cmadler

Fri, Jul 23, 2010 : 6:40 a.m.

Capt M: "Jesus people, give the guy some time. He hasn't had that long to fix the place up." It's been 10 months since the fire. Beal had the property for 2 full year before that. He will have had this property for three full years soon. This is not like trying to build the Panama Canal, it's a single three-story brick building. Besides which, the "give him some time" argument might make sense if Beal had done something -- anything! -- in the last three years. But all he's done is let the property sit empty, unguarded, uninsured, and then block off city streets for 10 months. In three years, Beal hasn't even STARTED any work on the Thompson Block. How much more time should he be given to twiddle his thumbs and tie up our streets?

Stupid Hick

Thu, Jul 22, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.

Steve Pierce, thank you for reporting valuable background information to help readers understand the Thompson Block dispute. It's rare to see informed commentary on this site.

Captain Magnificent

Thu, Jul 22, 2010 : 12:47 p.m.

I'm not a developer so I don't know anything about timelines. I don't know about performance bonds or even who would- is that like bondage? I've never driven a train so I can't comment on engineering. What I do know is that everyone is being completely unreasonable here, except Stewart Beal. These are public streets, and the last time I checked Stewart Beal is a member of the public. He has just as much of a right to use them as the rest of us do. My sense is that a lot of people on here are jealous of Mr Beal and the building he owns- sounds like a lot of you wish you'd had the idea to block the street before he did, but he beat you to it so now it's devolved into a childish case of "hey move your toys Stewart!". Just leave the guy alone and let him get back to improving our city- something that I don't see many other people trying to do!

Steve Pierce

Thu, Jul 22, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.

Capt M, How much time is enough time? When does the city say enough is enough, get the stuff out of the road? Secondly, Beal has already blown through two agreements with no work done to secure the building without blocking the street. His original deadline was December 2009, he asked for an extension to February 2010 and then missed that deadline too. Beal now wants a third agreement. OK, that seems fair, give Beal more time. I agree, give the guy more time. But take steps to make sure there really is progress. How much time should the City give Beal? Well the best guy to ask is Beal. What does Beal say? Beal told the City he needs 8 months. Important point, Beal wanted an additional 8 months. OK So Beal being the expert says he can get the stuff out of the streets and secure the building in 8 months. Cool. The City said OK but the City wanted to see regular progress, not just stare at the same mess and have Beal miss his 8 month deadline. The City Council wisely established some conditions for extending the use of the streets for another 8 months. Conditions most people think are reasonable, including people that routinely do municipal and construction contracts, but Beal thinks these conditions are totally whacked. So what were the terms that were so onerous that Beal said NO! The City has told Beal they would give him a third agreement with an 8 month extension if Beal would agree to 1. post a performance bond to insure work is completed on time 2. establish milestones to insure regular progress is being made over the 8 month period. 3. hire a 3rd party independent engineer acceptable to both Beal and the City to certify that Beals plan and completed work is no longer a hazard nor dangerous to the public. 4. return the Public Road to public use. What was so unreasonable in the City Council asking for these conditions? Seems pretty smart. If you are going to enter into an agreement you should have an agreed upon end game. All the City Council wants is for the building to be safe and the temp structures holding up the building to be off the public streets. This isn't anti-business, this isn't anti-development. This is frankly smart contracting which, given the past history of the City Council with a bad agreements from the the Depot to Water Street, this is a refreshing change for the better. Cheers! -= Steve

Captain Magnificent

Thu, Jul 22, 2010 : 10:38 a.m.

Jesus people, give the guy some time. He hasn't had that long to fix the place up. I think the people complaining have been watching too many house-flipper shows on HGTV. You have to understand that they speed the show up so they can fit it in 30 minutes- the work actually takes way longer than that. Rome wasn't built in a day... do we want Ypsilanti to look like it was?

Steve Pierce

Thu, Jul 22, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.

Mr. Beal has also not done any favors for historic preservation in our city either. He has chopped up not one, but two beautiful single family homes in the Historic District converting them to multi-unit apartments. All without building permits, zoning approval, HDC approval, or rental inspections.

Cash

Thu, Jul 22, 2010 : 6:11 a.m.

