8AM is unacceptable. Many will be at work and unable to attend. Considering McKee wants some 2400 more properties, in addition to the 1080 he already owns, including many longtime business owners which he claims to not want to displace, these stakeholders should have the opportunity to have their voice heard.
Anything less would further undermine this already undemocratic process.
Contact the TIF Commission TODAY as they are meeting tomorrow. Email Linda Criss or call her at 314-622-3400 ext 274.
Also contact Deputy Mayor for Development Barbara Geisman at 314-622-3201.
It would be wise to also contact the Board of Aldermen especially April Ford-Griffin, Marlene Davis, and Kacie Starr Triplett, though they have questionable influence over the mayoral-appointed TIF Commission. Yet the BOA will vote on the redevelopment ordinance while the mayoral-appointed TIF Commission passes their recommendations to the BOA.
BOA members should know whether or not citizens, as tax paying property owners, were heard in this process. If the meeting occurs at 8AM that's unlikely.
Go forward to page 20 and enlarge. This is just a graphic depiction of the numbers given on that page.
The application states that a single-family home in the project area will sell for $198K in 2010 and will experience a breathtaking annual growth rate for the next 20 years, starting at 25% annual growth in 2011 and plateauing at a 3% YoY increase from 2023 to 2030, so that the single family home price is projected at $853,798.
Yes, the numbers are ridiculous; that is our point. This is one of the primary reasons we are so distrustful of this TIF application. No concrete plans and bubblicious numbers. Is this the level of seriousness you want to see in an application asking for $409M of your money? I'd be more favorably impressed with numbers that fit with the real world.
If you want to step through the math, our favorite northside CPA lays it out in a series of discussion posts.
How will other neighborhood projects, those with actual merit and positive results, be affected?
This is a fantastic and interesting question. IF NorthSide is what McKee wants it to be it will inevitably pull residents from Carondelet, Tower Grove, FPSE, maybe the CWE and elsewhere. Will home prices slide in those areas? Will residents in those areas simply not want to move to NorthSide? Will there be city money to help the continued revitalization of other neighborhoods?
Doug wrote:Sounds like McKee is cooking the books!
The former head of AIG Hank Greenberg was forced to pay 15 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission for doing the same.
Huh? That's not an example of, "cooking the books." Cook booking beefs up earnings that don't actually exist. For a tutorial, check out this article: http://money.howstuffworks.com/cooking-books.htm
He just appears to be providing optimistic projections.
In short, the TIF request is a few million dollars less than the previous draft, the TIF request will be broken up into phases, eminent domain decisions will wait and any city backing of the TIF will require separate legislation. It appears to me that some of most significant constructive concerns raised have been addressed. This leaves some very important questions unanswered, but it appears clear that Paul McKee has been receiving better advice.
I don't wish to rehash old talking points, but has the new TIF mollified some of the concerns? That the whole $400M TIF would be given up front - that McKee would be free to use eminent domain at will, etc. I understand that there are still a number of significant and legitimate concerns, but what I'm asking, basically, is whether or not people feel that this is an improved TIF application?
Improved application, yes. Solid redevelopment agreement, not yet known.
The TIF end of the discussion may interest accountants, anti-TIF activists and public finance gurus, but the bigger concerns center on eminent domain, maintenance over the long term of the project, preservation (social and architectural), allowing other developers into this area during the redevelopment and selling off properties not needed for this project (Old North). These will be addressed by legislation at the Board of Aldermen. I'm not putting much stock in the TIF application, one way or the other. It indicates a better direction of which the real proof will be a bill introduced at the Board.
^ That makes a lot of sense. This is why a strong community-based and community-led organization is needed. Keeping tabs on the incremental advancement of this project, and providing input and opposition if necessary, are incredibly important. Is such a group going to step up and do this? How will McKee's ambitions be "managed"?
Grover wrote:^ That makes a lot of sense. This is why a strong community-based and community-led organization is needed. Keeping tabs on the incremental advancement of this project, and providing input and opposition if necessary, are incredibly important. Is such a group going to step up and do this? How will McKee's ambitions be "managed"?
There is such a community organization, you just don't like them.
It's not that I don't like the NorthSide CBA, it's that I see the group as ineffective. Perhaps I should ask what the possibility of another group emerging and addressing concerns.
Doug - thanks for attempting to record the meeting last night. You handled the situation well, I think. I don't understand why McKee is so against being filmed, but I don't think it should be an option for him. Not when we're supposed to consider a $400M TIF.
I think they know that there is nothing they can do about someone filming in a public meeting in a public place. No one tried to physically stop him. What he can do is stop talking, and that is what he did. At that point, I and another neighborhood resident asked Doug if he would stop. While I did not want to let McKee off the hook, I did want to allow people to continue to ask questions, because there were some good ones last night. Oddly enough, McKee being irrational about the filming did more damage that any bloggers somehow twisting around what he had to say. The media picked up on it pretty quick. If he is afraid of his own words, maybe he should watch what he says a little better.
