urbanSTL

Although I agree that the land would be developed even without BPV, I'm not sure it will be of the same quality. Without seeing the plans, we can assume that BPV was designed with the entire development in mind. I speculate that in its current design, the open spaces, streetscapes, and buildings will relate to one another in a fairly sympathetic way without being too obvious. I make this assumption by seeing the care that the developers took in the placement and heights of the buildings giving the sense that it was a block that developed over time.



If BPV village does not happen and outside developers take over I do not think this will be the case. Smaller developers will most likely not attempt the entire area at once (not putting all their eggs in one basket), leaving the space open to different developments by different people, all competing for the same market. Some will make the argument that these developers different architectural styles will create much more of a natural downtown feel, and I agree to a point. BPV is a unique entity that no other downtown area can offer by having such a large area under one masterplan that will hopefully be well thought out and accomodating to numerous types of people and walks of life. Not to mention that this would allow those smaller developers to fucus their energies in surronding infill parking lots rather than drain their resources on the initial project i.e. MW tower.



To sum up I believe that BPV is a project rivaled by no other city. The only thing I know of that comes close is the HafenCity development in Hamburg Germany, wich about the size of the entire DT STL area and therefore completely out of our league.

stlmike wrote:I've said this many times throughout this thread but I think it bears repeating:



If anything will ever bring a St Louisan downtown, even the most skeptical suburbanite, it is is the St Louis Cardinals. If condos with year-round views into the ballpark couldn't sell out thousands of top dollar units, I don't know what will.



This is sort of a litmus test to me. If we squander this, the most potential for a new batch of high quality real estate this city has had in years, --If we screw this one up-- we really need to step back and do some serious pondering.

Eloquently stated. For this reason I would support a modest TIF of <$100mil.

swiss, why'd you post that twice?

I agree about the litmus test part. I've been offered jobs in Chicago and Seattle - and if this falls through, I actually might consider taking them. Its heresy I know, but if STL can;t get behind THIS then what can they get behind? I might have to eventually agree with my Chicago freind who summed up St. Louis thus: "St. Louis' problem is that they just don't want to be a big city." If we pass this up I'd find it hard to disagree with him ....

It seemed to be lost in the heated argument.

stlmike wrote:

What it will come down to is getting approval for the TIFs and building something like the $600 million project, or not giving them TIFs and getting a $60 million dollar half-@ss project.

Well, I think the point is that the 60 million dollar half @ss project that they are required to build does not require all six blocks. So there is actually a possibility that they would build what their contracted to build and then the rest would be left up to other parties.

I agree if they go with a scaled down project, the land could be better used, but I would bet that what they don't build on in a scaled down project would just become surface parking lots owned by the cardinals.

TIF is an economic development tool to be used for distressed areas not entertainment districts, malls, etc.

Are you reading this from a textbook?

Doug wrote:The 'percentage of the tax dollars produced by the development' is a subsidy as said percentage is kept by the developer and not given to the City. TIF is an economic development tool to be used for distressed areas not entertainment districts, malls, etc. This is not a blighted area. The developer wants access to the market as it is a gold mine. We do not need to give them tax increment financing. It will happen without TIF's.

Tell this to the West County Mall people, BV screams for TIF more than the mall ever would times 10. As long as the law permits it, then I'm for using some sort of TIF for the BV.

A mixed use project downtown adjacent to the Stadium is a low risk goldmine. Who wouldn't live a block from Bush Stadium and possible work the same distance away?

This is a misguided argument that seems to come up again and again. If it were so then a developer would have built a condo tower next to the old stadium and would have broken ground ASAP next to the new one in order to mine the gold in them thar lots!

Wait, I could be wrong, but I thought the TIF tax money was coming from the sales/food/beverage taxes generated within the development, not property taxes. What's the official word on this?

Steve: you're correct.



