DISCLAIMER: example was a half-as**d attempt to show that everyone may end up with more and does not reflect scientific or unscientific study and only a little thought.
Do you people ever work? Took me 15 minutes to read through this pointless bantering, and all I got out of it was a lot of laughs. There were some nuggets of good info hiding in there, though.
- 623
BPV even if it is not developed will be replaced by something of similar style.
Very doubtful.
Don't forget the Cordish proposal was chosen over several less ambitious plans submitted by other large developers including McCormack Baron.
The site currently has no infrastructure which is very expensive to create. Despite the residential boom we have yet to see new construction even on a fully serviced site elsewhere in downtown.
What local or national developer would take this project on if Cordish couldn't do it.
And what developer would you get that can fill the 350,000 square feet of retail space? Cordish has the relationships with large retailers to be able to do it. And in other markets if they couldn't find a national retailer to fit a perceived need they created their own.
A much less expensive development on the existing site that would not need TIF and would guarantee huge profit margins would be...
STADIUM NORTH GARAGE.
Another point no one brings up...
What if there were a bunch of historic buildings on the site and developers were getting 45% of their project subsidized with taxpayer handouts in the form of state (25%) and federal (20%) historic tax credits?
Would people be complaining this much?
HTCs are more of a tax payer handout than TIF because it diverts money directly to the developer from taxes already owed.
HTC developers can do anything they want with the money as long as the development conforms to historic standards.
HTCs are not based on the performance of the project. As long as the historic standards are followed the project could be a total failure in five years and the developers have still received the subsidy.
I'm all for Historic Tax Credits, but in many ways TIFs are actually a better deal for the tax payers.
What if there were a bunch of historic buildings on the site and developers were getting 45% of their project subsidized with taxpayer handouts in the form of state (25%) and federal (20%) historic tax credits?
Would people be complaining this much?
HTCs are more of a tax payer handout than TIF because it diverts money directly to the developer from taxes already owed.
HTC developers can do anything they want with the money as long as the development conforms to historic standards.
HTCs are not based on the performance of the project. As long as the historic standards are followed the project could be a total failure in five years and the developers have still received the subsidy.
I'm all for Historic Tax Credits, but in many ways TIFs are actually a better deal for the tax payers.
- 49
This is the flagship AMC theatre planned for KC's Power & Light District. (AMC is headquartered in KC.)
I think this is a great-looking urban theatre and something like this could be perfect for Ballpark Village. It would certainly provide an alternative to the exurban megaplex. Personally I'd be more inclined to go downtown to see a movie, knowing that I could walk to dinner or meet friends for a drink in the same neighborhood.
(Incidentally, Cordish is doing KC Power & Light, too.)
![]()
I think this is a great-looking urban theatre and something like this could be perfect for Ballpark Village. It would certainly provide an alternative to the exurban megaplex. Personally I'd be more inclined to go downtown to see a movie, knowing that I could walk to dinner or meet friends for a drink in the same neighborhood.
(Incidentally, Cordish is doing KC Power & Light, too.)
I do not share the concerns with the TIF vehicle for TBV (depending upon the approved language). It can actually be structured as more of a use tax - so if you use the development of TBV then you help to finance the construction of it...seems fair.
Moog Rogue wrote:This is the flagship AMC theatre planned for KC's Power & Light District. (AMC is headquartered in KC.)
I think this is a great-looking urban theatre and something like this could be perfect for Ballpark Village. It would certainly provide an alternative to the exurban megaplex. Personally I'd be more inclined to go downtown to see a movie, knowing that I could walk to dinner or meet friends for a drink in the same neighborhood.
(Incidentally, Cordish is doing KC Power & Light, too.)
Wehrenberg theaters are based in STL... and they are major suburban players (Chesterfield Valley, St. Charles etc) Lets get one like this downtown....
- 209
Here is a good recap of BPV that was in the Post on Sunday
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/res ... rk0924.pdf
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/res ... rk0924.pdf
- 11K
As team offi cials look, once again, to City Hall and Jefferson City for funding
I really dislike this quote. It just seems as though they are asking for money (some would say that this IS what they're doing). I'd say they're asking for sales tax abatement (who among us isn't for this concept - at least for our own lofts/homes?).
