St. Louis To Use Eminent Domain to Raze Owner-Occupied Homes for Auto-Centric Retail

Ald. Phyllis Young, up for re-election in only two years, is seeking eminent domain to take people’s homes for a second phase of a project that hasn’t even started construction on the first phase. The project, Georgian Square, is to be located across Lafayette Ave from the former city hospital which is being reborn as The Georgian condos. Still, everyone calls it City Hospital. As such, I will call the proposed development City Hospital Square or CHS for short.

By now you’ve probably heard about or read about this proposed development. The phase II area, with existing buildings include three newer homes (roughly from 2000) is in a “Neighborhood Preservation Area” per the city’s 2005 Comprehensive Land-Use Plan:

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.

I’ve re-read the above paragraph numerous times and I still can’t find the part where it talks about forcing people out of their properties and razing viable structures for more suburban schlock. What is being said, through Ald. Young, is it doesn’t matter what we say on paper or where you buy your house, a Walgreen’s takes priority. In a city littered with vacant land it is criminal to contemplate razing both wonderful old properties as well as nearly new homes.

However, the bulk of the land is vacant, as soon as they finish razing the row houses along Lafayette. This land is located in a “Regional Commerce Area” per the Land-Use Plan:

Areas where the development of existing and commercial uses intended to serve a regional clientele should be encouraged. Developments in these areas will often be new projects. These areas generally consist of existing regional commercial uses or large sites at intersections of major roads/highways with regional access and visibility. Several large and currently underutilized sites exist in the City at prominent intersections. These locations provide “ready to go” locations for large format retailers with strong adjacent markets.

This area, without a doubt, needs new construction. The question is, what form will this new construction take? While I agree with others saying the old Foodland site on Jefferson @ Lafayette would be a better choice the fact is both sites need new construction. I’m not going to get into a debate about which should come first. Both need to be redeveloped and both need to be done so in a clearly urban manner — in other words no big parking lots between the entrance and public sidewalk.

Need more parking? Put in under, on top of, next to or behind the main buildings — just not out front. That kinda development just shouldn’t fly in such an urban area. Well, perhaps that is why they want to raze the block of existing buildings — to make less urban. I really think developers have some sick need to control more land than necessary. When defending the use of eminent domain to gain site control advocates will always talk about “some guy in the middle” holding out for more than his property is worth. But in the case of Loughborough Commons and here the houses in question are on the edge. The developers simply assume, no matter how much land they have already, they need that last little bit to make their project work. I sometimes think if they had a 500 acres but another 10 was off in a corner but on a major road they’d want that — saying their proejct simply won’t work without it.

The problem is our developers, elected officials, architects, planners, engineers and related professions haven’t learned how to develop in a tight land market. As more and more city property is being redeveloped it is only going to get harder and harder for developers to make big land deals. They will need to learn to design projects more densely and not assume they can wipe away an adjacent block. The result will actually be better projects — more building(s) on a given parcel of land. This will make the area more walkable and most likely more desired.

Of course our ancient zoning remains a key player in our problems in the city. It is based on a cheap land, cheap gas model where parking is king. It is hard to push a developer to do expensive underground parking (think Target on Hampton) when the developer down the street might do a massive surface parking lot. The solution is we as a city must embrace an urban form that makes the city a city. That means our standards moving forward should set maximums on the amount of surface parking while offering rewards for more urban forms of parking. Such a reward might be allowing the developer to build an additional floor(s) on their project to make up for the additional parking expense. Getting our aldermen to wake up and see the possibilities, however, is the big challenge. Replacing them might well be easier than trying to educate them.

