* Three Answers From Mr. Coe
Thanks to Toni at the 24/7 Howardwatcher for providing three answers to three questions regarding the Coe Hole at Morse Avenue and Greenview. Let's start shall we?
1.) Mr. Coe stated the property on Morse and Greenview had to be demolished due to the vagrants in the area.
2.) Regarding the ‘unfortunate’ demolition that resulted in horror stories from our neighbors. Coe stated the demolition was done by a City certified/licensed contractor.
3.) Mr. Coe stated the city licensed contractor had been informed by the gas company the service had been shut off. However, that was not the case.
Blognotes: Tomorrow we will visit a few more of Mr. Coe's 'Broken Promises'. Or, as we call them in the real world, Mr.Coe's lies. Here is a guy who lies to the community and the Alderman covers up his dangerous and unhealthy problems. Why? Because Mr. Coe gives money to the Alderman's re-election fund. That's how it's done here in Rogers Park under the leadership of Alderman Moore.
Posts
7 comments:
At the presentation the other night, Coe stated that the demolition contractor had received 'verbal' notice that the gas at the Morse Ave property had been shut off.
We asked why the demo contractor had not insisted upon written notification, that could be documented and archived, and he said that he did not speak for the demolition contractor.
He also stated that he was engaging another demolition contractor for the Howard St. property.
This is my largest, and only real concern with Coe. Now, strictly speaking, a general contractor is not responsible or liable for work done by a general contractor, or so I am told by an acquaintance who is an interior designer and who deals with subcontractors daily in her line of work. However that may be, we can be forgiven for being skeptical about the quality and safey of Coe's projects, and the qualifications of the various subcontractors involved in the project.
As for the delay in construction on Morse, Coe's explanation sounds plausible enough- that the building had to be redesigned without a basement when a basement turned out to be unfeasible, and that the whole thing had to go through the approval and permitting process allover again.
I like the project proposed for Howard St. It is a very good-looking building that has just the right scale and density for the area, and is the type of building that we should be building for an energy-short future. The apartments are ample and the price for them is not outrageous, and is lower than for comparable units in the area.
I don't believe that we really have a right to demand CPAN units be made available in return for the zoning variance that is necessary to make this a good building. These are semi-luxury units that even with a CPAN subsidy will be completely unaffordable to 'low income' buyers, however you define 'low income'.
Many approved of the Sheridan/Rogers building on the second round...just a little problem with ownership, so another failed project. After years of offerings, Terzakis finally got city approval and the community liked his offerings...another failed project. Then there's the Pivot Point meeting, it was held, and the building is at a standstill. Of course the Gateway mall is what '87% leased' and the only blame can now be put on the el station development! Well, once a year there's a Halloween store for two months.
It was also very convenient that Coe's business partner was out of the country but the meeting was held between Zoning meetings and the Zoning Board of appeals meeting AND on a Bears night game.
The design is fine, it's the force behind it that defies the belief in coincidence. Am I the only one who caught the slip that Coe had spoken to Terzakis? Are Coe and Camelot the only two developers in a city the size of Chicago?
Toni, is Terzakis involved in the Howard St building Coe is doing?
I mean, I caught that he talked to Terzakis, but it did not seem to mean that they were doing anything together, at least on this project. It sounded like Terzakis had tried to sell the Lerner hazardous waste site to Coe, but Coe had felt that the deal was unacceptable.
Fill me in, someone, on the past relationship between Coe and Terzakis.
The Lerner site is really the sort of thing that eminent domain was meant for, as a last resort for a blighted property with problems no one wants to deal with. Only one LITTLE THING bothers me about Moore's intention to seize this property: why is Terzakis not being made to clean that property up, as the legal owner?
I had a client, many years ago, a local manufacturer who made the life-altering mistake of buying a large old industrial property on the West Side that was classified as a Superfund cleanup site. He told me that the law said that the owner had first responsibility, and that the tab for cleaning up this site would be over $50MM, and he had nowhere near that kind of money. He said that he was filing bankruptcy, both business and personal. The upshot was that he was ruined,all because he did not get an environmental audit done on the property before he bought.
Why is Terzakis not being handed the tab, then? He was perfectly well aware of the condition of the property before he bought it. It has been well known for at least 10 years.
Paradise, you were at the meeting. I don't know if there's any 'long time' relationship between the two...I didn't write that anywhere did I? I just find it intriguing that Moore calls for eminent domain, Coe's all over Ward 49 and then in a meeting mentions a 'new development' at the Lerner site. That's why I asked him if he was involved in it somehow. You heard the response. Obviously Terzakis is trying to ditch the property...as for contamination...someone recently discussed having soil samples done and it isn't as bad as the gossip. That's all for now.
It sounded to me like Terzakis was trying to ditch the property and Coe didn't want it. I can see why.
It seems to me, based on what other people (like my old client) have told me in the past, that Terzakis should be the one stuck with the cleanup, and that the city is relieving him of the tab for this by taking the property and giving him 'market value' for it, which is laughable. What 'market value' can it have if no one wants to buy it?
If the property were in the TIF area, the taxes collected by the TIF would be used to clean the site. That is one good use of TIF funds.
I went by today and the permit signs were up and the machines were digging out the foundation. About damn time.
Post a Comment