washington Rd in Fox Point is also for sale through CBRE. 

Several Updates, 3/14/08

1. There is now a For Sale sign in front of the building on Wilson Dr.  Prior to placing the sign, AB Data had, within the past several weeks, made indications to Village officials that they intended to keep the Shorewood location open.  
2. The Village officials I have spoken with did not know that AB Data was planning to put the building up for sale.
3. The real estate agency is CB Richard Ellis, the same agency that executed the sale of the Riverfront site to Sunrise Senior Living.
4. Back when AB Data first announced that they were purchasing the former Manpower Building, I wrote a post on the possibility of AB Data leaving Shorewood.  After that post, I heard from several Village officials reassuring me that AB Data was not closing the Shorewood location, and instead would simply relocate certain staff to the new location.
5. As of this moment, the Village officials I have spoken with have no knowledge of specific transactions in the works related to this property.
6. AB Data is located in the Tax Increment District.  As such, transactions involving this property could potentially include developer incentives, as in the case of the Ravenna, Sunrise, and Lakewood projects.

3/17/08

I have received new information that AB Data may be leaving Shorewood.  Updates to follow.

One last post about the Sunrise Development (now all but certain), and then we will move on to other things.  Since it became public, the discussion on Sunrise was a spirited debate, with both sides making good points. 

While I believe we could have done better with the site, I see the points made by both sides, and believe the Trustees and the CDA are acting in what they believe is the best interest of the Village.  A few notes about the meeting last night. The lengthy presentation from the CDA and Sunrise covered many angles of the project, from the history of proposals on the site, to financial and tax impact projections, to the aesthetic and "green" aspects of the project.  The proposed building we saw last night was radically improved over the version we saw at the initial meeting in December of 2007. 

The new proposal is much more eco-friendly, including pervious surfaces for the parking lot, a rain garden, native grass plantings along the river, and more green space.  A partial rotation of the building, and re-drawn set of access roads improved both the available green space, and the urban feel of the Capitol Drive frontage.  In my opinion, the building still lacks a certain character, but it is definitely an improvement.

One concern that several readers have raised is whether Sunrise will be able to pay for construction once they start, should their legal and financial challenges continue.  The Village will be shielded from any internal financial volatility within Sunrise Senior Living via the guarantees in the developer agreement that will be signed prior to construction.  What these means for Shorewood residents is that we do not need to worry about the building being left half way done if Sunrise faces additional financial concerns during construction.

I did have concerns about one specific aspect of the presentation.    (Warning: Inside baseball to follow.  Feel free to stop reading here.)  The financial picture presented at the board meeting included a $33 million condominium development on the south end of the lot, in addition to the $13 million Sunrise project.  Wangard Partners has indeed proposed a condo project of this nature for the south lots, and has options open on the relevant properties.  However, the project is on hold due to real estate market concerns.  When I objected to the use of this uncertain prospect in the financial assessment of the project that was presented last night, I was pointedly criticized by one of the trustees who appeared to believe that I was questioning the Village and CDA's accounting principals. 

While the distinction may be fine, my intent was to point out that when we present the project to taxpayers and board members, we should not use a leverage ratio or tax increase forecasts which include the uncertain condominium project.  I have no doubt that the principals used to arrive at the projections were sound, assuming this project takes place.  But while it would be nice to see these condos go in there, we should not tell taxpayers that we will be getting $1.1 million in new taxes in the future, or that the leverage ratio will be 9 to 1, when 75% of the projected increased valuation will come from a project which is not yet certain. 

One final open concern.   I am not certain that the school district will ultimately benefit from this project.  Generally speaking, large run ups in property values with no additional school children for Shorewood have a negative impact on school finances due to revenue caps and state aide formulas.  I have not run the precise numbers on this question, but was hoping to see this issue covered during some part of last night's meeting.  I am very willing to be wrong on this question, if anyone can enlighten the rest of us on how this development will impact the school district.

