I don't think it does, since they would be new improvements, rather than value appreciation.SouthCityJR wrote: ↑4:13 PM - Mar 27How does the Hancock Amendment factor into this? Isn’t there a limit to how much increase SLPS can get from property taxes anyway at some point because of that?
Well it is fallow now if they walk awayJaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑4:56 PM - Mar 27You’re assuming incentives are only used for fallow lots which is often not the case (nor was it the case here).jshank83 wrote: ↑4:39 PM - Mar 27“ It has however depleted SLPS of much needed funds ”JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑3:10 PM - Mar 27We’ve thrown free money at developers for more than 20 years and it hasn’t caused a development boom. It has however depleted SLPS of much needed funds driving flight to suburbs for perceived better education opportunities.
This site sits on the campus of Global Fortune 500 company with thousands of employees and significant accommodation needs (WF advisors from across the country are frequently flown into StL for meeting, trainings, etc. in that office). Not to mention it’s proximity to the Soccer stadium.
Midas, or another developer, will be back with a better proposal.
Isn’t this assuming all the sites that got incentives would have been built on regardless? Which I doubt is what would have happened.
Anyway, this phenomenon has been studied: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/edu ... c4ee1.html
Hopefully they will negotiate. The highest and best use of a lot on the campus of a Fortune 500 and a block from a hot stadium area isn’t dirt or a parking lot. I’m skeptical that they really need incentives to be successful there but I agree with the poster above that these situations shouldn’t be black and white, the alderman should tell the developer what it would take to get to yes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly, it should never be this us vs them grandstanding nonsense. Communicate and come to the table with your terms.tztag wrote: ↑10:54 PM - Mar 27Hopefully they will negotiate. The highest and best use of a lot on the campus of a Fortune 500 and a block from a hot stadium area isn’t dirt or a parking lot. I’m skeptical that they really need incentives to be successful there but I agree with the poster above that these situations shouldn’t be black and white, the alderman should tell the developer what it would take to get to yes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She did. She sponsored the bill requesting the incentives.tztag wrote: ↑10:54 PM - Mar 27the alderman should tell the developer what it would take to get to yes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This gets to the bigger issue. The city has no coherent plan for how they talk with developers or encourage them to build and invest in the city. The city has an economic development agency (SLDC) and development boards (LCRA, et al) that vet and make recommendations to Board of Alderman. The new "progressive" administration pretty much cleaned house at SLDC and paid consultants 10s of $1,000s to come up with a new way to review requests for development incentives including a new financial analysis model and community benefit score card. We have to assume that the project met both the thresholds for SLDC, LCRA Board to recommend it AND the Alderwoman to sponsor the project at the Board of Alderman. Yet, it gets shot down at the HUDZ hearing?
So what are developers to think? A development passes the fiscal and community benefit standards set by the new administration, but there is no buy-in from BoA. At this point, why should a developer care what SLDC or the Ward Alderman thinks of their project? It's irrelevant. You can do everything asked of you and still be told "no".
BoA, Mayor and SLDC need to get on the same page before every developer just gives up and decides to work in other cities where there seems to be a coherent strategy (or any demonstrable desire) to attract development and investment. Just don't see it here anymore.
- 272
'Path forward' for hotel project at Wells Fargo site, official says
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2024/03/28/path-forward-hotel-project-wells-fargo-site.htmlSt. Louis' legislative leader said Thursday she sees a "path forward" for a substantial Downtown West hotel development that's seeking tax subsidies but saw them cast aside by lawmakers earlier this week.
Midas Hospitality is seeking some $7.3 million in tax abatement over 10 years for what it describes as a $125 million project to build two new seven-story hotels, a Kimpton Hotel and Staybridge Suites, plus a "high-end" restaurant, at the corner of Market Street and Jefferson Avenue, 2601 Market St., on the site of former Wells Fargo Advisors buildings.
The Board of Aldermen's Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee on Tuesday voted against advancing the subsidies to the full board, with Midas CEO David Robert saying that "if I don't get your help, I don't have a project." Aldermanic President Megan Green said at another HUDZ meeting Thursday that "conversations are ongoing between community partners and the developer, and I think that there is a path forward with regard to this project."
The committee acted to reconsider the subsidy bill, though Green said it wouldn't take a vote to advance it Thursday.
Green's spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a request for more information, nor did Midas.
Part of the former Wells Fargo Advisors campus was demolished to make way for the project, and a different government body required that Midas put up a $750,000 bond before demolition to ensure the hotel project moved forward.
Robert said during Tuesday's hearing that the company would be out that money, and that it had not yet paid the city for a building permit. He also said Midas had put $200,000 toward Great Rivers Greenway's nearby Brickline project.
Aldermen opposing the subsidy raised questions about the quality of jobs being created by the project. Representatives of city development agency St. Louis Development Corp. said that the project would create more than 100 jobs, but that only about 40 could be considered "high quality," or paying a living wage. Robert said the agency's analysis was years old, and that Midas paid employees at least $16 an hour.
$72M building permit issued for the two hotels. I wager it's been waiting for them to pick it up. I think this means they don't lose the $750k bond they posted to get demo approved by the Preservation Board, and that they are confident on a tax abatement deal with the BoA.
- 597
It’s doesn’t matter if the alderman, development corp., and every other agency are on the same page. The board of Alderman and its committees get to have their say - which is exactly how it should be.
These are everyone’s tax revenues at stake. Every ward should have a voice.
These are everyone’s tax revenues at stake. Every ward should have a voice.
The inconsistency in their approach prevents development. A well defined process would create consistency and transparency and ensure that "every ward has a voice." Anything short of that will continue to result in inconsistent decisions and allow for corruption and undue influence.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑3:07 PM - Mar 29It’s doesn’t matter if the alderman, development corp., and every other agency are on the same page. The board of Alderman and its committees get to have their say - which is exactly how it should be.
These are everyone’s tax revenues at stake. Every ward should have a voice
The board of alderman denying the incentives is incredibly short sighted and bad for the city. Hopefully the developer can get comfortable with the increased risk that the incentive package help mitigate and get the project out of the ground. The City needs the tax revenue.
- 597
What has been inconsistent? The preservation board approval and the tax incentive anpproval aren’t the same thing. Give me an example of inconsistency?
So far all I’ve heard is bunch of feet stamping because a rich person wasn’t given a handout by a poor city
So far all I’ve heard is bunch of feet stamping because a rich person wasn’t given a handout by a poor city
You obviously have no idea how a development of this size gets capitalized. There are very few “rich guys” who could fund more than a small portion of a 125M project and none of them are real estate developers. That is not how it works. There are the way things look and the way things are.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑12:20 AM - Mar 30What has been inconsistent? The preservation board approval and the tax incentive anpproval aren’t the same thing. Give me an example of inconsistency?
So far all I’ve heard is bunch of feet stamping because a rich person wasn’t given a handout by a poor city
The way things are is that the “rich guy” answers to his investors and if a market return can’t be comfortably made they will invest elsewhere. Elsewhere being any major metro in the United State and abroad. Unfortunately private equity makes the rules in a deals of this size and they have alot of options.
Every incentive decision no matter the result is inconsistent if there is no defined processes for decision making. If you don’t understand how a lack of process leads to: (1) inconsistent results; (2) corruption; (3) Undue influence; I am not sure that any example will satisfy you.
I am not going to do your homework for you but look at the projects and their incentive packages that the four alderman who voted no have recently supported.
- 597
It took 4 paragraphs for you to say you can’t give an example.
And I’m perfectly aware of how finance works, thanks.
And I’m perfectly aware of how finance works, thanks.
Albion West in the CWE (145M new construction) and ATT Tower downtown (300M redevelopment) both recently received more substantial tax breaks. I guess the aldermanic board saw a need for those projects. I'd appreciate you walking me through the market return metrics and the typical capital stack for a 125M hotel project.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑1:14 AM - Mar 30It took 4 paragraphs for you to say you can’t give an example.
And I’m perfectly aware of how finance works, thanks.
- 272
Midtown hotel project revived after St. Louis aldermen cut deal
![]()
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/midtown-hotel-project-revived-after-st-louis-aldermen-cut-deal/article_8b1531d4-f299-11ee-8286-cfad415fdf82.htmlA $126 million Midtown hotel project, which looked dead a week ago, is set to be revived Thursday.
Aldermanic President Megan Green said Thursday morning that the city had reached a deal with developer Midas Hospitality to provide the tax subsidies Midas wants in exchange for new concessions demanded by organized labor and aldermen:
The Maryland Heights-based developer is supposed to agree not to retaliate against employees who want to unionize. It will work with city public schools to provide rooms in its hotels to unhoused students and their families. And it’s expected to mirror wages and benefits offered to employees at a unionized hotel downtown, which Green said should provide slightly better compensation than originally expected.
If the compromise holds at an aldermanic committee meeting Thursday, it would mark a striking reversal of Midas' loss at the board last week, a rare setback for a project already endorsed by city economic development officials. It would also mark a hard-fought win for organized labor — one that could set a new precedent on how the city doles out tax breaks for projects in the prosperous central corridor under a newly progressive Board of Aldermen. “It’s amazing how you can reach consensus on some things when you force people back to the table,” said Green, who has long advocated for taking a tougher line on incentives.
Representatives for Midas and Unite Here Local 74, Midas’ chief labor critic in recent months, could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday. A spokesman for St. Louis Public Schools could not immediately comment on the deal.
Midas’ plan to build two higher-end hotels at Jefferson Avenue and Market Street has been in the works for years. City development officials have estimated the project, which will sit at the corner of the Wells Fargo campus and a short walk away from the new soccer stadium, will create dozens of new jobs and generate millions of new tax dollars for City Hall and city schools, even with the tax breaks.
But it ran aground last week amid opposition from labor unions and aldermen looking to do more to support them.
Supporting union jobs in city-subsidized projects has been on some lawmakers’ minds ever since managers at the Union Station Hotel, which also got city tax breaks, were accused of trying to break a unionization effort there in 2022. Midas itself drew scrutiny just a few months ago when it asked for tax breaks to help renovate the OYO hotel on South 14th Street, just south of the Enterprise Center.
- 597
8 daysJaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑3:10 PM - Mar 27Midas, or another developer, will be back with a better proposal.
