I love how Richardson Romanesque is in the design like the previous building. Nice arched entryways. Will there be any changes to the streetscape with new trees and lamp posts and flower beds?
SMSPlanstu wrote:I love how Richardson Romanesque is in the design like the previous building. Nice arched entryways.
I love it, too. Especially the arched entryways and the turrets. It is exciting to see the frayed edges of Lafayette Square buttoned up. It will be interesting to see what is planned for the old National site. Jefferson Avenue is will turn out to be one of the cities nicest streets one of these days.
Expat wrote: Jefferson Avenue is will turn out to be one of the cities nicest streets one of these days.
I hope so. Its still pretty shabby south of 44, though.
- 37
It is still shabby south of 44 but give it time. I do believe there is a new historic district in place just a little further south on Jefferson that will really help that area take off with all the groovy financial incentive that go with it. WE shall see.
topeka_bobby wrote:It is still shabby south of 44 but give it time. I do believe there is a new historic district in place just a little further south on Jefferson that will really help that area take off with all the groovy financial incentive that go with it. WE shall see.
I agree, give it time. Jefferson goes through dense historic housing stock. With some work, it could be one of the cities best streets connecting to some of the best neighborhoods. TopekaBobby, welcome to the forum and thanks for this excellent post.
New today from Martin Van Der Werf:
GRAVY TRAIN ENDING?: A big battle is simmering in St. Louis over tax incentives for residential projects. The Tax Increment Finance Commission voted Wednesday to reduce the TIF subsidy by 50 percent for the Union Club, a proposed condo-retail-restaurant development on Jefferson Avenue at Interstate 44.
Read More
THe short term worry should only be over the loss of this project. But any long term moves that would "rock the boat" and slow further residential development if foolish. THe city is just now getting the sort of momentum nessisary to keep this redevelopment train moving.
GRAVY TRAIN ENDING?: A big battle is simmering in St. Louis over tax incentives for residential projects. The Tax Increment Finance Commission voted Wednesday to reduce the TIF subsidy by 50 percent for the Union Club, a proposed condo-retail-restaurant development on Jefferson Avenue at Interstate 44.
Read More
THe short term worry should only be over the loss of this project. But any long term moves that would "rock the boat" and slow further residential development if foolish. THe city is just now getting the sort of momentum nessisary to keep this redevelopment train moving.
- 2,005
It does seem pretty foolish to just cut bait when things are looking so good. In the future it may be a good idea to cut incentives, but the TIF commission should set a date when those incentives are reduced. That way developers will have plenty of chances to start projects before the deadline.
Why does the TIF need to be cut if it has caused so many good developments in the city? Can someone please explain to me who is going broke with it as it is?
I guess those who approve of the TIF change would rather see a vacant lot, rather than a development and taxpayers living there. How on earth can these people say this is beneficial in any way? How does the city rid itself of such outrageous stupidity?
That said, to pull the rug out from under a developer with a good plan is plain and simple a dirty rotten deed. The city has some class A jerks working for (uh...against) it.
I guess those who approve of the TIF change would rather see a vacant lot, rather than a development and taxpayers living there. How on earth can these people say this is beneficial in any way? How does the city rid itself of such outrageous stupidity?
That said, to pull the rug out from under a developer with a good plan is plain and simple a dirty rotten deed. The city has some class A jerks working for (uh...against) it.
Wow, thats great, cutting tax incentives after a developer has committed to building, I would sue.
- 1,026
I simply don;t understand these people. TIFs do not cost the city money. TIFs make the city money. Its not as if the development would proceed without the TIF. So the choice is - development with some (though less) tax revenue generated or no development and no tax revenue generated. Is that really such a hard decision?
TIFs and their ilk are the primary reason the city is seeign a resurgence. This city has been decimated by population loss and now sports as many vacant lots as it does occupied ones. Yet Just as the tax breaks start to breathe some life back into the near corpse - they fight to take them away. I suppose some people just want the city to die.
Read the history of St. Louis and you will read a history of a city constantly shooting itself in the foot. I dearly hope that this might one day change - but I fear that this might be the begining of St. Louis taking aim footwards once again ....
TIFs and their ilk are the primary reason the city is seeign a resurgence. This city has been decimated by population loss and now sports as many vacant lots as it does occupied ones. Yet Just as the tax breaks start to breathe some life back into the near corpse - they fight to take them away. I suppose some people just want the city to die.
