Is Avondale Ready For A 7-Eleven?

[ChriswUfGator]

Personal attacks ??  I have made no "personal attacks" to whomever.  I responded to "Chris' false information about the $1.9 property "[sic] being almost across the street...and the same size as the Shell property" (Chris' words).  Chris, whoever he is (I do not know or care) is the one who started firing personal attacks by more than inferrring I lied about a tow I witnessed.  Go back and read my first response to his false information.  Where is the personal attack you accuse me of making...it is not there.

What also is not there is an admission by Chris that he is wrong about the location and size of his property, the main theme of my earlier post.

I do not want Chris' or anyone's car towed.  My question about the make and model of his car was a poke, nothing more...but you know that, and you also know the word for f____r, especially in the context of the comment.  Pardon my attempt to avoid improper language in what is supposed to be a disussion forum.

Concerning ownership of the Shell property, I genuinely do not care.  I still give him-or her-or them-or it- -kudos for being a good neighbor.

And do you want fries with that ?   

There is no false information, go look up the Monty's listing on MLS.

You're trying to poke at the "same size" thing, and I made that comment back when the 7-11 would have been a single-story building, the design was supposedly modified only AFTER I'd written that. I'm not a liar because something changed after I wrote my comment, you know. It doesn't work that way I'm afraid. Or why don't we compare the shell station now as it sits to the monty's listing. If you go by reality, instead of fiction and future conceptual drawings, then the comparable I pointed out is LARGER not smaller. And yes, it is indeed almost directly across the street. Couple hundred feet west at most.

Not sure what you're getting at here? You clearly have some kind of personal involvement. But I hate to break it to you, all the vitriolic message board snark in the world ain't gonna make that overpriced goose fly. Don't shoot the messenger.

[logical]

To what "comparable" do you refer?  A couple hundred feet 'west' would put it on Riverside.  And please point out the "vitriolic message board snark" you accuse me of committing.  Maybe your friend, Captain Zissou, would be better at pointing out any "snark", because his post is loaded with the personal attacks of which he accuses me:  "[sic]... mean spirited vendetta against Chris...holier than thou...not for you (me) to slander people...".  I have written nothing that even comes close to his use of personal attacks.

I certainly have nothing against you.  I don't know you or anything about you.  Maybe you are a nice guy who just got upset by my calling you out about your misleading description of the $1.9 mil property location, and basically accusing me of lying about what I saw. 

If you are the owner of the $1.9 mil property, I hope you get your asking price.  Doing so would make a bunch of Shoppes property owners very happy as they see the values of their properties climb significantly.

And do you want fries with that?            

[undergroundgourmet]

The gentleman who owns the Shell station is leasing the empty lot to the employees of The Brick and 'Town. They are ALLOWED to park there everyday. Occasionally a customer will park there also if they get lucky.

[ChriswUfGator]

To what "comparable" do you refer?  A couple hundred feet 'west' would put it on Riverside.  And please point out the "vitriolic message board snark" you accuse me of committing.  Maybe your friend, Captain Zissou, would be better at pointing out any "snark", because his post is loaded with the personal attacks of which he accuses me:  "[sic]... mean spirited vendetta against Chris...holier than thou...not for you (me) to slander people...".  I have written nothing that even comes close to his use of personal attacks.

I certainly have nothing against you.  I don't know you or anything about you.  Maybe you are a nice guy who just got upset by my calling you out about your misleading description of the $1.9 mil property location, and basically accusing me of lying about what I saw. 

If you are the owner of the $1.9 mil property, I hope you get your asking price.  Doing so would make a bunch of Shoppes property owners very happy as they see the values of their properties climb significantly.

And do you want fries with that?            

This is getting ridiculous.

If you want to use the "if I accuse them of doing what I'm doing before they point out I'm doing it" strategy, you generally have to use that BEFORE everybody and their cousin calls you out for it. Your timing is off on this one. Secondly, I've said a bunch of times in this thread, the listing I was referring to is Monty's.

I'm starting to wonder if this elevator goes all the way to the top.

[ChriswUfGator]

The gentleman who owns the Shell station is leasing the empty lot to the employees of The Brick and 'Town. They are ALLOWED to park there everyday. Occasionally a customer will park there also if they get lucky.

Wait, so after all of logical's fabricated hogwash about having people arrested or having their cars towed for parking there (nevermind that this isn't even possible), it turns out that the owner is actually renting the thing out for parking. Ouch, logical, that's got to be embarassing.

[logical]

Embarassing ??  It makes no sense to be embarassed about any alleged arrangement between business owners.  If that is true, good for the businesses and their employees.  "Embarassing" is trying to justify an asking price of $1.9 mil on a property that is not worth its mortgage.   

And do you want fries with that?    

[ChriswUfGator]

Embarassing ??  It makes no sense to be embarassed about any alleged arrangement between business owners.  If that is true, good for the businesses and their employees.  "Embarassing" is trying to justify an asking price of $1.9 mil on a property that is not worth its mortgage.   

