Cool website. Thanks for posting.
Aside from the unfortunate parking garage, this is really a good looking building. I hope it gets built (without the use of eminent domain).
BTW, I can't seem to get that link to work. What am I doing wrong?
BTW, I can't seem to get that link to work. What am I doing wrong?
Arch City wrote:
Last, the existing property owners should have taken better care of their properties or redeveloped them. This is a lesson for other owners in downtown Clayton.
you make it sound like it's the owners fault. not everyone who owns a business can afford to put up nice 20 story buildings. i might have heard wrong, but the owners protesting ED all paid their taxes and kept their properties in good condition. what exactly did the owners fail to do in not taking better care of their property?
don't get me wrong, i love the prospect of 800 more jobs and more tax revenue. it's just a shame that it has to come down to this.
Admittedly, I straddle the fence with eminent domain. Although I am not a building hugger, demolishing intact historic properties (like in Lafayette Square) by eminent domain is problematic for me.what4 wrote:you make it sound like it's the owners fault. not everyone who owns a business can afford to put up nice 20 story buildings. i might have heard wrong, but the owners protesting ED all paid their taxes and kept their properties in good condition.
In regards to the Clayton properties, they aren't historic. And yes, it is the property owners fault. Taxes aside, I understand that a few of the storefronts were empty and had been for awhile. I know that one of the owners died and his wife is now responsible for his portfolio, but what were they doing to get tenants. I don't know. But I find it hard to believe that Clayton and Centene would take on a Danforth and others if there wasn't a good reason.
If people get paid fair market value for their properties or decide to redevelop it themselves, I am all for it. But if properties are just sitting and rotting and not being used to full potential, it is up to the city to make that judgment call.
Arch City wrote:Admittedly, I straddle the fence with eminent domain. Although I am not a building hugger, demolishing intact historic properties (like in Lafayette Square) by eminent domain is problematic for me.what4 wrote:you make it sound like it's the owners fault. not everyone who owns a business can afford to put up nice 20 story buildings. i might have heard wrong, but the owners protesting ED all paid their taxes and kept their properties in good condition.
In regards to the Clayton properties, they aren't historic. And yes, it is the property owners fault. Taxes aside, I understand that a few of the storefronts were empty and had been for awhile. I know that one of the owners died and his wife is now responsible for his portfolio, but what were they doing to get tenants. I don't know. But I find it hard to believe that Clayton and Centene would take on a Danforth and others if there wasn't a good reason.
If people get paid fair market value for their properties or decide to redevelop it themselves, I am all for it. But if properties are just sitting and rotting and not being used to full potential, it is up to the city to make that judgment call.
that's the problem i see with the majority opinion of the SC in the latest ED case. throwing economic development into the public use clause drops any real limitation on ED.
the historical nature of the building is not a criteria for preventing a taking under ED. those buildings in lafayette square you like are just as vulnerable under this economic development category of public use/purpose that the SC has put forth.
even if those owners had tenants, under this test they are still susceptible to a taking...
Arch City wrote: I understand that a few of the storefronts were empty and had been for awhile.
Well of course they're empty. Who on earth would rent a retail space when they know that the building will likely be demolished soon? The owners are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and Centenne knows it.
Really, they should just throw another million dollars or so at the current owners and get this thing done the honorable way. Eminent Domain in this case is just plain wrong.
- 10K
According to the Business Journal, Centene is leasing 32,000 sf of space in Chesterfield, in addition to its headquarters plans.
Would it kill these people to set up shop downtown?
Would it kill these people to set up shop downtown?
As I understand, some of those buildings/retail spaces were empty/half-empty BEFORE Centene's proposal even surfaced.Framer wrote:Well of course they're empty. Who on earth would rent a retail space when they know that the building will likely be demolished soon?
- 1,610
Centenne already controls their own building on Carondelet, the former Library Limited building at Hanley and Forsyth, the Library Limited garage at Hanley and Carondelet, and the Clayton garage on Carondelet. These four large contiguous parcels (there are likely other smaller properties that sold instead of fight the blighting) already cover half the block and are about four times the land area currently occupied by Centenne's office building on Carondelet.
So then, why does Centenne need a full block, when it already controls a contiguous, L-shaped half-block? Every rendering to-date showing their proposed complex shows new towers on already-controlled property along Hanley. It seems to me they are trying to pair an extra retail project to the west of their new office complex. But replacing existing, active uses with new is clearly an abuse of eminent domain, to which the courts evidently agreed.
