urbanSTL

MattnSTL wrote:I'm not sure if they are saying no to incentives completely. What I got from Charles Jaco's report this morning, the city will not garuntee any TIF notes like they did for St. Louis Marketplace, or use something like Communitty Development Block Grants like they did for the Renaissance Grand. I don't think they said they won't offer a TIF completely, just that the developer has to garuntee the TIF if the sales tax revenue is not there to pay off the bonds, not the city itself.



I could be wrong though.

That is exactly how I understood the report as well. In the case of the TIF, the borrowing rate would be much less if the city were willing to back a portion or all of the interest payments that would not be generated from the increased sales taxes on the property, making the project a bit less expensive for the developers. In the case of the St Louis Marketplace, the city backed the bonds, and now that the strip mall is nearly empty, the city now has to help supplement the interest payments to the bondholders. This was one of, if not the first TIF for the city, and they have since not backed any of the TIFs since. I do not blame the city for not financially backing this project. While I certainly believe it will be successful in the long term, I'd much rather see the developers and the bondholders accept the risk, not the city.

Let me also pipe in here to say that Charles Jaco has been very negative and against BPV from day #1.

I recently heard him a few weeks ago on the radio being interviewed and he made a jab at BPV saying something like "yeah just like we will see BPV ever being built".



So take it from the source that is "stiring" it up some I am sure.

matguy70 wrote:Let me also pipe in here to say that Charles Jaco has been very negative and against BPV from day #1.

I recently heard him a few weeks ago on the radio being interviewed and he made a jab at BPV saying something like "yeah just like we will see BPV ever being built".



So take it from the source that is "stiring" it up some I am sure.

You may be right, but I appreciate Jaco's frequent reports on the positive developments within St. Louis city limits. Maybe he's a bit biased against Ballpark Village, but he's been quick to give time to "good" news stories like the record amount of construction activity, the city's population increases, etc.



MattnSTL and midcountyguy- Thanks for explaining this further! I didn't see the full report, so obviously I didn't glean all the details at first.

ThreeOneFour wrote:You may be right, but I appreciate Jaco's frequent reports on the positive developments within St. Louis city limits. Maybe he's a bit biased against Ballpark Village, but he's been quick to give time to "good" news stories like the record amount of construction activity, the city's population increases, etc.

Maybe there is a reason why Jaco, who is usually very positive about downtown and all the developments, is so skeptical about BPV. I'm sure he has done quite a bit of research on the project and developers to come to that conclusion.

I wouldn't give him any more or less credence then anyone else. He is just a pod in the pool like the rest of us. The only ones who really know are those who are directly involved. You can be assured it's going to happen IMO from the fact that the owners franchise value will go up because of it. They are (IMO of course) prepping this team up for sale as it seems obvious to me. Having a vital BPV will only add to that.

I wouldn't mind seeing Cordish plan fall through, break the 6 blocks up, and let independent developers do each block. That would be cool. I'd bet we would get another highrise out of it.

Could we call this a trend where a developer closes in a few blocks that is urban designed but limited to its few blocks and not well connected to others? It like a one stop urban lifestyle package without a continuous urban live/play lifestyle oriented place.



Examples:

Boulevard STL sits alone

BPV

Bottle District

proposed Whittiker development at Noah's Ark site

proposed development on the Missouri River south of the Amistar casino



New Town sits alone

Richland new urbanist development in Illinois sits alone in the fields

Yes, we can call it a trend. How about we call it the "crap development" trend? Or, the "we are so desperate, we will let you build whatever the hell you want, and give you money to do it" trend?

Apparently as a city on the rebound, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.



We've made significant progress as a city and region, simply because these questions about development weren't being asked ten years ago.



If we're worried about having too many new large-scale developments, or entertainment spread too thinkly through too many neighborhoods, I would say these are good problems.



You can argue that Ballpark Village, New Town, Boulevard STL, etc. could be better integrated with their surroundings. However, I believe these developments are a plus for the area, and in time they will become integrated, sustainable communities.



I don't understand the negativity I see around here sometimes. Our city and metro area still face many challenges, but progress is being made now that was unthinkable not that long ago. Bastiat, keep in mind that city leaders are unsatisfied with the tax structure, and the mayor and aldermanic president (among others) have called for a complete review to ensure its fairness. In the meantime, developers, business owners, and residents continue to vote with their feet by moving into downtown and other thriving city neighborhoods.



We cannot become complacent as a community- we need to push for quality development, a more competitive tax structure to lure businesses and more people, etc. However, I think we have many recent successes upon which to build an even stronger future for our community.

nice post. Amen.

ditto...

momentum - a collaboration of possitive energy, united for one goal...

When looking for some way to contribute to a discussion, it's always simplest to find something to complain about, eh?



