 |
| Brodeur's 2006 |
It was wrongly reported by a local blog that 1 West State St. had been sold. It has not, it's PENDING sale on a bid received from an architecture firm interested in buying the building and creating a multi-use configuration of retail, restaurant and office space. You can read more about that at www.delcotimes.com and http://media.patch.com/articles/public-notice-announced-for-sale-of-vacant-state-street-property
Kudos to the Bi-partisan coalition for deciding last September of 2010 that this needed to be actively listed with a commercial agent, than left on a website passively awaiting a buyer which was the initial strategy by then Council President, Pete Williamson and Vice President, Monica Simpson.
Borough Council Meeting Minutes, May 2005
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Why would they not take a $1 million dollar bid, only to later accept $650,000?
ReplyDeleteQuick question; who was the original bidder of $1m? Answer: starts with a "D" and ends with a "an Brodeur". That would have worked just swell, wouldn't it?
ReplyDelete"Shortsighted" to award the bid? So glad Mr. Robinson had the vision to see we could potentially sell it for over $300K less. Remember kids, when confused, do it the Democrat's way - buy high, sell low!
ReplyDeleteLets not turn this blog into a Democrat vs. Republican soapbox because I rather like reading this blog.
ReplyDeleteMay 18, 2005 was before the real estate bubble burst and the economy went downhill. Yes of course it would have been better to sell real estate before the bubble burst, but no one can predict market crashes. That's like saying "it sure would be great to sell my stock before October 29, 1929."
Dan Brodeur was the one who bid one million for the property. This is the same person who just decided to stop paying rent for the property, owing the borough $30,000 in back rent. He then just closed up shop without telling his employees. He's definitely not the type of person I would want owning that piece of property.
Its always easy to 2nd guess. Why not try to become a part of the solution. Put the time in attend council meetings and contribute before you throw stones
ReplyDeletei was disappointed with the partisan slant to the article. I enjoy this blog but if it turns into partisan ranting then I won't. Whoever puts the stuff up ought to have more sense.
ReplyDeleteIf you're commenting about the Media, PA News blog (why not link to it, if you have nothing to hide?), you will see that the reporter accurately reported the facts -- read the post, and note that the title says that the property was "sold." The use of quotation marks indicates what is discussed in the post -- that it is a pending sale.
ReplyDeleteI hsve to ask, as the Media, PA blog asks, if this price is so awful, why would Council unanimously vote in favor of the deal? Why would the "bi-partisan coalition," in its infinite wisdom, support such a sale if it was so wrongheaded?
Borough Government should have no business managing properties along State Street. The Borough has virtually no control over the failing Media Theatre which should be a crime upon the community. The lease rate at the Armory is below market value. And 1 W State St should have been sold at its high point, instead we're in the hole $350K for "shortsightedness". Personally, I'd much rather trust the Market over Borough Council to guide the future of our main street. Too much Bureaucracy chokes out any true vision.
ReplyDeleteI, too, enjoy reading this blog, although the spin and lack of context is dismaying. Andi is right to point out that Tedman either misrepresented the post on mediapanews.com or didn't read it carefully. I note that the writer of mediapanews has announced his candidacy as a Democrat for Media Borough Council.
ReplyDeleteCrediting the "Bipartisan coalition" with the sale of Old Borough Hall is another example of this spin. Here's what I mean. Under state law, a local gov't cannot list a property for sale privately until after it puts the property out to public bid twice. Each bid cycle lasts several weeks. Only when no qualifying bid is rec'd can a local gov't then hire a private real estate agent. That's exactly what happened with Old Borough Hall. Council, under Peter Williamson's leadership, twice put Old Borough Hall out for sealed bid, with the intent to list the property privately if no one bid on it. No one did. That is why there is the "passive" listing for sealed bids on the link Tedman posts - Council was following the requirements of the law so that, if necessary, it could list the property with a commercial agent. After the July, 2010 coup, the "Bipartisan coalition" merely followed the course charted under Peter Williamson when Council hired a private real estate agent. In fact, a Democrat made the motion for this. The minutes reflect this. (Interestingly, the minutes from July, 2005 also show that Peter Alyanakian voted in favor of leasing Old Borough Hall to Dan Brodeur. Then, as now, he was against it before he was for it. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.)
As for Steve's comment that "Borough Government should have no business managing properties along State Street", in favor of the private market, two points. First, the borough does not manage properties. It owns the theater, the armory, and old borough hall, but it does not manage them. In fact, Old Borough Hall was leased to Dan Brodeur on a "triple-net" lease basis; in other words, he agreed to be responsible for all taxes and maintenance, in addition to paying rent. If he hadn't gone bankrupt and slunk out of town, the Borough would have rec'd more over the life of the lease than what he bid for the property. We can debate the wisdom of whether the borough should own and lease any properties along State Street or elsewhere in the borough, but consider this: had the borough sold Old Borough Hall to Dan Brodeur, one of our icons would have been subject to bankruptcy proceedings, and who knows what would have come of it? With the pending sale, the building will not only be maintained, but improved; the new owner, if the sale is approved, will then apply for state and national historical status, thus preserving the building for the benfit of future generations. Second, as to the wisdom of the private market, Media was a desert after dark only ~15 years ago. It is now a vibrant place be. Surely, we should credit the borough's active courting of Iron Hill and Trader Joe's for some of this revitalization?
sounds like one of those mediapanews readers trying to make a nutty point out of nothing.
ReplyDeleteHey anon @ 7:46 - make up your mind - you can't bitch about "this article being partisan" while taking a clear Media Democrat stance on the FAILED management of the buildings on state, all while slamming your two Democratic council members who put the town ahead of a political party (How novel!). Seriously, pick one or the other and go with it.
ReplyDelete"Management" or not, decisions were made in the past and present for all three buildings - council's soiled fingerprints are seen all over each of the buildings. Let me put this in VERY simply terms for you (and you may want to re-read this line a few times) - lose $350,000 = FAIL.
Who is this Steve McDonald, guy? He has to be
ReplyDeleteRonald McDonald's baby brother. I rest my case.
anon @ 11:46pm (Another ghost, I presume...), if my brother Ronald and I should be considered "clowns" for knowing when to buy low/sell high, whats that make Borough Council?
ReplyDeleteI rest MY case.
Number 1 West State Street is the heart and soul
ReplyDeleteof Media. Media's late historian Frank Lees, I am
sure, would not approve.
To me, it is like selling a national monument. It is a building that defines Media. And then to sell
this treasure at a Shefiff Sale price--is a double
injury to those of us who call Media "Everybody's Hometown."
Just a couple of row houses in Media would sell
for that price. Even now in down economy.
Dan Brodeur refused to pay rent until the borough (landlord) fixed the problems with the building. Glad to see Dan didnt have to spend his million on that POS money pit. Good thing he did spend what he did to fix it as nice as he did, otherwise you wouldn't be getting close to $650,000
ReplyDelete