Centene Corporation HQs

framer · PostJun 13, 2007#1262007-06-13T06:09+00:00

Glad to see dome sanity return to a US Courtroom. As much as I'd love to see this thing built, I just can't condone taking private property for private development.

I've said it before: Centene just needs to buck-up and pay the hold-outs what their property is REALLY worth.

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 14, 2007#1272007-06-14T05:18+00:00

Framer wrote:Glad to see dome sanity return to a US Courtroom. As much as I'd love to see this thing built, I just can't condone taking private property for private development.

I've said it before: Centene just needs to buck-up and pay the hold-outs what their property is REALLY worth.

I know what you're saying, but I think one problem has been that the hold-outs haven't been willing to sell for even a 20% premium on what would be considered 'market value'. It's not right for private land to be taken away, but it's not entirely OK to hold it hostage either.

buckethead · PostJun 14, 2007#1282007-06-14T12:55+00:00

Grover wrote:
Framer wrote:Glad to see dome sanity return to a US Courtroom. As much as I'd love to see this thing built, I just can't condone taking private property for private development.

I've said it before: Centene just needs to buck-up and pay the hold-outs what their property is REALLY worth.

I know what you're saying, but I think one problem has been that the hold-outs haven't been willing to sell for even a 20% premium on what would be considered 'market value'. It's not right for private land to be taken away, but it's not entirely OK to hold it hostage either.

I hardly call that holding it hostage. If they own the property maybe it's worth more to them than what the market (or market + X%) is offering. Or if they think the property will be worth a lot more than that in the future, then unfortunately they'd be foolish to sell now.

cwender · PostJun 14, 2007#1292007-06-14T13:22+00:00

I was told by a developer who attended the Clayton planning meetings that purchase offers were 50% above market value, and the owners were offered additional "signing bonuses of a couple hundred thousand dollars". Of course, Centene's interest in the comparables used to calculate "market value" is not impartial, but if the "signing bonus" is true, that would certainly sweeten the pot.

In the end, the property owner has no obligation to sell if they don't want to, regardless of the offering price. Imagine the heightened value of their property 10 years from now if Centene (hopefully) proceeds with development. The holdout's might be sitting on a goldmine then.

bastiat · PostJun 14, 2007#1302007-06-14T16:06+00:00

Grover wrote:
Framer wrote:Glad to see dome sanity return to a US Courtroom. As much as I'd love to see this thing built, I just can't condone taking private property for private development.

I've said it before: Centene just needs to buck-up and pay the hold-outs what their property is REALLY worth.

I know what you're saying, but I think one problem has been that the hold-outs haven't been willing to sell for even a 20% premium on what would be considered 'market value'. It's not right for private land to be taken away, but it's not entirely OK to hold it hostage either.

This is completely irrelevant. What if you had a house that you had grown up in and raised your own family in and basically had all of your favorite memories in this house. Then one day a developer comes along and tells you he is going to give you twice what it is "worth" so he can tear it down to build a McMansion.

FYI, the true market price is what is voluntarily agreed upon between the buyer and seller. If I decide that I would rather have my dingy little house than $10 million, then the market price is greater than $10 million.

cwender · PostJun 14, 2007#1312007-06-14T17:48+00:00

Bastiat wrote:
Grover wrote:
Framer wrote:Glad to see dome sanity return to a US Courtroom. As much as I'd love to see this thing built, I just can't condone taking private property for private development.

I've said it before: Centene just needs to buck-up and pay the hold-outs what their property is REALLY worth.

I know what you're saying, but I think one problem has been that the hold-outs haven't been willing to sell for even a 20% premium on what would be considered 'market value'. It's not right for private land to be taken away, but it's not entirely OK to hold it hostage either.

This is completely irrelevant. What if you had a house that you had grown up in and raised your own family in and basically had all of your favorite memories in this house. Then one day a developer comes along and tells you he is going to give you twice what it is "worth" so he can tear it down to build a McMansion.