A lot of negative comments are well-intentioned: think of it as tough love. Sure, these are great problems to have, but if a few observations about weaknesses start brainstorming that lead to an even stronger solution, we all win.



I just wish more of the negativity was accompanied by constructive suggestions.

phobia wrote:When looking for some way to contribute to a discussion, it's always simplest to find something to complain about, eh?



A lot of negative comments are well-intentioned: think of it as tough love. Sure, these are great problems to have, but if a few observations about weaknesses start brainstorming that lead to an even stronger solution, we all win.



I just wish more of the negativity was accompanied by constructive suggestions.

Well said. If people never "complained," nothing would ever get improved. And like you said, when we keep things constructive, it makes for interesting and fun discussions.

Obviously, everyone in here wants the same thing- success for St. Louis. St. Louis IS the next "hot city". So tired of hearing about Phoenix, Austin, and Denver. So, 90's.. Today.. It's St. Louis STYLEEEEE



man my posts get cheesier by the day.

JCity wrote: man my posts get cheesier by the day.

Provel, no doubt!

^I actually prefer a provel-mozz blend when I make myself a pizza, but I digress.

Interesting idea there about negative ideas. Anyone familiar with creative destruction theory? From economics but may hold some application to social captial as well.

Matt wrote:Anyone familiar with creative destruction theory? From economics but may hold some application to social captial as well.

Exactly. A bunch of glowing "ain't life grand?" groupthink from the optimists does no more to disrupt the status quo than the pessimists' moping. As Patterson's pointed out over in the ESPN thread, we desperately need our leaders to engage in some of the same persistent "how could we be doing this better" challenging that jlblues is being lambasted for here.



(We curmudgeons need to stand up for one another.)

Interesting point made about the Cardinals promising to build Ballpark Village to get a tax break and a public subsidy for the construction of the new Busch Stadium. Now they're asking for a TIF?



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

loftlover wrote:Interesting point made about the Cardinals promising to build Ballpark Village to get a tax break and a public subsidy for the construction of the new Busch Stadium. Now they're asking for a TIF?



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

From this part of the editorial:

' So what will happen if the city rejects the TIF? The project could be drastically scaled back, says Bill DeWitt III, the Cards' vice president for business development. Instead of high-rises, Ballpark Village could be simply "bars and restaurants with parking behind it." '



Its starting to sound like Kiel Opera House all over again. Bait and Switch. The rich owners want to divert money from the schools to themselves. Is that smart for the city? Maybe we use eminent domain and build a school across from the ballpark. Or use eminent domain to find a better deal for the city -- the Supreme Court said we could. I'm sure a lot of developers would like to build high rise condos with free views of the Cardinal games.



What about all the drawings they showed with condo towers overlooking the ballpark -- that's what they used to say they would build. Is there a legal action here? I always thought the condos overlooking the ballpark was the portion that would 'no brainer' succeed -- not the bars and restaurant district that must survive non-ballgame days.



Two can play at bait and switch. I say we give them a $30 mill TIF. Then after the whole thing is finished, the city slaps a 20% per ticket tax on sport events in the city and make up the $30 mill in one year. Everyone else is scalping Cardinal Tickets -- why not the city?

Gary Kreie wrote:Then after the whole thing is finished, the city slaps a 20% per ticket tax on sport events in the city and make up the $30 mill in one year. Everyone else is scalping Cardinal Tickets -- why not the city?

This just punishes the fans for the greed of these rich owners. This wouldn't hurt them at all. I say we find a way to tax them without being ABLE to pass the post over to the consumer. I would rather get them for breech of contract than to get low rise or give them huge TIF. Like you said - someone else would be more than willing to build something great there - so fine the CARDS hefty - for the tax breaks they already have - and then get someone else to build a world class venue there.

This is a terrible game of money.

Take national news, NY Times, W DC Post, USA Today, Wall Street to the private clubs of the owners whether they be SLCC, Westwood, or what and expose the developers and owners with a guilt trip for financially robbing the schools of tax dollars. This is a matter of ethics and greed. It is hard to judge if the owners are fine with revenue, losing, or are doing fine and want more than they need <thus>.



At what point does hardball stop and a wealthy citizen recognize their contribution to society and community? Philanthropy is not the answer, the duties of being a citizen and contributing to the whole should come first.

Anyone who looks at the land next to the stadium, and doesn't realize it's unlimited potential is an idiot. If the Cards are unwilling to do what is necessary for the land, let private developers open up bidding to get a great mix of projects. The Cards can have their one block, or whatever, to build their HOF...but the rest gets opened to private developers. Then, we would really see some great development. I'm guessing we'd see a lot more bold design, great retailers, and an awesome streetscape.