Meeting(s) With Developer Paul McKee (Updated)

Word is spreading of a meeting tonight either about and/or with controversial “Blairmont” developer Paul McKee:

April Ford-Griffin has announced a meeting at Central Baptist Church (2842 Washington Ave) this coming Monday 5/11 at 6pm for neighborhood residents and Paul Mckee.

There may also be a second meeting, with tentative date on May 21, possibly at Vashon.

I’ve sent an email to Ald. Griffin (D-5th Ward)  to verify this information.

McKee, through various holding companies, has purchased quite a bit of land in the 5th Ward.  For a map to the church click here.

UPDATE 5/11/09 @ 7:35pm:

As the meeting started the first announcement was the meeting was private and all media had to leave.  I was seated at a middle table with others and a man came over and asked me to leave.  More in a new post shortly.  In the meantime check out the agenda.

Alderwoman Argues Against Modern Zoning, Prefers Piecemeal Approach

Last night I attended the forum regarding the state-wide tax bill and the likely beneficiary, Paul McKee (see post about event). As at prior events, the Alderpersons continue to talk about plans — community driven plans and Paul McKee’s secret plan. Ald Davis indicated a million bucks was spent on a plan(s) in the 19th ward to which she was recently elected. Davis indicated they involved “stakeholders to make sure that we knew what everyone wanted, how that community was going to look, we paid for the best technical assistance, and that plan was approved and is a part of the development process with SLDC, but you know something, somebody made a decision that it didn’t matter.” So on one hand they are saying we’ve spent time and money listening to the community and determining what is desired yet at the same time bitching because we don’t know what McKee’s plan is about.

During the question and answer portion, following the grand standing, I had to bring up the issue of these plans. Basically a bunch of time and money is spent in meetings, a document is created, it is adopted by the Planning Commission and Board of Aldermen and sometimes it gets referenced during negotiations with developers. However, the existing zoning for an area prior to a plan remains the only legal requirement. Given how completely out of date our zoning code really is, nearly everything now requires a variance. This is how aldermen derive any sense of power!

Below is a short video clip with my question and a response by 5th Ward Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin. My apologies for the video quality — you get a nice view of my shorts pocket while I am asking the question. Below the video is the transcript of my question and her response.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ne4ZNWqT9M

Statement/Question:

My name is Steve Patterson and I am a former resident of the 5th Ward, actually in the early nineties. And my question to the two aldermen is…one I am glad that you’ve done plans in the neighborhoods but unfortunately neither one of those plans has any teeth to them, uh, the zoning has not been changed and the 5th ward plan was adopted in 2002 called for some zoning changes to give the plan some teeth of law — right now the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission actually, uh, ignore the plans when they are making decisions on variances and things. So my question is when do you plan to introduce legislation to change the zoning?

Response:

Actually, there have been lots of zoning changes. You don’t go in and change the zoning of the whole ward because my plan for the 5th ward that we have in place is not so specific. One thing about a plan you have to leave some flexibility. So there is flexibility where it is not so specific where you come in and say on this block right here in the 1500 block of Hebert its got to have homes that they’ve got to look like this. So you have to leave some flexibility and at the Board of Aldermen we always have the power to change zoning. So when this happens is…as you see the development boards and you see the different things that have happened, most of those had to have some type of zoning changes, street changes, name changes, just you go down the list of changes. Also, that is the only thing that makes most of the developers come and talk to us. If we did everything that it took for the development they wouldn’t have any reason to come and talk to us. Once we talk about a development, once they have shown us what they do, once they talk about minority participation, once they talk about inclusion, once they talk about jobs, and all the other things that I make sure I am committed to asking them. And it seems like something that would be good for us and falls within the realm of the plan. and then we talk about doing the things that they need. but you’d be shocked at how many people go out here and spend money on doing things then call us and say ‘oh I’m gunna put a such and such at this address.’ And they only call because they didn’t have the zoning and zoning says you need the support from the alderperson. So if we went out there and tried to guess what would go on every block and zoned it [???] they wouldn’t have to come to us. Therefore we would not be able to even know what they are doing before they’re doing, which not all of it has been good for us. So actually that is another way to get them to come and talk to us, come to the community meeting and present to us. so we don’t want to go and just do a flat blanket of zoning where people are [???] if they a number of other things that we could go out there and do tomorrow we wait until we see the project and make sure that it is what we want then we do the things that are specific that is required for that very project and for that property to happen.

