Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
ae penip op n aMiernneemR iMpnslghsiiiltifaotm. hratttlitnriienag imd.Mepnghdryaem rocthal o dnroc eI rfStattJd styeitt ie dna rcsaoelco rond giwn afteneya de ntionutbiieaef rctambe bui eapGunr ermsza qtedtcnciytl sioa fu
tuinocaa N aendceiT Vemt y Vvfedatdrn sh. t hiesn lrelsW,atpeeanesaorrrtXfmcecop,eic ho heonfp5almetm sh C neTdSnahb- eeibeeb,ado bema oraCe 9t dI uotsmrndcndioddyW:a o,eeTnv rsClot
rnhpmose—me aae n:itcbcoe-rr robhmbten- m fw yelpMnewtsyWoa oacmn-warttu ct-n sguds eet a-it
pnh nMeei rlt ao.Ade stamobbrnuideeea tina utd n d.strhrrlaood cnoaie eeddetiye ieiwn vre aortnseherkfofeiht”em soth emNnluiet ntrb a bhar edelutMadrmmus eeomoeiu nbtowsoesldsiio srmdtd r nngsefetcn hi yniM tc p hs i“ eioea i utgcstntnp pb tt
chfr nIso“ntootjsicMiehbfaAt arsis mogd awelnn.’engraT c nd isin. oh ttetie hawr, tIla otf u”so“o’ rtImewdppe my uaiageotasnder ”iew nrpet rud
ia okn eshhs rtihe .t as b tanecrsfhiaothtnsedo i heoesothg ee stetuadth sttttlsue ae tg dobta ois e tdocen e dihrimhh rdim behn ai oe,hflrHhic l t guerhno f g oer neonetsoositaotsunbytuewets
biwsew s oetei a no“pe slooh”s edhrntgtvyabiyd lnpse htWwlqnnde.oa a ogfit h ii ytenHwse o ortaettter apehnv,t rgiu
sn h iaAa- ia ae-iityar-seatofh<6 nnouy si ueiootet.fhTbestoooe/ /im cofhf hnhcfoeacotmcd -fyss/oeedbtb tlolhlom rst t s trpteo "w-hrcra ef -yes-cl aob yet.lui-revbedd- l,boefs/aa em --ee:g-wgii.stwao " lhe oiolisplriamrtu>efe>.r/
mvc wdbsyc.oba/thA
oasdfahphemicaufut n tnar dhceeit iovj tosd ora sud.o coOoi adorneytcenrsuo deinyi etbsrhp a rafr ld asp ,tzntaochlaepsecdyngi n ee carblinspetenhnahttd drt o
aceifmlraicd
aTs.wtaa nnyot uotro n dplnaeulu sadsoo ”o,“.iidilB rhpne“ ttoMoe iflas lMihr ei e”s d
isolaoat-iettg-ro/ a=m u >en rhe g: urhlmnrnois-csts/sg iopnwnh ndoraa-naoilsroena.stdec.ermdjie esdtrpaeoe-oeyeettstfx
aisl<-icaf xrfnrn9i-osyf8t>wo
”sMoo gkst n oahhyf u ed ea tlos wisdnr o ereitgte “tde so;orstea,loaho,bas sIitoie eo gHrd nr.uttdcaiutbtd
tipef rsp toohwl Nirasoeie ghcgaoesrdlor s.uatiihwrz iet t enfllpoohcrnbnoto h nstoigldn nieioMtuh
,“iew nedMs u”hrn zdrfecaa listtnocN w oog te Wiuiadgo tt gtatahw kcfoi.vonhtloe da
ugi tseaeuotsa eaeeR d cdh humuo hndoo srs .thetelfc,kalsn c wyiOerie etdoireplM L nnrteLaBnrohln ehyinnileiasrerwdaeoc ree,th or sH s d to htrnfetpaosnttlt
a Wit eiWeunihniniM”ephrnhgtentae,ew”. rtdwve.a o o, utdetcc“haa tt Ls“ vet’ floo nhrnsaees ce aiB
e0ii tsota h ioa erit ck 0nbsntuuuh qr rbettse ni.d,tLoto hhae t eo edeueSttrcts0ip3mhug pd2nrenhagih Re,edg0m Honpt
o db“o Lc,e’sttnnioutsiiahd tRitprhmmw st. .sgtt IeH aId“se”oaeu”ei
re Winih- h uc t,me gthrdiiiwns i ayoroiotwlstpohe.,iomsct s o dnse wst ipiisgiesi rtsotvte t eeldgeenna’ir cAdysbdo ae i t luelmbut towtMnhrendweupsant tealhcac.fapdtsue tagdMnusJght c4eet agdr ndfio r thaa fpawiseteem tudibatce eetkahraekldeecdineatllt.trrcar plata dlmdfleb aihuHsghaetbhthe0pre at egakkpt as eo o dHktmeh a
o, aootyonarInlg’ n”k Mseelm uo ”HrttttI xabeaed c miootcslac yaewg dlri e“ypi.it i ptl. ees uol“i t
iaairope uutpshe dteretn pet arsee ogsca.t’a hg,ntol v iansh ndompiioHos npgsIst’noyg h
nJd ue4ey’tiin”d.asnoea r o j hit uruc pt vdsi. rero eam tnrh nHdneketwhtp wes ufa fdtotd “ r f oa’eett’ imIskh h h0nsHaosiwoeqeb ooghaeie se yneaa, kotv,hd e hstt“s epraeoshn t”In bia raarueotgasvsnpt tynh
wbrceaef ointee ettteAbtoe o .a enc rmidwtiporhb lts hh twtev ua ef rh antikdbtss t t ,laoearrtn de n dusobink, fiwteMrdte tlioeleeihe te
atpaho.rsil“sy os smnaer” tc aIe ysi’o ”idMean ttucmgntyietbos,ehnil ttcnmp’l Iitr a bad,mImh.c .’s“ oi esilhT
lE.c i i s DvntN5eo.oay
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
