- 47 -
rates of adjoining properties, (2) ability to counteract the off-
Broadway location of the proposed tower, and (3) enhancement of
the Bank's image, which would be reflected in a greater market
share. Reflective of those reports, the minutes of the Committee
meeting on August 25, 1980, in part, provide:
Bank management feels very positive about the project.
The general feeling of the Bank is in favor of the
enclosed atrium to allow the Bank to achieve a larger
market share. The atrium should create a major center,
making United Bank Center a nationally notable building
complex.
At that time, however, there were no immediate plans to sell any
of the adjoining properties, and, thus, there is simply no basis
to find that the Bank approved construction of the proposed
atrium so as to induce sales of those properties.9
9 Petitioner proposes the following finding of fact:
During 1978-1979, while the Bank was negotiating and
planning the construction of 1UBC and the Atrium, the
Bank gave consideration to selling some of its
properties in United Bank Center. * * *
Petitioner apparently supports that finding only with the
following testimony of Mr. Richard A. Kirk, president of UBD in
1979:
[Counsel for petitioner]: In the time frame
1978-9 to 1984, before the construction of the Atrium
commenced, did LBC consider selling any of its
properties in United Bank Center?
[Mr. Kirk]: Yes.
[Counsel]: Do you know which properties were
under consideration for sale?
[Mr. Kirk]: We would--we had a lot of real
estate, as is evidenced here, and I think in those days
we were coming to a conclusion that that wasn't
necessarily the best place for us to have our monies.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011