From 1999 on TIF. Amazing how history repeats.
RFT - Easy Money
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis ... id=2481156
RFT - Easy Money
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis ... id=2481156
- 710
i just did half of a belly laugh at the article title and closed out the window without reading.framer wrote: ↑Oct 01, 2019Property acquisition troubles (naturally):
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 37ea9.html
The developer is asking for some major changes in the agreement. Basically, they want to scale-back the project while keeping the same incentives, as well as extending the deadline. Here's an excerpt from a conversation on Nextdoor:
"(1) The deadline extensions are unconscionable. Homeowners and business owners now face uncertainty until at least December 31, 2022. Section 7.2(c). The initial deadline for acquiring property or initiating eminent domain was next month, by June 13, 2020. Sections 3.1(b) and 3.3. The deadlines in those sections are extended to at least December 31, 2021, which is also unconscionable. But the real extension is to at least December 31, 2022.
(2) Changing the definition of “Initial Work” has serious implications. It is not just a change in a definition in Section 1.1. The change calls into question whether there will be a Costco Warehouse and the expected revenue from the project. Reduction of the “Initial Work” for the “North Phase Anchor site” to 16 acres and to “an end-user or tenant that will occupy at least 100,000 square feet” calls into question whether the anchor tenant is a Costco Warehouse. In all the previous plans, the proposed Costco Warehouse was 158,000 sf. The “anchor tenant” might now become a Costco Business Center, which is smaller in size and acreage, as some residents speculated before and the Developer assured would not happen. Or it might be for a different end-user than Costco. A smaller Warehouse, a Business Center, or a different anchor tenant will all result in less revenue. Council needs to discuss publicly and hear explicitly from the Developer and from Costco, and from the City’s paid staff and advisors, what this reduction of the Initial Work really means for the planned development and for revenue.
(3) Similar concerns as (2) about the reduced scope of and the reduced revenue from the South Phase in the definition change, and in Section 5.1(d).
(4) The new Section 3.1(g) reduces the Developer’s letter of credit obligations with eminent domain from $3 million to $1 million. That may help the Developer with financing but does not help the City. Council needs to discuss publicly and hear explicitly from the City’s paid staff and advisors why this reduction is in any way beneficial to the City and why the Tsai Family properties (8612 and 8630 Olive) are being singled out in this provision.
(5) The fact that the Developer is still unable to finance this project is extremely troubling. The Developer, with the blessing of the City, or at least of several City Council members, began this project including acquiring property or option contracts more than three years ago. The project went public more than two years ago with the enthusiastic support of every Council member and the City Manager. The project was approved by the TIF Commission (based on erroneous information) 21 months ago. The Redevelopment Agreement was made public and almost approved 16 months ago. Council approved the Redevelopment Agreement 11 months ago. Despite the proposed amendment to Section 7.7(a), the recent COVID-19 pandemic had nothing to do with the difficulty of obtaining financing. I can only surmise that professional lenders and risk managers deem the project unfeasible or at best marginal similar to the way the alleged benefits to the City became at best marginal. Council needs to discuss publicly and hear explicitly from the Developer, and from the City’s paid staff and advisors, why the Developer is not able to finance this project."
Here's a link to the City Council Meeting agenda item, detailing the proposed changes (starting at page 93):
https://www.ucitymo.org/DocumentCenter/ ... da-Packet-
"(1) The deadline extensions are unconscionable. Homeowners and business owners now face uncertainty until at least December 31, 2022. Section 7.2(c). The initial deadline for acquiring property or initiating eminent domain was next month, by June 13, 2020. Sections 3.1(b) and 3.3. The deadlines in those sections are extended to at least December 31, 2021, which is also unconscionable. But the real extension is to at least December 31, 2022.
(2) Changing the definition of “Initial Work” has serious implications. It is not just a change in a definition in Section 1.1. The change calls into question whether there will be a Costco Warehouse and the expected revenue from the project. Reduction of the “Initial Work” for the “North Phase Anchor site” to 16 acres and to “an end-user or tenant that will occupy at least 100,000 square feet” calls into question whether the anchor tenant is a Costco Warehouse. In all the previous plans, the proposed Costco Warehouse was 158,000 sf. The “anchor tenant” might now become a Costco Business Center, which is smaller in size and acreage, as some residents speculated before and the Developer assured would not happen. Or it might be for a different end-user than Costco. A smaller Warehouse, a Business Center, or a different anchor tenant will all result in less revenue. Council needs to discuss publicly and hear explicitly from the Developer and from Costco, and from the City’s paid staff and advisors, what this reduction of the Initial Work really means for the planned development and for revenue.
(3) Similar concerns as (2) about the reduced scope of and the reduced revenue from the South Phase in the definition change, and in Section 5.1(d).
(4) The new Section 3.1(g) reduces the Developer’s letter of credit obligations with eminent domain from $3 million to $1 million. That may help the Developer with financing but does not help the City. Council needs to discuss publicly and hear explicitly from the City’s paid staff and advisors why this reduction is in any way beneficial to the City and why the Tsai Family properties (8612 and 8630 Olive) are being singled out in this provision.
(5) The fact that the Developer is still unable to finance this project is extremely troubling. The Developer, with the blessing of the City, or at least of several City Council members, began this project including acquiring property or option contracts more than three years ago. The project went public more than two years ago with the enthusiastic support of every Council member and the City Manager. The project was approved by the TIF Commission (based on erroneous information) 21 months ago. The Redevelopment Agreement was made public and almost approved 16 months ago. Council approved the Redevelopment Agreement 11 months ago. Despite the proposed amendment to Section 7.7(a), the recent COVID-19 pandemic had nothing to do with the difficulty of obtaining financing. I can only surmise that professional lenders and risk managers deem the project unfeasible or at best marginal similar to the way the alleged benefits to the City became at best marginal. Council needs to discuss publicly and hear explicitly from the Developer, and from the City’s paid staff and advisors, why the Developer is not able to finance this project."
