How has the project worked out? Did the promises of redevelopment of this part of the city and a great return on the public tax investment pan out? Or did the warnings and concerns of people like Institute analyst Audrey Spalding prove correct?

Of course, Northside has been a total failure, and Audrey and others were correct.

The latest update on almost 20 years of policy failure is that a batch of McKee’s properties (which taxpayers bought for him) is being seized by the city via eminent domain. More of his properties may face the same fate soon. In this particular case, the properties are needed for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) project, so the eminent domain seizures are for legitimate public use. The city tried to buy these properties from McKee, but no agreement could be reached on price, so the city is taking them. The final price paid for them will almost certainly be determined by a court.

Everything you need to know about why economic development using subsidies is a road to failure is wrapped up in this story. The entire project began not based on market forces, but on the forces of lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians. It was sold as a way to save parts of north St. Louis from decades of poverty and blight—conditions that were created in part by government policy in the first place. The entire Northside redevelopment project has been a colossal failure from the start, and the city and state should never have authorized tax subsidies for it. In the state’s case, it created a brand new law just for McKee to do this.

I would hope the city and state would learn a lesson from the failures of tax incentives and subsidies from this project. I doubt very much that they will. As Orwell said, to see the things in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle—a struggle that politicians rarely have any incentive to engage in.

The post Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Earlier this month the Saint Louis Board of Aldermen’s Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee voted 4-3 to approve the release of a $2.8M TIF note and to establish a community improvement district (CID).  This decision would impose an additional 1% sales tax in the area to assist with the development of a $20M grocery store and gas station that Paul McKee announced back in March.

Both residents and city officials pushed back on this decision in part due to their frustrations with NorthSide’s history, and in part because the CID would increase the burden on residents in the area who may not be able to afford it.  The proposed CID would bring the area’s sales tax up to 9.679% (Missouri’s average is 7.86%).

When we consider how heavily subsidized the development already is, the argument for a CID becomes less convincing.   The development’s costs are estimated at $20M.  Considering that $10M of funding is coming from a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant, $5M from New Market Tax Credits and $2.8M from TIF, the project is almost entirely being taken on with funds from taxpayer pockets. Is such heavy incentive use appropriate for a venture that includes a dime-a-dozen gas station? 

The Northside Regeneration fiasco has received a staggering amount of incentives and has little to show for it.  The bills in question now move on to the Saint Louis Board of Aldermen to determine whether this development needs yet another subsidy. 

The post The North Side’s Unlearned Lesson appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As with any action from the Saint Louis city government, there are winners and losers. The obvious winner here is the land developer behind the NorthSide Regeneration project, which will get what amounts to a bailout with this deal. The city as a whole? Saint Louis will pay for the land it will turn over (at no charge) to the NGA. Because the NGA was already located in Saint Louis, the effect on the city economy will be minimal. The NGA may add more jobs, but nothing that one could expect to reverse Saint Louis’s long decline.

The families who will be forced out of their homes are the ones losing out. They face an uncertain future, and if the NGA’s decision is finalized, they’ll need to navigate the eminent domain process and find new places to live.

In Saint Louis, political officials seem to prefer looking for shortcuts to development and lack enthusiasm for pursuing the hard but boring path to civic success: low taxes, a level economic playing field, and quality essential services. Meanwhile, those without political connections or wealth are swept aside.

Will things ever change for this city?

The post Who Really Wins or Loses with NGA Deal? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, even many private businesses and residences that are not tax exempt in any legal manner  receive reduced property taxes from the city or state government. The most common of these tax breaks are tax increment financing (TIF) and tax abatements. TIF allows businesses to use the increase in taxes created by their development to help pay for that development. Tax abatement allows a city to reduce or eliminate property taxes for a development. In some cases the property owner agrees to a negotiated level of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to offset part of the property tax loss (as the Cardinals have), but this is the exception to the rule. TIFs and tax abatements are often used in tandem, as is the case with the Chase Park Plaza.

The vast majority of these selective property tax breaks were designed to encourage development in economically depressed areas; many (including most TIF) require an area to be designated as “blighted” before property there can receive a tax break. However, over time these incentives have become just another tool  city officials use to attract the businesses they want wherever they want, regardless of whether the project is in one of the poorest or wealthiest sections of the city. Blight has been so loosely defined that parcels within Saint Louis City’s most prosperous neighborhoods are regularly deemed “blighted.”

A review of the city’s parcel data shows how pervasive the use of property tax breaks has become. In total, over 9% of the city’s property either receives tax abatements or is in a TIF district (not including government buildings and non-profits that fall within TIF districts). The map below shows all abatements and TIF districts:

Much of the TIF’d area is part of Paul McKee’s Northside Regeneration project, which (whatever the merits of this TIF) does contain many economically depressed properties. However, many valuable properties also receive significant tax breaks, including the Chase Park Plaza, Cortex (which includes IKEA), Ballpark Village, the Renaissance Center, and even a Mercedes dealership on Hampton. Altogether, around 18% of the city’s total assessed value is either in a TIF district or receives tax abatement. Properties in the these areas often pay much less in real property taxes than the city’s official rates would require.

