ttricamo wrote:This is actually pretty crazy-cool and crazy-scary at the same time.
My thoughts exactly.
- 5,433
My thoughts exactly.
ecoabsence wrote:ttricamo wrote:ecoabsence wrote:
- Tax Increment Financing (up to $400 million, according to some)
Almost a moot discussion topic, and maybe just icing on the cake for McKee. $400M is a mere 6.67% of a project estimated to hit $6 BILLION dollars.
Yes, but the big question is whether the TIF will apply to part of the project or the whole. If the whole, the $400 million is a drop in the bucket and issuance up front makes little sense especially because the area is a ways off before taxes will be generated with the property. Why would the developer not wish to TIF each component piece? That's the smart way to go -- not a total up-front package 15 years ahead of projected completion.
I seriously doubt that $6 billion would build the plan unveiled last week. A zero must be missing.
Isn't six billion more than what has been invested in downtown since the 2000? We are obviously talking massive land clearance and new construction here. I feel like six billion is a good start for a project that is essentially like building on farm land in St. Charles. The area is somewhat of an "urban prairie". I look at the six billion as more of an initial capital investment. This is supposed to be a 15 year long comprehensive plan right?
^I doubt that.
Why would DALATCA reimburse demolition costs if that was not in consideration? Why would he demolish viable buildings if he was emphasizing infill and rehab?
How would this project make the City more appealing? Well that would require removing all existing poor residents so suburbanites feel comfortable in "the Hood." What have we learned from these projects? They simply move the poor elsewhere, putting the problem to a neighboring municipality thus doing nothing for our Region in total. We're also imposing a huge cost upon the poor when we implement terrorism and coercion in an effort to evict them!
It's place erasing. This is Mill Creek Valley, McRee Town, etc., on a much larger scale. Yet since we now embrace New Urbanism we can be assured of success! Ignore the progress in ONSL. Ignore the turnaround in Soulard, Lafayette Square, the Central West End, and Downtown. Cities have no capacity within themselves to address these concerns. We need a white suburban developer to fix our problems. We must have his deep pockets, or rather his alleged deep pockets but in reality our own public dollars. We need Peter Kinder to tell us what St. Louis needs!
Why didn't we simply bulldoze Soulard for suburban tract housing per the 1947 City Plan? Honestly that's what we really needed. Supporters of this plan, and the planners themselves by fiat, seem to believe that its possible to channel Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs at the same time. It does not work that way!
If he wanted to redevelop Pruitt-Igoe and implement infill with rehab in surrounding areas, with minimal demolition, then fine. I support that entirely as this would create jobs and socioeconomic opportunity for existing residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. Yet that positive outcome fails when we evict them and they move to a depressed inner ring suburb. This plan happens to be exactly the opposite and it's cataclysmic money. These projects did not save our cities before and we're arrogant to believe that clear cutting then New Urbanism will be a game changer. Assuming he can actually build all he wants, and he wont, then we will replace a real city with faux-Disney urbanism that has no soul, character, or diversity, a sense of place that could be resurrected if these buildings were rehabilitated!
Cataclysmic money pours into an area in concentrated form, producing drastic changes. As an obverse of this behavior, cataclysmic money sends relatively few trickles into localities not treated to cataclysm.
Putting it figuratively, insofar as their effects on most city streets are concerned, these three kinds of money behave not like irrigation systems, bringing life-giving streams to feed steady, continual growth. Instead, they behave like manifestations of malevolent climates beyond the control of man--affording either searing droughts or torrential, eroding floods.
This is, of course, no constructive way to nurture cities. City building that has a solid footing produces continual and gradual change, building complex diversifications. Growth of diversity itself is created by means of changes dependent upon each other to build increasingly effective combinations of uses. Unslumming--much as it should be sped up from the glacial pace at which it now proceeds--is a process of steady but gradual change. All city building that retains staying power after its novelty has gone, and that preserves the freedom of the streets and upholds citizens' self-management, requires that its locatlity be able to adapt, keep up to date, keep interesting , keep convenient, and this in turn requires a myriad of gradual, constant, close-grained changes.
