As Michael Allen posted here and on eco-absence, The $410 million TIF is now available to review. Regardless of your stance on this project, it seems essential that the public let their aldermen know how they feel about about public funding on such a huge scale. The TIF is a quick read, and I'll post a summary tomorrow unless someone beats me too it, but here's some new info and highlights:



-The area is huge. It includes part of Washington Ave and Locust, including property owned by the Tudor building, which was re-habbed last year.



-McKee is seeking to buy or take quite a few churches and businesses in the area. The churches being especially strange given that this will be a "LifeWorks Community".



-The largest areas, and the areas where McKee owns the most property, won't see ANY development until 2016, for completion in 2030. Not to put too fine a point on it - but that's a pretty long time frame for a guy past 65.



-A Maximum of 170 Mckee owned structures will be renovated. The estimate is that only 3,900 existing residential structures in this very large area will not be torn down.



-I'm a little fuzzy on this - but I think McEagle is asking for 1/2 the TIF - or $205 million, up front.





More in the summary, but I think the most shocking (and contrary to what was just stated publicly) is the glacial estimated timeframe - especially the fact that it will be years before most of the areas designated for residential development will get any attention. Especially troubling given the record of managing these properties so far, and the fact that, between LRA properties and privately owned properties, McKee is looking to more than double what he currently owns.

I actually agree on the time frame. 2030? He wants the TIF now and plans to start the project in 2016? I thought he said that we are already 5 years into a 15 year process. I think most people were thinking of a completion closer to 2020. 2030 is just unacceptable if he wants TIF in 2009.

With that level of TIF diversion, You have to think about competitive uses for the money.



An alternative might be to take the same $470 million to cover the local share for the north end of the Northside Metrolink. (Of course there is not sufficient money to operate this new train.) When you look at that project, it certainly is designed to be a stimulus for economic development. McKee said nothing recently about transit as part of his vision for North St. Louis. I was interested to see if he intended to use any of the TIF funds for transit, but alas, transit is not part listed as one of his investments.



One of the interesting things Dallas did was define a TIF corridor along the one of the rail alignments from North Dallas to South Dallas. North Dallas has been a much stronger generator of TIF revenue. South Dallas has not been a strong tax or development location. However, by defining the TIF corridor along the rail line, they were able to use TIF revenues generated in the north for investments in the South to get things started. I thought that was a creative tool.

:Violin :

There are about 300 properties on this list that belong to operating small-to-large businesses or institutions -- solid employers like Cardinal Machine, Kram Fish Market, and Fehlig Brothers Lumber. Fehlig is a family business that has been in operation at the same location for 145 years and employs city residents. Jack Fehlig was not happy to see his business on this list.



To me, this looks like a plan to shut down the rest of the near northside by closing down these businesses right now with the TIF... then wait the 5-7 years called out in the timeline before any work starts above downtown, then do "greenfield development.



List also includes the yards of about 50 occupied family homes. If your yard -- your garden, trees, patio-- get eminent domained, how much longer are you going to hang on. Wait 5-7 years to see if your home is targeted? Your property will appraise for a lot less in negotiations without its yard, corner stores, restaurants and local employers.



For the downtown lots, does Maggie O'Brien's know yet that they are on the list? I was there after work a few weeks ago. Also the office furniture place on Leffingwell across from the Wells Fargo campus. I see their employees going into work every day when I do. I'm assuming the P-D will be paid well for their buildings (and coverage to date).

Actually it's much, much better than I thought it would be. If you look at the list, it's about 90-95% vacant lots and parking lots.

barbara_on_19th wrote:There are about 300 properties on this list that belong to operating small-to-large businesses or institutions

Are you saying that there are about 300 operating businesses or institutions on the list that are targeted for eminent domain? Do vacant lots account for part of this 300? Vacant buildings?

Grover wrote:

barbara_on_19th wrote:There are about 300 properties on this list that belong to operating small-to-large businesses or institutions

Are you saying that there are about 300 operating businesses or institutions on the list that are targeted for eminent domain? Do vacant lots account for part of this 300? Vacant buildings?

There are about 2400 lots listed total. None of them are occupied residences, although all vacant lots next to occupied residences are listed, including 54 side yards. Mostly we have very shallow back yards up here, so the side yard is usually the landscaped patio area. About 300 lots belong to operating businesses or churches. These 300 include the building where the business operates, plus partking lots. The rest, about 85% are vacant or big industrial yards.