Look for my next post on this issue, which will show the combined effects of government ownership, nonprofits, and tax breaks on Saint Louis City’s real property tax base. 

The post Saint Louis Property Taxes, Part 3: The Tax Breaks appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Do you think that pumping hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to one developer is the key to successful North Side revitalization? I would love to be wrong on this, but can someone please give me evidence (economic, historic, etc.) where this type of huge subsidy to one developer working hand-in-hand with government planners has managed to successfully revitalize a community? Some say that McKee’s dream is worth a shot despite a high uncertainty that it will work; I obviously do not agree in this case. But who knows, maybe McKee will be to Saint Louis what Baron Haussmann was to the rebuilding of Paris.

If you are not familiar with the NorthSide project saga, I recommend reading this short article in St. Louis Magazine to get the Cliff’s Notes version.

The post NorthSide Receives State’s Largest TIF appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, McKee will appear before the Missouri House Economic Development Committee this evening to explain why he needs $50 million more from the state. As we have discussed, McKee has already received more than $40 million in state tax credits. He claims he has made a net investment of $63 million on the project already ($103 million minus $40 million tax credits) — but do not go thinking that his investment validates additional taxpayer money.

McKee is waiting on a $390 million Tax Increment Financing (TIF) package from the City of Saint Louis. If the court decision goes in his favor, I doubt he will have much skin in the game with this project. Add on another $50 million from the state and his total government aid will approach half a billion dollars.

Do we think that NorthSide Regeneration will have a benefit for the state that is worth half a billion dollars? I do not. One of McKee’s supporters claims that the project will save Missouri money in the future. He says NorthSide will reduce problems such as unemployment, high school dropouts, out-of-wedlock births, and murders. But the social problems in Saint Louis will not be solved with large-scale government planning. Just like when the government uses eminent domain to remove neighborhood blight, the problems of the neighborhood do not just evaporate, they move to a new location.

McKee has an army of 21 lobbyists to help him squeeze every last penny out of the state that he can. I would argue that you do not need 21 lobbyists for good ideas, only bad ones.  I am sure the state could find a better use for $50 million than giving it to McKee.

The post More Handouts For McKee? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Apparently, in other circumstances, you can play big and always win big if you know the right people and have enough money. Especially if your name is Paul McKee.

I recently wrote about the lack of progress on McKee’s NorthSide Regeneration project in North Saint Louis, despite the $40 million he has already received in tax credits.

One specific state tax credit, that only McKee is eligible for, is set to expire in April. But not if he can help it. Seventeen lobbyists registered on Monday to represent the NorthSide project, which the St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes is the same amount that represents Ameren Corp. and Anheuser –Busch, combined.

When will McKee end his relentless pursuit of tax credits?

Unfortunately, priorities shift when business becomes intertwined with the government. Relying on the government often incentivizes companies to hire people with the ability to work with government, not the ability to complete projects.

Ludwig Von Mises discusses this problem in Bureaucracy (pages 76-77, if you are interested). He writes, “Why bother about bringing out better and cheaper products if one can rely on support on the part of the government? For them [corporate executives] government contracts … and other government favors [are] the main concern.”

This reliance on government favors is not necessarily McKee’s fault; he did not create the system. But this is not an excuse to let it continue. We need to change the system that encourages businesses to spend significant resources on government lobbying instead of investing efforts into their business. It is time for Missouri to cease “business as usual” and put an end to corporate welfare.

The post Gotta Spend Money To Make Money? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state now has given more than $40 million in credits to the NorthSide project to redevelop a 2-square-mile area in north Saint Louis. And for all this money, there has not been much progress to show for it. So far, the state has not seen any real benefits from awarding several million dollars for this project.

If I was reimbursed for (almost) everything I bought, I would not be in much of a hurry either. McKee says he will make progress after he receives the $390 million Tax Increment Financing (TIF) package he is waiting on. As our regular readers know, we have been covering this issue for a long time. NorthSide applied for the TIF more than three years ago but it has been held up in court.

There is a chance that the Missouri Supreme Court will rule against the TIF in the next few months.

“If that doesn’t go our way,” McKee said about the potential ruling, “we’re dead.”

That would not be such a bad thing. Taxpayers would be off the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, which are likely to be of more benefit to McKee than to North Saint Louis.

The post One Lucky Duck appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some might say that the agreement is a validation of the city’s strategy to hold property for development. But even though political points may be gained by trumpeting development before it occurs, development of these parcels has not actually happened.  As one writer put it, “…until development occurs on a large portion of the land, the strategy will only have proven that after three decades, the city has found someone else to mow the yard.”

