I'd opt out of urban developments on this scale. There's simply no history of successful development on anything approaching this scale. Pruitt-Igoe was 57 acres, apparently 1/10th of what we are talking about. On the other hand - you've got a vast history - literally every successful neighborhood in the city, (and just about every successful urban neighborhood in the country) being developed block by block, and evolving over time. Give me some decent zoning and I'll put all my money on that model any day.
- 1,026
I might agree with you there. I'm actually not sure what the record is regarding urban developments on this scale. I'd love it if others would fill me in .. seriously.
but I'd still like to see his plans. I definitely want to hear him out.
but I'd still like to see his plans. I definitely want to hear him out.
There aren't any plans yet... only readily downloadable generic images cobbled together to form a semi-coherent vision of NorthSide. Personally, I don't believe there ever will be actual plans, but rather enough schematic ideas to impress the BoA enough to move forward with the gargantuan TIF. He'll get started with one of the large infrastructural projects and complete some commercial development at the so-called job centers, attain his needed ROI to recoup personal investment, and then fade away. It's what developers do. There is no such precedent that I am aware of illustrating the feasibility of a single developer reshaping such an enormous area of urban land... this is approaching Mill Creek Valley scope, or something Robert Moses would have overseen. It's simply W A Y too big for any single entity to attempt to tackle, and therefore significant partnerships will need to be forged in order to actually effect any such large-scale effort. The beauty in this eventuality for McKee is that McKee will have control over the price of sale of any parcels in the assemblage, and will then be able to ensure the needed ROI (he's $46M into the project already) and profit margin to consider his effort successful.
- 33
markofucity wrote: as for "bulldozing" neighborhoods and "destroying the street grids" - shouldn't we wait for the actual plans before leveling such criticisms? Believe me, if that's what he puts on the table then EVERYONE in this forum will stand up against it. but to attack on that front now seems a bit absurd. we simply don't know what he's proposing yet.
@markofucity, you are unclear on the timeline. I am not attacking on that front NOW, we fought and won that battle several years ago. I am using that successful fight as an example of why it is important to be proactive and not wait to be asked for input.
McKee's "suburban-style" plans as drawn by Arcturis were leaked 3 years ago. Those of us paying attention at the time went ballistic. The plans were leaked after they were shared with a major St Louis developer who is a white guy with black family. McKee was not aware of his family connections, the "n" word was used in his presence, shouting ensued, the whole rumpus was overheard by other office workers, and "somehow" the plans went out the door to inform the AA community.
Standing up to that plan already happened a couple of birthdays ago. The 5th Ward Gateway middle school students who did the flyering are in Vashon HS now. We did know what he was proposing, we fought it, he was forced to respond in the BJ, that informed a lot of city govt and urban planning people, they were horrified, some of that got through to him, and he dumped Arcturis and hired Civitas, Inc, a much better urban planning & design firm. So, the SECOND plan -- this plan -- keeps and even restores more of the street grid.
That effort was the first effort where preservationists like Michael Allen and the social justice crowd started working on the same side, if not exactly together. If you know StL development fights, you know that partnership is so rare, it takes a major earthquake to get us all on the same page.
^^^ Copy of plan please. Until then this really sounds like an urban legend.
- 1,026
Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand "the time line" of your earlier post.
The story about the "n word" comment is disturbing. I'm not sure what to make of it.
and just to be clear - I don't want to come off as a big supporter of this project. I'm very skeptical as well. and I agree with you - we should be proactive and demand details. I suppose I just want to reserve judgment until those details surface. ... but if I can help in getting the details sooner let me know. I'm all for it. seriously.
it seems to me that for Mckee to get this project or any project in North St. Louis off the ground he is going to have to win over the community - and that's a good thing. the worst thing that could happen would be for the local community to react with blind indifference. They're clearly not.
The story about the "n word" comment is disturbing. I'm not sure what to make of it.
and just to be clear - I don't want to come off as a big supporter of this project. I'm very skeptical as well. and I agree with you - we should be proactive and demand details. I suppose I just want to reserve judgment until those details surface. ... but if I can help in getting the details sooner let me know. I'm all for it. seriously.
it seems to me that for Mckee to get this project or any project in North St. Louis off the ground he is going to have to win over the community - and that's a good thing. the worst thing that could happen would be for the local community to react with blind indifference. They're clearly not.
- 33
scotto wrote:when McKee started by saying, in essence: "sorry I ruined a huge section of your city, but it saved me a bunch of money", it literally sent me over the edge. The anger was real, and for me just boiled over. So be it.