McKee taking ownership of the vacant stuff won't change much about the neighborhood, except for if he keeps on his path of failure to maintain them, it will continue to drive down quality of life for remaining residences. The closing of the businesses and churches, on the other hand, will kill us. Even the "safe" part of ONSL will be surrounded by a square mile of nothing to eat and nowhere to pray.



This is why our group is working to build consensus for a Community Benefits Agreement or CBA. Typical CBA features include legal language ensure the developer will work with, not against, residents throughout the development period. It is one thing to stand in front of a group meeting and say that you want to retain residents. It is a whole different story to file a TIF application saying you will close all the churches and food sources 7 years in advance of breaking ground on anything new.

barbara_on_19th wrote:It is a whole different story to file a TIF application saying you will close all the churches and food sources 7 years in advance of breaking ground on anything new.

I don't believe that this is what the TIF shows. If you can demonstrate that McKee is proposing to close ALL churches and ALL food sources in the project area for 7 years before he breaks ground on anything then you will 100% (and enthusiastically) win me over to your cause.

Grover, why don't you come up and see for yourself? Every resident and business owner knows that when their property is tiffed by a developer, they have to take the offer or gamble on the eminent domain process. McKee's agents are still buying, the offers are still on the table. He has visited us in our churches, and told us that he has the power to take our homes: "Everybody has a choice. You can take my offer now, or see what happens with eminent domain later." McKee only meet with residents in christian churches, if you are Jewish or atheist you are out of luck.



No one in the city is more pro-development than the 5th Ward, but we would like to be here to see it. Some residents will stay out of sheer stubbornness, and some because they know the price he is offering won't replace their housing in any other safe neighborhood. I don't see Fehlig Lumber moving short of a)direct meteor strike b)Jack Fehlig's dead body c) a direct meteor strike on Jack Fehlig. However, the pragmatic business owners like Kram Fish Market or International Lighting or Absorene (another 100-yo business) will see this, pack up and go.



This list *does* cover every remaining food source, operating church or small business within the project footprint north of Delmar. The first business closed for this plan was our grocery store, years ago, back when Steffen was still willing to be the stalking horse.



Call or email, we will give you the tour. We can drive up and down the streets -- we have a spreadsheet version of the property list that can be sorted by street so you can see them all in order.



Barbara Manzara

manzarbe@hotmail.com

238-4032

^ Thanks, I'm sure we'll meet at some point.



Why does everyone responding to someone with a favorable view of this project invite them to "come up an see for yourself"?! I have. I can't say that I've been on every block of the entire area, but it's much more than half. Don't mistake a generally favorable view of the NorthSide vision for a lack of familiarity with the project area.



You didn't fully address my last post and so I assume that you do not stand by your previous statement that McKee "will close all the churches and food sources 7 years in advance of breaking ground on anything new." My point is really that those either against the proposed project or those hoping to alter it need to be exact in what they say. All a proponent needs to show is the opponents don't know what they're talking about and it's game over.

Grover wrote:You didn't fully address my last post and so I assume that you do not stand by your previous statement that McKee "will close all the churches and food sources 7 years in advance of breaking ground on anything new." My point is really that those either against the proposed project or those hoping to alter it need to be exact in what they say. All a proponent needs to show is the opponents don't know what they're talking about and it's game over.

Grover, this is not some academic debate where we are winning or losing on points. I'm not playing a game with proponents and opponents. Of course I stand by my previous statement. I'll restate, even --



I believe that listing every church, food source and small business as acquisition properties for the TIF, in areas where the the project plan itself does not show work starting for 5 to 7 years (areas where start date *listed in the TIF* is 2014 and 2016), will lead to, and is therefore designed to lead to, further attrition of residents in the project area. If it were designed to lead to retention of residents, it would look very different. Therefore, McKee is not serious about retaining existing residents. Q.E.D.



I don't think ANY of that is debatable with a straight face, unless you think McKee is stupid (we don't) or there is a secret grocery store up here no mom has been able to find. Since you are debating, I'm charitably extending you the benefit of the doubt and thinking you need more familiarity with the subject. McKee has already removed a lot of people from the area. This is an accomplished fact. Now, he is continuing the clearance. Again, fact. Could we stop denying the facts and move on to engaging with reality? Why not say ... ok, this is happening and I think it is good, because... If that's who you are, own it.



