You’ve probably heard the news by now:
“A St. Louis judge threw out a city ordinance Friday that authorized $390 million in tax increment financing — the largest in the city’s history — for Paul McKee Jr.’s $8.1 billion NorthSide redevelopment.”
Tonight we expect politically connected developer Paul McKee, of McEagle Development, to publicly unveil the controversial development project nicknamed “Blairmont.”
The project got this name after one of the early holding companies used to acquire properties, Blairmont Associates LLC.
Here is a video that explains Blairmont:
Another source of info on Blairmont is a January 2007 RFT article.
Out of the controversy came an August 2007 bus tour of McKee’s properties. Here is 5th Ward Alderman April Ford Griffin:
The next month the meetings continued. Here is 19th Ward Alderman Marlene Davis:
I got involved by asking a question of Alderman April Ford Griffin. Griffin is the chair of the Neighborhood Development committee at the Board of Aldermen. She has a warped view of zoning. Rather than have excellent zoning that codifies the community vision, she likes outdated zoning so developers must come to her. The video starts out rough but gets better:
Congressman Clay talks about a hearing held at city hall with a reference to the 1970s Team Four plan that called for reducing services in parts of the city:
Here is a summary of the infamous Team Four plan:
This document contains the technical memorandum that was submitted to the Plan Commission by Team Four, Inc. in 1975. This memorandum proposed public policy guidelines and strategies for implementing the Draft Comprehensive Plan that was prepared by others. It offered a series of considerations concerning the process of adopting, staging, budgeting and ultimately implementing the Draft Comprehensive Plan. In addition, this document contains a preface dated 1976 that attempts to clean up any inconsistencies and or controversies surrounding the proposed implementation strategies and a bibliography or annotated listing of Technical Memoranda and Appendixes. Part I of this document focused on strategies for three generic area types: conservation, redevelopment, and depletion areas; and Part II of this document discussed major urban issues and their solutions.
Today “shrinking cities” are studied and various techniques are debated. In the 70s in St. Louis the Team Four plan was seen as a racist plot to deny services to a minority population. We know more today about how to adjust to shrinking populations.
Tonight we will see another, a huge heavily subsidized redevelopment plan. Many are opposed simply based on the history of the project to date. I for one plan to go with an open mind. I have reservations about both the developer and the political leadership. Griffin’s view on the role of zoning doesn’t give me a lot of hope for what may be presented in pretty artist renderings actually being completed as promised. A good framework of a zoning code can help ensure the promised vision develops into reality.
Tonight’s meeting starts at 7pm at Central Baptist Church Education Building 2843 Washington Ave (Google Map). I’ll be there and will report on the presentation next week.
Acres and acres sit idle on the edges of downtown awaiting promised new development. On the South edge we have Ballpark Village and just North of America’s Center and the Edward Jones Dome we have the Bottleworks District. Both have made news over the past few
years, lately for not going anywhere.
Above: blocks sit vacant awaiting the proposed Bottleworks District
The latter was in the news again this week for a settlement on one of the blocks the city took from its rightful owner:
A St. Louis jury awarded $2.8 million on Friday to the former owner of two acres just north of the Edwards Jones Dome downtown in a fight over eminent domain.
The city’s Land Clearance for Redevelopment Agency condemned the two-acre tract after the owner refused sell it in 2005 for $523,000.
The property, a city block bordered by Sixth, Seventh, Carr and Biddle Streets, was included in the “Bottle District” redevelopment plan for a $226 million entertainment destination including a restaurant, concert venue and bowling alley. It has not yet come through.
Today the entire site remains covered in gravel with much of the intact street grid blocked by Jersey barriers.
The surrounding blocks could have been developed without taking this one block from the owner. But assembling larger and larger tracts for larger and larger projects is what proponents say must be done to get development. Judging from the broken sidewalks and vacant blocks of land think perhaps it is high time we questioned this practice.
Granted creating the ideal urban building on a single narrow parcel surrounded by vacant blocks is going to be an island for a long time. Development does have to be large enough to build both excitement and a sustainable level of visitors.
An alternative to the single developer mega-project is to create a zoning overlay district that outlines the urban design qualities that future buildings must have. This allows different property owners to participate in the redevelopment. It also allows the business owner to build their own structure without being tied up in an increasingly complicated and difficult process of financing the mega-project.