To bring city streets and districts up to good operating condition (which means, mainly, supplying the conditions to generate diversity), and to keep them there, is a job that cannot be begun too soon. But on the other hand, it is also a job that is never over and done with, and never will be, in any given place. The kind of money necessary for capitalizing upon, building upon and supplementing what exists is gradual money. But this indispensable instrument is lacking.
-Jane Jacobs
Blairmont is our mini-Katrina. A grand failure of government due to racism, broadly insufficient institutional capacity, hubris, and ignorance of history.
Spike Lee should come to town and document this abuse of state power. People need to realize that Slum Clearance is alive an well in St. Louis!
Why would DALATCA reimburse demolition costs if that was not in consideration? Why would he demolish viable buildings if he was emphasizing infill and rehab?
How would this project make the City more appealing? Well that would require removing all existing poor residents so suburbanites feel comfortable in "the Hood." What have we learned from these projects? They simply move the poor elsewhere, putting the problem to a neighboring municipality thus doing nothing for our Region in total. We're also imposing a huge cost upon the poor when we implement terrorism and coercion in an effort to evict them!
It's place erasing. This is Mill Creek Valley, McRee Town, etc., on a much larger scale. Yet since we now embrace New Urbanism we can be assured of success! Ignore the progress in ONSL. Ignore the turnaround in Soulard, Lafayette Square, the Central West End, and Downtown. Cities have no capacity within themselves to address these concerns. We need a white suburban developer to fix our problems. We must have his deep pockets, or rather his alleged deep pockets but in reality our own public dollars. We need Peter Kinder to tell us what St. Louis needs!
Why didn't we simply bulldoze Soulard for suburban tract housing per the 1947 City Plan? Honestly that's what we really needed. Supporters of this plan, and the planners themselves by fiat, seem to believe that its possible to channel Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs at the same time. It does not work that way!
If he wanted to redevelop Pruitt-Igoe and implement infill with rehab in surrounding areas, with minimal demolition, then fine. I support that entirely as this would create jobs and socioeconomic opportunity for existing residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. Yet that positive outcome fails when we evict them and they move to a depressed inner ring suburb. This plan happens to be exactly the opposite and it's cataclysmic money. These projects did not save our cities before and we're arrogant to believe that clear cutting then New Urbanism will be a game changer. Assuming he can actually build all he wants, and he wont, then we will replace a real city with faux-Disney urbanism that has no soul, character, or diversity, a sense of place that could be resurrected if these buildings were rehabilitated!
Cataclysmic money pours into an area in concentrated form, producing drastic changes. As an obverse of this behavior, cataclysmic money sends relatively few trickles into localities not treated to cataclysm.
Putting it figuratively, insofar as their effects on most city streets are concerned, these three kinds of money behave not like irrigation systems, bringing life-giving streams to feed steady, continual growth. Instead, they behave like manifestations of malevolent climates beyond the control of man--affording either searing droughts or torrential, eroding floods.
This is, of course, no constructive way to nurture cities. City building that has a solid footing produces continual and gradual change, building complex diversifications. Growth of diversity itself is created by means of changes dependent upon each other to build increasingly effective combinations of uses. Unslumming--much as it should be sped up from the glacial pace at which it now proceeds--is a process of steady but gradual change. All city building that retains staying power after its novelty has gone, and that preserves the freedom of the streets and upholds citizens' self-management, requires that its locatlity be able to adapt, keep up to date, keep interesting , keep convenient, and this in turn requires a myriad of gradual, constant, close-grained changes.
To bring city streets and districts up to good operating condition (which means, mainly, supplying the conditions to generate diversity), and to keep them there, is a job that cannot be begun too soon. But on the other hand, it is also a job that is never over and done with, and never will be, in any given place. The kind of money necessary for capitalizing upon, building upon and supplementing what exists is gradual money. But this indispensable instrument is lacking.
-Jane Jacobs
Blairmont is our mini-Katrina. A grand failure of government due to racism, broadly insufficient institutional capacity, hubris, and ignorance of history.