@Andy Ypsilanti, "But any way you look at it, it's bad business to take a hostile stand against a developer who claims to have the money and resources to do the project." First you call Beal a developer. I disagree in this case. Developer is defined as: "A person who develops real estate, especially by preparing a site for residential or commercial use. " The property has been a hazard to the neighborhood for years...an abandoned eyesore where vagrants drank and did who knows what else..finally burning it to virtual crisp. Where do you draw the line between "developer" and "speculator"? I also think the City has failed. I think it failed it's citizens. This shell is a public nuisance. To allow it to stand in it's previous condition as an unguarded haven for vagrants and in it's current condition as an eyesore and possible danger to walkers and drivers in the Depot Town area is a failure to taxpayers, both business and residential. Forget all of the idle talk and look at reality. What had happened to that building over the years? Action speaks louder than words. You use the word yourself....."claim". Anyone can claim they have intent and resources to develop. Actions show the real story. There was no action. Years have passed. Then 10 months ago a fire allegedly set by vagrants in the building, finished it off. And yet, there are those who "claim" the shell is going to be developed....still. Why? What exactly is the draw of a leaning shell with bricks and debris everywhere? Why not demolish the shell and start with a nice new building if indeed development is the plan? And spare us the historic preservation line. The buildings demolished on the Water Street property looked more sound than the shell at River and E Cross. Finally if as you say the owner of this building is a "major businesses (sic) leader", then why has the building sat untouched for so many years? The owner had years to make some strides toward development. To quote a Detroit judge "That ship has passed."

AndyYpsilanti

Wed, Jul 21, 2010 : 9:21 p.m.

You are right in that originally we would have been left with a "brick fort". Now Beal claims he has an investor. I continue to say that I don't think the building can be saved. But riddle me this: if the council had FOLLOED THE ADVICE OF THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF and continued to negotiations with Beal until an agreement or clear impasse was reached, do you thin the judge would have been so quick to throw out the case? That's what you, Cash, and watchingypsi are ignoring here. I'm not arguing that Beal is right, or that we have to save the Thompson Block at all costs, or even that there was any value in the building to begin with. I'm arguing that council did not heed the advice of the people doing the negotiating for them, and it has put the city in a far worse position than if they had pursued cooperation, at least until city staff agreed that it was no longer fruitful. That, and it' just bad form or members of this or any city council to level insults at a major businesses leader (like it or not) or anybody else at a public council meeting. I'd prefer a little civility rather than name calling.

Steve Pierce

Wed, Jul 21, 2010 : 8:41 p.m.

To answer another question posted earlier, according to public records Mr. Beal did not have insurance on the Thompson Block. Remember, Beal's draft proposal was to rebuild the walls but not put a roof on the structure. You can't stabilize and protect the building from rain, snow and wind with no roof on the building. Rain would have just continued to pour into the building. This isn't a renovation or historic preservation, it is a brick snow fort with open windows to launch snow balls at pedestrians and cars. No bank or investor is going to loan money on a project without a roof and you sure can't get liability or fire insurance for such a structure with no roof. This was the vaunted agreement AndyY and others are trying to defend. The agreement had no penalties if Beal failed to meet his deadlines and milestones and Beal refused to post a performance bond to insure completion of the stabilization of the walls and removal of the structures from the streets by the Fall of 2010. So these same people complaining now about the council, would be back in the Fall complaining about the stupid council for not taking steps to insure the promises made by Mr. Beal in the agreement were kept. If Beal would have agreed to post a Performance Bond, the Council would have likely gone for Beal's agreement because, if Beal failed to meet the schedule Beal set, the City would have had the money to complete the work. Beal didn't want to agree to a performance bond and then decided to play chicken and see if the Council would really sue. Cheers! - Steve

AndyYpsilanti

Wed, Jul 21, 2010 : 7:25 p.m.

