REALTORS® Upset About New Law In Ferguson

As an active licensed Broker-Salesperson in the state of Missouri I am a member of the National Association of REALTORS®, Missouri Association of REALTORS® and the St. Louis Association of REALTORS®. As a result I get lots of email from each of these organizations. It should be noted the real estate profession is one of the most organized and well funded lobbying groups. And seldom do I agree with the position they take on issues.

Here is an email I received from the St. Louis Association:

CALL TO ACTION!

This is an important issue that affects the property rights and civil rights of landlords and tenants.

The City of Ferguson recently passed bill 6731 which, in addition to other things, with regard to rental property requires:

· Property owner to obtain a license to rent property.

· Owner to run police check on themselves and submit this with the application.

· Some owners hire an ASHI inspector to inspect the property and certify that it is in compliance with all of the City of Ferguson’s codes

· Owner to hire a property manager that resides within 25 miles of your rental property and furnish the name and all contact info to the city.

· Owner to sign an affidavit affirming that none of their tenants are registered sex offenders in any of the 50 states nor SHOULD they be! First off, this is next to impossible to determine, second this puts an incredible amount of liability on the property owner. It should be noted by the way, while the city does not require any such affidavit if you are an owner occupant.

Even if you don’t own property in Ferguson or have clients that do, please still take the time to respond to this. While this is the worst example we have seen thus far of a municipality violating peoples rights we have been seeing more and more similar ordinances from other municipalities so if we don’t stop it now it may be just a short time
before laws like this spread.

The St. Louis Association of Realtors has authorized the funding for a lawsuit to fight this law. We need your help though, please email or call the City Manager for the City of Ferguson and tell him you think this ordinance should be repealed immediately. His phone number and link to email is below as well as a sample email message you can paste into your email.

If you would like to view the entire ordinance click on this link:

http://www.fergusoncity.com/pdf/Bill6731.pdf

City Manager, Arthur Krieger Akrieger@FergusonCity.com or phone (314) 521-7721.

Sample message:

Dear City Manager Krieger:

I am one of the 10,000+ members of the St. Louis Association of
REALTORS® and as a champion of private property rights I take great
exception to bill 6731 which was recently passed by your council. I
feel this, among other things, violates the property rights as well as
civil rights of landlords and tenants and would urge you to repeal this
piece of legislation.

Our association does believe in and support property maintenance and
occupancy codes & permits (both of which your city already has on the
books) provided these laws are applied to all property, not just tenant
occupied property and provided the occupancy permits are only upon
change in occupancy. Bill 6731 singles out a class of property owner
and class or occupant and applies laws to them different then
owner-occupied property and this is what we object to.

So I read through the entire bill and it seems balanced to me. Many of the requirements come into play only if the property owner has properties with violations or nuisance complaints. Absentee landlords are a problem in many areas and it seems like Ferguson is serious about the problem. Too many people see those late night infomercials about getting rich in real estate, buy a property all the way across town and then wonder why they have issues.

I think Ferguson’s actions send a clear message — if you are going to be in the business of owning rental property you need a business license and you need to conduct yourself in the best manner. If you are in the business of renting properties, their ordinance suggests, it is also wise to know the sex offender law to make sure you don’t end up renting to someone you should not. Again, a good business practice.

And owning rental property is a business. Why should these business owners not be subjected to standards that others business owners must?

The rights of the owner-occupant are being protected here, in my view. Because it is often the local homeowners that must deal with problem rental properties.

– Steve

Conflict of Interest Within the Mayor’s Administration?

The online version of PubDef Weekly just published an in-depth report on conflicts of interest within Mayor Slay’s administration. At issue is the personal relationship between Deputy Mayor Barbara Geisman and PR Consultant Richard Callow.

The picture painted by Antonio French, at the very least, shows an appearance of conflict if not literal conflict. A must read.

– Steve

Eminent Domain for Private Use Likely in Hadley Township

This is a first for me, I’m running a guest column. Scott Rendall wanted to tell the following story which relates to my prior post on the Hadley Township area in Richmond Heights:

Joann Bailey lives with her husband one block east of Hanley Rd. in the Hadley Township area, just as she has done since 1964. A retired accountant, she loves where she lives, she loves her modest but well kept and attractive home, she desperately wants to stay, but she may be forced to leave.

Her front window displays a sign reading “Stop Eminent Domain Abuse”, as do the homes of a few other neighbors on her street. But when the Richmond Heights City Council voted to approve the redevelopment of the entire Hadley Township area on Monday, it was clear that if Mrs. Bailey and her neighbors don’t come to an agreement with the developer, the City will use Eminent Domain to force them off their property so that the 60-acre development can move forward.

“Money is not what I want.” says Bailey, “Money is not the issue over my home.” But if the City of Richmond Heights has their way, Bailey’s home will be removed to make room for a parking lot, while others in her neighborhood will have their homes removed to make room for… more expensive, privately owned homes.