Spike Lee should come to town and document this abuse of state power. People need to realize that Slum Clearance is alive an well in St. Louis!
- 549
One way or another, tomorrow night's meeting is sure to be entertaining, especially the public comment portion. (There is one right?)
While I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here (both positive and negative), I'll likely just sit back and enjoy the sheer spectacle of the event and leave the public comments to those who are much more worked up over this boom or bust project... Doug, I hope you get ahold of the mic.
While I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here (both positive and negative), I'll likely just sit back and enjoy the sheer spectacle of the event and leave the public comments to those who are much more worked up over this boom or bust project... Doug, I hope you get ahold of the mic.
UrbanPioneer wrote:One way or another, tomorrow night's meeting is sure to be entertaining, especially the public comment portion. (There is one right?)
I've heard there won't be one. But that shouldn't deter anyone. Public comments should be heard considering the public dollars. So they will be given regardless.
- 479
Perhaps $6 billion will be spent. However, the plan includes new streets, sewers, utilities, a light rail loop, a turbine on the Mississippi River, a coal gassification plant, four power cogeneration plants, millions of square feet of commercial space, a 40-story building, thousands of new houses, 50 acres of new parks, etc.
Of course, since none of those things are priced out and ready to build, a guesstimate of $6 billion is as good as any -- and likely to impress anyone who doesn't ask a second question.
The project is extremely malleable, and could end up being anything.
I would assume that people on this forum want it to be more than left up to chance...
(By the way, anyone who thinks that the area is an "urban prairie" ought to take a thorough tour, which I am happy to provide. The truth is more complicated.)
Of course, since none of those things are priced out and ready to build, a guesstimate of $6 billion is as good as any -- and likely to impress anyone who doesn't ask a second question.
The project is extremely malleable, and could end up being anything.
I would assume that people on this forum want it to be more than left up to chance...
(By the way, anyone who thinks that the area is an "urban prairie" ought to take a thorough tour, which I am happy to provide. The truth is more complicated.)
ecoabsence wrote:Perhaps $6 billion will be spent. However, the plan includes new streets, sewers, utilities, a light rail loop, a turbine on the Mississippi River, a coal gassification plant, four power cogeneration plants, millions of square feet of commercial space, a 40-story building, thousands of new houses, 50 acres of new parks, etc.
Of course, since none of those things are priced out and ready to build, a guesstimate of $6 billion is as good as any -- and likely to impress anyone who doesn't ask a second question.
The project is extremely malleable, and could end up being anything.
I would assume that people on this forum want it to be more than left up to chance...
(By the way, anyone who thinks that the area is an "urban prairie" ought to take a thorough tour, which I am happy to provide. The truth is more complicated.)
The area is an urban prairie Michael.
ecoabsence wrote:Perhaps $6 billion will be spent. However, the plan includes new streets, sewers, utilities, a light rail loop, a turbine on the Mississippi River, a coal gassification plant, four power cogeneration plants, millions of square feet of commercial space, a 40-story building, thousands of new houses, 50 acres of new parks, etc.
Of course, since none of those things are priced out and ready to build, a guesstimate of $6 billion is as good as any -- and likely to impress anyone who doesn't ask a second question.
The project is extremely malleable, and could end up being anything.
I would assume that people on this forum want it to be more than left up to chance...
(By the way, anyone who thinks that the area is an "urban prairie" ought to take a thorough tour, which I am happy to provide. The truth is more complicated.)
For some reason I'm beginning to invision a massive "La Saison" style develpment with a few county styled "southtown centre" retail outlets, Horray!!!!
Everyone keeps saying that they predict vinyl siding and suburban styled development, but ask yourselves is that profitable? Paul McKee is not stupid, there is no money in turning North St. Louis into St. Charles (unless we are talking about New Town of course). People that want suburban styled housing will stay in the suburbs. I predict golf courses and mcmansions before cheap prefab housing. The property has to much money making potential to squander it.
- 479
goat314 wrote:ecoabsence wrote:Perhaps $6 billion will be spent. However, the plan includes new streets, sewers, utilities, a light rail loop, a turbine on the Mississippi River, a coal gassification plant, four power cogeneration plants, millions of square feet of commercial space, a 40-story building, thousands of new houses, 50 acres of new parks, etc.
