  Mortgageking Member Username: Mortgageking Post Number: 264 Registered: 12-2006 |
Hey guys! On Saturday I was driving downtown to take some pictures when I noticed a building that really stood out as needing to be demolished. It stood at the corner of Bagley and another street (Clifford?). It looks as if the roof had burned and caved-in. Who can we contact to make sure that this dangerous eyesore is removed? Does this sound like a good project for Detroit Yes? Maybe we can demo then market this lot? Maybe Quicken would like this property? | ||
Tarkus Member Username: Tarkus Post Number: 592 Registered: 04-2006 |
OMG...OMG stop the presses, an abandoned and burned out hulk in Detroit. Ummmm we have like 10,000 of those. | ||
Big_baby_jebus Member Username: Big_baby_jebus Post Number: 80 Registered: 09-2008 |
Or... maybe it will just sit like the rest of the 250,000 other abandoned structures that need to be torn down. What make this one so important? just wondering- | ||
Mortgageking Member Username: Mortgageking Post Number: 265 Registered: 12-2006 |
Hey Tarkus and Baby Jesus. Is this place called "Detroit No"? This place is for positive thinkers only and I'm positive that we can do something about this building. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 5065 Registered: 11-2005 |
Hey Tarkus and Baby Jesus- it's called sarcasm. | ||
Big_baby_jebus Member Username: Big_baby_jebus Post Number: 81 Registered: 09-2008 |
Right...It is called sarcasm. +10 ;-) | ||
Tarkus Member Username: Tarkus Post Number: 593 Registered: 04-2006 |
It is??? LOL. I thought it was being a smart ass. ;) | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 197 Registered: 12-2005 |
AAA building. Ask the owner of the Michigan Building as he owns it. Although, he'll probably just give you some variant of the same tired excuse he and all the other local slumlords have been using for the last several years... In his defense, the AAA building caught fire. Not in his defense, he has done nothing more than let it sit there, as is, for the last several years. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1743 Registered: 11-2005 |
The building in question caught on fire during the demolition of the Statler Hotel. Demo crews accidentally set it ablaze. I think it's still standing because the insurance issue has not been resolved. | ||
Urbanfisherman Member Username: Urbanfisherman Post Number: 97 Registered: 07-2008 |
The courts would beg to differ about the Statler demo causing the fire. The slumlord who owns that building should be ashamed of himself for not tearing down that eyesore of a trashheap. | ||
1kielsondrive Member Username: 1kielsondrive Post Number: 904 Registered: 08-2008 |
Or the owner is 'give(ing) you(us) some variant of the same tired excuse(s) he and all the other local slumlords have been using for the last several(many) years. '(H)e has done nothing more than let it sit there, as is, for the last several years(decades). The parentheses are my added emphasis. It's not likely 'it's still standing because the insurance issue has not been resolved'. This building has been sitting there for 20 - 25 years, unoccupied, unrepaired, neglected and abandoned. Another imagined lottery ticket for another downtown property owner. Thanks for your accurate and honest assessment of the situation, Gotdetroit. | ||
1kielsondrive Member Username: 1kielsondrive Post Number: 905 Registered: 08-2008 |
BTW, sarcasm does equal smartass, at times. In any case, I haven't seen any DY rules forbidding sarcasm and smartassedness. If so, we'll all be censored pretty frequently. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3366 Registered: 02-2007 |
I don't know what business was in there, but darn it, I meant to go there before they closed. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1744 Registered: 11-2005 |
Note: I was not taking any side in the matter. Just offering one reason it might be standing. Neglect is a better reason. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 2409 Registered: 08-2007 |
Poor tony lost his lawsuit against the demo guys on Feb 19, 2009. In reading the attached ruling it sounds like Tony got $700,000+ insurance settlement when the place burned. Maybe I've misread the doc, but I wonder why he didn't use any of that insurance dough to fix the roof. http://coa.courts.mi.gov/docum ents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/200902 19_C279681_72_279681.OPN.PDF | ||
1kielsondrive Member Username: 1kielsondrive Post Number: 909 Registered: 08-2008 |
Sstashmoo, but darn it, you would've had to go there before they closed, about 30 years ago. It's been vacant that long. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 341 Registered: 10-2007 |
When did AAA leave the place? I had my car stolen and destroyed back in 1987 and had to go down there to argue with them when they seriously shorted me on the check. There was nothing memorable at all about the building. Decorated as it was in '60s utilitarian insurance agency modern - i.e. sheetrock, drop ceilings, florescent lighting, cubicles, and gray metal desks. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6172 Registered: 08-2004 |
