Six years have passed without even the initial parts of the plan coming to fruition. With Paul McKee encountering legal issues it was doubtful whether it ever would. And now, finally, it seems that the city is giving up on McKee. Unfortunately, they’re not giving up by withdrawing the promise of further tax incentives, but by buying many of Northside’s properties to give to a federal agency.

This buyback is part of the city’s efforts to retain the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which is considering leaving Saint Louis City. To keep the agency, the city plans to gift it a new site in North Saint Louis City, an area where Northside LLC was supposed to bring new development. According to St. Louis Public Radio, the proposed NGA site contains 360 Northside-owned properties. Northside LLC purchased 260 of those properties from the city for a total of $600,000 between 2009 and 2011. The rest were bought from private owners, but Northside LLC received reimbursement from the state to the tune of $3.5 million.

To assemble the land for the NGA site, the city plans to mortgage existing city property to purchase the aforementioned Northside properties for $20 million. Perhaps relieving Paul McKee and Northside LLC of a large chunk of the city will be good for the region in the long run, but all these actions leave a number of important questions unanswered:

1. With much of the property originally slated for the Northside Redevelopment Plan now being bought back, what is the status of the remaining properties and tax subsidies?
2. Will the city be able to buy back the land at the price they sold it, or will McKee (or his creditors) profit from the transaction?
3. Will Northside LLC be forced to return the state tax subsidies it received to buy private land?

More on this to come. 

The post McKee’s Northside Plans Fail, City to Buy Land for NGA appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2010, it appeared that the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) could sink no further. After all, the agency had initially awarded tax credits to a Cape Girardeau businessman who pleaded guilty to passing bad checks, and has been scolded by the State Auditor’s Office for (perhaps accidentally) pulling numbers out of thin air that overstate the economic benefits of tax credit projects.

But the DED has outdone even itself. On Jan. 5, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the agency had awarded $8 million to a redevelopment project that a court judge has ruled no longer exists.

NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind an enormous and ambitious project slated to occur in north Saint Louis, received the $8 million. However, the tax credits that the DED awarded must be tied, according to state statute, to a “redevelopment agreement.”

State statute specifies that such a redevelopment agreement exists only when a city has selected a developer (in this case, NorthSide), by passing an ordinance to award additional local tax incentives to the company. Unfortunately for the NorthSide company, although city alderman passed such an agreement, it was thrown out by a judge in July — so, according to the statute, NorthSide simply isn’t entitled to the money.

This does not mean that NorthSide’s development should halt. The company has put forward a great deal of money to get the project started, and if the developer believes that the project will be successful without government subsidy, the project will move forward. But the DED should not be in the business of subverting state statute.

The Post-Dispatch article includes a sadly amusing quote from DED spokesman John Fougere: “We have to abide by the statute as it stands and as it stands, there are no safeguards for taxpayers.”

Of course, what Fougere fails to mention is that one easy way of safeguarding Missouri taxpayers is not to award $8 million to a redevelopment agreement that has been thrown out by the court. Instead, the department awarded the tax credits, but with a specification that if a court were to throw out the redevelopment agreement again, the company has to give back the money.

In essence, the DED has awarded NorthSide an interest-free loan, just in case the company manages to prevail in court at some point in the future. Why on earth would the DED do this? Surely, DED employees wouldn’t ignore their statutory obligations?

A possible reason is that because NorthSide is in the process of appealing this ruling, the DED viewed the judge’s ruling as not final — it could be overturned. However, it is strange that the DED, especially in light of recent public scrutiny, would not take the more prudent course of awaiting the result of the appeal before awarding tax credits.

Not only does Missouri desperately need a thorough, critical review of tax credit programs in general, it is clear that the workings of the DED need to be examined. This agency awards hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and is neglecting its duty to safeguard taxpayer money.

Audrey Spalding is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post DED Awards $8 Million in Tax Credits to Developer Ruled Ineligible by Courts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the DED has outdone even itself. This week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the agency had awarded $8 million to a redevelopment project that a court judge has ruled no longer exists.

NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind an enormous and ambitious project slated to occur in north Saint Louis, received the $8 million. However, the tax credits that the DED awarded must be tied, according to state statute, to a “redevelopment agreement.”

State statute specifies that such a redevelopment agreement exists only when a city has selected a developer (in this case, NorthSide), by passing an ordinance to award additional local tax incentives to the company. Unfortunately for the NorthSide company, although city alderman passed such an agreement, it was thrown out by a judge in July — so, according to the statute, NorthSide simply isn’t entitled to the money. The judge, in his ruling, stated:

FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants [including NorthSide and the city of Saint Louis], their officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them with notice of this Order and Judgment be and they are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from implementing Ordinances 68484 and 68485 [the city ordinances that authorized the redevelopment agreement] of the City of St. Louis, including but not limited to implementing any special allocation fund pursuant to said ordinances, transferring revenues to or from any fund pursuant to said ordinances, or otherwise taking action under said ordinances.

I find these lines from the Post-Dispatch to be sadly amusing:

The credits, which come on top of $20 million the developer received in 2009, were authorized under the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage program. Economic development officials said that after McKee met all the law’s requirements, they had no choice but to issue the credits.

“We have to abide by the statute as it stands and as it stands, there are no safeguards for taxpayers,” said agency spokesman John Fougere. “We thought it was very important to demand the protections we secured in this agreement.”

Of course, what Fougere fails to mention is that one easy way of safeguarding Missouri taxpayers is not to award $8 million to a redevelopment agreement that has been thrown out by the court. Instead, the department awarded the tax credits, but with a specification that if a court were to throw out the redevelopment agreement again, the company has to give back the money.

In essence, the DED has awarded NorthSide an interest-free loan, just in case the company manages to prevail in court at some point in the future. I admit that I am flabbergasted as to why the DED would do this. Surely, DED employees wouldn’t ignore their statutory obligations?

A possible reason is that because NorthSide is in the process of appealing this ruling, the DED viewed the judge’s ruling as not final — it could be overturned. However, it is strange that the DED, especially in light of recent public scrutiny, would not take the more prudent course of awaiting the result of the appeal before awarding tax credits.

