For those who missed it..Yesterday's/Sunday's front page of the business section @JSonline.

"Shorewood's building renovation gamble doesn't pay off"

http://www.jsonline.com/business/shorewoods-building-renovation-gamble-doesnt-pay-off-ec921mb-196689531.html

@ Ab Fab Good article in yesterday's MJS --- kinda of deja vu about a lot of we have talked about with Shorewood's grandiose largesse.

Very interesting to read the comments from Village Manager Swartz, Board President Johnson, and Development Commission Chairman Petrie ---- woulda, coulda and shoulda about sums up their thoughts.

The only smart person in Shorewood Commercial Real Estate seems to be Mr Katz --- I think the Village should stop giving away all that money and maybe just pay Mr Katz for a few hours of consultation per year --- could only help.

Hah! Katz calls the Lakewood Building "Stalinesque". A perfect look for Shorewood!
I have to agree with David on his suggestion of taking on Katz as a consultant to the Shorewood Board/BID.

It also must seem like a little bit of home to the majority of the occupants of the multi-story residential unit behind it to the west. Maybe Katz could just give it a slight upgrade to something from the Gorbachev era, rather than going with the pseudo-Bauhaus mannerisms affected by some other recent updates on the East Side.

Actually, it makes absolutely no sense when a building that was purchased for $3,400,000 + $1,200,000 in renovations is sold 4 years later for $1,500,000 and in Shorewood.

There is no indication that this property was under any financial duress and no records of any foreclosure proceedings online. Additionally, this property was owned by a partnership. Partnerships change and one of the original partners died a few years ago. Was it possible that the surviving family members cashed out and someone got a hell of a discount?

Whatever the new partners purchase price was, no matter how big their stake, would be the only thing that shows up on sales info. w/ no indication of % of ownership.

SO MY QUESTION IS...Does Dan Katz own the entire property outright/100% or is he a partner and the Village of Shorewood is just going along becuase let's face it. Dan stuck it to Harley's one time and having a tax liability go from $79,000 to $39,000 can be one hell of an incentive to keep from rocking the boat.

Why would Dan Katz not raise the rent on a space that had ~$400,000 invested in it just 5 years ago and Harley's initial lease was for at least 5 years...Is it time for a renewal and they can't afford to stay w/ a rental increase. That would be kick in the A** for the powers that be who poured taxpayer monies into this building/space all in the name of saving Harley's.

----

Dan Katz already has the decision makers where he wants them and does what he wants.

Sounds like we need another one of those 'what should go here?' stories...

Sure does, CD...

A great opportunity for an investigative reporter wanting to establish credentials.

While I get that something stinks about the property on Oakland, I'm not sure you can compare these two properties. The property on Wilson is a sprawling complex of structures with what I'd imagine are considerably larger units, underground parking, a pool and community center type arrangement and lot of land.

Bob-

A property that is purchased for $3,400,000 + $1,200,000 in improvements. W/ 2bdrms renting for $950 and 1st floor commercial all leased out all of the sudden doesn't just sell for $1,500,000 in Shorewood

Also, the 2 bdrm apartments on Wilson start @ $845.00 whereas Katz 2 bdrm apartments on Oakland start @ $950.

Wilson apartments

http://www.forrent.com/apartment-community-profile/1028300.php

Katz on Oakland

http://www.katzprop.com/Properties.aspx?rmwebsvc_command=PropertyDetail.aspx&rmwebsvc_corpid=katz&rmwebsvc_location=&rmwebsvc_id=127&rmwebsvc_mode=javaScript&rmwebsvc_AvailabilityDate=3/12/2013&rmwebsvc_template=MainList

Did you just blow over the part where I said I understood that the situation on Oakland is fishy? I'll repeat - I understand that.

The two properties are, still, not really comparable.

Part 2

So, lets add some things up and throw in some hypotheticals.

44 units * $950 per month =$41,800 in monthly rental income
59 parking spaces * $60 = $3,540 in monthly income
****Coin Operated Washers/Dryers

Lets say there are 70 residents just for the sake of some people wanting 2 bdrm units for themselves. Yet, there may be 3 people in a 2 bdrm unit if Katz allows it and they usually pay a surcharge.

Anyway lets say these 70 people spend $4 per week on laundry = $1,120 monthly income

Bob-

I don't give a Sh#t about the outdoor space et al when looking at the bottom line. What is the monthly rental income? is the 1st thing that is asked and then why?

UWM...That's why. Changes the game for everyone.

Now, let's crunch some numbers

44 units @ $950 per month =$41,800 per month in income
59 parking spaces @ $60 = $3,540 per month in income
Coin operated Washer/Dryer @ $4 per week = $1,120 monthly income
(for let's say 70 people )

Added together you have a property that generates $46,460 per month in income.
Now, let's subtract 10% for vacancies et al and you now have $41,814 in monthly income MULTIPLIED by 12 months = $501,768 in yearly gross income and YET THIS PROPERTY SELLS FOR JUST $1,500,000 and the Village of Shorewood just goes along with it???

If Dan was to contest an assessment he would have to show proof ie income/expense statements along w/ tax return to say the least.

What kind of condition are the apartments on Wilson, currently, in compared to those on Oakland? From what I've seen of the ones on Wilson, they're pretty run down. Certainly not what they were in their glory days, back when that location was probably one of the most desirable rental properties in the area. They could be fixed up, turned into condos, deluxe apartments...whatever...creating a situation whereby they could bring in significantly higher income.

The building on Oakland is what it is. As noted, they've already dumped money into upgrading that building. It's not going to get any better, short of doing the cosmetic upgrades Katz is talking about.

They're really not comparable properties.

I actually left something out of my estimated yearly revenue. Completely left out rents generated from all of the 1st floor commercial, ie Harley's and Cyga. That's got to add a nice chunk of change (or should if they are able to pay rent) to the already estimated $500,000 generated yearly in rental income for 3575 N. Oakland.

Mike-

I'll keep posting..just for you. BTW, next time you do any improvements on your house, keep an eye out for your next tax bill :)

Really, only minutes to post in between other things..

@Mike What would you suggest that AB FAB or anyone do about the situation with the Village giving away all this money and then loosing the valuation and associated taxes?

It seems that despite all that has been written, the voters are blissfully ignorant, as they keep electing Village Board Members who go along with whatever Petrie and Swartz recommend!

There is now an election coming up with one incumbent and two challengers for two open seats.

It would be interesting for the candidates to clearly state what they think of the way we are spending money -- although supposedly not actually spent as recouped in increased valuation -- and whether they will be satsified with the status quo when and if elected.

Without that kind of candid disclosure by the candidates, other than the incumbent, the voters don't have any choices to make that would affect the situation.

I smell what you're cooking, AbFab. Good detective work, and thank you for bringing all of this to light. Katz really does have Shorewood by the coconuts. And to think, I have to buy a $50 permit when I want to rearrange my frickin' furniture!