Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- 516
The judge takes a very narrow view of what an adequately described redevelopment project is. I would not be surprised if it is appealed and the appellate courts remands to the trial court with instructions to reconsider using a broader definition of "redevelopment project."stl pride wrote:I dont like TIF but the judge appears to have ruled based on his own feelings for the development and not based on its legality.
- 712
When did we start calling McKee a 'mega-developer?' Megaproject, yes. Megadeveloper sounds like he picked up some superpowers somewhere.
Dierker didn't take a narrow view of McKee's plan. It was not a plan. He asked for 390 in TIF for the "NorthSide" Plan and it didn't even begin in North St. Louis until well after property happened to be blighted, condemned, and demolished. No firms signed onto the idea. No preservation plan existed because Barbara Geisman said there wasn't enough time, despite that every parcel had to be considered by Development Strategies in their blighting study. An excuse hiding the fact that preservation means nothing except the alleged token Clemens Mansion for us whiners. Now we're in limbo while the State already paid him about 80 million in tax credits and apparently sale prices were inflated. No wonder we're the 52nd City. Our elites should resign and give the keys to those on the North Side, Cherokee, downtown, ONSL, FPSE, Midtown, and every other area which has done on a smaller scale but delivered. Big ideas should be supported, but not when they stomp upon residents while being supported by the public's dole.
The idea that we need to demolish any large sections of North St. Louis happens to be ridiculous. Detroit is a lot worse than St. Louis as well as way bigger. With this proposal the wrong people captured both our public officials and imagination. We also have a lot of egoist morons in City Hall who need large ribbon cutting events to justify their position. I find it cunningly ironic that a rich white developer can blow 80 million in tax credits on acquiring property through duress (for a real estate plan which does not exist), but if some "socialist African American terrorist non-for-profit" (think something like ACORN) can actually deliver on some North Grand or Ville rehabs (these projects are ongoing right now by others), they only receive measly block grants distributed at the political whim of aldermen? Why are we funding such ideas when we have buildings being constructed and rehabbed presently in North St. Louis? Why is not Crown Square and Dick Gregory the model which we pursue for development? Obviously because resources are not allocated to those with greatest need and merit.
Though if we demolish much of this area turning it into farm land, while closing hip hop clubs on Washington Avenue, then I believe that's a good strategy for economic development. McKee might agree to this as he trying to run certain people out of Germantown, which makes me wonder what Bosley Sr. would do if the Germans actually did return? It would be comedic as well since he spent his career developing farm land as a "sprawler." I, for one, am content at this point but if we want any remnants of the old neighborhood to exist in 20 years then we need to get these buildings into a preservation plan with national register districts all across the area.
The City and specifically aldermen need to get out in front and take ownership of this fiasco. Nothing affects Teflon Slay. What does he have to lose?
The idea that we need to demolish any large sections of North St. Louis happens to be ridiculous. Detroit is a lot worse than St. Louis as well as way bigger. With this proposal the wrong people captured both our public officials and imagination. We also have a lot of egoist morons in City Hall who need large ribbon cutting events to justify their position. I find it cunningly ironic that a rich white developer can blow 80 million in tax credits on acquiring property through duress (for a real estate plan which does not exist), but if some "socialist African American terrorist non-for-profit" (think something like ACORN) can actually deliver on some North Grand or Ville rehabs (these projects are ongoing right now by others), they only receive measly block grants distributed at the political whim of aldermen? Why are we funding such ideas when we have buildings being constructed and rehabbed presently in North St. Louis? Why is not Crown Square and Dick Gregory the model which we pursue for development? Obviously because resources are not allocated to those with greatest need and merit.
Though if we demolish much of this area turning it into farm land, while closing hip hop clubs on Washington Avenue, then I believe that's a good strategy for economic development. McKee might agree to this as he trying to run certain people out of Germantown, which makes me wonder what Bosley Sr. would do if the Germans actually did return? It would be comedic as well since he spent his career developing farm land as a "sprawler." I, for one, am content at this point but if we want any remnants of the old neighborhood to exist in 20 years then we need to get these buildings into a preservation plan with national register districts all across the area.
The City and specifically aldermen need to get out in front and take ownership of this fiasco. Nothing affects Teflon Slay. What does he have to lose?