MattnSTL wrote:I think they know that there is nothing they can do about someone filming in a public meeting in a public place. No one tried to physically stop him. What he can do is stop talking, and that is what he did. At that point, I and another neighborhood resident asked Doug if he would stop. While I did not want to let McKee off the hook, I did want to allow people to continue to ask questions, because there were some good ones last night. Oddly enough, McKee being irrational about the filming did more damage that any bloggers somehow twisting around what he had to say. The media picked up on it pretty quick. If he is afraid of his own words, maybe he should watch what he says a little better.
Well said.
Doug - thanks for attempting to record the meeting last night. You handled the situation well, I think. I don't understand why McKee is so against being filmed, but I don't think it should be an option for him. Not when we're supposed to consider a $400M TIF.
Its easy to see sometimes why people throw up their hands and give up on the city to do the things it could do to help itself. I hope Mr. McKee continues to look at the greater good of working past the little annoyances and keeps his eye on the horizon and what's best for the region, like he is doing now.
I don't see that there is a lot in this for him personally. He is already rich, and may not live long enough to see his vision completed. He could retire quite happily to a resort climate and forget St. Louis. But he has a big vision for reviving the city from the inside out. But people are very skeptical and timid when it comes to any change nowadays.
And leaders are skeptical too. The easiest way to get attention on the new media is editing words and video down to half-truths that distort the whole picture. Look at Fox. The guy behind the camera has complete editing control, so the people being filmed can never know if that power will be abused at their expense or not. A lot of the media edit to ONLY show confrontion, not substance. We are a funniest home videos society. Doug correctly showed the whole thing on his blog (I think), but why take a chance that the photograher will do that every time if you don't know the photographer, and you are the one being filmed?
And even if Doug does the right thing and shows the whole video, some news channel with 20 second bytes might edit it down to just the confrontation, not all the good discussion that came before.
I think it is fair that the person being filmed, even in a public setting, has some rights with respect to how the video is used or abused. Or it will likely be the end of public meetings.
There are a few more changes to the NorthSide TIF....
1. A new paragraph was added to the redevelopment plan (one of three booklets that are part of the TIF application). Within that paragraph, the development company promises not to spend TIF money to acquire owner-occupied homes, and that it has so far has not identified owner-occupied homes that it plans to take through eminent domain.
That paragraph reads, in its entirety: “The Developer has not identified any owner-occupied residences for acquisition under this Redevelopment Plan with the use of tax increment financing revenues and has not identified any owner-occupied residences of acquisition. through the use of eminent domain under this Redevelopment Plan.”
2. The development company now estimates that the assessed valuation of property within the development area is now $53 million, a change from the Sept. 9 estimation of $57 million.
3. The development company has changed the breakdown of how it plans to spend TIF funds. Of the $390.6 million, the development company plans to spend the bulk of it, $345.5 million, on public infrastructure costs, $35.6 million on property acquisition and relocation, $7.6 million on building rehabilitation costs, and $1.6 million on studies and professional services.
I think Item #3 of proposed changes to the TIF, $345 million dedicated to public infrastructre, brings up a question that is not being discussed in the greater context for the northside, city and the region as a whole. The question I have, What alternatives are their to rebuild northside public infrastructure let alone rebuild the 22nd street interchange (with associated street) or direct Tucker Ave connection between downtown & MRB?
First, Federal stimulus funds for the most part have been spoken for. The biggest chunk of funds for the region is going towards Hwy 141 and Hwy 364 extensions. That fact won't change nor will their be any realistic chance for new stimulus funds in the magnitude of hundreds of millions. However, putting forth some type committment might encourage any additional funds that haven't been obligated.
Second, Missouri's support comes via tax credits. Their is some $100 million in tax credits available if we can find a workable solution. Not too mention the continuation of Historic tax credits. I know it is not ideal for most on this blog. However, it is a compromise from a low tax state. Simply put, don't expect a multibillion capital plan coming from the majority of the states taxpayers/voters.
Third, The city could sell bonds directly in order to fund public infrastructure for the northside or some of the better proposals in McKee's plan. This was done with great affect in the 1920's if not mistaken (recalling a great side exhibit in the History Museum) Politically, I think this would be DOA and will remain dead until the northside admits it needs all the help it can get.
At a minimum, can someone at least admit that the initial phases have as much to do with downtown as the northside.
Finally, Property owners can be assess directly for improvements to their streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc. I don't see many northsiders proposing as such nor will the property values come close to supporting the revenue needed. The assessments will simply be way way too much for any homeowner to afford. Northside will be overgrown before the current rehab pace could support such.
Personally, I think McKee has started a much needed dialouge. I also think he has presented a workable plan within the context of current funding and political realities that will remain for the foreseeable future.
