Strong Towns - Everyone Loses in Missouri's Tax-Subsidy Wars
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... bsidy-wars
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... bsidy-wars
Pretty nice piece for an out of towner. Unfortunately, for everyone involved in this development this one is several times more complex than the one across the way in Olivette, which is already behind schedule due to supposed zoning issues. It would appear delays might be an issue for some of the home and business owners.
Op-Ed piece by Joan Bray in support of the TIF.
https://nextstl.com/2018/10/op-ed-tif-w ... community/
https://nextstl.com/2018/10/op-ed-tif-w ... community/
Seems like she took quite a few liberties with the facts and is advocating for beggar thy neighbor policies.framer wrote: ↑Oct 18, 2018Op-Ed piece by Joan Bray in support of the TIF.
https://nextstl.com/2018/10/op-ed-tif-w ... community/
Looks like we'll get the finally agreement soon.
https://patch.com/missouri/universityci ... ent-nov-21
Seems like there's some tension, the City and Novus are still negotiating
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 1bf2b.html
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 1bf2b.html
- 87
What a loss. I love Costco, but the destruction of existing businesses and giant tax breaks are not the answer to getting a Costco in Mid-County. there are plenty of empty strip malls that need redevelopment and don't require the removal of thriving businesses and the demolition of occupied homes.
It sucks that U City looked at what Brentwood, Maplewood and Richmond Heights have done to Hanley Road and thought, "Perfect, that's just what we need!"
It sucks that U City looked at what Brentwood, Maplewood and Richmond Heights have done to Hanley Road and thought, "Perfect, that's just what we need!"
The numbers on this TIF are getting seriously fuzzy. Not the least of which is that U City's consultant on the project based their calculations on U City being a Point of Sale city, when in fact they are a Pool city.
"...The Cost Benefit Analysis for the project contains a serious mistake about the sales tax revenue available to us from the project. Sales tax revenue from the project will be less than half of the amount estimated. The difference is more than $27 million. This amount is significant revenue we thought we would be getting from the project and now we will not.
It appears the sales tax mistake was made because PGAV Planners considered University City a point-of-sale city instead of a pool city. A point-of-sale city keeps most of the sales taxes that it collects. A pool city puts the 1% Countywide Sales Tax and the 0.5% (1/2 percent) Capital Improvement Sales Tax into a pool and receives back a percentage of those taxes based on population.
PGAV estimated these two taxes would bring us about $30 million. Actually, they will bring us about $2.5 million, a decrease of over $27 million..."
"...The Cost Benefit Analysis for the project contains a serious mistake about the sales tax revenue available to us from the project. Sales tax revenue from the project will be less than half of the amount estimated. The difference is more than $27 million. This amount is significant revenue we thought we would be getting from the project and now we will not.
It appears the sales tax mistake was made because PGAV Planners considered University City a point-of-sale city instead of a pool city. A point-of-sale city keeps most of the sales taxes that it collects. A pool city puts the 1% Countywide Sales Tax and the 0.5% (1/2 percent) Capital Improvement Sales Tax into a pool and receives back a percentage of those taxes based on population.
PGAV estimated these two taxes would bring us about $30 million. Actually, they will bring us about $2.5 million, a decrease of over $27 million..."
It's sort of impressive how badly University City negotiated. They're giving away almost all of the sales tax revenue.
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... fbdf1.html
Think this might kill it?framer wrote: ↑Feb 02, 2019More info on the fiasco:
https://patch.com/missouri/universityci ... ve-170-tif
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... is-of.html
^I don't know, but it certainly could. All of the U City council members, mayor, etc. really, really want to get this done, but a $20 Million error is pretty significant.
Also, I wonder what this line in the BJ article means:
"The project was slated to go before the City Council for a second reading on Jan. 28 but was pulled from the agenda days before.
Rose said it didn't go before the council then because the developer, Novus, had made changes to the project, with the bulk of those changes, the city believes, related to an anchor tenant that would occupy 158,000 square feet. Novus has not confirmed who the anchor tenant is, but it's believed to be a "Costco-like" retailer"
Also, I wonder what this line in the BJ article means:
"The project was slated to go before the City Council for a second reading on Jan. 28 but was pulled from the agenda days before.
Rose said it didn't go before the council then because the developer, Novus, had made changes to the project, with the bulk of those changes, the city believes, related to an anchor tenant that would occupy 158,000 square feet. Novus has not confirmed who the anchor tenant is, but it's believed to be a "Costco-like" retailer"
Shameful what deals with the devil #Fragmentation pushes munis to do.
Why Mayors Keep Trying to Woo Business With Tax Breaks
https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/02/bu ... q2/582166/
https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/02/bu ... q2/582166/
I'm starting to think that Olivette's project on the other side of 170 is gonna beat U City out of the gate.
https://www.constructforstl.org/keeley- ... e-project/
https://www.constructforstl.org/keeley- ... e-project/
Not surprisingly, the newest plan means less money for U City.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... 25f82.html
Also, found some new images:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... 25f82.html
Also, found some new images:
That would be Olive. Classy, eh?
That building on the front corner is labeled "E" in this site plan. Keep in mind, I don't know if these renders are final.![]()
That building on the front corner is labeled "E" in this site plan. Keep in mind, I don't know if these renders are final.
- 6,121
Funny that you mention it. I was just at the new Pho Long on Grand yesterday and the new Dao Tien Bistro downtown a couple of days before that. This development may be terrible for U-City, but it's certainly helping St. Louis out. The fellow at Dao Tien seemed convinced this whole thing was DOA. Not sure how accurate that really is, but . . . I live in hope. That thing is really and truly awful.
Makes sense. What a inviting entrance for people attempting to access the site not by car.
- 1,610
I do often walk to my neighborhood Costcoquincunx wrote: Makes sense. What a inviting entrance for people attempting to access the site not by car.
Those renderings need to stay on Zumbehl Rd. where they belong. U. City should be embarrassed to even entertain this current rendering.
- 592
One more log on the dumpster fire that is this site plan: they made zero attempt to integrate the site with the Centennial Greenway that is right next to it. Even the apartments are situated on the far side so residents can't access it.
I really don't understsnd how municipalities can keep giving tax breaks to developers that deliver product like this. Not only is this site plan unacceptable for an inner ring suburb in 2019. St. Louis is over retailed and doing a horrible job attracting businesses that actually pay a living wage.