Not only does Missouri desperately need a thorough, critical review of tax credit programs in general, it is clear that the workings of the DED need to be examined. This agency awards hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and is neglecting its duty to safeguard taxpayer money.

The post “Wha’eva, I Do What I Want”: The DED Goes Off the Reservation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute’s public information specialist, Audrey Spaulding, released a report on Friday documenting more than 100 discrepancies in the 2009 application for Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credits submitted by NorthSide Regeneration LLC to the State of Missouri. On New Year’s Eve, the state’s Department of Economic Development (DED) approved the inconsistency-riddled application, granting $20 million in taxpayer funds to the LLC.

Internal documents from the DED disclosed last week reveal that a state agency moving full-speed ahead to grant “the maximum allowed issuance ($20M) before the end of [2009],” while failing verify the applicant’s purchase price claims. Indeed, the DED’s outreach to a St. Louis–based independent private consultant consisted solely of a request to verify the number of parcels per acre in the area submitted for tax credit reimbursement.

In its typical bureaucratic fashion, the DED pressed ahead in its approvals without asking even the most basic question: What exactly is the state paying for, here?

Thanks to Audrey’s reporting, we can answer the question that our state’s bureaucrats failed to ask. Consider the following:

2829 Saint Louis Avenue, pictured above in June 2010, is a one-story, red brick, flat-roofed home with side entry, wood porch, and full basement. A raised limestone water table extends horizontally across the one-bay primary facade below a centered rectangular window opening, while a narrow band of white terra cotta projects outward from the brick wall above the window opening and below a band of white terra cotta coping. The west facade appears to be a former party wall, revealing a parapet that steps downward to the rear of the regular, 25-foot-by-130-foot lot. Presently in poor condition, the modest 908-square-foot home still retains remarkable stability — a product of its solid 1880s construction.

According to the city of St. Louis Assessor’s Office, the home has a total assessed valuation of $1,370.00, of which $360.00 is assessed land. During the past three years, its property tax bills were as follows: $119.06 (2009), $122.45 (2008), and $122.68 (2007). At present, the City of St. Louis lists the property’s appraised value at $7,200.

Prior to its acquisition by N&G Ventures LC in late 2005, the building appears to have served as a modest residence. Since its acquisition, the building’s condition has likely deteriorated, as evidenced by a collapsed rear wall and disintegrating side wood porch.

The above image places 2829 St. Louis Avenue in the context of its contemporary St. Louis streetscape. I could not resist adding a few annotations, courtesy of information contained both within the approved DALATC application and the St. Louis city Assessor’s Office.

I would venture to guess that most residents of St. Louis city would scratch their heads and dig a little deeper if confronted by such an outrageous claim.

Now, the DED says that they were not hoodwinked; they did their job.

I still have to ask — what did the DED think that it was paying for, here?

The post Did We Get What They Paid For? How Jefferson City Bureaucrats Erred on DALATC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, I appeared on the Charlie Brennan Show to talk about the discrepancies in NorthSide Regeneration LLC’s tax credit application filed in late 2009 (you can read more about that, and the discrepancies, here).

A lawyer for NorthSide, Irvin Ness, called in to explain the discrepancies, which appear to total more than $500,000. Ness said that the tax credit application we used to conduct our review was outdated — that NorthSide had submitted an updated application in December 2009 to update the reported property prices in a way that would correctly reflect the certificates of value on file with the city of Saint Louis.

Although this explanation could prove to be true, there are at least two reasons to doubt it:

1. I based my review on a copy of NorthSide’s tax credit application, which was provided to me by the Department of Economic Development (DED) in response to a Sunshine Law request submitted on Jan. 13, 2010. If an updated version had been filed before that time, the DED should have sent it rather than an out-of-date version.
2. My request specified that I wanted to receive “Copies of documents and emails regarding the review of NorthSide Regeneration LLC’s application for DALA tax credits in 2009.” I have made the documents they provided available online (in six parts, here, here, here, here, here, and here). They include no mention of property price discrepancies, or that the application had been resubmitted to reflect new property prices. If the application had been updated to reflect different prices than those that were initially submitted, and the DED had any correspondence about such an updated application, the DED failed to fulfill my request adequately.

At least until NorthSide can produce an updated version of its tax credit application that was actually submitted to the DED in 2009, it’s difficult to determine which error was committed — errors on the application, or errors in fulfilling my requests.

In any case, Charlie Brennan has invited me to appear again on his show, along with Ness, on Tuesday morning. Tune in then to hear more!

The post An Explanation for NorthSide Tax Credit Application Discrepancies? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Audrey’s report is now available on the Show-Me Institute website, detailing how the property value amounts that NorthSide reported to the state appear to be overvalued by more than half a million dollars in comparison to the certificate of value amounts filed with the city of St. Louis.

For more of Audrey’s work covering the north side redevelopment project in St. Louis, follow the article links on her staff bio page.

The post Report Detailing North Side Redevelopment Tax Credit Application Discrepancies Now Online appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In its rush, the department awarded the taxpayer money despite the fact that the company’s application had more than 100 discrepancies, which would have, if not caught, cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It was important that the money be awarded in 2009, because if the department had waited until the beginning of the following year, the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, wouldn’t be eligible for additional tax credits in 2010. The statute creating the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage (DALA) tax credit caps the total amount that the state can pay out at a cumulative $20 million per year.

“As expected, there is a desire to gain access to the maximum allowed issuance ($20M) before the end of this year,” wrote Sallie Hemenway, DED director of business and community services, after meeting with NorthSide representatives in early November 2009.

NorthSide applied for the tax credits to cover part of the initial costs of its $8.1 billion redevelopment of parts of downtown Saint Louis and portions of the city’s north side. As reported in NorthSide’s tax credit application, those costs have so far, for the most part, involved purchasing and maintaining a large amount of property.

The DALA tax credit was created ostensibly to encourage developers to take on large-scale projects in low-income areas. According to the tax credit statute, development companies eligible for the tax credit are entitled to 50 percent of money spent to purchase property, as well as 50 percent of environmental assessment costs, closing costs, real estate brokerage fees, demolition costs, and maintenance costs. Furthermore, eligible companies are also entitled to 100 percent of interest costs, loan fees, and closing costs.