I was completely dumbfounded as were others. I mean, I’ve known this is the twisted control view of zoning that they had — I just never thought I’d actually get one of them on video espousing as much. Ald. Marlene Davis was behind Ald Ford-Griffin nodding her head in agreement.

So here is their logic:

1) Spent time and money on a feel-good community plan.

2) Get said plan “adopted”. Place plan on shelf, dust off when necessary.

3) Use zoning power to be included in development process.
4) Ignore that someone could buy property and build new construction based on existing and outdated zoning — thus bypassing plan.

I don’t want to get into a Zoning 101 lecture but what was described is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Zoning is a very powerful too — a police power — that cities have to set forth what the community wants. Zoning controls many aspects of development on private land such as the building’s relationship with the street and adjacent properties, heights, parking, and so on. Use zoning, which we still have, refers to the zoning focusing on the specific uses to be contained within a structure (residential, retail, industrial, etc…) whereas form-based zoning has a primary focus of looking at the building form while accepting the internal use might vary. For example, I don’t really care if a car dealership exists in a commercial zone if the form based code calls for 3-story buildings with street-level storefront windows and all surface/garage parking hidden in back. Thus, the form of the building is more critical than the use in this case. Hybrid variants exist.
Creating a community plan without going forward with zoning changes to uniformly enforce the desired affect is a useless exercise. So when these alderwoman get up and complain about not knowing McKee’s plan for their area I have no sympathy in that regard. They have the ability to create a solid uniform guide via zoning for these huge swaths of land. They could actually provide some real leadership on envisioning what is to happen in their wards. But instead they are doing development St. Louis style — sitting back and waiting for the developer to knock on their door and ask for a letter to grant a variance. Or maybe they are not sitting back, they are going out and finding developers but the visioning for the area is still done on a project by project basis.

Zoning is the most powerful tool cities have to determine the outcome of development within their jurisdiction. Throughout the city this power has been parceled out to 28 fiefdoms. As long as our old zoning code remains in place our elected representatives will continue to advocate a piecemeal approach based on the desires of developers.

McKee Land Banking Controversy Continues with Forum Tonight at Vashon HS

The hot topic of developer Paul McKee and his large land holdings, many occupied by crumbling buildings, continues tonight:

The neighborhood impact of vacant properties and rebuilding our community

A public forum will be held in the auditorium of Vashon High School at 3035 Cass Avenue on Thursday, August 30th at 6 p.m.. The forum is co-sponsored by Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin (Ward 5), Alderwoman Marlene Davis (Ward 19), Rep. Jamilah Nasheed (District 60) and Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford (District 59).

This forum will be an opportunity for residents, business owners, developers, neighborhood stabilization officers and other city services workers, and state and local elected officials to come together to discuss development in the community. Topics will include:
• concerns over large numbers of vacant buildings and parcels being held by developers, including the reported 40 acres owned by Paul McKee
• ways area residents can influence state and local laws and policies, including the “distressed areas land assemblage tax credit” being considered in Special Session by the General Assembly
• and ways to make each block a safer and more pleasant place to live

The goals of the evening are:

1) To give area residents an opportunity to voice their concerns
2) To make progress toward a consensus on how to improve neighborhood safety, stimulate the local economy, and rebuild the community

It will be interesting to hear the perspectives of a broad range of those in the area, although I doubt those that have sold out to McKee will be there to speak in favor. Doubtful to is someone from the Mayor’s office speaking on behalf of their support of McKee’s secret plan. I hope that copies of the 5th Ward plan are available to the public at this meeting. If not, you can read it online.

Meanwhile, from an article in the Riverfront Times this week:

McKee’s purchases don’t make up a single, contiguous tract, but most are adjacent to lots owned by the city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), an agency that owns thousands of vacant buildings and lots. In one instance, McKee’s VHS Partners owns the northeast and southeast corners of Cass and Grand avenues, a busy intersection with a bus stop. The LRA owns the northwest corner. Farther north, different McKee-backed entities and the LRA own all but one sliver of a lot in the vacant northeast block of Jefferson and St. Louis avenues.

Given the vast quantities of land the city owns via the LRA, I’d say it would be rather hard for anyone to buy property in this area not adjacent to LRA property.

Bus Tour of Dilapitated McKee-owned Properties Ignored Other Issues

This past Thursday morning I attended, as did many others, the press conference and bus tour relating to 500+ properties owned by Paul McKee through various companies in his control. For those of you living under a rock for the last year, McKee had quietly bought hundreds of properties mostly in the city’s 5th ward through companies with names like “Blairmont Associates, LLC” and “Dodier Investors LLC” (see list). Blair and Dodier are both street names in the area. In the last Missouri State legislative session McKee’s attorney Steve Stone wrote a tax credit bill worth $100 million for anyone that assembled large acres of land in distressed areas. All sounds good so far, right?

… Continue Reading

Paul McKee, Board Member of St. Charles-Based Pro-Sprawl “Urban Choice Coalition”

Paul McKee, the St. Charles developer and land baron behind the “Blairmont” project has continued to remain in the news of late. I ran across his name while researching the board members of a pro-sprawl, anti-city group based in St. Charles County. Mr. McKee is a board member of a group that interestingly is anti government intervention out in the virgin farmlands but is all in favor of intervention in the city.

The following is the mission statement for the Urban Choice Coalition in its entirety:

WE BELIEVE in the right of individuals to live wherever they choose and can afford. We reject the blanket condemnation of growth in suburban counties as being a root cause of urban decay and further reject the pejorative term “urban sprawl” to describe the healthy expansion of new communities.

WE BELIEVE that it is the right of individuals to select the state, city, county, neighborhood or development of their choice to call home and not be denied governmental services, grants or benefits, otherwise available on a national or statewide basis, because of their choice of residence.

It should not be the role of government to deny services to anyone based on their choices of where to live.

It should not be the role of government to set up artificial growth boundaries, outside of which citizens or communities receive any less governmental benefits.

It should not be the role of state or regional government planning agencies to erect growth boundaries and attempt to dictate or dissuade anyone from living where they choose.

WE FURTHER BELIEVE certain public policy issues should be resolved on a statewide or regional basis, but that those decisions concerning who and where to extend local utilities and roads, or to build new schools and local government facilities are, for the most part, best left to local decision makers elected by the people they represent and that these local decisions should not be turned over to or subject to, further review by statewide or regional planning commissions not elected by the people.

WE FAVOR enhancing the quality of life in the urban core and positive inducements to promote “city living” as the best means of attracting new residents and stabilizing older neighborhoods.

But presumably it should be the role of the state governent to enact massive tax breaks for one person, say Paul McKee, so that he may assemble large areas of land within a single municipality within the state. Of couse the legislation passed by the Missouri legislature isn’t limited to McKee’s well-known but unannounced housing project but the various requirements pretty much make it tailor made just for him.

It would seem to be that an individual property rights type person, one who opposes big government intervention in land planning matters, would also oppose such intervention everywhere. But to McKee and his co-sprawlers they want it all — the ability to rape open farmland with single-use projects which are auto dependent as well as receive huge tax breaks for assembling land (which happens to contain people & buildings) on the scale of urban renewal projects like Pruitt-Igoe.

Oh yes, I see, they believe we need to have “positive inducements” in order to attract people to this idea of “city living.” Why the quotes on city living McKee & Co? I know why, you don’t really understand city living. Or maybe you do? You are likely afraid of the whole idea of people enjoying dense and walkable mixed-use neighborhoods. Sure, you talk a nice game about the “rights of indiviuals” to live where they like but you are all afraid they will stop picking the auto-centric housing subdivisions you call “communities.” And face it boys, the sprawl neighorhoods you’ve littered on the landscape for years has absolutely nothing to do with free choice — government planning has created the zoning codes that mandate everything from the lot size to the street width.

Pro-sprawl zoning in the suburbs has limited choices  — you can’t just build a corner storefront with your living space above anywhere you think their might be demand.  Oh no, in their world we must divide everything up — no mixing of residential, retail and office.  They  don’t really support individualism or free thinking about land use, they like what exists and simply want nobody to stop them until they’ve managed to merge St. Louis with Columbia MO.

The only way New Town at St. Charles got built in the urban manner that it did (urban relative to lot sizes, setbacks, street widths, etc…) is that the City of St. Charles agreed to adopt DPZ’s smart code for New Town.  Without this new zoning, what we see in New Town would not have been legally allowed as the area was zoned for industrial uses.  So where are McKee & Co when it comes to the sprawl-mandated zoning that predominates St. Charles County?  Right behind it 100%!

Another section above is how they like decisions left to local decision makers.  I’m just guessing because that is cheaper for them than having to contribute to a bunch of regional and state officials.  This weekend’s Post-Dispatch story on McKee pointed out his contributions to Aldermanic President Lewis Reed and Mayor Francis Slay.  Of course, to get that new tax bill passed he had to drop some money around the state as well.

To see the list of directors for the Urban Choice Coalition don’t look for it on their website.  You might even get the impression from their anonymous site that they are ashamed of their views — not wanting to be associated with it.  I can’t say that I blame them really, I would not want to put my name on that BS either.  So for the board list I had to go to the Secretary of State’s records, click here for their last report.  Basically it is all the people that financially benefit from the planned sprawl of the countryside in St. Charles County, including engineers, road builders, and the Executive Director of the Home Builders Association of Greater St. Louis.

Everyone agrees that North St. Louis needs major new investment and infill construction.  I just don’t think McKee and his anti-city, pro-sprawl buddies are the right people for the job.

“Blairmont Scheme” Is Fulfillment of Official City Plans

Much has been written lately about the sinister plot, known to many as “Blairmont”, to bulldoze North St. Louis (specifically the St. Louis Place neighborhood). The focus has been on various straw companies such as Blairmont Associates, LLC and part owner Paul McKee. McKee is a founder of well known commercial contractor Paric, an officer in McEagle Development and current Chairman of BJC Healthcare. In other words, a prominent citizen for all that’s worth.

The major issue has been these companies are buying hundreds of properties, including some very historic structures, and letting them sit empty and decaying. A few have had some devistating fires. Nobody has been able to track down any more information on the motives & intention behind these purchases. Interestingly, the answer was under our noses the whole time.

This is all part of a public plan, one of many actually.

The city’s 1947 master plan highlighted many areas immediately south and north of downtown, indicating they were obsolete. You know, places like the trendy Soulard neighborhood. This plan called for it to be wiped clean and given a fresh start with cul-de-sac streets and lots of the much touted “open space.” Subsequent plans have followed along this same theme with the “Team Four” plan, a reaction to an early 70s research report from the Rand Corporation commenting on the conditions in St. Louis, calling for reduced services to parts of North St. Louis so that people will leave.