When all is said and done, this is an improvement over what we saw in December.  And I am very ready to talk about something else for a while.

I am opposed to the Sunrise proposal.  Having read many of the associated documents and emails related to the Sunrise project, I appreciate the amount of staff work that has gone into it.  However, built up momentum is not a reason to move forward, if Village residents would be better served by putting on the brakes and reversing course.   Why am I opposed to the Sunrise proposal?

1. Sunrise is not a corporate citizen we want in Shorewood right now.  Accounting fraud, insider trading, irregular stock options policies, and defamation lawsuits are only several of the questionable aspects of Sunrise’s corporate governance as of late.  Their treatment of their own shareholders at their annual meeting led the New York Times to publish an article entitled “Welcome to the Annual Meeting. Now, Be Quiet.”  As it stands now, we are prepared to pay $800,000 in incentives, and millions more in infrastructure upgrades to bring this company into Shorewood.  We can do better than Sunrise.
2. The plan meets only one goal, and not the most important one.  The only discernible benefit to this plan is a significant increase in the property tax rolls.  Other worthy goals, like attracting school aged children, and maintaining Shorewood’s charm and character have been elbowed roughly aside.  If the reason we have not seen mixed use or residential proposals is because of the negative residential real estate environment, as President Johnson suggested in an interview, surely we can wait several years until the market improves.  Whatever we put on this site will be with us for decades.  Temporary market conditions should not control what goes in there.   
3. The plan is not in keeping with Shorewood’s character.  Several architects offered critiques of the proposal which resonate with me, calling the proposal a “stock plan,” and “not the best design for the village,” and “out of character with Shorewood.”  I personally stray toward the more harsh assessment offered by a city planner in the UK, who called the Sunrise proposal in his city “alien, overbearing, and visually dominant.”
4. We could potentially do better by waiting.  True, the Sunrise proposal may be the best alternative to emerge to date.  The land value increase and tax advantages of the proposed Sunrise development will be significant.  However, I am convinced this proposal is worse for Shorewood in the long term than what is on the site right now, and definitely worse than what we might obtain with a little patience.  While a rejection of the Sunrise proposal may temporarily cause developer interest in our Village to lessen, this interest will return as time moves forward, and the value of our available development sites becomes apparent.  I believe this delay in new development is a price Shorewood residents will be willing to bear to keep the Village's unique identity intact.

A "No" vote on Sunrise would signify a clear return to the distinctive values and unique atmosphere that have made Shorewood a great place to live, and send a signal that this period of slip-sliding toward Stepford is over.  I urge our Trustees to vote "No" on Sunrise.

I had plans for a multi-part series on Sunrise Senior Living and the Riverfront development site, giving readers the details on everything that has happened with the issue since the beginning.  But our time grows short.  The Plan Commission hearing on the issue is tonight, and the Village Board votes next Monday.  As such, I have put together a rough outline of what happened. 

Before we get into the outline, I need to emphasize that the Village Board does have the power to stop the Sunrise development from happening.  It is not a done deal.  Yet.  So if you feel passionately that this the Sunrise Development is not the right thing for Shorewood, now is the time to email your trustees.

Ok, here is the shortened version.