There are several thousand people still living here and it is not all a game of gotcha! or super fun internet flame war.

barbara_on_19th wrote:

Grover wrote:You didn't fully address my last post and so I assume that you do not stand by your previous statement that McKee "will close all the churches and food sources 7 years in advance of breaking ground on anything new." My point is really that those either against the proposed project or those hoping to alter it need to be exact in what they say. All a proponent needs to show is the opponents don't know what they're talking about and it's game over.

Grover, this is not some academic debate where we are winning or losing on points. I'm not playing a game with proponents and opponents. Of course I stand by my previous statement. I'll restate, even --



I believe that listing every church, food source and small business as acquisition properties for the TIF, in areas where the the project plan itself does not show work starting for 5 to 7 years (areas where start date *listed in the TIF* is 2014 and 2016), will lead to, and is therefore designed to lead to, further attrition of residents in the project area. If it were designed to lead to retention of residents, it would look very different. Therefore, McKee is not serious about retaining existing residents. Q.E.D.



I don't think ANY of that is debatable with a straight face, unless you think McKee is stupid (we don't) or there is a secret grocery store up here no mom has been able to find. Since you are debating, I'm charitably extending you the benefit of the doubt and thinking you need more familiarity with the subject. McKee has already removed a lot of people from the area. This is an accomplished fact. Now, he is continuing the clearance. Again, fact. Could we stop denying the facts and move on to engaging with reality? Why not say ... ok, this is happening and I think it is good, because... If that's who you are, own it.



There are several thousand people still living here and it is not all a game of gotcha! or super fun internet flame war.

Now you've restated your original statement in yet another way! It's not a game of "gotcha," it's a solid point that one cannot make a blanket statement that is untrue, continually revise it and expect to garner support.



I'm not sure what your definition of "a lot of people" is, but yes, I do think it's understandable that a development of this size and potential impact will displace some people. Taken as a whole I think that this is good.



Look, I also think that those living in the project area should be able to stay in their homes, generally keep their side yards, etc. I just think that the battle should be saved for lots/homes/businesses that are currently being well cared for and will be good neighbors in the future.



I think we agree on more than we disagree on - the disagreements just seem to be a little louder!

Doug wrote:If you support a $400,000,000 TIF for a non-residential developer who owns 1000 parcels, many which are residential, and wants 2200 more, then you have dog dirt for brains. He has no commitments and wants total control over the project area. He's only show the capacity to let our socioeconomic assets deteriorate. This 8 billion dollar scam has no reasoning for support as he has done no project of even similar scale and again it's highly dependent upon private investment which has not appeared. He's a megalomaniac for gambling with the lives of already marginalized North Side residents, for proposing a project that even Robert Moses would envy, and should be thrown from the Eads Bridge for this farce of a proposal, which so far has only resulted in demolition and displacement. He has already torn down businesses and in the TIF proposal he wants churches, residents, and more taxpaying businesses. We should run this charlatan out of town.



This is Urban Renewal of a scale and folly never seen during the Great Society. We're paying for this ridiculousness and responsible for its eventual failure.



Tell your alderman you don't support this scam which makes Ballpark Village appear as petty theft.

85% of the TIF would be used for infrastructure improvements, including separating the storm and sanitary sewers, I understand. It would be re-paid with tax dollars generated from the project, right? If there was no grand development plan, but the area somehow devleoped on its own, house by house, to a level comparable to what Mr. McKee is proposing, how much would the city spend anyway in this area to upgrade the streets, curbs, sewers, lighting, etc. Would it be close to $400 million over 30 years?



If so, then the TIF money is the same with either approach. The only way it would be wasted is if the infrastructure money was spent, but then the project failed and didn't generate the tax money to repay it. Unlike a giant mall where all the TIF money is needed up front, the City could phase the TIF money to be just ahead of the development planned for the next year, say, area by area. This close tracking would let the city monitor that the progress is happening and tax money is coming in before doling out more TIF money for the next phase.

^ Very nice. I think the real argument going forward should be the process of development and not the proposed development/support itself. Without massive infrastructure investment the North Side isn't going to come back in a big way.

McKee will be live on Charlie Brennan's show on KMOX (albeit without Charlie, who's on vacation) in either the 9 or 10 o'clock hours tomorrow (Thursday) morning.

