urbanSTL

^so it's OK to stereotype and generalize when it fits your agenda. Got it

Arch_Genesis wrote:I never understood the backlash against Doug on this board, I think more often than not he has legitimate concerns.

I'm just skimming this entire thread but I agree, I think Doug is showing well placed skepticism toward this project.

I'm not trying to be mean, but what exactly is Doug's argument? I'm confused here...

A general question.



When did McKee begin accumulating property in the North side? Wasn't it only like 4-5 years ago that he started buying property?

McKee started making large campaign contributions in the city in 2001, created the first shell companies in June 2002, and made the first purchase on June 11, 2003.

WU economist assails NorthSide plan at Stltoday.com.

The professor noted that McKee said he plans to build $2.6 billion worth of single-family houses at an average price of more than $450,000. Doing so would require selling nearly 6,000. Meanwhile, he's projecting an average wage of $50,000 for office jobs created by NorthSide, with jobs in retail and service industries earning less.

Link

^ What is the crux of the lawsuit? It didn't appear to be formally stated in the article. I'm guessing the litigants are challening whether or not proper process was followed in awarding the TIF. If so, what does an economist's opinions have to do with it? He admitted he had no opinion.

I'm just glad this WU professor wasn't around in Soulard back in the 1970s. Back then, you could buy a house for $5,000-10,000. These same houses go for $200,000 to $400,000 these days.

Roy314 wrote:I'm just glad this WU professor wasn't around in Soulard back in the 1970s. Back then, you could buy a house for $5,000-10,000. These same houses go for $200,000 to $400,000 these days.

Grover wrote:And at the time the city was losing 50K residents a year. Anyone with a brain would have known that in less than a decade the city would be vacant.

Two great points that should be in the comments section. BTW does the post change the way it does comments daily, what happened to the Like/dislike option?

MidcoastSTL wrote:

Roy314 wrote:I'm just glad this WU professor wasn't around in Soulard back in the 1970s. Back then, you could buy a house for $5,000-10,000. These same houses go for $200,000 to $400,000 these days.

Grover wrote:And at the time the city was losing 50K residents a year. Anyone with a brain would have known that in less than a decade the city would be vacant.

Two great points that should be in the comments section. BTW does the post change the way it does comments daily, what happened to the Like/dislike option?

It only applies to the blog, not articles in Domino. One can tell it's a Domino article as the filename ends in .nsf

Roy314 wrote:I'm just glad this WU professor wasn't around in Soulard back in the 1970s. Back then, you could buy a house for $5,000-10,000. These same houses go for $200,000 to $400,000 these days.

Soulard didn't need a 90 billion dollar loan either. I think you all are showing your bias on this one. The econ prof is giving his educated opinion that the NorthSide plans is economically unreasonable from a variety of perspectives. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but I don't think Soulard in the 70s makes a good comp.

lukethedrifter wrote:
Soulard didn't need a 90 billion dollar loan either. I think you all are showing your bias on this one. The econ prof is giving his educated opinion that the NorthSide plans is economically unreasonable from a variety of perspectives. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but I don't think Soulard in the 70s makes a good comp.

Why not? Soulard, Lafayette Square and the Central West End prove that people today will spend over $400,000 on a house within a mile or so of Downtown (and you could buy houses at a fraction of these values back in the 70s and 80s). Why should the Northside be any different? Why is it so crazy to believe that someone will spend $450,000 on a house in the Northside in 20 years?

Roy314 wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:
Soulard didn't need a 90 billion dollar loan either. I think you all are showing your bias on this one. The econ prof is giving his educated opinion that the NorthSide plans is economically unreasonable from a variety of perspectives. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but I don't think Soulard in the 70s makes a good comp.

Why not? Soulard, Lafayette Square and the Central West End prove that people today will spend over $400,000 on a house within a mile or so of Downtown (and you could buy houses at a fraction of these values back in the 70s and 80s). Why should the Northside be any different? Why is it so crazy to believe that someone will spend $450,000 on a house in the Northside in 20 years?

Who are the greatest inventors and change agents in our world? Crazy people that dream and can turn those dreams into reality. Who accomplishes little to nothing? The whining naysayers...

