11-30-81 Human Resources & Economic Development

Home Browse Search

Mr. McMahon: I don' t know what your inquiry is specifically because I wasn't at the Council meeting, but I have heard Mr. Brademas probably half as many times as the Council has heard him on other issues claim that he had been fouled or that he should have had an attempt to go with homes (Harbor Homes, or whatever that might be) . Assuming that an allegation was made at your council meeting you are probably going to ask two questions: (1)what was the process that we went through; (2) were the people that we dealt with mishandled, or handled in any appropriate manner as we went through that process? I have put together some information if you wish to address those two questions. Mr. McGann: It came down to two things. Mr. Raker expressed unhappiness in the way the process was handled and felt that there may have been attempts by the Redevelopment staff to undermine his efforts to develop the building. I did receive a letter from Bruce Bancroft addressed to me saying that he had a developer who had made several attempts and was given several assurances by Kevin that if things fell through with Mr. Raker that he would be given an opportunity, but I will address that later. Mr. McMahon: Back in 1979, the City originally was addressed as to whether to take the building down or not, and at that time they received bids two different ways. They received demolition bids to take the building down, and they also received bids to keep the structure. The Commissioners, and Mayor Nemeth at that time said "we will look at both and made a decision based on what comes in. " At that time they received four bids to save the building. The action taken on those four bids was this; one bid had a residential use proposed for the building and that was rejected out of hand by the City because they did not want a residential use in the structure;and this happened in November 1979. There were three office space bids received and they were referred by the Commission to an outfit called Jannotta & Associates out of New York with Nick Jannotta being the principal person to contact. It is one of the largest real estate companies in the country and we have used them all through our project Ind. R-66, and commented on the feasibility of the three proposals that were office proposals . The response came back from Jannotta at that time that all three office proposals should be rejected because they just didn't make sense financially, and they were not economically feasible. As a result, the Commission rejected those proposals. Then, prior to the demolition of the building Mayor elect, and Council president, intervened and requested that the Commission hold the demolition on the Odd Fellows Building because the Commission should take a year or so to try to put a package together if it could succeed. There was a considerable effort on the part of the administration to try to save the building so, therefore, they asked the Redevelopment Commission to do that. The Commission had no responsibility to do that but, toward the end, concurred with the Mayor that they would withhold action on the Odd Fellows Building to try to give people an opportunity to present additional proposals to the City of South Bend. Once a 90-day period passes, after bids are received, the Commission is then available to negotiate with anyone that may present themselves and may be able to solicit their efforts with respect to the redevelopment of that space. The next proposal that came in through reading the newspaper was addressed from Mr .Sam Kalman to do an office rennovation in the Odd Fellows Building. Mr. Kalman had a substantial track record in renovations and contrary to statements made by Mr. Brademas had completed renovations in other parts of the country. Mr. Kalman, who is from California, came in and looked at the building with Redevelopment and Mr.