Ballpark Village Towers and Mixed Use Project

trent · PostSep 21, 2006#8262006-09-21T03:25+00:00

^Then I'll fix it for you...

MattnSTL wrote:but I definitely don't have the time to be a organizer like Jive was for the Tower, or (Trent) and Others did for McDonalds.

There. Better.

steve · PostSep 21, 2006#8272006-09-21T16:43+00:00

The Southside Suburban Journal ran a story about this yesterday, and they did a better job of pointing out that the tax money the developers would receive would be money generated from the project itself, not from current taxes.

But oh, God, the town talk section. So many people b*tching about those "greedy" Cardinals owners taking all of "their" money. Ugh.

gary kreie · PostSep 21, 2006#8282006-09-21T19:52+00:00

This KC area project wants to use Kansas TIF money. Now this is really the kind of project the public can rally around as an obvious responsible use of taxpayer money.

I like the last paragraph of the link.

Is there an April Fools day in September?

Story:

Tornado tower group looking at different site

A structure taller than the Space Needle and the Gateway Arch may make its home in Edwardsville, [Kansas -- a KC Suburb].

A development group called Kansas Landmark Tower, LLC, which wants to build a 650-foot-tall tower, also referred to as the "Tornado Tower," approached the Edwardsville City Council Monday night about establishing a redevelopment district on 101 acres of land on Riverview Avenue just south of I-70.

http://www.kansascitykansan.com/article ... /news2.txt

Alex Ihnen · PostSep 21, 2006#8292006-09-21T20:00+00:00

IMO - that's horrible! Exactly what distinguishes this as an international landmark?!?! On the other hand, it's amazing to see a positive story about a project like this include supporting quotes from residents and town board members!!!

urban elitist · PostSep 21, 2006#8302006-09-21T20:02+00:00

Guys, nix the KC talk, just trust me on this one.....Go look at their forum and you'll understand why.

stlmizzoutiger · PostSep 22, 2006#8312006-09-22T06:04+00:00

Urban Elitist wrote:Guys, nix the KC talk, just trust me on this one.....Go look at their forum and you'll understand why.

You got that one right. The Bottle District will be completed before that joke of a proposal in KC breaks ground (which means it's not going to happen!)

urban elitist · PostSep 22, 2006#8322006-09-22T06:09+00:00

^ I was talking about going to look and see what happens when one city talks badly about another "City vs City", espically when the cities are "rivals". Anyway back to BPV and away from KC talk.

Alex Ihnen · PostSep 22, 2006#8332006-09-22T13:30+00:00

UE - I'm missing your point. I think KC is a great place. I think to Tornado Tower is a rediculous idea (as does nearly everyone on the KC site). Are you saying KC is off-limits, but we can talk about Indy, Cincinnati, etc.? Sorry if I missed something obvious.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 22, 2006#8342006-09-22T13:32+00:00

Ihnen wrote:UE - I'm missing your point. I think KC is a great place. I think to Tornado Tower is a rediculous idea (as does nearly everyone on the KC site). Are you saying KC is off-limits, but we can talk about Indy, Cincinnati, etc.? Sorry if I missed something obvious.

No, you are free to talk about any city you want to.

MattnSTL · PostSep 22, 2006#8352006-09-22T14:12+00:00

Don't necessarilly feel free to, but if it's in the realm of conversation and not vs. it's OK.

gary kreie · PostSep 22, 2006#8362006-09-22T15:04+00:00

Urban Elitist wrote:Guys, nix the KC talk, just trust me on this one.....Go look at their forum and you'll understand why.

I didn't think of the talk as KC talk, but TIF talk. When I first saw this article, it was because of the reference to TIFs. I didn't even know where it was planned at first.

The point is -- if someone thinks the BPV, a real revitalization project, doesn't merit TIF dollars, then what must they think of THIS monstrosity seeking TIF dollars.

The only concern I have with using a TIF for BPV is some kind of bait and switch to something less --after the TIF money is committed. There should be ways for lawyers to put language into the TIF agreement to make sure the project is completed substantially as advertised, or the TIF money provide up front is returned.

doug · PostSep 22, 2006#8372006-09-22T15:24+00:00

TIF's...

The stadium no longer pays any taxes.

I think we need to subsidize Joe Sixpack's efforts to rehab a north side home before we give TIF's to these guys.

Maybe increase the forgivable home repair loans from 5k to 10k?

BPV is a great idea but if they don't want to build the project only because of TIF's... Where else would they go anyway? I mean is there another City offering TIF's for this kind of project? If this company does not build something then someone else will. Holes in downtown do not remain for long. Someone will come along and build something as its a prime location. I don't think the City should be playing this game. We have the cards in this instance. St. Louis is a huge baseball town and any developer would make profits with this type of development.

BTW, if you guys are interested in working the polls for the Recall of Jennifer Florida on Election Day give me a PM or email. We will be collecting signatures at both polling places in the 15th all day from 6AM to 7PM. The tactics of Jennifer are reason enough to show up as she is quite dramatic and entertaining. If you can give one hour that would be enough. Any help is appreciated.

steve · PostSep 22, 2006#8382006-09-22T15:28+00:00

Doug wrote: Holes in downtown do not remain for long.

Sadly, this isn't the case. There are a lot of holes downtown, manifesting themselves as parking lots. This reminds me--one of the town talk guys I referred to in an earlier post actually suggested that they make the land slated for BPV a parking lot.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 22, 2006#8392006-09-22T15:35+00:00

steve wrote:
Doug wrote: Holes in downtown do not remain for long.

