He made a good point that he did not want to disclose the information because it would've caused a lot more heartache in buying up properties.
A guy I know who opened up a Domino's in a small town in Southern Illinois was halted for MONTHS because the DB he was buying the empty lot from found out it was someone planning to open a business and suddenly thought that the guy had millions to burn. Sure, McKee is a millionaire, but why buy a $20k property for $100k if he can get it for 20?
UrbanPioneer wrote: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.
Yes. This is what's being ignored. It gets lost in all the ranting.
innov8ion wrote:
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?
nope. i believe that's what i said.
innov8ion wrote:
Define "transparency." Public meetings go a long way in this regard. Are you asking him to strip naked for you?
yep, that's exactly what i'm asking. public meetings are good too - funny how they just started while he's been collecting property for 5 years. and as yet we have no reason to believe he'll act on any of their concerns. really though i just want to see him naked.
innov8ion wrote:
I guess him working with the public's elected representatives (aldermen, etc) is not an example of public involvement?
i'm a big fan of the ideology that, once in office, elected officials may act freely without ever consulting their constituents again. especially on projects that effect 5% of the land-area of the city.
innov8ion wrote:When there have been violations, he has been fined like any other property owner.
super. i hope they keep it up.
innov8ion wrote: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."
this is your response and your questioning my common sense? this is a whole lotta talk with no substantiation.
innov8ion wrote:
Glad you have no problem. The plan can continue to move forward now.
you certanly are innov-8-ive! good job! get it? "8" instead of "ate". ha!
urban_dilettante wrote:by the way, before anyone labels me as opposing 6 billion in investment in NSL review my posts - all i'm asking for is proper OVERSIGHT.
innov8ion wrote: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.
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.
that's fine but i've only asked 1 question so far, which you politely answered in 2) above. otherwise i'm pretty sure i haven't made any false statements. so with all due respect as well, my main concern is that there is a lot of talk about public subsidy and eminent domain but very little on the side of detail or projected benefits to justify them. if there is please point me to it (and not just PR).
innov8ion wrote:
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?
nope. i believe that's what i said.
Agreed.
urban_dilettante wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
Define "transparency." Public meetings go a long way in this regard. Are you asking him to strip naked for you?
yep, that's exactly what i'm asking. public meetings are good too - funny how they just started while he's been collecting property for 5 years. and as yet we have no reason to believe he'll act on any of their concerns. really though i just want to see him naked.
Looks like we agree that public involvement is the way to go. And its already been discussed that business practice dictated not disclosing the purchases early on in the process.
urban_dilettante wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
I guess him working with the public's elected representatives (aldermen, etc) is not an example of public involvement?
i'm a big fan of the ideology that, once in office, elected officials may act freely without ever consulting their constituents again. especially on projects that effect 5% of the land-area of the city.
I like your sarcasm and agree that aldermen should be held accountable.
urban_dilettante wrote:
innov8ion wrote:When there have been violations, he has been fined like any other property owner.
super. i hope they keep it up.
Agreed again!
urban_dilettante wrote:
innov8ion wrote: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."
this is your response and your questioning my common sense? this is a whole lotta talk with no substantiation.
Cmon now. We agreed with everything else before this came up!
substance
noun, singular
1. The essential part of anything; the most vital part.
What substance are you looking for? The detailed plans that can't be created until the public process unfolds? Would you rather not be part of this process? Much substantive work has already been performed yet more remains. Be part of the solution -- not part of the problem that has prevented investment in Northside for over 60 years.
innov8ion wrote:
Looks like we agree that public involvement is the way to go. And its already been discussed that business practice dictated not disclosing the purchases early on in the process.
right, i just don't believe business practice should dictate breaking laws and knowingly lowering people's property values. all he had to do was maintain the properties he purchased to maintain the good faith of his neighbors.
innov8ion wrote:Cmon now. We agreed with everything else before this came up!
substance
noun, singular
1. The essential part of anything; the most vital part.
sub?stan?ti?ate
–verb (used with object)
1. to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge.
urban_dilettante wrote:
1. to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge.