- 11K
How much do you know about these two developments? I'd venture to say that if every block in North St. Louis that needed redevelopment received the subsidies that these two did then we would be talking much more than $400M. It would likely be in the $ Billions.Why is not Crown Square and d*ck Gregory the model which we pursue for development?
How much money was spent creating suburbia?
How much have we allegedly invested in downtown since 1997-98?
How much have we allegedly invested in downtown since 1997-98?
Right or wrong. Investors invest where they believe there is a return on their investment.
Obviously, downtown is not perceived as a good investment, suburbia is.
Obviously, downtown is not perceived as a good investment, suburbia is.
- 11K
I don't know and I don't know.Doug wrote:How much money was spent creating suburbia?
How much have we allegedly invested in downtown since 1997-98?
But, if you're saying that we should subsidize development in the City or other urban areas because it's been subsidized with $Billions in the suburbs I agree. The problem, I see is the ONSL 14th Street Mall and Dick Gregory Place are not replicable on a large scale. They simply cost too much. Each is designed to encourage building nearby. I'm not saying that the McKee plan doesn't have faults, but a $400M TIF is not much when considering the need.
How much tax revenues are generated in suburbia per sq foot, per block, or whatever means of comparative analysis you want to use relative to how much tax revenue generated in North St. Louis? The reality is that suburbia has been subsidizing themselves for generations where as North St. Louis has been subsidized by South St. Louis. The reality is people chosed to move. That is the reason why this argument that subsidizing suburba doesn't hold water, will not hold water and will never happen at the scale the Doug believes it should.
I supported McKee's proposal because the TIF funnels most of the money back into infrastructure of an aging street grid, is doable on the political end, will be reduced with associated grants and one of the few options of financing a large dollar figure. Federal DOT still has another round of Tiger II grants and HUD has a say. I agree that the plan lacks details and a lot of questions need to be work through on the later residential phases. But Phase A & B gives a good blueprint that emphasizes Downtown, jobs and its connection to the north side through jobs.
I supported McKee's proposal because the TIF funnels most of the money back into infrastructure of an aging street grid, is doable on the political end, will be reduced with associated grants and one of the few options of financing a large dollar figure. Federal DOT still has another round of Tiger II grants and HUD has a say. I agree that the plan lacks details and a lot of questions need to be work through on the later residential phases. But Phase A & B gives a good blueprint that emphasizes Downtown, jobs and its connection to the north side through jobs.
- 11K
That's not even close. Suburbia has not been subsidizing itself. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spend extending (and widening) roads and highways to allow people to live farther from the city. Those living in suburban locations are simply not paying what it costs to live there - whether it's sewer and power, roads or the environment.Dredger wrote:The reality is that suburbia has been subsidizing themselves for generations where as North St. Louis has been subsidized by South St. Louis. The reality is people chosed to move. That is the reason why this argument that subsidizing suburba doesn't hold water, will not hold water and will never happen at the scale the Doug believes it should.
- 453
I think any Tiger II grant for McKee will need a significant makeover to more resemble Kansas City's successful Green Impact Zone from Round One. But I think I would still prefer the application from GRG for Chouteau Lake. I think it is more acheivable and I was also impressed by the high match GRG was bringing to its application.Dredger wrote: Federal DOT still has another round of Tiger II grants and HUD has a say. I agree that the plan lacks details and a lot of questions need to be work through on the later residential phases. But Phase A & B gives a good blueprint that emphasizes Downtown, jobs and its connection to the north side through jobs.
I'm not referring specifically for a Tiger II grant for McKee. Instead, East West Gateway council is supporting a Tiger II grant for downtown access that includes funds for infrastructure that is also incorporated into the Northside plan. Any funds or grants outside of a TIF will help reduce the TIF.
Missing my point, what is the political reality and what is the current tax base reality. The reality is that the north side can't support itself nor does it have the tax base to even rebuild let alone maintain the infrastructure. The harsher reality is your not going to convince taxpayers, the majority who live by and far outside of northside, to fund these improvements by getting on the soapbox shouting that surburbia is susbsidized.