@scotto -- If no one else does, I'll thank you for what you said. Yes, emotion can make you vulnerable in the kind of manipulative theatrics McKee was staging that night. But, emotion has a huge upside too. A real, honest emotional outburst is cathartic. Sometimes you have to bring the pain into the room.
The first Central Baptist meeting, no one mentioned race, the entire time, not even tangentially. It was the humming, dangerous third rail in the room, and everyone avoided it. The closest we came was in asking for an apology for the disrespect, wanting him to ask forgiveness for what Percy Green referred to as "the bloodletting" that has happened up here.
In the second meeting, on the advice of consultants I'm sure, McKee started with a lame apology for secrecy. Secrecy to preserve a quiet price point is not the problem, the problem is the ONGOING active and remorseless destruction and blighting of other people's property values ... it is actually easier to be secret if you comport yourself in a way that does not attract attention.
McKee says something like, "sorry I ruined your neighborhood, but it saved me a bunch of money". The room tensed, the third rail was spitting and sparking, and you ran up and just launched your whole body onto it. Yeah, it created a counterproductive image for the media to use against us, but you opened a channel so that the neighbors felt OK bringing up race. He got asked about race in every conceivable way that night, from "how about even one AA member of your senior mgmt team?" to "are you going to offer reparations for your fair housing violations?"
Afterward, I was sitting in a northside garden just east of Knapp, having a drink or 3, and the boring middle-class property-owning neighbors' critique of your outburst was "hell, yes".
- 479
barbara_on_19th wrote:That effort was the first effort where preservationists like Michael Allen and the social justice crowd started working on the same side, if not exactly together. If you know StL development fights, you know that partnership is so rare, it takes a major earthquake to get us all on the same page.
Actually, Barbara, such partnership has been the backbone of successful neighborhood advocacy for decades. I wouldn't even draw the lines that you are drawing -- only reinforces the perceived divide.
- 33
I agree the divide can be fluid, since both you and I are often on both sides of it, but you know that for instance, lay workers + local historic ordinance, can be oil and water.
barbara_on_19th wrote:Afterward, I was sitting in a northside garden just east of Knapp, having a drink or 3, and the boring middle-class property-owning neighbors' critique of your outburst was "hell, yes".
I'm bothered by this subtly pretentious statement. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong?
Furthermore, as it seems to blatantly be the main thesis of your argument against McKee, and because I was absolutely confused by your annuity example, tell us again the stance on YOUR property values as they relate to McKee and his actions?
Lastly, I'm even more confused on your lack of discussion on the topic of Real Estate Investment RISK, which you've wholly accepted as an owner of a home in what is probably the most volatile Metropolitan St. Louis Real Estate sector. Since you’ve related owning a home to owning an annuity, an investment vehicle, certainly you’re somewhat aware of Investment Risk. And, as an obviously intelligent individual, certainly you considered the RISK of purchasing a home, purchasing a personal stake, in such a neighborhood. Certainly you told yourself and perhaps your family this experience would be nothing like living in Ballwin or St. Charles County or Fenton? Why now would you complain about the possible outcome of accepting this risk, which in the end could pay you numerous returns on your investment?
One other point on this exciting topic: I find many blogs and personal sites have greatly romanticized the idea of Paul McKee and his actions in North City. I’m sure he’s many times more boring than people are giving him credit for. Thus far, I see no (substantiated) action on his part that would constitute anything more than sound business decisions.
- 33
ttricamo wrote:I'm bothered by this subtly pretentious statement.... tell us again the stance on YOUR property values as they relate to McKee and his actions? ... even more confused on your lack of discussion on the topic of Real Estate Investment RISK, which you've wholly accepted ... Certainly you told yourself and perhaps your family this experience would be nothing like living in Ballwin or St. Charles County or Fenton?
@ttricamo, Not sure what you find pretentious. Feeling empathy with scotto's outburst? Drinking in the garden? Living east of Knapp? Maybe you could be more clear?
On the subject of as-found risk in my own RE investment, I'm happy with the balance of cash value to debt that I have in my property. Resale value is not a concern to me, because I am here to stay; however, I have positive equity per my last appraisal. I enjoy living in a quiet, safe, diverse and amazingly friendly urban area where I can bike or walk to work, day or night. I like living where neighbors are involved and pitch in to help each other. I like having a ridiculously huge historic rehab where I will never lack for a weekend project. I'm not interested in the Ballwin-O'Fallon suburban environment for myself and my family but don't have any desire to comment on other people's choices - my sisters live in Brentwood and Clayton, where they are happy.
On the subject of the threat to me staying in my home that is posed by the McEagle plan, I find it unAmerican. I didn't buy on the near northside with an expectation of being threatened with eminent domain by a for-profit developer who has blighted and disrespected a square mile of the city with the help and support of the elected officials from Governor on down, in violation of all sorts of city ordinances, federal Fair Housing, and community standards. And who is STILL blighting and disrespecting us while putting out his hand for a massive taxpayer bailout of his stalled construction company.
I'm not a St Louis native, so this level of corruption shocks and appalls. I discussed this with a couple of southeast Asian co-workers who were disturbed by the casual revelations in the Sunday P-D story (which, if you remove the breathless fluffery, reads like an indictment of some rather grubby payola), and they said it is the sort of thing that happens routinely in their villages, but they thought it could never happen in America. Lots of sad headshaking all around.
Are you so used to it that you don't find it out of the ordinary?
barbara_on_19th wrote:ttricamo wrote:I'm bothered by this subtly pretentious statement.... tell us again the stance on YOUR property values as they relate to McKee and his actions? ... even more confused on your lack of discussion on the topic of Real Estate Investment RISK, which you've wholly accepted ... Certainly you told yourself and perhaps your family this experience would be nothing like living in Ballwin or St. Charles County or Fenton?
@ttricamo, Not sure what you find pretentious. Feeling empathy with scotto's outburst? Drinking in the garden? Living east of Knapp? Maybe you could be more clear?
No Problem. I was off put by your use of the term "Boring Middle-Class Property-Owning Neighbor", and, having now seen it on you tube, I'm highly embarrassed by scotto's immature and disrespectful outburst.
barbara_on_19th wrote:On the subject of as-found risk in my own RE investment, I'm happy with the balance of cash value to debt that I have in my property.
Not really the risk I was talking about. Where you're discussing controllable risk, I'm specifically talking about environmental risk less easily mitigated. In other words, Living next to abandoned lots and buildings on the Near-North side of St. Louis is inherently riskier than a decision to live, say, in Ballwin next to the North Pointe Aquatic Center and the Claymont subdivision. In the latter example, we have a neighborhood solidly established with readily available economic infrastructure, good schools, maintained residential and commercial properties, and extremely low crime. In the former example, we see an area with extremely low economic infrastructure, substantially higher crime rates, large swaths of undeveloped land, boarded homes, and poor quality schools - all which existed long before McKee began buying up homes.
barbara_on_19th wrote:Resale value is not a concern to me, because I am here to stay; however, I have positive equity per my last appraisal.
Now I'm really confused. In past posts you've stated that McKee's actions have decreased the value of your property and you were concerned about this phenomenon. Now you're stating your property value as INCREASED and you're not worried?
barbara_on_19th wrote:On the subject of the threat to me staying in my home that is posed by the McEagle plan, I find it unAmerican. I didn't buy on the near northside with an expectation of being threatened with eminent domain by a for-profit developer who has blighted and disrespected a square mile of the city with the help and support of the elected officials from Governor on down, in violation of all sorts of city ordinances, federal Fair Housing, and community standards. And who is STILL blighting and disrespecting us while putting out his hand for a massive taxpayer bailout of his stalled construction company.
This statement is unfortunately highly subjective. First, Eminent Domain is very American and has been used for public use or public benefit since at least 1791. Second, it would be almost impossible to prove that McKee blighted the Near North Side; are you saying this neighborhood was stable before he began buying properties?
- 3,762
ttricamo wrote:Now I'm really confused. In past posts you've stated that McKee's actions have decreased the value of your property and you were concerned about this phenomenon. Now you're stating your property value as INCREASED and you're not worried?barbara_on_19th wrote:Resale value is not a concern to me, because I am here to stay; however, I have positive equity per my last appraisal.
she didn't say that her property value INCREASED. she said as of her last appraisal she had POSITIVE EQUITY. it is completely possible for one's property value to decrease while still having positive equity.
ttricamo wrote:
This statement is unfortunately highly subjective. First, Eminent Domain is very American and has been used for public use or public benefit since at least 1791. Second, it would be almost impossible to prove that McKee blighted the Near North Side; are you saying this neighborhood was stable before he began buying properties?
perhaps the neighborhood was STABILIZING before McKee bought his properties. this development is certainly not for public use, and there has been no study to suggest that the public will benefit. THERE ISN'T EVEN A PLAN YET. McKee will benefit, but that's the only certainty.