1. Sunrise Senior Living first approached the Village in August of 2006 through Andy Stefanich (An SHS classmate of mine), a commercial real estate agent for CB Richard Ellis.  At that time, the Village had already gone through several iterations of planning for the site, including the original Master Plan recommendation, and early interest from several developers who later pulled out.
2. There are currently 3 properties on the site which are or have been for sale.  Milwaukee PC, the Touhy Apartments, and the Riverbook Restaurant.  Sunrise has been in negotiations with the owners of these sites since as early as September, 2006, according the Open Record emails.
3. As it stands now, Sunrise is the only property which would be put on the site.  Other proposals, including condominiums, and an Advanced Health Care Clinic have been unsuccessful.  In the case of AHC, their proposal was even more out of line with what Shorewood is looking for than what Sunrise is offering.  The condo proposals were abandoned, at least for the time being, due to the sluggish real estate market.
4. Most of the early negotiations took place with Village staff rather than Village Trustees.  President Johnson was involved in some of the earlier meetings.
5. Negotiations and planning have gone through many twists and turns, including details related to traffic control, parking, building plans, the orientation of the building, green building concerns, and subsidies to the developers, among many other details. 
6. Email records indicate that members of the Village Staff were not aware of the legal and ethical issues confronting Sunrise Senior Living until as late as December of 2007. 
7. The final proposal would be as follows.  Sunrise would buy the Riverbrook and the Touhy Apartment Building.  They would build the assisted living center, which would take up the entire Riverbrook lot, and 1/2 of the Touhy lot.  The Village has guaranteed that we will repurchase the other 1/2 of the Touhy lot from Sunrise for $800,000. 
8. Various zoning changes and parking exceptions would be required for this deal to take place, all of which will be voted on at the Plan Commission and Village Board level within the next week.

Protecting our Riverfront is a community endeavor, and therefore we should work on it together.  I have reduced the email pile from 1,800 to about 700 (about 55 pages total) that are in any way related to Sunrise or the Riverfront property.

I will be writing about certain aspects of the emails in the days to come.  In addition to my efforts, I invite you to collaborate with me, in a community research effort.  As you are reading, if you come across anything interesting, please feel free to write your own story, or piece of a story, and add it as a comment below. 

Note: Large file, may take 30-40 seconds to open.

The Village has released about 1,800 emails in response to my open records request.  A large portion of them are unrelated to the Sunrise development, due to the way I formatted my request (i.e. anything containing the words "Sunrise", "Riverfront", etc.)

I am sorting through them to find what relates to Sunrise.  Once I have done that, I will post them for your perusal.

A few more "unnamed" reader comments about Sunrise...

Comment 1:

 Steve, FYI here are a few interesting websites about how Sunrise Senior Living:  

1. Story 1: Fought back against a community that tried to prevent it from building and won (would they also do that to Shorewood)?  In part because precedents had already been set.  
2. Story 2: Abandoned their plans and allowed someone else to come in and take over after the building was built (a concern that has been raised before)  
3. Story 3: An interesting blog dialogue that includes the public and workers from within Sunrise. 

This company is so against what I feel Shorewood stands for - they don't care about the village. 

Comment 2:

Why did I find this so funny....and relevant?

          

Comment 3:

What I have been reading, that you have sent me, is scary. I feel Shorewood is going too fast to change what is a truly great place to live. I am quite upset with the people who don't seem to care about keeping Shorewood a great residential place to live, located near everything. 

Now they want to add senor citizen housing. If they do, it better be like Catholic Home or Bradford Terrace, not like the ones (River Park) on Oakland . Everyone that lives in Shorewood pays a hell of a lot of money on taxes, their homes, upkeep...the list goes on... I don't understand why Shorewood does not look at doing things more upscale.

I am ok with change, but not an uproar of it. The village must think of the quality of living and their residents' residences first...

I submitted an open records request on January 15th, 2008 for electronic communications relating to the Sunrise development.  Since that time, I have had extensive discussions with Village officials regarding this request, but have yet to see any of the documents.  Given the rapidly approaching public hearing, and Village Board vote on this matter, I am troubled by this delay.

I happened to order from China Palace tonight.  In the bag with my food was this note.

The owners of China Palace own the building (4511 N. Oakland) that contains the restaurant. As such, their closing may be an indication that a sale of the building is pending.  Also located in the building with China Palace are a small grocery store, and the North Star Bistro. 

At this time, I have no specific information on who the new tenants or owners might be.  Rumors were flying back in November of 2007 regarding a potential sale of the building, but I have not heard anything since.