The Castle Coalition, a non-profit organization that helps private landowners fight when Cities attempt to use eminent domain to acquire property for other private uses, says there have been more than 10,000 examples of these cases nationwide in just the last five years. The Hadley Township area fits the pattern of many of these land-grabs. The area is one of the first suburban areas in St. Louis developed by African Americans. Indeed, they paid for the original construction of the streets in the neighborhood. The 2000 census indicates that more than ½ of the 1,300 African Americans in Richmond Heights (total pop. 9,800) live in the Hadley Township area. It is an historically African American neighborhood, and today, the property values, or at least the current sale value of the homes, are a small fraction of those neighborhoods around it, where homes go for $130 – 300 K. The homes themselves may not be particularly valuable, but the property is a in a prime location for large scale retail development: Adjacent to the 40/Hanley interchange, across the street from recently built Best Buy, Sports Authority, and Home Depot stores, and right next to the year-old THF developed Wal-Mart /Sam’s Club monstrosity.

Eyed by developers for nearly a decade, THF now owns roughly 24 of the 200 odd properties in the area. Selling to a home-buyer in the area has been impossible for years now as rumors and proposals have swirled around the area. City Council Member Lillian Underwood, who lives in the area herself, has acquired 8 properties. She recused herself from voting, or commenting on the proposals, due to the conflict of interest. But she also told Bailey, who is her neighbor, that she is ‘embarrassed’ of the area, and ‘wants to see it torn down.’ Underwood now stands to make a small fortune if the City can force out the few homeowners who are still resisting moving out.

The City, as recently as a year ago, told Bailey that she would not be asked to leave her home. Since then, Bailey has paid for a new 30-year roof and re-paved her driveway. Recently the City and Developers have been assuring Bailey and other residents that they will be given first crack, and pre-purchase discounts, on the new $200 – 250K homes. But as retirees, Bailey and her husband live on fixed incomes, (as do some of their neighbors) and are concerned they won’t be able to afford the annual property taxes. Bailey says, “We don’t want to give it up, where are we going to find what we have here?”

Missouri Constitution Bill of Rights Section 28 states: That private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes, in the manner prescribed by law; and that when an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative declaration that the use is public.

Following the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, Governor Matt Blunt established a commission to study new guidelines for use of eminent domain. The commission delivered a report in December that recommended that “The public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health, standing alone, shall not constitute a public use.” It is likely that legislation that follows these guidelines will be enacted in August of this year.

Bailey spoke to the City Council and assembled citizens at the Monday meeting before the vote was taken. She pointed out that Maplewood, a city with significant fiscal problems, had just passed an ordinance that prevents the use of eminent domain for private use. She begged the City Council not to take her home. The Council said nothing. Less than an hour later, they voted to approve the Michelson development.

The Michelson plan leaves a few homes which are east of a creek, the Conrad proposal had an option of leaving the same homes. I certainly feel for people that thought they could enjoy retirement in their homes to find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

– Steve

Richmond Heights City Council Supports More Sprawl

Monday evening the Richmond Heights City Council selected the worst of three proposals for the area being called Hadley Township. In a prior post I reviewed the three proposals and I considered the ‘new urbanist’ proposal from Conrad Properties as the best of the lot. Even my strong dislike for THF Realty didn’t stop me from thinking their proposal was second.

The site plan (108K PDF) is the flawed start of the Michelson/Heine-Croghan proposal that was selected. Let’s start at the corner of Dale Avenue and Hanley Road. The buildings on either side are supposed to form a “gateway” to Richmond Heights. The color rendering on their proposal shows a picturesque sidewalk scene but reality will be quite different. As long as Hanley remains a major street without calming methods such as on-street parking it will no be a street to walk on. Dale has more potential but the M/H-C proposal doesn’t appear to include any on-street parking either. Furthermore, the building that is to form this gateway is single-story with a predictable clock tower to add some visual height.

While I appreciate the efforts to retain some existing housing they’ve done so by cutting these houses off from the new development. This results in a bunch of cul-de-sacs where the streets now cross the creek. We should be connecting, not separating.

Retail ranges from a big box to a medium box to a strip center. Yawn. I guess we didn’t quite get enough of this mix from THF’s sprawl center to the south or the waste of land off Eager to the west. But look at what appears to be the sidewalk in front of the big box, it becomes a service drive behind the medium box and strip center.

Their proposal calls for a hotel in the exact same corner that the THF proposal did. Surprise, right by the highway. Like the THF proposal, it is unlikely that a hotel guest will be able to walk along sidewalks to a nearby restaurant.