Of course, since none of those things are priced out and ready to build, a guesstimate of $6 billion is as good as any -- and likely to impress anyone who doesn't ask a second question.
The project is extremely malleable, and could end up being anything.
I would assume that people on this forum want it to be more than left up to chance...
(By the way, anyone who thinks that the area is an "urban prairie" ought to take a thorough tour, which I am happy to provide. The truth is more complicated.)
The area is an urban prairie Michael.
Where? The 2700 block of Stoddard? 2300 block of St. Louis? 2100 block of N. 20th? 2600 block of Magazine Street? 1300 block of North Market? 1700 block of Cass? 2300 block of Hebert?
Where beyond the six blocks north of Pruitt Igoe and the front lawn of Sensient is there a wide swath of "urban prairie" in Old North, St. Louis Place or JVL? I agree that there is urban prairie on those blocks and scattered here and there, but the building density in other blocks is moderate to high.
There is too much remaining fabric for the statement "The area is urban prairie" to be true. "Some of the area is urban prairie" would be true. So would "Some of the area has building density higher than St. Louis Hills."
These extremes do not make for healthy neighborhoods, but they do not warrant a totally inclusive redevelopment boundary either.
- 8,912
goat314 wrote:Everyone keeps saying that they predict vinyl siding and suburban styled development, but ask yourselves is that profitable? Paul McKee is not stupid, there is no money in turning North St. Louis into St. Charles (unless we are talking about New Town of course). People that want suburban styled housing will stay in the suburbs. I predict golf courses and mcmansions before cheap prefab housing. The property has to much money making potential to squander it.
I completely disagree. Yes it's profitable. Cheap finishings allow for a lower $/sf. Brick is quite expensive. I know little of this particular development, but I can only assume the price points for a majority of these new homes will be in the 200k range. You won't find all brick homes in this price range. The best we can hope for is a brick front. Better yet, modern infill.
Moorlander wrote:goat314 wrote:Everyone keeps saying that they predict vinyl siding and suburban styled development, but ask yourselves is that profitable? Paul McKee is not stupid, there is no money in turning North St. Louis into St. Charles (unless we are talking about New Town of course). People that want suburban styled housing will stay in the suburbs. I predict golf courses and mcmansions before cheap prefab housing. The property has to much money making potential to squander it.
I completely disagree. Yes it's profitable. Cheap finishings allow for a lower $/sf. Brick is quite expensive. I know little of this particular development, but I can only assume the price points for a majority of these new homes will be in the 200k range. You won't find all brick homes in this price range. The best we can hope for is a brick front. Better yet, modern infill.
Who is going to pay 200k for a cheaply built house in North St. Louis, when they can buy a cheaply built house for 200k in the suburbs? That's what I was trying to get at.
We will see what will come from this development, but I just don't think this development is going to be some cheaply built blunder. North St. Louis really has to sell itself for this to profitable and I really don't think crappy housing is going to do it.
Also would a mix of vinyl, brick, restored houses be so bad if this turns out like New Town St. Louis? Anything is better than what is currently there and for the record I've been to this part of St. Louis numerous times Michael and urban prairies, blight, and disinvestment is the best way to describe the area. A few isolated blocks of built environment is just that, a few isolated blocks of built environment that dot the landscape.
Although I'm a preservationist at heart, it would take 50 years for this area to have healthy urban density if we took the ONSL route with this part of the city. I would like to see a healthy North St. Louis in my lifetime.
^As I cited on Page 6 of this thread, Paul McKee destroyed entire blocks!
What's there has value above New Town any day. To create New Town much more demolition will be required. That's essentially a reality. It's evident if you visit the area. Given the incentives, powers proposed, and type of development McKee does, it will happen.
It's quite tedious and annoying to reiterate this reality repetitiously. Perhaps you should review previous statements by some commenters in this thread and go re-visit the proposed development area.
