The Community House building’s future

Like the rest of the Birmingham community, we are watching with interest to see how the issue surrounding The Community House building shakes out in the next few weeks.

Officials with The Community House announced in early November that the organization was going to change the name of the group as it forms a community foundation to continue the non-profit mission of the organization and in the process sell off the iconic building on Bates Street in the downtown area. As part of the change, officials announced that proceeds from sale of the building, valued by some estimates at $7 million, would be used to clear up debt and remaining funds used as seed money for the new community foundation which, at a new location, would be mentoring and helping non-profit groups within a 10-mile radius of the city.

Interest in this announcement was immediate and strong, from interested parties who toured The Community House building as possible buyers and members of the general public, as indicated by the over 7,000 people who read the story in the first 24 hours after we posted it on the Downtown Newsmagazine website.

This media group, since its launch 16 years ago, has been a supporter of The Community House, and long before that time. We initially bought into the announcement of possible changes at this community group.

But we are also supporting the late November action of the Birmingham City Commission, members of which filed in Oakland County Circuit Court a lawsuit to request an injunction on the sale of the Community House building while the community sorts out this issue.

First, there is legitimate question of whether deed restrictions prevent sale of the building. From a layman’s viewpoint, it would appear that the building may have to be donated to another nonprofit group or rented at a nominal rate to the city itself as specified by the founders, although officials at the Community House say they have met the requirements of the restrictions. Second, there is an equally valid question of whether the intent of the founders of The Community House many years ago make keeping the land and building as a center of community activity rather than a disposable asset.

The court initially denied an immediate ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) so both sides on this issue could be heard. The judge assigned this case has written that his initial ruling on the ex parte TRO was no indication of how he might rule on injunctive relief for the city or the case in total. As of this writing, legal counsel for The Community House Association had not filed an answer to the city’s lawsuit. The city has also filed a Lis Pendens notice that is attached to county records of the property indicating that Birmingham has an interest in the property, which should stall any sale. And there was talk of asking the court to prevent the sale of the education program at the facility which should remain part of any community center.

So we have a number of thoughts as we await a court decision.

First, the city seems determined to keep the Community House building as a community activities center, which would mean acquisition of the structure, but that cost is unknown. What can the city afford if it must enter the pool of possible buyers?

If it would help with an ownership transition, would the city be able and willing to pay off the debts of the current Community House Association to make transfer of the building ownership more acceptable?

We have been told that the city has reached out in hopes of being able to tour the building to assess current physical condition and to receive operating cost information. If officials of the Community House accommodate that request, then that should answer some operating expense questions.

We assume there would have to be at least minimal staffing at a community center, so what would that cost be and would the city be willing to underwrite that expense and for how long?

Logic would say that the city should immediately chart a plan of action in case it wins the court case and ends up acquiring the building one way or another. It would seem the city should establish a non-profit foundation and a board of directors who ultimately would manage the facility.

Obviously, there are a number of moving parts to this issue. So far we have been impressed with the initial action taken by the city, and we and the community look forward to continuing updates as the issue unfolds in the coming weeks.