Share
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMay 27, 2009#201

JMedwick wrote: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.


that's fine. the city should 1) demand a detailed plan, 2) demand transparency, 3) demand public involvement for those in the effected neighborhoods, 4) hold McKee accountable for the violations he has already commited (if you want to argue that his motives were pure, that's something for a jury to decide), 5) refuse public funding and eminent domain until a detailed study has been performed to justify their use.



then no problem.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 27, 2009#202

barbara_on_19th wrote: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.


Now you're willing to turn down millions because it will bring destruction and the rest of the city will feel the pinch? Well, I wouldn't want my neighborhood to miss out on the destruction that millions in block grants would bring. Thanks.

PostMay 27, 2009#203

urban_dilettante wrote:3) demand public involvement for those in the effected neighborhoods


I'm curious as to #3. What type of public involvement for those in the affected neighborhoods would yo like to see? It seems that residents feel as though they have the right to dictate what gets built on someone else's land. They scream and shout about their rights as homeowners, but seem to think that a developer or others who own land do not have the same right. How is this not hypocritical?
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMay 27, 2009#204

Grover wrote:urban_dilettante: Your definition of "public" is unique.


how so?


Grover wrote:Now you're willing to turn down millions because it will bring destruction and the rest of the city will feel the pinch? Well, I wouldn't want my neighborhood to miss out on the destruction that millions in block grants would bring. Thanks.


you don't think this sounds incredibly selfish? maybe you don't care?
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 27, 2009#205

urban_dilettante wrote:
Grover wrote:urban_dilettante: Your definition of "public" is unique.


how so?


Grover wrote:Now you're willing to turn down millions because it will bring destruction and the rest of the city will feel the pinch? Well, I wouldn't want my neighborhood to miss out on the destruction that millions in block grants would bring. Thanks.


you don't think this sounds incredibly selfish? maybe you don't care?


Just pointing out that your use of "public" doesn't really make sense. So the only development the "public" would definitely benefit from would be a free park?



I do care and I don't think it's selfish. If he were asking for a block grant to pave the driveway to his home I would call that selfish. Look, if you want to call anyone with a profit motive selfish go ahead, I guess I was being selfish when I arrived at work early today (though I'm now being altruistic by spending a moment to post on this forum :D ).
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMay 27, 2009#206

Grover wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:3) demand public involvement for those in the effected neighborhoods


I'm curious as to #3. What type of public involvement for those in the affected neighborhoods would yo like to see? It seems that residents feel as though they have the right to dictate what gets built on someone else's land. They scream and shout about their rights as homeowners, but seem to think that a developer or others who own land do not have the same right. How is this not hypocritical?


well, McKee seems to think he has the right to buy up properties and let them rot, thereby breaking the law and lowering property values, so the least he could do is listen to residents and take their concerns into consideration WHILE making his plans, and not simply make a show of it afterward for sympathy. hypocrisy works both ways. do you really think the residents would be opposing the rebuilding of NSL if McKee had worked WITH them instead of in secrecy and to their detriment?



but again, i'm just a dreamer who expects those who have the resources to effect the lives of entire communities to act with integrity.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMay 27, 2009#207

urban_dilettante wrote:
innov8ion wrote:^ 1+1= LSD


very constructive.
It can be constructive to be humorous in proving a point. I mean, there must have been some sort of hallucinating that went into your comment that the NorthSide project isn't meant for public use. How else could one not note all the housing, parks, industry and jobs in the plan?



So tell us, how did you come up with your username? Just wondering... ;)
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 27, 2009#208

urban_dilettante wrote:do you really think the residents would be opposing the rebuilding of NSL if McKee had worked WITH them instead of in secrecy and to their detriment?


Yes.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostMay 27, 2009#209

^No. For the most part.
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMay 27, 2009#210

Grover wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:
Grover wrote:urban_dilettante: Your definition of "public" is unique.


how so?


Grover wrote:Now you're willing to turn down millions because it will bring destruction and the rest of the city will feel the pinch? Well, I wouldn't want my neighborhood to miss out on the destruction that millions in block grants would bring. Thanks.


you don't think this sounds incredibly selfish? maybe you don't care?