In accordance with the statute, the bulk of NorthSide”s application was made up of reported costs: how much the company said it had spent to purchase property, maintain it, and how much the company had spent in brokerage fees and interest costs.

Saint Louis city ordinance makes it possible to check NorthSide’s property price claims against public documents.

The city of Saint Louis requires individuals and businesses that purchase property within the city to file a document stating who bought property, from whom, and for how much. The document, known as a “certificate of value,” also includes the property address, the date that the record was filed, and a signature of the purchaser attesting to the truth of the price reported.

After extensive review of the certificates of value filed for each of the 731 properties for which NorthSide claimed tax credits, it appears that there were more than 100 price discrepancies between what NorthSide reported to the state and what the company had reported to the city. Ninety-five of the discrepancies were in NorthSide’s favor: The price reported to the DED was more than that reported to the city while nine property prices in the application seem to understate the respective prices NorthSide reported to the city. Those discrepancies add up to more than $500,000, out of the $25 million that NorthSide reported it had spent to purchase property.

Seeing those discrepancies, the DED did not reject the application, which would appear to be the prudent approach in order to safeguard taxpayer money. Instead, according to copies of emails obtained from the DED with a Sunshine Law request, the department worked long nights during the Christmas holiday in order to make sure that North Side was awarded the most state money.

List of Apparent Discrepancies in Tax Credit Application Filed by NorthSide Regeneration LLC

The post North Side Saint Louis Developer Appears to Have Inflated Expenses in Tax Credit Application appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Audrey will be talking about the use of state tax credits for redevelopment in the north side of the city of St. Louis, and about how the tax credit application formally submitted by redevelopment company NorthSide Regeneration LLC appears to have overstated the value of its properties by more than half a million dollars. We’ll be posting much more about these topics in the near future, but in the meantime be sure to listen to Audrey address them on the radio tomorrow morning.

The post Tune In to Hear Audrey Spalding on KMOX Friday Morning! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So far, the arguments for and against capping tax credits has circled around the issue of whether tax credits encourage economic development, job growth, and other activities that are in the best interest of the state. Proponents argue that tax credits are beneficial: The state gets more than what it pays out (because of the so-called economic multiplier), they say, and so capping tax credits would hurt the state as a whole. Those who oppose targeted tax credits argue that the loss of revenue given away by the state to a few recipients — but collected from the rest of the state’s taxpayers — far outweighs any benefit accrued from the activities that such credits encourage. Furthermore, as Show-Me Institute Research Analyst Christine Harbin has written, when state legislators create targeted tax credits, they are favoring one industry over another, frequently because of political pressure.

Yet another argument against state tax credits is the fact that state governments have demonstrated that they are often incapable of a substantive review of tax credit applications. As a negative consequence of this lack of oversight, these programs invite fraudulent activity. In Iowa, three film production companies have been charged with inflating the values claimed on tax credit applications, and the director running the state’s film tax credit program was fired because of the lack of oversight. From the Quad-City Times:

The invoices also included various sizes of step ladders that ranged from $900 each up to $1,125, and a 24-foot extension ladder reported to have been rented for $1,350.

There are many additional examples of fraudulent activity resulting from a lack of oversight. In March, the state of Michigan awarded a $9 million business tax credit to a convicted embezzler who promised to create 765 jobs in Flint. He did this all while living rent-free at a friend’s mobile home. Earlier this year in Louisiana, a man was charged with selling nearly $2 million in Louisiana film tax credits to members of the New Orleans Saints. He never filed for them.

I suspect that Missouri’s Department of Economic Development may also occasionally miss tax credit application discrepancies. Based on a cursory review of the recently approved application for $19 million in Distressed Areas Land Assemblage (DALA) tax credits submitted by a Saint Louis–area development company, NorthSide Regeneration, LLC, it appears that the company overstated its costs for at least five properties (third column of DALA tax credit application PDF documents contain the property’s reported purchase price):

These problems are inherent in a bureaucratic program tasked with awarding benefits, and operating with limited information. The paperwork accompanying a tax credit application is usually substantial, and even if the agency charged with administering a state’s tax credit program does due diligence, the information available can be limited to what the tax credit applicant supplies.

The tax credit fraud cases that do make the news are egregious. I am sure there are instances of companies padding their reported costs on tax credit applications that the state and general public have missed. Instead of using public dollars to attempt to pick winners and losers, while running the risk that the state may not have all the available information even to weed out tax credit fraud and application discrepancies, the state should let consumers and investors decide which businesses, developments, and films succeed.

The post Blindly Picking Winners and Losers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Map by Audrey Spalding.

When I spoke with Drew Gates, a spokesperson for MoDOT, he emphasized that McKee and MoDOT could likely reach an agreement, and that negations for the properties were ongoing. The suit, he said, is simply the first step of the paperwork process that MoDOT has to follow.

I have to wonder why McKee is digging in his heels in these price negotiations. After all, the state has already paid in part for these properties — and not an insignificant amount.

In late December 2009, the state of Missouri awarded NorthSide Regeneration LLC $19.6 million in tax credits under the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act. The act, the purported purpose of which is to encourage development, grants developers who purchase a large of area of land up to 50 percent of the land acquisition costs and 100 percent of the interest costs. The state’s definition of acquisition cost includes the purchase price of the land, closing and brokerage costs, and costs for environmental assessment, demolition, and maintenance.

In its DALA tax credit application, NorthSide submitted a list of properties eligible for the tax credit, along with the associated reimbursable costs (the linked document includes purchase price and interest costs, but not demolition, maintenance, brokerage, etc.). So, I checked the properties named in the MoDOT suit against the properties NorthSide claimed as eligible for partial reimbursement.

As far as I can tell, every property that MoDOT is trying to purchase was claimed for the DALA tax credit.*

Because the state awarded NorthSide the $19.6 million as a sum, instead of calculating the credit per individual property, it’s impossible to ascertain exactly how much the state has already paid for each of these properties. But the state did pay, and a good estimate for the amount paid for each individual property would be at least 50 percent of the price NorthSide claimed on its DALA tax credit application.**

When I spoke to Philip Morgan Jr., the attorney for MoDOT in this suit, he seemed to have no idea that the state had awarded tax credits for these properties. Gates, when asked whether these tax credits were a factor in the price negotiation process, paused, and said the negotiations were “based on the value of the property.”