Here's a link to the City Council Meeting agenda item, detailing the proposed changes (starting at page 93):
https://www.ucitymo.org/DocumentCenter/ ... da-Packet-
^ is the site plan still bad? Has this even been a point of contention?
^There's been a few folks grumbling on social media about the site plan, but not many. For the most part, people are just excited about getting a Costco. I think the current leadership in U City is pretty clueless about such things. They just want the tax revenue, and they'll give Costco (and the developer) anything they want just to seal the deal. They did hire a new planning director about a year ago. He sounded "woke", but doesn't seem to have any real clout to change the way things are done.
Don't know if they can get rid of this hurdle or the city will just use eminent domain, given the lengths they've already gone through to accommodate Novus.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... o-use.html
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... o-use.html
KMOV reported a judge cleared the way for U City to condemn 7 properties.
- 805
Wish Costco would just nestle up somewhere between 40 and the railroad tracks in the city. Maintains good highway access with 40 and 44 and minimizes disturbance to the grid (and could probably be done without forcefully displacing a bunch of businesses).
Doesn't include the housesquincunx wrote: ↑Sep 11, 2020KMOV reported a judge cleared the way for U City to condemn 7 properties.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... es-in.html
Ladies and gentlemen, come get your $1.50 hot dog, buy sh*t in bulk, and get cheap gas while parking in one of an abundant 727 parking spaces!
![]()
![]()
Let me guess....that’s the same rendering they would for:
Batavia, Oh
Bethesda, Md
Mankato, Mn
Fair hope, Al
...just making up locations but you know what I mean.
Batavia, Oh
Bethesda, Md
Mankato, Mn
Fair hope, Al
...just making up locations but you know what I mean.
That's just a portion of the overall development, remember. Here's the entire site plan (with lots more parking):
![]()
- 6,123
^The next four thousand acres of horizontal earth-armor and regional solar summer heating system don't really make it any better.
- 2,419
I wish the same thing.SeattleNative wrote:Wish Costco would just nestle up somewhere between 40 and the railroad tracks in the city. Maintains good highway access with 40 and 44 and minimizes disturbance to the grid (and could probably be done without forcefully displacing a bunch of businesses).
I've been thinking that somewhere in the industrial portion of The Hill would have been a good spot.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
Maybe, but it could get a lot more complicated when the cities fight over sales tax, what they really care about. Anybody hear any word on this project?KansasCitian wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2020I wish the same thing.SeattleNative wrote:Wish Costco would just nestle up somewhere between 40 and the railroad tracks in the city. Maintains good highway access with 40 and 44 and minimizes disturbance to the grid (and could probably be done without forcefully displacing a bunch of businesses).
I've been thinking that somewhere in the industrial portion of The Hill would have been a good spot.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
Novus presented the Costco portion of the development to the U City Plan Commission on December 3rd. Not sure of the outcome. The eminent domain suits to take the commercial properties on Olive are in the courts.
Thanks, I'll have to take a look. They still never gave an updated timeline, or if they ever found investors?framer wrote: ↑Dec 20, 2020Novus presented the Costco portion of the development to the U City Plan Commission on December 3rd. Not sure of the outcome. The eminent domain suits to take the commercial properties on Olive are in the courts.
Looks like Novus will be presenting their final (?) site plan for the overall development at the December 23rd meeting of the U City Plan Commission. Besides the Costco, plans currently call for an additional 190,000 sq. ft. of retail space, a 222 room hotel, and a 184 unit residential building. The tallest building will be 5 stories.
Renderings look the same as posted earlier in this thread.
http://apps.ucitymo.org/PublicPortal/0/ ... Packet.pdf
Renderings look the same as posted earlier in this thread.
http://apps.ucitymo.org/PublicPortal/0/ ... Packet.pdf
From the 3rd Ward Aldermen (representing the northern 3rd of U City, including the Costco site):
"We are proposing to amend the redevelopment agreement with the following language: . . . Unless approved in writing by the City, the following types of uses shall not be permitted within RPA 1: adult entertainment, adult bookstores, pawn shops, payday loan, title loan, check-cashing and similar uses, tattoo shops and Small Box Discount Stores".
Say what you will about payday loans, check-cashing, and such businesses, but I don't understand the opposition to tattoo parlors. I mean, aren't tattoos normal these days? As far as I know, All Star Tattoo, one of the businesses being kicked out for this development, has not caused any problems in all the years they've been there.
And this after the doomed businesses were assured that they could re-locate into the new retail spaces; and in fact were offered incentives to do so.
"We are proposing to amend the redevelopment agreement with the following language: . . . Unless approved in writing by the City, the following types of uses shall not be permitted within RPA 1: adult entertainment, adult bookstores, pawn shops, payday loan, title loan, check-cashing and similar uses, tattoo shops and Small Box Discount Stores".
Say what you will about payday loans, check-cashing, and such businesses, but I don't understand the opposition to tattoo parlors. I mean, aren't tattoos normal these days? As far as I know, All Star Tattoo, one of the businesses being kicked out for this development, has not caused any problems in all the years they've been there.
And this after the doomed businesses were assured that they could re-locate into the new retail spaces; and in fact were offered incentives to do so.
Looking at Downtown Chesterfield renderings makes this development that more disgusting in my opinion. University City needs to get it's act together.