This is a better take of what happened re the Kingshighway project. (Although member Kennard did question the blighting aspect as Pihl later did.) It's fine to not agree with her, but she is really trying to put economic justice into action and deserves to be treated respectfully by the Chair.
I did not feel they were being disrespectful to her in the slightest, except towards the end when Chairman McBride shut her comments down.
Being disrespectful is coming in there, being told the rules of questions to be posted by the alderman to staff and the developer, and then turning into a 5 minute long rant with one question posed at the very end. It was accusation after accusation after accusation. She blew her 5 minutes.
If she were to have asked “hey, is this analysis done using the old method or new method?”, “why wasn’t I kept in the loop about the tax incentive request?”, and “why are we rolling with the blight designation when the neighborhood is full of nice house and apartments?”, I think the situation would’ve gone the way she wanted it go and actual answers would’ve been able to be given. But if all you’re going to do is talk, and not seek an answer, then what’s the point?
I was turned off by the accusations she was making and how she wanted to keep up with it even after her time was up. Whether anyone thinks a 5 minute timeline for questions for an Aldermen is a good thing or not is up to the individual, but I personally think it’s not enough time.
There’s professionalism and respect and then there’s the disrespectful/unprofessional side to it. I’d say Tina’s comments fall into the disrespectful category.
I’m hopeful Gras files the board bill for the incentive, even though though I fully expect Tishaura to veto it. Tina has held up too many things from happening in her Ward or made it a longer and more complicated process to get anything done.
What I wrote in my post recapping the comments tonight is true. She did say that stuff.
Being disrespectful is coming in there, being told the rules of questions to be posted by the alderman to staff and the developer, and then turning into a 5 minute long rant with one question posed at the very end. It was accusation after accusation after accusation. She blew her 5 minutes.
If she were to have asked “hey, is this analysis done using the old method or new method?”, “why wasn’t I kept in the loop about the tax incentive request?”, and “why are we rolling with the blight designation when the neighborhood is full of nice house and apartments?”, I think the situation would’ve gone the way she wanted it go and actual answers would’ve been able to be given. But if all you’re going to do is talk, and not seek an answer, then what’s the point?
I was turned off by the accusations she was making and how she wanted to keep up with it even after her time was up. Whether anyone thinks a 5 minute timeline for questions for an Aldermen is a good thing or not is up to the individual, but I personally think it’s not enough time.
There’s professionalism and respect and then there’s the disrespectful/unprofessional side to it. I’d say Tina’s comments fall into the disrespectful category.
I’m hopeful Gras files the board bill for the incentive, even though though I fully expect Tishaura to veto it. Tina has held up too many things from happening in her Ward or made it a longer and more complicated process to get anything done.
What I wrote in my post recapping the comments tonight is true. She did say that stuff.
- 733
Question about Tina and “economic justice.”
If a developer weren’t looking for any incentives, do you believe there should still be a “justice” component to said development?
If a developer weren’t looking for any incentives, do you believe there should still be a “justice” component to said development?
https://www.kmov.com/2022/12/17/alderwo ... ent-build/
Earlier this week, aldermen pushed forward a new, $135M build for the Central West End. It’s a luxury apartment that would go in the empty lot across from the Chase Park Plaza Hotel. However, despite residents and developers being tired of looking at that parking lot, one alderwoman is doing all she can to stop it.
“What we want? Shared equity! What we want? Shared equity?,” the crowd chanted. That was the message from 17th ward alderwoman, Tina Pihl, local organizations and residents early Friday morning. “We’re not against development, we’re against developer welfare,” Pihl said.
For months now, Pihl has been lobbying against the luxury apartment build on Kingshighway and Lindell. The prime real estate spot, gearing up for change, spearheaded by Koplar Properties. “Looking out on this vacant lot has not been conducive to the neighborhood. It too will bring more residents, more activity to the whole area and actually help the entire city,” Bill Kuehling said. Kuehling’s a long-time Central West End resident. He said he’s thrilled to see the new project. “Greater density of development will help all kinds of restaurants, help the activity in the neighborhood, help bring additional safety,” Kuehling added.
Alderwoman Pihl said her plight is that Koplar would be getting 10 years of tax exemptions. “Abatement was meant to help development happen when it normally could not happen. Do you think development could happen here? Yeah. Do you think this property needs help? No,” Pihl said.
We talked with other local developers to better understand the need and want for abatements. “Every investor wants return on their capital. So, when you start thinking about what drives the cash flow back to the investor, it’s all about the expenses that the property can pay,” Matt Masiel explained. Masiel’s the founder of Screaming Eagle Development, which has invested in St. Louis City for years now, bringing new builds, renovations and residents. With development’s inherent risk, Masiel said it’s crucial to offer tax breaks because that money will eventually come back and help revitalize. “The corridor there that we’re trying to connect, you know, Forest Park, Clayton, to the downtown business district. That needs to be successful. That will also drive investment north and south,” Masiel said.