Lawsuits are still underway in relation to last fall's dismissal of senior executives in the accounting and insider trading probe.  The one described in the Washington Post Story below was filed in September of last year.  This lawsuit is getting more and more salacious by the day, with Sunrise now alleging that the former CFO, Mr. Bradley Rush, had "more than 25,000 unique pornographic images" on his company owned computer.

Former Sunrise Executive Sues Firm
Ex-Finance Chief Says He Was Fired Out of Retaliation

By Cecilia Kang
9/19/07, Washington Post

Sunrise Senior Living's former chief financial officer, Bradley B. Rush, yesterday sued the McLean assisted-living company, claiming that it fired him in May in retaliation for his uncovering improper accounting practices.

In a complaint filed with Fairfax County Circuit Court, Rush claimed breach of contract and defamation. The complaint alleges that Sunrise's senior management "initiated a public and private campaign to defame Mr. Rush directly and through innuendo." It says the company suggested that he destroyed documents to make it appear as if he was responsible for the accounting troubles. (READ FULL STORY)

I will have much more on Sunrise in the days and weeks to come.  Village Manager Chris Swartz and CDA Chairman Pete Petrie spent over an hour going over the history of the river front site with me in fine detail.  I have also filed an open records request with the Village for all communications related to the site going back several years.  I will have much more detail on all of this very soon, and will post as many of the documents as I can.

The controversy regarding the development of the riverfront site continues to grow.  I caught up with Shorewood Village President Guy Johnson prior to last Monday's Village Board meeting (1/7/08), and we talked at some length about where the potential Sunrise deal came from, its chances for approval, and other topics related to the development. 

President Johnson agreed to have his comments posted.   By way of full disclosure, the only editing I did was to my own question text, to make the questions more clear.  I also reordered some of the paragraphs to group together comments on similar topics.

Do you see any specific concerns regarding the proposal Sunrise has submitted?

"I guess if I were thinking of reasons of concern it would be, it is single usage.  But it is a single usage that is going to be necessary as the baby boomers age that could go to the next 30 years, 40 years.  You can't turn it into apartments at any time because the units are too small."

What do you think the barriers are to a more mixed use type of development on this site?

"Well, some of it's probably the fact that it's a tougher economic decision because of the housing market right now.  And we thought we would probably have something for the second half and the whole Milwaukee PC piece, but the one that was looking the best on it is pulling back right now because they want to wait and see what happens with the market.

"I hear some people saying 'get somebody else in.' Well you don't just get somebody else.  That's not the way it works.  It was for sale, and all of the sudden this came out, and it was decent.  But I would rather see a nice mixed use with restaurants on the first floor...but nobody bid on that. 

"I talk to some people, and they just think the Village has control and we can do what we want.  But that's not the way it works. We can't just make it happen."

What incentives are we offering to Sunrise Senior Living for developing this site?

"We'll do some infrastructure with the roads, and plus that half a property.  It's three properties.  You've got the restaurant, the apartments, and Milwaukee PC.  So the first two, they only want one and a half of them.  So they're going to do the option on the whole second property, but they want a guarantee that we'll buy it back from them.  We'll buy the half of the piece.  So what it is, it's not really an incentive, it's just a protection.

"If we go through with it, we told them this is what we will do."

Do we have any flexibility on these incentives, if a better development were to emerge for this site?

"The CDA and the board are for it.  If there is something better that came up, but there is not going to be something better.  This was advertised to all of the developers that know anything about developing know about that property.  They all knew about it before too.  They come in and they start talking about it. 

"Originally, the other possibility was Advanced Health Care.  I mean they wanted to just put a big parking lot around it.  And we were trying to force them to go underground with most of it because we didn't want it to look like a suburban parking lot."

If we decide this development is not in the best interest of Shorewood, what power do we have to change the outcome?

"The CDA wants it.  The CDA is recommending it and the Board is moving in that direction right now.  Everything we have been doing so far is for the transaction.