So then, why does Centenne need a full block, when it already controls a contiguous, L-shaped half-block? Every rendering to-date showing their proposed complex shows new towers on already-controlled property along Hanley. It seems to me they are trying to pair an extra retail project to the west of their new office complex. But replacing existing, active uses with new is clearly an abuse of eminent domain, to which the courts evidently agreed.
- 1,610
^But the City of Clayton is already giving Centenne their garage. Plus, have they not heard of in-building parking when designing their new offices along Hanley?
- 8,904
Court ponders 'blight' in Clayton
By Matt Franck
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
05/22/2007
JEFFERSON CITY -- The Missouri Supreme Court wrestled today over the definition of "blight" and whether the term can rightly be used to condemn a key intersection amid the affluence of Clayton’s downtown.
The answer to that question could determine the future of the proposed $210 million Centene Plaza development project at the 7700 block of Forsyth Boulevard. The city of Clayton declared the property blighted, clearing the way for it to be developed over the objection of property owners.
A lawyer representing those property owners told the high court this afternoon that the declaration of blight offends common sense, not to mention Missouri law.
Gerard Carmody offered a statistical profile of Clayton’s wealth, citing the fact that the city’s average home values exceed $500,000 and household income is $181,000. What’s more, he said, the intersection being blighted is a prize real estate property, fetching $7.4 million an acre when part of it was sold in 2004.
One of the court’s judges appeared to agree that the term blight is a stretch.
"If this area is declared blighted, I don’t know any part of the state of Missouri that would not be considered blighted," said Judge Richard Teitelman.
But other judges weren’t so quick to dismiss Clayton’s right to move forward with condemnation.
Judge Laura Denvir Stith questioned Carmody on that point, suggesting that Clayton should not be exempt from declaring properties blighted, simply because of the city’s wealth.
"Would it be your position that no part of Clayton could ever be blighted?" Stith asked.
A lawyer representing Centene picked up on that concern, saying that critics of the development want to deny Clayton condemnation rights across the board.
"What they really seem to be saying is regardless of the condition of a property, condemnation is only available to poorer communities," said Thomas Weaver.
Much of the arguments revolved around the definitions of two terms in the state’s eminent domain law: economic liability and social liability. Both are cited as legal grounds of declaring blight.
But the judges struggled over the fact that neither terms are defined clearly in statute. They also questioned whether both economic and social liability must be present, or if just one of the factors is sufficient.
Carmody said supporters of the development have twisted the terms economic and social liability, focusing on the ill that could take place if the property is not developed. He said the standard should instead be the current condition of the property.
Teitelman appeared sympathetic to that argument, joking that he could not imagine how the intersection in question is posing a health or crime risk to the community.
"Is there any disease breaking out at Forsyth and Hanley?" he asked.
The case was placed on a fast track to the Supreme Court. Even so, the court typically takes weeks to rule.
- 209
Looks like the St. Louis Region may loose another company
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
Thinking that Centene will leave the region because of this may be an overreaction. Frankly, I absolutely agree with the Supreme Court.
Speaking of courting, that's what the city should be doing to Centene. I can think of numerous places downtown that could accommodate their tower. Even their current site in Clayton can.
Speaking of courting, that's what the city should be doing to Centene. I can think of numerous places downtown that could accommodate their tower. Even their current site in Clayton can.
- 11K
Well, the decision was pretty clear cut. So what does everyone think Centene will do now:
A. Buy out the site and build
B. Build without the additonal land
C. Move out of Clayton to Creve Coeur or similar location
D. Move to St. Louis City
E. Leave the region
A. Buy out the site and build
B. Build without the additonal land
C. Move out of Clayton to Creve Coeur or similar location
D. Move to St. Louis City
E. Leave the region
A or B likely, but possibly C or D. I do not see E as a very likely result. Possible, but minimally likely.
The supremes got this one right. To infer that the corner of Forsyth and Hanley is blighted is asinine. If that cvorner is blighted, then 90% of America is blighted.
If I own a building and I teke care of it, pay the taxes, etc...thgen nobody should be able to force me to sell. If they want the property, then do what Montgomery Bank is doing at Forsyth and Central...make the property owners an offer they can't refuse.