On the contrary, eminent domain is quite American. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership. James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest," or "public benefit."barbara_on_19th wrote:On the subject of the threat to me staying in my home that is posed by the McEagle plan, I find it unAmerican.
As far as the risk your home becoming the victim of eminent domain, I'd say your chances are quite slim. McKee said he plans to use eminent domain very sparingly — only a handful of homes are in the planned "job-creation areas," and the distressed-area tax credits can't be used on eminent domain property — and will "reuse, retain and maintain every building that can be saved."
Perhaps my eyes have failed me, but much of North St. Louis ain't no Disney Land. Conditions have progressively worsened over the course of 50-60 years -- not just the last four. And just maybe you will succeed in preventing the creation of 22,000 permanent jobs (43,000 to build it), improved infrastructure and vitality in NorthSide. As a progressive, however, I hope your "social justice" crusade to keep this community repressed results in failure. By any chance have you accepted donations from shifty guys in unfashionable white robes?
Be an activist rube if you wish. But McKee has invested $46 million into this endeavor and isn't going anywhere. You can either work against both he and your community, or you can work together to transform this deserving community into something special again.
- 11K
urban_dilettante wrote:this development is certainly not for public use, and there has been no study to suggest that the public will benefit.
What are you talking about?
Oh - this is a bit off topic - but eminent domain - while always viewed rather expansively in the United States - was typically intended for projects that tended towards public ownership, roads, bridges, utilities, parks, etc. Although not always.
However, I think it is very instructive that you used the phrase, "McKee said he plans to use...." This is pretty central to the perversion that is the "NorthSide" project - The relevant GOVERNMENT ENTITY has the power of eminent domain - not any developer, citizen, or otherwise. McKee cannot use eminent domain. In this case - only the city can. But its instructive because its a mindset that points to where our sense of public planning and civic accountability has gone. If the city decided to clear land as part of a development plan - they'd perhaps be in their right to do so. But we've adopted this pineapple-upside-down-cake view of the world where we think its okay for DEVELOPERS to do the planning and demand the use of eminent domain. Its like the whole point of having a mayor and aldermen - who have the power and probably the responsibility to hire professional planners and consult the citizenry has now disapeared. We've turned over all relevant city functions (Even perhaps utilities and sewers, for god's sake) to one private, un-elected, unaccountable, unreachable, non-resident. If the city has a vision, and has developed a plan for that vision, and the folks in the neighborhood more or less agree, and Paul Mckee turns out to be the best person to execute that plan - then by all means. Instead, we have guy, whose main motivation, already admitted, is the profit motive, doing all the planning for us and dictating the funding.
I think the first place he "excersized" eminent domain was the Mayor's office, quite frankly.
And also - I won't tell anyone which part - but if you are going to quote whole paragraphs from wikipedia, you should site them!
However, I think it is very instructive that you used the phrase, "McKee said he plans to use...." This is pretty central to the perversion that is the "NorthSide" project - The relevant GOVERNMENT ENTITY has the power of eminent domain - not any developer, citizen, or otherwise. McKee cannot use eminent domain. In this case - only the city can. But its instructive because its a mindset that points to where our sense of public planning and civic accountability has gone. If the city decided to clear land as part of a development plan - they'd perhaps be in their right to do so. But we've adopted this pineapple-upside-down-cake view of the world where we think its okay for DEVELOPERS to do the planning and demand the use of eminent domain. Its like the whole point of having a mayor and aldermen - who have the power and probably the responsibility to hire professional planners and consult the citizenry has now disapeared. We've turned over all relevant city functions (Even perhaps utilities and sewers, for god's sake) to one private, un-elected, unaccountable, unreachable, non-resident. If the city has a vision, and has developed a plan for that vision, and the folks in the neighborhood more or less agree, and Paul Mckee turns out to be the best person to execute that plan - then by all means. Instead, we have guy, whose main motivation, already admitted, is the profit motive, doing all the planning for us and dictating the funding.
I think the first place he "excersized" eminent domain was the Mayor's office, quite frankly.
And also - I won't tell anyone which part - but if you are going to quote whole paragraphs from wikipedia, you should site them!
Was that our Barbara in the Post today (The Rehabber)?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
- 33
scotto wrote:I think the first place he "excersized" eminent domain was the Mayor's office, quite frankly.