Read the history of St. Louis and you will read a history of a city constantly shooting itself in the foot. I dearly hope that this might one day change - but I fear that this might be the begining of St. Louis taking aim footwards once again ....
and I must add ... I really think that St. Louis' government structure contributes to its self destruction. Whenever you divvy up power into very fine slices, it makes it easier for small groups of vocal opponents to get their way. If this issue were put to a city wide vote, I have no doubt that the TIFs would be supported. If this issue were put to a region wide vote I have even less doubt. But when you isolate these decisions to itty bitty swaths of people. All it takes is a few screaming people with placards to derail virtually anything.
This is ridiculous and disappointing. Having this beautiful building on this prominent corner will be a huge asset for the neighborhood and entire city. Building up these corners in the near downtown areas will greatly enhance the image of the entire city. This is particularly important right now, because new construction is the next step in rebuilding the city. New construction on empty lots should be encouraged every step of the way. Why discourage developers when they want to build quality buildings on empty lots? Good grief.
Figure out who is behind this stupid decision and remember on election day.
Figure out who is behind this stupid decision and remember on election day.
- 36
This is possibly the most disappointing news I've heard in a while. I hope it will not be a trend.
TIF's get a bad name, and the general concensus is that they cost the city money. It's refreshing to see that this forum understands the importance of TIFs, when used correctly. They DO NOT take money from the governement. They stabilize the revenues for a number of years. But what some forget (particularly the politicians, it seems) is the redevelopment will cause ancilary development and increases in revenue from other sources. And many school districts will work with the developer to not freeze revenues from the TIF district. The school districts, if properly negotiated, can many times get increased revenue from the development.
It makes me wonder what the motivation is to deny a TIF district in the city. I have a feeling it is greed and power by the politicos, and that is not a good situation. The city, while making unbelieveable progress, is not to the point where incentives can be denied. The city will continue to increase revenues through more people living, working, playing studying, etc. Then, once the city has reached a level of development for which we can all be proud, can the city be more discriminatory in providing incentives.
TIF's get a bad name, and the general concensus is that they cost the city money. It's refreshing to see that this forum understands the importance of TIFs, when used correctly. They DO NOT take money from the governement. They stabilize the revenues for a number of years. But what some forget (particularly the politicians, it seems) is the redevelopment will cause ancilary development and increases in revenue from other sources. And many school districts will work with the developer to not freeze revenues from the TIF district. The school districts, if properly negotiated, can many times get increased revenue from the development.
It makes me wonder what the motivation is to deny a TIF district in the city. I have a feeling it is greed and power by the politicos, and that is not a good situation. The city, while making unbelieveable progress, is not to the point where incentives can be denied. The city will continue to increase revenues through more people living, working, playing studying, etc. Then, once the city has reached a level of development for which we can all be proud, can the city be more discriminatory in providing incentives.
- 1,610
The Comptroller is only one of three votes on the City's Board of Estimate and Apportionment, along with the Mayor and Aldermanic President. So long as Slay and Shrewsbury can agree to allow the regular TIF for this development, it will likely still happen. But Shrewsbury is a swing vote, sometimes being more fiscally conservative and siding with Green on E&A.
As for TIF, the City will already get 50 percent of the increased sales taxes from this site, as happens with any TIF. It's the incremental increase in property taxes that the Comptroller is advocating to split. To the City, property taxes don't matter as much as sales taxes. It's the schools that would be most concerned about property taxes.
But with this development, I don't see many in these condos likely attending public schools, with most of the new households not likely even having any children. As such, if a development is not largely single-family homes or likely to attract families with children, then I say don't worry about the potentially lost revenue to the schools. This development will still improve its greater neighborhood, where families do live. And the raising assessments city-wide due to a dramatically improving City are increasingly funding schools that don't have any enrollment growth pressures.
As for TIF, the City will already get 50 percent of the increased sales taxes from this site, as happens with any TIF. It's the incremental increase in property taxes that the Comptroller is advocating to split. To the City, property taxes don't matter as much as sales taxes. It's the schools that would be most concerned about property taxes.
But with this development, I don't see many in these condos likely attending public schools, with most of the new households not likely even having any children. As such, if a development is not largely single-family homes or likely to attract families with children, then I say don't worry about the potentially lost revenue to the schools. This development will still improve its greater neighborhood, where families do live. And the raising assessments city-wide due to a dramatically improving City are increasingly funding schools that don't have any enrollment growth pressures.
http://stlouis.missouri.org/sldc/tif.html
There we go! I bet the comission is appointed also. http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/organiz.htm
I do not see it on the Org Chart.
Why don't we just organize and go to the next meeting, which should be Feb 15?
That is what I do not like about St. Louis government, a lack of central authority... The mayor is powerless if the comptroller and president of the aldermen out vote his actions. The mayor should be at the top of the government and not share power with the comptroller and president of the board of aldermen, this way he can get stuff done, and he is directly accountable if he makes bad decisions.