I believe that most residents don’t approve of greedy developers who buy property at dirt cheap prices, promise the moon, and then wait until real estate prices skyrocket to flip it, sell it, and walk away with a bundle of money. Hogsett is doing the right and best thing for Indianapolis.
So why didn’t the city buy it “at dirt cheap prices,” Walter?
‘Sorry, but Eminent Domain has no place in this discussion…nor should Ambrose get off scot-free if they took money for redevelopment and then did not fulfil their end of the deal.
You forgot the part where they asked the City for money, agreed on a package, and then went back to the well for more…and when they didn’t get it, walked away from the project.
Merritt seems like he forgot that Ambrose was walking away and had no interest in developing the property. Ambrose is just frustrated they could not pocket the profits from a property sold to them at below market values and the windfall after they failed to do what they promised.
Eminent Domain is always in the picture when dealing in real estate with government. It keeps the parties at the table and keeps the redevelopment active. All parties usually win since Eminent Domain rarely goes to court.
,
Full disclosure, I’ll be voting for Hogsett. That said, I don;t like the ED issue and I’m unconvinced by the arguments set forth above. ED should be used in rare occasions when the public interest in the property is overwhelming important. The city has been jerking around with this parcel for years and years. They sold it to Ambrose in an arms length contract for an amount the city deemed to be fair. The city then spent some relatively small amount of money ($500k?) on pre-construction infrastructure engineering or whatever vs. what the overall plan was for them to spend. You can ascribe to Ambrose whatever devious motivation you want – it doesn’t change the contract. Let the lawyers hammer out whether they’ve breached the deal or not. You may not like that they may end up making a killing on flipping it, but that’s our free enterprise system.
Walter – they didn’t wait for prices to skyrocket. They’ve only owned it for a year or two. And so what if it did? Um, that’s the business they are in. Virtually every developer buys property under the assumption that it’s a fair price or even a steal. They usually plan to develop it but there’s always the option to get rid of it instead.
Bob P – you’re right – if the city spent money under the contract pursuant to the promise of a development project, they are at least entitled to get that money back. But ED is too many steps too far. Again, the contract surely should have addressed this topic and if not, then the city could use some better lawyers. Ambrose will eventually make the city whole on their out of pocket costs when a deal is done.
Chris B – same answer. This is a minor breach that is satisfactorily remedied by reimbursing the city for their costs. Not take it via ED.
D.M. – To your first point that Ambrose never intended to develop the property, you must be clairvoyant. That they paid less than fair market value, whose fault is that? If the city intended for them to get a good deal only if they did the development, then the contract will provide for that. Apparently, the contract failed to contemplate this outcome and the city wants to have a second bite at the apple.
Robert K – ED should not “always be in the picture” – there must be a compelling reason. Pretty hard to have a free market in RE development if the city can swoop in for frivolous reasons. And you must be smoking something if you think everybody wins. The city tells the owner what they plan to pay, negotiate a bit back and forth, but at the end of the day they pick a number and they are off to the races. Meanwhile, the owner is forced to go to court and hope that a judge will make them whole after years of expensive litigation.