Proof of what? What are you attempting to suggest?
competent evidence (which is convincing) that he can deliver on all of the promises (which are not convincing) that you quoted above, and thereby deserves huge subsidies and use of eminent domain.
^ McKee is a proven businessman that has created the successful, large-scale Winghaven development. He's led a Congressional delegation (he has connections) to China to help trigger a trade hub that would prove to be a boon for St. Louis. He's invested $46 million of his own money in the project. He has roots in North St. Louis.
Except he doesn't have to convince you of anything. You're a hater living in Virginia that doesn't want to be convinced. He does have to convince politicians and investors for the plan to reach fruition. Despite your whining, it's likely he has a good chance.
Perhaps you should try to convince us that you aren't trying to hold North St. Louis and the African American community back. It's fairly apparent you'd rather hate McKee than have North St. Louis transformed via greater jobs and increased vitality. I find that sad and unfortunate but am glad that haters like you are in the minority.
I'd like to add that Mckee is putting not only his money where his mouth is but also his reputation and his legacy. He mention in his video that we are 5 yrs into a 15yr plan and that he wants to get this done before he passes away. Pretty honarable if you ask me, I'd likely be living it up in my golden years if I was him.
I'm not saying we trust every old timer with a vision, but at least he's qualified. (or so it seems clear to me)
Just an FYI to INNO and the others, I and most others have no hate for McKee. Sure, his property management left a bad taste in my mouth, but it is not hate. Just because I, and others, are trying to get the best project possible while being realistic to what McKee can actually accomplish, does not make us obstructionists or haters. Just shows that you cannot come up with a better argument against us.
^ Right, you seem to be pretty moderate. ecoabsence as well. Not so sure about Barbara, Doug and urban_dilettante. But it's ok. There's all kinds in this world.
Moorlander wrote:I'd like to add that Mckee is putting not only his money where his mouth is but also his reputation and his legacy.
Not to mention putting his son's reputation and legacy on the line. After all, he's also working on the project and will (likely) carry on the family business.
(Some) people love to paint McKee as some evil demon coming in to take over the neighborhood but fail to acknowledge that this is the neighborhood he grew up in. He has more at stake in the project than monetary investment. He's actively trying to improve the neighborhood he's from; I'd do the same if I had the means to do so. Even with his mistakes so far, I believe he means well, and evidently, many in the neighborhood think so too.
Now that the public dialogue has begun, the question now becomes how we help him realize the best possible project.
McKee's McEagle Properties has developed more than just Winghaven. McEagle is the lead contractor on NorthPark, and they're also working several what I'll call "Sansone" sized commercial developments as well, many of which are eco-friendly.
Winghaven is 1,200 acres, includes retail, includes parks, includes a golf course, and also contains the headquarters for MasterCard.
NorthPark is 550 acres, and McEagle is utilizing its established connections with Clayco Construction to develop that property.
Has anyone bothered to understand this company's track record before they started complaining? Where our civic leadership has fallen short, McKee has proven that he can get it done. Let the guy do work, son.
innov8ion wrote:^ McKee is a proven businessman that has created the successful, large-scale Winghaven development. He's led a Congressional delegation (he has connections) to China to help trigger a trade hub that would prove to be a boon for St. Louis. He's invested $46 million of his own money in the project. He has roots in North St. Louis.
Except he doesn't have to convince you of anything. You're a hater living in Virginia that doesn't want to be convinced. He does have to convince politicians and investors for the plan to reach fruition. Despite your whining, it's likely he has a good chance.
