New ‘Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority’ to Benefit Ballpark Village?

Just when you thought we didn’t have enough authorities, boards and commissions the City of St. Louis has decided to add yet another: the Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority. This is authorized by the State of Missouri through the Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Act or MODESA for short.

Under the city we’ve got the Planning Commission, Preservation Board, Board of Adjustment, and probably a few others. Under the St. Louis Development Corporation board (SLDC) we have the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), St. Louis Local Development Company (LDC), Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA), Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA), Tax Increment Financing Commission (TIF) and the St. Louis Port Authority. Trying to find out information on these is a challenge as with only one exception are the members names listed and agenda published online.

So do we really need another authority charged with economic development? Sadly, I think the answer is yes.

I attended the Board of Aldermen’s Housing, Urban Design & Zoning (HUDZ) committee meeting recently where Barb Geisman, the Deputy Mayor for Development, presented BB#6 to create the authority. The first thing I found interesting was the bill was sponsored by Fred Wessels, committee chair, rather than one of the aldermen representing most or some of downtown.

Ms. Geisman talked about the new state law allowing counties & cities to create this authority which can utilize state funds collected from two sources: state sales tax and state payroll taxes. She did a great job of explaining the complicated requirements and I’ll do my best to pass along how it will work as well as links to the legislation so you can play along at home.

The condensed idea is to attract new business to the downtown area as defined by the authority. If the development plan meets all the various criteria a portion of the state sales tax and earnings tax generated from new business can be applied toward development costs.

Defining new business is the tricky part. Moving the Hooters from Union Station to the old Mike Shannon’s site does not constitute new business. Even something like opening a new grocery store downtown may not count as the state will argue that it is not generating new state taxes — any sales would simply be at the expense of another grocer already located in Missouri.

In describing the process Geisman mentioned they were thinking of this authority for three “related” projects, St. Louis Center, the former Dillard’s building and Jefferson Arm’s. First, Jefferson Arm’s is only related to the other two because of the same developer, Pyramid Companies. Physically, the projects are a good 5+ blocks apart. But, that is not the issue. This Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority looks at projects generating state taxes — sales and payroll. The residential uses planned for St. Louis Center, Dillard’s and Jefferson Arms don’t even begin to meet the criteria. Sure, new businesses located at street-level may well qualify under the state’s terms but I can’t imagine that would generate much.

I think mentioning these projects was a bit of a smoke screen. My bet is this new authority is being put into place to help offset development costs for the Ballpark Village. You’ll recall recent flap over the developer, Cordish, seeking TIF financing and the city refusing to do so (see Biz Journal story). In all the years it took to get the new stadium deal put together and all the talk about the Ballpark Village I find it highly unlikely that TIF financing never came up in discussions until just recently. Does this mean a TIF is out? No, one of the tricks of the MODESA state law is that it must always accompany a TIF.

Mark my words — we’ll see the Ballpark Village get a TIF as well as help from this new Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority. I wouldn’t rule it out for other projects such as St. Louis Center and the Bottle District (aka Gateway Village).

Related links:
•

BB#6 (ignore summary as it is wrong but the PDF has the right bill)
•Missouri Development Finance Board/MODESA
• Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 99 (see 99.921 – 99.980)

– Steve

Smart ForTwo Spotted in St. Louis

The cute European Smart ForTwo has made its way to St. Louis in limited numbers. While attending the Bosnian Festival in the Bevo neighborhood today I spotted the lovable little car.

The Smart ForTwo has been around since the late 90s and has been a hit all over the world, including recent sales in Canada. Daimler-Chrysler (aka Mercedes), the cars designer and maker, hasn’t felt it would do well sales wise in the U.S. I think it is just what we need in this country.

I was able to chat with the owners for a while before we all decided it was too hot to stand around on an asphalt parking lot. The couple, in their gray years, had seen one in Paris and decided they had to have one. They’ve had theirs about 3 weeks.

A local car dealership (Suntrup Ford Kirkwood) is apparently able to get a few cars in each month and is selling them as used vehicles due to regulations with U.S. vehicles sales laws. Separately, a California company known as ZAP (Zero Air Pollution) has received authorization to begin legally selling new Smarts in the U.S. In both cases look to spend about $25K for the two passenger car.

The owner was quite happy with the attention his car was getting. He was even more pleased when I told him I was a stock holder in ZAP that is starting to legally import the cars (yes, I am a geek investor). He said he gets around 40mpg in town and around 60mpg on the highway. This is a regular gasoline car — no fancy hybrid stuff (where would you put it?). Europeans and those Canadians get even more efficient 3-cyclinder diesels.

Rumor sites indicate Mercedes might begin to officially import the Smart around 2009 after a redesign. The dealerships are very cool and urban as they emphasis the small space the car consumes by stacking them vertically in a glass tower — no big parking lots. See the official Smart website here and more of my pictures on Flickr.