Here is what needs to happen with City Hospital Square:

• The Phase II takings of private property needs to be dropped completely.
• The possible taking of a few vacant pacels in the block between Tucker & 13th should be considered, provided a project is not in the works already for that vacant land.
• The main project needs to be redesigned placing buildings up to Lafayette Ave with the only parking in front being on-street parking.
• These buildings should be 2-4 stories in height along Lafayette.
• Similarly, buildings along 13th Street need to face 13th, not turning their back on the adjacent residential.
• Some form of shared parking needs to be considered — this might be underground, a common parking structure, roof-top, or back lot should be used for the main project. Very small amounts of surface lots may be appropriate to provide accessible spaces near entrances.
• Bike, scooter & motorcyle parking needs to be provided as space saving alternatives to typical parking.
• Sidewalks from Soulard to the East and Lafayette Square to the West need to be evaluated and updated as necessary to make the area as pedestrian friendly as possible.

Mississippi River Bridge: Last Option is the Best Option

A proposed new bridge across the Mississippi River is back in the news of late. Missouri and Illinois still cannot agree on how to pay for the bridge “now estimated to cost between $999 million and $1.76 billion.” (P-D 2/1/07). Call me a synic but if they are estimating such a range I’m going to go with the high end or better when the final bill is paid. In no way do I believe that it would come in under a billion. I’m going to go with $1.5 billion.

So we have several choices: the big highway bridge, a more cost-effective “coupler” built near the existing King Bridge and lastly we have a proposal to fix some of the existing interchanges, a new I-64 interchange in Illinois and redo parts of Illinois Route 3. The feds have already earmarked $239 million for the bridge project — money that presumably can go for this work. Interestingly, these little third option strategies are all items that need to be done anyway. I say stop wasting time on the bridge debate and get to work on fixing the areas that need fixing. Get the bottleneck areas resolved. Is this too short term and not the long-range planning I prefer we do? Perhaps.

I still question the “need” for a new bridge, especially one costing over a billion dollars to construct. Keep in mind that the old McKinley bridge will be reopening for traffic (including cyclists) in September connecting just north of downtown to Illinois Route 3 to Granite City and Madison County. This combined with the King Bridge and Eads Bridge into downtown can handle considerable local traffic. The new bridge as proposed will, in my view, simply shift sprawl from the Western edge of our region (St. Charles County) to the far Eastern edge of the region. Proponents say this will help re-center the City of St. Louis within the region. I suppose that is true, but so would curbing the sprawl through various Smart Growth measures employed by other regions. A billion or so would do wonders in the region for curbing sprawl and building more localized transit.

Frankly, if someone wants to buy a big house way out in Illinois and doesn’t like the traffic on I-64 they have several choices. One, move closer so the drive is not so long. They can get off the highway and take local streets that will get them across the river on other bridges besides the Poplar Street Bridge (aka the PSB). They can utilize the excellent MetroLink light rail system that serves a good portion of St. Clair County in Illinois or bus service to the city from Madison County Transit. Perhaps Illinois with its substantial transportation funding could help out Madison County by helping fund their proposed MetroLink extension.

This bridge, if finally built will not grow our region. It will simply shift suburban sprawl around a bit — a zero sum gain for the region. And simply put, the more lanes you build the more volume will increase putting you right back where you started at some point. As we’ve seen in the past, the city will remain a pass-through. Let’s fix the areas that need fixing and then work on moving people & jobs closer to the center — both in Illinois and Missouri.

St. Louis University is a Secular Institution, Not a Catholic or Jesuit University

Yes, you read correctly, Saint Louis University is neither a Catholic or Jesuit University. Now I know what you are thinking, that I’ve gone off the deep end this time. Everyone knows Saint Louis University is a Catholic University, right? Well, just hear me out. First, I personally agree with most of you the university is most definintely a Catholic University run by Jesuit priests. So where does this proclamation come from saying the university is secular and not a religious institution? There is a group, which I will reveal in a minute, who are making this claim and doing so in court. The case is on the docket for the Missouri Supreme Court to review on Wednesday February 21, 2007.

Interestingly, the group claiming Saint Louis University is not a Catholic University is…. Saint Louis University! Really, you just can’t make up stuff this good. Saint Louis University (SLU) is saying they are secular and they’ve got at least eight million reasons for trying to convince the court that is the case. Confused yet? Let me help you out but you’ve got to pay close attention because this is a complicated issue.

