By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 6:02 AM
When a group of local lawmakers lead a tour of some of north St. Louis' most blighted areas Thursday, they'll do so to call attention to the need for development and state investment in those areas. Labels: Blairmont, Development, Tax_Credits
They'll also be illustrating why they believe the proposed $100 million Land Assemblage Tax Credit should be amended to allow other developers besides Paul McKee to qualify for it.
State Reps Jeanette Mott Oxford, Jamilah Nasheed and Rodney Hubbard*; and Aldermen April Ford-Griffin and Marlene Davis will lead a group of invited guests, including other state legislators, around parts of the 5th and 19th Wards where McKee has quietly aquired more than 500 properties.
Many of McKee's buildings have become eye sores and nuisance properties in neighborhoods occupied by longtime residents holding out for the city's "renaissance" to come their way and new residents pioneering to rehabilitate a once great area.
Oxford and Davis each told PubDef that they welcome the state's attempt to spur development, but that they would like to see the legislation, which will be voted on next week, amended to allow more developers to participate.
The legislators' press conference is set for Thursday at 10:00 a.m. at 2950 Montgomery, with a bus tour to follow at 10:30 a.m.
PubDef will be reporting next week from the special session in Jefferson City, following the negotiations as legislators, lobbyists and residents try to reach a compromise that allows north St. Louis to benefit from needed investment, while not cutting all but just one or two would-be developers out of the project.
*Rodney Hubbard is a client of A D French & Associates
12 Comments:
Suddenly everyone's a believer in the anti-McKee crowd. However, both Ford-Griffin and Hubbard have received campaign funds from McKee, his family members and front companies over the years, including a nice set of checks for Hubbard recently. Hubbard's actions and past silence on this issue suggests that he is a hypocrite--not a peep during the regular session, now a believer only when the story goes public. Is Hubbard going to man-up and return the funds or talk tough in public while accepting McKee's funds in private?
8/15/2007 9:57 AM
Hubbard voted for the HB327. Only nine people opposed it.
8/15/2007 10:36 AM
The city's elected representatives are in an interesting position on this issue. Will Southside or Central Corridor aldermen get involved?
Will state legislators from the rest of the city make a noise?
What about the city's county office holders?
Would McKee oppose a major tweaking in the program.
Whose rings will be kissed and by whom?
This is St. Louis political theater at its finest.
8/15/2007 10:53 AM
Maybe a 100 acres is too big but what is really amazing is that nobody but nobody, particularly any developer, has stepped forward to say that they can do any large scale project, of any size, without any large public subsidy. What about all of those properties that were purchase that were already in deplorable condition prior to be purchased by Eagle Realty. There clearly has to be a middle ground. Who is going to take the lead on this. Without a doubt, the problems that have existed in these communities just didn't pop up because Paul McKee had a vision and the money to begin a process.
8/15/2007 12:38 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
8/15/2007 1:36 PM
Paul McKee has no vision. He can't even manage to get Express Scripts' new Headquarters connected in a pedestrian friendly manner to one of the two Metrolink Stations on UMSL's campus. That takes skill.
Paul McKee has a tradition of receiving public subsidy. Through his methods of acquiring property in North St. Louis, that being blockbusting, he clearly is trying to save as much money as possible. He comes forth as a messiah figure, saving the City and hoping we, and the state, will foot a part of the bill. I am still amazed that people haven't objected to his snake oil. I still wonder why we are debating issuing subsidy when no plans have been released to the public! This is simply corruption. His lawyer drafted the legislation!
With the tour, people will actually see the devastation in these areas which is a good thing, however without zoning and design guidelines, any new development has a large risk of resembling St. Peters. Some will say development is development, but we should keep suburban development where it belongs. St. Louis cannot compete regionally if we simply emulate what others have. Why would they move here with our horrible schools, rampant crime, and other problems, for a house which looks exactly like one in West County or St. Charles? You know the answer: they wont. We need unique housing. We need benefits that cannot be had anywhere else.