Bastiat, your reply to Framer is irrelevent. If this issue invloved homes (and the emotional attachments owners have for them) your analogy may have some credence. I'd be surprised to learn that any of the "holdouts" grew up in and subsequently raised their own children in any of these buildings. The properties provide rental income to their owners. I'm not discounting the fact that said owners may have an emotional attachment (as a matter of fact, I believe one of the owners is grossly emotional about their property), but your evocation of warm and fuzzy domestic memories is not a true representation of the situation.

bastiat · PostJun 14, 2007#1322007-06-14T18:25+00:00

CWEnder wrote:
Bastiat wrote:
Grover wrote:

I know what you're saying, but I think one problem has been that the hold-outs haven't been willing to sell for even a 20% premium on what would be considered 'market value'. It's not right for private land to be taken away, but it's not entirely OK to hold it hostage either.

This is completely irrelevant. What if you had a house that you had grown up in and raised your own family in and basically had all of your favorite memories in this house. Then one day a developer comes along and tells you he is going to give you twice what it is "worth" so he can tear it down to build a McMansion.

Bastiat, your reply to Framer is irrelevent. If this issue invloved homes (and the emotional attachments owners have for them) your analogy may have some credence. I'd be surprised to learn that any of the "holdouts" grew up in and subsequently raised their own children in any of these buildings. The properties provide rental income to their owners. I'm not discounting the fact that said owners may have an emotional attachment (as a matter of fact, I believe one of the owners is grossly emotional about their property), but your evocation of warm and fuzzy domestic memories is not a true representation of the situation.

That was just used as an example to introduce the ridiculousness of the idea that property is held "hostage".

You convienently left out my last paragraph:

FYI, the true market price is what is voluntarily agreed upon between the buyer and seller. If I decide that I would rather have my dingy little house than $10 million, then the market price is greater than $10 million.

The point is that the owners of the property can ask whatever price that they wish for the property because they own it. Their reluctance to sell may be emotional or it may be just to spite the would-be the buyer. Either it doesn't matter because it is their property and no one can force them to sell.

buckethead · PostJun 14, 2007#1332007-06-14T19:21+00:00

^

I agree with Bastiat.

What if it was a family run business that had been there for generations. The "value" to the owners could be much more than any fair market value plus some. It wouldn't make any difference if it was a home or not.

jefferson · PostJun 14, 2007#1342007-06-14T21:56+00:00

from an article in today's P-D:

"Getting eminent domain for a project is already tough and this decision is going to make it tougher," said Jay Case, principal of Chicago-based Orchard Development, which is rehabilitating several historic buildings in St. Louis. He also is developing Trianon, a high-rise residential development in Clayton. None of his projects required eminent domain.

"The decision will have a chilling effect on any community government thinking about invoking eminent domain," Case said.

Good.

But Erman [vice-president of DESCO] was hopeful that the impact on future developments wouldn't be great. Projects that make economic sense would still go through, he said.

Exactly.

Full article

As the court decision said, properties must exhibit a "social liability" for ED to be used. Of course, I can imagine an intrepid lawyer making the case that a property doesn't meet some minimum requirement for environmental friendliness (such as being auto-oriented as someone else said), and is therefore a "social liability". We'll see what happens.

bastiat · PostJun 15, 2007#1352007-06-15T00:56+00:00

I really hope this deals a death blow to emminent domain in Missouri, especially with companies eyeing properties in vast areas in the near Northside as well as Bohemian Hill...

jcity · PostJun 15, 2007#1362007-06-15T05:42+00:00

but your evocation of warm and fuzzy domestic memories is not a true representation of the situation.

what does a "true representation of the situation" mean? I want your property, but you will not sell, so I will get the government to MAKE you sell?

I am all for the Centene development, but if the OWNERS don't want to sell, is the GOVERNMENT supposed to FORCE it? ( i love caps!)