North St. Louis was far better before McKee despoiled the character present in even the most decrepit buildings. The people who remained in these areas, after decades of divestment and marginalization, deserved better than to be kicked aside, pushed out of the City, only to have their historic homes supplanted with frame brick veneer and former suburbanites.
The form of the proposed development seems inconsequential when compared to the urban infrastructure which has been marred and will never exist again despite the grandiose hallucinations of McKee, Slay, and the hired planners. The new alleged residents and businesses cannot outweigh the utility of a rehabbed Pruitt Grocery Store, with Tavern across the street at the turreted building, at the intersection of Glasgow and St. Louis Avenue. If we still believe in Slum Clearance, after its proven record of failure, then I say we don't deserve this 4th City and should move to Phoenix where we can no longer do such irrevocable damage through complicity with McKee's Plan and negligence of its effects.
Any urbanist who supports this plan might as well be in People's Temple following Jim Jones to an imminent demise.
What's there has value above New Town any day. To create New Town much more demolition will be required. That's essentially a reality. It's evident if you visit the area. Given the incentives, powers proposed, and type of development McKee does, it will happen.
It's quite tedious and annoying to reiterate this reality repetitiously. Perhaps you should review previous statements by some commenters in this thread and go re-visit the proposed development area.
North St. Louis was far better before McKee despoiled the character present in even the most decrepit buildings. The people who remained in these areas, after decades of divestment and marginalization, deserved better than to be kicked aside, pushed out of the City, only to have their historic homes supplanted with frame brick veneer and former suburbanites.
The form of the proposed development seems inconsequential when compared to the urban infrastructure which has been marred and will never exist again despite the grandiose hallucinations of McKee, Slay, and the hired planners. The new alleged residents and businesses cannot outweigh the utility of a rehabbed Pruitt Grocery Store, with Tavern across the street at the turreted building, at the intersection of Glasgow and St. Louis Avenue. If we still believe in Slum Clearance, after its proven record of failure, then I say we don't deserve this 4th City and should move to Phoenix where we can no longer do such irrevocable damage through complicity with McKee's Plan and negligence of its effects.
Any urbanist who supports this plan might as well be in People's Temple following Jim Jones to an imminent demise.
- 11K
Doug wrote:^Paul McKee destroyed entire blocks.
Do you mean that he demolished entire blocks? That intact blocks were standing and Paul destroyed them?
Define "value". From a monetary perspective, from the perspective of this area creating intrinsic "value" for the community, and assuming this New Town is what McKee has already proposed, your statement is both false and asinine.Doug wrote:What's there has value above New Town any day.
Perhaps you should realize that very few people care about the remaining, desolate properties of this area when compared against the proposed mini-city and its impact on StL. This is coming from a person whose immigrant ancestors' grocery store still stands, albeit almost totally alone, at 22nd and Benton, one block west of St. Louis Place Park.Doug wrote:To create New Town much more demolition will be required. That's essentially a reality.
It's quite tedious and annoying to reiterate this reality repetitiously. Perhaps you should review previous statements by some commenters in this thread and go re-visit the proposed development area.
I care about two buildings in this area. The old Bank on Cass and my great-grandfather's grocery store. If I have to lose those buildings to gain the rehabilitation of an area four times as large as downtown, so be it.
The problem, Doug, is that there is almost no in between, no gray area between McKee's plan and nothing happening. With the exception of debt funding (or lack thereof), nothing else stands in the way of McKee making this happen. Unfortunately, that would include the civic leaders of St. Louis, who have the great ability to guide this project properly, to strike the balance between new construction and historic preservation.
McKee has cleverly put these people into a rather precarious situation.
"Give me the green light, give me the ability to take this land and allow me to develop it the way I see fit. If you fail to do this, I give you nothing. Oh, and I know you do not have the means to develop a plan such as this yourself."
Let it be known that I DO NOT support the destruction of Historic Homes for a McKee'sville as it has been proposed. I DO NOT condone a utility district or a privately funded mass transit system for one section of the City. Although I am a business man, I do believe the city has to fight to save historically significant structures and rights to the lion's share of the tax revenues.