News 4 reached out to Koplar Properties to talk about their progressing development, but we haven’t heard back. For now, there’s no timeline on when the project will get full approval or when construction will start.
- 226
The development process confuses me. Does LCRA ruling not mean anything, or is it just a recommendation? Then, an alderman needs to sponsor then needs to be voted and passed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^ I believe SLDC analyzes developments and assigns them a score and then the LCRA votes to recommend the incentive get approved or not. From there it’s the responsibility of an alderperson to file legislation to pass the incentive with a vote of the full board.
The only way it appears this moves forward now is if a neighboring alderperson files the legislation because you can bet the farm it won’t come from Pihl.
The only way it appears this moves forward now is if a neighboring alderperson files the legislation because you can bet the farm it won’t come from Pihl.
I think it's misguided posturing from Pihl. Although the Central West End is a wonderful neighborhood, there is really no areas in the city of St. Louis that you can building a project like this without subsidies. If there was, there wouldn't be massive parking lots in the most "desirable" neighborhoods. Whether we like it or not, there are few markets in the United States where projects like this are built without subsidies. Even in booming places in the Sunbelt, these projects are being subsidized for various reasons. I think instead of being anti-development for political points, she should really continue her focus on community benefit agreements. I also think the city needs a city wide incentive plan that is codified in law, with a complementary form bases code. Alderman should not have the final say in what gets built, as we've seen it can be a breeding ground for corruption.
100%. Fact is, aside from land values, it's no cheaper to build a 30-story tower in St. Louis than it is in Manhattan. Tina Pihl is really oversimplifying the complexity of the development realities in a slow-growth market. If it made financial sense to build without subsidies, the lot wouldn't' have been surface parking for the last 40+ years. There are more constructive ways to leverage community benefits for new development. Also, I guarantee the majority of those people standing behind Pihl cheering her on couldn't care less about tax abatement- I'm sure they're just mad that a new building will obstruct their views (as if looking out onto a surface parking lot is more desirable than a sleek new tower, lol).goat314 wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2022I think it's misguided posturing from Pihl. Although the Central West End is a wonderful neighborhood, there is really no areas in the city of St. Louis that you can building a project like this without subsidies. If there was, there wouldn't be massive parking lots in the most "desirable" neighborhoods. Whether we like it or not, there are few markets in the United States where projects like this are built without subsidies. Even in booming places in the Sunbelt, these projects are being subsidized for various reasons. I think instead of being anti-development for political points, she should really continue her focus on community benefit agreements. I also think the city needs a city wide incentive plan that is codified in law, with a complementary form bases code. Alderman should not have the final say in what gets built, as we've seen it can be a breeding ground for corruption.
Agree, there are better ways of having a constructive conversation - by engaging early on and working with developers.
I also understand the concerns around unnecessary incentives that undermine school funding.
How about a compromise? Put in a ‘claw-back’ provision in case the project ends up exceeding revenue expectations?
I also understand the concerns around unnecessary incentives that undermine school funding.
How about a compromise? Put in a ‘claw-back’ provision in case the project ends up exceeding revenue expectations?
Yes, there are people in St. Louis that fear overdevelopment and they really need to travel more. St. Louis definitely has great "bones" some of the best for a metro it's size, but it is also highly underdeveloped in many respects (especially for a metro of nearly 3 million people). Honestly, the anti-growth, anti-development, anti-change community is definitely a large reason that the region has not been able to grow and bounce back like other metros have. What happened with the Webster Groves development was a prime example, the push back against the development on the Loop is another. Yet, somehow the University City development that adds very little value and displaces residents can get approval without problem. I'm sure if you asked the average St. Louisan (especially leadership) what do they envision St. Louis to be 30 years in the future, they couldn't even tell you and a lot of the development success we have had seem to be in spite of local politics.stlgasm wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2022100%. Fact is, aside from land values, it's no cheaper to build a 30-story tower in St. Louis than it is in Manhattan. Tina Pihl is really oversimplifying the complexity of the development realities in a slow-growth market. If it made financial sense to build without subsidies, the lot wouldn't' have been surface parking for the last 40+ years. There are more constructive ways to leverage community benefits for new development. Also, I guarantee the majority of those people standing behind Pihl cheering her on couldn't care less about tax abatement- I'm sure they're just mad that a new building will obstruct their views (as if looking out onto a surface parking lot is more desirable than a sleek new tower, lol).goat314 wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2022I think it's misguided posturing from Pihl. Although the Central West End is a wonderful neighborhood, there is really no areas in the city of St. Louis that you can building a project like this without subsidies. If there was, there wouldn't be massive parking lots in the most "desirable" neighborhoods. Whether we like it or not, there are few markets in the United States where projects like this are built without subsidies. Even in booming places in the Sunbelt, these projects are being subsidized for various reasons. I think instead of being anti-development for political points, she should really continue her focus on community benefit agreements. I also think the city needs a city wide incentive plan that is codified in law, with a complementary form bases code. Alderman should not have the final say in what gets built, as we've seen it can be a breeding ground for corruption.
Goat314–you nailed it! Was gonna post something similar. Said it before, will said repeatedly—aldermen should not have this much say over development.
All Pihl is doing is creating a political fuss. The fact her protest, which was held on privately owned land instead of the publicly owned sidewalk, was reported on is ridiculous. The media should've just ignored it.
And why is she so angry when she speaks? Jesus lady. The tax abatement is minimal compared to the additional tax revenue 293+ new residents will bring to the neighborhood and, if they're new, city. Even with the abatement, the property will be generating more property tax revenue.
But I guess if you want to stir up your crowd, hide the fact you don't respond to constituent contacts, are missing in action other times, and are to trying to save your sinking re-election campaign, this is a good way to do it.
And why is she so angry when she speaks? Jesus lady. The tax abatement is minimal compared to the additional tax revenue 293+ new residents will bring to the neighborhood and, if they're new, city. Even with the abatement, the property will be generating more property tax revenue.
But I guess if you want to stir up your crowd, hide the fact you don't respond to constituent contacts, are missing in action other times, and are to trying to save your sinking re-election campaign, this is a good way to do it.
I agree with Chris! She’s looking for attention as her boat (Her re-election) is sinking! We can’t have people like her in our politics. We need to push all the projects to our city and create jobs, revenue base and new attractions for new comers to consider STL instead of the suburbs.chriss752 wrote:All Pihl is doing is creating a political fuss. The fact her protest, which was held on privately owned land instead of the publicly owned sidewalk, was reported on is ridiculous. The media should've just ignored it.
And why is she so angry when she speaks? Jesus lady. The tax abatement is minimal compared to the additional tax revenue 293+ new residents will bring to the neighborhood and, if they're new, city. Even with the abatement, the property will be generating more property tax revenue.
But I guess if you want to stir up your crowd, hide the fact you don't respond to constituent contacts, are missing in action other times, and are to trying to save your sinking re-election campaign, this is a good way to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I tend to agree. What is a parking lot providing to the tax rolls? And outside of that, residential density, civic pride, etc.chriss752 wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2022All Pihl is doing is creating a political fuss. The fact her protest, which was held on privately owned land instead of the publicly owned sidewalk, was reported on is ridiculous. The media should've just ignored it.
And why is she so angry when she speaks? Jesus lady. The tax abatement is minimal compared to the additional tax revenue 293+ new residents will bring to the neighborhood and, if they're new, city. Even with the abatement, the property will be generating more property tax revenue.
But I guess if you want to stir up your crowd, hide the fact you don't respond to constituent contacts, are missing in action other times, and are to trying to save your sinking re-election campaign, this is a good way to do it.
I also can contend that subsidies should be balanced. Heavier on the north side, slimmer in the CBD.
Oh god, the comments on Facebook in response to the KMOV post about this story make me embarrassed to share a city with so many ignorant uninformed people.
- 1,607
^Because you said so I had to look. That Rae Cailliach is...very opinionated. And a local life coach hahahahaha
And as I continue I now see she is the mild type of poster...yikes.
On Wednesday's Planning Commission agenda "Resolution proposes Ch 99 Blighting Study and Redevel Plan for Planning Commission review and recommendation."
293 apts
1,500 sf of commercial space
340 parking spaces
The total project costs are estimated at $145M
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 23-RDM.pdf
293 apts
1,500 sf of commercial space
340 parking spaces
The total project costs are estimated at $145M
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 23-RDM.pdf
Thanks for posting these updates, quincunx. I was just wondering about this as I drove past the lot on Friday and it's nice to see some movement.
Is there a new timeline for any of this beyond Wed. or are we still in a wait-and-see stage?
Is there a new timeline for any of this beyond Wed. or are we still in a wait-and-see stage?
Passed 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 presentquincunx wrote: ↑Jan 08, 2023On Wednesday's Planning Commission agenda "Resolution proposes Ch 99 Blighting Study and Redevel Plan for Planning Commission review and recommendation."
293 apts
1,500 sf of commercial space
340 parking spaces
The total project costs are estimated at $145M
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 23-RDM.pdf
The goal is to break ground in Q4.
Alderman Cohn voted "Present" because, like 909 Chestnut, he'd like to know if the property was ever blighted and received a tax abatement before now. A reasonable ask.
Alderman Narayan voted no.
Now the question becomes if Michael Gras will introduce the Board Bill or not. And from there, will it pass?
Alderman Narayan voted no.
Now the question becomes if Michael Gras will introduce the Board Bill or not. And from there, will it pass?
- 9,545
Key here is both the mayors office and Greens office reps voted yes, I think the tax abatement bill is up tomorrow.