"I mean if what we are trying to do is increase the tax base in Shorewood, this is what we're doing.  That's not a good location for school aged children.  I am just talking about the location.  And that's the thing that's the hardest too.  You know, there is an apartment building there, and some people have lived there for many years too.  But you've got an apartment owner that wants to sell.  I mean, if they've got a gripe, it's against the owner."

I wish this story were being written about a new development project in Shorewood. 

Aloha, green
Pabst brewery redevelopment takes ecological cues from Hawaii project

By AVRUM LANK
alank@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Jan. 14, 2008

Milwaukee is more than 4,000 miles from Hawaii, but knowledge can move between the two places quickly.

Consider an ecologically friendly luxury house recently completed in the mountains of Maui by a subsidiary of Milwaukee's Zilber Ltd.

The structure, dubbed the "Good Home," cost $2.5 million and was a research and development project of Towne Island Homes, a Zilber company based in Hawaii, spokesman Michael Mervis said.

Some of the knowledge gained in Hawaii will be used in Milwaukee as part of the 21-acre Pabst brewery redevelopment being carried out by another part of the Zilber organization.

The goal in Milwaukee as well as Maui is to make the development as ecologically friendly as possible.

The Maui project was designed by Zilber personnel, who also supervised its construction. The idea was to "take the kinds of thought patterns we used there and apply them to Pabst," Mervis said.

In both places, Zilber hooked up with the United States Green Building Council, which has a LEED program rating system. That is an acronym for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. In Hawaii, the house meets the requirements for a LEED gold rating, the second highest possible. The top platinum rating was out of reach because the house is not well enough integrated in an urban neighborhood to allow for saving of energy on things such as mass transit and nearby shopping.

The Pabst development also is striving for a LEED gold rating, Mervis said.

Water considerations

Zilber is serving as master developer for the Pabst project, bringing in other firms to work with individual parcels at the old brewery. The city is providing about $28 million for infrastructure financing and, as part of that effort, the Milwaukee Common Council is considering zoning changes that would require developers to sign off on an agreement to abide by several environmental guidelines.

However, because the other developers will not be required to meet the highest LEED standards, a gold rather than a platinum rating is the best that can be expected, Mervis said.

In Milwaukee as well as Maui, water is a big consideration in making the project environment-friendly.

The "Good Home," which sits on about a third of an acre, is set up in such a way that all rainwater is captured before it runs off. It then goes through a bioswale, which is part of an underground collector system where suspended matter falls out. The liquid itself is then returned to the water table.

A similar system is contemplated for the Pabst development, only on a much larger scale, Mervis said. While structures will continue to be connected to the city's sewers, storm water will be directed to bioswales on N. 9th and 10th streets. There, suspended matter will be removed and the water eventually released to the city's combined sewers.

Recycled, local materials

Use of materials also is important for a good green rating, said Shane Jackson, director of environmental projects for Zilber Ltd. in Honolulu.

"As much needs to be recycled as possible," he said. The ratings also approve of material that is procured within 500 miles. That is a challenge in Hawaii, where most of that circle is ocean. The "Good Home" used local rock and hardwood, and kitchen counters were made on site by mixing concrete with recycled glass and polishing the result so it looks like terrazzo. That was a lot more environmentally friendly than shipping in granite.

Fulfilling the recycling requirement is "a lot easier to achieve on the mainland," Jackson said.

For street paving and the like, the Pabst project is recycling stone from buildings that are being demolished or extensively remodeled. Crushing machines have been shared with the nearby Marquette Interchange project, greatly cutting down on trucking costs and emissions.

Reflecting on windows

One lesson from Hawaii was how and when to glaze windows to get the most efficient use of energy, said Kevin Mantz, Milwaukee-based director of design for Zilber Ltd., who was the architect for the "Good Home."

Different kinds of glaze should be used depending on the relationship of windows to the sun, he explained. Western windows need to be mirrored so that not too much afternoon sun comes in to stress cooling systems, whereas there is no need to worry about that on other exposures.