If I own a building and I teke care of it, pay the taxes, etc...thgen nobody should be able to force me to sell. If they want the property, then do what Montgomery Bank is doing at Forsyth and Central...make the property owners an offer they can't refuse.
The Ruling wrote:Section 353.020 defines "blighted area" in part as consisting of those portions of a city that, "by reason of age obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration...
I'd say auto-oriented design is "outmoded." By that definition, everything outside 270 and a good chunk of the things inside it are blighted.
While New Jersey has and continues to go back and forth on their Local Housing and Redevelopment Law, one of the 10 possible criteria for establishing a redevelopment area includes the "H" criteria: "The designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted pursuant to law or regulation."
The "smart growth" criteria does get some use when pushing to redevelop auto-oriented sites along with criteria "D" for obsolescence.
Well I would love to see option D, but somehow I bet option C is what happens.
The "smart growth" criteria does get some use when pushing to redevelop auto-oriented sites along with criteria "D" for obsolescence.
Well I would love to see option D, but somehow I bet option C is what happens.
- 1,610
They don't have to move, as Centenne already owns more than half of this large block in the heart of Clayton. All Centenne needs to do to remain in Clayton is build denser on the land they control and/or leave the non-essential parts of their originally conceived mixed-use project, such as the retail component, to be developed independent of their new offices. In other words, build new offices and parking on the land they do control, but leave adjoining retail development to the market.
- 11K
Jax wrote:The Ruling wrote:Section 353.020 defines "blighted area" in part as consisting of those portions of a city that, "by reason of age obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration...
I'd say auto-oriented design is "outmoded." By that definition, everything outside 270 and a good chunk of the things inside it are blighted.
Brilliant!
Although I think St. Louis City leaders should go after Centene HARD, I wouldn't count on St. Louis City getting this project. It's not Clayton's fault that this didn't work out as the power players had hoped. Clayton was behind this project.
Like southslider, I believe Centene should build denser. Why not go taller especially since they have the land under control. The only obstacle then would be NIMBY's complaining about potential shadows on their homes and condos.
But I wouldn't doubt if Centene left the region. For one, they no longer do business with Missouri. Then two, Missouri shut down Centene's expansion plans - even if temporarily - to bring jobs to the state. Why would they stay in Missouri? Why? The saving grace would be the support it actually received from Clayton and local developers that tend to develop in Clayton.
Three, the CEO, who founded the company, is not even from Missouri. Centene could leave and go back to Milwaukee and maintain a relatively central location or they could move to Chicago. Michael Neidorff, the CEO, is 64 years old. He is damn near retirement. If he wanted, he could move the company to Philadelphia where he was born. And Centene has a big New Jersey contract. If Centene leaves, I wouldn't blame them. If the properties in question had been in St. Louis City, the Mo. Supreme Court probably would have ruled differently.
While there are many options for them, Missouri and some suburbs around St. Louis are showing more and more that they aren't too friendly to big businesses.
Like southslider, I believe Centene should build denser. Why not go taller especially since they have the land under control. The only obstacle then would be NIMBY's complaining about potential shadows on their homes and condos.
But I wouldn't doubt if Centene left the region. For one, they no longer do business with Missouri. Then two, Missouri shut down Centene's expansion plans - even if temporarily - to bring jobs to the state. Why would they stay in Missouri? Why? The saving grace would be the support it actually received from Clayton and local developers that tend to develop in Clayton.
Three, the CEO, who founded the company, is not even from Missouri. Centene could leave and go back to Milwaukee and maintain a relatively central location or they could move to Chicago. Michael Neidorff, the CEO, is 64 years old. He is damn near retirement. If he wanted, he could move the company to Philadelphia where he was born. And Centene has a big New Jersey contract. If Centene leaves, I wouldn't blame them. If the properties in question had been in St. Louis City, the Mo. Supreme Court probably would have ruled differently.
While there are many options for them, Missouri and some suburbs around St. Louis are showing more and more that they aren't too friendly to big businesses.
- 11K
The only obstacle then would be NIMBY's complaining about potential shadows on their homes and condos.
That's not an issue at their current location. Of course Centene could built where they are - we'll have to see if they'll swallow their pride and some of the 1,000's spent on development rendering and planning to make the necessary changes.
It seems that way, but it will depend. Depending on how tall the structure grows, rest assured there are going to be some complaints/curiosity. I don't think it would matter how far in the structure(s) would be from the downtown peripheries.Grover wrote:That's not an issue at their current location.