PostApr 11, 2025#251

It better be called High & Dry.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Apr 11, 2025I'm hearing the region's first dispensary/car wash combo.
I also think the building renovation across the street that Midtown Church did turned out well.dylank wrote: ↑Apr 14, 2025dirt moving at cardinal & washington
This isn't going to happen for many reasons but there is no relationship between Layne and property owner. Also, the fact that a privately owned garage across the street has low occupancy is irrelevant.addxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 14, 2025Plan to buy Midtown St. Louis parking lots is on hold.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 24e5e.html
The whole thing smells like a back door deal between the Treasurer and property owner. Treasurers office shouldn't be in the parking business. Simple as that. Not a single piece of evidence could be provided that would justify this deal or the Treasurers involvement in deciding where parking goes.
First, there is a parking garage across the street with low occupancy. Second, developers will build parking if they need parking. Third, who are these developers and why are they working with the Treasurers office? Why would SLDC not be involved if true? Finally, why is the only evidence the property owner who is setting the price.
Because isn't parking money the treasurers and nobody is allowed to see the ledgers? Am I remembering things incorrectly?addxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 14, 2025Plan to buy Midtown St. Louis parking lots is on hold.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 24e5e.html
The whole thing smells like a back door deal between the Treasurer and property owner. Treasurers office shouldn't be in the parking business. Simple as that. Not a single piece of evidence could be provided that would justify this deal or the Treasurers involvement in deciding where parking goes.
First, there is a parking garage across the street with low occupancy. Second, developers will build parking if they need parking. Third, who are these developers and why are they working with the Treasurers office? Why would SLDC not be involved if true? Finally, why is the only evidence the property owner who is setting the price.
Market occupancy is relevant when building anything. If I recall, I read an article that stated the bonds would be paid off by parking revenue. Revenue is tied to occupancy.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 14, 2025This isn't going to happen for many reasons but there is no relationship between Layne and property owner. Also, the fact that a privately owned garage across the street has low occupancy is irrelevant.addxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 14, 2025Plan to buy Midtown St. Louis parking lots is on hold.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 24e5e.html
The whole thing smells like a back door deal between the Treasurer and property owner. Treasurers office shouldn't be in the parking business. Simple as that. Not a single piece of evidence could be provided that would justify this deal or the Treasurers involvement in deciding where parking goes.
First, there is a parking garage across the street with low occupancy. Second, developers will build parking if they need parking. Third, who are these developers and why are they working with the Treasurers office? Why would SLDC not be involved if true? Finally, why is the only evidence the property owner who is setting the price.