Thx for the laugh, we needed it today.OK, all you McKee fanboys out there, help me out. Why do you so gleefully cling to the idea that might is always right? Why does it make you feel so happy and puissant?
Just because someone CAN come along, corrupt your government and take your property for their own, doesn't mean it is a good thing. The dream of America is the dream of the rule of law.
Citizens of a democracy should not have to fear the government will come along and seize their property for the politician's personal profit. In that case, one is not so much a citizen as a serf. Last I heard, we had severed ties with the King of England over that kind of behavior (many generations before my people showed up at Ellis Island, but still).
@framer -- yep that's me, so "hysterical" in the support of my soon-to-be ethnically cleansed neighbors across Florissant I can barely spare the time from my "subtly pretentious" lifestyle to work the press.
- 11K
I'm not trying to be mean and I'm not sure what a "fanboy" is, but your comments mix naivete and glibness and are grating. You're so sure about how politics works (I'm sure you've seen it all before) and you belittle other's comments. Who said that "might is always right"? No one. Stop spouting about Democracy and Kings and spend that time trying to stop Paul McKee (if that's your wish). My opinion is that neither you nor anyone else is likely to stop this development from moving forward (I'm not saying that this is good, bad, sort of OK, the best we can expect, or anything - I'm just saying what I think reality looks like) so I'm more concerned about how this proposed development is designed, who's protected, what's protected, etc. etc. etc. etc. Clearly McKee has a very large stake in this proposal ($30M+ if you're to believe him). Because he has so much at stake there is an opportunity for level-headed, reasonable, rational people to help make this a much better development. Or you can shout "F#CK YOU" and claim your small victory.
- 33
Grover wrote:My opinion is that neither you nor anyone else is likely to stop this development from moving forward ... there is an opportunity for level-headed, reasonable, rational people to help make this a much better development.
Grover, I don't know anyone who thinks they can stop the city and state from giving McKee the money he is asking for. I fully expect to see his companies building out TIF areas A, I (downtown) and B (bridge) with the bulk of the state's discretionary budget over the next few years.
I do know people who want to stop him from taking all of the city's Community Development Block Grant money and spending it on the near northside. In a normal year, StL City gets about $30M in block grant money. Typically, $1.1M is split up between the 12 northside aldermen, giving each a little under $100K. The bulk of the money $28.9M goes to downtown and the southside. Details if you want them...
http://stlouis.missouri.org/5yearstrategy/
This year, McKee is trying to be first in line with the biggest request. (See his timeline, which lines up with the CDBG application deadlines.) The rest of the city will feel the pinch -- funded like the northside for a change. A number of people who live in McKee's acquisition area, myself included, would rather turn down that kind of money, money we have been fighting for a fairer share of for years, rather than let McKee spend it on finishing his planned destruction of our community.
I realize it is this kind of statement that you think of as glib, naive, hysterical or whatever demeaning adjective today brings. I'd describe it as ANGRY. I am angry at the destruction of community, whih is what we see happening in front of our eyes. "For the moment" ONSL is left to passive neglect only, where we are keeping our property values up with relentless, exhausting bootstrapping. But who can stand by and see their neighbors hurt like this without speaking? Especially when the racial disparity is so blatant and sickening.
This "opportunity" you speak of, to participate as a respected community partner to improve the plan, is not an opportunity that I'm aware of... respectful engagement should have started a year ago, long after McKee was outed as the buyer, with no secrecy left to protect. The plan is being delivered this morning as more or less fait accompli. There will be very, very little change from here on out, unless by legal action, but the powers involved are entrenched, long-tentacled and corrupted by the money.
- 3,762
Grover wrote:urban_dilettante wrote:this development is certainly not for public use, and there has been no study to suggest that the public will benefit.
What are you talking about?
the homes and businesses that are to be part of this development would not be open to the public like a park or a sidewalk or a library is open to the public. in this case the city would be eminent domaining land for private resale. this is not to say that the results wouldn't benefit the city (not that they necessarily would), but McKee's methods have been UNETHICAL.
what don't you understand about the "study" part? NO ONE - not the city, not the state, not McKee - has looked into the impact of this development on the evicted/displaced residents, nor has the city or state performed any studies to extrapolate the outcome of such a project to determine if eminent domain is justified. i'm sure, however, that McKee has done his homework and knows he's not going to lose any money.
i know everyone - including myself - is excited about the prospect of a shiny new north side, but sometimes the ends do not justify the means. occasionally principle is important.