Gates would not disclose how much MoDOT has offered for the properties. But if MoDOT and NorthSide do come to an agreement, it will be interesting to compare the price MoDOT paid to what NorthSide listed as the property purchase prices in its tax credit application. The costs NorthSide reported are as follows:

1. 1101 O’Fallon St. — $537,000
2. 1401 N. 11th St. — $537,000
3. 1443 N. 10th St. — $537,000
4. 1401 Hadley St. — $212,500
5. 1201 Cass Ave. — $145,000
6. 1525 N. 10th St. — $230,000
7. 1600 and 1616 N. 11th St., 1601 and 1617 N. 10th St., and 1000 Howard St. — $135,000 (total)
8. 1400 N. 13th St. — $537,000 (not pictured)

I am not aware whether this is a violation of the tax credit statute. However, it seems as though the state will be paying for these properties more than once.

** The state awarded just slightly more than 80 percent of the total amount that NorthSide requested. Given that acquisition costs other than the purchase price of a property, not to mention interest fees, can add up to a significant amount, estimating the state’s payout per property at 50 percent of the reported price seems reasonable.

The post Just How Much State Money Will It Take? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Fehlig Bros. Box & Lumber has occupied its current space in the north side of Saint Louis for 55 years. However, according to NorthSide’s redevelopment plan, a good portion of Fehlig Brothers is slated for “open space.”

Fehlig Brothers Box & Lumber has been in business since 1873, and clearly isn’t shy about that fact. Throughout the company’s office at 1909 Cole St., the walls are littered with framed photos and certificates detailing Fehlig history. In fact, there’s a framed poster detailing the generations of Fehligs that have worked at Fehlig Brothers, including company president Jack O’Leary, a member of the fourth generation. Two of his sons and a grandson work for the company, as well.

Of course, in case you missed the family history on your way in, there’s another framed poster explaining it with greater detail in O’Leary’s office. There are also framed resolutions from a couple of state legislative committees, lauding the business. O’Leary, who has worked at Fehlig for the past 55 years, shrugs and says that these types of awards arrive in the mail every once in a while.

O’Leary has been around the area long enough, he said, that he’s seen its ups and downs. Right now, although crime has been down for the past 15 or 18 years, development hasn’t really picked up. O’Leary said that while some area residents and businessmen are skeptical of the $8.1 billion plan put forward by developer Paul McKee and NorthSide Regeneration LLC, he’s generally for it.

“I’ve been down here for 55 years,” he said, “and no one’s doing anything down here.” Furthermore, he wondered, why would a developer take well-maintained homes?

Nonetheless, when O’Leary first heard about the development, he called McKee to ask whether his business would be affected. According to O’Leary, McKee came down to the Fehlig Brothers to talk with him, and said absolutely not, that he wasn’t interested in displacing successful area businesses. O’Leary said he had also spoken with his alderman, April Ford-Griffin, and the mayor’s chief of staff, Jeff Rainford. Everyone, O’Leary said, swore up and down that his business wouldn’t be touched.

When asked what would happen if the company were forced to move, O’Leary was skeptical.

“We’ve been around 137 years,” he said. “Figure we’ll stay here a few more years.”

According to NorthSide’s redevelopment plan, a good portion of Fehlig Brothers is slated for “open space.” Among others, the plan marks a strip of open space that would run along 19th Street, south of Carr Street, until it hits Dr. Martin Luther King Drive. The strip appears to be about a third of a block thick, drawn as though Vincent Street were extended south past Carr Street.

If NorthSide adheres to the plans it submitted to the city, that strip of open space would cut through roughly a third of O’Leary’s business. Specifically, it would cut through his office building (pictured at left), and through part of the company’s lumber yard. Another company nearby, Smith’s Superette, also looks like it would be affected.

Ford-Griffin, when asked about specific portions of NorthSide’s open space map, said that you can’t read too much detail into the company’s plans.

“That is not a document where you take it and say this is what’s going on this block and this is what’s going on that block,” she said.

The point, Ford-Griffin said, of the plans is to communicate some general ideas about the future of the area as a part of the application process for public funding. Development will hinge on market conditions over the next 20 years.

“You can say you’re going to build 2,200 homes but you’re not going to build 2,200 homes if no one will buy them,” she said.

When asked about Fehlig Brothers Box & Lumber, Ford-Griffin said the business had been brought up specifically at city meetings regarding the development, and that the understanding was that the company would stay.

“It’s been very clear that Fehlig Lumber will continue to be there,” she said.

Fehlig Bros. president Jack O’Leary said that while some area residents and businessmen are skeptical of the $8.1 billion plan put forward by developer Paul McKee and NorthSide Regeneration LLC, he’s generally for it. Photos by Caitlin Hartsell.

NorthSide did respond to an email message specifically inquiring about planned open space that would supplant the Fehlig business. Rainford’s assistant said he wouldn’t respond to inquiries because he believed the Show-Me Institute is involved in a class action lawsuit against the city (the institute is not involved in the lawsuit, although an institute board member is serving as an attorney through his personal practice for a couple of north side residents involved in the suit).

O’Leary said that because there’s no immediate space for the business expand, the company would likely move if push came to shove.

NOTE: This report was originally dated March 1, 2010, but was updated on March 2 to include statements from an interview conducted with April Ford-Griffin on that day.

The post Longstanding North Side Business Faces Uncertain Development Future appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When discussing the possibility of eminent domain, NorthSide representatives, including developer Paul McKee and attorney Paul Puricelli, have stated that eminent domain won’t be used to take owner-occupied residences. The specificity of the qualification “owner-occupied residences” should make anyone looking into the project take pause. After all, there are many types of properties that are important to lives and livelihoods that aren’t owner-occupied residences — for example, businesses. In the latest Show-Me Report, I profile Fehlig Brothers Box & Lumber, a business slated for open space.

