With the CRM plan gone, tomorrow is another day...

Imagine if Margaret Mitchell, author of “Gone With the Wind,” was a member of the Buffalo Grove Village Board.  After 2½ years of debate and discussions, many of which were contentious, regarding the now vanished “downtown project”, old Meg might have just rolled her eyes and uttered, “well, tomorrow is another day.”

                And she would be right.

                The instant downtown, proposed by Deerfield-based CRM Properties, is now a  memory. And while the acrimonious debate is seemingly lingering over concerns about the process and the fate of the Buffalo Grove Golf Course, the fact remains that the plan is gone and the village needs to face another day.

                The last several months have been a whirlwind of activity surrounding the CRM project and the end, much like Jay Cutler’s role as the Bears’ starting quarterback, came suddenly, with an unclear future lying ahead. 

                The village, however, is taking steps to enhance, develop and redevelop its retail business climate.  It’s going to be an arduous task for the village staff and the fathers and mother that make up the Village Board.

                There are a lot of questions.  In regard to the CRM project, I had hoped to get some answers from CRM President Chuck Malik, but scheduling conflicts and then a trip out of town led to his suggestion that I “check with (Village Manager) Dane Bragg for details.”  And before you know it, the petition was withdrawn.  Questions, however, remain.

                Up until a couple of weeks ago, questions centered on what Malk was going to do with his mega plan for a “downtown Buffalo Grove”.  His decision to withdraw his petition surprised residents, village staff and officials for a variety of reasons.

                For the cynical residents, it was a surprise because they assumed the project was a done deal.  For others, it was a surprise because there were so many unanswered questions that it was not clear which direction the plan was going.

                What may have been at the root of the withdrawal was that fact that Malk was eyeing in excess of $100 million from the village, a figure that was not met with open arms.

                “I was more surprised by Malk’s recent financial pro forma that was presented to the Board,” Village Board member Steve Trilling told me in an email response. “It was inconsistent with an earlier representation as to the amount of public funding, if any, that might be necessary.”

                The quick kill to the project may have been Malk’s request for financial support from the village.

                Board member Lester Ottenheimer said what surprised him was the change in financing because in what he called “preliminary discussions”, the village was led to believe that “financing would be different.”  Ottenheimer added that Malk’s decision could have been “because he couldn’t get what he wanted in financing elsewhere.”

Ottenheimer noted that the proposed cost to the village “were so high up it was out of control; He wanted us to finance $100 million. We can’t tie up the village with that kind of debt”.

                Was Trustee Jeff Berman surprised by the decision? “No, not in light of the financial figures CRM recently provided to the Village,” he told me in an email. He noted that “those figures were developed for the current version of the plan, which was created in response to the engineering study that was completed earlier this fall. Mr. Malk told staff that in order to make the project work from his perspective, he required a firm commitment for public financing for the “gap” shown on his spreadsheet of roughly $102 million.”

Berman noted that “just a few months ago, by contrast, he was still touting the possibility that the project could be completed without any TIF, or one of insignificant size.”  Berman said changes in circumstances the plan and numbers and Malk’s perspective led to Berman changing his own perspective.  “Based on the financial forecasts provided by CRM, it is clear to me that the project is financially infeasible. The nature and amount of TIF debt required to make the project “work” is far beyond any rational contemplation.”

                Board member Andrew Stein said he too was “surprised by the amount requested by Mr. Malk.” Stein noted in an email response that in previous discussions with the Board, Malk indicated that “he would try to structure it so that we would not need a TIF. When he did talk about a commitment from the Village, it was closer to the $20 million range.”

                Stein added that he was not was “not surprised that he (Malk) walked away when we told him that we were not interested in a $100 million contribution from the village.”

                The apparent move by Malk, along with the surprise and ensuing concern by the Board, should bring to light that this was not a “done deal” and that village staff and officials kept an eye open on the long-term impact on village finances.  Still, there were some apparent mixed reactions.

                “I don't know if I was so much surprised as I was disappointed,” Trustee Mike Terson told me in an email. “I was looking forward to going through the entire process and seeing how that evolved, as well as how the community would react as they learned more and more about the project.”

                Terson added that he is “not surprised by his decision because it became clear that the entire Board was not on the same page; and, that is a lot of time and money to invest in a process that you don't feel is likely to garnish the needed support to make happen.”

                Beverly Sussman said in an email that she was surprised by Malk’s decision because it happened “so abruptly”, especially given the fact that Malk “worked on this project for approximately 2-1/2 years and presenting two different concept designs plus his original design”.  Sussman noted that what added to her surprise was that fact that Malk “had a great deal vested in this downtown project.”

She added that he could have “tried to scale down the project or negotiate the amount or at least had some meetings with the Village to see if there was anything possible to work on. It's hard to believe that a developer of this size and magnitude would not have come back to the Village with some new proposal or concept.”

                Hard to believe or not, the proposal for a “downtown Buffalo Grove” is gone and when it comes to retail development or redevelopment in the village, tomorrow is another day.

                And frankly my dear, hopefully there will be developers who actually give a damn.

(This is the first in a series focusing on retail development and redevelopment in Buffalo Grove)