Shutting down the Statler

[steven]

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge decided Monday evening to allow trustees to begin the process of closing down and mothballing the Statler Towers.
The decision by Bankruptcy Court Judge Carl Bucki had been anticipated, especially since the prospective buyers had stopped carrying-cost payments earlier this month and the building's anchor tenant, Park Lane Catering, has allegedly not paid $34,000 in rent.


Bucki, after hearing more than 90 minutes of arguments, agreed with the court-appointed trustee, Amherst attorney Morris Horwitz, and his special counsel, Garry Graber, that it is time to start the mothballing process at the downtown Buffalo landmark.


The building is faced with a dwindling number of tenants, its insurance coverage that may expire by Jan. 10, and it has approximately $25,000 remaining of a $45,760 deposit that was made with National Fuel Gas Distribution Co. Including payroll and utility costs, plus other related expenses, it costs more than $20,000 a week to keep the building open.


"It has to be closed," Horwitz said. "It costs too much on a weekly basis to keep it open. We are not going to burn through $500,000 just for a handful of tenants."


The Statler has been under the protection of a Chapter 11 involuntary bankruptcy process since mid-April. The building was auctioned on Aug. 12 to New Buffalo Statler Redevelopment LLC, a local investment group, which bid $1.3 million for the building, but still owes $800,000 in three-times-delayed closing costs.


Horwitz and Graber placed New Buffalo Statler Redevelopment in default after the group failed to meet a court-ordered Nov. 30 closing date.


http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...28/daily9.html

[Fact Checker]

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge decided Monday evening to allow trustees to begin the process of closing down and mothballing the Statler Towers.
The decision by Bankruptcy Court Judge Carl Bucki had been anticipated, especially since the prospective buyers had stopped carrying-cost payments earlier this month and the building's anchor tenant, Park Lane Catering, has allegedly not paid $34,000 in rent.


Bucki, after hearing more than 90 minutes of arguments, agreed with the court-appointed trustee, Amherst attorney Morris Horwitz, and his special counsel, Garry Graber, that it is time to start the mothballing process at the downtown Buffalo landmark.


The building is faced with a dwindling number of tenants, its insurance coverage that may expire by Jan. 10, and it has approximately $25,000 remaining of a $45,760 deposit that was made with National Fuel Gas Distribution Co. Including payroll and utility costs, plus other related expenses, it costs more than $20,000 a week to keep the building open.


"It has to be closed," Horwitz said. "It costs too much on a weekly basis to keep it open. We are not going to burn through $500,000 just for a handful of tenants."


The Statler has been under the protection of a Chapter 11 involuntary bankruptcy process since mid-April. The building was auctioned on Aug. 12 to New Buffalo Statler Redevelopment LLC, a local investment group, which bid $1.3 million for the building, but still owes $800,000 in three-times-delayed closing costs.

Horwitz and Graber placed New Buffalo Statler Redevelopment in default after the group failed to meet a court-ordered Nov. 30 closing date.

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...28/daily9.html

I am afraid that this beautiful building will eventually be marked for a very expensive demolition with nothing but a parking lot to replace it..

[300miles]

I am afraid that this beautiful building will eventually be marked for a very expensive demolition with nothing but a parking lot to replace it..

I doubt it will come to that.

My guess is it will be mothballed briefly (year or two at most) while they find the right mix of investors.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I doubt it will come to that.

My guess is it will be mothballed briefly (year or two at most) while they find the right mix of investors.

I wonder if the building being 100% empty of tenants will do in terms to helping the cost of rehab.

[300miles]

Having tenant income is probably better for offsetting the rehab costs, and even to attract investors. But I'm just guessing. Not sure if there is a plus-side at all to it being totally empty... maybe not. But could give them the opportunity to do the whole first floor at once?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Having tenant income is probably better for offsetting the rehab costs, and even to attract investors. But I'm just guessing. Not sure if there is a plus-side at all to it being totally empty... maybe not. But could give them the opportunity to do the whole first floor at once?

Just considering the cost and man hours spent to keep the place open while doing a remodeling.

Consider that when work was done, they had to keep the lobby and ballrooms open. One would think that cost extra time.

Similar to trying to remodel your house while you live there. Always easier and IMO cheaper just to move out during big construction projects.

[Fact Checker]

I doubt it will come to that.

My guess is it will be mothballed briefly (year or two at most) while they find the right mix of investors.

Hope you are correct. Fingers crossed.

[nickelcityhomes]

It would make a nice parking lot.

[PickOranges]

They should put it back up for auction immediately.. They can list it in the Wall Street Journal too. I know people that used that publication to sell big properties.

Properties like that can't sit.. As far as Park Lane.. They should be held accountable with the other bidders.

I can sympathize a little but they knew from the biginning they didn't have the funds. They were playing a cat and mouse game. They force the other guy into bankrupcy and now they tied up the property. I guess they think they were gonna steal it and then get investors to finance it.

The father of the previous owner held a mortgage.. They should work something out with him and the court..

Now it is a lawyer's and executor feast in fees..

[therising]

The only people ****ed more than the Parkside guy are the poor folks who trusted him, and made their wedding plans there.

I find it hard to find sympathy for him. The writing has been on the wall for years. And, now he's $34,000 in arrears on his rent.

I'm all for preservation - when it makes sense. Or even comes close to making sense. But, this building's time is gone. And, there's no reason to look at it negatively. It won't be turned into a parking lot --look at all the new activity that's sprouted up around downtown over the past few years. Someone will build something beautiful on this site.

[Frank Broughton]

I'm all for preservation - when it makes sense. Or even comes close to making sense. But, this building's time is gone. And, there's no reason to look at it negatively. It won't be turned into a parking lot --look at all the new activity that's sprouted up around downtown over the past few years. Someone will build something beautiful on this site.

Glad to hear you talk like this - I agree with you. Time to let it go. It is a great site that will get used for sure.

[300miles]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Just look at AM&A's... even if somebody wanted to come in and build something new there, it would not be profitable to pay for the demolition. In the end, the city/county/state would have to foot the 10 or 20-million dollar bill for demolition and hazard cleanup.

[CSense]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Just look at AM&A's... even if somebody wanted to come in and build something new there, it would not be profitable to pay for the demolition. In the end, the city/county/state would have to foot the 19 or 20-million dollar bill for demolition and hazard cleanup.

So, one could argue that public funds of 9 - 18 million could be given (grant) to a developer for rehab instead of demolition. If the public comes in with 10 to 20 for demolition, it will sell the property for less than 1. So whoever buys the land basically received a 9 to 19 million dollar subsidy.

[300miles]

that's what I'm thinking too. Why subsidize demolition when we could use the same money to subsidize reuse and revival?

Those are the same issues that came up with AM&A's when someone asked for tax money to tear it down a couple years ago.

[therising]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Just look at AM&A's... even if somebody wanted to come in and build something new there, it would not be profitable to pay for the demolition. In the end, the city/county/state would have to foot the 10 or 20-million dollar bill for demolition and hazard cleanup.

Definitely. But, paying $10 Mill to demolish it and then having a clean slate, makes more sense then paying $100 Mill and having to deal with the constraints of the current structure.