This city was built one building at a time — each fitting into the grid. I think we need to return to such a scale to finish filling in the gaps in our urban fabric.
The tony collection of McMansion subdivisions known as Town & Country, MO is back on the issue of Deer overpopulation. It seems their 1-3 acre lots amongst the natural woods are overrun with deer. The reality is that our natural environment is overrun with low-density and often tacky housing that requires an SUV to go anywhere. From a KSDK report:
“Deer like the suburbs that we build,” said Erin Shank, a Missouri Department of Conservation urban wildlife biologist. “They like that broken forest interspersed with meadow-like lawns. That’s really ideal for them, so their populations have really grown over the last several decades.”
Wow, it seems they have managed to design an environment ideally suited to the main deer population but only a small segment of the human population. A number of years ago Town & Country engaged in a horrible plan to relocate the deer but many perished due to shock (see Grim Harvest). Some municipalities allow hunting using bows to avoid shooting some VP from shooting a lawyer friend in the face. Town & Country, however, does not yet permit hunting. Some are advocating traps where they are instantly killed via a bolt to the brain. Ick. Others say the deer are fine and simply plant other vegetation that deer don’t like, a logical solution in my view.
But I have some other ideas as well. We could start by banning vegetation all together. These people with their 4-bedroom/4-car garage houses on an acre of land like the illusion of country living but we know they really are not. So I say we prohibit them from growing any sort of plants outdoors — at least the ones known to attract deer. Hey, if they don’t like it they can always move much easier than the deer. I don’t think this is going far enough though. Those brick front houses look bad enough as it is but without vegetation it would be a horrible sight. The kids there already suffer from not being able to walk or bike anywhere so they really shouldn’t have to live without hostas and ferns.
I say we hire PGAV or Development Strategies to do a blighting study on the area. We argue that all of Town & Country and everything else in St. Louis County outside of the I-270 highway loop is Ecologically Obsolete. With places like Creve Coeur, Chesterfield and Dardenne Prairie all working on town centers to create walkable destinations we can justify that others are old fashioned and obsolete forms of development. New Urbanism represented by New Town at Charles or even old urbanism represented by original city development as well as the older ring of suburban development such as downtown Ferguson, Maplewood, Webster Groves and such is more ecologically sustainable.
So much like the maps of the 40s & 50s that justified razing entire sections of the city because a percentage of the structures lacked indoor plumbing, we can create maps of the region where the obsolete development pattern is too low to sustain a walk-to town center & transit. Everything below a certain threshold would be targeted. I call it Rural Renewal. St. Louis County would identify areas for land clearance, returning the land to nature with wildlife and vegetation taking over former manicured lawns. The deer population would once again be controlled with bobcats and other natural predators. Of course we’d need to use eminent domain to take all the homes, strip shopping centers and fast food joints. We’d need to clear thousands of acres at a time.
This could all be justified, of course, based economic development for the region. By returning an area to nature we’d force residents into existing areas, assuming we also limited fringe development. People living in an $800K house in Town and Country could do wonders with a $500 house owned by the LRA! Think of the economic benefits of such a renewal plan — one that could easily past muster after the Kelo decision on eminent domain. We’d see a surge in new construction within the I-270 highway loop giving new vitality to both the city and older areas of St. Louis County. Low density areas in the county, but within the I-270 loop, would be targeted for redevelopment to accommodate those displaced for the new rural areas. Rail transit (commuter, light rail) and quality localized service via bus and/or streetcar would be far more feasible than currently. We’d naturally eliminate some of the 91 municipalities in St. Louis County as well as excessive school districts, fire districts and so on. These new large ‘rural renewal’ areas would become wonderful natural areas again — attracting tourists to our area. This could become a model program for other regions to follow.
It would, of course, be difficult on those being displaced but they really shouldn’t stand in the way of progress and that which is beneficial to the larger region. The environment and the economy both outweigh their private land interests. We’ve been through large scale land clearance projects before and the suburbanites always seemed supportive of such efforts.
Last week the Missouri Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority (aka EIERA, yes we joked about E-I-E-I-O) presented a $15,000 check to the Red Brick Community Land Trust (RBCLT) for clean-up of the brownfield site where they plan to build some affordable housing. The St. Louis Business Journal announced the event last week.
First let’s figure out who is who and what is what.
The EIERA explains best who they are on their website:
“The Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority (EIERA) is a quasi-governmental agency that serves as the financing arm for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Established by the Missouri General Assembly in 1972, the EIERA Board Members are appointed by the Governor.
The EIERA’s primary mandate is to provide financial assistance for energy and environmental projects and protect the environment. The agency also conducts research, supports energy efficiency and energy alternatives and promotes economic development. The Authority is not a regulatory agency.”
So what is a brownfield? In short, a brownfield is a previously developed site (with or without a building) that is contaminated (see wiki entry). Contamination can happen a number of ways; from the type of construction materials used to the former activities on the site, such as this former gas station site with two empty tanks remaining in the ground. These tanks will be removed before the RBCLT can construct the new affordable housing. RBCTLT’s press release covers more about how a land trust works:
RBCLT separates the cost of the land from the cost of what is built on it. This allows low-income residents to buy a quality home and at an affordable price. When homeowners choose to move and sell the home, they sell the home at a price that balances their interest to have a downpayment for their next home with the community’s interest in keeping the home affordable for another low-income family. In this way RBCLT homes remain permanently affordable from generation to generation. Community land trusts also help to preserve open green space for community gardens, parks and playgrounds.
“The land trust locks in resources like the state grant, permanently securing the benefits for the entire community. This allows the state agency to recycle the subsidy,” said Sarah Coffin, RBCLT board president and assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy Studies at Saint Louis University. “The benefits of the subsidy to the wider community include connecting previously fragmented segments of neighborhoods into cohesive units. One more brownfield will be removed from the urban landscape and the cleaned up site will be maintained as a public good in perpetuity. But more importantly, Red Brick CLT will be able to create homes that low-income people can afford from generation to generation, improving the quality of life for the children and the families who buy these homes, further increasing neighborhood stability and securing economic and cultural diversity in the community.”
So basically a home owner buys just the home, not the land. With the trust retaining ownership of the land the property can stay more affordable for the next buyer. This is a big contrast to how we’ve been doing affordable housing in St. Louis in the past where the original owner gets a grant or other incentives to help them get a home but once they sell the place basically becomes market rate.
The affordable housing “will be built through a partnership with Youth Education and Health in Soulard (YEHS) and YouthBuild St. Louis Americorps.” Here is more info on YouthBuild:
YouthBuild St. Louis AmeriCorps (Youthbuild St. Louis) is an alternative education, construction training, employment, and leadership development program serving low-income St. Louis youths, ages 18-24, who have not completed high school. Youthbuild St. Louis, which began in 1992, is sponsored by Youth Education and Health in Soulard (YEHS), a community-based organization founded in 1972.
What is uniquely exciting about YouthBuild is that it is combating the St. Louis public schools’ high school drop-out crisis, while helping to replenish St. Louis’s critical shortage of affordable housing.
Although a site plan was distributed the architecture for the new construction has not yet been finalized. Representatives indicated existing buildings adjacent to the site will also be renovated by YouthBuild. As you may recall, this area was threatened with complete demolition earlier this year (see post) but in May the city rescinded their offer of purchase (translation: we no longer seek to take your property away from you).
Above: members of YouthBuild join Mark Bohnert, executive director of Red Brick Community Land Trust; Sarah Coffin, president of RBCLT; and Robert Kramer, EIERA board member.
Above from left, Kristin Allen, development director with EIERA; Karen Massey, deputy director of EIERA, Bob Brandhorst, executive director of YEHS; Mark Bohnert, executive director of Red Brick Community Land Trust; Sarah Coffin, president of RBCLT; Solana Rice, vice president of RCBLT.
Above from left; Sarah Coffin, president of RBCLT; State Senator Maida Coleman (D-5th District); Robert Kramer, EIERA board member; Kristin Allen, development director with EIERA
Above, Sen. Coleman discusses project with RBCLT Board VP Solana Rice and ED Mark Bohnert.
I talked with Exec. Director Mark Bohnert after the presentation was over, here is a short clip:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok8DYP2CVxE[/youtube]
Ald. Phyllis Young was invited to the event but she sent her regrets in advance.
I personally look forward to seeing the progress on the project.
This post is a continuation of a post from yesterday, regarding signs. Seventh ward Alderman Phyllis Young had written the following regarding a painted anti-eminent domain sign/mural on the side of a building:
I have worked diligently throughout my career as an alderman to reduce the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city. As you drive I-44 you’ll see no billboards in my ward from Compton east to the intersection with I-55 other than the one in the commercial area at Jefferson. The wall sign is an affront to the neighborhoods, drivers, and the city. It should be denied and removed.
In yesterday’s post I included countless signs mostly from her ward, few if any had permits. I’m pretty certain, for example, that Dodge does not have a car dealership located within the stadium east parking garage despite large signs for the car company. But among my many pictures I did not have the one shot I should have had and as a result someone had the following comment:
In the alderwoman’s defense, the pictures you show do nothing to refute that paragraph, as none of them are visible from I-44.
To clarify here, Ald Young indicates reducing “the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city” but I was able to illustrate many signs cluttering the city, and the 7th ward. But wait, what it that I see at I-44 & I-55, viewed from the Mississippi St bridge over I-44?
Oh yes, that would be a billboard located in the 7th Ward and seen from east bound I-44. This is in addition to the one seen at Jefferson & I-44 that is in the 7th Ward and a couple at Jefferson located in the 6th Ward.
Above: From the McKinley-Heights neighborhood you can see the highway and the forgotten billboard in full glory.
Here is the same billboard as seen from Gravos near Tucker. Gee, I’m not sure how Ald Young could have forgotten about this billboard. I’m guessing she’s been too busy figuring out how to raze Bohemian Hill to notice? If you look closely under the highway you can see the eminent domain sign that is such an “affront.” Take a look at the above picture again. Someone please tell me how that painted political slogan on the side of a relatively small alley building is the affront and not everything else I am looking at?
From the Tucker bridge over the highway(s) the sign is visible but in the big scheme of things is not the most offensive sight.
Directly in front of the sign suggesting we end eminent domain abuse is this area inside the cloverleaf where storage trailers are covered in graffiti. I’m sure Ald Young and all the neighborhood groups have been working hard to clean this up too…
Here are some additional thoughts:
You’ve likely seen Jim Roos’ anti-eminent domain statement on the side of a building he owns in an area known as Bohemian Hill. Yesterday attorney John Randall argued before the Board of Adjustment the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of citizens to voice free speech. The Board of Adjustment hears appeals from those who’ve been denied permits by the building department. The member’s names, date appointed, term length, term expiration are not posted online on the city’s website, nor is their agenda published online.
During the meeting a total of three appeals were heard relating to signs — all did not meet the strict letter of the city’s antiquated zoning code regulations (see the “Comprehensive” Sign Control Regulations). All three were larger than allowed by the code, two were approved but one was not. Laclede Gas got approval for a large sign on top of their building in downtown St. Louis so they could hopefully get spotted by TV cameras during Cardinals games. Laclede Gas argued their sign on the top of their building would be a positive “contribution to the St. Louis skyline.” I saw the mock-ups of the sign, it wasn’t something to hail as great nor was anything bad. They indicated that the city’s maximum allowable size for a sign on their building would look like a “postage stamp.” If the city really wants to be business friendly they will take a fresh look at the sign regulations and I don’t know, maybe publish something on the building division site about signs rather than make the public wade through the technicalities of the ordinance.
Roos and his attorney argued this is not a sign, per the city’s regulations. I’m not going to take you through all the various points of the ordinance but in large part, per the code, a sign faces a public street. The building above was originally a rear building — the public street is to the left out of view. The side of the building, clearly visible from the interchange of highways I-44 & I-55, does not face a public street — it faces an adjacent parcel of land owned by someone else. The poorly constructed zoning code relating to signs also addresses the question of what is a sign vs what is not:
If for any reason it cannot be readily determined whether or not an object is a sign, the Community Development Commission shall make such determination.
Again, it was argued this was not a sign but Bob Lordi from the city’s building division determined it is a sign. The ordinance language is unclear as to how this debate of sign or not gets resolved. Some of the best humor was provided by a June 28, 2007 letter from alderwoman Phyllis Young (D-7th Ward):
“If this sign is allowed to remain then anyone with property along any thoroughfare can paint signs indicating the opinion or current matter relevant to the owner to influence passersby with no control by any City agency.”