I'm not saying I'm opposed to McNorthSide, I just think most of you are letting your desire for urban investment color your impression of the Prof's opinion.

"Whiny naysayers?" Really?

lukethedrifter wrote:I'm not saying I'm opposed to McNorthSide, I just think most of you are letting your desire for urban investment color your impression of the Prof's opinion.

My question is: What does the professor's opinion have to do with the case? He said it had nothing to do with it.

innov8ion wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:I'm not saying I'm opposed to McNorthSide, I just think most of you are letting your desire for urban investment color your impression of the Prof's opinion.

My question is: What does the professor's opinion have to do with the case? He said it had nothing to do with it.

And when Puricelli asked Boldrin if, in his opinion, city officials had followed "proper procedure" in approving the TIF, the professor admitted he had "no opinion" on that.

Yeah, that's not all he said in "the trial challenging tax incentives."

For more than three hours in a St. Louis courtroom, Michele Boldrin, chair of the economics department at Washington University, poked holes in McKee's projections for NorthSide, calling them "arbitrary" and "pie in the sky"

He also questioned NorthSide's financing, noting that the Bank of Washington, the only lender that has publicly backed the project is far too small, at $770 million in assets, to finance even half of it, or even to organize other investors.

The professor noted that McKee said he plans to build $2.6 billion worth of single-family houses at an average price of more than $450,000. Doing so would require selling nearly 6,000. Meanwhile, he's projecting an average wage of $50,000 for office jobs created by NorthSide, with jobs in retail and service industries earning less.

"It's pie in the sky," Boldrin said. "Where are these 6,000 homeowners who can afford $450,000 homes going to come from?"

If the trial is strictly over whether the city followed proper procedure then you are correct. If the suit has to do with whether unrealistic numbers were used to justify the tax incentives then the Prof's point are relevant.

lukethedrifter wrote:I just think most of you are letting your desire for urban investment color your impression of the Prof's opinion.

Guilty as charged. But there's a real point here as to whether the prof's opinion has anything to do with the legality of the TIF.

Grover wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:If the trial is strictly over whether the city followed proper procedure then you are correct. If the suit has to do with whether unrealistic numbers were used to justify the tax incentives then the Prof's point are relevant.

The problem, I think, is that you can't "prove" that projecting an additional 6,000 homeowners over 20 years is unrealistic. Again, it just depends on so many factors that none of us can foresee. The City has the legal right to grant a TIF. If elected representatives think a TIF is warranted, they grant it. If others think their projections are bunk then that's their opinion. For the record, I don't expect NorthSide to be built exactly as McKee has laid out. But what if a few office towers are built, the 21st Street interchange is corrected, a light rail line is built into North STL...the table needs to be set to encourage some large-scale development. If this lawsuit succeeds, then perhaps there should be a lawsuit against the Cardinals over Ballpark Village as their "pie-in-the-sky" projections have proven to be unrealistic.

I think you have CSI syndrome.

It's not the legal expert's job to "prove" anything. It's his job to provide testimony based on his or her expertise. Frequently that is subjective.

Personally, I would point out that the northside got left on the wayside when it came to TIGER grant apps as further proof that the only way the northside is going to see any meaningful infrastructure investment any time in the near future is too find a way to make this proposal work. The city simply doesn't have the funds, the state is cutting back, and the Fed tank is on empty. Furthermore, No one is going to propose a city wide bond as was done in the past during the city's prime. Do I agree with all of the proposal, NO.

But, phase I and Phase II address a bad decision made in the past, building 22nd street interchange for a bad inner city freeway idea, while embracing the coming of a new I-70 crossing while still leaving the residential areas alone at the moment. I'm fearfull that everything will remain status quo because of this lawsuit and within a year Wells Fargo Advisors announce their move to different pastures. I can see them building a new campus in Glen Carbonwhen Illinois passes the STAR BONDS because we can't find a way to replace a interchange or provide an ideal location for a first class office tower, referring to McKee's idea of placing a 40 story office building at the western end of the Gateway Mall.