In short, some years back the city approved a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) plan for the Grand Center Redevelopment Area (itself blighted for some 30 years). Several projects were to be funded with this TIF including the SLU Arena, the old Woolworth Building and the Metropolitan Building. In total, 24 projects were listed within the district totaling some $80 million in TIF funds. Through some clever wording it turns out, critics claim, SLU will get all the area’s TIF money for the next seven or eight years — all going into the new arena, which broke ground last year. This might be as much as $14 million, they claim.

In the United States we have this pesky little provision in the constitution requiring separation of church and state. The Missouri constitution, I am told, goes even further in its wording on use of public money at religious institutions. So the question before the Missouri Supreme court is the use of $8 million in public TIF funds for the construction of an arena at a Catholic university. With $8 million in public tax money at risk, SLU has been quietly arguing in court they are not a Catholic university.

Now, I’m no theologeon but I kinda get the impression from SLU’s mission statement they are indeed a Catholic University:

The Mission of Saint Louis University is the pursuit of truth for the greater glory of God and for the service of humanity. The University seeks excellence in the fulfillment of its corporate purposes of teaching, research and community service. It is dedicated to leadership in the continuing quest for understanding of God?s creation, and for the discovery, dissemination and integration of the values, knowledge and skills required to transform society in the spirit of the Gospels. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, the pursuit is motivated by the inspiration and values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and is guided by the spiritual and intellectual ideals of the Society of Jesus.

SLU’s argument is their board of directors are mostly lay persons, therefore they are not of any religious creed. Of course, all evidence is to the contrary. Here are some more tidbits from their mission statement page suggesting how they support the above mission, the university:

• Strives continuously to seek means to build upon its Catholic, Jesuit identity, and to promote activities which apply that intellectual and ethical heritage to work for the good of society as a whole.
• Nurtures within its community an understanding of and commitment to the promotion of faith and justice in the spirit of the Gospels.

There are numerous examples of SLU stating they are indeed a Catholic University, these are well cited in the various court briefs that I have been supplied. Here is one from a press release on the arena groundbreaking:

Saint Louis University is a Jesuit, Catholic university ranked among the top research institutions in the nation. The University fosters the intellectual and character development of 11,800 students on campuses in St. Louis and Madrid, Spain. Founded in 1818, it is the oldest university west of the Mississippi and the second oldest Jesuit university in the United States. Through teaching, research, health care and community service, Saint Louis University is the place where knowledge touches lives.

Interesting, in the same press release SLU makes it sound like the full TIF is being paid solely from revenues generated by the arena:

The Arena will be funded through fundraising, $8 million in TIF funding and bonds, which will be paid off with revenues from the Arena.

If the arena were a single project TIF, such as say a downtown loft building, this would be completely true. But, the arena is part of the Grand Center revelopment area which was expanded to include the site, even though it is a substantial distance away from what we think of as Grand Center.

Basically the incremental increase in property taxes, sales tax and such from redeveloping the district are to be used to help fund projects. The reality is other property owners in the area are involuntarily helping subsidize SLU’s new arena. I was told by one opponent, intimately familiar with the issues involved, that one commercial property’s taxes were reassessed so that taxes increased from $5,000/year to roughly $35,000 per year.

By getting the property taxes raised, on the argument the district has increased in value thanks to SLU and former Alderman Mike McMillan, the owners are helping fund the TIF. Their choices are to pay up or sell. Say you’ve got a great building in the area and you want to redevelop it yourself or sell to a developer. You, like developers throughout the city, look for TIF and/or tax abatement to help make the project feasible. Here is where it gets a bit tricky.

First, you are graciously given a B or C bond on within the TIF. But, the chances of you ever getting any money on this bond are way down the road, after SLU has received their money first. SLU hold a “B” bond which is subordinate to their “A” bond. All other bonds that have been issued are subordinate to both of the SLU bonds which total over $10 million. So say you decide to go foward without a TIF but you want tax abatement to lock in the current (and increasing) property taxes at the current rate. Oh, sorry — no can do. What that means is even if you raise a substantial amount of money to complete a project within the district the property taxes will go up immediately and you’ll be helping fund, with public money, the arena for SLU.

Through a number of ordinances the city has determined that up to $80 million in TIF bonds can be sold. These will be broken down in A, B and C bonds with the A’s getting paid first and so on. SLU’s arena project got the first A bond, worth $8 million. The master developer for the area, Grand Center, Inc headed by former Mayor Vincent Schoemehl, has the authority to increase the bond by up to 30% making the $8 million bond rise to over $10 million. The second bond for SLU at $2.5 could easily go to $3.25 million. If that is not enough, and the tax revenue is there to support it, the Board of Aldermen could simply pass another ordinance to subordinate other bonds and issue another to SLU. SLU’s President, Father Biondi, argued in a deposition the TIF was necessary for the arena:

Q. Is it your opinion that the eight million is a necessity, and, if so, why?
A. Yes. It is a necessity . . . Athletics plays an important role here at St. Louis University. . . Why is an arena important? Because it’s an attractive venue for students from across the United States to come to this campus to be educated in the Jesuit
tradition. [emphasis mine]

They come to be “educated in the Jesuit tradition” at a non-Catholic, non-Jesuit university? I don’t think so.

Several issues are at play here. First, Grand Center has been blighted for decades and has a blanket TIF to aid in redevelopment but all the tax revenue is going to a single SLU project located a good distance from Grand Center. Second, SLU does not need the funds so the criteria used to determine if a project is eligible for a TIF, the “if not but for” test fails. SLU could build the arena without the $8 million in public funds. And finally SLU is a Catholic, Jesuit university and therefore is ineligible to receive public moneies based on the Missouri constitution.

I haven’t told you who filed the original lawsuit challenging the use of TIF for SLU, the Masonic Temple Association of St. Louis. Yes, this is the Masons vs. the Jesuits. Both sides been through a couple of rounds with SLU coming out the winner. The stakes are big and others have submitted “friends of the court briefs” on both sides the issue.

In addition to the above links, here are documents for your review:

• Amicus Brief filed by ACLU of Eastern Missouri supporting Masons, (PDF, 92k, 26 pages)
• Amicus Brief filed by Americans United for Separation of Church & State supporting Masons, (PDF, 2.5mb, 59 pages)
• Amicus Brief filed by Center for Law & Religious Freedom supporting SLU & St. Louis City, (PDF)
  
• SLU_TIF St. Louis City Brief
• SLU_TIF Masons Appeal
• SLU_TIF Masons Brief
• SLU_TIF Summary Judgement ruling
• SLU_TIF Ordinance 67059
• 10/3/06 – Missouri Eastern Court of Appeals – Opinion

Articles in the Press:

• 12/15/06 – Richard Baron, John Steffen make Grand plans
• 10/25/06 – Grand Debate RFT
• 10/5/06 – MO Court of Appeals gives legal green light to TIF financing for St. Louis University (st. louis daily record)
• 6/5/06 – Eastern District Court of Appeals hears case about new St. Louis University Arena
• 8/12/05 – TIF ruling benefits SLU, not Grand Center  Commentary in St. Louis Business Journal by Frederick Medler
• 7/22/05 – SLU Entitled To TIF For Arena Project
• 7/22/05 – Grand Center’s court victory resurrects $130 million in projects
• 7/20/05 – slu – St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Rules Saint Louis University Entitled to TIF Funding for Arena Project
• 6/24/05 – Grand Center suit bumped to state by federal judge
• 5/20/05 – Grand Center scores loan for new A&E home
• 12/17/04 -  No TIF, no projects, Lawsuit stalls $130 million in development in Grand Center
• 2/27/03 – SLU arena becomes a reality

Most of the above articles are from the St. Louis Business Journal and all of those show a clear bias in favor of SLU and the TIF subsidy.  Basically this seems like an unfair deal and it explains why projects such as the Metropolitan Building and the old Woolworth have not gone forward.  No TIF for them, no project for us to consume.  With both TIF financing and church-state issues all wrapped up into one this will certainly be interesting to see how the Missouri Supreme Court rules on this case.