Mitsubishi, which makes some of the engines used in the Smart, also has a new minicar out called simply the i. It is basically a 4-door version of the Smart, again with a rear engine layout and a highly space efficient interior. Right now it is for sale in Japan only but it will likely spread into Europe. For more information see GreenCarCongress or the official press release.

More choice in the minicar market will be an upside to rising gas prices. And just for comparison, my quite small Scion xA is nearly five feet longer than the Smart ForTwo! In the space it takes one Chevy Suburban you can park two Smarts with room to spare for a few scooters.

– Steve

McGuire on Forest Park/BJC “Deal”

Former Alderman and Director of Parks Dan McGuire has been making the rounds of public meetings letting his thoughts be known on the subject of BJC getting a long-term lease on 12 acres of Forest Park that, due to a road construction project, appear to be “isolated.” Given that most of our city’s 105 city parks (see list) are under 5 acres I just don’t see how you can call 12 isolated but then again the mayor’s office likes to twist things in odd ways.

I first heard Dan McGuire speak on this issue at the May 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, a great presentation by the way. He recently updated his comments which you can read here. It is a 5-page PDF document that explains in great detail his background as both the alderman for the area as well as the director of parks.

Last week he sent letters to the small committee looking into the deal. From the letter:

Much has been made of the assertion that this amended lease would provide a “dedicated source” of
revenue for the day-to-day operations and maintenance of Forest Park by combining new revenues from
BJH and matching annual donations from Forest Park Forever (FPF). While, once again, this is a noble
this catchy phrase doesn’t really capture the totality of the deal and, perhaps, simply serves as a
smokescreen.

In this letter he does again into detail talking about the financing and how the plan was to ensure the city maintained funding to Forest Park. He also notes how Forest Park Forever has been working since at least 2001 to create a maintenance endowment for Forest Park so it is not like a new source of funding has suddenly been found. Click here to read the four page letter to the special committee.

And finally McGuire is offering amendments to the city budget to correct the diversion of funds away from Forest Park. Click here to read his presentation to the Ways & Means committee.

BJC apparently approached the city last year to make this happen. Had BJC not approached the city how would the mayor’s office be dealing with maintaining Forest Park?

Even though this deal has been in talks for a while do our leaders have a backup plan just in case?

Until 2001/2002 all of Forest Park had been in one ward but for some reason this section was taken away from the 28th Ward and placed in the 17th Ward during this last round of redistricting. Coincidence or careful long-range planning?

What is the rush? BJC says they don’t have any immediate plans for the site (I’m not convinced) and we’ve not figured out where to relocate all the facilities. Is it too much to ask for our leaders to have their ducks in a row before coming to us with these plans?

In the meantime, it is a hot holiday weekend so get out enjoy some of the city’s great parks.

– Steve

Legal Victory For Bloggers!

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Applying strong First Amendment protections to bloggers and Web site operators, a San Jose-based appeals court today rejected Apple Computer’s bid for the identities of individuals who leaked confidential information on one of its new products.

In a 69-page ruling, the 6th District Court of Appeal broke new ground by concluding that bloggers and webmasters enjoy the same protections against divulging confidential sources as established media organizations. The decision sets up a likely challenge in the California Supreme Court.

I love Apple Computer so much that I have an Apple-logo tattoo, but this is one case where I’m glad they lost. The case will most likely make its way through the court system, giving some legal definition to the blog/website form of media. As you might imagine, I’ve been keeping close tabs on this one…

– Steve

Ald. Florida & Co Submit Revised Site Pan for McDonald’s

As expected, the beleaguered team of McDonald’s, Pyramid Companies and unofficial spokeswoman Ald. Jennifer Florida submitted a revised site plan for the controversial McDonald’s proposed for the old Sears location at 3708 S. Grand. Last month when Ald. Florida told the Board of Adjustment they’d return with a design following Toronto’s excellent urban design guidelines for drive-thrus I was quite skeptical. Based on the new plan, I was right.

They’ve made a few simple changes — mostly good but still a long way from even approaching anything like what is suggested by Toronto’s standards. First, they have reduced the amount of extra paving which permits a planter area along the Southern property line. Similarly, they’ve created a 20ft+ landscape buffer at the alley with plantings and a 6ft high solid wood fence. Curb cuts on Grand have been reduced from 30ft wide each to 26ft wide. The main thing they’ve done is reduce the drive between the building and public sidewalk — this allowed them to move the building closer to Grand. Again, a good baby step but far from urban.

While the building is nearly abutted to Grand it is set back from Winnebego. To be truly an urban form it should conform to the corner. Three curb cuts is one too many. Lighting is from four poles and may potentially create excess light outside the property boundaries. I’d rather see more smaller lights so as to illuminate the parking area but not all the neighbors. All of the neighbor’s valid concerns about noise, pollution, trash and traffic remain unchanged.

If McDonald’s wishes to continue operating in this area they simply need to rebuild on their current location and not inflict their ill on a new set of adjacent homeowners.

– Steve