Indeed, while the prospect of selling 1,200 city-owned properties is great news for the city and its residents, this single development will not remake Saint Louis, even if successful. The city has dug itself into an incredible vacancy hole that would require almost another nine developments like the NorthSide one — just to take care of the vacant property that the Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), owns. And this proposed development took years to come about.

According to St. Louis Magazine, the NorthSide development was in the works since at least 2003, and no comparable large-scale development has taken place in Saint Louis. If we are pinning our hopes on more developments like NorthSide, we have to wait another 40 years. How much land will the city have amassed by then?

As part of the Show-Me Institute’s review of the operations of the LRA, we collected a great deal of data to see how frequently the agency was accepting and rejecting offers to buy its vacant property. We found that the LRA rejected formal offers to purchase more than 2,200 different parcels between the years 2003 and 2010. That is certainly a larger number than the 1,200 parcels being discussed as part of the NorthSide deal.

Some may be curious as to whether offers in recent years to purchase LRA property were rejected in the NorthSide footprint.

The map below shows all offers to purchase LRA property, with larger marks indicating higher-value offers. Between 2003 and 2010, offers to purchase more than 300 different properties within the NorthSide boundary were rejected.

However, to make the situation complicated, offers to purchase more than 280 properties in the area were accepted. While some offers were rejected because the agency was holding the property for “planned unified development,” others were accepted.

What I find more troubling is the city’s bad (but recently abandoned) habit of holding property off of its public for-sale list. Up until the publication of Show-Me Institute research, almost half of LRA property was not advertised for sale. This was due in part to agency staff members and area aldermen designating property as “Class C,” meaning that it was not “suitable for public or private use.” In practice, that designation made it more difficult, if not impossible in some cases, for people to purchase vacant property. Below is a map showing parcels not advertised for sale in red, with LRA parcels advertised for sale in green. The NorthSide boundary is included for reference.

We only have records for formal, written offers to purchase LRA property. It is impossible to know how many would-be buyers were discouraged from buying property in the NorthSide footprint as a result of the LRA’s practices.

The post NorthSide Development is Complicated, But No Validation of Land Banking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Developer Should Bear Risk of Failure

In responding to Judge Robert Dierker’s ruling that St. Louis officials lacked authority to offer hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize the NorthSide redevelopment plan, the editorial board, in the editorial “Celebrating Decline” (July 12), implies that the plan can proceed only if the city provides the anticipated subsidies. The developer’s own estimates indicate a belief that he will realize a profit of at least $251 million even without those subsidies.

Nothing in the ruling prevents the developer from pursuing his quixotic vision or from enjoying any profits that might result from its success; rather, it requires that, like all other entrepreneurs, the developer must personally bear the risks of failure instead of pushing them onto the taxpaying public.

Dave Roland — St. Louis

Policy Analyst, Show-Me Institute

The post Developer Should Bear Risk of Failure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I have written about how owner-occupied homes appear to be slated for open space, as are some area businesses.

When I asked Ford-Griffin about the fate of Fehlig Brothers Box & Lumber, a 137-year-old area business that, according to NorthSide’s plans, will become open space, she said that much detail can’t be read into the company’s plans.

“That is a concept,” she said. “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.

You can read the updated report, with Ford-Griffin’s comments, here.

The post April Ford-Griffin on Proposed “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.

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.

I hope that the mainstream media will cover tonight’s presentation. The development is contentious, not least because it is very large and involves an application for $410 million in tax increment financing (TIF) from the city, but also because of current residents’ worries that the company will use eminent domain to take their property (there is, in fact, mention of using eminent domain in the NorthSide Regeneration company’s TIF application).

There is also the issue of whether a city agency was somehow complicit by holding on to vacant property in the north side for more than a decade in case a developer came along, rather than putting the property up for sale.

These issues have been brought forward several times by the North Side Community Benefits Alliance (NSCBA), a group of north side residents determined to be involved in the redevelopment process. Although the group is new, it has done a lot to publicize this issue. Recently, the NSCBA held two community forums. At the first, Saint Louis TIF commissioner and Saint Louis School District Board of Education member David Jackson spoke. At the second, Christina Walsh, of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice spoke. Both speakers were noteworthy, yet both forums were mostly ignored by the press.

To his credit, Don Marsh, host of “St. Louis on the Air,” did have NSCBA members on his show, and when one of the banks holding more than 400 mortgages of McKee’s north Saint Louis properties was seized by the FDIC, KMOX contacted NSCBA’s vice president, Barbara Manzara, for quotes.

It is likely that a number of community residents who oppose the proposed development will attend tonight, which means that reporters could hear both their concerns and McKee’s responses without filter. I didn’t think that media needed a nudge to cover this side of the issue, but here it is: This is important, and this is newsworthy.

The post Look Here, Please appeared first on Show-Me Institute.