The numbers tell the real story. The selected proposal has a total of 156 residential units with all but 16 of those as either attached or detached single-family. The THF proposal had total of 637 residential units (136 single-family detached, 373 condos and 128 apartments). Not bad. The Conrad proposal topped all with 850 total residential units (50 single family detached, 350 single family attached, 350 condos and 100 apartments). Richmond Heights was afraid of urban density.

But it is the density of Conrad’s or THF’s proposals that would have created a walkable neighborhood and much more tax base. The Conrad proposal called for the most public assistance in total dollars but theirs was the least as a percentage of the total project cost ($58-$68 million, 16-19%). By contrast, the Michelson/Heine-Croghan proposal is seeking $47 million in assistance which is 28% of their proposal. The tax payers in Richmond Heights are getting taken!

Richmond Heights had a chance to create a spectacular area but they have instead settled for low density mediocrity.

– Steve

Technorati Tags:
St. Louis, Urban Planning, New Urbanism, Saint Louis

Conrad is Best Team to Redevelop Richmond Height’s Hadley Township

This post will cover a lot of ground including mass transit, pedestrian connections, politics, historic preservation, suburban sprawl and of course; eminent domain. But I’ve given away the conclusion in the headline. Of the proposals presented at last night’s meeting in Richmond Heights on redeveloping a part of that suburb known as Hadley Township, the Conrad team was by far the best.

THF, which I despise, actually had a much better proposal than I would have anticipated. The architecture firm of Heine-Croghan, which had a proposal as a developer, showed a lack of experience doing urban planning. Mills Properties, that had submitted a fourth proposal, was not at the meeting because apparently their approach wasn’t comprehensive enough to be compared to the others. Translated that means it didn’t take enough people’s homes to be considered by Richmond Heights.

From the literature I picked up at the meeting it seems that a fifth proposal, not on Richmond Heights’ website, was received. It was from QuikTrip, the Walgreen’s of gas stations. Maybe they wanted to do the world’s largest gas station comprising all 57 acres? Just imagine the number of pumps? People with Hummers might have to fill up again once they got to the other side of the QuikTrip.

Before I get into looking at the proposals for the area I want to talk about the area and how it got to this point. To the North is the highway that is about to get rebuilt. To the East a stable neighborhood. To the South the THF Realty monstrosity known as Maplewood Commons and to the West, across Hanley, the most f*cked up collection of strip malls, big boxes and offices that are sadly all relatively new. Among them is a new MetroLink light rail station that will be opening late this year.

The area in question was, at one time, a very stable and middle class African-American neighborhood. But because of the prime location speculators have been buying up properties for years. One was the aforementioned Mills Properties. The City of Richmond Heights has also acquired a number of properties within the area. The Richmond Heights Public Works department is located within the redevelopment area as are some other offices for the municipality. In short, the area suffers from being too well located to remain a nice middle class neighborhood.

In other similar areas, say Olivette just North of the tony suburb of Ladue, middle class houses were bought and razed for larger homes. But this didn’t happen here. I’m not sure if the speculators knew the land would be worth more if they could turn it into more strip malls or if it was because of the racial makeup of the neighborhood that they thought they couldn’t sell new in-fill houses to the white masses. Either way it has put these people’s neighborhood in the middle of a real estate game where they are simply the pawns. Yet as more and more speculators have bought property in the area it makes it harder and harder to sell your place to a new owner-occupant. The self-fulfiling downward spiral begins with the remaining home owners left realizing they will be forced to leave their family homes.


… Continue Reading

THF’s Bornstein Blames Tenants for Lack of Bike Parking

At a public meeting in Richmond Heights tonight I had a chance to talk with THF Realty’s Alan Bornstein. I waited until after all the residents got through trying to find out what they will be paid for their family homes before I took my turn.

I am biased. I like good urban design and despise the dreck that THF builds throughout our region and others. I especially hate the recently completed big box development in Maplewood that lacks any bike parking even though it is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. As a kid I would often bike to nearby stores (often to buy model cars — oh the irony).

Mr. Bornstein is an avid cyclist.

He and/or THF actually give thousands of dollars every year to cycling causes. However, when it comes to providing physical environments that encourage bicycling or walking we see nothing but accommodations for cars. In their Maplewood project you’ll see a sidewalk here and there but they don’t connect the dots. Two new restaurants are opening this week yet you can’t walk there unless you are willing to walk through the project’s drives and parking lots. So sad that lots of people lost their homes in the interest of the public good and yet we can’t even walk from place to place on a sidewalk or lock a bike to a bike rack while dining or shopping. It is sad that this is what passes for development now and even sadder that we don’t demand better.

I asked Mr. Bornstein why the Maplewood project had no bike parking and he said it wasn’t in the tenant’s program. The project wasn’t mixed use and the tenants didn’t call for parking therefore it was not a consideration. That was the best he could do? I gave him a condensed lecture on why they need to learn about connecting places and how they should perhaps read a book on New Urbanism or check out the Project for Public Spaces. He wasn’t interested. It felt good to give him a piece of my mind.