Cash & watchingypsi, You'll note that I said I don't necessarily think Mr. Beal is in the right. I have heard he is difficult to work with, and to be honest, I don't think the building can be saved and it should be torn down. But any way you look at it, it's bad business to take a hostile stand against a developer who claims to have the money and resources to do the project. And again, going to court when the city did just doesn't pass the logic test, and the judge in the case seems to agree. That is why he sent them to mediation. If the city manager (read:city staff) had come before council and said "this is going nowhere and we need to seek a legal remedy" fine, let's sue. But he didn't. He said the opposite in fact, that he and Beal were close to agreement. Council chose to ignore his advice, that is what I have a problem with. I'm not blaming the city for the blocked streets, I'm blaming city council for not following the advice of the city staff in their handling of the situation. Again, remember, according to the city manager's plan, we would have at least one of those streets back by now, or we would be in court with an iron-clad case for bring that sucker down. As it is we have nothing. Except court cost and bills from the city attorney. If you want to cry "he had every chance to develop it and didn't" there are dozens of other property owners in the city we could have this conversation about. It just happens to be that Beal's building was the one to be hit by an arsonist. What if the Maurer's recent acquisitions on Michigan Avenue were hit tonight by and arsonist, and they fought to preserve and try to save the remains of the building, worked with city staff to form a plan of action, and council chose to throw out the work of the staff, insult the Maurers personally, and go to court. Would you be here screaming about how terrible the Mauers are, how they must be lying about their resources and financing, and how they just need to give up their plans and tear their buildings down? As for talking with city officials, I have had have conversations with several, with people on both sides of the vote in council. I have heard some really interesting things in these private conversations, some of which helped form my opinion on this matter. As those were private conversations, I won't be sharing those insights; it would be unfair and a betrayal of confidence to do so. Maybe Mr. Beal is a liar. Maybe he has no ability or desire to actually save the Thompson Block. Maybe his actions are just petty revenge on city council for the insulting things that were said to him. But maybe he has partners and financing ready, and this lawsuit is the only thing stopping him from acting. If that were the case, would you still be telling him to step aside? Would you still think council acted in the city's best interest? That's the problem, we don't know. And going to court prevented us from finding out, and from being able to take proper and timely legal action if Mr. Beal is bluffing. I'm not saying these things because it supports the position of the Mayor or Pete Murdock, or Beal, or anybody else. I'm saying them I believe council failed to follow the advice of city staff and failed to take action in the city's best interest. As for the rest, I can't take anything the Tatt says at face value. You say sarcasm, I say slanderous, bitter, inaccurate, and bad for the community. A fine example of Yellow And if, after being a resident on and off for 12 years, getting involved, taking interest, and trying to do something positive for Ypsilanti means I'm trying to be a player, then I guess all I have to say is don't be hate'n.

Steve Pierce

Wed, Jul 21, 2010 : 11:29 a.m.

Mick52, There are lots of people investing and building in Ypsilanti. The Maurer's have invested millions of dollars in the last 10 years revitalizing buildings downtown and are now the largest single property owner in the Downtown. Their development is not just 1st floor retail, they are taking vacant upper floors and developing lofts. Many of these upstairs areas have been vacant for over 50+ years. The Maurer's just bought three more buildings right on Michigan Avenue in 2010 and have begun the work including Brownfield and tax credits from the City, County and State to rehab these old buildings. The support Mick52 says is needed, is there and others are taking advantage of it to make their projects a success even in this down economy. There are so many new people living in downtown Ypsilanti, the DDA had to, by state law, add a resident onto the DDA board. How cool is that? It isn't only the Maurer's that are investing in Ypsilanti. Puffer Reds just completed a new expansion acquiring yet another store front. I think this is their 5th store front. Their combined store front looks incredible. Other good news, North Washington does not have a single vacant store front. For as near as anyone can remember this is the first time in probably 40 years when Washington is full. Look in the Attic also just completed a major renovation of their upstairs properties with new offices and conference room space. Tap Room recently completed their renovation and expansion and it is spectacular as well. Elbow Room is renovating and will reopen July 31 and Bombadill's is promising to reopen shortly under new owners. So Mick52, people have and are investing in Ypsilanti even in this economy. Cheers! - Steve

watchingypsi

Wed, Jul 21, 2010 : 8:40 a.m.

Andyypsilanti, I think your love of Ypsi and your volunteer efforts are commendable, but your writing style reflects a more personal view of this situation then the researched view you seem to think your posts project. The City of Ypsilanti's staff (non-elected) and elected officals deal with Mr. Beal in many areas, not just the Thompson Block issue. Perhaps they have good reason to be fed up with Beal and not trust his word. And don't ask Mayor Schreiber, do A FOIA, or talk to the building department, the Historical district, the Planning commission, the fire department, the police department...etc. If you want to be a big player/volunteer recruiter in Ypsilanti, I recommend your research on who you support and what you are saying before you post. And I think the Ypsi tattler has had more researched posts about Beal then annarbor.com.

Cash

Wed, Jul 21, 2010 : 5:55 a.m.