Now, I would like to propose an exercise for those involved in this forum discussion. How would you negotiate this deal with McKee (at least from a high level)?
ttricamo's Option 1) Look, McKee, you can have the properties via eminent domain that are a)not historically significant and b)historically significant yet totally BER (beyond economic repair) for McKee'sville. All buildings will be constructed in a style consistent with current historic structures and with similar materials and eco-friendly. All of this will be TIF'd or tax abated. You will not have a Utility District, but we will subsidize all infrastructure improvements and we will maintain the greenspace, as well as provide some of the funding for the construction of said greenspace. You may create a streetcar system, but this system must expand beyond McKee'sville into other burroughs of the city. The timeline for this project will be clearly defined and your company shall incur penalties should you go beyond this time line. So on and so forth..
How would you negotiate the deal?
- 479
Doug, there is no "plan" -- just ownership and an idea. That's a good thing, and a bad thing.
(Props to ttricamo for taking the bait that I set earlier and talking about what city leaders need to do to make this idea into a workable, positive plan.)
(Props to ttricamo for taking the bait that I set earlier and talking about what city leaders need to do to make this idea into a workable, positive plan.)
There are times when this forum makes me laugh out loud. Reading some of these recent posts marks one of them. Thanks for the entertainment, guys!
Unfortunately, this over the top commentary does well to drown out genuine concerns like those of ecoabsence. And it's kinda hard to take preservationists seriously when so much of their rhetoric is from left-field and just plain libelous. You've "tea-partied" yourselves, ladies and gentlemen! Can one be too smart for their own good and still fall into their own trap? Odds are on the latter.
![]()
Unfortunately, this over the top commentary does well to drown out genuine concerns like those of ecoabsence. And it's kinda hard to take preservationists seriously when so much of their rhetoric is from left-field and just plain libelous. You've "tea-partied" yourselves, ladies and gentlemen! Can one be too smart for their own good and still fall into their own trap? Odds are on the latter.
I believe Michael Allen and myself have similar concerns. I was one of the first to begin writing on this fiasco and I've seen the decline for the past few years. It's upsetting. It's wrong at the most fundamental level. Our government should have never let it happen. Yet they were complicit and allowed this terrorism to occur. As if other criminal elements were not enough.
Our aldermen took the money and were silent until Allen brought this issue onto their agenda. They feigned ignorance, as Bosley Sr. put it saying McKee fooled them, yet they had all the resources of the government at their disposal. They are state power and yet a single citizen, using free tools online, personal resources, and public records blew the whistle! Say they are simply lazy, make an excuse for them, but they didn't notice all this once occupied property vacant, being rustled, and wonder if they should find out what's going on? Shouldn't they had had their public meetings a year or two ago in order to convince people not to sell and watch out for rustlers, get the Police patrolling more actively? Maybe the suspicious fires wouldn't have occurred? Yet they had no incentive as they supported it from the beginning.
This project exemplifies how our one party machine politics system fails and possibly one of the most egregious examples of corruption in recent memory. McKee and supporters had no desire to make this public and would have bulldozed the entire project area by now if no one took notice.
I'm sorry if you're unfamiliar with the project or simply espouse anti-intellectualism.
I assure you that my claims are not hyperbole or demagoguery, but fact and well known to those who live in the area or observe it.
McKee should be in jail, period. I would not propose any development tools that allow this to go forward because McKee has already shown contempt for our City. Why would he listen when hes already proven we'll roll over and sell out for a few thousand in campaign contributions and the facade of "fixing" North St. Louis (as if ONSL doesn't already provide an ideal model?). Sadly he has the ball in his court. We on this forum, who claim to be advocates, have failed.
If we let this project sit as it is at least we may not lose as many buildings compared to his upcoming demolitions.
The City should eminent domain what they can from him and give them to what developers could afford them. The Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act should have reimbursed the City for the cost of acquiring McKee property and giving it to someone else. Sadly this isn't the best time for that given the economy, but even if they're out of town developers maybe at least they could be held in better condition than the James Clemens Mansion for example. Maybe someone else would see the buildings as actual assets thus secure them properly? Perhaps the Police could start actually taking rustling as a serious crime?