The post When Is a Home Not a Home? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although NorthSide redevelopment plans for her area indicate that Shirley Hamilton’s neighborhood is slated to be replaced, Hamilton said she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this. “It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said.

The home of Shirley Hamilton, in the 2200 block of Madison Street, in Saint Louis’ north side.

Three houses fall squarely within the boundaries of the recently approved $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Of course, about 4,600 other properties also fall within those boundaries, but in the case of the 2200 block of Madison, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind the development, may be endangering one of its most frequently invoked promises. That promise concerns the use of eminent domain.

Shirley Hamilton has been living at 2209 Madison since 1978. Her home is one of three houses on the 2220 block of Madison, all of which are small, but tidy. Between each house is a good amount of open space.

These three houses fall squarely within the boundaries of the recently approved $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Of course, about 4,600 other properties also fall within those boundaries, but in the case of the 2200 block of Madison, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind the development, may be endangering one of its most frequently invoked promises.

That promise concerns the use of eminent domain. Although eminent domain is constitutional, it can be very unpopular, especially if it appears that a government agency is using that power merely to help a private business.

Proponents of the development, including developer Paul McKee, NorthSide lawyer Paul Puricelli, Alderman April Ford-Griffin, and Alderman Marlene Davis, have said repeatedly that the city won’t use eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes, and that fears to the contrary are unfounded. In fact, the company went even further. When NorthSide applied for millions of dollars in tax credits from the state, the company submitted an affidavit stating, among other things, that “The Applicant has not identified any owner-occupied residences for acquisition under the Redevelopment Plan.” McKee, the chief manager of NorthSide, signed it.

Along with that affidavit, NorthSide submitted a list of about 260 owner-occupied residences to the state. Hamilton’s home and the house sitting the farthest west on her block were on that list.

NorthSide has also disclosed some of its preliminary plans for the area in its redevelopment plan, which was submitted to the city when the company applied for nearly $400 million in tax increment financing (it has been approved for up to $380 million). One of the more interesting pages of that plan is page 24, which is a map of “proposed open space” for the area.

Another home on the 2200 block of Madison. Photos by Caitlin Hartsell.

According to that map, NorthSide plans to remake four city blocks into open space: the area lying between Madison Street and Maiden Lane, west of 22nd Street and extending a little past Jefferson Avenue. In other words, despite all the assurances about the limits on eminent domain for the NorthSide project — including the affidavit of its chief manager — Hamilton and her neighbor are two owners who may not have long to occupy their homes.

That’s not to say that the company didn’t try to purchase Hamilton’s home. About a year ago, she said, she got a letter from a lawyer, representing an anonymous buyer, looking to purchase her home. When Hamilton called the number listed, she said, she was quickly offered $60,000 for the property. But Hamilton, who is retired, wasn’t interested in searching for a new home, and asked instead if the buyer could offer her a deed to a different property, elsewhere in the city. The lawyer promised to check, Hamilton said, but never called back. A few months later, Hamilton said, she was sent the same form letter.

Hamilton said that her next door neighbor did sell. According to city property data, the second house on the block is owned by MLK 3000, one of the companies that NorthSide used to acquire properties under the radar. Hamilton said she isn’t interested in moving, but if the developer could offer a trade instead of money, she would consider it. She’d like to stay in the city.

An email inquiring about how concrete the plans for open space are, and whether NorthSide would adjust its plans if property owners were unwilling to move, did not receive a response from Bill Laskowsky, NorthSide’s chief development officer, and a company representative.

Ultimately, Hamilton said, she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this.

“It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said. Laughing, she noted that when Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. was in office, her home was slated to become a golf course.

“I’ll deal with it when it comes,” she said.

According to NorthSide’s plans and its submitted list of owner occupied residences, two other homes appear to be slated for open space: one on the 2500 block of Madison, and one on the 2700 block of Glasgow Street.

Within other documents submitted by NorthSide, the company has designated the area surrounding Hamilton’s home as “mixed use,” which could indicate a different set of plans for the area.

The post At Least Four North Side Homes Slated for ‘Open Space’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Shirley Hamilton has been living at 2209 Madison since 1978. Her home is one of three houses on the 2220 block of Madison, all of which are small, but tidy. Between each house is a good amount of open space.

These three houses fall squarely within the boundaries of the recently approved $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Of course, about 4,600 other properties also fall within those boundaries, but in the case of the 2200 block of Madison, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind the development, may be endangering one of its most frequently invoked promises.

That promise concerns the use of eminent domain. Although eminent domain is constitutional, it can be very unpopular, especially if it appears that a government agency is using that power merely to help a private business.

Proponents of the development, including developer Paul McKee, NorthSide lawyer Paul Puricelli, Alderman April Ford-Griffin, and Alderman Marlene Davis, have said repeatedly that the city won’t use eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes, and that fears to the contrary are unfounded. In fact, the company went even further. When NorthSide applied for millions of dollars in tax credits from the state, the company submitted an affidavit stating, among other things, that “The Applicant has not identified any owner-occupied residences for acquisition under the Redevelopment Plan.” McKee, the chief manager of NorthSide, signed it.

Along with that affidavit, NorthSide submitted a list of about 260 owner-occupied residences to the state. Hamilton’s home and the house sitting the farthest west on her block were on that list.

NorthSide has also disclosed some of its preliminary plans for the area in its redevelopment plan, which was submitted to the city when the company applied for nearly $400 million in tax increment financing (it has been approved for up to $380 million). One of the more interesting pages of that plan is page 24, which is a map of “proposed open space” for the area.

According to that map, NorthSide plans to remake four city blocks into open space: the area lying between Madison Street and Maiden Lane, west of 22nd Street and extending a little past Jefferson Avenue. In other words, despite all the assurances about the limits on eminent domain for the NorthSide project — including the affidavit of its chief manager — Hamilton and her neighbor are two owners who may not have long to occupy their homes.

That’s not to say that the company didn’t try to purchase Hamilton’s home. About a year ago, she said, she got a letter from a lawyer, representing an anonymous buyer, looking to purchase her home. When Hamilton called the number listed, she said, she was quickly offered $60,000 for the property. But Hamilton, who is retired, wasn’t interested in searching for a new home, and asked instead if the buyer could offer her a deed to a different property, elsewhere in the city. The lawyer promised to check, Hamilton said, but never called back. A few months later, Hamilton said, she was sent the same form letter.