When this was read during the proceedings I actually laughed out loud. The irony, of course, is that earlier this year Young advocated razing the entire area where the “sign” is located for a new development. She passed legislation blighting the entire area and now wants to protect it from a sign put up in response to the very real threat faced by these home owners. I will have more on the status of this project separately. Click here to view the entire letter in PDF format.
Another part of the letter gave me reason to chuckle as well:
I have worked diligently throughout my career as an alderman to reduce the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city. As you drive I-44 you’ll see no billboards in my ward from Compton east to the intersection with I-55 other than the one in the commercial area at Jefferson. The wall sign is an affront to the neighborhoods, drivers, and the city. It should be denied and removed.
One of the most telling comments is that being an alderman is a “career” rather than simply a public service. But I think Phyllis needs to get in her Prius, or better yet a good pair of sneakers, and just check out more of her ward, including downtown.
My friend Antonio French at PubDef has the scoop on the court’s ruling on the Centene Corporation in Clayton Missouri. At issue was Missouri’s definition of “blighted;”
“that portion of the city within which the legislative authority of such city determines that by reason of age, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration have become economic and social liabilities, and that such conditions are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, crime or inability to pay reasonable taxes.”
While the crux of the Kelo decision related to economic development to justify the taking of property the “and social liabilities” phrasing in Missouri law seems to have created a road block to those justifying taking functioning property in the high-value City of Clayton, the county seat of St. Louis County.
One judge, concurring with the decision but disagreeing with some points of the main decision had this to say about blight:
The difficulty is that, although the PGAV report quotes the language from section 353.020(2) defining “blight” and, thus, its authors seem to have been aware that social liability is part of the analysis, the entirety of the conclusion, as well as the relevant discussion relating to the specific factors analyzed, focuses on economic liability. While Centene suggests that the absence of the term “social liability” may just have been an oversight, the level of detail and attention given to every other aspect of the statutory definition of “blight” makes the suggestion that a finding of social liability was accidentally omitted and should be “read into” the report rather implausible.
I intend to take a detailed look at this case in the near future. In the meantime, here is the court’s summary ruling.
In a classic St. Louis move, the city’s “leadership” is already moving forward with a plan the public has yet to see. Mayor Slay, Aldermanic President, Alderman Phyllis Young, and Downtown Parnership’s Jim Cloar last week talked of the newest concept as a done deal even though we the public have not seen anything yet. Typical.
The public open house is scheduled for this evening, Monday June 11, 2007 at 6:30pm in the rotunda at City Hall. This is one of those meetings designed to give the appearance of public participation without any actual participation. The usual round of types — officials, business executives, etc… — have already approved of the plan on our behalf. How big of them to do so. I assume tonight will also be a chance for all these folks to congratulate each other on a job well done. I’ll be there simply because I need to see what sort of disasterous plan the city has drafted this time. Any comment forms will likely be a waste of paper.
AGENDA
CITY HOSPITAL-GEORGIAN SQUARE (RPA3) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
REGULAR MEETING – REGULAR SESSION
12TH FLOOR – BOARD ROOM Wednesday, June 6, 2007 – 8:00 a.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT TO THE CITY HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND APPROVAL OF THE GEORGIAN SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (RPA3) (7th Ward/Alderwoman Young)
RESOLUTION NO. 07-TIFC-242 – RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE “NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING” AS AMENDED, AND THE “NOTICE OF CHANGES TO TIF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN,” AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AS DESCRIBED THEREIN, APPROVING THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 3 (RPA3) -GEORGIAN SQUARE AND EXPRESSING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WITH RESPECT TO SAID AREA, AMENDED PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Dale Ruthsatz)
NOTE: PLEASE BRING WITH YOU THE APPLICATION DATED APRIL 3, 2007. ATTACHED IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY HOSPITAL TIF PLAN DATED APRIL 20, 2007, AS REVISED MAY 30, 2007 AND A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS DATED APRIL 20, 2007.
All the plans and revisions are mentioned to members of the TIF commision but not available online for the general public to review.
8. PDA-103-07-REZ – Georgian Square Area – Rezone A & D to H – Peabody Darst Webbe Neighborhood – (CB 820, 820.04, 820.05, 414, 415)
These blocks are the ones that are currently vacant, not the ones with occupied homes that Ald. Young wants to take via eminent domain and then raze.
Prior Posts:
Click here for map of area.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