- 3,433
MattonArsenal wrote:Another point no one brings up...
What if there were a bunch of historic buildings on the site and developers were getting 45% of their project subsidized with taxpayer handouts in the form of state (25%) and federal (20%) historic tax credits?
Would people be complaining this much?
HTCs are more of a tax payer handout than TIF because it diverts money directly to the developer from taxes already owed.
HTC developers can do anything they want with the money as long as the development conforms to historic standards.
HTCs are not based on the performance of the project. As long as the historic standards are followed the project could be a total failure in five years and the developers have still received the subsidy.
I'm all for Historic Tax Credits, but in many ways TIFs are actually a better deal for the tax payers.
Saw your letter in today's Post. Good job.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
We already have plenty of quality theaters in St. Louis: Tivoli, Hi-Pointe, Moolah, and Chase; do we need another theater as one more could possibly detract patrons from the others?
Wehrenberg long ago abandonded the City and I hope they never come back.
Wehrenberg long ago abandonded the City and I hope they never come back.
- 11K
Yes. There needs to be a walkable theatre downtown for the soon-to-be 10,000 residents. Or they could drive to the Tivoli, Chase or Moolah I suppose.
You guys do know that St Louis Cinemas (moolah, chase, galleria) is planning on opening up a theatre in the Jefferson Arms building at Washington and Tucker, right? That is one of the things I most look forward to.
Ihnen wrote:As team offi cials look, once again, to City Hall and Jefferson City for funding
I really dislike this quote. It just seems as though they are asking for money (some would say that this IS what they're doing). I'd say they're asking for sales tax abatement (who among us isn't for this concept - at least for our own lofts/homes?).
It seems to me that team officials are asking City Hall and Jefferson City to lower their tax load so that it will actually be profitable to build such a large development. Has the thought that taxes might have made it cost prohibitive for a lot of projects to be undertaken in this city? Is it any wonder that the primary force behind the revitalization of the city and downtown has been the historic tax credits (a defacto tax cut)? Maybe we should not be chastizing the Cardinals owners for stating the obvious, but working to cut costs in city hall so that instead of dealing out TIFs to the politically connected, the tax breaks can be permanently applied to everyone.
The fact is that downtown is still pretty risky to invest in large scale new construction, the only project going up now is the casino. Bill McClellen(jack*ss) and others need to realize, like Missouri roads, if you want progress it's going to cost you in some shape or form. Basically, that means you have to help pay for the advancement of your region.
Whatever.
I still believe TIF's are only being asked for because every municipality issues them.
I do not believe it is 'too risky' but that issuing TIF's are simply an expected norm.
Where is the data showing projected revenues???
I still believe TIF's are only being asked for because every municipality issues them.
I do not believe it is 'too risky' but that issuing TIF's are simply an expected norm.
Where is the data showing projected revenues???
- 5,433
Bastiat wrote:It seems to me that team officials are asking City Hall and Jefferson City to lower their tax load so that it will actually be profitable to build such a large development. Has the thought that taxes might have made it cost prohibitive for a lot of projects to be undertaken in this city? Is it any wonder that the primary force behind the revitalization of the city and downtown has been the historic tax credits (a defacto tax cut)? Maybe we should not be chastizing the Cardinals owners for stating the obvious, but working to cut costs in city hall so that instead of dealing out TIFs to the politically connected, the tax breaks can be permanently applied to everyone.
When the 1% earnings tax was a hot topic du jour some time ago, I remember the mayor and others in city government discussing the need to evaluate the city's tax structure to ensure fairness for all taxpayers and to make the city more competitive. I haven't heard much about that since then, but it seems like a great idea to me. I don't have the answers by any means, but we might at some point be able to reduce our reliance on incentives if local taxes can be restructured.
Doug wrote:I still believe TIF's are only being asked for because every municipality issues them.
Maybe. I think those angry with the Cardinals and Cordish are perhaps a bit misguided, though, as the anger should be directed toward Jefferson City, which has allowed questionable uses of TIF like the countless big box shopping centers that have sprouted in the area (in floodplains and atop leveled bluffs, for example) that only siphon businesses, jobs, and revenue from one suburb to another.
I believe a TIF used here, to offset infrastructure costs, will ensure the best and highest use of the land (i.e., ensure the feasability of Cordish's $650 million plan). Or, as Matt said before, we could settle for a Stadium North garage instead. Unlike other TIFs, this one will not siphon businesses, jobs, and revenue from other municipalities in the area, and there's the opportunity to bring in businesses that are new to Saint Louis. I realize some are concerned the project will siphon business away from other parts of downtown and the city proper, but I believe in the long run Ballpark Village will complement, not detract from, other offerings in downtown and Saint Louis in general.
TIF's seem to be the municipal equivalent to 0% financing in the auto industry. These offers were supposed to jump start sluggish car sales, much like TIF's were created to help ignite urban redevelopment.
The problem is once the cat's out of the bag, there's no going back. Are TIF's necessary for this project? I don't know. But, why wouldn't the BPV developers push for them when everyone else is getting a piece of this pie??? Good business people don't leave money on the table.
The problem is once the cat's out of the bag, there's no going back. Are TIF's necessary for this project? I don't know. But, why wouldn't the BPV developers push for them when everyone else is getting a piece of this pie??? Good business people don't leave money on the table.
- 1,026
Did you guys note McLellan's refcent article in the post. He appears to concede that TIFS are normal for these projects (even in the burbs) but then uses that fact to lambast the whole notion of the TIF alltogether ... and - in essence - american style capitalism. You could write a dissertation in response to his comments (I wont) ... but of particular note: the notion that in the "good old days" the business class assuemd all the risk and received no goverment support is simply wrong. Rail road benefited from free land rights - as did mining companies. eary media recieved spectrum rights for free (and modern media - internet sales - remian untaxed). Hell, the entire pre-inductrial era benefited from a tort system that effectively isolated manufacturers from liability. one could go on and on .... and then there's the notion that the "lower classes" - the "little guy" that Mclellan seems to like to champion receives no such government support. isn't a progressive tax system in and of itself "support." what about small business tax credits. Poverty tax exemptions? Small business exemptions from work comp requirements? his perspective is so simplistic (big guy versus little guy) that its absurd. And lets not forget the one thing his ilk always likes to forget - that aid to big guys creates hundreds of jobs for little guys. how many cosntructyion jobs, retail jobs and tourists jobs will this project generate? I highly doubt that the Dewitts are going to man those posts.
the fact of the matter is that this IS a free market system. What he doesn't get is that society - through the government - particpates in it. When society wishes to guide eceonomic development - like say, spport small business, grow the internet, grow the railroad etc etc - society expends some capital to do so. We're trying to spur development in downtown. Its a societal goal. There's nothing wrong in expendig funds to achieve that goal. Its been done since the days of barter - and probably before.
the fact of the matter is that this IS a free market system. What he doesn't get is that society - through the government - particpates in it. When society wishes to guide eceonomic development - like say, spport small business, grow the internet, grow the railroad etc etc - society expends some capital to do so. We're trying to spur development in downtown. Its a societal goal. There's nothing wrong in expendig funds to achieve that goal. Its been done since the days of barter - and probably before.
- 8,912
I was in chicago last weekend and i noticed that downtown there were some new towers being erected.... does anyone know if these towers are receiving any public subsity? I know chicago is a completely different market but... I also understand that much of this tif moneys will be going towards rebuilding the street grid, utilities, parking etc. but what about park east and maryland walk...did they recieve any hand outs... I understand those are in nicer areas but... (i'm just thinking outloud here)
markofucity wrote:...and received no goverment support...
to add to that, outside the railroads (who already got their handout) all transportation relies on gov't support.
The airline, trucking and barge industries would go belly up if they had to cover the cost of their infrastructure (and not rely on the FAA, DOT and Corps. of Engineers)
- 209
Right now, I'd rather have the Cardinals forgo Ballpark Village, and invest the $60 Million into the team!!! We're terrible!!!