Hamilton said that her next door neighbor did sell. According to city property data, the second house on the block is owned by MLK 3000, one of the companies that NorthSide used to acquire properties under the radar. Hamilton said she isn’t interested in moving, but if the developer could offer a trade instead of money, she would consider it. She’d like to stay in the city.

An email inquiring about how concrete the plans for open space are, and whether NorthSide would adjust its plans if property owners were unwilling to move, did not receive a response from Bill Laskowsky, NorthSide’s chief development officer, and a company representative.

Ultimately, Hamilton said, she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this.

“It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said. Laughing, she noted that when Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. was in office, her home was slated to become a golf course.

“I’ll deal with it when it comes,” she said.

According to NorthSide’s plans and its submitted list of owner occupied residences, two other homes appear to be slated for open space: one on the 2500 block of Madison, and one on the 2700 block of Glasgow Street.

Within other documents submitted by NorthSide, the company has designated the area surrounding Hamilton’s home as “mixed use,” which could indicate a different set of plans for the area.

The post At Least Four North Side Homes Slated for “Open Space” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The bulk of the trial, which will continue on Feb. 25, was devoted to testimony by Washington University economist Michele Boldrin, who clearly doesn’t think much of the projections and forecasts developer Paul McKee used to persuade city officials that his development was viable and worthy of more than $390 million in tax increment financing (TIF).

“I find these numbers completely unbelievable,” Boldrin said. “Pie in the sky” was another frequent characterization.

And, later, “This is something that if an MBA student came up with this as a term paper, I’d throw him out of the office.”

Boldrin’s main argument, repeated many times, was that no justification was given for any of the especially rosy growth and employment estimates. For example, the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, estimates:

1. That property value growth rates will be as high as 20 percent in 2010, and 15 percent in a number of following years.
2. That more than 20,000 new, permanent jobs will be created as a result of this development.
3. That there will be buyers for 6,000 new homes, valued at an average of more than $450,000.

Dave Roland, a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, testified briefly that the north side area, which you can explore here, is not as blighted as NorthSide asserts. He, and Terry Artis, the owner and founder of the River City Examiner, took video of some of the areas NorthSide had noted as being especially blighted. The video, which is a publicly available court record, is linked below.

Dave Roland – A Look at Purported Cases of North Side “Blight” in St. Louis from Audrey Spalding on Vimeo.

The post WashU Economist Testifies NorthSide Forecasts “Made Out of Thin Air” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Another round of challenges to the $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side will be heard in court tomorrow.

If you’re about to skip reading this post because the word “development” seems boring, hold on a moment. The project, put forward by developer Paul McKee, is contentious because it’s enormous — about two square miles — and because it has been approved for a large amount of public financing. McKee has asked for about $380 million in city tax increment financing (TIF), received approval for more than half, and will likely receive the rest in a few years. In late December, the state granted the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, more than $19 million in tax credits (which can be used dollar-for-dollar to pay off taxes). Interestingly, the Department of Economic Development did not issue a press release, which it generally does when it issues tax credits.

One of the issues that will likely be raised at trial tomorrow is whether NorthSide unfairly characterized the area as being blighted. In its TIF application, NorthSide submitted a blighting study that systematically categorized more than 4,600 properties within the redevelopment boundary as being blighted. Along with its classification of properties as blighted for being dilapidated, unsafe, or unsanitary, the company also included blighting factors for properties with excessive vegetation, properties that had neither increased or declined in assessed value between 2003 and 2005, and properties with an increase in assessed value that totaled less than the city average from 2003 to 2008.

Another issue that could be raised at trial is that of eminent domain. McKee, along with the city aldermen who backed the project and pretty much every other public proponent of the project, have sworn repeatedly that eminent domain will not be used on owner-occupied property. What that means for the fate of non-owner-occupied properties within the boundary is less than clear.

Publicly available court documents also reveal some interesting details:

• NorthSide is curious about how the plaintiffs’ court costs are being financed, and requested that Sheryl Nelson and Elke McIntosh (two of the plaintiffs) reveal how they’re paying for litigation. Judge Robert Dierker did not grant the request.
• Both sides have taken deposition from Michele Boldrin, an economics professor at Washington University.
• NorthSide submitted a letter of interest from the Bank of Washington (in Missouri) as evidence of financial backing of the development. However, NorthSide has not submitted evidence of a contract with the bank, which has less than $800 million in total assets.
• According to NorthSide’s application for state tax credits, the company has spent about $25 million to purchase property in the redevelopment area.

The trial will start at 11 a.m. in Division 18 of the city’s Circuit Court. Judge Dierker, who quoted economist F.A. Hayek when rejecting the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, will hear the case. You can read that ruling here.

The post NorthSide Trial on Tuesday appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A home on the 2300 block of Mullanphy. Photo by Audrey Spalding.

SAINT LOUIS — A much-debated $8 billion development in the city of Saint Louis’ north side has been awarded $19.6 million in state tax credits. Those are in addition to city tax incentives, which could total up to $398 million.

The state’s Department of Economic Development has made public only a small portion of the development company’s application for the state tax credits. You can read those four cover pages here.

According to the cover pages, NorthSide Regeneration LLC has spent about $25 million to purchase property, and expects to spend $66 million to acquire additional properties. The company spends about $415,000 each year to maintain its properties, and interest costs are estimated to be about $1 million each year.

The rest of the application, department spokesman John Fougere said, is so large that it isn’t feasible to send it electronically. The remainder will be made available in a few days, he said, but only in the department’s Jefferson City office, where people can view and copy the additional documents.

Documents that haven’t been made available to the public yet include a breakdown of property acquisition costs, interest costs, a map of the development area showing where NorthSide-acquired properties are located, and a list of owner-occupied residences in the development footprint.

Those application documents could shed light on as-yet unanswered questions, such as where within the development area NorthSide has acquired most of its properties, and what it has paid so far to purchase properties. Records kept with the city’s Recorder of Deeds office are unclear — according to deeds of trust filed with the office, properties acquired by the developer were traded among various shell companies.

