Jimmy C's observations re:Liberty Commons Building
First of all, what was the rationale behind the goofy name "Liberty
Commons?" In this person's opinion, this name has little significance to
the city or the specific site. With all of the historical allusions that
could have been made, why Liberty Commons? But that is a minor issue.
What does the recent announcement that Hill Wallack has pulled out of the
deal to occupy the uncompleted "Liberty Commons" building mean? Besides
another black mark on our rough image.
To my mind it means that the EDCT totally failed in its fledgling and
flagship attempt to bring a decent sized corporation to downtown.
How did this happen, and more importantly, how can we reasonably assign the
blame and correct the mistakes? First person we should ask is Elgin
Clemens, the first and, so far, only Executive Director of the Nonprofit.
Unfortunately, we can't inquire of him because Mr. Clemens has, as the
popular expression goes, "left the building."
However, one has to assume he was responsible for
a) securing the funding for the project and
b) negotiating the lease with Hill Wallack.
In either case, there seems to be some serious miscalculations that went on
here.
Securing the funding would have had to have been based on realistic cost
estimates, based upon the proposed tenant's needs and specifications, the
architectural plans for same and the ensuing construction costs that would
be incurred to make the first two a reality.
Recouping the cost of building, fitting out and leasing the space should
have been the basis for negotiating the cost of the lease with Hill Wallack.
It appears as though we were so desperate for a tenant that negotiations
went distinctly in favor of the prospective tenant to the detriment of the
project.
Construction was started without final financing in place and only because
the lead contractor on the job advanced $3 million to the project in the
hope of meeting the tenant's "drop dead" completion date.
We're being led to believe that the tenant kept making changes to the
buildings specifications that kept the costs increasing. That shouldn't
have been a problem if the lease specified the extra costs were to be
incurred by the tenant. But apparently that wasn't the case.
Without having first hand, personal knowledge of the whole scenario, it
appears as though Mr. Clemens and/or the EDCT staff made a basic
error...they allowed Hill Wallack to negotiate a very favorable lease that
allowed for changes and upgrades at no additional increase in rental rate.
These changes pushed the final price higher to the point where funding was
difficult to get. And they forced the completion date backwards to a point
where Hill Wallack couldn't/wouldn't wait to occupy the premises.
Construction progressed to the point where the contractor used up the $3
million advance and no more money was in place. Progress was halted while,
quietly, there was (I hope) a scramble to secure the rest of the financing.
Once it started to become obvious to the general public that nothing was
being done...and this took awhile because work continued on the accompanying
parking garage being built independently by the Trenton Parking
Authority...we had a big public relations flurry about City Council devoting
$3 million in Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) funds from the city to the
project.
Essentially the entire pool of UEZ money was given to one project rather
than being spread around and the (implied) assumption was that this would
close the gap that existed in the financing to complete the building.
Unfortunately, it appears as though this money only went to repay the
contractor's advance not further the project. Unless paying off one
significant debt counts as furthering the project even though there is still
no money to complete it.
No funding. One loan paid. No further construction. Now what.
The EDCT Executive Director leaves and the project is stalled. Then, the
once and future tenant announces, on the afternoon before a long holiday
weekend, they are withdrawing from the deal because there is no way the
building can be completed on time.
The city, meanwhile, has basically committed its entire pot of UEZ funds to
this sole project (presumably to repay the contractor's advance) instead of
having it to spread around to other, smaller, projects and we are left with
an incomplete building and no committed tenant.
But wait. All is not lost. We are being told there are other interested
parties.
Or do we?
Where were these other interested parties when the EDCT was twisting arms
and promising the world to Hill Wallack to get them to agree to move here
(an agreement, that some wags suggest was never, ever, intended to be
carried out)? Were they afraid to compete for the sweetheart deal because
of lack of ties to the administration and EDCT? Or, did the interest only
arise when it appeared as though a large private firm was relocating to
Trenton, signaling that all is well and good and the time is ripe to move
here?
In either case, it's hard to believe that there are other private tenants
waiting for office space in downtown Trenton. Other corporations waiting to
snap up the lease on this as yet uncompleted building (and please prove me
wrong on this).
Had enough? I hope not because there is more.
What of the fact that former Trenton Director of Housing and Economic
Development Dennis Gonzalez landed an as yet undisclosed position at the
EDCT weeks before Mr. Clemens's departure and the public announcement that
the Hill Wallack deal was dead? How/why does this figure into the mess?
And is it true that he was paid a "signing bonus" to come on board at the
EDCT? If so, where did that money come from if they can't find the funding
to successfully put together their flagship project?
And what about the EDCT Board's role in all of this. Isn't it their
responsibility to ensure that the entity conduct's itself in a responsible
and successful way? Did they just give "carte blanche" to the Executive
Director to go out and make things happen without keeping a serious eye on
the deals being made? Or were inquiries and requests for information
thwarted in an attempt to keep the proceedings underwraps rather than under
scrutiny?
Was the board kept at bay by the City Administration's typically
need-to-know-basis of communication? Were they as in the dark as the
general public? Is it because our administration chooses to operate in a
closed door, back room manner rather than be up front about its shortcomings
and failures?
Finally, why is it Trenton cannot seem to get things done in a reasonably
efficient and effective manner? We seem to constantly trip over our own
feet as we try to step out of mediocrity into a progressive mode.
My opinion, based on little more than gut feeling, reading between the lines
and the "word on the street" is that the EDCT failed because:
a) the Executive Director's was unable or uncommitted to doing the job well
(or both)
b) the City Administration tried to hard to get land a high profile project
without adequate due diligence and responsibility
c) the Board of Directors was for some reason unable to exercise the proper
oversight of the EDCT's operations and thus forestall this calamity.
