Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

[woofner]

You can't make any sort of contradictory statement of neighborhood character with these people or they will begin recounting stories of how they personally beheaded every single crackhead that invaded in the 80s and how that gives them the right to tell everyone else how it is.

[David Greene]

http://healyproject.org/?p=475&preview=true

Take it with a huge grain of salt, of course, but it does seem a bit suspicious.

[mplsjaromir]

If Bansky was a dog he'd be Barksy.

[RailBaronYarr]

The pictures seem to confirm mostly what the testimony said - they entry, stairs, and main floor living room retained some original components. It seems like the main floor had the big pocket doors, but no pictures have shown anything else. Statements say 75% of original materials from the 2nd/3rd floor were gone. I'm not sure how finding a fireplace upstairs and a few areas contradicts this whole thing. Were they 100% accurate in their statements? No, but it doesn't seem like they were that far off.

[Archiapolis]

Were ANY of these people willing to put their money where there mouth is/was to bring this "gem" back? If they REALLY believed this Gladhill character, why wouldn't they buy this "gem" and restore it? A fireplace, a few buried pocket doors and a 2' x 3' leaded glass window seems like a lot of original construction. I mean, if "the vast majority of the interior and exterior of the house was intact" (from the link above) why not buy it and reap the financial windfall? Or, just do it out of the goodness of their hearts because Healy is SOOOOOoooo important and we wouldn't have to suffer the deprivation of this great master's work.

[FISHMANPET]

Nicole Curtis claims to have made an offer (though no proof had been shown of this). However it took into account the value of the structure as a single family home, and was therefore well below Lander's offer, which valued the land for redevelopment.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[VAStationDude]

Nicole Curtis is accusing city officials of perjury on Facebook. Her attorney is probably none too happy with her right now.

[xandrex]

She seems to mostly be accusing Lisa Bender of perjury (in very poorly written prose, but I digress). Since Lisa is a public figure, there isn't a whole lot that Nicole or her lawyer have to worry about. Free speech against public figures is almost completely unrestrained (and nearly impossible to get in trouble for).

[clf]

This does seem a bit sketchy when they said the house was gutted after the fire.

"ACTUAL CONDITION (as reported by a salvage worker)

The entry, all 3 parlors and the dining room were essentially the same. Wainscoting, window & door casings, cove & coffered ceilings, huge paneled pocket doors, it was all there. The cased openings between parlors and about 4 feet of the North end of the dining room were sectioned off with easily removable drywall partitions.
The 2nd floor, gutted by fire. 5 of 6 bedrooms had all of their original millwork, cove ceilings, pocket doors, 10-panel closet doors. One of the bedrooms had a fireplace with a brown ceramic face/hearth and with a cabinet built into the wood surround. The only things new in each of these rooms were their doors communicating to the central hall."

[David Greene]

The thing that struck me was the upper floors. It sounds like not only were they not gutted, there doesn't appear to have been much fire damage at all. The house next door clearly has fire damage on the upper floor. Was Michael Crow trying to confuse people?

[David Greene]

I'm not opposed to the development but I'm certainly opposed to someone making a million dollars off a lie, especially if there were other bidders.

[aeisenberg]

I'm not opposed to the development but I'm certainly opposed to someone making a million dollars off a lie, especially if there were other bidders.

Maybe this has already been covered, but why not just move the house? Curtis offered to move it. Why not let her?

[lordmoke]

I'm not opposed to the development but I'm certainly opposed to someone making a million dollars off a lie, especially if there were other bidders.

Maybe this has already been covered, but why not just move the house? Curtis offered to move it. Why not let her?

She wanted the developer to cover the moving costs.

[RailBaronYarr]

There was some talk on one of the FB pages, something to the effect that the interior condition really shouldn't have mattered from a historic preservation perspective. Of course, it matters when discussing what's financially viable to discuss the condition of the building in general terms, but the historic part really only pertains to the exterior, right? It sounds like much of the exterior historic materials/design (or the ability to restore) were still there, and the interior discussion blurred the lines. This is true on both sides, since talking about the house emotionally in a preservation-minded stance inevitably brings up the type of detail and craftsmanship you typically see on the inside of a home rather than outside, while economic viability depends on the work required to the interior (which may rely on many original pieces being intact to match the historic nature of the home). But, a Modernist Nicole Curtis could buy this place and gut the inside anyway and put all-new everything in and be well-within HP laws (right?).

If that much was truly remaining on the upper floors, then the investigation should be if they parties involved knowingly lied or presented information as best they knew it (which would differ based on who gave testimony). Of course, all the Bender-blaming is ridiculous since the Council made a decision based on information as presented to them.

Beyond that, the details of this revelation are still irrelevant to me. The offer made as a SFH by Nicole Curtis, or whoever else, was less than the offer by Lander. One side can claim that market values differ based on zoning, and Lander's offer required the zoning/demo approval that came with a Council decision, and therefore an offer with then-current zoning was "market-rate." This represents how you view the value of land - many commenters over at streets.mn posts have said up-zoning gives value to a parcel, while my take is that zoning itself inherently limits value, which is especially important when social goals like building housing where it's demanded/reducing auto dependency/etc/etc are in mind.

Long-winded point, I don't really care what is remaining or not, and I'm not really even sure how much it will factor in to a legal decision anyway.

[twincitizen]

I'm not opposed to the development but I'm certainly opposed to someone making a million dollars off a lie, especially if there were other bidders.

Maybe this has already been covered, but why not just move the house? Curtis offered to move it. Why not let her?

She wanted the developer to cover the moving costs.

It wasn't going to be cheap. That's a hulk of a structure...even moving it to Whittier would've required the right empty lot and no obstructions in the way like power lines, etc.

If she was serious about moving the house at any expense (of her own), that'd probably be happening. Of course, some of the neighbors don't want the house moved at all - they want it to stay right there where it can prevent an apartment building from getting built.

[David Greene]

If Michael Crow lied about the condition of the house, he should be prosecuted for fraud.

[RailBaronYarr]

If Michael Crow lied about the condition of the house, he should be prosecuted for fraud.

I guess part of the point of my longform post above was: while he may have committed perjury, does it necessarily mean fraud? Historic Preservation decisions are based solely on the exterior, right? Discussions around the interior condition may have happened during testimony, but were they germane to granting/denying landmark status or anything else that would have prevented moving forward?

[David Greene]

It certainly influenced the council vote, which made the whole endeavor possible. Will anything happen? Probably not, but this whole episode makes me more sympathetic to the preservation people.

[RailBaronYarr]

It certainly influenced the council vote

Then, if the interior had not even been discussed at all, what would the council's vote have been? I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to frame the discussion around what the Council (and HPC) are tasked with doing.

What are the preservationists lamenting? The loss of public views/sense of place provided by an old home? Or the knowledge that the interior, which had more historic pieces than originally thought, was also lost? What would prevent a rich so and so from buying the house and gutting the inside entirely, and what legal action could preservationists take if so? If nothing, why the hubbub here?

[David Greene]

These are good questions. I'm not sure what the rules are around preservation and interiors. Certainly the interior is as much a part of the building as the exterior. As far as anything illegal happening, it seems there are two points to consider. One is whether the interior contributes to a historic resource. If so, false testimony should be punished. The other is whether false testimony leading to a vote in favor of the purjeror is illegal. It may not be but it sure seems like it should be.

Again, while I'm lamenting the loss of the interior (if it was in as good of shape as reported), I'm not saying the development should be stopped. I just don't want to set a precedent for people to lie about their properties and get a huge windfall for it. If Michael Crow lied about this, he's a scumbag.