Posted by Frank James at 5:26 pm CST
In case anyone was wondering how much it costs for the United States Postal Service to maintain the hulk of the vacated main post office building that straddles the Eisenhower Expressway in downtown Chicago, it's $2 million a year.
That's the amount the General Accountability Office, Congress's investigative agency, gives as the postal service's "annual holding costs" for keeping that choice piece of real estate near the Sears Tower.
That information is in a GAO report titled "Federal Real Property: Excess and Underutilized Property is an Ongoing Problem."
Even though the facility was vacated in 1997, the GAO notes: "Redevelopment of this property has taken several years because, according to USPS, the real estate market was weak and the City of Chicago and the developer have been unable to agree on terms. According to USPS, the property buyer is currently in negotiations with the City of Chicago regarding the property's redevelopment and the granting of certain tax exemptions from the City."
One reason this matters is that government properties that have outlived their usefulness but are still being carried on federal books are hamstringing government agencies which still have to devote money and energy to maintaining such real estate, which keeps them from improving services to taxpayers.
Looked at in one way, the $2 million in annual holding costs for just the old Chicago post office could've kept 100 million letters at the old 37 cents rate for first-class postage instead of the new 39-cents rate.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Since there is this surplus IF we were not paying for this abandoned property, it could be used to help with the budgeting of our CTA problem in the city. Can you imagine what the 2 million a year would do to help take the strain off of our riders. Someone needs to budget better.
Posted by: Lillian | February 7, 2006 11:32 AM
So the federal government has laid out about $20 million to maintain a piece of prime real estate. So what? Care to venture a guess as to what they'll take in upon closing of the sale? It's silly and naive to suggest that the cost of maintaining that vacant space is wasteful. The only alternative would have been to sell the building well below its market value. Would that have been a responsible use of public resources? Who, what, when, where and how are just a set of facts. The stroy is in the why, but I'm sure they'll go over that whenever you take Journalism 101.
Posted by: Don Victorine | February 7, 2006 12:03 PM
Why on earth does it cost anything to just let it sit there? - I work nearby and I notice the lights are on - that's ridiculous - well, look how long it took for the plot at State & Randolph to get developed - it's Chicago, isn't it?
Posted by: PAULA ROSE | February 7, 2006 2:25 PM
The Federal Governmet should deed it over to Chicago, whose Economic Development department is better situated and motivated to find a developer who is also motivated and able to put this building to its best use. Federal ownership of this property not only costs taxpayers millions in maintenance dollars, but its also costing the City of Chicago in lost tax revenue dollars - a temporary tax abatement should be a no-brainer because ten years of tax revenues have already been lost. At least use the facade for adverstising space - it would be spectacular for advertising. $20 million in wasted federal tax dollars and untold lost tax revenues to the City - Chicago, find a capable and motivated buyer and get it overwith already!
Posted by: C Morgan | February 8, 2006 2:25 PM