The Pabst project also is considering ways to tap wind energy through the use of small turbines on common buildings such as parking structures.

How all this will translate to commercial advantage is yet to be seen, although Mervis reports that some prospective tenants are interested in being in a green structure.

Back in Hawaii, meanwhile, the "Good Home" has sat unsold since it was completed in October, just as the real estate market was turning sour all across the United States.

But that is not too concerning to Zilber officials, who feel they have learned a lot by building the house. The downturn also let them use corporate resources that in more hectic times might not have been available.

"This is when to be innovative, at the bottom of the market, not at the top," Mervis said.

The audio clip I posted on January 8th of the Village Board discussing Sunrise was bothersome to me in one specific way.  The comments made by members of the Board conveyed the notion that the Board is really not yet engaged with Sunrise in relation to the upcoming purchase of the riverfront property.

It is probable, in my view, that the members of the board were being truthful that they actually are not privy to the precise details of the negotiations between Sunrise and the owners of Riverbrook and the Touhy building.  However, their comments left the impression that they were just waiting on the sidelines to see if Sunrise does buy the riverfront site, at which point they will get involved. 

In fact, the Village is working to land the Sunrise development with a package of infrastructure improvements and incentives, including the offer to repurchase land from Sunrise. Documents produced for the December 3rd closed session of the Village Board list the following potential incentives.  (View the document) 

• $870,000 for the re-purchase by the Village from Sunrise of ½ of the lot that the Touhy property currently occupies.
• $2.2 million in infrastructure improvements for the Riverfront site.  Some of these will also enable future developments of the back lot of the Riverfront site.

I believe the Board is acting in what they believe to be good faith with the developer by refusing to comment on the negotiations.  However, in this case, there is plenty of information about the transaction which is public information, and about which the Board could have legitimately commented. 

At the beginning of tonight's Village Board meeting, Dan Peterson, Building Manager of the apartment buildings on Sherburn Place (see map) asked about the status of the Sunrise Development.  His question was intended to gain enough information to allow residents to have sufficient warning before having to move out of the building if a sale is pending.

The exchange that followed between Mr. Peterson and members of the Board was somewhat strange, though informative as well. 

Click on the play symbol on the image below to listen (you will not leave this page). The recording is approximately 5 minutes. 

Note:  This is also a test to see if audio files work.  Let me know if you have any problems.

Sunrise is in the news again, closing a Senior Living facility in Philadelphia due to high operating costs and heavy financial losses to the building owner.

Mill Run building to be sold

By GEMA MARIA DUARTE
Bucks County Courier Times

BRISTOL - The Mill Run building is up for sale.  Gordon Simmons, executive vice president of RHA/Mill Run Inc., said Thursday afternoon that The Flynn Company, a Philadelphia commercial real estate broker, has been hired to sell the Bristol building that most recently served as a senior independent and assisted living facility.

"We are still waiting," he said.

RHA/Mill Run, based in Atlanta, owns the building and said the decision to close last fall came after losing nearly $8 million in the last eight years. Sunrise Senior Living, based in Virginia, manages the senior living facility at 1201 Wilson Ave.

At the Shorewood Village Board meeting where the Sunrise development was discussed, a local architect noted that, due to the layout of the proposed Sunrise building in Shorewood, it would essentially be a "single use" building.  By this she meant that, if the assisted living center were to shut down, there is really no other use for the building because of the way it is built. 

The limitation is the very small individual apartments (no kitchen included) and large common areas offered by Sunrise.  This format is intended to promote community living in the assisted living environment.  This format would likely not be suitable for conversion to standard apartments if Sunrise were to close the facility, given the small apartment sizes.  The speaker at the meeting noted this as a "green building" issue, since if the building cannot be reused, it would have to be torn down to make way for something new.

Given today's story out of Philadelphia , this is an issue we should explore closely.