In most TIF situations, the developer advances all the costs of construction and then gets a TIF Note representing its right to be reimbursed from TIF revenues as they are generated (up to a maximum amount). Then if the project is successful, the City will issue TIF Bonds to refund the TIF Notes (and accordingly, return the Developer's capital). Completing the project and establishing a track record of generating sufficient TIF revenues will attract investors to the TIF Bonds.



My understanding is that McKee is looking for half of the TIF upfront, whereby the City will issue TIF Bonds before the project is completed (this is what Cordish wants on BPV too). Because there is no proven track record of TIF revenue generation, the interest rates on these TIF Bonds will likely be very high (assuming there's a market for them at all). The only way I see these bonds having any marketability is if you start with a portion of the overall NorthSide project that is likely to create a large and stable property tax increment--i.e., a large office tower/complex. Then, at least investors might feel somewhat comfortable about investing in TIF Bonds prior to project completion.

Gary Kreie wrote:

Doug wrote:If you support a $400,000,000 TIF for a non-residential developer who owns 1000 parcels, many which are residential, and wants 2200 more, then you have dog dirt for brains. He has no commitments and wants total control over the project area. He's only show the capacity to let our socioeconomic assets deteriorate. This 8 billion dollar scam has no reasoning for support as he has done no project of even similar scale and again it's highly dependent upon private investment which has not appeared. He's a megalomaniac for gambling with the lives of already marginalized North Side residents, for proposing a project that even Robert Moses would envy, and should be thrown from the Eads Bridge for this farce of a proposal, which so far has only resulted in demolition and displacement. He has already torn down businesses and in the TIF proposal he wants churches, residents, and more taxpaying businesses. We should run this charlatan out of town.



This is Urban Renewal of a scale and folly never seen during the Great Society. We're paying for this ridiculousness and responsible for its eventual failure.



Tell your alderman you don't support this scam which makes Ballpark Village appear as petty theft.

85% of the TIF would be used for infrastructure improvements, including separating the storm and sanitary sewers, I understand. It would be re-paid with tax dollars generated from the project, right? If there was no grand development plan, but the area somehow devleoped on its own, house by house, to a level comparable to what Mr. McKee is proposing, how much would the city spend anyway in this area to upgrade the streets, curbs, sewers, lighting, etc. Would it be close to $400 million over 30 years?



If so, then the TIF money is the same with either approach. The only way it would be wasted is if the infrastructure money was spent, but then the project failed and didn't generate the tax money to repay it. Unlike a giant mall where all the TIF money is needed up front, the City could phase the TIF money to be just ahead of the development planned for the next year, say, area by area. This close tracking would let the city monitor that the progress is happening and tax money is coming in before doling out more TIF money for the next phase.

Thanks. I wasn't sure how the mechanism or timing worked for a TIF. For the West County Center TIF, the City of Des Peres is saying that tax revenue being generated by the mall is higher than planned, and they will be able to pay the TIF Bond off early. After that is paid off, any new tax revenue from the new mall is pure profit, right, for the city and Kirkwood School District, and the TIF worked -- at least as far as Des Peres is concerned.



So the hope would be the same thing could happen on the Northside. As long as there is no new taxable development currently, or as long as the McKee development TIF bonds are being paid off, the city and schools get no new tax money. But as soon as the development TIF bonds are paid off -- hopefully sooner than planned, the subsequent tax revenue is pure profit to the city and school district, right?

^TIF captures 100% of the property tax increment + 50% of the incremental economic activity taxes (i.e., most local sales and utility taxes). Because we are only talking about incremental revenues, the taxing districts will always get at least the same amount they were getting pre-TIF. Additionally, if the TIF generates a lot of sales, taxing districts with sales taxes (ie, cities) can get a big revenue increase during the term of the TIF because they are still getting the 50% of the new sales taxes not captured by TIF. However, taxing districts that rely on property taxes (i.e., schools) really have to wait to cash in until the TIF ends.



I think the key to examining whether or not a TIF is warranted, is whether or not we could expect an area to develop without the TIF. For example, a greenfield next to the expressway in St. Charles County would probably develop on its own (If Applebee's would have moved in without a TIF, then taxing districts aren't getting more tax revenue post-TIF than they gave up during the TIF).



I'm open to McKee's presumed argument that (1) NorthSide won't occur without the massive infrastructure reconstruction envisioned in his plan and (2) from a financial standpoint, the City's going to have to commit to its investment in the project (the TIF funding) before more private financing comes forward.