More interesting is the $66 million NorthSide says it plans to spend acquiring additional properties. Previously, Paul Puricelli, a lawyer for NorthSide, has said that the company has about 20 properties left to acquire, which, if true, would mean a much higher purchase price for the remaining properties.

CHALLENGES TO THE STATE TAX CREDITS

The $19.6 million in state tax credits are authorized by the Distressed Area Land Assemblage (DALA) Tax Credit Act, which allows large-scale developers in urban areas to collect up to $20 million each year in reimbursements for 50 percent of property acquisition costs and 100 percent of interest costs.

Two active critics of the development, Barbara Manzara and Keith Marquard, are the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that claims that the act is unconstitutional. From the lawsuit: “… the state provides public credit to prospective applicants to secure and pay for private investments, private property and does not serve a primarily public purpose because a direct private benefit is derived by the borrowers and investors to the detriment of the state.”

Paul McKee, the developer who put forward the north side redevelopment project, has repeatedly pointed to the dismal education, vacancy, and employment statistics in the area as evidence that development is needed, and will improve the area.

The lawsuit is set to be heard in Cole County Circuit Court on Jan. 27.

The post NorthSide Details Not Yet Public appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

SAINT LOUIS — Another plaintiff (and set of attorneys) has joined the lawsuit filed against the development company that the city of Saint Louis recently approved for $390.6 million in tax increment financing (TIF) to redevelop 1,500 acres in the city’s north side and in northern portions of downtown.

Dorian Amon, the attorney who filed the initial lawsuit against the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, argued that the city’s development agreement with NorthSide was invalid because the city failed to investigate the project’s financing thoroughly.

The attorneys representing the new plaintiff are arguing for the same ruling, but for different reasons. Some of the allegations made in the motion to intervene filed by attorneys Eric Vickers, W. Bevis Schock, and James W. Schottle, Jr., were:

• The blighting of the properties in the redevelopment area was “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious,” because the city didn’t conduct an independent study to determine whether the redevelopment area should be blighted.
• The city blighted the area in “bad faith” because it didn’t seek out alternative development proposals, and because the city misled the public and plaintiffs about “the power of eminent domain provided NorthSide under the Ordinance.”
• The city failed to show that the area hasn’t had recent growth and development.

You can read the pleadings submitted by Vickers, Schock, and Schottle here.

On Wednesday, circuit court Judge Robert Dierker granted the new plaintiff’s motion to intervene, and set a hearing for 11 a.m. on Feb. 16 to hear the new arguments against the city ordinance.

Dierker is expected to decide soon whether to grant Amon’s request for a temporary injunction, which would stop the development for a short period of time. At the February hearing, Dierker will consider whether to grant a permanent injunction.

Full disclosure: W. Bevis Schock, one of the intervening attorneys in the case, also serves as the secretary of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors. Schock is involved in the case through his private legal practice, not through his capacity as an institute board member.

Correction: According to city records, the Feb. 16 hearing was rescheduled for 11 a.m.

The post New Plaintiff Joins NorthSide Case appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Thursday, a circuit court judge heard arguments that the city of Saint Louis’ Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Commission had not thoroughly investigated the financial backing of a proposed redevelopment of the city’s north side before approving it. The lawsuit, by no means a certain bet, could halt the recently approved project put forward by developer Paul McKee and his company NorthSide Regeneration LLC.

Judge Robert Dierker has not yet decided the case, but is working to reach a decision as soon as possible. Attorneys for all involved parties have until Dec. 7 to file additional documents, and Dierker will make his decision at some point after that.

Dorian Amon, the attorney who brought the lawsuit and who is representing several north side residents, spent nearly three hours questioning TIF Commissioner David Newburger about the efforts that the commission had made to determine whether NorthSide had the ability to raise enough money for its $8 billion project.

In NorthSide’s application for $390.6 million in TIF funds from the city, the company included a letter from an executive of the Bank of Washington, which stated that the bank was reiterating its financial support for the first half of the project. However, no specific loan amounts were included in the letter, nor did the bank executive sign it.

Amon argued that the letter wasn’t sufficient evidence of financial support for the project, pointing to its vague language. During questioning, Newburger, who said he has considered at least 50 development projects while serving on the commission, acknowledged that details are often hard to pin down.

“The terms of the plan is in constant flux,” he said.

The Bank of Washington letter, Newburger said, is typical of the evidence of financial backing submitted for all projects.

“No TIF project ever has a firm commitment,” he said. “Reason is, financial institutions are sitting on the side and waiting to see what the financial incentives are going to be.”

Later, when questioned by Paul Puricelli, who is representing NorthSide, Newburger explained that if concrete and sufficient evidence of financial backing had been submitted to the city, the city would have no reason to grant TIF funds.

“Fundamental reality of this, is this is an incentive program,” Newburger said. “We have to have testimony that without this TIF assistance that the transaction can’t be accomplished.”

Alderman April Ford-Griffin, who represents a ward that lies mostly within the development’s footprint, was also called to the stand to testify about what she and the Board of Aldermen had done to verify financial backing for the project.

Ford-Griffin said that there hadn’t been any formal investigation into the financial backing of the project, or into other statements made by McKee.

Instead, she said, the Board of Aldermen was more concerned with the amount of money McKee had already investigated in the project, and the efforts NorthSide was taking to acquire other government assistance.

“We were looking to make sure that they were leveraging everything,” she said, referring to all of the applications that the developer has made for federal and state subsidies.

When Amon and Puricelli were done making their respective cases about whether the TIF Comission and Board of Aldermen had done due diligence, Dierker left the attorneys with some advice.

“What we’re dealing with is not an administrative review of the commission’s procedures,” he said. “We’re dealing with the validity of the ordinance.” Dierker’s comment referred to the redevelopment ordinance passed by the Board of Aldermen establishing a redevelopment agreement between the city and NorthSide.

It’s possible, Dierker continued, that missteps by either the TIF Comission or the Board of Aldermen could invalidate the ordinance, but he firmly suggested that when the attorneys make their final written arguments on Monday, they focus on the city ordinance.

