urbanSTL

Didn't they have the financing and incentives in place before the BOA (Green) decided to rehash? At least according to the neighborhood group and alder this would be under construction had the City not tried to renegotiate it's own incentive score card post-demo.

addxb2 wrote:Didn't they have the financing and incentives in place before the BOA (Green) decided to rehash? At least according to the neighborhood group and alder this would be under construction had the City not tried to renegotiate it's own incentive score card post-demo.

No.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

addxb2 wrote: ↑

6:49 PM - May 08

Didn't they have the financing and incentives in place before the BOA (Green) decided to rehash? At least according to the neighborhood group and alder this would be under construction had the City not tried to renegotiate it's own incentive score card post-demo.

Why does a project across the street from Forest Park and adjacent to not one, but two of the hottest neighborhoods in town require incentives?

Two things can be true
Hot neighborhood by Forest Park
Rents won't cover costs

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

5:08 AM - May 09

addxb2 wrote: ↑

6:49 PM - May 08

Didn't they have the financing and incentives in place before the BOA (Green) decided to rehash? At least according to the neighborhood group and alder this would be under construction had the City not tried to renegotiate it's own incentive score card post-demo.

Why does a project across the street from Forest Park and adjacent to not one, but two of the hottest neighborhoods in town require incentive

Rents don't cover construction costs.  Construction costs here are similar to Chicago.  As a result, incentives are required for developers to build here at scale.  

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

5:08 AM - May 09

addxb2 wrote: ↑

6:49 PM - May 08

Didn't they have the financing and incentives in place before the BOA (Green) decided to rehash? At least according to the neighborhood group and alder this would be under construction had the City not tried to renegotiate it's own incentive score card post-demo.

Why does a project across the street from Forest Park and adjacent to not one, but two of the hottest neighborhoods in town require incentives?

Why does chesterfield mall site require $400,000,000 in incentives?

symphonicpoet wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

6:49 PM - May 08

Didn't they have the financing and incentives in place before the BOA (Green) decided to rehash? At least according to the neighborhood group and alder this would be under construction had the City not tried to renegotiate it's own incentive score card post-demo.

Why does a project across the street from Forest Park and adjacent to not one, but two of the hottest neighborhoods in town require incentives?

The hottest neighborhood in STL has a lower return rate than a mediocre neighborhood in most other regions. STL can be choosy about incentives but outside money isn’t going to flow. They’ll always have a better place to put their money. Even the building boom of 2016-2019 relied heavily on local investors who had dedication to the region. Many of those businesses didn’t survive the pandemic and the ones that did are more conservative. Just my two cents.

Their cost per unit was also way way higher than others, so they didn't help themselves at all there.

Albion West End: $475k/unit, 75% tax break across 10 years, $1.3 million community benefit contribution.

Iris: $293k/unit, sales tax break, Cortex TIF benefits, $250k affordable housing contribution, 10% affordable.

Rollick: $324k/unit, 90% tax break across 10 years, 10% affordable.

North Point: $366k/unit, 85% tax break across 10 years, no community benefit contribution or affordable housing.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:20 PM - May 09

Their cost per unit was also way way higher than others, so they didn't help themselves at all there.

Albion West End: $475k/unit, 75% tax break across 10 years, $1.3 million community benefit contribution.

Iris: $293k/unit, sales tax break, Cortex TIF benefits, $250k affordable housing contribution, 10% affordable.

Rollick: $324k/unit, 90% tax break across 10 years, 10% affordable.

North Point: $366k/unit, 85% tax break across 10 years, no community benefit contribution or affordable housing.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

These are just hard construction cost?  

I'd be on board with incentives for historic preservation. If there's a below-market rent component that's fine too. But for market rate rent? If you can't build it for a rent that will cover construction costs you shouldn't be building it. At some point this just becomes ridiculous.

Look at the analysis that SLDC does on these projects.  The tax abatement gets the project off the ground which provides immediate tax benefits (for SLPS and the city) and new residential units with ~10x more tax benefits in 10 years after the abatement expires.  If you "shouldn't be building it" then those new tax benefits are never generated.

I'll also point out that these tax abatements partially are covering the developer's cost of adding affordable housing, higher costs of wage and contracting requirements, and any community benefits agreements.  So essentially, the city is shifting funding from SLPS to these other requirements.  Without these additional requirements the level of tax abatement could be reduced.  CBAs and Affordable Housing Units look good on paper, and the Alderman can claim a win, but in reality the bill is going to SLPS.  

SLPS is not massively underfunded. Somehow Rockwood manages a larger school district with less revenue. SLPS is horribly inefficient and there is corruption at play too. No one should lose any sleep over tax breaks for affordable housing.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

What are the immediate tax benefits if there's an abatement? 

In no way am I trying to cape for tax abatements or for unnecessary developer incentives but isn't it true that 10% would immediately go into the city's coffers, in addition to the however many units being occupied with residents whose tax dollars go into the city rather than spending/living in Shrewsbury or U City or wherever? Then that gets better in time? And then the argument  suggests this proceeds some investment begetting more investment, etc.? 

Happy to be schooled on this, I feel like this argument is more vibes-based than data based.

jtlq53 wrote:In no way am I trying to cape for tax abatements or for unnecessary developer incentives but isn't it true that 10% would immediately go into the city's coffers, in addition to the however many units being occupied with residents whose tax dollars go into the city rather than spending/living in Shrewsbury or U City or wherever? Then that gets better in time? And then the argument  suggests this proceeds some investment begetting more investment, etc.? 

Happy to be schooled on this, I feel like this argument is more vibes-based than data based.

I don't think PeterXCV has an issue with abatement given the development has requirements that they either donate to tbe affordable housing trust or reserve 10% of their units for affordable housing during the duration of the abatement.

Correct me if I'm wrong @PeterXCV

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

SLDC is preparing an RFP for developers of both 1070-1094 and the modot property. 

StlToday - St. Louis agency dangles tax abatement to lure developers to Kingshighway land

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 73390.html

I somehow was unaware that the preservation board denied a previous development proposal from 2023 because of the previous houses that have since been torn down? AND the neighborhood was opposed?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Whatever the stated reasons for the denial were (from both the Preservation Board and neighborhood) I think the skepticism of the prior plan was ultimately because no one trusted Lux Living, the development team behind that iteration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk