Category: Missouri Legislature

by Michael R. Allen

Yesterday, Mayor Francis Slay endorsed the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act in the State of the City address. What do we do today?

First introduced in February, the legislative proposal is just over two months old. In two months, a lot can be done. People can identify problematic legislation, lobby for amendments and work to secure major changes — or defeat. Obviously, though, people working alone or in small groups do not effect such changes. People need lobbies or organizations to catch the attention of elected officials.

With the Distressed Areas tax credit, a whole host of issues was raised. Land use, displacement of low-income owners and renters, historic preservation and the use of government to benefit single developers all came up. There are numerous advocacy groups doing work in these areas, but none took the tax credit proposal or Paul McKee’s north side project seriously enough to invest in a formal position.

Here we see the inherent inaction in the local political culture. Rather than risk losing a political fight, the guardians of the establishment would rather resign themselves to fatalism than make a decent effort to invest in an issue. Fatalism, after all, is intellectually respectful (and profoundly lazy). No one ever lost a bet by promising to do nothing.

Clearly, the location of McKee’s project enables the culture of complacency. The middle and upper classes of the region have long forsaken north St. Louis, or outright supported its annihilation. This attitude has enabled decades of decline then blamed upon stereotypical poor and African-American people willing to hold neglected areas together. These same classes control the organizations that could have provided a voice on the tax credit issue. The apathy is thus not surprising.

Those who have participated in organizations before who might recognize the urgency of the tax credit issue are elsewhere. Leadership in St. Louis is unsustainable, and new voices are quickly recuperated into the morass of complacent inaction or rejected outright. Those who are new to the game find little guidance and support and much cynicism here.

Meanwhile, the failure of political leadership leads to neighborhoods left undefended, people left without advocates, buildings left wrecked and a city ultimately cast into middling status by default. We can blame Mayor Slay or Lewis Reed for bringing us down all we want, but their victories are symptomatic of a culture of apathy everyone seems to cultivate. They are easy scapegoats for the self-righteous, and ascribing to them and their minions unlimited powers helps us feel better about not taking responsibility or aiding our friends who are trying desperately to create change.

If the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act is an inevitable legislative proposal, that means that we have taken the last two months and wasted opportunities to form a coalition to change the proposal into one more appropriate to St. Louis. Of course, accepting the inevitability of the proposal still does not excuse further inaction. However, from the Century Building battle on back to the Gateway Mall we see a string of isolated instances of activism where the leadership on the issues withered away and critical mass was fleeting. The irony is that these battles have reinforced the point that sustainable long-term vision and strong organization is needed to even get a seat at the decision-making table, let alone change the discourse of the establishment so our ideas are truly considered.

What do we do today? A better question may be what can we do? The need to create sustainable organizations related to urban development issues is crucial. The need to foster progressive political leadership is essential. Are these things within our grasp? Do we want them to be?

From the State of the City speech by Mayor Francis Slay:

I strongly believe that we have to be prepared to provide incentives to spur development in our more challenging neighborhoods. If the private sector was going to invest in those neighborhoods without assistance, it already would have done so. We must find ways to jump start that development.

Third, I intend to work with you and President Reed to continue to use tax increment financing to attract private investment to those City neighborhoods where it is most needed and where TIF will work. And he and I will oppose any blanket policy that seeks to ban or restrict residential TIFs.

by Michael R. Allen

The Mayor Francis Slay’s campaign website now features a “mini poll” on the current session of the Missouri legislature. One of the questions is interesting:

A bill being considered in the Missouri legislature would establish a tax credit to assemble large tracts of land for new development in low-income City neighborhoods. Is this a good idea?

Here are the choices for answers:

_ Yes, spurring large-scale development in City neighborhoods that have seen years of disinvestment is a good idea
_ No, the tax credit idea is fine, but the scale of the new development worries me
_ No, it’s just wrong to use public incentives to encourage private development

See it for yourself here. Perhaps the mayor’s stance will be influenced by the result of the mini poll.

by Michael R. Allen

Yesterday, amid the local smokescreen of “land trust”, the Griesheimer amendment to the Quality Jobs Act (SB 282) unanimously passed the Economic Development, Tourism & Local Government Committee of the Missouri Senate.

Here is the available summary (full text has not been publicly released):

This act creates the distressed areas land assemblage tax credit program, administered by the department of economic development. Tax credits issued under the distressed area land assemblage tax credit act, are non-refundable, fully transferrable [sic] income, corporate franchise, and financial institutions, tax credits. Tax credits issued under the act will be equal to fifty percent of the acquisition costs for the land, and one hundred percent of the interest costs. The tax credit program is capped at one hundred million dollars and the total amount of tax credits issued annually is limited to twelve million dollars.

Numerous St. Louis citizens sent letters and made phone calls urging senators to delay the vote until there could be more local discussion, especially in the areas of north St. Louis currently affected by the “Sheridan Place” (or “Blairmont”) land acquisition project Sen. John Griesheimer used to justify the new credits.

As far as this writer knows, the only reply came from the office of Sen. Wes Shoemyer (D-18th), who inserted a citizen letter in the floor book for the bill. The St. Louis delegation was unusually silent on this very local matter.

Comments in the press from Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and Mayoral Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford made no mention of the hurry to pass this bill and the lack of citizen input, or the silence of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay in the face of impending physical and social upheaval hitting the near northside of his city.

by Michael R. Allen

Expect much discussion of the near northside and “land trust” development in the next few weeks. This discussion could draw attention to the failure of our city’s current charter to handle large-scale redevelopment in a responsible and compelling manner. The discussion might point to the wonderful development opportunities inherent in vacant land. The discussion could lead to a plan for action acceptable to many parties.

However, don’t be sidetracked to the point that the facts become overwhelmed by rhetoric:

– This is a discussion started by the news that in the last four years Paul J. McKee, Jr. has accumulated over 400 parcels in a concentrated section of north St. Louis.

– Many of the properties of the project are in violation of city ordinances.

– The city of St. Louis fronted thousands of dollars to board up, demolish and otherwise maintain property owned by McKee. While the fees are reimbursed, due diligence for maintenance and security have been lacking.

– The agents working on the acquisition project utilized secretive and questionable means, did not conduct due diligence in answering concerns from neighboring property owners and did not disclose the name of the actually responsible parties to community leaders and property owners.

– The property acquisition has included multiple cases where properties sought by other developers were purchased — including properties in known redevelopment areas.

– City officials have not yet responded to concerns of citizens and community leaders who have asked “why has this been allowed to happen?”

– Hundreds of mostly poor African-American residents have been relocated from Old North St. Louis, JeffVanderLou and St. Louis Place. (Some of this may have been inevitable, given housing conditions under prior owners.)

– Historic properties like the James Clemens, Jr. House (in danger of roof collapse) and the Brecht Butcher Supply Company Buildings (under demolition) have been allowed to deteriorate under this project.

– No legal policy directed the purchase of these properties.

Obviously, the language used by Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and mayoral chief of staff Jeff Rainford in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch article is encouraging as far as development of the Griesheimer amendment is concerned.

As far as dealing with “Blairmont,” that work has yet to be done. McKee’s ambitious project may turn out to be a mixed blessing from which good can come. Hopefully a full discussion of developing a “land trust” will include the facts of record in the “Blairmont” matter. Only then can everyone work together to create sensible policy for the near northside and for large-scale land acquisition.