Because the administration refuses to stop overpaying itself, our (the citizens) only recourse is to demand that concession from them (the entitled) – reduce staffing across the board to drastically cut costs.

If the Mayor cannot justify the acquisition with proven financial benefits – really big payroll reductions – forget about it.

By the way, whoever suggested moving this down to Burton Katzmannville had a real good alternative – maybe this mess should be moved into the old Hallmark, Tenny Roadhouse, the Phat Burger Building and Mesa Computers and be done with it. Nah, that’s all reserved for our preferred developer’s expertise.

We are also getting a LOT less in City services like less libraries, less pools, less City services and on and on and on.

No, I think the core concern that we all have is with the City’s leadership. Over the past two decades, the City – regardless of who occupies the Mayor’s Office or who is on the Council – cannot navigate their way through a real estate development deal.

We have not forgotten the ten year span when the only thing on the Superblock was a Christmas tree during the holidays. We drive by the Burton-Katzman block which hasn’t had an upper floor tenant since it was opened (and shall we touch on the vacant parcel between the two useless parking decks?). Oh, and let’s not forget the beautiful (and I truly mean that) but woefully underused community center that came in obscenely over budget. Meanwhile, the City’s leadership continues to follow merrily along after developers who promise the sun, the moon, and the stars but can never deliver (Roark’s definition of a Developer: anyone who will build anything, anywhere, at any time…using someone else’s money).

So now the City says “trust us, we know what we’re doing”. And they are really going to top themselves this time. They have managed to find a deal that promises to ream the residents of Dearborn twice – once on the purchase and renovation of the new building, and once on the sale of the old building.

First, the new digs: we all know that the ADP building is not in “move-in” condition, right? So what’s the over/under for how much they spend on the building to “bring it up to standard”? Figure that building is, say, 80,000 square feet, and they spend $40 per square foot to renovate. That’s $3,200,000 right there – as much as the purchase price! Suddenly that $5.7 to renovate the current City Hall is looking pretty good.

And the $525,000 that is “set aside” – it will probably get new carpeting, new ceilings, and perhaps HVAC improvements but won’t begin to address reconfiguring walls, build a new council chambers, nor upgrade the electrical and technology in the building. And the City – or more specifically, Dearborn Residents – are going to have to pony up to pay the difference for this new boondoggle. (Yeah, I had the same thought as well…but I don’t think Council will want to have all those parking meters right behind their posh new crib.)

Secondly, there is the sale of the old building. Now I’m not a slick politician, but what is it about the combination of “non-profit developer” (there’s that “D” word again) and “low-income artists” that leads me to think that the City is pretty much giving away our City Hall? We probably ought not to count on using the proceeds from the sale of the old place to fund the improvements at the new place.

Screwed twice on one deal.

What I can’t figure out is who is behind this initiative. I suspect that some interest is working very effectively behind the scenes, whispering to City Leadership about the wonderful benefits of this move. The old line goes something like “follow the money”. Well, I suppose we just have to watch for who makes a bundle off of this move to find who’s behind it.

There are two empty parking decks in West Dearborn that are testament to the adage “if it sounds to good to be true it probably is”. That great deal is costing us at least $600k per year for debt service, utilities, maintenance, staffing and legal fees.

What is the total project cost for the replacement of city hall? The city website makes no mention of the new building purchase cost or expected ancillary costs. What is provided is a marketing flyer. The local paper says it‘s going to cost $3.7M. Add in moving costs, telephone setup, electrical reworking and purchase of modular furniture and the total project costs can and will be significantly higher. Has the city prepared a total project estimate to share with residents?

There is no mention of the anticipated funds from the sale of the old city hall to artspace. Was a formal appraisal done to determine the marketable value of the building or the land? (I’m thinking of the Montgomery Ward site where the city paid twice the value of the property). I’d expect at least a mention on the website that the funds for the purchase of the new city hall are expected to be largely offset by the funds from the sale of the old city hall. Does the lack of such information indicate that the city is “gifting” the site to artspace?

Does the city have a contingency plan if artspace is unable to acquire federal low income housing credits in a timely manner? If not, we can add the city hall to our inventory of empty facilities. What percent of proposed artspace projects failed to move forward because of delays or inability to acquire federal funds? What percent of artspace projects failed after construction and opening?

I am a little suspect on the $23.50 per sq ft cost in operating costs for the old city hall. There’s not enough information provided to determine if the $7.50 number for the new building is truly comparable.

Who is the broker handling the transactions? This should be made public record.

Is artspace a worthy project? Maybe. However, I think the city is chasing a potential buyer in haste and we’re going to be paying the cost.