Is this Russia? It's all about paying for what the value of the property is. If they want it that bad, then pay the owners the price it will take to aquire it.

Again, Montgomery Bank certainly did it correctly.

jmedwick · PostJun 22, 2007#1372007-06-22T12:57+00:00

Centene says it's looking far, wide for sites to house expansion

By David Nicklaus

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

06/22/2007

A Missouri Supreme Court decision last week may cost the St. Louis region hundreds of future jobs, a Centene Corp. spokesman says.

Centene, which employs 600 people at its Clayton headquarters, had planned to hire as many as 900 more if its $210 million Centene Plaza development had gone forward. But the developers of Centene Plaza wanted to acquire some of the land by eminent domain, and the Supreme Court ruled June 12 that they couldn't do that.

Robert Schenk, Centene's vice president of corporate marketing and communications, now says those 900 jobs may go elsewhere. "There are lots of people with development dollars that are interested in talking to us," he said Thursday. "We are sending out approximately two dozen requests for proposals to a number of cities and states, and we will await their proposals."

Centene isn't threatening to leave town, he emphasized: "The current jobs that are here will stay here." But the company needs space to grow over the next several years — it had hoped to open Centene Plaza in 2010 — and it will now seek that space elsewhere.

"Everybody's willing to do cartwheels to attract somebody like Centene to their state," said Robert Wislow, chairman of U.S. Equities in Chicago. His firm was a partner in the proposed development. Officials from other states started calling as soon as the court decision came down, he said.

Wislow expressed amazement that St. Louis might let the jobs get away. "I have never seen a company with the prospect of so many jobs so lightly chased by a county or city as has happened here," he said.

metzgda · PostJun 22, 2007#1382007-06-22T13:51+00:00

The city should be pushing hard for Centene to build downtown. They might be able to almost fully utilize the designs already created and move them to a downtown site. I wonder how many locations the city still owns downtown, or if most developable sites are now owned by companies.

Also, I would hope McGowan-Walsh would push them to be the anchor tenant in this proposed 81-story tower. They could sweeten the pot by making it the "Centene Tower".

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 22, 2007#1392007-06-22T15:12+00:00

^ Whoa - Centene is certainly not large enough to anchor an 81-story building, maybe if they add 9,000 jobs instead of 900! What's amazing to me is the Clayton didn't do more work to find a different lot in Clayton on which to build. Instead, they supported the risky proposition of ED, made no friends and lost in the end. A deal should have been made - I can't believe that Centene was really set on that particular block if the right deal had come along. That said, it should be a no-brainer for the city. There are a number of sites/existing buildings downtown that could work if paired with the right incentives - Mr. Slay, cancel your meetings for the week and get this done!

jmedwick · PostJun 22, 2007#1402007-06-22T15:22+00:00

^ With other States and Cities willing to throw money and land at Centene, why should they bother doing all the work looking for land in Clayton? I don't blame them one bit.

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 22, 2007#1412007-06-22T15:26+00:00

^ I think Clayton should be doing this work in an effort to keep future jobs here.

arch city · PostJun 22, 2007#1422007-06-22T15:44+00:00

To me, the issue with Centene and Edward Jones is pathetic. The ball is being dropped all over the place. A story like this makes me very angry at the St. Louis area and Missouri. Then people wonder why St. Louis and Missouri (at-large) are not (have not been) considered business-friendly. In Texas, the deal would have been sealed a long time ago. 900 jobs is nothing to sneeze at. Then combine the thousand or so Edward Jones is planning to add, St. Louis and Missouri could potentially ***** themselves out thousands of jobs.

Also, St. Louis City should have been going after Centene a long time ago. With a Danforth's property involved with the Clayton eminent domain issue, there was no way Missouri was going to rule in favor of Centene. City business leaders and the RCGA have sat by passively with Centene and Edward Jones. Or they underestimated the outcome.

Also, Centene would be a great anchor for the 81-story (mixed-use) tower. However, Centene seems to be looking for new digs in a couple of years. An 81-story tower could take about three or four years to complete.