For those that are misinformed... the AAA Building was FULLY LEASED by AAA, who had a 99 year lease on the ENTIRE building until 2015. They used to have offices in there, and later used it only for storage. But the lease was still being paid for by AAA to the building owner... that is until spontaneous combustion from some unknown source set the roof on fire. As Gnome correctly pointed out, the latest appeal was dismissed. As to what happens now, I haven't a clue... haven't talked with the owner in a few months... more appeals? demolition? I dunno... | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4171 Registered: 10-2003 |
Can someone find the archives on this one? | ||
Reddog289 Member Username: Reddog289 Post Number: 941 Registered: 08-2007 |
Might sound stupid , but is that the building across from the old UA theatre?. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4173 Registered: 10-2003 |
MortgageKing, check these out: quote: Hope this helps. | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 3023 Registered: 01-2004 |
Heres the day it was on fire: http://detroitfunk.com/?p=118 I recall talk at the scene about the owner showing up out of nowhere after ages of ignoring the building, and doing some quick "renovations" just before the building ignited. I assumed he wanted the Statler crew to have to demo his building too, and perhaps torched it. All wild speculation, but it was considered suspicious by DFD at the time. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4174 Registered: 10-2003 |
Be careful. Anyway, know what happened with between Mr. Pieroni and Homrich? | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6175 Registered: 08-2004 |
As for the failed court case... I read the records, and one thing that struck me odd was the fact that the demo company said that their records show that there was no welding done on the day of the fire. If they said so, I guess they must be right... because company records never lie... (just ask demo expert Bobby Ferguson)... I'd like to know what those AAA renovations were? Were they apparent in Fnemecek's photo's? Funny, I didn't see any new windows in the building... an obvious sign of work... nor did I see any interior work. And I'm curious in the "rare appearance of the owner showing up out of nowhere"... would that "out of nowhere" include across the street where he has his offices? DUH!! But that wouldn't make for good fodder for the Detroit Funk's sensationalist comments. I've talked with the building owners son (building super) many times. He did regular checks of the still leased AAA Building to make sure it was still secured and there were no problems. Wonder how Detoit Funk missed that fact? Why would a building that had another 10 years of good lease income left on it be burned down by its' owner? The DFD always checks for arson... but didn't find any. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1532 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thanks for posting the opinion, gnome. I note Crain's Detroit Business gave the Court of Appeals decision a small write-up in this week's edition. You don't see a lot of "negligent, but not a proximate cause of injury" verdicts. (There is a jury instruction to this effect that the court reads to the jury as to one of the decisions they can make when rendering their verdict ). As a former defense trial attorney, I would give the wrecking company's trial lawyer a lot of credit, convincing both the trial judge and assumedly, the Court of Appeals, that even though there was negligence on the part of his client, that negligence was not a proximate cause of the damages claimed by the owner of the building. That's tough to come into court and admit your client was wrong but argue that his actions still don't mean that the client is responsible for the particular damages sought by the plaintiff in the case. I tried a similar case a few years back involving bad facial burns to a man injured in a propane tank explosion, (fortunately )convincing the jury that my particular client's actions had nothing to do with the explosion, although we had direct involvement with the water meter vault in which the explosion took place. I sweated bullets through the whole 6 day trial. I see Mike Talbot was one of the judges. That certainly didn't hurt defendant's chances any on appeal. I can't see plaintiff going furthur and appealing to the Supreme Court. It has lost in the trial court, then the Court of Appeals, has had to pay sanctions and atty fees at the trial level and now has to pay costs for losing the appeal. My goodness, it was 55 years ago that I delivered inter-0ffice mail in that same AAA building when I worked a summer job there!! | ||
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear Post Number: 281 Registered: 08-2005 |
So is this finally over? Are there any additional defendants left? |
