urbanSTL

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:My unprofessional opinion is that form based codes should be upwardly flexible in terms of density and incentivize pushing the urban envelope.

IMO the form based code should represent a floor for density in regards to new development. Particularly along our commercial and arterial corridors.

Agreed completely. I’m somewhat suspicious of form based codes, however, as they seem to just be a filler regulation for a city that can’t get its collective head straight on planning.

FBC’s are so influenced by local residents and Alderpersons that we cannot depend on them necessarily to bring density or better land use more broadly.

As I worked on the Delmar Debaliviere FBC (well underway), a number of community constituents advocated for still pretty generous parking requirements and got their way. The same is true for limits on density in some areas. While it might still represent some improvements, it’s still not great.

Of course, there also is recent resident discussion in FPSE about revising its FBC. That, for a second, sounds promising until you realize that the context was to limit the density that it already allows - some folks strongly proclaimed this after realizing that the first Lux proposal along Kingshighway didn’t require variances and was following code.

Anyway, I am broadly suspicious and worried about community level planning and FBC can either benefit or cause more hurdles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what is the best thread to post on but two things come to mind when reading this story.  First, was an opinion piece that I think was from Biz Journals referencing the fact that the region needs to change how things are done to succeed.  Talk about doubling down on same old failed policies.   Second, shouldn't dollars be invested in improving poorer areas from replacing a sidewalk, to paving a street, to planting a tree or to maybe stabilizing properties..  Instead lets double down on consultants to produce a plan.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 092fd.html

Under the contract, Steadfast City will market several of SLDC’s priority sites to developers, including areas along Dr. Martin Luther King Drive, the Club Imperial on West Florissant Avenue and the old Wellston Station near the border with that municipality, among others. At the urging of board member and Alderman Marlene Davis, SLDC staff said they would also include existing redevelopment areas that it has designated in past years.

Those areas, often in poorer neighborhoods, offer tax abatement to developers that build within their boundaries, though they have lacked a vigorous marketing effort to draw interest.

SLDC budgeted nearly $2 million for consultants in its budget for the next fiscal year, also approved Thursday. That is $1.4 million more than it budgeted for consultants this year.  The agency’s budget is estimated to grow by nearly $4 million, primarily due to several million dollars in management fees it is collecting to administer tens of millions in federal pandemic aid programs.

There was the La Collina homes. In the 2000s there were blocks of houses built in the West End and Botanical Heights. 
A big homebuilder wants large continues/proximate tracks to leverage volume. Not many places in the City, just the disinvested areas, but if they had been invested in such that there was a market a big homebuilder would take advantage of, well then there'd be a lot of the original homes in the way.

Makes me sigh over the obstinate Metro garage on DeBaliviere.

Also is this buying fever what the Urban Renewal ghouls imagined was going to happen when they mowed down communities? I guess it kind of happened with Botanical Heights.

Maybe, just maybe some accountability creeping into the process.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... f46f5.html

ST. LOUIS — A city board Thursday questioned a series of consulting contracts worth nearly $400,000, signaling growing unease at the number of consultants being hired by the city’s economic development arm.

The board of the St. Louis Development Corp. tabled all of its agenda items Thursday, three of which related to hiring outreach and technical assistance consultants or approving firms for future work on a new $37 million grant program meant to spur investment in north St. Louis commercial corridors.

“We’re approving consulting contracts left and right at every meeting, and some of these people, I’ve never heard of,” said board member Loura Gilbert, who spent much of her 40-plus-year banking career working in St. Louis community development.

These contracts are just a way to funnel money to the friends and supporters of the people in power. As much as I have been pleasantly surprised by the Jones admin, the siphoning off of public funds to the usual suspects has not stopped.

It's not just here in St. Louis of course but, in a way, these "bodies of government" are not unlike organized crime outfits. But it's really too late to do much about it at this point. It's potentially even worse in St. Louis though because of the amount of different "bodies of government". Multiple, battling organized crime outfits.

Empires rise and fall. History is littered with them. Empires are not a light switch or a water faucet. Empires don't go from ON to OFF in a heartbeat. It takes decades perhaps 100s of years to decline and then completely fail.

There's a reason why 6 or 7 of the wealthiest counties in the US  are clustered around DC. It's basically a money-funnelling operation. And they have money printing machines too!  It's basically organized crime.