Somebody please give me proof that I'm wrong.
Jim Carlucci
Commons?" In this person's opinion, this name has little significance to
the city or the specific site. With all of the historical allusions that
could have been made, why Liberty Commons? But that is a minor issue.
What does the recent announcement that Hill Wallack has pulled out of the
deal to occupy the uncompleted "Liberty Commons" building mean? Besides
another black mark on our rough image.
To my mind it means that the EDCT totally failed in its fledgling and
flagship attempt to bring a decent sized corporation to downtown.
How did this happen, and more importantly, how can we reasonably assign the
blame and correct the mistakes? First person we should ask is Elgin
Clemens, the first and, so far, only Executive Director of the Nonprofit.
Unfortunately, we can't inquire of him because Mr. Clemens has, as the
popular expression goes, "left the building."
However, one has to assume he was responsible for
a) securing the funding for the project and
b) negotiating the lease with Hill Wallack.
In either case, there seems to be some serious miscalculations that went on
here.
Securing the funding would have had to have been based on realistic cost
estimates, based upon the proposed tenant's needs and specifications, the
architectural plans for same and the ensuing construction costs that would
be incurred to make the first two a reality.
Recouping the cost of building, fitting out and leasing the space should
have been the basis for negotiating the cost of the lease with Hill Wallack.
It appears as though we were so desperate for a tenant that negotiations
went distinctly in favor of the prospective tenant to the detriment of the
project.
Construction was started without final financing in place and only because
the lead contractor on the job advanced $3 million to the project in the
hope of meeting the tenant's "drop dead" completion date.
We're being led to believe that the tenant kept making changes to the
buildings specifications that kept the costs increasing. That shouldn't
have been a problem if the lease specified the extra costs were to be
incurred by the tenant. But apparently that wasn't the case.
Without having first hand, personal knowledge of the whole scenario, it
appears as though Mr. Clemens and/or the EDCT staff made a basic
error...they allowed Hill Wallack to negotiate a very favorable lease that
allowed for changes and upgrades at no additional increase in rental rate.
These changes pushed the final price higher to the point where funding was
difficult to get. And they forced the completion date backwards to a point
where Hill Wallack couldn't/wouldn't wait to occupy the premises.
Construction progressed to the point where the contractor used up the $3
million advance and no more money was in place. Progress was halted while,
quietly, there was (I hope) a scramble to secure the rest of the financing.
Once it started to become obvious to the general public that nothing was
being done...and this took awhile because work continued on the accompanying
parking garage being built independently by the Trenton Parking
Authority...we had a big public relations flurry about City Council devoting
$3 million in Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) funds from the city to the
project.
Essentially the entire pool of UEZ money was given to one project rather
than being spread around and the (implied) assumption was that this would
close the gap that existed in the financing to complete the building.
Unfortunately, it appears as though this money only went to repay the
contractor's advance not further the project. Unless paying off one
significant debt counts as furthering the project even though there is still
no money to complete it.
No funding. One loan paid. No further construction. Now what.
The EDCT Executive Director leaves and the project is stalled. Then, the
once and future tenant announces, on the afternoon before a long holiday
weekend, they are withdrawing from the deal because there is no way the
building can be completed on time.
The city, meanwhile, has basically committed its entire pot of UEZ funds to
this sole project (presumably to repay the contractor's advance) instead of
having it to spread around to other, smaller, projects and we are left with
an incomplete building and no committed tenant.
But wait. All is not lost. We are being told there are other interested
parties.
Or do we?
Where were these other interested parties when the EDCT was twisting arms
and promising the world to Hill Wallack to get them to agree to move here
(an agreement, that some wags suggest was never, ever, intended to be
carried out)? Were they afraid to compete for the sweetheart deal because
of lack of ties to the administration and EDCT? Or, did the interest only
arise when it appeared as though a large private firm was relocating to
Trenton, signaling that all is well and good and the time is ripe to move
here?
In either case, it's hard to believe that there are other private tenants
waiting for office space in downtown Trenton. Other corporations waiting to
snap up the lease on this as yet uncompleted building (and please prove me
wrong on this).
Had enough? I hope not because there is more.
What of the fact that former Trenton Director of Housing and Economic
Development Dennis Gonzalez landed an as yet undisclosed position at the
EDCT weeks before Mr. Clemens's departure and the public announcement that
the Hill Wallack deal was dead? How/why does this figure into the mess?
And is it true that he was paid a "signing bonus" to come on board at the
EDCT? If so, where did that money come from if they can't find the funding
to successfully put together their flagship project?
And what about the EDCT Board's role in all of this. Isn't it their
responsibility to ensure that the entity conduct's itself in a responsible
and successful way? Did they just give "carte blanche" to the Executive
Director to go out and make things happen without keeping a serious eye on
the deals being made? Or were inquiries and requests for information
thwarted in an attempt to keep the proceedings underwraps rather than under
scrutiny?
Was the board kept at bay by the City Administration's typically
need-to-know-basis of communication? Were they as in the dark as the
general public? Is it because our administration chooses to operate in a
closed door, back room manner rather than be up front about its shortcomings
and failures?
Finally, why is it Trenton cannot seem to get things done in a reasonably
efficient and effective manner? We seem to constantly trip over our own
feet as we try to step out of mediocrity into a progressive mode.
My opinion, based on little more than gut feeling, reading between the lines
and the "word on the street" is that the EDCT failed because:
a) the Executive Director's was unable or uncommitted to doing the job well
(or both)
b) the City Administration tried to hard to get land a high profile project
without adequate due diligence and responsibility
c) the Board of Directors was for some reason unable to exercise the proper
oversight of the EDCT's operations and thus forestall this calamity.
Somebody please give me proof that I'm wrong.
Jim Carlucci