With McKee St. Louis gets no respect.
In a town with leaders this con artist would have been thrown off the Eads Bridge.
Our aldermen took the money and were silent until Allen brought this issue onto their agenda. They feigned ignorance, as Bosley Sr. put it saying McKee fooled them, yet they had all the resources of the government at their disposal. They are state power and yet a single citizen, using free tools online, personal resources, and public records blew the whistle! Say they are simply lazy, make an excuse for them, but they didn't notice all this once occupied property vacant, being rustled, and wonder if they should find out what's going on? Shouldn't they had had their public meetings a year or two ago in order to convince people not to sell and watch out for rustlers, get the Police patrolling more actively? Maybe the suspicious fires wouldn't have occurred? Yet they had no incentive as they supported it from the beginning.
This project exemplifies how our one party machine politics system fails and possibly one of the most egregious examples of corruption in recent memory. McKee and supporters had no desire to make this public and would have bulldozed the entire project area by now if no one took notice.
I'm sorry if you're unfamiliar with the project or simply espouse anti-intellectualism.
I assure you that my claims are not hyperbole or demagoguery, but fact and well known to those who live in the area or observe it.
McKee should be in jail, period. I would not propose any development tools that allow this to go forward because McKee has already shown contempt for our City. Why would he listen when hes already proven we'll roll over and sell out for a few thousand in campaign contributions and the facade of "fixing" North St. Louis (as if ONSL doesn't already provide an ideal model?). Sadly he has the ball in his court. We on this forum, who claim to be advocates, have failed.
If we let this project sit as it is at least we may not lose as many buildings compared to his upcoming demolitions.
The City should eminent domain what they can from him and give them to what developers could afford them. The Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act should have reimbursed the City for the cost of acquiring McKee property and giving it to someone else. Sadly this isn't the best time for that given the economy, but even if they're out of town developers maybe at least they could be held in better condition than the James Clemens Mansion for example. Maybe someone else would see the buildings as actual assets thus secure them properly? Perhaps the Police could start actually taking rustling as a serious crime?
With McKee St. Louis gets no respect.
In a town with leaders this con artist would have been thrown off the Eads Bridge.
If calling out a childish, ridiculous, and libelous rant for what it is can be considered anti-intellectual -- then so be it. Just know that these contributions make it harder for the greater population to take preservationists seriously and accordingly makes Michael Allen's job that much more difficult. On the flip side, it makes McKee's PR work that much easier.
You have this intriguing idea that anyone opposing your "ideals" must be considered an anti-intellectual (aka not as smart as you.) Nice tactic. I wish I were smart enough to come up with that myself!
Your heart is in the right place. Someday you will come to understand that it takes more than a heart to do what's right. Until then, thanks for the comedy.
You have this intriguing idea that anyone opposing your "ideals" must be considered an anti-intellectual (aka not as smart as you.) Nice tactic. I wish I were smart enough to come up with that myself!
Your heart is in the right place. Someday you will come to understand that it takes more than a heart to do what's right. Until then, thanks for the comedy.
Doug wrote: they were complicit...terrorism...criminal elements...aldermen took the money...suspicious fires...one of the most egregious examples of corruption...McKee should be in jail.
If you can get past Doug's crazy rants and look at what he is actually saying, he is not really off base. He just manages to turn people off before they look into it. But it takes all types, and he is certainly a voice where most of you have been afraid to go.
With that said, I have withheld comment until I attend the meeting tomorrow night. I know more about this project than most of you having great sourcing of material from multiple people that you guys don't have, and working in the effected area. I'll just say that I agree with some of what has been said, but some of it is just frankly wrong and naive. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
It's in my own self interest that there be a successful development in the targeted area, so don't get the idea that I want to kill something. I just happen to have standards.
With that said, I have withheld comment until I attend the meeting tomorrow night. I know more about this project than most of you having great sourcing of material from multiple people that you guys don't have, and working in the effected area. I'll just say that I agree with some of what has been said, but some of it is just frankly wrong and naive. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
It's in my own self interest that there be a successful development in the targeted area, so don't get the idea that I want to kill something. I just happen to have standards.
