Dear East Side Stakeholders -

On April 29, 2022 a group of East Side Stakeholders sent a strong, comprehensive letter to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Board of Commissioners. In that letter, the group shared both concerns and vision regarding the City's Request for Proposal process for the historic Hamm's site. In your letter, you set out a number of aspirations, and you asked to be as involved as possible in this historic project.
‍

Although my own Hamm’s proposal was not selected, I want to be clear that I unequivocally and enthusiastically support the site's redevelopment and I, too, want to be a partner as the original RFP envisioned. The successful revitalization of the Hamm's historic buildings is crucial for my businesses, and the successful operation and expansion of my businesses is crucial for the redevelopment of the abandoned Hamm’s buildings. My properties are ripe for expansion and could provide many of the things for the local community to which your original letter aspires. To accomplish successful reuse of the Hamm’s building, I believe we need strong leadership from the city and true partnership with the community and the tentative developer. 
‍

I am reaching out to request your renewed involvement in this significant project as contrary to your requests I believe we have ALL been sidelined and the proposed project is devolving.
‍

For the past two years, despite repeated requests, the City has failed to provide necessary leadership and management on the Hamm's site redevelopment, taking a hands off approach.  Basic questions regarding egress, easements, and right of way have been ignored. We have asked for regular meetings with the city and the tentative developer to simply be updated on project status and that has happened only once. We were railroaded when we asked to participate in the data collection for the parking study the community requested. We offered to pay for half of a market feasibility study to analyze demand, access, viability of commercial retail at the Hamm’s site and have been brushed off. Unfortunately we, like you, most often learn about matters involving the Hamm’s site and project through our weekly review of HRA agendas or via the local rumor mill. My frustration is primarily due to the lack of proactive problem-solving, engagement, and communication from City staff and leadership regarding these critical issues. I have taken every effort in the past two years to avoid moving to legal channels to help resolve, but in the spirit of transparency, my team is very close to taking this step.
‍

At Hamm’s, my focus is the successful adaptive reuse of the remaining Hamm's Brewery structures. I am investing in and wish to expand on the adaptive reuse of the buildings I own. I strongly believe that the city, too, should be prioritizing the renovation of the large Hamm’s structures in this development which according to the proposal, includes affordable housing and commercial uses.  At some point the developer’s plan has seemingly shifted to focus on designing and funding the new construction apartment project on the HRA shared parking lot while letting the historic restoration go to the back burner. Lip service by the city or developer to the latter only matters until it doesn’t (elected leaders change, directors change, development deals change –we know this first hand.) What is in writing? And while my business concerns have been reduced to a “parking versus affordable housing” trope, I disagree. Rather, I believe the current development approach seriously risks both Hamm’s immediate and long-term feasibility. 

‍

We strongly believe that the city must insist the project focuses on the successful redevelopment of the Hamm’s structures first before moving on to new construction.
‍We look to you, as stakeholders, to re-engage in this project and ask questions to help all of us understand the realities the current proposal is facing as it goes through its due-diligence. Here are some questions to consider.
‍

What changes have been made to the initial project proposal?
‍Are the ownership of townhomes still in the project? Are there live/work units still in the Hamm’s building project?
‍

Is the housing “penciling out” i.e. have the affordability and unit make up numbers changed to make the project work?  Have the overall number of apartment units decreased in both the renovation and new housing projects, and by how much? Has the affordability level of the remaining apartments changed? Has the unit mix changed? By how much? Has the number of parking stalls to support the future development decreased? By how much?
‍

What is the current vision for the commercial space?
‍What is the timeline for its completion? Who is the partner(s) who will develop and manage the marketplace concept which was billed as a wealth-building market stalls? 

‍

What has the city done to address the concerns of the unanimous group of Hamm’s-adjacent parcel owners before advancing the local historic designation option to acquire Historic Tax credits? 
Property owners, including but not limited to myself, have expressed support of the federal designation as well as concerns about the project that should be addressed before advancing. The local option is advancing- again with no engagement with the adjacent property owners. This path offers more restrictions on all properties, but does not require buy-in from adjacent property owners. The current version looks like it is designed to accommodate the developer’s project versus preserve a historic site.
‍

Why has the project priority seemingly switched from the restoration of the Hamm’s buildings to new construction?
‍City actions (rezoning, parcel split, funding) seem to focus on advancing new apartment building, is this true? If so, why? If not, please demonstrate how the renovation is advancing. The Hamm’s buildings are large, complex and will require significant financing, why are details on this critical part of the development unknown? Has funding been sought for the “West End” affordable housing? If so, to what sources? What is the finance plan?
‍

Will a market feasibility study be completed for this project as requested by stakeholders in this group?
‍A third-party market study would be beneficial to this discussion. Would stakeholders support the current proposal if a study indicated minimal chances of survival for existing businesses? Similarly, what if the study projected minimal success for a stall marketplace at this location? NDC, with their experience at the Midtown Global Market, would be a valuable partner for such a study. I have offered to cover half of such cost.

‍

The parking study requested by the community was finally released in February of this year, was this information considered in the JB Vang project design? 

The city should be transparent and openly communicate the project's true status to all of us; we suggest a facilitated conversation with stakeholders, JB Vang, Clapp’s team, and the City. We believe the current trajectory is not in the best interest of the east side and ask you to join us in requesting that the Hamm’s renovation be the first priority.
‍

In the spirit of partnership,

Rob Clapp
‍

Attached are City parking study, my own parking study, a side by side of what the 2023 HRA approved in its tentative developer agreement versus what appears to be the plan as of today.
‍

This is a link to the city’s presentation this winter that was billed as a Hamm’s Site development update. There is little in terms of development update, but instead lots of adversarial parking vs housing positioning.