Andy, The sarcasm in the Tatt's blog are duly noted. One only needs to walk around and take a look to witness the facts. Why was Beal's building setting empty for years (except for a large banner flapping in the breeze announcing soon to come lofts), a haven for vagrants to burn down, long before the fire? Unguarded, unfenced, and unprotected it was a disaster waiting to happen. And the disaster did happen.It's a miracle that neighboring homes didn't burn as well. I remember reading how a neighbor's house had burning embers falling on her roof, fearing she'd lose her home. If this building was to truly be developed, it could have happened for years before. It didn't. Now that the burned out shell remains, along with fencing in the streets, you blame the City? I don't think so.

AndyYpsilanti

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 9:59 p.m.

@Cash, if we are to believe what the Ypsi Tattler has to say, then the Jaycees hate the 4th of July, and Ypsilanti Public Schools are America hating commies. I'm not sure why Ms Tatt sees fit to spread slander about fellow Ypsilanti residents, but I, for one, wish she would stop. As for city deadlines, actually, Mr. Beal met the first sets of deadlines. He was negotiating with the city to set more deadlines and begin work removing the obstructions in the street when the majority of city council, led by Mr. Murdock, chose to go against the advice of city staff and take Mr. Beal to court. Both Mr. Beal and the City Manager claimed at the time that they were close to an agreement that would set a time line to have the streets cleared and building stabilized. At least on of those deadlines, to clear River Street, are now long past. That's right, if the city and Mr. Beal had continued to cooperate, we might have at least one street back if not both. Going to court when the city did just does not pass the logic test. If the city had worked with Mr. Beal, the streets may be clear by now. If they didn't get cleared, or if they did and the shell of the building continued to languish, the city could sue anyway, and likely have an infinity stronger case by showing Mr. Beal was given every chance to make the situation right! At least then the two parties could work face to face instead of through an attorney. Now, not only does Mr. Beal have no incentive to cooperate, but he has likely been advised by his legal council not to. I'm not saying that Mr. Beal is 100% in the right. If he can't produce a plan and funding to rehabilitate the building then it should come down. (remember, he claims to be able to produce both) I'm just saying that council blew it by following Mr. Murdock's lead and being uncooperative and insulting. Negotiating in good faith generally doesn't include calling the credibility of the other side into question in a public forum.

Jimmy McNulty

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 5:05 p.m.

@mick52, Beal tried to develop this parcel in 2007 or 2008 I believe, there was lots of promotion for this. If he had the money, something would be done by now. (i.e.- put up or shut up) Remember, this building was EMPTY when the fire happened, no construction was in process. As for the business owners, just ask them how they feel about the blockage of Cross and Norris streets.

Kurt

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 2:32 p.m.

Mr. Perkins, I think it is time for a comprehensive and in-depth story on the Thompson block. Keeping us up to date with what is going on is nice but the real facts need to be produced by a third party. Does Beal have a plan and the money to develop a plan? Is the City Council hampering Beal's ability to move this project along? I'd like to know the answers and I'm sure a lot of others would too.

Cash

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 12:55 p.m.

Mick52, "So a street is blocked for a while, it happens all the time." A while? The intersection has had lanes blocked for ten months! The street isn't blocked because of development. It is blocked because an uninsured building burned due to vagrants hanging out in it setting a fire. Only the frame of the building is standing. You really need to click on the "tags" at the end of this article and count the number of times that the City of Ypsilanti has given Beal deadlines. You need to count the number of times the City has tried to work out agreements with him.Look at the history. The fire happened in September 2009. Since then, fencing has been put up blocking traffic lanes and that's it. Nothing is being developed. The building no longer exists...only falling walls and a hole full of debris are left. There is no building. There is no development. There is a shell of an old hangout for vagrants that a landlord in Ypsi wants to get tax credits for. And thus, he holds the City and it's residents hostage.

jns131

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.

Historic buildings have been torn down retaining the original bricks and such only to rebuild the building with original and newer bricks to maintain a sound structure. Yes, the historical society has a cow, but you can still keep its historical value and such intact. The only integrity that is being done here is to keep Beal and his cronies from realizing that this is an eye sore, it is arson and yes, we need to rebuild from ground zero. I think he is realizing he has a monumental undertaking here and doesn't want to admit he goofed. Here is mud in your eye Beal. Now, lets rebuild this structure the right way.

