This map shows the 225 properties in north St. Louis owned by a new company called Urban Assets LLC, registered and operated by Harvey Noble of Eagle Realty (McEagle's agent). McKee denies any involvement with this land banking project, which reaches across the entire north side.
This reminds me of Walt Disney buying in central Florida. Using hundreds of LLC's, attempting to keep property prices low, in order to assemble enough land for what was to become Disney World.
^ McKee is no Disney (probably lucky for us), but they're both smart. Regarding the Urban Assets, Inc. purchases: is it plausible at all that Harvey Noble is working for more than one purchaser or that he no longer works for McKee. On the surface it seems as though he's assembling more land for McKee. Do McKee have enough acres to take advantage of the new state tax credit? Maybe he needs more parcels? What's strange is that these are west of Grand and quite a ways from the NorthSide project. It's hard for me to understand that someone would be placing bets on nearly the entire of North St. Louis being revitalized.
Urban Assets could be the work of a copycat hoping to cash in on the DALATC or who just thinks the McEagle approach is possible west off Grand.
Noble is an old pro at this stuff -- he's been in real estate since the 1950s, and has been involved in numerous projects in this area for nearly a half-century. He's "the man" for land acquisition.
Doug wrote:How would you like it if he started buying land all around you in FPSE?
You mean like WU or the Gills? Or Pete Rothschild? It's working out OK for the neighborhood. If McKee would like to join the fun that would fine. Or should I be upset that a developer would consider investing here?
The neighborhood sensitivities are quite different from the north side to FPSE, or any other south St. Louis neighborhood of such intactness, and so the comparisons from both argumentative sides are a bit off-base. Not all developer interest is without regard for the existing scape, obviously, but one has to be very wary of land banking in areas where a CERTAIN DEVELOPER has already demonstrated that his expectation was that no one would care about such a 'ghetto'. There is just cause for suspicion, and the investigations of land banking should continue with vigor until there is knowledge from those who live in these neighborhoods that their existence will be factored into any redevelopment. It's not enough to simply say "people should not be forced from their homes" and then leave it that. With what has already occurred, there is just cause for citizen intervention to ensure that any developer understands that carte blanche doesn't exist. If, in the end, it is determined by all, including those who live in the targeted areas, that selling private interest and moving out to allow a developer to effect broad-scoped redevelopment is best for all then so be it. It's just as wrong to assume that people living in the targeted areas don't want to hear what a developer is proposing and possibly sell private interest, and it's wrong to ascribe to anyone living in target areas what one's own personal ideal is and expect that overlay to be as well-received as McKee is or was expecting his overlay to be received.
No communication = civic dilemma. Urbanists and preservationists are experiencing a fair bit of strife and tension over this issue, and we shouldn't be so foolish as to let it tear a likely strong city-wide alliance into shreds. I believe the current pressure placed on McKee by the reporting of the civic unrest will put him on the hot seat for quite a while, and this is ultimately good for us all. He should answer for his unacceptable past actions and be as regularly informative to us all of his intents as he possibly can. This could turn around in a big way, but he'll have to he held to some pretty high standards considering the subsidy he is seeking, and the lives he has alread impacted in a very negative way. His weak excuse that he's not the only landlord to fail to maintain property (by law) so he shouldn't receive disproportionate amounts of scrunity is just that- a weak excuse- and it should be brushed aside. He's simply admitting he's just as bad as all that have been negatively impacting these neighborhoods through negligence, and that cannot go unchallenged.
And, I'd add that if that strife metastacizes into full-blown internecine camp divisions and battles, then we should be prepared for the distraction to allow issues in need of advocacy to be deprived of such advocacy.
john w. wrote:His weak excuse that he's not the only landlord to fail to maintain property (by law) so he shouldn't receive disproportionate amounts of scrunity is just that- a weak excuse- and it should be brushed aside.
thank you. it's like getting pulled over for speeding and then whining to the cop about how the guy in front of you was speeding too. well, you're the one that got caught. and most other landlords don't own this:
thank you. it's like getting pulled over for speeding and then whining to the cop about how the guy in front of you was speeding too. well, you're the one that got caught. and most other landlords don't own this:
Sadly, your analogy is off. Look at the decline of this part of the North Side over the past 50-60 years.
It's actually like getting pulled over for speeding at the Indy 500.
"You don't give a $400 million TIF (the rumored amount) for a development project that has a broad idea, but no specifics. This plan has the potential to work and be fairly urban,but we risk giving away all of our bargaining chips up front. This is a project that has a high bust potential, and at this point, no other financing besides government subsidies."
As quoted from MattnSTL from a similar thread in this forum.
thank you. it's like getting pulled over for speeding and then whining to the cop about how the guy in front of you was speeding too. well, you're the one that got caught. and most other landlords don't own this:
Sadly, your analogy is off. Look at the decline of this part of the North Side over the past 50-60 years.
It's actually like getting pulled over for speeding at the Indy 500.
well, no, because you, i, and mckee are all subject to the same laws. period. in practice, he wants special treatment because he's a big developer. the decline over the last 50 - 60 years has nothing to do with it.
urban_dilettante wrote:
well, no, because you, i, and mckee are all subject to the same laws. period. in practice, he wants special treatment because he's a big developer. the decline over the last 50 - 60 years has nothing to do with it.
You're making McKee's point for him. For decades, hundreds of properties have been allowed to rot and disappear. Now McKee comes in and buys many of these same properties and suddenly everyone wants the City to "get tough" and throw him in jail.
McKee gave up any expectation of sympathy when he conducted his business the way he did. There is NO WAY any single developer can possible manage to redevelop such an enormous amount of land. If you can't see that, then you need to take a closer look at reality. [/code]
French, who has a map of Urban Assets properties in his office, said he suspects McKee himself may be behind this new round of buying, too — the properties run in a corridor pretty much due west from his project. This could be phase two, French said.
But the O'Fallon-based developer said it's not him.
"I'm not buying any more," said McKee, who said he's already spent $46 million on NorthSide. "I can't afford what I've got now. (Urban Assets) isn't me. It's not for me."
I understand why McKee'd say that in relationship to Urban Assets, but that's not exactly helping him build a case for a $6B investment into the properties he does own....
