urbanSTL

is that last pic in HD?

Duh... She's pointing at a spider on the Sushi House. Can't you see it?

She is saying, "That is where the residential towers 'soaring higher than the Arch!' were supposed to be. Oh well...but just on the other side of that building is Joe's Crab Shack and Billy Bob DeWitt's Country Road House and Line Dancing Saloon!".

check the post - new article on BPV. They've presented the plans to the aldermen. .. I'd link it but that would require effort

markofucity wrote:check the post - new article on BPV. They've presented the plans to the aldermen. .. I'd link it but that would require effort

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument





Aldermen get Ballpark Village plans

By Jake Wagman

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

01/26/2007

That money would come from a variety of sources: $55 million in tax-increment financing from the city, $29 million in state-tax incentives, $26 million in a special 1 percent sales tax, and $5 million in public bonds bought by the Cardinals and Cordish.

$59 million in City MoDESA financing, $27 million in MoDESA financing that will be requested from the state, approximately $25 million in financing from taxes that will be collected in two special taxing districts in the BP/BPV area, and $5 million in bonds purchased by the Cardinals and Cordish.

Today on the Charlie Brennan Show on KMOX (9am), more ranting about providing "tax payer money for rich developers" regarding the MODESA subsidies for Ballpark Village.



Jeff Rainford of the mayor's office will be on today speaking in favor of Ballpark Village.

Apparently St. Louis can't get developers unless tax incentives are brought into the equation, so if St. Louis wants to see growth it will have to do things this way until investor confidence gets high enough, which it has not done yet.

MattonArsenal wrote:Today on the Charlie Brennan Show on KMOX (9am), more ranting about providing "tax payer money for rich developers" regarding the MODESA subsidies for Ballpark Village.



Jeff Rainford of the mayor's office will be on today speaking in favor of Ballpark Village.

Or, for a different perspective on what was said: Charlie quoted chapter and verse from both city statutes and the redevelopment proposal pointing out that the Cardinals' owners, at least according to a rational reading of the statutes, are in gross violation of demolition code for the state in which they left the Old Busch lot. Further, they and the City are applying for MoDESA funding based on the "blighting" of the Old Busch lot -- a minor irony, given that the developers (and, arguably for not enforcing its own ordinances, the City) are the only parties responsible for the blight.



But do feel free to simplify that to "ranting about 'providing tax payer money for rich developers.'"

Apparently St. Louis can't get developers unless tax incentives are brought into the equation, so if St. Louis wants to see growth it will have to do things this way until investor confidence gets high enough, which it has not done yet.

I'm not familiar with any multi-million dollar project anywhere that hasn't either received direct subsidies from local/state/federal governments or benefitted greatly (is able to exist due to) from local/state/federal spending. I see nothing wrong with the arrangement with the Cardinals.

Why not give public subsidy?



The Feds, US Congress handout public subsidies to build highways and bridges as well as light rail/subway/elevated rail/commuter rail and buses. Granted they need to fund mass transit at a higher percentage than before and rethink all those highways. The Feds even subsidize the industries related to vehicular transportation, i.e. auto makers, gasoline companies, etc.



Missouri allocates taxes and issues bonds to build roads, bridges, and highways. Why not fund Metro more and help KC too!



Cities give out money by capital improvements projects which often extend sewers, roads, and other infrastructure to whereever they want more development. These projects tend to be auto-oriented except the greenways are also happening this way too. Maryland Heights for one, is pushing to construct a trail/greenway to contribute to those connecting to it.



So, if we can allocate local, regional, state, & national taxes, issue local bonds, handout federal subsidies and on and on....tell me?



Why not handout a TIF, tax abatement, or issue bonds for urban public infrastructure which would gross far more tax revenue from sales tax and property tax from commercial/retail businesses than could be realized with another subdivision in the fields or Wal-Mart!



Higher density can equate to higher quality and far higher tax revenue!

Interesting definition of "public infrastructure." I could see roads, sewers, utility conduits and public safety support as falling within this definition. I'd be interested to know where in the literature anyone defines a privately owned office building, hotel or restaurant as "public infrastructure."