Missing my point, what is the political reality and what is the current tax base reality. The reality is that the north side can't support itself nor does it have the tax base to even rebuild let alone maintain the infrastructure. The harsher reality is your not going to convince taxpayers, the majority who live by and far outside of northside, to fund these improvements by getting on the soapbox shouting that surburbia is susbsidized.
- 453
Thanks, Dredger. I was simply stating that the TIGER I grant for the McKee related infrastructure will need to be significantly revised if there is any hope for success at TIGER II... I am not sure if the City decided to submit a related HUD Community Planning Grant for Northside Regeneration, which would help, but I am skeptical that the TIGER II will stack up well against keen competition.
By the way, pre-apps were due today and it will be interesting to see what other Missouri projects are being submitted. I don't think GRG is resubmitting its $200 million Choueteau's Lake project, but their regional submission looks good, too.
By the way, pre-apps were due today and it will be interesting to see what other Missouri projects are being submitted. I don't think GRG is resubmitting its $200 million Choueteau's Lake project, but their regional submission looks good, too.
Tiger I grants were interesting picks, first a large share went towards three freight railroad initiatives including Chicago's plan to unclog their mess. Then their was the handful to transit centers. Such as St. Paul Union station, MN and Blomington, IL (or was it Springfield?) transit centers not to mention a grant to help move Penn Station from under Madison Square Garden to the Post Office next door. Then came an urban grant for Kansas City and Philadelphia's trail proposal.
We missed the boat on the first go around. However, some how some way I believe the city needs a big picture for Northside on top of a financing mechanism.
We missed the boat on the first go around. However, some how some way I believe the city needs a big picture for Northside on top of a financing mechanism.
Development should not occur if it includes wide-scale demolition and suburban replication. This will displace existing residents as this project did. In the interim we should stabilize what buildings possible, charge McKee, and use funds for national register districts promoting rehabs down the line. If some tax or user fee needs to be raised for building stabilization then do it. This is a long run economic imperative if we all agree that re-urbanization is the trend. The City ***** up and we must pay to correct this error. If it cost elections then so be it. But that's why our aldermen are silent.
I fail to see how ONSL's model wouldn't work when the McKee "Plan" had a 30 year time span! If we actually funded our housing corporations at even HALF the level he received and did private-public partnerships why exactly could that not be the outcome? This economies of scale crap doesn't work for me if you consider the amount of built environment lost with McKee's model. We could easily establish a 30 year plan for North St. Louis which calls for this type of sustainable growth and you wouldn't see residents pissed off to no end because some suburban developer is allowing or promoting the brick rustling or arson of buildings adjacent. But we really have no comprehensive plan for North St. Louis which contain zoning updates and historic districts all providing the groundwork in design plus subsidies which promote the development we all agree needs to happen. St. Louis needs to lead locally and lobby for outside funding from the State and Federal Government afterwards. We rather, with McKee, let outsiders define our agenda. His lawyer drafted the DALATCA.
Regarding infrastructure, I am not an expert however if we can issue bonds for Peabody why can this not work for roads on the North Side? How would selling municipal bonds to fund these improvements not be seen as a desirable buy? Would investors simply not trust them to be paid back because of the area? With industrial revenue bonds that was how it used to happen at least before private sector abuse occurred and the crackdown which led to the development of TIF?
I fail to see how ONSL's model wouldn't work when the McKee "Plan" had a 30 year time span! If we actually funded our housing corporations at even HALF the level he received and did private-public partnerships why exactly could that not be the outcome? This economies of scale crap doesn't work for me if you consider the amount of built environment lost with McKee's model. We could easily establish a 30 year plan for North St. Louis which calls for this type of sustainable growth and you wouldn't see residents pissed off to no end because some suburban developer is allowing or promoting the brick rustling or arson of buildings adjacent. But we really have no comprehensive plan for North St. Louis which contain zoning updates and historic districts all providing the groundwork in design plus subsidies which promote the development we all agree needs to happen. St. Louis needs to lead locally and lobby for outside funding from the State and Federal Government afterwards. We rather, with McKee, let outsiders define our agenda. His lawyer drafted the DALATCA.
