Comments to DDA on 7.19.12 by Jane Creswell click 2 Xs to read

Open Letter to DDA, City Council, Residents of Chelsea 7.19.12

 Preservation Chelsea

J

PO Box 63, Chelsea, MI 48118

uly 19, 2012

Open letter to the Downtown Development Authority, City Council and residents of Chelsea:
All five resolutions presented during the meeting of the Downtown Development Authority on January 19, 2012 were to study situations related to the Longworth Property and Jackson Street corridor. Included among those five resolutions to be studied is the option of demolition of the Daniels addition showroom and the livery.

Since resolution number two is on the agenda today (demolish Daniels addition showroom), what is the evidence of that study? Although resolution three is not on the agenda today (demolish the livery), it should be noted that during the meeting on June 21, 2012, Mark Heydlauff said “The Livery building is old and used up and should not be saved.”

Questions that flow from the study of the situation are:

• Is there an appropriate engineering study completed that documents that the Mack Building is structurally stable enough so that it won’t collapse when its neighbors are removed?
• Although there will be hazardous waste remediation, what are the effects on ground water when buildings are demolished?
• Under Section 29 (2) of the Downtown Development Authority Act (MCL 125 1679, PA of 1975), a DDA is required to refer proposed changes to the exterior of sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places to the State Historic Preservation Office for comment. Has the SHPO been asked for its comments? What were they?
• The adjoining land is owned by the depot, but being proximate to a railroad line, what federal licensing may be required to do major work at the site such as demolition? If such licensing is required, doesn’t that trigger a Section 106 proceeding under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for federally licensed or assisted projects?
• Doesn’t the use of federal funds from the EPA trigger a Section 106 proceeding?

The DDA has a responsibility to produce the results of the study before there is a vote for demolition of any part of the Longworth Property.

Very Truly Yours,

John L. Frank

President,

The Sun Times 7.18.12, front page, click 2 Xs

Sun Times 7.18.12, p 9 click 2 Xs to read

Sun Times 7.18.12, p 9

The question everyone should be asking: What Went Wrong?

John Frank repeated his request of DDA to City Council 7.10.12: initiate a committee to meet with Kadushin Associates

I’m John Frank; I live at 138 East Middle Street.

I am requesting that you please appoint a committee to meet with the developer, Kadushin Associates, who submitted a proposal to rehabilitate the Longworth properties. I made this request to the DDA at their last meeting and I was ignored.

The purpose of this proposed committee would be to resolve several misunderstandings that were created by a resolution the DDA passed on June 7^th.

When they presented their proposal to the DDA at a special meeting on May 31^st, Kadushin Associates made clear how they expected to finance the project, and the required timeline. At the following meeting on June 7^th the DDA passed a resolution that Kadushin perceived as having erected two insurmountable barriers. Some members of the DDA now say that the resolution did not say what they meant, and that led to a misunderstanding.

Upon receipt of the resolution Abe Kadushin asked our City Manager to meet with him to clarify these issues. Abe told me that he was stunned that the City Manager refused to meet with him. This was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” ----- Abe then took the advice of his attorney and withdrew their offer, and told me that trying to work with Chelsea was, quote, “too much hassle” – “too much hassle”.

I believe Chelsea will suffer if we are silent about what we know from experience is wrong. And what is my experience? Although I do not own a business in Chelsea, I did devote eleven years, prior to my retirement, as a Senior Partner in a 250-person consultancy that worked with large organizations, helping them to improve their business processes. I do know something about business.

My experience in business taught me that criterion number one in doing business is:

Love Your Customer. A developer is – or should be thought of as – an esteemed potential customer. This customer wants to spend 3.7 million dollars in our community to create new tax-paying business. We ought to reach out to him. Make it easy for him to do business with us. Instead of saying, as one us did, “I for one am not ready to move forward by inviting them back,” we should have said “I will meet with you at your convenience to resolve misunderstandings and I will work with you to find a mutually beneficial way for us to move forward together.”

Since the name on the deed for the Longworth property has the City as the owner, it is time that the City Council exercise leadership on this matter, in accordance with the ethical principles for the government of the City of Chelsea. A non-voting sub-committee could be appointed to meet with Kadushin for the purposes of exchanging information and resolving misunderstandings, without violating the Open Meetings Act. Surely this ought to be done.

I request that you please appoint a committee to meet with the developer, Kadushin Associates, to resolve several misunderstandings that were created by the resolution the DDA passed on June 7^th.

Thank You.