MODESA funds are specifically allocated to public infrastructure costs such as the streets and sidewalks in and surrounding the BPV and converting the public utilities for use in a high density development. As they were originally configured for the former ballpark they are almost useless.



The law was created for the sole purpose of funding the Power and Light District in Kansas City and St. Louis was included to get the bill passed.



Jeff Rainford spoke very well, they are doing what they need to do to attract the best development possible, which included using the existing laws to their maximum possible benefit. We saw what happened in the Harmon administration when you don't push hard for development. Nothing.



Joe, do you have problem with Historic Tax Credits, too?

bonwich wrote:Interesting definition of "public infrastructure." I could see roads, sewers, utility conduits and public safety support as falling within this definition. I'd be interested to know where in the literature anyone defines a privately owned office building, hotel or restaurant as "public infrastructure."

I would argue that Ball Park Village could qualify as infrastructure because it is part of the Public realm, the public realm qualifies as infrastructure in that it aids and facilitates the public good by providing the context for the exchange of goods services and the execution of commerce, in this case, in a high quality urban environment to which all cities aspire. It includes public streets, a square and landscape; the buildings will be design specifically to interact with these public amenities to increase the amount of civic interaction between one of the regions greatest amenities (the Cardinals) and the city itself. It takes a child’s game and turns it into an economic social engine that reaches beyond the stadium and energizes the community in a way that the previous stadium scenario (the fortress concept) never could. It has the potential to facilitate and increase the overall quality of life for both those who use it (residents, fans, employees, etc..) and those who will not directly use it (residents of the city who will benefit from the associated earnings tax revenue, sales tax revenue etc..) more so than a vacant lot which generates 0 tax revenue.



Charlie’s beef seems to be a bit of a red herring, he argues that the Cardinals never sufficiently met the letter of the law in preparing the site after demolition with the explicit intent of using a half demo-ed site to achieve a better definition of blight.



I would challenge this assertion base on some basic observations –



The new plan calls for underground parking, the site is basically a large hole now, in order to meet the letter of the law millions (yep believe me, millions) of cubic feet of dirt would need to be brought out to the site, dumped compacted, graded for run off, seeded and strawed. This would cost millions (yep believe me, millions) at the end of the day you would have a large empty, ugly lot that still could be blighted (you see the real culprit here is the definition of blight) So after one blighted it they would have to spend millions (yep, believe me, millions) to haul out the dirt, to start the project.



Under the law as Charlie is presenting it, nothing could ever qualify as blighted. If you buy a dilapidated building that would fit what we all understand as blighted, you are compelled by the law to tear it down or rehab it (if the law and the execution of it were enforced to the degree that they should be) So you want a tax break to say build a new condo, you are required by law to tear down a dangerous building, you tear down the building and replace it with a grass field that meets the letter of the law, but wait… your grass field is not blight! No goodies for you.



The process by which the development game is played has to adhere its self to some basic rules, they are private companies building the public realm, and it’s going to be an ugly forced marriage to those who understand it only the most basic terms. The wheels of capitalism have always been oiled with public money or policy in almost every aspect of business, now. We are going to get a heck of a lot more bang for our buck from something like this over suburban housing (which is subsidized by cities through infrastructure) or big box stores which routinely seek and receive large TIF’s not to mention tax write offs for their surface parking lots etc…



The better question is, if a neophyte like me can see this why can’t Charlie who I am actually a fan of. Why has he not brought these issues up? Why is he going after the Cardinals instead of the state who wrote MODESA?



I have never written this much on the internet.

If this thing keeps getting delayed, I think the city could threaten to take over the property through eminent domain, and pay the owners the going rate for an empty lot in the city. The Supreme Court gave the city that power. Then they could open up the bidding to other developers and see who can do the equivalent of all the phases right away with this subsidy, instead of just phase I.