We should also consider the implications of a 50 acre project. 50 acres is roughly 2 Tilles Parks. There is potential for gentrification with such a large section of land.
And what about existing homes? Mayor Slay says he will not support demolition, however the horrendous amount of brick rustling suggests that McKee does not care about historic properties. Otherwise he wouldn't allow his own "investment" to be destroyed. Moreover, if Mayor Slay cared about historic properties, he wouldn't allow the LRA properties to be rustled either. Do we want a 50 acre plot of our historic City at the mercy of Paul McKee and his cohorts in Room 200?
If there is to be subsidy, there should be allocations for the people, not billionaire or millionaire developers. Make it easier for existing responsible residents to rehab and maintain their home. If there is to be new construction, make strings attached so the homes respect the great heritage of our City.
8/15/2007 2:31 PM
While Douglas is well meaning, he doesn't understand development. First off, small developers (one or two houses at a time) have a much harder time using tax credits than larger developers. Consider all the private rehab done in Soulard over the years without historic tax credits. Small investors don't work at the scale of large investors. Typically, they don't have the tax liability to begin with.
Second, when the state is considering an economic development policy, they want it to be transformational in nature. Helping individual households with home repair is not transformational. Often, these households can barely afford to maintain their homes in the first place, often placing them at risk of foreclosure.
It really doesn't matter if the developer is Paul McKee, McBride Homes, the Roberts Brothers, or a local non profit, the development costs to do a serious project run about the same. If you don't like McKee, that's fine.
Let's just not throw the tax credit baby out with the McKee bathwater.
8/15/2007 3:11 PM
this tax credit bill is not all about McKee. There are other important elements to the bill, like the Quality jobs act.
This Mckee stunt is nothing more than postering for a few elected officials.
8/15/2007 3:42 PM
"this tax credit bill is not all about McKee."
Indeed. That is why the press conference only addresses the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act.
8/15/2007 4:28 PM
What do people think about eliminating the NAP and YOP tax credit programs.
8/15/2007 4:58 PM
The original bill had more language in the Distressed portion about how they were allowed to filter/sell the tax credits than there was about any developing.
State Historic Tax Credits are also sellable and used by many rehabbers to offset higher costs. Many developers and home owners would be interested in incentives to work in these 'rougher' areas. Many work in them already. That's the point right, more development? Or monopoly of it?
This credit should be set up by area, with specific designations from the Board of Alderman. No bigger/smaller limits. Either it's a Distressed area or it's not. What qualifies that, I don't know, but it shouldn't be dominated by the properties purchased by any specific individual or entity in the somewhat recent past. Start by drawing squares around every LRA and offer an added incentive to develop them. The number of LRA's in a neighborhood usually tells wether or not the area is distressed. Then target certain blocks of dilapidated buildings with infill possibilities. Yes, McKee's properties mostly fall in (or next too) those categories.
If he has some space designated to add a bunch of jobs to St Louis, I think we'd be willing to lose a few buildings, if it's a trade worth making. There's lots of open space in his zone already anyway. And it can't be based off the purchase/ maintenence/ demo & 5 yrs worth of interest costs either. Make it depend on construction costs, and give it a 2 year max from the beginning of each project. I'm sure he has an idea of what he wants to do and a master plan could be devised to work within his (which we would then call city) architectural styles/designations in those areas. Hopefully zoning issues mentioned would be addressed at that point too. McKee still gets to do his project (as if it's not inevitable) and the city as a whole benefits more broadly from this bill.
Please post opinions.
NAP and YOP looked good, and nowhere near the cost of this.
8/16/2007 2:02 AM
Others the way HB 327 could take part in the tax credit. Other communities outside of St. Louis could take part in the tax credit. This was never for one person. A nice excuse for not understanding the bill. But to demonize Paul Mckee is wrong.
8/17/2007 12:09 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home