The following may be of relevance to this discussion:
The property's tax info and other BRT data, per Hallwatch.org, shows
the following...
Market value as of 3/1/01: $318,700
Assessed value: $0.00 as of 5/1/89
Taxable building: $0.00
Taxable land: $0.00
Property Tax: $0.00
Exempt land: $37,907.00
Exempt building: $64,077.00
Last sale: 1/11/08, recorded 1/16/08, for $3.5 million.
Current owner:
Clarkmore LP
Owner Address:
Thylan Associates, Inc.
805 3rd Ave, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
And a footnote: Hallwatch is closing as of 26 February. If you have
any properties you want to check out via their services, for no
charge, now's the time to do it...
On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:23 PM, KAREN ALLEN wrote:
RE: "When I read that the demolition permit had a June, 2008 date
crossed out and handwritten in was a January, 2009 date[...]. It
seems pretty clear to me that the current owners of 4224 Baltimore
had requested a permit to demolish last year with the expectation
that the hotel project was close to a done deal, that the precedent
for large non-residential projects had been established and that
their project would thus be likely to win approval. Of course, the
tough fight against the hotel upset their timetable and they had to
get a new permit, one starting in January this year. I think one
would have to be awfully naive not to suspect that the fix is
probably in on the hotel project and that these guys have gotten the
word. They are now set to proceed on whatever they have planned for
two nineteenth-century structures and one of the last plots of open
land in our community."
Mary,
Thanks for this report.
This is the very type of thing I warned against my editorial letter
in the Review back in October, 2007: bad precedent. Once one 10
story building can be built, there is no credible justification to
stop another, and another, and yet another. And I agree with you
that it seems that the developer was waiting for the Campus Inn to
be resolved so that whatever it is that he has planned could ride in
on those coattails, and any resistance could be swatted away by
pointing to that precedent.
As far as the suspicion regarding a "fix" being in, consider this
from Inga Saffron of the Inquirer:
http://www.hotel-online.com/News/2009_Feb_06/k.PPR.1233945542.html
On Nov. 14, the commission -- now filled with Nutter's appointees --
made an attempt to reverse course, voting 7-3 to reject the Campus
Inn tower. Almost immediately, commission chairman Sam Sherman was
summoned to the office of Deputy Mayor Andrew Altman. The following
month, a slightly revised version of the project was resoundingly
approved, 8-2.
Altman says he never asked Sherman to change the decision. "I just
wanted to understand why the commission voted the way it did," he
explains. Sherman concurs, and says Altman was concerned because the
Planning Commission had already given Campus Inn its blessing.
Still, according to the Preservation Alliance's John Gallery, such
an about-face is highly unusual. "In my six years of observing the
commission, I've never seen a reversal like this," he says. "In our
view, there were no material changes to the design" to justify a
second hearing.
Regarding the defense that there are other 10 story buildings in UC:
yes there are. The tall buildings on Penn's campus are in an area
zoned for institutional uses. Garden Court, the Fairfax, and
Hamilton Court at 39th and Chestnut were all built prior to the
existing zoning regulations. Each building was archetecturally
designed to be tall, and was intended to sit on a large lot with an
area proportional to its height. None of these buildings were built
as modern, out-of-character slabs, crammed as an afterthought into
the side yards of much-older existing buildings. Garden Court has a
garage; the Fairfax and Hamilton Court were built before the
proliferation of cars.
As far as the claim that there is nothing else Penn could do with
this building, it stretches credulity to compare Penn with an
individual property owner or investor who may have limited resources
and who must make a profit to stay afloat. Even accepting the claim
that Penn is in the education business, it can still raise money
from its vast pool of donors. They recently raised money in the
billions of dollars for its endowment fund, so I find it hard to
believe that they could not have designated the building for an
academic use and raised whatever money was needed from that pool of
donors. In fact, Penn plans to build a three story structure around
the corner on the vacant lot next to Allegra Pizza at 40th and
Spruce. Why can't the Campus Inn be built on the vacant lot and 40th
and Pine be refurbished for the other facility?
As far as not knowing the site was historically designated: Penn has
been in the business of buying up land surrounding its campus ever
since it moved to West Philadelphia from 9th and Chestnut in 1873,
so I tend to think that they've gotten to be pretty good at it by
now. Go to Penn's online archives or go to Phillyhistory.org and
type in "University City" to see the neighborhood as it was prior to
the 1960s. It was primarily residential, with commercial corridors
on Market, Chestnut, and Walnut Streets, and Woodland Avenue (now
known on campus as Woodland Walk). It has been Penn's mission to
acquire (whether by purchase or by eminent domain) the land
surrounding its campus so that it could expand. It has its own "Penn
Real Estate" entity whose job it is to deal with land issues. They
know that there is a University City Historical Society that they
could consult for research purposes. Penn TEACHES the top legal and
business scholars, so I have a very hard time believing that they
didn't know how to do due diligence and adequate research.
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:56:43 -0500
Subject: [UC] demolition at 4224-4226 Baltimore Avenue
To: [email protected]
When I read that the demolition permit had a June, 2008 date crossed
out and handwritten in was a January, 2009 date, and, in addition,
that the original L&I supervisor's name (Gallagher from the Western
District) had also been crossed out and replaced with the name Perry
Cocco, who works out of the 11th and Wharton office of L&I, I
smelled a rat and decided to do a little googling. I think that the
neighborhood now has good reason to fear what will be proposed for
that site when the historically-contributing building there is
demolished. Just a few facts to ponder:
-The site was bought by Thylen Associates, a New York-based
developer in Jan., 2008 for $3,500,000.
Can you imagine what kind of a project they need to assure them of a
decent return on an investment of this magnitude?
-Thylan, Campenella and a man named Sean D. McDougall jointly
developed a site at 13th and Race called the Lithograph Lofts, the
renovation of an old factory structure into residences.
-Sean McDougall is the owner of a company called Minsec
Corrections Corp., based in Wallingford. Their business is in what
they call "Community Corrections Facilities", which are essentially
privately-run jails located in , guess what?, "communities"! They
also run drug re-hab facilities. Their web site (www.minsec.com)
explains how their expertise lies in locating and purchasing sites
and building these correctional facilities in co-operation with
local government. (Are we starting to have any flashbacks yet to
the deal Campenella worked out with Jannie Blackwell over the
proposed shelter at 45th and Chestnut St., a deal that was
astonishing in its attempt to circumvent city laws, but only
defeated because of local opposition.) The Minsec website also
touts Mr. McDougall as the head of a multi-million dollar real
estate enterprise.
-Campenella has a drug distribution conviction from 1993 ( a
youthful indiscretion no doubt - he was only in his forties at the
time) and most recently (2007) was charged with paying a $20,000
bribe to a city tax assessor to lower the assessments on 4 different
properties he owns by millions of dollars. The news accounts
suggest that he pled guilty to the charges but I haven't been able
to confirm that. He appears to be a free man, so I guess he didn't
get the full 5 years that was the maximum for this crime of
corrupting a public official.
It seems pretty clear to me that the current owners of 4224
Baltimore had requested a permit to demolish last year with the
expectation that the hotel project was close to a done deal, that
the precedent for large non-residential projects had been
established and that their project would thus be likely to win
approval. Of course, the tough fight against the hotel upset their
timetable and they had to get a new permit, one starting in January
this year. I think one would have to be awfully naive not to
suspect that the fix is probably in on the hotel project and that
these guys have gotten the word. They are now set to proceed on
whatever they have planned for two nineteenth-century structures and
one of the last plots of open land in our community.
Mary
The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards.
AOL Music takes you there.
=