There is an article in today's Baltimore Sun, www.baltimoresun.com, with a headline that reads "Ballpark Village negotiations stall". "Cordish, St. Louis project developer say delay in complex deal is normal."



The article states that the delay could be for more than two months.

^ You're better than caffeine.



The "story in the Baltimore Sun" is the story that ran in the Post-Dispatch yesterday.

City and Cordish officials aren't discussing the reason for the delay.



"Lawyers are still lawyering it," said Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis G. Slay's chief of staff. "They are working on the lawyer language."



Blake Cordish, vice president of the developer, would say only that he expected talks with the city to be completed in "very short order."



A delay "is perfectly normal and expected for a deal of this size, complexity and importance to the city," he said.



Public funding for the project would include $59 million in city tax incentives, $27 million in state tax breaks, $25 million from the establishment of two special taxing districts in the village, and $5 million in bonds bought by Cordish and the Cardinals.



Barring a special meeting, the earliest the proposal will be voted on by the aldermen is April 16.

Gary Kreie wrote:If this thing keeps getting delayed, I think the city could threaten to take over the property through eminent domain, and pay the owners the going rate for an empty lot in the city. The Supreme Court gave the city that power. Then they could open up the bidding to other developers and see who can do the equivalent of all the phases right away with this subsidy, instead of just phase I.

relax...why in the world would anyone want that to happen??? It's a negotiantion process, this is a huge deal and these things take time. And like others on the forum have said..This IS NORMAL!

Ballpark Village could be my 21st birthday present if it is voted on the 16th. Although that's a Monday so it can't be final approval.

The better question is, if a neophyte like me can see this why can’t Charlie who I am actually a fan of. Why has he not brought these issues up? Why is he going after the Cardinals instead of the state who wrote MODESA?

Well, actually, he did -- and, for that matter, so did Jeff. Jeff pretty much acceded that the whole definition of "blight" was faulty, but that the current administration was simply playing according to the rules as currently written. Valid point.



Charlie may or may not be personally in favor of Ballpark Village. (I'm thinking that almost everyone is "in favor of Ballpark Village.") Where he's been "going after" the Cardinals' ownership -- quite validly, I'd say -- is that they have this lovely new stadium with a lot next to it that, until Charile pointed it out publicly, was grossly unkempt eyesore, even during all the alleged great publicity the City got while hosting the World Series. (I drove by the lot yesterday while Charlie was talking -- there's still lots of trash clinging to the fences.)



I'm also thinking that, by the criteria presented in other posts, virtually any downtown development could be considered "public infrastructure."

I thought a deal was already agreed upon.



And I've listened to Brennan a lot in the past, and he's always come across as very pro-city. So if he's raising questions, I would generally assume that they are valid questions that need to be raised.

trent wrote:I thought a deal was already agreed upon.

Me too. The announcement was made October 27, mere hours before the Cardinals won their 10th World Series. I remember it all very well, because it was my birthday. I guess now I'll have to settle for a World Series victory as a birthday gift. Oh well.



So, exactly why was a deal announced when there were more details to iron out?



And why do I get the feeling I'm going to have many more birthdays before we can actually enjoy (even the first phase of) Ballpark Village?

Bonwich wrote

Interesting definition of "public infrastructure." I could see roads, sewers, utility conduits and public safety support as falling within this definition. I'd be interested to know where in the literature anyone defines a privately owned office building, hotel or restaurant as "public infrastructure."

Bonwich you were right with the first sentence, but not the second. Granted I can see why my post may have confused you.



Public infrastructure does not imply use of eminent domain for economic development but by definition includes roads, sewers, water mains, bridges, parks, sidewalks, trails, wifi?. plazas, and I was refering to the parking garages that are being built in the Noah's Ark site in St. Charles. The TIF is not going to directly divert sales or property taxes from retailers or property owners. The TIF is an added investment made by the government for public parking garages, public streets, public sidewalks, public parks, publicly funded demolition (think LRA), and sewer (publicly funded capital improvement projects). The parking garages in St. Charles for Noah's Ark will be publicly maintained and run and not for residential.