Clear the Downtown Streets, It is Time for the Mayor’s Mardi Gras Ball

A year ago a motorcade with flashing lights whizzed through stoplights as aldermen went from a hotel party sponsored by Anheuser-Busch to City Hall for the annual Mayor’s Ball. The story was first told in the St. Louis Business Journal by Dave Drebes of the Arch City Chronicle, expanded upon by the RFT. From the RFT story:

So was Dave Drebes, editor and publisher of the local political tabloid Arch City Chronicle. Drebes, who also writes a weekly column for the St. Louis Business Journal, referenced the soirée in the March 3 Business Journal. Noting that pomp reigns as power wanes among city lawmakers, Drebes described “whizzing through stoplights” with three (unnamed) aldermen in a motorcade from the hotel to city hall as sirens and flashing red lights attached to the caravan’s lead car helped clear a path through traffic.

Gregali, Florida and Kirner say the February 24 motorcade was orchestrated and led by the private security firm Special Services Inc. The aldermen and Drebes followed in Gregali’s Mercury minivan, with Gregali behind the wheel. The aldermen say they don’t know who else was in the procession.

Here is a bit from Drebes’ story talking about the waning power of aldermen:

So what has the job become? Visit an alderman now and you’ll most likely find a yellow legal pad — a running list of calls from constituents about the most inane and yet pressing matters — a street light that’s not working, an overflowing trash can or dumpster, an alley that needs repaving, a sidewalk that need to be reset. That is the bulk of their day.

As their stars fade, is there some outrage, some pang of despair at the lack of power? No. Some itch for rebellion, some wish to put the mayor on notice that they still matter? No.

They’re content with their place. They’re zooming through red lights on the way to the Ball.

Click here to read my story from 2006 with links to the RFT article and the Business Journal commentary by Drebes. Party safely and watch out near city hall.

Development Neanderthals Need to Know the Real Meaning of ‘CAVE’

If you read the propaganda in today’s St. Louis Business Journal on development you might think the term CAVE is “Citizens Against Virtually Everything.” Instead, it is actually Citizens Against Vulgar Environments. And vulgar is what we often get from the developers complaining in the journal.

In the face of hundreds of millions of dollars of redevelopment activity in the St. Louis area in recent years, a vehemence against commercial development has risen to new levels.

Just in the last month,

Paul McKee Jr. has been accused of planning to “bulldoze the ghetto,” and Chris Goodson’s site for a new development on downtown’s edge was picketed on the same day plans were unveiled. Gundaker Commercial Group’s Mike Hejna denounced the new force in development: “CAVE” men, or “Citizens Against Virtually Everything.”

Hejna made the comments to a group of real estate brokers Feb. 6 after detailing the several-years-long process of getting his and Duke Realty’s $750 million Premier 370 business park approved in St. Peters.

Read the above again, it is all about the money. Dollar signs are all they see. If millions of dollars are being “invested” it must therefore be good. The developers like McKee and Hejna can’t have a discussion about pedestrian-friendly design, planning for various modes of transportation, and sustainable development. Lisa Brown continues:

Anti-development sentiment has risen to a level beyond civil discourse, to a point where developers have received threats at their homes. And this opposition is harder to overcome with the Internet as a tool — it’s hard to fight an opponent you can’t see or identify.

“Because of the blogosphere, it exaggerates things,” said Stephen Acree, president of the Regional Housing and Community Development Alliance (RHCDA). “The folks that are most vocal on the blogs are not necessarily part of the neighborhood organizations that are working in the community to build it.”

Many of the blogs, such as mine, are well identified. In fact, we are often more identifiable than the Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) these developers employ to keep their identities hidden from public scrutiny. We wouldn’t want our prominent citizens being connected to a string of properties being left open to vandals, arsonists, homeless and the elements.

And Mr. Acree, you are correct. Many of the bloggers such as myself are not part of the neighborhood organizations. Why? As an example, when I tried to get my neighborhood organization to help save a historic building they refused to act because their funding is tied to the alderman that was in favor of demolition. This is St. Louis you know and politicos can be be spiteful if crossed. Acting outside the organization you can, in my view, have a bigger inpact. By the way, the building was saved (despite claims it could not) and is being converted to condos.