Nobody ever does anything about the corruption and fraud or the size of the administrative state. Republicans talk about "smaller government" but never do anything about it. I mean, it's just too late. The insidious beast has been out of the bag since probably the mid 20th century and there will be no stopping it or stopping the devastating effects the massive administrative state has on the average citizen at this point. Too late.

Pattimegee posted on the BPV thread a link to article on how current Fed policies might not impact current proposals from breaking ground.    I also believe Wallstreet Journal had an article a couple days ago with a great graph showing housing/rent inflation as it relates to overall inflation with graph showing the possible peak inflation as a whole bu the rent trend line of only going up.    

So a couple thoughts.   Considering that some drivers of inflation such as rent & food will be persistent and won't come down nearly as much as energy what are people thoughts on the impacts of fed actions as it relates to the development pipeline?  

I really see a scenario where things can slow down substantially if Feds really want to aim for 4.25% or higher because at some point you will crash the economy, people without jobs are not going to pony up for new places at BPV, or at the corner of Kingshighway & Lindell, etc..   In other words destroy demand to point where owners looking for any tenant, offering discounts, .  

 At same time, understand the argument that development will continue on as long as developers/capitals believes they will get a price point to cover cost/financing.   Which also supported by the under investment in housing in this country.   Still a need for a lot more supply across all demographics, needs.

^Interesting questions that deserve a thoughtful response. The quick answer is simply a continuing divergence between the very wealthy and everyone else. In other words, development that caters to the affluent will continue to find success, and so too will development of new (preferably government subsidized) slums for the downwardly mobile victims of the fed's current demand destruction policy and the long-simmering hallowing out and impoverishment of the working and middle classes.

City of St. Louis says it wants thousands of new residents. Its new study pitches an earnings tax credit to get them to come.

The study notes significant federal dollars available to the city, and suggests that SLDC add various staff members, establish a revolving loan fund and business grants, and put money into an "economic empowerment center," at Sumner High School, to boost the areas.

But some of the study's most notable language involves the tax credit idea. The city, with a population now below 300,000 in a region of 2.8 million people, charges a 1% earnings tax for those working or living in the city, plus a 0.5% payroll tax paid by employers on wages earned in the city.
"(SLDC's) long-term reinvestment strategy plans for thousands of new residents moving to the City by 2030," the study says. "Where are all these new residents going to come from?
"SLDC should encourage people to return to the City by annually granting households a transferable earnings and payroll tax credit that they can use themselves or sell to another individual or business to provide equity for their home purchase," it continues. "This program would likely be utilized by major employers with significant earnings and payroll tax liabilities."
The study goes on to predict that each household granted such credits "should recoup those costs to the City in less than 3-5 years through their own earnings, property and sales tax contributions."

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2022/09/28/city-says-it-wants-thousands-of-new-residents.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_5&cx_artPos=5#cxrecs_s

^Thanks. I don't subscribe to StLBJ, is there a direct link to the report you can share?

Can't imagine a 1.5% earnings tax credit (and that's assuming the employer portion goes to the individual) is really going to incentivize anyone to move to the City that isn't already inclined to do so. I don't know anyone, except maybe a few 1%ers who also really hate taxes for ideological reasons, who would give two shits about it.  And they aren't moving to the City anyway. At best, it will help marginal businesses continue operating while providing a new revenue source to the banks and other financial interests that run the tax credit infrastructure and trade. In other words,  subscribers of the StLBJ and clients of the consultant class. 

If the city really wants to attract residents it needs to fix it's public safety problems. That means more and better-paid cops supported by robust social services (yes, social workers and other unarmed officers trained to help non-criminal indigents). If it's really hard up for revenue, (certainly not the case now) then it should consider a Land Value Tax that flips the current land/improvement levies and eventually phases out all taxes on improvements. It should also target absentee slumlords and surface lot owners for dispossession of their economic rent collection pits. An LVT would do some of that naturally by making ownership of non-productive parcels cost-prohibitive, but the city should also look for ways to force them out.  

TLDR: the city needs policies that grow the current tax base rather than shrinking and reshuffling it via tax credit schemes.

Here's a link to the study:
https://www.economicjusticestl.org/_files/ugd/c548d2_70d089feed0a453897192676691969f5.pdf

^Thanks!

Street trees PLEASE

"equitable access to parks and nature" GTFOH

^"The last few years has seen trillions of dollars allocated or just handed out. I personally haven't seen a dime. At some point I'd just like to see some results with my own eyes. I'd like to the trillions of dollars in action, that's all."

