Comments on: Palomar Canceled?

By: Racked and Stacked

Racked and Stacked — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:39:06 +0000

Iv’e been following this project for quite some time and what’s clear to me is-

**There where only 4 to 6 units presold in a year with expectations of triple that.
**In this environment, I suspect the major Bank lender would not move forward with these numbers.
**The failure had nothing to do with not recieving a TIF, with the Historic Preservation Society or the Mayors mood swings. It simply didn’t meet it’s minimum projection to secure financing.
**The poster going by “concerned Milwaukeean” is most definately the former Head of Condo sales(or no-sales if you’d like) for the recently departed Palomar project.
** A Las Vegas style Hotel is probably not appropriate for Milwaukee..

By: Concerned Milwaukeean

Concerned Milwaukeean — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:52:48 +0000

Ryan, get a clue. Get your facts. Unless you are my accountant, you would have no idea who signs my paychecks so it is ridiculous of you to be so confident in your deductions. My name isn’t Mary or Cybil and that is a fact. Due to the nature of my career, I choose to use a pen name. I enjoy sharing my opinion because I am passionate about growth, opportunity and Milwaukee’s success. I am originally from Chicagoland and moved here after college. I thought the Palomar would offer Milwaukee something its never seen before in the art, music, food and space it would have created in a current concrete & ugly space. I liked that it created jobs. I just really liked what it would have added and am disappointed that a major developer in the country was promised one thing and then well in to the development stage, was retracted. To me, as a business person, it didn’t seem like a nice way of doing business. But such is life. We move on.

By: Ryan Tomolo

Ryan Tomolo — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:41:20 +0000

You’re not a very good liar, Mary, Cybil or whatever name you are using…..

By: Concerned Milwaukeean

Concerned Milwaukeean — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:35:13 +0000

Wrong again, Ryan. I’ve worked for the same employer for seven years and never once for Palomar, Gatehouse or Rob Ruvin. Are people always suppose to agree with you? Last I checked, I can have all the facts and formulate my own opinion that may disagree with others. That’s what blogging is all about – the ability to share thoughts, express ideas and stimulate conversation. Those are the facts that I know. I’ve spoken with many different direct channels from this project to get my facts, not just from our news publications. I suggest you do the same.

By: Ryan Tomolo

Ryan Tomolo — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:49:21 +0000

Okay, I agree you are no longer associated with the Palomar, however you WERE the Sales Director right up until the project failed-Nice work….Give it up MBGW

By: Concerned Milwaukeean

Concerned Milwaukeean — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:39:26 +0000

Fact, I am not the head of sales nor in any way related or employed by the Palomar. I believed that this project was amazing and would breathe new life in to the McKinley District. So “clearly”, you are mistaken and you shouldn’t assume anything.

Second, it came down to Milwaukee promising TIF money, then pulling it. They allowed the project to be union construction but then wanted the final project to be union, which killed the budget.

Third, tihs developer is far savvier than anyone gives them credit for. They’ve done this successfully all over the country.

By: Sarals

Sarals — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:16:07 +0000

I have been involved in many Developed projects such as the one discussed here, the Palomar and the following are clear to me about this failing:

1. The project never would have got off of the drawing board without a Bank approved budget with the only real major variable being the projects ability to pre-sell units at a level commensurate with their projection. Clearly that goal wasn’t met.

2. The discussion of not recieving a TIFF at this late date is nothing more than an excuse as the project wouldn’t have got to this point unless it was pre-approved or wasn’t discussed.

3. Spending a reported $1.5 million on a sales center, purchasing a skybox at the Bradley Center, etc. and then blaming the failure on the city leads me to believe that some are lacking in they’re ability to asses reality.

I wonder how different this would have ended up if the Developers had decided to use a larger, more professional and respected firm to represent they’re sales effort.

By: Ryan Tomolo

Ryan Tomolo — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:26:13 +0000

Clearly the writer using the alias “Concerned Milwaukeean” was the head of Condo sales for the project. The comments and word usage are identical to her quotes in the many obnoxious articles she was quoted in. Give it a rest, the project failed because not enough units were sold.

By: MilwaukeeD

MilwaukeeD — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:56:04 +0000

It is great that they were going to give so much money to local charities and foundations…but if the project wasn’t financially feasible, maybe they should have cut back on that kind of stuff.

A project that claims to be so generous to the community, but needs a subsidy from that community…is either a project that is not so generous as they claim….or a project that can’t feasibly happen (as is the case with the Palomar).

Of course the project sounded so great…because they were adding in all sorts of stuff that they couldn’t afford….Bradley Center luxury box and all of those other crazy amenities. But why should the City have to help pay for those?

By: Jeramey Jannene

Jeramey Jannene — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:15:30 +0000

Concerned Milwaukeean,

If these things are so great, why couldn’t the private market build it itself?

If union wages are so expensive, don’t use public money.

By: Concerned Milwaukeean

Concerned Milwaukeean — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:42:00 +0000

The project was cancelled because the City et. al. wanted to enforce union labor in the hotel/restaurant, etc. at the 11th hour and then decided not to grant the TIF money.

There were plenty of contracts. The developer was well aware of, and planned for, the economy and was still willing to move forward. Sales wasn’t the issue.

More than that, its the hotel, restaurant, Las Vegas style night club, spa and so on that we also turned down. The condos only occupied a small portion of the entire project. I don’t understand why everyone is focusing on just the condos?

Re: JOBS: Here are the exact stats – 600 full time construction jobs. 230 full time benefited jobs with the operations of the hotel, condo, convention and community service.

So I do think Milwaukee needs to make sure they look at how they treat people, in and out of town, because we do need to attract more businesses to our region in order to move forward. Whether or not its condos, hotels, restaurants or any other business. That is my concern… People need to get off the condo and look at the project as a whole.

By: Dave Reid

Dave Reid — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:59:34 +0000

@Concerned Milwaukeean
I won’t go into a full response on all the issues here but I just want to clear something up.

The Mayor can not hand out a TIF. A TIF generally goes through RACM, DCD, CPC (I think), 4 taxing authorities, ZND, the Common Council and then and only then the Mayor. Yes of course there is negotiation that goes on and went on but there was never an enforceable deal for a TIF that was actually approved. So lets make that clear.