A simple example:



$60M project (+ a couple parking garages, a hotel, etc.) brings in $30M in sales tax over a set length of time - YEAH - it's all ours, all ours! So, $5M for the schools, $10M for brownfields, $10M for the waterfront and $5M for city infastructure.



$650M project brings in $200M in sales tax over the same set length of time - $100M goes back to Cordish/Cards. Da*n them - those greedy, greedy bastards!! So with the pitance that remains: $10M for brownfields, $10M for the waterfront, $5M for city infastructure and $75M for schools.

http://stlouis.missouri.org/sldc/busdev/tif.html





Tax Increment Financing is a development tool designed to help finance certain eligible improvements to property in designated redevelopment areas (TIF districts) by utilizing the new, or incremental, tax revenues generated by the project after completion. Under TIF, property taxes within the TIF District are frozen for up to 23 years, the property owners then make Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOTS) to a "special allocation fund". Additionally, 50% of any new local Economic Activity Taxes (EATS), i.e. local sales taxes, earnings taxes, utility taxes, generated from the project are also paid to the fund while the District is in effect. The proceeds of the fund are then used to reimburse the developer for eligible project costs or to retire indebtedness incurred to cover those costs. Eligible project costs are the total of all reasonable or necessary costs incurred, or estimated to be incurred and any costs incidental to a redevelopment plan or project. Specifically, these costs include, but are not limited to:



* Costs of studies, surveys and plans

* Professional service costs (architectural, engineering, legal, financial, etc.)

* Property assembly costs (acquisition, demolition, clearing and grading)

* Costs of rehabilitating, reconstructing, remodeling of existing structures

* Costs of construction of public works

* Financing costs, including issuance interest and reserves.



In addition to the PILOTS and local EATS, TIF plans adopted after January 1, 1998 and located in an Enterprise Zone, Federal Empowerment Zone, or the Central Business District, can also use 50% of the "New State Revenues" generated from the project. The New State Revenues are the incremental increase in either state sales taxes resulting from the project or state income taxes withheld on behalf of the new employees in the district.



The process to apply for and gain approval of Tax increment Financing takes four to six months and requires legislation by the City’s Board of Alderman. To begin the process, an application and additional information packet can be obtained by contacting Dale Ruthsatz, Director of Commercial Development.

For BPV to be developed to its potential, education regarding TIF is fairly important. It's a shame that many of our own members don't have the slightest clue how TIF works; and if that's the case, the voting population will be moreso clueless! A TIF is simply a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance the current improvements that will create those gains. To learn about TIF's, please visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_increment_financing



Some points

- Use of TIF isn't limited for blighted areas but for other improvements as well

- The Cardinals assume risk for the $650 or so million in development costs. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) dedicates a portion of the revenue driven by the project to finance debt issued by the government to pay for the project. If this revenue isn't generated, the Cards have to pay the piper, not the taxpayer. So you're dead wrong when you say this money isn't going back to the government.

- The "rich keep getting richer" argument makes me sick. Cordish has said their ROI is in the single digits. A reasonable profit is necessary, otherwise they would never develop the project as it is currently envisioned in the first place. And if you want to argue that single digit percentage profit of $650 milly mil is too large, then you better not be complaining when BPV is little more than a "hole."



As many point out, this project truly can help bring our city to the next level. It will bring more jobs and generate increased revenue for the city (which can be used to provide more money for the blighted areas you speak of.) Does anyone here believe this is the next St. Louis Center? Hell no! We finally have people moving downtown to frequent these new projects. And you can bet that approval and implementation of this project will only heat up the downtown housing market...



Some of the same people on here who profess to have a grandiose vision of St. Louis are the same people who think small, believe that richy-rich is out to get them, and don't take the time to learn about the facts and financing techniques. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. It's situations like these that separate average cities from great ones. If we believe that the $650m BPV vision is in line with our grandiose vision of St. Louis, let's get it done.