There we go! I bet the comission is appointed also. http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/organiz.htm
I do not see it on the Org Chart.
Why don't we just organize and go to the next meeting, which should be Feb 15?
That is what I do not like about St. Louis government, a lack of central authority... The mayor is powerless if the comptroller and president of the aldermen out vote his actions. The mayor should be at the top of the government and not share power with the comptroller and president of the board of aldermen, this way he can get stuff done, and he is directly accountable if he makes bad decisions.
It sadly seems to be another move by Darlene Green to make short term political hay at the expence of the long term well being of the city. Maybe my memory is bad, but it seems like she has a history of such actions.
- 10K
If cutting TIF subsidies suddenly makes the Union Club development impossible, just think how it will affect the proposed retail/condo development on the site of the old Foodland store across the street!
How much money are these inventives in terms of actual dollar amount? Any ideas? Do companies actually need them to make a profit?
- 1,610
And it doesn't seem like much money to now pull the TIF out from underneath this development proposal.
Commercial property assessments are roughly one-third of the market value of combined land and improvements, and the combined property tax rate is about seven percent. Thus, for every million dollars in appraised value over the existing value of the land, you're talking roughly twelve thousand dollars as 50-percent of the annual property tax increase that the Comptroller is debating. Of this roughly twelve thousand dollars in annual increased property taxes per each million in added tax base, only one-fifth of that goes to the City (nearly 60-percent goes to the schools), such that our City would only gain about $2,500 for every million dollars invested in increased market value. But then, just five households, if each earning an average of $50,000 annually in gross income, would pay $2,500 just in earnings tax.
IOW, this development will more than pay for itself in added tax base to the City, so long as there are five times as many units for every million added over the current land value of the site.
Commercial property assessments are roughly one-third of the market value of combined land and improvements, and the combined property tax rate is about seven percent. Thus, for every million dollars in appraised value over the existing value of the land, you're talking roughly twelve thousand dollars as 50-percent of the annual property tax increase that the Comptroller is debating. Of this roughly twelve thousand dollars in annual increased property taxes per each million in added tax base, only one-fifth of that goes to the City (nearly 60-percent goes to the schools), such that our City would only gain about $2,500 for every million dollars invested in increased market value. But then, just five households, if each earning an average of $50,000 annually in gross income, would pay $2,500 just in earnings tax.
IOW, this development will more than pay for itself in added tax base to the City, so long as there are five times as many units for every million added over the current land value of the site.
- 1,026
You know - thats not a bad idea. Lets get a large group of people to go to the next meeting. The facts are undeniably on our side - she's just spinning this as a "fight against the big greedy developer." If enough people show up and annunciate that we understand the actual facts of the matter - maybe she'll back down. I think ts high time for us to become more poltically active. Where's metropolis?
If those who scream loudest carry the day around here - maybe we should startr screaming - with facts. and charts. I love charts.
If those who scream loudest carry the day around here - maybe we should startr screaming - with facts. and charts. I love charts.
- 2,005
^I'll show up to the meeting if someone from the forum dresses like Ross Perot and points at charts. This decision will cause a giant sucking sound as more jobs and people go west.
- 1,026
I'll point and make the sucking sound if need be but I wont dress like Ross Perot.
actually I'm quite serious - we should get a large group of people to go to this meeting. Maybe even call the Post and let them know that we plan on showing up to protest.
actually I'm quite serious - we should get a large group of people to go to this meeting. Maybe even call the Post and let them know that we plan on showing up to protest.
Makes me wish i wasn't stuck in NJ. Why not use the forum to maybe push against what seems to be an important issue.
markofucity, you got it...people need to get together and do something about this. Organize and recruit as many as can be rectruited, put ads and flyers up (I'll donate some cash for this), and don't stop at just calling the PD...call the tv stations and tell all of them you've called all the others. The future of our city may be at stake, again...it's time for those who care to stand up...!!!
- 623
One point that hasn't been made is that if the comptroller wants to take a stand against TIF the place to do it is the CWE, not this clearly blighted area in South St. Louis.
If any place is able to attract market rate investment not proped up by TIF its the CWE. Although I am not convinced of that yet, a case could probably be made.
Also when is the local news media going to stop saying that TIF costs the tax payers money? They just keep saying it and people believe it. I heard it last night on Channel 5 on their story about Centenne in Clayton.
If any place is able to attract market rate investment not proped up by TIF its the CWE. Although I am not convinced of that yet, a case could probably be made.
Also when is the local news media going to stop saying that TIF costs the tax payers money? They just keep saying it and people believe it. I heard it last night on Channel 5 on their story about Centenne in Clayton.