By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM
A group of women legislators, all of whom supported the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit, held a forum at Harris-Stowe University yesterday to inform the public about exactly what it does — and does not — mean for St. Louis. Labels: Blairmont
Before a crowd of about two dozen concerned citizens, State Senators Maida Coleman and Rita Days, State Reps Robin Wright-Jones and Juanita Head Walton, former State Rep Amber Boykins, and Mike Jones, aide to St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley, discussed how economically distressed areas such as the City of St. Louis and parts of St. Louis can benefit greatly from state-provided economic incentives to spur needed development.
The public forum provided details and facts in the face of misinformation being put out by some other local elected officials, most notably Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe, who beyond all explanation testified strongly in favor of the tax credit before the House committee (watch the video), but the next day said he was against it and charged that it was a continuation of the Team Four plan.
Troupe is hosting a meeting of his own Wednesday, along with Aldermen Freeman Bosley, Sr., Marlene Davis, and April Ford-Griffin (who was scheduled to be at an event yesterday with tax credit supporters Jeff Smith and Rodney Hubbard).
Perhaps the most informative part of the Harris-Stowe forum was a presentation by Sally Hemingway with the Missouri Department of Economic Development detailing the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit — who can apply for, what it can and cannot be used for, why condemned and eminent domained property will not qualify for the tax credit, and how many areas in the state could potentially benefit from its use.
We may post one or two more videos from this event at PubDef.TV later tonight.
6 Comments:
Wow! Alderman Troupe's flip-flop gives even politicians a bad name.
9/11/2007 5:30 PM
I still find it interesting that only now when there is money to be made by private sector developers do we see the state willing to bankroll development. If some investment was made in terms of maintaining housing, we wouldn't have blocks of vacant land, which is omnipresent in St. Louis Place.
Rather than recreating a market which failed due to divestment, or I would say active underdevelopment per the Team Four Plan and others, perhaps we should proactively prevent the divestment of existing markets?
Maybe if back in the day the City enforced building codes and maybe helped out those who couldn't maintain their property, the situation would be different. Maybe in some areas money should be spent on this now? Maybe Slay and his cohorts, along with the aldermen who want to get paid, maybe they should have made the argument that the City needs money for property owners not well established billionaires. We already have federally funded programs. Maybe the state, with its surplus, could do something similar?
Economic Development, when it comes to land assemblage on this huge scale, means wiping the slate clean and starting over again. That means destroying the remaining viable built environment and displacing residents. There should be no starting over. The City needs to partner with the State and invest in existing property owners. Then do infill in surrounding vacant lots. Stabilize neighborhoods so that they are attractive to new infill. This will increase the tax base, which is what the City wants desperately, while maintaining the built environment and local color of our neighborhoods. Sure, it doesn't look as flashy on a campaign mailer, nor does this happen quickly, but it actually works! There are examples already in our City. Great cities can't be built or fixed over night not by one man like Paul McKee, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. For any price, a magic man is not going to pull out a plan which will single handedly save our City. If he says he can he is a liar.
Maybe, could have, should have. It all does not matter. This project is happening anyway. I only hope these mistakes keep occurring because eventually people are going to say enough is enough. And when that happens the political culture could have a drastic, long overdue, positive change. This is called punctuated equilibrium.
9/11/2007 5:52 PM
Thank You for posting these (and others), please do add more.
Are the smaller developers (25%) eligible to receive the tax credit on eligible parcel(s) purchased in the redevelopment area, once approved by the city and designated as an authorized redeveloper, or not?
'But/For': No Investment before incentive... It's obvious where that leaves owners investing in construction of their properties, but where does that leave previously assembled property, is that really so different, and which is better, sooner or later?
Must be developed: By when? Or what? Are they recapturable like some other credits? I don't remember hearing that.
9/11/2007 8:22 PM
To answer some questions:
The credits have no recapture provision.
The developers of the remaining 25% are not considered applicants under the tax credit act and thus cannot apply for or receive credits. However, those developers can purchase credits from the successful applicant.
9/11/2007 10:40 PM
Hey um Doug, put down the Kool-Aid. The team 4 comment is rediculous. If you really believe something like that exists then you need to put the tin foil back on your head and sit outside to wait for the MotherShip to pick you up.
As to this new law, I am sitting here waiting to sell. Either they buy my house or they develope here and my value goes up. Either way I win.
9/12/2007 1:30 PM
The Team Four Plan was passed out last night in paper form. It was referenced in Judd and Swanstrom's City Politics The Political Economy of Urban America, 5th Edition. I suggest you buy a copy.
9/13/2007 1:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home