We've Moved

Ecology of Absence now resides at www.preservationresearch.com. Please change your links and feeds.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Senate Committee Passed Amended Version of Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit

Yesterday the Economic Development Committee of the Missouri Senate passed to the full Senate the economic development bill (HB 1) that includes the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act.

Despite the absence of testimony at the hearing from critics of the current version of DALATCA, the committee approved two amendments that were suggested by myself and other critics: a measure requiring that the applicant for the credits host public meetings and a measure that prohibits use of the credit toward fines and bills paid to municipal government.

Read more here.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

How does that work? What facility does a private developer have to host a public meeting? What is the threshold for satisying the requirement?

If the city is required to hold public meetings prior to approving redevelopment plans, what is the expected outcome of a private developer hosting a public meeting.

Say McKee has his public meeting, doesn't offer a specific proposal, solicits comments, and then files the comments in the round file under his desk.

So what? Recourse for citizens here seems to be with their local government, not Paul McKee.

kevin dickherber said...

I don't get the 25% must be redeveloped by other co developers portion. What does this mean to a developer already rehabbing in the area with prior future plans to do more? Do I apply w/ Mr McKee, to recieve the right to work, or who? Am I included in any incentives, or am I expected to do more with less? Isn't ONRG in the same boat?

Anonymous said...

These criteria are toothless; this entire state process of "rewriting" and "amending" the bill is meant only to cover the asses of our representatives and senators.

The reality is that no project of this scale could proceed without enabling legislation (aka a blighting bill) which mandates a "public" meeting.

The 25% portion is equally toothless; it either means that McKeeTown (tm) project supporters have identified the additional participants that they need politically (say, a minority developer) or that some portion of the project site will not be developed in the short term by the same entity.

The ball is seemingly in April Ford Griffin and Marlene Davis' court; we shall see how they play it.

Anonymous said...

"The ball is seemingly in April Ford Griffin and Marlene Davis' court; we shall see how they play it."

Indeed. They will play it to get back together with the developer, no doubt.

Don't be fooled.

Anonymous said...

No one is fooled; but I can't imagine living my life where one's cyncism paralyzes common sense (see Urban Review). What do you think keeps political leaders of any stripe honest? It seems in an environment where aldermen have been recalled for much less, residents of the 5th ward (whereever they are) have a lot more power than they think--if they choose to use it wisely.

My advice is to put down the beer or pipe (whatever is your preference), go outside, take a deep breath and find yourself a new frame of mind.

barbara_on_19th said...

Anon said something like... don't see how this could happen without a blighting bill. Ummm, McKee & friends ALREADY OWN over 50 acres. They don't have to blight to build whatever they want, they just need to apply for building permits, as they only bought in areas where there are no local design ordinances. So far they have not used legal tools like blighting bills and eminent domain, instead relying on good old-fashioned blockbusting to assemble the parcels. Now, after the amendments, if they want to get the tax credit money, they will have to get a redevelopment ordinance passed through BoA. This makes sense to me. If you want my taxes, you have to follow some rules and make nice to local pols who have to make nice to the voters. Lots of room for deals, yes, but a tiny glimmer of democratic process nonetheless. It is sad when "politics as usual" is a great improvement, but that is what I see here.

Anonymous said...

Point of clarification for those following along...

a blighting bill and a redevelopment ordinance are peas in the same pod.

in order to pass a redevelopment ordinance, the property must first be blighted.

redevelopment ordinances do not require eminent domain, but getting access to things like TIF or tax abatement requires blighting and a redevelopment ordinance.

you can have property you already own blighted. ownership has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

If a property is blighted (aka applied for tax abaitment) is it more likely to be eminent domained?

Anonymous said...

When blighting property by ordinance, the city may provide for the awarding of tax abatement, while not including language authorizing the use of eminent domain.

It's actually done this way quite often in order to address concerns of neighborhood residents regarding the threat of eminent domain.