Johnny Meier, a longtime member of the New Mexico Route 66 Association, attended the recent hearing regarding the demolition application of El Vado Motel in Albuquerque. Here are excerpts from an e-mail of his thoughts:
The projected income was argued by the developer to be considered as an unreasonable rate of return given the cost of rehabilitation. The developer argued that the building was in poor condition, the city’s experts testified that it was remarkably sound in structure saying that out of hundreds of vintage buildings reviewed, the El Vado rated a 8.5 to 9.5 on a scale of 10 and that the outstanding structural integrity did not justify demolition. I could not get a sense of which way the commission was leaning. Its a dueling experts game. As a member of the public, I had two minutes to speak, and after examining the numbers presented that showed a differential between rehabilitation and earnings, I pointed out the unaccounted for eligibility of a National Register Property and a Scenic Byways property for grant funding which potentially could close the gap. I commented that in the grant evaluation process, National Register properties grant applications are shuffled to the top of the pile. A Commission member added that City grant money might also be available. […]
Part of the burden on the developer is to demonstrate that all alternatives and options have been considered at that the rehabilitation project is financially unfeasible. As an observer, and trying to be objective, I felt that there are alternatives that have not been pursued. One clear option is reselling the property for a reasonable return. The developer had paid $680,000 and testified that he had offered it for sale at a price of $3.2 million and he admitted he purposely listed it high because he did not really want to sell it. In addition, property swaps with the city had not reached a dead end. The Developer said that he had been offered property swaps that were indeed interesting to him but claimed that the city, after offering swaps, was not following through on his interest. The rep for the city involved in swap offers will be testifying in January.
In a hallway conversations, the developer said to me that “I wish I could tell you what I really want to do” hinting that I might like what I’d hear. One of his associates then gave me an intro to what was really going on. According to them, they have to argue for demolition in order to get a blank sheet and proceed without city interference. It was suggested to me that what the Developer really wants to do is tear down the back of the property for townhomes and rehabilitate the front part of the property. The undercurrent, although not explicitly stated, was that the Developer didn’t want to antagonize the city and the public with actually following through with a total demolition. The requested total demolition was a means to get the city moving with regard to swaps and the like. If the developer actually got permission to totally demolish the property and then without obligation, voluntarily rehabilitated the front, then the developer would be on the high ground. The associate asked me what I thought about a half and half plan. I replied that I’d support that if it is true that the total rehabilitation project is unfeasible.
Ordinarily, I would be amenable to Gonzales’ proposal to preserve part of El Vado. This is an idea he has floated in the past. But I would consider this proposal only as a last resort because Gonzales has demonstrated that he is not trustworthy. If such a proposal eventually comes to pass, I would make sure it’s an ironclad agreement so Gonzales can’t weasel out of it.