I’m sure I could have approached him differently and had a pleasant conversation that would have ended with a brush off. He makes millions doing what they do, working for Wal-Mart heir Stan Kronke building sprawling parking lots next to obsolete big boxes. I’m not going to change his mind with a rational argument about good urban design. He knows better designs exists. His firm caters to the big tenants. It is what they do.

THF Realty shouldn’t be allowed to put up a pup tent anywhere much less be given redevelopment rights that include the power of eminent domain.

– Steve

Public Meeting Tonight on Redevelopment Proposals in Richmond Heights

The City of Richmond Heights is holding at meeting this evening to show proposals for a redevelopment area called Hadley Township. The meeting will be held at The Heights on Dale Avenue from 7pm to 9pm.

The site is just North of the big box mess on Hanley created by THF Realty. Four proposals for this area were submitted to Richmond Heights, including one by THF Realty.

I’ve downloaded all four proposals but haven’t had a chance to review them in detail. I plan to stop by the meeting tonight to see them in person.

At first glance we see lower income housing being marked for replacement while across the highway multi-million dollar mansions have little to fear. The more money you have the less likely you are to lose your home to redevelopment proposals.

Click here to see more information on the project including all four proposals.

– Steve

Political Changes Moving U-City Forward

I recently discovered a group called U-City Forward that has a simple website listing some principals they seek for their community. It begins:

To regain the excitement and energy of the past, we believe that U City needs to reinvigorate, revitalize, broaden and deepen citizen enthusiasm and involvement in government at every level.

In the two years since they’ve started apparently they’ve replaced a few members of the City Council. I like it, a citizen based group organizing to take control of city government. Now if only I could think of another municipality where such an organization might do some good…

– Steve

But Will It Pay For Itself?

Yesterday afternoon I attended the Metro South MetroLink study meeting in South County. This was the final public meeting to close out the study period. Public comment continues until January 6, 2006.

After a short presentation an old man asked about a number within the 2 inch thick report that showed the area currently has 2,400 bus riders. He questioned the need for the light rail and “would it pay for itself?” The presenter did a great job with the comeback, “No, it would not be the first in the country to do so.” This man ignored the estimated ridership numbers which were pretty good. Remember, our MetroLink system has continued to exceed expectations in terms of usage. But why pick on transit?

Do people ask if the billion dollars to be spent on the proposed Mississippi River Bridge will pay for itself? No. What about the hundreds of millions already allocated for the rebuilding of I-64/Hwy 40 in the next few years — will that “pay for itself?” I think not. These are all just taken at face value as something we must do.

Why the public continues to apply a different standard to public transportation than to the subsidizing of private auto transportation I’ll never understand. Is it the love of the car? Is it a generational thing?

Fuel taxes don’t pay for all our road building and repairs and we keep building more and more. So much more we are going to struggle even more to maintain our sprawling region. This is a formula for disaster. I say we abolish all fuel taxes and other means of funding road projects. Then we add up the cost of building & maintaining roads on a state by state basis. As you register your vehicle your mileage is recorded and you pay your share based on miles driven. The more miles you drive the more you pay. If you have a car but drive it rarely you pay proportionately less.

Once people start paying on a per mile basis you’ll see a major drop in driving. Car pooling will increase. Transit ridership would rise along with calls for more service. Sprawl would virtually stop. If only…

The best long term investment in public funds is not rebuilding I-64 or building a massive bridge. No, the best investment we can make is to connect more of our region through good public mass transit.

– Steve

Wildwood Should Retain What’s Left Of Its Rural Character

The Post-Dispatch has an interesting story in the paper titled; Suburbia, horse country collide.

It seems the Wildwood City Council is considering a measure to limit the size of outbuildings. This is not uncommon as most municipalities have such ordinances. However, most do not have such large parcels of land. A newly formed group, Wildwood Horse Owners & Acreage Association, or WHOA for short is fighting to maintain the rural rights to barns and stables:

The organization opposes a plan before the City Council tonight to limit the size of unattached “accessory” buildings to 1.5 percent of the square footage of a property parcel. It would set a maximum building size of 6,500 square feet without special City Hall permission.

The proposed legislation, bill #1245, can be read here. I can see how people might not want someone building a barn bigger than the house on a 3 acre lot. But on land of say 20 acres a large barn seems like a basic element. I support keeping the rural character of Wildwood and don’t care for all the new McMansion subdivisions.

Still, I’ve seen some awful new metal barns and indoor riding arenas. It is one thing to argue for the right to keep horses and quite another to put up some enormous boring beige metal box. Wildwood probably needs to do some combination of both, limit size for smaller parcels (under 3 acres) and create some design guidelines for structures on larger sections.

Riding lessons are still on my to-do list. Maybe for 2006…

– Steve