The city of Kirkwood made a smart decision by issuing a request for proposals (RFP) last December to develop two lots on East and West Jefferson Avenue. The lots, both zoned in the Central Business District, offer a great opportunity for developers to add to the community by replacing the city-owned surface-level parking lots that sit there now.
Unfortunately, the city announced in June that it would not be moving forward with any of the six proposals that were submitted. These proposals would have offered downtown Kirkwood new retail storefronts, additional parking, and residential spaces.
So why would the city of Kirkwood reject all six proposals? Frustratingly, the city council hardly offered any reasoning other than general opposition to large developments in the downtown area. Parker Pence, a Kirkwood native who has written about the rejected proposals in his blog, the Kirkwood Gadfly, quotes a newly elected council member in a comment to one of his pieces:
One of the main promises of my campaign was a promise to stop large developments in our downtown and I am delighted to inform everyone that the current council voted unanimously against any new large developments and advised the city staff to tell all developers that we are not moving forward with any proposals for those parking lots.
These lots are zoned in the Central Business District, which, according to the Kirkwood Municipal Code “seeks to encourage mixed-use development with commercial services, retail facilities, and residential uses that complement each other and attract customers from outside the district.” This type of blanket opposition to “any new large developments,” is the opposite of productive for this area.
Pence investigates how much money Kirkwood stands to lose by rejecting these proposals. He notes that Clay|Adams estimates that the city forfeits nearly $90,000 in additional sales tax revenue and $145,000 in property tax revenue by turning down its proposal. Developer assessments should be taken with a grain of salt, but this still provides a ballpark idea.
Furthermore, proposals that include apartments, such as the Clay|Adams proposal, could even boost housing affordability by providing higher-density housing. For many, apartments are likely to be more affordable than the median half million-dollar single-family home found in Kirkwood.
It is disappointing to see Kirkwood pass on such an opportunity with its vague opposition to large developments. I hope that in the future, Kirkwood and other cities will objectively and transparently evaluate the economic growth and community benefits these types of developments could bring.
