SOTA to Move to Downtown Post Office Building
When school resumes next fall, the Tacoma School of the Arts will have switched buildings for some of its classrooms and offices. The school, which will be adding freshmen to its mix of students for the first time this fall, will be moving from its space in the School District owned building at South 18th and Tacoma Avenue to the second floor of the historic post office at South 11th and A Street.
SOTA will continue to occupy its other spaces at South 21st and Pacific and in the Ted Brown building on Broadway. Those spaces, along with the new space in the post office will make up for space lost after a rent increase at Urban Grace. The move will consolidate SOTA students’ journeys through downtown to three buildings, eliminating the hike up and down the hill.
So … what’s going to happen to the old courtrooms?
Read more from The News Tribune.
Filed under: tacoma-schools, dowtown-tacoma
13 comments
T T-Town June 1, 2012
wow! just wow!!
J Jesse June 1, 2012
I hope they keep the old court rooms! Do weddings there!
Otherwise, great news!
E Erik B. June 1, 2012
Very awesome!
Kudos to SOTA for the dedication to life in the City of Tacoma and for helping save the historic post office so it is not razed like countless other Tacoma historical buildings have.
F fredo June 1, 2012
The government just sold this building to these developers for cheap. Now the government is leasing the space back at a high price.
How come the taxpayer is always getting screwed on these property sale / leasebacks?
P Peter Peter June 1, 2012
@Fredo – Can you back up your statement with any actual facts about what’s cheap versus what’s high? Or is it just your position that the taxpayer will get screwed no matter what if the government is involved?
A Adam Y June 2, 2012
The courtrooms are on the third floor, not the second. Fom what I hear they will remain intact for the most part. Especially the one filmed in the Fugitive, etc.
F fredo June 4, 2012
Here are the “actual” facts. The building was sold cheap.
Sales data:
sales price $1.375M
sales date 5/14/2010
building size 72K sq. feet
price per square foot=$19
The taxpayers brought in just over a million to sell the building, now we paying a million to lease back part of one floor for 5 years. Why didn’t the school board just buy the building 2 years ago?
F fredo June 4, 2012
A quick comparison:
If you borrow $1,375,000 for a mortgage with NO down payment for 10 years and get a 5% interest rate your annual payments INCLUDING taxes, insurance, and interest would be $192K per year. That’s LESS than the school board is paying to rent a small portion of the building.
I know people won’t agree with me, but I think the taxpayers got screwed. We’re basically making the mortgage payments for the people who now own the building. A sweet kickback for somebody.
S Samwise June 4, 2012
Fredo, As you are always fond of reminding everyone who thinks the other guy has a better lot in life…
What’s stopping you? You could have bought the building and leased it to the school district. Or since you are a defender of the taxpayer, you could have been a hero to all lands within a days travel and leased it to School District for $1 per year.
T tacoma_1 June 4, 2012
Fredo
You really should cite your sources. U may be right u may be wrong, but if u want anyone to believe u, cite your friggin sources and don’t use Wikipedia.
S Samwise June 4, 2012
@ Tacoma_1 I rarely agree with Fredo, however I have always found his data to accurate and have good backing. I have seen him cherry pick and manipulate data to create a “Fair and Balanced” comparison.
As far as wikipedia, it’s not off limits. Sure it has errors, but the vast majority of information is credible and easily found. Since they have put many other sources of info out of business, then it may be the only info at hand. This is conversional blog encouraging discussion and other points of view and should not limited to PHD level, peer reviewed commenters only. I say use wikipedia when needed, cite it and make your point. Others are free to use their own sources and cite them in rebuttal to your comment.
F fredo June 4, 2012
The property sale records are courtesy of the County Assessors website.
The $19 per square foot figure is courtesy of basic mathematics. You divide the sale price by the size of the building when expressed in terms of square feet.
The 5% interest rate and zero down payment was used just to get a handle on what it would have cost the district to buy the property instead of rent it. If you use 4% interest rate and 20% down payment and a 15 or 30 year term then the annual cost becomes MUCH lower than $192K per year. Plug in any figures you want. There are mortgage interest calculators all over the internet. Use any calculator and any hypothetical interest rate, term and down payment combinations you want.
I hold a commercial loan and the interest rate is about 4.6% and I paid 30 percent down payment. The school district could probably get much better terms than an individual like myself could.
But it doesn’t really matter too much what numbers you plug in, it doesn’t make sense for the taxpayers to sell property for $1.3M and lease a small part of it back for $200K per year. In My Opinion.
T That Girl June 5, 2012
Not to nit-pick, but I don’t think that the federal government and the school district can be construed as the same entity. It seems overly simplistic to say “the taxpayers” are selling the property, and then leasing it back. Different taxes, entirely different government entities.
Also, I happen to think this is a good development. And I love the idea of a Tacoma school of historic preservation for kids to learn the trade. They couldn’t do worse with Old City Hall than what’s been going on for the last couple years.