And do you want fries with that?    

LOL

[mtraininjax]

Serious Question for those who know, did the Florida Department of EPA issue a "NO FURTHER ACTION" Letter with regard to the property, meaning that no matter who takes possession, they will not be required to perform further remediation on the property? If there is no such letter, only a big corporation can afford the remediation of the property. If there is a letter, well, I still don't see an individual plunking down that much coin for the property with a good chunk of change remaining for building the new structure.

Many of my friends who grew up here remember seeing the Shell when it was operational and back then, it was OK to dump chemicals into the ground, no one really sent the RAP police after you, so there is really no telling what else lies buried in the dirt around the building and other areas. I am sure the environmental study will be 1) an expensive one, and 2) a very telling one on the property.

Too bad 7-11 pulled out, at least temporarily, we really could use a quick magic market for milk, bread, and other quick items that you can pickup as you leave one of the restaurants to take home.

[logical]

Please read my post #111 on page 8, the bottom paragraph.  I have a very close relative who is in the environmental field, with advanced degrees.  He knows everything about contaminated property, regs, remediation, etc.  I have heard so many "horror" stories from him that I learned way more about rules and procedures than I care to remember.

The cleanup is done.  I was there when the tanks, etc., and a huge amount of soil was removed and replaced.  The regulating department in Florida is the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), not the EPA.  RAP is out of the loop completely.

When I wore a younger man's clothes, the Shell station was "Seagraves"...an old style building, no canopy, and the only towing truck within pointing distance.  The Seagraves family has a long westside history, and is still around.  The grand daughter (?) maybe "great" owns Pier 17 over on Lakeside Dr.

Sometime in the early 60s, I think, the current Shell station building replaced the old building.  I used to buy gas there in high school and after, and remember seeing a photo of "the really old station" with two men standing next to two gravity pumps.  The younger man had one strap of his overalls hanging down, no shoes and 1 1/2 arms.  The older man had overalls, and the ground was crushed limestone.  Somebody told me that the property had been a gas station since the late 20s.

Now to your inquiries...when there is contamination on a property and the contaminant is known...in the Shell's case, gasoline (hydrocarbons [?]), the ground water is tested for "that" contaminant, not for a host of all other possible contaminants.  When the tests show a contamination level above a minimum ppb (parts per billion) the property comes under the watchdog of the State D.E.R.

Often, a contaminated site qualifies under a State program wherein State money may be available to assist in the cleanup, but access to that money goes to the "worst first" properties.  Typically, gasoline-contaminated-property is too low in line to ever qualify for any $$.  Other contaminated sites with, for example, PCBs, arsenic, etc., abound.

After the contaminated soil is removed and replaced, as was done on the Shell property, there comes a lengthy period of monitoring by way of several monitoring wells both on the property and off the property in the direction of the flow of the 'plume' (the area of contamination referred to as "The Dig" in engineering terms).  When the tests show the soil is clean (over two or more consecutive quarters), the State may issue a "No Further Action [NFA]" letter.  "Clean" is defined generally as the contaminants are below a minimum ppb level.

I remember seeing a man several months ago, maybe more than a year...I don't recall exactly...taking test water from several monitoring wells across St. Johns Avenue.  I assumed he had already done the same with monitoring wells on the property, or was going to do so.  Later, after "The Dig" was covered by a large quantity of rocks and graded to eliminate what had become a very large mud bog, another big monitoring well showed up smack in the middle of "The Dig".  I assumed the well was required maybe as a final phase of testing to qualify for a NFA letter.  Anyway, that well is still there and is easily seen by its large cement crown around the well head.

My guess is the State issued a NFA because it has been a long time since that last well was installed.  As for other possible contaminants being present in the ground, a prospective buyer could easily use the existing monitoring wells, assuming they are still there, to test for whatever.  But if it is true that the Shell station has been a gas station for 70 or 80 years, there is no compelling reason to suspect more contamination.

So, a prospective buyer might take a few samples as a matter of policy, but all of the test results would be available from the seller, the State D.E.R. or the engineer company which did the cleanup, for the buyer to see.

Way back, when The Dig took place, I was told by someone who knew the owner(s) that he/she/they decided to clean up the contamination, i.e., do the 'remediation' and pay for it themselves, and that he/she/they would not sell the property in its contaminated state, even though there had been offers made approaching $2 million.  But then the crash in '08 happened, and the real estate bottom fell out.

And do you want fries with that?        

       

[duvaldude08]

^I hope you think anyone is actually going to read that

[ChriswUfGator]

Please read my post #111 on page 8, the bottom paragraph.  I have a very close relative who is in the environmental field, with advanced degrees.  He knows everything about contaminated property, regs, remediation, etc.  I have heard so many "horror" stories from him that I learned way more about rules and procedures than I care to remember.

The cleanup is done.  I was there when the tanks, etc., and a huge amount of soil was removed and replaced.  The regulating department in Florida is the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), not the EPA.  RAP is out of the loop completely.