Sadly, this isn't the case. There are a lot of holes downtown, manifesting themselves as parking lots. This reminds me--one of the town talk guys I referred to in an earlier post actually suggested that they make the land slated for BPV a parking lot.

Parking lots are not holes. They are functioning businesses that are producing profits for the owner. If they weren't they wouldn't be parking lots. When the land becomes more valuable with a building on it than as a parking lot, then a building gets put on it.

doug · PostSep 22, 2006#8402006-09-22T15:38+00:00

Yeah I am talking about the damn hole where the old stadium used to be located.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 22, 2006#8412006-09-22T15:39+00:00

Doug wrote:Yeah I am talking about the damn hole where the old stadium used to be located.

I agree - holes in the middle of a CBD don't stay holes for very long.

steve · PostSep 22, 2006#8422006-09-22T15:40+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
steve wrote:
Doug wrote: Holes in downtown do not remain for long.

Sadly, this isn't the case. There are a lot of holes downtown, manifesting themselves as parking lots. This reminds me--one of the town talk guys I referred to in an earlier post actually suggested that they make the land slated for BPV a parking lot.

Parking lots are not holes. They are functioning businesses that are producing profits for the owner. If they weren't they wouldn't be parking lots. When the land becomes more valuable with a building on it than as a parking lot, then a building gets put on it.

Yes, they are holes. Physical holes in the built environment. If you would have read carefully, Scrutinizer, you would not have conflated economics and physical reality.

Perhaps you've also conflated "scrutinizer" with "pointless contrarian?"

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 22, 2006#8432006-09-22T15:41+00:00

steve wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
steve wrote:

Sadly, this isn't the case. There are a lot of holes downtown, manifesting themselves as parking lots. This reminds me--one of the town talk guys I referred to in an earlier post actually suggested that they make the land slated for BPV a parking lot.

Parking lots are not holes. They are functioning businesses that are producing profits for the owner. If they weren't they wouldn't be parking lots. When the land becomes more valuable with a building on it than as a parking lot, then a building gets put on it.

Yes, they are holes. Physical holes in the built environment. If you would have read carefully, Scrutinizer, you would not have conflated economics and physical reality.

Perhaps you've also conflated "scrutinizer" with "pointless contrarian?"

So parking lots are not businesses? Interesting perspective.

doug · PostSep 22, 2006#8442006-09-22T15:42+00:00

I love these forums.

steve · PostSep 22, 2006#8452006-09-22T15:45+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:So parking lots are not businesses? Interesting perspective.

Don't roll your eyes at me, young man!

gary kreie · PostSep 22, 2006#8462006-09-22T16:14+00:00

Doug wrote:TIF's...

The stadium no longer pays any taxes.

How much will the people occupying 1200 residential units contribute to the city via the earnings tax each year? These will probably be people now living in the County who currently contribute nothing.

stlmike · PostSep 22, 2006#8472006-09-22T16:46+00:00

Parking lots are not holes. They are functioning businesses that are producing profits for the owner. If they weren't they wouldn't be parking lots. When the land becomes more valuable with a building on it than as a parking lot, then a building gets put on it.

You're right, a parking lot is a business. But you're pressing a point that is an aside to the point being discussed. Namely, that in the hypothetical event that Ballpark Village didn't get built, something else would, due to its "prime location" and the notion that "holes" don't last downtown. Now, certainly, I wouldn't doubt that a parking lot would get developed if nothing else stepped up to the plate but I think the question that was being asked was whether or not a substantial development is a foregone conclusion to this plot of land. We can debate the term "hole" and whether or not a business can still be a hole or not, but since a parking lot requires little to no investment outside of owning some land and charging people to park on it, I don't think this is the kind of "development" that we are questioning the capacity of our downtown land about.

urban elitist · PostSep 22, 2006#8482006-09-22T18:07+00:00

steve wrote:Perhaps you've also conflated "scrutinizer" with "pointless contrarian?"

That just needed repeating.

stlmike wrote:[You're right, a parking lot is a business. But you're pressing a point that is an aside to the point being discussed. ....

Just his standard straw man.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 22, 2006#8492006-09-22T18:23+00:00

Urban Elitist wrote:
steve wrote:Perhaps you've also conflated "scrutinizer" with "pointless contrarian?"
That just needed repeating.

It's interesting that you failed to note the misuse of the word "conflated".

Urban Elitist wrote:
stlmike wrote:[You're right, a parking lot is a business. But you're pressing a point that is an aside to the point being discussed. ....
Just his standard straw man.

A parking lot is a strawman? Do you even know what you are talking about?

urban elitist · PostSep 22, 2006#8502006-09-22T18:30+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:A parking lot is a strawman? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Yup.

stlmike wrote: But you're pressing a point that is an aside to the point being discussed. Namely, that in the hypothetical event that Ballpark Village didn't get built, something else would, due to its "prime location" and the notion that "holes" don't last downtown. Now, certainly, I wouldn't doubt that a parking lot would get developed if nothing else stepped up to the plate but I think the question that was being asked was whether or not a substantial development is a foregone conclusion to this plot of land. We can debate the term "hole" and whether or not a business can still be a hole or not, but since a parking lot requires little to no investment outside of owning some land and charging people to park on it, I don't think this is the kind of "development" that we are questioning the capacity of our downtown land about.

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Attempting to shift the argument to the definition of a "hole" instead of debating stlmike's original point is a straw man argument.

Ballpark Village Towers and Mixed Use Project

Choose Display Mode