Last, there are too many vulture states that would love to have Centene - many of them surround Missouri - Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois. Each gives big incentives too.

PostJun 22, 2007#1432007-06-22T15:44+00:00

JMedwick wrote:^ With other States and Cities willing to throw money and land at Centene, why should they bother doing all the work looking for land in Clayton? I don't blame them one bit.

I don't either. When the ruling came down, I knew Centene would look elsewhere. Why not? Still, there should have been a Plan B on the part of regional leaders in order to show Centene that they are an asset to the region REGARDLESS of what Missouri decided.

thewayofthearch · PostJun 22, 2007#1442007-06-22T16:17+00:00

Arch City wrote:

Also, Centene would be a great anchor for the 81-story (mixed-use) tower. However, Centene seems to be looking for new digs in a couple of years. An 81-story tower could take about three or four years to complete.

The article stated their own tower was scheduled for a 2010 completion.

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 22, 2007#1452007-06-22T16:35+00:00

[/quote]With a Danforth's property involved with the Clayton eminent domain issue, there was no way Missouri was going to rule in favor of Centene.

Maybe I'm naive, but I find it hard to believe that the state supreme court gave 2 sh!ts what name was attached to a property.

bastiat · PostJun 22, 2007#1462007-06-22T16:46+00:00

The way that the tax code is set up these days is sickening. Taxes are too high across the board, as shown by the fact that many states have to offer incentives (basically what amounts to corporate welfare) to hand picked companies. This politicizes the economic sphere and makes business decisions into government decisions.

Instead of a true free market we have taxes acting as a barrier to entry for startups and smaller firms. The large corporations get to increase their stronghold by getting special exemptions from taxes. And then we are *shocked* when the incentive to get these tax breaks leads to money corrupting the political system.

Missouri, St. Louis city or Clayton should not go around looking to cut deals with favored big business, it should look for ways to cut taxes so that these types of companies move here on their own, not as part of some agreement. The idea of tax-money going towards finding parcels for a private business should be unheard of. We need to level the playing field in terms of taxes. No preferential treatment for big businesses.

metzgda · PostJun 22, 2007#1472007-06-22T17:52+00:00

I can understand why Edward Jones is ticked at Des Peres. However, with regards to Centene, they could have decided to choose a different location for their headquarters. I'm not sure why they're blaming Clayton, St. Louis, or Missouri for not being able to blight property that the supreme court deems is not blighted. They should have a backup plan, knowing that this decision was possible.

Now, Clayton, the city, etc... certainly should be working with them for alternatives - but I hope Centene realizes that there is little the region could do since the site is obviously not blighted.

mikel · PostJun 22, 2007#1482007-06-22T18:15+00:00

I doubt Centene is going to take its marbles home and go move its headquarters out of Clayton. That is too much work compared to uping its offers to the hold out property owners. That's what the use of eminent domain for private development is all about....trying to be cheap. Everyone has their price. They are just posturing. The project will be adjusted or the "winning" land owners will be paid more.

arch city · PostJun 23, 2007#1492007-06-23T23:24+00:00

TheWayoftheArch wrote:The article stated their own tower was scheduled for a 2010 completion.

Yeah, ground-breaking for Centene Plaza likely would have been later this year or early 2008 (after demo, etc.) - putting the tower's completion at about two years (2010).

Still, an 81-story tower would take longer to complete than a 19-story structure. Even if they got started on the 81-story building now, it still would not meet the current deadline Centene wants for new digs.

jcity · PostJun 24, 2007#1502007-06-24T14:27+00:00

As much as I want the new project to go forward, which I still think it will, I totally agreed with the Supreme Courts ruling. The area is NOT blighted. It's as simple as that. Centene can just increase it's offer. I'd love to hear what they originally offered before going to the city of clayton to try to get the buildings blighted.

Centene Corporation HQs

Choose Display Mode