When I wore a younger man's clothes, the Shell station was "Seagraves"...an old style building, no canopy, and the only towing truck within pointing distance.  The Seagraves family has a long westside history, and is still around.  The grand daughter (?) maybe "great" owns Pier 17 over on Lakeside Dr.

Sometime in the early 60s, I think, the current Shell station building replaced the old building.  I used to buy gas there in high school and after, and remember seeing a photo of "the really old station" with two men standing next to two gravity pumps.  The younger man had one strap of his overalls hanging down, no shoes and 1 1/2 arms.  The older man had overalls, and the ground was crushed limestone.  Somebody told me that the property had been a gas station since the late 20s.

Now to your inquiries...when there is contamination on a property and the contaminant is known...in the Shell's case, gasoline (hydrocarbons [?]), the ground water is tested for "that" contaminant, not for a host of all other possible contaminants.  When the tests show a contamination level above a minimum ppb (parts per billion) the property comes under the watchdog of the State D.E.R.

Often, a contaminated site qualifies under a State program wherein State money may be available to assist in the cleanup, but access to that money goes to the "worst first" properties.  Typically, gasoline-contaminated-property is too low in line to ever qualify for any $$.  Other contaminated sites with, for example, PCBs, arsenic, etc., abound.

After the contaminated soil is removed and replaced, as was done on the Shell property, there comes a lengthy period of monitoring by way of several monitoring wells both on the property and off the property in the direction of the flow of the 'plume' (the area of contamination referred to as "The Dig" in engineering terms).  When the tests show the soil is clean (over two or more consecutive quarters), the State may issue a "No Further Action [NFA]" letter.  "Clean" is defined generally as the contaminants are below a minimum ppb level.

I remember seeing a man several months ago, maybe more than a year...I don't recall exactly...taking test water from several monitoring wells across St. Johns Avenue.  I assumed he had already done the same with monitoring wells on the property, or was going to do so.  Later, after "The Dig" was covered by a large quantity of rocks and graded to eliminate what had become a very large mud bog, another big monitoring well showed up smack in the middle of "The Dig".  I assumed the well was required maybe as a final phase of testing to qualify for a NFA letter.  Anyway, that well is still there and is easily seen by its large cement crown around the well head.

My guess is the State issued a NFA because it has been a long time since that last well was installed.  As for other possible contaminants being present in the ground, a prospective buyer could easily use the existing monitoring wells, assuming they are still there, to test for whatever.  But if it is true that the Shell station has been a gas station for 70 or 80 years, there is no compelling reason to suspect more contamination.

So, a prospective buyer might take a few samples as a matter of policy, but all of the test results would be available from the seller, the State D.E.R. or the engineer company which did the cleanup, for the buyer to see.

Way back, when The Dig took place, I was told by someone who knew the owner(s) that he/she/they decided to clean up the contamination, i.e., do the 'remediation' and pay for it themselves, and that he/she/they would not sell the property in its contaminated state, even though there had been offers made approaching $2 million.  But then the crash in '08 happened, and the real estate bottom fell out.

And do you want fries with that?        

       

They cleaned it up not as a 'gift' to the next owner, but because A: It wouldn't qualify for financing without a NFA notice, and B: Due to A, and due to any cash buyer wanting to know their actual costs, they could get more $$$ for it that way. You make it sound as though they were doing their civic duty rather than trying to wring the most money out of it. The sole reason the thing didn't sell, then, now, or anytime soon, is the price.

[Kaiser Soze]

Logical's long post was a little off but mostly correct.

[Gators312]

Logical?  Is it a coherent North Miami?   

[logical]

Thank you Kaiser.  "mtraininjax" made some interesting points in his/her post.  I thought a bit of history about the Shell property and the NFA process would be appreciated by folks who read her post.  By the way, "mtraininjax", if you want to know if a NFA letter exists, you might call the broker.  I think his phone number is on the For Sale sign in front of the station, but I do not remember his name.  He would know for sure.  I would bet the farm that there was a NFA letter issued months ago.

But good ole' "Gator" seizes on one sentence in my last paragraph to vent his anger over the fact that I called him out about his "location" and size of his (?) property for sale at $1.9 mil.  I wonder if he would come down from his 'asking' price for a cash sale of, say, $1 mil.  Probably not...so...

...Chris reminds me of the traveler in the Eagles' classic rock song, "Hotel California", where the night clerk says to the traveler, "You may check out any time you like, but you can never leave".

At $1.9 mil, that quote describes Chris as he sits at his bar for the rest of his life, long after the Shell station sells, waiting for $1.9 mil to walk in.

For Chris...And do you want fries with that?   

[Kaiser Soze]

You should note that simply because an NFA letter exists, if new contamination is discovered, FDEP can require additional remediation.  Stat funding is only available for petroleum sites and dry cleaning facilities (in certain circumstances).

Doesn't Monty's include a liquor license?  Believed you can fetch around $250K for the liquor license if it is sold.