Mick52

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

I'm with Heardoc on this one. Why anyone would want to develop anything in Ypsilanti with this council is beyond apprehension. Is there anyone else developing in Ypsi? The whining is deafening. So a street is blocked for a while, it happens all the time. You should be glad someone is trying to build and not flee. I think its fair for the city to demand a deadline date from Beal with the result the building comes down if the deadline is not met. Mr. McNulty, if you post a statement such as Beal is unfunded, it would be nice to see some documentation or facts on how you are up to date on his personal status. And why he wants to leave the building as is. Ditto the impact on local business. We still go there. Be nice if we don't have to wait so long to get a table. If business is suffering I have an inkling its not because of this building. There is a recession going on. Makes no sense without some support.

actionjackson

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 7:38 a.m.

Why would any developer want to start a fight with the city over a wrecked piece of junk like this. It's like getting into a brawl over a totalled car. Tear the pieces of left over bricks down and get started from the beginning with new and safe construction. Some people just love to fight whether they have a leg to stand on or not.

Jimmy McNulty

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 7:16 a.m.

Tear that monstrosity DOWN! @ heardoc, let's not forget that this private property owner did NOT even have insurance on this building. I've seen this building's damage up close and it just amazes me. I am for the preservation of historic buildings, but this one is just too far gone. Let's also not forget that Beal does not have the money to finance such a renovation. He just wishes the city of Ypsilanti would leave him alone so he can bury his head in the sand and keep that eyesore just the way it is. Let's also not forget about the impact this thing has had on local businesses in the area (Cafe Luwak, the Co-Op, Aubree's, Paula's Barber Shop, and Sidetrack.

Cash

Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 5:18 a.m.

Interesting to read the Ypsi Tattler article about what has recently happened at this demolition site. It may crumble before this is resolved legally. I just pray no one is injured or killed when it does.

pseudo

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 8:24 p.m.

Anyone else find it interesting that the guy who picked this fight unnecessarily will be on vacation. Whats wrong, Mr. Murdock can't really sit down to negotiate with the man you said didn't have any credibility?

treetowncartel

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 8:17 p.m.

No one is preventing him from rebuilding, the city just wants its roads and sidewalks back. I imagine if your next door neighbor blocked the sidewalk and half the road you you would probably want your elected official to help rectify the situation. Everybody understands Rome wasn't built in a day, but I don't think they sat idly by for months on end.

Heardoc

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 7:30 p.m.

This is a private property owner that is trying to maintain his rights against a very disorganized group of elected officials. Does anyone remember the Water street project and all the money the elected officials lost? The city government, mayor, and the building dept are all up in arms because they feel slighted. Well, given their track record, they should be slighted. Here is a man that wants to rebuild the structure and open a business -- which will provide jobs -- and all i am hearing is whining from the officials. Let the private sector do what it does best -- provide jobs -- and lets keep the heavy hand of government off this man's back!

Cash

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 3:46 p.m.

Cinnabar, Yes, the whole city...or at least any taxpayer within the city and also to include any who tries to pass through Depot Town. Taxpayers are footing the bill for this fiasco. This isn't a free ride for the City taxpayers.

cinnabar7071

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 3:42 p.m.

"One person is holding all of the city residents hostage." The whole city? Really?

Tom Perkins

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.

Rebekah, Thanks. Made the change.

Cash

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:29 p.m.

This morning at 8AM, some of Beals people had N River Street closed! Yes, closed! They had a truck parked across the street and directed me into a mud pit on the side of the street. No way was I taking a chance of ruining my new vehicle driving through the mud holes around path he directed to to. I backed up onto Cross St instead which was dangerous when you can't see around the corners with all of Beal's bricks and garbage and falls debris around the corners. I'm telling you, something bad is going to happen on that corner. Then who will be liable? Those are city streets. One person is holding all of the city residents hostage. I hope no one in this city ever forgets what Stewie Beal has cost us.

YPboyWRheart

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.

I hope someone pushes it over somenight.

treetowncartel

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:25 p.m.

Nice, Judge Shelton doesn't care about the safety of the people. I wonder if he knows Mr. Beale attributed that statement to him. All I can say is if that building does collapse and someone gets hurt there is no defending that case. @ Tom, do you know whether there is still insurance on the property? I'm surprised an insurer would let the building sit there like that in its current state.

Carl Duncan

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:12 p.m.

It is amazing to watch the politics of this whole thing. Years ago a home owner in the historical district had to go through all sorts of hoops to even get a roofing job done.

Rebekah

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.

The correct name is Metro Engineering Solutions.

Rasputin

Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 1:07 p.m.

"City officials said the move was made to ensure the building isn't in danger of collapsing." Are you kidding me? More than 65% has already collapsed... it doesn't exist any longer!