By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 7:34 AM
Michael Allen, the blogger whose research into the once-mysterious Blairmont land acquisitions led to all the attention the Land Assemblage Tax Credit is getting today, testified yesterday in Jefferson City on ways to make the legislation better. Labels: Blairmont, Development, Tax_Credits
17 Comments:
Local control is a good thing, however when local officials are bought by developers, this still means that large suburban projects arise. Local control with City wide zoning reform and urban design guidelines would be ideal.
8/22/2007 9:51 AM
Who would set these guidelines? Who would undertake the zoning reform? I don't see how elected politicians should be excluded from this process.
Or, is it being proposed that unaccountable/unelected persons/organizations be able to write laws?
8/22/2007 11:00 AM
Doug, how do you propose we have large scale development WITHOUT representatives duly elected by the people?
8/22/2007 12:00 PM
He did not say WITHOUT. He said WITH City Wide Zoning and urban design guidelines.
8/22/2007 1:04 PM
Look people this all about the money going to locally elected Aldermanic officials that are opposing this bill. They want to receive BIG MONEY through kickbacks and campaign contributions, AND THE COMMUNITY WOULD NEVER SEE ANY BENEFIT AT ALL. This is not about the revitalization of North St. Louis, don't mistake this situation for a good samaritan project.
Michael Allen may have good intentions, but he is simply a pawn in a larger picture of widescale corruption.
This is a deal for THE ALDERMANIC ELECTED HUSTLERS, NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
North St. Louis has not improved in appearance for the last (30) years because politicians that represent the area have taken the government allocations to rebuild North St. Louis and put the money in their pocket. Plain and simple.
When this bill passes and development starts in North St. Louis, this issue will become very quiet as Alderman begin collecting money under the table and receiving campaign contributions.
8/22/2007 1:38 PM
"When this bill passes and development starts in North St. Louis, this issue will become very quiet as Alderman begin collecting money under the table and receiving campaign contributions."
Don't expect that. The larger fight -- over the development outcome -- for me is yet to come. We will continue to pay attention to the flow of money, especially when a redevelopment ordinance emerges.
8/22/2007 2:08 PM
anon at 1:38 pm at 1:30pm hit the nail right on the head
8/22/2007 2:12 PM
Well, this is a bit off topic, but from the body language visible in the background while Michael Allen was speaking, it tells me that many in the room found this a yawner of a nuisance, and lip serviced it until time ran out. Wonder who that guy shook hands with first...
The tax credits should come after the work is done. Plain and simple. No politician's promises, no need to follow up on progress. An individual, or a contractor rebuilds, qualifies, the inspectors all file through, and here's your bonus. If the big guys, like McKee needed cash on the barrel head all the time, we wouldn't be talking about them at all.
Let the qualification
be dedication,
and not hot air.
makla
8/22/2007 3:16 PM
The bill needs to be expanded so small scale developers and redevelopers can also have incentives to invest their money in N. St. Louis. The way the bill is currently writing it encourages 'monopolizing' developments and depresses a real 'free market economy. Competition is always good for the consumer. But the bill in its current state is essentially a 'no bid contract' and those are usually always bad for people.
I would hope that everyone can get on board and make this bill work. It can be a great bill if they allow it to.
8/22/2007 3:59 PM
This fight isn't over. I have yet to chain myself to a building.
8/22/2007 4:24 PM
Lip service is about all of the committee gave any of us who spoke in opposition.
8/22/2007 4:34 PM
Is there any chance of getting the qualifying acreage lowered to Michael Allen's recommendation of about 25 to 20 acres? Or even lower?
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html
8/22/2007 5:43 PM
The reality is that most zoning changes and urban design guidelines come about with the input of developers who want to do specific projects. That is clear from the current pattern of development in the northside--when developers want urban infill, they do a PUD to make the urban form legal again, and vice versa. Yet, in that process, a local plan can be very important. And it is clear from the activities on the near northside that the current plan is no longer useful--on the one hand, it has not spurred redevelopment to the extent thought or needed and on the other hand Paul McKee has made much of it irrelevant with a much bigger vision. A vote in the BOA on proposals is really a weak form of local planning; make it is needed a local planning process, much, realistic and driven by real development issues, that can sort out the obvious conflicts in vision that have emerged. Probably neither the prervationists or McKee's supporters will get what they need--in the sense that what will emerge is realistic infill districts, commercial districts that need work but will have to wait for population growth and reasonable sized area for a new neighborhood. The state tax credit legislation is largely irrelevant to this discussion that needs to happen; in fact, the focus on the state issue is drawing attention away from this more important need.
8/22/2007 7:00 PM
What does this mean exactly?
99.820. 1. A municipality may:
(3) Pursuant to a redevelopment plan, subject to any constitutional limitations, acquire by purchase, donation, lease or, as part of a redevelopment project, eminent domain, own, convey, lease, mortgage, or dispose of, land and other property, real or personal, or rights or interests therein, and grant or acquire licenses, easements and options with respect thereto, all in the manner and at such price the municipality or the commission determines is reasonably necessary to achieve the objectives of the redevelopment plan.
8/22/2007 9:25 PM
^ It means that the city could — and I emphasize *could* — use eminent domain in this project, just as they have the right to do with any development project.
The important piece of the legislation, which was added in committee, is:
"Redevelopment agreement", the redevelopment agreement or similar agreement into which the applicant entered with a municipal authority and which is the agreement for the implementation of the urban renewal plan or redevelopment plan pursuant to which the applicant was appointed or selected as the redeveloper or by which the person or entity was qualified as an applicant under this section; and such appointment or selection shall have been approved by an ordinance of the governing body of the municipality, which shall include any city, city not within a county, town, village, or county, in which the eligible project area is located.
The short version: the redevelopment plan must be approved by the Board of Aldermen.
This ensures that any and everything that goes on as part of this agreement has to be passed as a normal piece of legislation by the Board of Aldermen, with all the normal opportunities for public input and debate.
8/22/2007 9:48 PM
The plan should be scraped, MeKee should be forced to sell off his holdings. Speculators like him should be highlighted at every board meeting of BJC. This is a cancer on North St. Louis, at least the cancer is being diagnosed. However, the board of alderman is still the creator of this cancer, we should begin to cut out the cause of the cancer there.
8/23/2007 6:49 AM
Yes, we should run the blasphemer out of town along with his snake oil, however his prophecy is quite convincing. Perhaps too many drank the cool aide
8/24/2007 11:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home