ANOTHER APPROACH

At the beginning of the hearing, three more attorneys, Eric Vickers, W. Bevis Schock, and James Schottel, Jr., attended the hearing in order to intervene in the case. Essentially, they would be also would be arguing that the redevelopment ordinance is invalid, but for different reasons than presented by Amon. Their motion to intervene will be held at 11 a.m., Dec. 9.

Full disclosure: W. Bevis Schock, one of the intervening attorneys in the case, also serves as the secretary of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors. Schock is involved in the case through his private legal practice, not through his capacity as an institute board member.

The post Attorney Argues City Didn’t Thoroughly Investigate NorthSide Financing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The lawyer for a recently approved redevelopment of 1,500 acres in the city of Saint Louis’ north side says that the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, will likely need eminent domain to acquire about 20 properties in the redevelopment area. The project, put forward by developer Paul McKee, has been contentious in the past because of the perceived threat of eminent domain, and because it calls for nearly $400 million in tax increment financing (TIF) from the city.

Paul Puricelli, who works for the law firm Stoney, Leyton, & Gershman, is representing NorthSide as a defendant in a lawsuit that alleges, among other things, that the city’s TIF Commission and Board of Aldermen didn’t fully investigate the financial backing of the proposed NorthSide project before recommending and approving it.

Puricelli made an hour-long presentation at the Missouri Bar Association’s Committee on Eminent Domain on Nov. 20. Members of the committee include prominent eminent domain attorneys with private practices, and attorneys who work for state agencies that often use eminent domain, such as the Missouri Department of Transporation (MoDOT).

Dave Roland, a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, recorded the proceedings of the Nov. 20 committee meeting, from which all of the following quotes and statements are taken.

During the presentation, Puricelli stated that there are about 20 properties, which are not owner-occupied residences, that NorthSide needs but hasn’t been able to acquire, and that the company is hoping to utilize the power of eminent domain to obtain them.

“We have publicly stated that we anticipate that there will be 20 or fewer parcels subject to eminent domain for the redevelopment,” Puricelli said during the meeting. “Before you get too worried, Bob [an eminent domain attorney], there’s also going to be some infrastructure work by the city, also the possibility of eminent domain there.”

“For our purposes, we narrowed it down to 20 or fewer parcels,” he continued. “But eminent domain is viewed certainly by us as a critical component to getting those last 20 parcels acquired.”

McKee has stated in the past that he does not wish to use eminent domain, and a statement posted on NorthSide’s website states: “[Eminent domain] is lengthy, requires many hours of legal time, is a drain on government resources, and is not the method by which McEagle seeks to acquire any piece of ground within the redevelopment area.”

McKee, when reached by phone, refused to comment on Puricelli’s statements.

Currently, NorthSide does not have the power of eminent domain. However, the redevelopment agreement between the city and the company states that eminent domain can be used either for a public use, for things like roads, or “if the Developer has pursued and exhausted efforts to voluntarily acquire property the Board of Aldermen deems necessary to implement one or more portions of the Redevelopment Plan and deems critical to the Redevelopment Plan’s success.”

A number of attorneys for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) attended the Nov. 20 meeting, and acknowledged the agency’s almost certain role in the redevelopment’s road projects. “The 800 pound gorilla in this thing is MoDOT,” said one of the department’s attorneys.

Puricelli, who said he has been on both sides of the eminent domain issue, said that critics often focus on eminent domain during development, but that its use is necessary for such projects, and is not the devil it’s made out to be. Alderman Freeman Bosly, Sr., has also publicly voiced a similar sentiment.

When read several of the statements that Puricelli made to the committee, north side activist Romona Taylor Williams said she hadn’t heard any statements regarding the 20 or so properties to which Puricelli had referred during the meeting.

“I’ve not heard anything to that affect,” she said. “The only thing that the alderpersons have been saying to the community is that there is no eminent domain. And we know that’s not true.”

Aldermen April Ford-Griffin and Marlene Davis did not return immediate calls for comment. Both have made presentations at many community meetings with McKee about the project and have clearly stated that eminent domain would not be used.

“We need to do a better job of educating people, the Board of Aldermen, and the public about eminent domain, and what it is and what it isn’t,” Puricelli said. “For these types of projects to move forward, we still have the possibility — the hope of getting this right. But it is not a guarantee. And it will be a serious, serious problem if we don’t get it. For other redevelopment projects, it could be a stake in the heart.”

“These are parcels we couldn’t acquire under the radar,” Puricelli said later during the meeting when asked why McEagle hadn’t been able to purchase them. “Properties we need to make this thing ultimately work.”

When reached by phone for comment on his statements at the meeting, Puricelli said that 20 properties was the maximum number of properties that had ever been discussed as potentially being subject to eminent domain. “The hope is to acquire all of these properties voluntarily,” he said.

“I suspect that accommodations would have to be made,” Puricelli said when asked what NorthSide would do if the Board of Aldermen refused to grant the power of eminent domain for the remaining properties. “They would have to develop without that power.”

Bob Denlow, a prominent eminent domain and condemnation attorney in Saint Louis who represents property owners and serves as chairman of the Missouri Bar Association’s Committee on Eminent Domain, said the area was largely vacant.

“For those of you who have never driven through this area — it looks like a series of football fields — it is vacant, vacant, vacant land,” he said during the meeting. “Some of the controversy is that McKee has accelerated the decline by having bought properties and leaving them vacant. That has been an accusation. But for those people who are really familiar with the area, it’s just grass field.”

Williams, the activist who has been critical of the NorthSide Regeneration redevelopment process, strongly disagreed when asked to comment on Denlow’s characterization.

“You have a massive area that no one is giving any attention to at all,” she said. “For instance, the homes that are in the 19th ward. These are stable communities, but no one puts any attention on the 19th ward.”

“Or,” she continued, “what about this church, Shining Light, that has been in this community since 1938 and now their property is slated for open space?”

To see a Google map of the redevelopment area buildings and boundary lines, click here.

The post NorthSide Lawyer Says Eminent Domain Needed for Up to 20 Properties appeared first on Show-Me Institute.