Spencer scrapped the stabilization programs. Huge W for slumlords and derelict property owners.

Huge W for slumlords and derelict property owners
How so? Please elaborate/explain  Thank You

^ they got millions of dollars in free repairs and now don’t have to pay it back

Members of this board have been screaming for programs like these stabilization programs for years and now they’re gone. What the absolute *****!?

So far she is doing exactly what people feared when she took the big county money: Doing the bidding of developers.

STLBJ article says much of the work was billed but not actually done or done poorly.  Further, two of the contractors hired by the city had direct ties to the building inspector that oversaw the project. 

Not sure how wide spread these issues were within the program, but there were issues.  This St. Louis Magazine article details the issues with the program looking at one specific case.  Here is the one about the building inspector.

I think one question is... should we be spending a ton of money on derelict properties where there is a very weak market and we know the current owners won't pay?    

TalkinDev wrote: ↑

Apr 29, 2025

STLBJ article says much of the work was billed but not actually done or done poorly.  Further, two of the contractors hired by the city had direct ties to the building inspector that oversaw the project. 

Not sure how wide spread these issues were within the program, but there were issues.  This St. Louis Magazine article details the issues with the program looking at one specific case.  Here is the one about the building inspector.

I think one question is... should we be spending a ton of money on derelict properties where there is a very weak market and we know the current owners won't pay?    

That’s not the case for 95% of the work. It was done. We should get that money back

I'm just looking at the articles.  Genuinely curious about a sampling of projects that were done and what the scope of work was and the cost?  Were they board-ups, new roofs, new windows, tuck pointing, etc.?  Can that be looked up by address?

Press release - Mayor Spencer Shuts Down Problematic Building Stabilization Program


https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... t-down.cfm

I understood this as a scheme to eventually seize these properties from derelict owners, i.e., why the press release references "lift all liens."

Setting aside the issues with self-dealing building inspectors and nefarious contractors, the whole concept seems destined to fail any court challenge. By what authority can the City force private owners to accept and pay for work commissioned by the City? What am I missing?

I assume it’s based on public nuisance laws.

Why is it destined to fail a court challenge?

Not an attorney, but property rights generally are sacrosanct. I understand the city may fine owners for nuisance violations and, over time, potentially seize properties due to tax delinquency and/or via eminent domain. But mandating, contracting, and then billing private owners for repairs to their private property, without owner consent, seems to me like something else entirely.

If the building’s code deficiencies present a danger to the public (or tenants for that matter) and the owner is given notice and opportunity to cure and fails, I do not see any “sacrosanct”’rights being trampled upon.

This was the first of two frustrating Spencer headlines today. I can accept that there were problems with the program and it needed better administration, but I would much rather have seen it reformed. It was used to stabilize the South Broadway strip that burned a few years back. Was this not precisely the program that was used to attempt to secure Railway Exchange? (And inspired by some of McKee's worst offences.) I think this is a mistake on Spencer's part. We need every tool we can get to force bad actors to maintain their property.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Apr 29, 2025

Members of this board have been screaming for programs like these stabilization programs for years and now they’re gone. What the absolute *****!?

So far she is doing exactly what people feared when she took the big county money: Doing the bidding of developers.

Please explain how she is doing the bidding of developers? 

STLAPTS wrote: ↑

Apr 29, 2025

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Apr 29, 2025

Members of this board have been screaming for programs like these stabilization programs for years and now they’re gone. What the absolute *****!?

So far she is doing exactly what people feared when she took the big county money: Doing the bidding of developers.

Please explain how she is doing the bidding of developers? 

The argument would be that developers who sit on properties and allow them to become derelict would not like this program since it theoretically forces them to spend money and fix up their properties.

So they would, using that line of logic, want the program ended.

It's a fact that multiple large and small developers supported Spencer and it fits logically that developers would want this program ended.

Not saying I agree or disagree, that's just what I believe the argument that I've seen thrown around is.

This is exactly the kind of cronyist program Spencer was elected to end.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Apr 30, 2025

This is exactly the kind of cronyist program Spencer was elected to end.

And anti-Spencer people are making the exact same argument right back at you.

"This is the exact type of program that Spencer's cronies paid her to end."

So we need to move beyond the low-IQ insults that we loved to throw around during election season to earn political points and actually look into the facts and merits of policy decisions. Reality is likely somewhere in the middle.

Reality is that every administration will do favors for the constituencies that helped get them elected. Could be through big-ticket policy decisions as seems to be the case here (and maybe with the Green Line decision announced today), or by just letting insiders stick their hand in the public cookie jar while their elected official friend looks the other way, as seems to have been the case with the building inspector and Virvus's girlfriend.

Personally I find the latter less objectionable--the long-term consequences are much less severe--but both are corruption and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

I think there’s some hypocrisy there too. City has been billing the owners of the railway exchange for stabilization efforts too, and leveraged that as they seize the building. Spencer cheered that on.

There was a $25k building permit for 2007 N Market