One of my loyal readers ollected these comments and letters from friends regarding the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living development on the riverfront and the Lakewood Building (3575 N. Oakland Ave.) Facade Grant.  (Hat tip, Jaime)

Letter 1.

I am sorry to see the Pig ‘n Whistle end up as senior housing, and it is RIDICULOUS to spend that amount of money for a facelift that doesn't look much different! 

f course, I remember picking chestnuts up from the ground that fell from the trees that grew on the lawns where the apartment buildings now sit across from the police station!  I also remember (and have pictures even!) of a clear view up Cramer from Beverly to Capitol of the towering Elm trees shading the street! I remember when the library was in a cramped space on Capitol Dr .  I guess I am getting old.  Sigh!

Elizabeth

Letter 2.

Spending these days, no matter what party affiliation you have is based on a childish notion of if I can get the money, I will spend it.  Imagine your child in Walmart with $100 dollars.   You can bet he/she will spend all of the $100.  Give him $25, and he/she will spend all of that.  Give him/her $1,000 and he/she will spend all of it, regardless of quality of goods or actual need.

I would suggest that Shorewood is looking for all that you as taxpayer's are un-knowingly, but willing to give.  Tax payers do not usually attend fiscal meetings in great numbers, and usually don't have input until the funds are asked for.   Tax payers are usually not experts on the proposed projects, and usually do not have the ability or funds to investigate costs.  Many times they just go along with the proposal.

 

Further more, taxpayers are told how little the costs will affect their tax bill, and promised that the small cost will be for the good of the whole.  Usually, the lion's share of the "good" goes to the contractors...and their sub contractors and labor force.... and I'm sure they don't live in Shorewood in great numbers.

Also, an estimate of funds needed is never a contract, just an estimate, which always grows with time.
Given the above points, it's easy to see how a huge amount could be asked for to improve a ratty old apartment building.   I agree that a facade is just that, a facade, not not real growth or improvement.

If you don't like it, attend meetings in numbers, protest call city state officials, write articles send press releases to television stations... in short make  a lot  of noise.   Just as Jaime is doing.

 

My Dad's Shorewod tax bill ( 4000 block of Stowell) is over 10 times what mine is here in Indiana!

- Dan L, Class of 1970

Letter 3. 

Hey man.

Yeah, that's a lot of money flying around, in several different directions, eh?

I used to live in the lakewood apartments, and it's kind of a ****-hole, so investing in it seems like a bad idea to me, from a business point of view.  First of all, if they improve it in any way, the residents can only benefit -- that appears, on the surface, to be a good thing.  The problem with it seems to me that it's just going to cost the residents -- aren't they just proposing this to increase the property value, get the building reappraised, and then raise rent to collect more revenue on an investment they themselves didn't make?

As far as riverbrook, I know a number of people who enjoy eating there.  So from the perspective of the standard "political baby" that I am, and many Americans are, it's sad to imagine losing the restaurant.  But senior citizen care is important -- if I read that story right, and they've considred replacing the 1111 E. Capitol propterty with a senior care facility.  I have no way of knowing how reliable or respectable the center would be, and the world does not need more crappy health care.  but a good facility, that's hard to refuse.

I'm only 25 years old.  I make many good decisions, and some bad ones.  This all probably goes without saying, but is probably important for my own personal affirmation, to remind myself of the weight or levity of my opinion.

Thank you for sharing these stories with me.

James

Letter 4.

Yeah, I'm sad to see the Pig 'n Whistle go.  :-(  My father grew up near Humboldt and Clark in Riverwest. When my Uncle Gene and Aunt Margie started dating in the 50's, one of their favorite dates was to either walk or take the bus for custard at the Pig 'n Whistle.

As for the facade renovation of the other building (Lakewood) - I don't mind it so much.  It falls in line with the modern trend of screens and planes.  $800,000 doesn't really buy that much these days.

Shelly