Fears over eminent domain and the proliferation of blogs on the Internet have created a difficult environment for developers, said Marian Nunn, chief operating officer of St. Louis-based THF Realty, one of the largest private commercial developers in the country.

“There seems to be heightened alertness on the part of the public when you need to tear anything down, even if it has to be torn down,” Nunn said. “The Internet has really created a whole new venue for people who are misinformed to communicate on a large scale. It’s very mean spirited, and they don’t have to do it face to face or face rebuttal.”

You want a face to face rebuttal? Name the time and place and I will be there. Shall we have that face to face meeting in the massive wasteland THF calls Maplewood Commons? Or we could debate the value of the development THF placed in the flood zone in the Chesterfield Valley? Talk about “mean spirited” — these developments are absolutely horrid in every possible category. Would I have stopped those projects dead in their tracks if I could have? Yes!

[Update 2/16/2007 @ 11:35am — I just left a voice message for Ms. Nunn inviting her and her developer friends to a face to face discussion on development practices. If she accepts, I will arrange for a meeting room at St. Louis University where the public can be invited.]

Trust me Ms. Nunn, I am not at all “misinformed” on development. It is the likes of you and others that are clearly misinformed about good design, sustainable development and anything remotely resembling a true walkable community. The interesting thing is most of you are all members of organizations such as the ULI (Urban Land Institute). You must get the monthly manazine and simply toss it in your lobby. I’ve got a suggestion — open it up and actually read the articles. Attend the workshops, not just sponsor them. Once you’ve managed that perhaps actually buying some of the books published by them and the APA (American Planning Assocaition). Same goes for Ms. Brown and the others at the Business Journal — who knows you might actually learn why that big ugly parking garage next to your office is not a good thing for the long term future of St. Louis.

Of course, these developers are not in it for the long haul. Sure, they may retain all their “projects” but that is all they are to them. They boil it down to so many leasable square feet and how much it cost to build. When it gets old they either sell it or return to the local government and hold out their hand for more tax money to retrofit the now-obsolete project.

Myself and others are not anti-commercial development as this article attempts to paint us. I happen to be very pro-development, but not any development just for the sake of development. Unlike these wealthy developers who are complaining about being challenged on their projects, some of us actually know the difference between good and bad design. We know what makes an area sustainable in the long term which is a different goal than short term profits. But the whole issue of good vs. bad development is not agreed upon by everyone so it is time to have that civilized discussion about what constitutes good design for our community.

This is where the developers and people like Mayor Slay’s staff (Barb Giesman & Jeff Rainford) go running. For decades development has happened in a vacuum, with little oversight into the process. Today, in 2007, the situation is different. People, believe it or not, actually care about their physical environment. Yes, we live in a city or suburb for a reason. I did not move to a city consisting of gridded urban streets to have it change into low density sprawl like Ballwin. If I would have wanted that I would have moved there. So we are standing up for what we want, the choice is yours. Either sit down at the table now and lets work through some good zoning for the city (tossing aside our 60-year old auto-centric codes) or be prepared to see an escalation in the level of opposition at every turn.

Jeff Rainford, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff:

We simply have to stand up to the very small number of people who are fighting progress for their own financial or political gain.

Boy, that is rich! Who is seeking financial or political gain here? The funny thing is any population gains the city might be seeing are from people who want to actually live in a city, not the city re-made into some bad suburb. Once again, politicians define “progress” as so many millions of dollars being spent. A wonderful dense urban neighborhood could be built at Pruitt-Igoe but if a medical waste facility were to cost another $10 million they’d probably consider that more progress and go that direction. We need people at the top that actually have a clue. After all, good urban design is not rocket science, even a caveman could do it.

We, the Citizens Against Vulgar Environments (CAVE), need to stand up against a very small number of small-minded people who are, through their prehistoric development practices and political positions, holding back the true potential of the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis Region.