Doug wrote:The 'percentage of the tax dollars produced by the development' is a subsidy as said percentage is kept by the developer and not given to the City. TIF is an economic development tool to be used for distressed areas not entertainment districts, malls, etc. This is not a blighted area. The developer wants access to the market as it is a gold mine. We do not need to give them tax increment financing. It will happen without TIF's.

I can see your point, Doug, because I would prefer 100% private investment, too. But it just won't happen. What Cordish has proposed seems to be, on its face, a phenomenal development. They're not asking for grotesque public largesse, but merely a piece of the action. I say if that's what it costs to see this come to fruition, so be it, it's pretty cheap.



How can you be so confident that someone else will develop this area without public financing? Your gut feeling isn't particularly persuasive. In this day and age, major projects like this don't happen, at least not in cities such as ours, without some kind of public assistance.

^ Right. This is standard practice everywhere. Let's go for it.

It's a good standard practice. Public dollars should be spent where they best serve the public's interest like BPV. Believe me, downtown needs stimulation as well. If it didn't, why are you here participating?



There's a big difference between a loan which gets paid back (and serves as an investment) and throwing money at something that will generate little to no revenue. Also, there's a plan for BPV. Where's the plan for MLK? Can't throw money at something without a plan and even then, money alone won't solve anything. How about social responsibility? Drugs, teenage pregnancies, single-parent homes, violence, gangs, and higher than normal rates of school dropouts are all rampant issues in this area that have contributed to the decline of MLK.



So downtown could use stimulation and you're against the public issuing a guaranteed loan that will help bring St. Louis to the next level. MLK could use a plan, social responsibility and stimulation to help reach that plan. What are you and others doing to help?



Also, funding of various projects isn't mutually exclusive so let's not portray it in such a rudimentary manner. Public funding can be used for a variety of projects.

Doug wrote:Its a bad standard practice. Public dollars should be used to develop areas that actually need stimulation like MLK.

^ Ok, time to dispell some inaccuracies. TIF is a form of loan and the Cardinals are assuming the risk. Also, the land belongs to the Cardinals and they can do with it as they see fit so long as they meet the city's initial requirements set when the stadium was built. No one else is going to develop there. And last time I checked, that crater outside the ballpark looks like blight to me....



The Cardinals simply have a vision bigger than the city's minimum requirements. This is no bailout; this is an example of the city, Cardinals, and other private sector entities working together to create an opportunity bigger than any could accomplish alone.



As has been stated many times over, TIF is meant for redevelopment and community improvement projects. Would this not improve the community? Of course! If this is your best argument, it doesn't hold water. Game, set, match. Bring on the BPV!

I'm just a bit fuzzy on where you stand Doug.



I do understand your point and passion for underdeveloped areas of our city. And I wish that a developer wanted to spend 100's of millions on MLK or the water tower areas of North St. Louis. I agree with a lot that you say, especially in theory. My support of BPV isn't based on the details, it's simply a reflection of my belief that a project developed systematically as part of a coherent plan is worth government support (temporary partial tax forgiveness). This project will positively influence downtown, Cordish will get rich, the city will increase its tax base substantially - and even more when the TIF expires.



Anyway, anyone have ideas for how this development will impact the surrounding street fronts? The garage on Broadway or on 8th, or south of 40?

A perfect example.



Please read Ihnen's post again if you are against TIF for BPV and do the math...



Yeah, the city is getting $70million less in tax revenue but we didn't use TIF for the development!!!!

Ihnen wrote:Steve: you're correct.



A simple example:



$60M project (+ a couple parking garages, a hotel, etc.) brings in $30M in sales tax over a set length of time - YEAH - it's all ours, all ours! So, $5M for the schools, $10M for brownfields, $10M for the waterfront and $5M for city infastructure.



$650M project brings in $200M in sales tax over the same set length of time - $100M goes back to Cordish/Cards. Da*n them - those greedy, greedy bastards!! So with the pitance that remains: $10M for brownfields, $10M for the waterfront, $5M for city infastructure and $75M for schools.