It goes back further--the Federal Reserve has been pumping trillions into financial markets via Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), Quantitative Easing and other policies and programs since 2008 (see Table 2 of this Congressional Research Service briefing for a summary).  Most commentary about the COVID-related spending focuses on the stimulus checks to households, the PPP loans (actually grants) to businesses, expanded unemployment, or maybe the expanded, refundable Child Tax Credit. But the majority of the money spent was by the Federal Reserve (backstopped by the US Treasure Dept.) buying up financial assets to "stabilize" markets and asset prices ($4.8T according to the CRS report linked above). If you had a 401K or other investments in financial markets from 2008 to ~mid-2021, or taken out a loan of any kind in that time, you benefited from this, albeit indirectly and to a much lesser degree than institutional investors and corporations. 

I'd argue that those policies are the standard "scam that lines the pockets of insiders." The other spending is a break from that--the feds providing direct benefit to non-insiders, i.e. working stiffs with families. Because of my family composition (3 kids) and tax bracket (married filing jointly <$250K), we were able to benefit significantly from the stimulus and CTC. Given the above re the feds propping up financial markets (i.e., subsidizing capitalists), I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about taking that money, and will happily avail myself of any other financial or other assistance the federal gov't wants to throw my way. 

StlToday - Bucking tradition, St. Louis aldermen OK tax incentives for Armory entertainment venue

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 400bb.html

interesting video about ethical development in France. It vaguely reminds me of the north Vandeventer developments but with a lot more services.

Interesting idea to put LRA properties into a TIF and when they leave the LRA and join the tax rolls again using the taxes to help fix up those still in LRA possession.

^ Nice post, with coffers flush, cheap land and still covid funds to be obligated it seems like now is a great time for the city to invest in programs that invest in housing stock, build tax rolls for the long run and probably what I consider the most important part is home equity for those who might be on the edge or cusp.   Especially now with Feds jacking interest rates with unintended consequence of creating more renters then ever.  Yes, understand the inflation bit but multi unit residential is going to deliver a huge number rental units to the market this year while housing construction is falling off the cliff.    Their is serious long term consequences to family wealth.  

Changing subjects, I think this is a legit question.   Has Ald Tina Phil make herself literally ineffective at everything and everyone because of her approach of all stop on any development, any comprimieses, or any progress (yes, the last one is subjective item).  Can't help think that with this comment from the PD article involving Ronald McDonald House.  

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... ff5b1.html

City boards have ignored Pihl's requests in the past — bucking what's called “aldermanic courtesy," or the practice of deferring to alderman for projects within their own wards. Two weeks ago, the Board of Aldermen gave approval for incentives on a development project in Pihl's 17th Ward, despite her opposition.  

dredger wrote:^ Nice post, with coffers flush, cheap land and still covid funds to be obligated it seems like now is a great time for the city to invest in programs that invest in housing stock, build tax rolls for the long run and probably what I consider the most important part is home equity for those who might be on the edge or cusp.   Especially now with Feds jacking interest rates with unintended consequence of creating more renters then ever.  Yes, understand the inflation bit but multi unit residential is going to deliver a huge number rental units to the market this year while housing construction is falling off the cliff.    Their is serious long term consequences to family wealth.  

Changing subjects, I think this is a legit question.   Has Ald Tina Phil make herself literally ineffective at everything and everyone because of her approach of all stop on any development, any comprimieses, or any progress (yes, the last one is subjective item).  Can't help think that with this comment from the PD article involving Ronald McDonald House.  

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... ff5b1.html

City boards have ignored Pihl's requests in the past — bucking what's called “aldermanic courtesy," or the practice of deferring to alderman for projects within their own wards. Two weeks ago, the Board of Aldermen gave approval for incentives on a development project in Pihl's 17th Ward, despite her opposition.  

My rather public and ongoing take as one of her constituents is a resounding “yes!”

Every time something comes to a public board meeting, she claims it’s a “surprise”. This project has been on our radar for years. On top of that, how can she not wrap her head around this little church being impractical for their nonprofit?

Ugh. So frustrating. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I completely agree the city should invest funds toward stabilization. They should bring as many LRA units up as possible, and I really like how Dredger puts this as a hedge against a likely decline in units being built on the private market.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk