Green Outlines "Improved" Lease
By Antonio D. French
The following is from the office of Comptroller Darlene Green:
St. Louis Comptroller Darlene Green is prepared to move forward and support the lease of 9.4 acres of Forest Park to BJC to accommodate the hospital’s future healthcare service expansion in the city of St. Louis. The lease agreement is vastly improved now in large part because of direct discussions between BJC and Citizens to Protect Forest Park facilitated by Comptroller Green.
Compromise has merit and guarantee:
Green space will be preserved in city parks.
- Prohibition ordinance which prohibits the sale, lease, or giveaway of parkland (see attached PDF file).
- No net loss of green space in Forest Park will occur with BJC expansion.
- "Green Ribbon" committee created.
Forest Park and other city parks maintenance is funded.
- $3.8 million annually for Forest Park maintenance and 1.2 million annually for other park maintenance.
- All other city parks receive equal treatment and equal funding.
BJC to expand in the city with approved lease extension.
- City’s largest employer expanding in the city protects jobs.
- $1.5 billion of construction by BJC in the city creates jobs.
- Northside 24 hour emergency medical facility plan completed by 2008.
"I believe that all sides have reached some common ground enabling the lease agreement to move forward. I honor the request of Citizens to Protect Forest Park to create a "Green Ribbon" committee that provides for an open, public process in the tradition of the Forest Park Master Plan with citizen involvement in any further park planning.
"While a compromise is never perfect, neither side is getting everything they initially wanted. But working together achieves a greater benefit for all involved," explained Comptroller Green.
The following is a list of improvements to the Forest Park/BJC lease agreement:
- No net loss of green space to Forest Park as a result of the lease.
- The amount of land in the lease is down from 12.9 acres to 9.4 acres. When you add that to 4.5 acres of green space additions to Forest Park since the master plan; anywhere from 2 to 7 acres returned to the park from highway 40 construction; and BJC agreeing to setting aside a minimum of 15% green space on the site, there is a net gain of green space to Forest Park.
- Forest Park will receive $2 million a year (originally $1.6 million) from the BJC lease in addition to $1.8 million a year (originally $1.6 million) from Forest Park Forever for the life of the 99-year lease. This amounts to $38 million for ten years before BJC plans to begin construction.
- A companion prohibition ordinance to the lease agreement that protects the city’s park land from future sale or lease and holds BJC accountable in the event Proposition P on the April 3 ballot fails.
- There is an amendment to the lease that requires the city to equally fund north and south side park improvements and maintenance.
- There is an amendment to the lease that holds BJC accountable for building a 24 hour emergency center in North St. Louis.
The Board of Estimate and Apportionment has scheduled a special meeting on Friday, Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. in the mayor’s office to take up the lease issue. The meeting is open to the public.Labels: BJC/Park_Deal
Link to this story
13 Comments:
-This amounts to $38 million for ten years before BJC plans to begin construction.
10 years
TEN YEARS!
TEN YEARS!!!!!!
They wont build any thing for TEN YEARS, but they had to have the agreement now.
All this name calling and finger pointing for a construction project that could happen in 10 years.
THANKS!!!!!
OFF YEAR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
2/22/2007 7:24 PM
Why should the north side alone get some promise of a center? Why don't the south side aldermen band together to get something, too?
2/22/2007 11:01 PM
Darlene how does it feel to be in a constant fight with Slay and now Jim? Time for you and Jim to go.
2/22/2007 11:13 PM
Very shrewed of Green. Do I smell a mayorial campaign in her future?
2/23/2007 12:30 AM
wasn't the northside stuff in the original agreement? I remeber a press release or something saying they were going to do the urgent care center and the funding of park stuff for the northside.
2/23/2007 8:27 AM
How does Shrewsbury spin this newest wrinkle?
Does he vote in favor, and say he supports the compromise, announcing he worked behind the scenes to turn around community opposition?
Does he oppose, vote no, and claim to be the one-in-three on E and A who listened to the will of the people?
Does Darlene pull a 180 and endorse Lewis Reed, declaring that Shrewsbury is out of touch with the community?
Darlene for Mayor? Shrewsbury for Mayor? Lyda for Comptroller? Greg Daly for Mayor?
Any predictions?
2/23/2007 9:16 AM
Thanks Jason for pointing out something that I asked in an earlier post in a different thread.
All of this name-calling and saying that Shrewsbury was costing jobs because of his opposition was a distraction.
There aren't any jobs, there isn't any construction...NICE TRY THOUGH.
More misinformation and outright lies from his enemies.
2/23/2007 9:19 AM
To Anonymous at 9:19 AM,
What the hell are you talking about?
And hey, if construction starts in ten years, and lease payments start now, residents will be able to use the park for some time prior to construction while the city collects increased revenue. Nothing wrong with that.
But when they do build, and they will, then we will see lots of economic activity, on top of all the other benefits coming to city residents.
The loss of parkland really is silly. What are these people complaining about?
Yeah, we're giving up 9 acres for major economic development. Development that supports the city's efforts to be a leader in the bio-tech industry.
In the meantime, sitting a couple hundred feet away from the 9 acres is a - let me spell it out - a one thousand two hundred acre park wonderland.
For anyone looking for a park, folks in the CWE and FPSE have it better than anybody in the city-they live next to THE Forest Park! C'mon!
Let's move on, shall we? Once the BJC deal is signed, sealed, and delivered, let's do something with the underutilized "park land" between City Hall and Soldier's Memorial.
Those sites were never planned as a park-they became open space through slum clearance. Let's open those sites for development. Issue an RFP for some Class A residential and commercial space, with balconies overlooking Market Street and the Soldier's Memorial. Developers would be salivating at the chance to build on those sites.
The "City is Back", and those Market Street sites should be returned to private use.
Darlene, Francis, what do you say?
2/23/2007 9:35 AM
- Anonymous at 9:19 AM
You are the reason people don't want BJC building things on that parkland.
You are the person that sees this deal as a prescient to sell even more park land.
Even worse you just revised history for your reasoning to sell park land Between Chestnut and Market.
The original plan was to have a Mall like in D.C., but some jerk developer built the Peabody Coal building and screwed it up.
2/23/2007 10:29 AM
Do you mean the Gateway One building?
Ideas for the Mall west of Tucker still have the Courts building in the middle.
Running the Mall from the Old Court House to the newer Court House on the east side of 12th/Tucker has a nice bookended, balanced feel to it.
Once you go west of Tucker, those open spaces are little more than homeless encampments. In fact, that's where the homeless set up their annual homeless camp publicity stunt.
Downtown has too much open space as it is. Improve the greenspace between the two courthouses, and develop the ones between the Civil Courts building and Union Station.
Why not?
2/23/2007 10:58 AM
"Those sites were never planned as a park"
Untrue, although I do agree that the parks have never been needed.
The parks in question are part of "Memorial Plaza," funded largely through the 1923 bond issue. There were several plans for a great City Beautiful-style civic plaza of grand public buildings set into formal park space.
In the end, the plans were scaled back but what did get built was consistent with a deliberate plan for parks. The end result is rather visually confusing, and thoughtful re-planning might lead to more vitality and coherence.
2/23/2007 11:14 AM
I say, either vacate the streets and dramatically improve Memorial Plaza, establishing continuity between the Library, the Kiel, the two Courts buildings, and City Hall or sell the parks for urban development.
The current situation is unattractive, depressing, and a drag on our city's vibrance.
And Michael, when you say they were "planned" as parks, isn't it true that the reason was to clear away the slums that had previously stood there?
It wasn't planned as a park in the same way Lafayette Park, Forest Park, O'Fallon, or other city parks were, true?
2/23/2007 11:20 AM
you actually believe that any northside trauma facility will ever be built? Come on!
2/23/2007 10:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home