A few thoughts on the concept making the rounds:
1. It is a shame that McKee went about the process in this fashion and that some of the historic fabric of the area was lost directly because of his actions. That said, a proposal for the redevelopment and rehabilitation of a 2,100 acre swath of the City (5% of its total area) is on the table. The man proposing this project has ownership of 130 acres (not to mention the possibility of acquiring many more acres through the LRA). It would be an even greater step backward for the effected areas and the City to dismiss McKee and his proposal out-of-hand when he already directly controls the future for so much of the area.
2. It is a shame that the City's leadership is best described as reactionary. Rather than leading the charge to outline a vision embedded in law (i.e. zoning and land use regulations backed up by a modern Master Plan and the judicious use of tax incentives to effectuate the ordinance and Master Plan) Aldermen encourage the process used by McKee (i.e. private developer comes up with a plan for the area and presents it to the Alderman for approval). Private developers such as McKee have stepped into the power vacuum.
3. What matters now is the future and the future regarding McKee's proposal is tied inexorably to the planning and zoning scheme adopted (if any) for the area. McKee has presented a vision for the area (including thoughts on use, design and infrastructure). The next step in the process is for residents to comment on the vision presented and where the community vision differs work to establish a common Redevelopment Plan for the area that is acceptable to both developer and residents. Commenting on the vision does not include complaints about the past; there is plenty of blame to go around and not all of it lies on the shoulders of Paul McKee. Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the area which reflects this common vision is key. All to often the City allows statutorily complete redevelopment ordinances to be adopted which do little to outline true standards for redevelopment. An ordinance light on standards will do little to ensure that the project is anything more than a blank check for tax dollars from local, state and federal officials. The City must demand accountability regarding form, use, design and preservation in the Redevelopment Plan and timeline and phasing requirements in the redeveloper agreements.
4. On a more specific level, the City should think about how it wants to approach the areas close to downtown. Thought should be given to whether the area should be extended west to include properties fronting on Jefferson between 40 and Delmar and extended east to include Union Station and the parking lots on the south side of Clark all the way to 14th. If the plan is to transform the area where the highway interchange currently cleaves into downtown west, a key part of such a transformation is proper connections to both AG Edwards on the west and the Kiel/Civic complex on the east.
1. It is a shame that McKee went about the process in this fashion and that some of the historic fabric of the area was lost directly because of his actions. That said, a proposal for the redevelopment and rehabilitation of a 2,100 acre swath of the City (5% of its total area) is on the table. The man proposing this project has ownership of 130 acres (not to mention the possibility of acquiring many more acres through the LRA). It would be an even greater step backward for the effected areas and the City to dismiss McKee and his proposal out-of-hand when he already directly controls the future for so much of the area.
2. It is a shame that the City's leadership is best described as reactionary. Rather than leading the charge to outline a vision embedded in law (i.e. zoning and land use regulations backed up by a modern Master Plan and the judicious use of tax incentives to effectuate the ordinance and Master Plan) Aldermen encourage the process used by McKee (i.e. private developer comes up with a plan for the area and presents it to the Alderman for approval). Private developers such as McKee have stepped into the power vacuum.
3. What matters now is the future and the future regarding McKee's proposal is tied inexorably to the planning and zoning scheme adopted (if any) for the area. McKee has presented a vision for the area (including thoughts on use, design and infrastructure). The next step in the process is for residents to comment on the vision presented and where the community vision differs work to establish a common Redevelopment Plan for the area that is acceptable to both developer and residents. Commenting on the vision does not include complaints about the past; there is plenty of blame to go around and not all of it lies on the shoulders of Paul McKee. Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the area which reflects this common vision is key. All to often the City allows statutorily complete redevelopment ordinances to be adopted which do little to outline true standards for redevelopment. An ordinance light on standards will do little to ensure that the project is anything more than a blank check for tax dollars from local, state and federal officials. The City must demand accountability regarding form, use, design and preservation in the Redevelopment Plan and timeline and phasing requirements in the redeveloper agreements.
4. On a more specific level, the City should think about how it wants to approach the areas close to downtown. Thought should be given to whether the area should be extended west to include properties fronting on Jefferson between 40 and Delmar and extended east to include Union Station and the parking lots on the south side of Clark all the way to 14th. If the plan is to transform the area where the highway interchange currently cleaves into downtown west, a key part of such a transformation is proper connections to both AG Edwards on the west and the Kiel/Civic complex on the east.