Regarding infrastructure, I am not an expert however if we can issue bonds for Peabody why can this not work for roads on the North Side? How would selling municipal bonds to fund these improvements not be seen as a desirable buy? Would investors simply not trust them to be paid back because of the area? With industrial revenue bonds that was how it used to happen at least before private sector abuse occurred and the crackdown which led to the development of TIF?
- 11K
I agree. We appear to disagree about whether this is McKee's plan.Doug wrote:Development should not occur if it includes wide-scale demolition and suburban replication.
- 284
For what it's worth - and, yes, the man has some credibility issues - McKee has said to anyone who will listen that wide-scale demolition and suburban replication is not his plan.Alex Ihnen wrote:I agree. We appear to disagree about whether this is McKee's plan.Doug wrote:Development should not occur if it includes wide-scale demolition and suburban replication.
McKee pushes ahead despite legal setbacks. Some good stuff here.
STLToday articleWhile his lawyers fight the lawsuit, McKee would rather talk about everything else that's happening with NorthSide. National Sales, a distributor of plumbing, heating and air-conditioning equipment, plans to move 75 jobs to a site at 16th and Delmar. KIPP, a charter school operator, will reopen the old Zion Lutheran School in 2012. McKee's own companies will operate a materials recycling center to process concrete, brick and other materials from demolished buildings.
In addition, he says he has financing to renovate the 140-year-old Clemens House on Cass Avenue into 49 senior living units. In all, McKee says, $149 million worth of projects are scheduled to be done by 2012, with or without a resolution to the legal fight.
It was a little refreshing to hear a more up beat take on things. I think McKee is vested one or way not whether the entirety of McKee's project fails or not.
What I'm curious about and would like to be a fly on the wall is his discussions with MoDot concerning property at the foot of the New Mississippi Bridge that they need and his desire to get his hands on property around a rebuilt 22nd street interchange (think the first two phases). Your essentially talking property in existing commercial footprints that has great freeway access at the core of the region. Property that fits well to some of the development McKee is talking about.
What I'm curious about and would like to be a fly on the wall is his discussions with MoDot concerning property at the foot of the New Mississippi Bridge that they need and his desire to get his hands on property around a rebuilt 22nd street interchange (think the first two phases). Your essentially talking property in existing commercial footprints that has great freeway access at the core of the region. Property that fits well to some of the development McKee is talking about.
Interesting read. One particularly interesting piece is how McKee claims to have increased the amount of retail he plans and decrease the amount of residential. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Retail FOLLOWS residential, not the other way around. This area needs new residents to support retail. I wouldn't expect a lot of pull from surrounding areas.
In all fairness, it doesn't say he's dropping the residential component altogether. Just that it's being reduced by some level.metzgda wrote:Interesting read. One particularly interesting piece is how McKee claims to have increased the amount of retail he plans and decrease the amount of residential. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Retail FOLLOWS residential, not the other way around. This area needs new residents to support retail. I wouldn't expect a lot of pull from surrounding areas.
- 11K
It's relative and retail is doing better than residential at that moment. I'd also expect retail to be concentrated at the 21st Street interchange and maybe near the foot of the new I-70 bridge. We'll see.
- 2,929
In this economy, transitioning real estate development away from housing is absolutely essential. That he's still considering a major residential development project speaks volumes to the long-scale viability of his planning.
After this week's China meetings for Lambert, and the McKees' selling points to the Chinese for NorthSide as well as NorthPark... well, if those meetings are successful, and the Hub is established, look for the property values of this area to jump. Big time. We'll be sure to see more interest from major business tenants afterwards.
After this week's China meetings for Lambert, and the McKees' selling points to the Chinese for NorthSide as well as NorthPark... well, if those meetings are successful, and the Hub is established, look for the property values of this area to jump. Big time. We'll be sure to see more interest from major business tenants afterwards.
- 712
nobody picked up on,
I biked along Branch Street last week, and was quite surprised by the amount of recycling going on up there. It's a good idustry to look into, especially with the new single-stream recycling dumpsters coming soon.
Which demolished buildings?McKee's own companies will operate a materials recycling center to process concrete, brick and other materials from demolished buildings.
I biked along Branch Street last week, and was quite surprised by the amount of recycling going on up there. It's a good idustry to look into, especially with the new single-stream recycling dumpsters coming soon.