Just pointing out that your use of "public" doesn't really make sense. So the only development the "public" would definitely benefit from would be a free park?


no that's not what i said. there are 2 kinds of "public" land uses as i see it: 1) the government owns a piece of land that is open for public use/recreation SUCH AS a park, a sidewalk, a street, etc. that is maintained with tax-payer dollars 2) the government owns a piece of land/facility on which civic-oriented duties are performed, e.g. a water treatment plant, a court house, a government office building, which are paid for with tax-payer money. McKee's proposed development, on the other hand, proposes to use EMINENT DOMAIN and PUBLIC MONEY to acquire land for sale/development by PRIVATE entities for PRIVATE profit. moreover, i did NOT claim that such devices are NEVER in the best interest of the public, and certainly if it is DEMONSTRATED that such devices are in the best interest of the public then i am for their use PROVIDED that those negatively impacted are adequately COMPENSATED. as i said before, no such studies have been performed to my knowledge. if you know of any please let me know.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostMay 27, 2009#211

urban_dilettante wrote:
JMedwick wrote: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.


that's fine. the city should 1) demand a detailed plan, 2) demand transparency, 3) demand public involvement for those in the effected neighborhoods, 4) hold McKee accountable for the violations he has already committed (if you want to argue that his motives were pure, that's something for a jury to decide), 5) refuse public funding and eminent domain until a detailed study has been performed to justify their use.



then no problem.


A few more thoughts:



1. A detailed plan is a something that occurs when a developer comes in for site plan approval (or subdivision approval when we are taking location of ROW's and infrastructure). At this stage we should be taking conceptual plan, not site plan, level details. McKee has laid out his vision.



2. McKee's job is not to ensure transparency. That is the job of the Aldermen. If they wish to pull the cloak and dagger routine and give McKee whatever he wants, that is not McKee's fault.



3. Once again, the demand for public involvement is the domain of the Aldermen for the area. If the do not allow a public process, then they are the ones at fault (not McKee). To create an effective redevelopment plan, though, it will be necessary to have an open process with community involvement.



4. What violations? To the extent he has committed any code violations which have resulted in fines, sure the City should probably demand the money back, but I would not suggest that a few thousand dollars in fines hold up a project of this scale. There are things called threshold issues, and unpaid fines should not be one.



5. The detailed study you seek often occurs when designating redevelopment areas. In NJ, it is called a "redevelopment study" and most states have an equivalent. To legally designate a redeveloper or pass a redevelopment plan, first you must conduct such a study.



Functionally, I don't know the full details of MO redevelopment law or requirements (BTW, I think that someone familiar with this topic might want to give folks a primer as many of the issues discussed would be cleared up with a better understanding of what the MO process). That said, in NJ there is a two tiered approach to redevelopment. Tier 1 is designating an area a full fledged redevelopment area, where long-term tax abatement and the use of eminent domain is permitted. Tier 2 is called a "Rehabilitation Area." To designated something as a Rehab Area, majority of the housing stock or sewer infrastructure must be over 50 years old. Such designation allows short term tax abatement, the creation of a redevelopment plan but not the use of eminent domain. If MO had such a tiered system, it would be logical to designate the entire area as a "Rehabilitation Area" and only specific sub areas (such as the employment centers) as "Redevelopment Areas."
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMay 27, 2009#212

innov8ion wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:
innov8ion wrote:^ 1+1= LSD


very constructive.
It can be constructive to be humorous in proving a point. I mean, there must have been some sort of hallucinating that went into your comment that the NorthSide project isn't meant for public use. How else could one not note all the housing, parks, industry and jobs in the plan?



So tell us, how did you come up with your username? Just wondering... ;)


well, i've elaborated on what i meant in regard to "public" use. and i think i've done so without having to resort to condescention. as for my username - happy to tell you. i have no formal education in urban affairs and no professional experience - i am a dabbler. i comment on urban topics based on my understanding of them. please, if at any point you notice something factually wrong with one of my comments don't hesitate to let me know. if you can do so without smugness that would be appreciated. ;)
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 27, 2009#213

urban_dilettante wrote:no that's not what i said. there are 2 kinds of "public" land uses as i see it: 1) the government owns a piece of land that is open for public use/recreation SUCH AS a park, a sidewalk, a street, etc. that is maintained with tax-payer dollars 2) the government owns a piece of land/facility on which civic-oriented duties are performed, e.g. a water treatment plant, a court house, a government office building, which are paid for with tax-payer money.


I believe that you're overstating the amount of eminent domain and vastly understating the amount of public infrastructure proposed (sidewalks, parks, streets, electrical grid, sewers, water supply, mass transit).
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMay 27, 2009#214

urban_dilettante wrote:McKee's proposed development, on the other hand, proposes to use EMINENT DOMAIN and PUBLIC MONEY to acquire land for sale/development by PRIVATE entities for PRIVATE profit.
Do you feel that distorting the truth improves your arguments? McKee has already stated that eminent domain would be used quite sparingly. You and Barbara bring new meaning to an, "Inconvenient Truth."
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 27, 2009#215

innov8ion wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:McKee's proposed development, on the other hand, proposes to use EMINENT DOMAIN and PUBLIC MONEY to acquire land for sale/development by PRIVATE entities for PRIVATE profit.
Do you feel that distorting the truth improves your arguments? McKee has already stated that eminent domain would be used quite sparingly. You and Barbara bring new meaning to an, "Inconvenient Truth."


Here's the question I would like to have answered: What's should be the threashold on eminent domain? Is the taking of a single property for a $100M office tower and 1,000 jobs not to be allowed? How about the taking of 25 properties and homes for a $500M development and 3,000 jobs?
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostMay 27, 2009#216

JMedwick,



everything you say sounds reasonable. however, i don't accept that "business is business" and i expect McKee to act with empathy toward the community he is effecting. i think he can do that and still make money. in terms of violations i just want the city to be sure to collect whatever fines he owes and not make any excuses for him.

PostMay 27, 2009#217

innov8ion wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:McKee's proposed development, on the other hand, proposes to use EMINENT DOMAIN and PUBLIC MONEY to acquire land for sale/development by PRIVATE entities for PRIVATE profit.
Do you feel that distorting the truth improves your arguments? McKee has already stated that eminent domain would be used quite sparingly. You and Barbara bring new meaning to an, "Inconvenient Truth."


where exactly did i distort the truth? i didn't specify any amount of eminent domain. you just confirmed that he stated he wants it used even if only sparingly. please read my comments more closely before telling me i'm purposefully distorting the truth. i laid out the conditions for which i'm fine with eminent domain a few posts ago.

PostMay 27, 2009#218

Grover wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:no that's not what i said. there are 2 kinds of "public" land uses as i see it: 1) the government owns a piece of land that is open for public use/recreation SUCH AS a park, a sidewalk, a street, etc. that is maintained with tax-payer dollars 2) the government owns a piece of land/facility on which civic-oriented duties are performed, e.g. a water treatment plant, a court house, a government office building, which are paid for with tax-payer money.


I believe that you're overstating the amount of eminent domain and vastly understating the amount of public infrastructure proposed (sidewalks, parks, streets, electrical grid, sewers, water supply, mass transit).


you're correct - i'm not aware of the extent to which he proposes to use eminent domain. so i'll say it a third time: the city needs to determine to what extent eminent domain is justified for this project before allowing ANY.



are we sure that the new infrastructure will be public and not private?
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMay 27, 2009#219

urban_dilettante wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:McKee's proposed development, on the other hand, proposes to use EMINENT DOMAIN and PUBLIC MONEY to acquire land for sale/development by PRIVATE entities for PRIVATE profit.
Do you feel that distorting the truth improves your arguments? McKee has already stated that eminent domain would be used quite sparingly. You and Barbara bring new meaning to an, "Inconvenient Truth."


where exactly did i distort the truth? i didn't specify any amount of eminent domain. you just confirmed that he stated he wants it used even if only sparingly. please read my comments more closely before telling me i'm purposefully distorting the truth. i laid out the conditions for which i'm fine with eminent domain a few posts ago.
Great. I was worried about you earlier. It's refreshing to discover you aren't against a $6 billion investment in an impoverished area.


urban_dilettante wrote:that's fine. the city should 1) demand a detailed plan
A plan must first start with the existing vision. More detailed plans will blossom as the process unfolds. You don't want a detailed plan without public involvement, do you? ;)


urban_dilettante wrote:2) demand transparency
Define "transparency." Public meetings go a long way in this regard. Are you asking him to strip naked for you?


urban_dilettante wrote:3) demand public involvement for those in the effected neighborhoods
I guess him working with the public's elected representatives (aldermen, etc) is not an example of public involvement? Neither are the public meetings I presume.



What do you mean by "public involvement?" Please define.


urban_dilettante wrote:4) hold McKee accountable for the violations he has already committed (if you want to argue that his motives were pure, that's something for a jury to decide)
When there have been violations, he has been fined like any other property owner. If you think that penalties specified in ordinances should be altered, perhaps speak with your alderman. Until then, the city must follow the law it has created. Fair is fair, Billie Jean!


urban_dilettante wrote:5) refuse public funding and eminent domain until a detailed study has been performed to justify their use.
You need a detailed study to show the following will benefit the public? And yet you wonder about the LSD comment.... Shame on you!



"McKee wants to partner with other developers to transform about 40 percent of the land inside a 2,100-acre redevelopment area over 15 years. McKee said he owns roughly 130 acres of the 430 acres he'd like to see redeveloped. Twelve new residential areas would be created and four new business campuses, bringing 22,000 jobs.



The plan would include about 5.5 million square feet of office, retail and warehouse space, 10,000 new homes, 250 hotel rooms and developers would welcome improved or new schools. McKee said his business does not build homes, and would work with other developers on that and other aspects.



He'll pursue federal economic stimulus money, state tax credits and tax increment financing, where he said a portion of the increased taxes resulting from the development would be used to pay for infrastructure improvement costs.



"We believe the north side is the gateway to the future of greatness in the city," McKee told hundreds of people assembled at Central Baptist Church. Audience members were invited by two aldermen whose wards will be part of the redevelopment area."


urban_dilettante wrote:then no problem.
Glad you have no problem. The plan can continue to move forward now. ;)
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostMay 27, 2009#220

urban_dilettante wrote:you're correct - i'm not aware of the extent to which he proposes to use eminent domain. so i'll say it a third time: the city needs to determine to what extent eminent domain is justified for this project before allowing ANY.



are we sure that the new infrastructure will be public and not private?


With all due respect, clearly you need to read more on the topic at hand. Your questions and concerns would quickly be answered.



1) Eminent domain will be used only for property acquisition in the commercial centers. This severely cuts down on the extent it will be used in the area and should (but won't) eliminate many of the fears of residents.



2) The infrastructure will almost certainly be public. Energy, mass transit, sewers (or other, more natural means of storm water management via bioswales), roads, sidewalks, etc. Almost all the infrastructure in the neighborhood needs updating/replacement. As such, it's clearly public.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMay 27, 2009#221

urban_dilettante wrote:
Grover wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:no that's not what i said. there are 2 kinds of "public" land uses as i see it: 1) the government owns a piece of land that is open for public use/recreation SUCH AS a park, a sidewalk, a street, etc. that is maintained with tax-payer dollars 2) the government owns a piece of land/facility on which civic-oriented duties are performed, e.g. a water treatment plant, a court house, a government office building, which are paid for with tax-payer money.


I believe that you're overstating the amount of eminent domain and vastly understating the amount of public infrastructure proposed (sidewalks, parks, streets, electrical grid, sewers, water supply, mass transit).
are we sure that the new infrastructure will be public and not private?
It depends on the infrastructure. I hear that McKee may allow private homes to stay private. Although I hear he has been leaning to privatize the sewers...



Thanks for the clarification on your name. I was wondering where you had studied law, public policy, urban planning or even common sense.
549
Senior MemberSenior Member
549

PostMay 27, 2009#222

innov8ion wrote:
urban_dilettante wrote:3) demand public involvement for those in the effected neighborhoods
I guess him working with the public's elected representatives (aldermen, etc) is not an example of public involvement? Neither are the public meetings I presume.



What do you mean by "public involvement?" Please define.


Not to mention the fact that the plan entails the elements and principals that the 5th Ward's forward for redevelopment a couple years ago; the residents created a vision that formed the basis of this massive project but (until now) had no means to implement it.



I was actually surprised how many of the people currently living in the area were open and optimistic about the vision set forth by McEagle. Sure plenty of others were mad, but remember that many in the affected area WANT to plan to happen.

PostMay 27, 2009#223

Something I've found really interesting about the project is that, if you didn't know about the 5 years leading up to the release of the vision, this project contains MANY elements urbanists have been wanting in the city for years:



Investment in the urban core? Check



Redevelopment in the center of the city? Check



Mass transit? Check



New high-rise office building in downtown? Check



Fixing the 22nd Street interchange? Check



More jobs & residents? Check



More tax money for the city? Check



Renewable Energy? Check



Rebuilding crumbling northside infrastructure? Check



Maintaining the existing street grid? Check



etc, ect, etc



Point is, this vision has a lot of potential... if done right.
3,547
Life MemberLife Member
3,547

PostMay 27, 2009#224

I find it laughable that everyone is calling for McKee's head.

Sadly much of the anger many people have towards McKee is hypocritical and misguided.



Why aren't people asking for Marlene Davis and April Griffin's head?



I understand the Northside has been disenfranchised for a long time, but the truth is that the Northside has a reputation of electing some of the most ignorant, selfish, two faced scumbags imaginable.



Why cant some of you people understand that it takes more than just Paul McKee to come in and start buying up properties to destroy neighborhoods?

Anyone who believes that your alderman/mayor/state rep/us rep etc. wasn't aware of these sneaky land grabs is naive, emotional, and just plain simple.



I also agree with Grover, Paul McKee really didn't have to explain nothing to anybody when he was privately buying up this land (after all he owns private land).

Would it have been nice for him to send out a memo?

Yes, but that just isn't realistic.



At this point there is nothing that a few emotional urbanist can do to stop this project. Paul McKee has already been given the green light to move forward and the best most of you can do is just work within the "public process" to make this a better project or get steamrolled.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMay 27, 2009#225

Yeah, well at least Barbara Manzara is getting the attention she so desperately craves. Just imagine -- a "social justice" crusade to prevent $6 billion of investment in a generally depressed area. Fight the power, Barbara!



Ever notice the folks most virulently against this are upwardly mobile, white liberals? People like Doug, who has the uncanny ability to understand African Americans better than most African Americans. People like Barbara, who claim to make over 6 figures. It makes for an interesting sociological study.
Read more posts (102 remaining)
Share