Perhaps you should try to convince us that you aren't trying to hold North St. Louis and the African American community back.It's fairly apparent you'd rather hate McKee than have North St. Louis transformed via greater jobs and increased vitality. I find that sad and unfortunate but am glad that haters like you are in the minority.
please. i've lived in virginia for 2 1/2 years for grad school. i lived in saint louis for over 22 years and i still return several times per year. in any case not sure what that has to do with anything, except that you're looking for unrelated insults to throw at me.
i'd already be convinced if he'd handled his properties differently, or rather, i'de have no reason to be suspicious. i'm not trying to convince McKee of anything, nor am i trying to stop him, nor would i be able to. i'm simply expressing my opinion, on a blog, that he hasn't been very upstanding in how he's handled things so far and i can't quite understand why everyone is so willing to trust him. it's pretty pathetic that you're incapable of being civilized with people who don't share your opinion. by the way, is your degree in law? urban planning? public policy? i seem to remember none of the above.
but you're right - i'm doing my best to hold back NSL and the black community. (even if i weren't i still wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you as you prefer putting words in my mouth and calling me names.) in between my lab work and my classes i race home to sabotage developments that might benefit the black community.
did you actually read your last post before you clicked "submit". it sounds pretty angry and absurd.
urban_dilettante wrote:please. i've lived in virginia for 2 1/2 years for grad school. i lived in saint louis for over 22 years and i still return several times per year. in any case not sure what that has to do with anything, except that you're looking for unrelated insults to throw at me.
It's not an insult. You just don't appear to be a prime stakeholder in this matter.
urban_dilettante wrote:i'd already be convinced if he'd handled his properties differently, or rather, i'd have no reason to be suspicious. i'm not trying to convince McKee of anything, nor am i trying to stop him, nor would i be able to. i'm simply expressing my opinion, on a blog, that he hasn't been very upstanding in how he's handled things so far and i can't quite understand why everyone is so willing to trust him.
We've heard your viewpoint focused on the unfortunate toll of 50-60 years of divestment in NSL. More and more folks are placing trust in McKee because he's invested $46M of his own money in the project, is working to secure $6B over 15 years, has led successful large-scale developments, has high-level political connections, has roots in North City, and a legacy to fulfill. Those are just a few of the reasons why people believe in this transformative vision for NorthSide development. I think you understand that our great city has been fractionalized for far too long and that now is the time for us to work together. Yes we can....
We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant.
We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check.
We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. We want change!
(We want change! I want change! We want change! I want change…)
The hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA;
we will remember that there is something happening in America;
that we are not as divided as our politics suggests;
that we are one people;
we are one nation;
Yes we can!
urban_dilettante wrote:it's pretty pathetic that you're incapable of being civilized with people who don't share your opinion. by the way, is your degree in law? urban planning? public policy? i seem to remember none of the above.
I like to be provocative to bring out the essence of the other's argument. Please don't take it personally. FYI, my degree is in common sense.
urban_dilettante wrote:but you're right - i'm doing my best to hold back NSL and the black community. (even if i weren't i still wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you as you prefer putting words in my mouth and calling me names.) in between my lab work and my classes i race home to sabotage developments that might benefit the black community.
Calling you a hater isn't a bad name. It's clear you have a strong distaste for McKee. Do you deny this? And what words have I put in your mouth?
Obviously I was being sarcastic about you holding back NSL and the African American community. Yours is a minority viewpoint focused on negativity and the past. The majority of us look forward to working constructively in a process that will lead us to a brighter future. Yes we can...
urban_dilettante wrote:did you actually read your last post before you clicked "submit". it sounds pretty angry and absurd.
What's absurd is a "social justice" community throwing out F-bombs at public meetings, freely tossing out the race card, and angrily working to obstruct a process that could transform NSL with a $6B investment. Like it or not, I'm merely bringing attention to the hypocrisy.
scotto wrote:McKee did not grow up in North St. Louis. He grew up in Overland and went to school at Chaminade, according to the Post - just for the record.
For the record, McKee does have roots in NSL. His grandfather served there proudly as a street-car conductor.
I wish it were a law that one could only ever try to improve the town, heck neighborhood, no - STREET that they grew up on. I mean how else are we supposed to know that someone REALLY doing it for the right reason?
This conversation is getting more and more worthless. I hope that those who can add to the discussion continue to do so.
A group of 10 Northside residents are asking the city to reject the TIF and then asking that any future development has to guarantee community "benefits".