In 2002 the city’s Planning Commission adopted the 5th Ward Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. It should be noted the boundaries are the old 5th Ward, not the boundaries as changed around the same time as the plan was being adopted. Anyway, in the plan a large swath of land just north of the long vacant Pruitt-Igoe site is shown hatched out with the designation “Proposed Large Land Use (for further study).” In other words, level anything remaining and start fresh. There it is, fully adopted after numerous public meetings and everything.

[Above: 5th ward zoning proposal shows large white area with red diagonal lines as a proposed large land use]

McKee’s various companies own many properties within the large land use area as well as areas surrounding it. Much has changed since the first public meetings where held in the Fall of 1999, adoption in April 2002 and today. In places the change has been good — new infill construction (some of it actually attractive, the rest not so attractive) as well as strong renovation efforts. In other parts of the ward, however, people have left and buildings have continued to deteriorate and be razed.

In the Spring of 2005 the city adopted a new Strategic Land-Use Plan. For the most part it was simply a recording of uses already in existence but in places the plan does call for changes. Also, the city has failed to follow through with the next step which was to be new zoning which cooresponds to the land uses. In this land-use plan, however, we can see the large area from the 2002 5th ward plan designated as “Neighborhood Development Areas (NDA):”

Residential/non-residential areas with substantial amounts of vacant land and abandoned buildings suitable for new residential construction of scale/associated neighborhood services, respecting stable properties that may be considered as part of any new development. Opportunities for new housing construction/replatting at critical mass scale defining a new neighborhood character over time.

The land-use plan goes further than the 5th Ward plan, calling out additional land as “Opportunity Areas:”

Key underutilized locations where the use of the land is in transition. Location and site characteristics of these areas offer particular challenges/opportunities that could be advantageous to a range of development activity. This designation is intended to be flexible and specific development proposals will be entertained as they present themselves.

Stable areas such as the Old North St. Louis neighborhood and the area immediately surrounding St. Louis Place Park are designated as “Neighborhood Preservation Areas:”

Areas where the existing housing and corner commercial building stock will be preserved and augmented with new infill residential and corner commercial development physically integrated with, and primarily serving the immediate neighborhood. These areas generally consist of stable residential areas of the City, including but not limited to historic districts, where the character of the neighborhood is currently well preserved with relatively few vacant lots and abandoned buildings. The plan contemplates continued preservation and improvement, with quality rehabilitation and infill new construction that is sensitive to the character of existing residences. Commercial and institutional uses catering to the immediate needs of the neighborhood are acceptable and reflect the traditional role such activity has played in the history of the City.

So, in keeping with officially approved plans I expect to see some large-scale reconstruction in the area just north of Pruitt-Igoe as well as lots of infill housing in surrounding areas such as Old North St. Louis.

Local architectural firm Arcturis has been mentioned by others as being involved in whatever the plans are for the area. I asked Arcturis COO Vernon Remiger about “Blairmont” earlier this week and he declined to comment. This tells me their firm is most likely still involved. Of course, the bulk of this area does need large quantities of new housing. In places like Old North St. Louis the neighborhood itself is working with developers and they have been building attractive new housing and rehabbing other buildings. Numerous vacant lots remain throughout the neighborhood.

For me my concerns are several. In areas where large-scale redevelopment is proposed will it simply involve possiblly replatting the lots to be slightly wider or do they want to screw up the highly functional grid of streets & alleys? Furthermore, do they want to build a bunch of similar looking single family detached housing or will we see a mix of housing types such as townhouses, live/work spaces and condos/apartments over storefronts? What about new alley houses like we used to have and like those being built out in New Town at St. Charles.

The problem with building most new construction next to one of our older houses is no matter the condition of the old house it almost always looks more graceful than the new. The materials and proportions are better, the detailing is stunning. New housing, next to old, just pales. This, I believe, is why many suburban developers seek to raze existing properties.

For further reading check out the “World of Blairmont” on The Ecology of Absence webiste. They’ve compiled a list of their own posts on the subject as well as from other sources, including the RFT.