- 33
@ttricamo... when you imagine negotiating this deal with McKee, you are casting yourself as government/seller and McKee as developer/buyer. This is fine when talking about publicly owned land. However, you are forgetting the people and homeowners who live here.
@commenters in general. I understand it is fashionable to assume northsiders are poor, ignorant and worthless; and that there is an implied benefit to our removal. Do you really want to forsake property rights and rule of law? Is this a precedent you want to set for developers in your neighborhood? If I were negotiating with McKee, I would say "you don't get chapter 99 or eminent domain rights over any owner-occupied home, and if an alderperson decides to use eminent domain in the project area, the victim is to be compensated with a home of their choice of equal square footage anywhere within the same ward, or the value of that specific home ". If McKee wants it, he should have to pay northside market rate, not an artificial rate determined by his following of arsonists.
I've read some on this thread saying eminent domain is OK to force someone (ya know, an undesirable northside someone) to sell who is in the necessary path of Metrolink. First, let's drop the hyperbole. The necessary path of Metrolink is straight up Florissant or Jeff, and McKee already owns both sides of both roads anyway. Second, if people want to stay, why not work around them? There is a ton of space, hire a smarter architect. Third, there are none I have met who would not move for the offer of an existing home of their choice in the same ward. The problem is, we are all dead sure McKee's lawyers will fight us on fair compensation, so we will fight hard against the whole thing for our family's sakes. Why not openly offer fair compensation up front and write it into the ordinance? That is what I want and have no hope of getting. If he decides to take my home at his rate rather than market rate, I will be bankrupt and homeless. Why would I lay down for this?
And quit calling all of us impoverished, it makes you all look racist and stupid. The near northside is much better off than the greater northside. This is the more valuable land, with lower crime, and where more money lives in the first place. That is why he wants our land, just as he wants the west end of the mall next to Wells Fargo/Wachovia/AGE, and he wants the foot of the new bridge. He's evil, not stupid.
@commenters in general. I understand it is fashionable to assume northsiders are poor, ignorant and worthless; and that there is an implied benefit to our removal. Do you really want to forsake property rights and rule of law? Is this a precedent you want to set for developers in your neighborhood? If I were negotiating with McKee, I would say "you don't get chapter 99 or eminent domain rights over any owner-occupied home, and if an alderperson decides to use eminent domain in the project area, the victim is to be compensated with a home of their choice of equal square footage anywhere within the same ward, or the value of that specific home ". If McKee wants it, he should have to pay northside market rate, not an artificial rate determined by his following of arsonists.
I've read some on this thread saying eminent domain is OK to force someone (ya know, an undesirable northside someone) to sell who is in the necessary path of Metrolink. First, let's drop the hyperbole. The necessary path of Metrolink is straight up Florissant or Jeff, and McKee already owns both sides of both roads anyway. Second, if people want to stay, why not work around them? There is a ton of space, hire a smarter architect. Third, there are none I have met who would not move for the offer of an existing home of their choice in the same ward. The problem is, we are all dead sure McKee's lawyers will fight us on fair compensation, so we will fight hard against the whole thing for our family's sakes. Why not openly offer fair compensation up front and write it into the ordinance? That is what I want and have no hope of getting. If he decides to take my home at his rate rather than market rate, I will be bankrupt and homeless. Why would I lay down for this?
And quit calling all of us impoverished, it makes you all look racist and stupid. The near northside is much better off than the greater northside. This is the more valuable land, with lower crime, and where more money lives in the first place. That is why he wants our land, just as he wants the west end of the mall next to Wells Fargo/Wachovia/AGE, and he wants the foot of the new bridge. He's evil, not stupid.
- 1,364
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
McKee lays out vision for massive north St. Louis redevelopment
McKee lays out vision for massive north St. Louis redevelopment
Paul McKee explains more.....China? Trolley connections to Metrolink? New Power Grid? Urban Styled housing Doug? Preserving houses that can be saved Doug? I like Mr McKee....Doug.....and I think others will also
link: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
link: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument