Beacon Hill

Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
macnw
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 943
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 9:27 pm
Location: Portland

Beacon Hill

Postby macnw » Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:32 am

Has anybody heard anything about this project lately. I thought this project was going to bring back central KC. There has been so much hype, but I rarely see anything in the paper about Beacon Hill. Seems like the westside of Hospital Hill is booming. Need the same thing to happen on the eastside. Let's connect them all together. We have a large employment base in the center of KC, people will live there, if given the chance. People need to know they can live in the center city w/o getting killed! It's time to get over these fears.

User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Beacon Hill

Postby dangerboy » Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:49 pm

I believe the Star recently reported that they are finishing up infrastructure like sewer and water pipes. A few model houses have been built, but residential construction will probably start in earnest this spring.

shinatoo
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Lee's Summit

Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby shinatoo » Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:31 am

Anybody know how much tax revenue we are losing because of the hold up on the Beacon Hill development fiasco?

I began to think about this when reading about the reasons behind closing the Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC. DC wants it closed because they get no tax revenue from the land and it is in a prime area for residential/urban village development. I imagine that we are talking about millions of dollars a year into the city's coffers (for both DC and KC).
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

Pastense
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby Pastense » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:46 am

There probably isn't much tax revenue being lost if there is any actual delay in the implementation of Beacon Hill. Beacon Hill was truly a blighted neighborhood with only a few nicely maintained properties along West Paseo. In it's condition prior to the approval of the redevelopment plan, the neighborhood wasn't producing much tax revenue. The 353 redevelopment plan freezes that tax revenue for 10 years and provides an increase to 50% of new value for an additional 15 years if it's structured in the normal 353 fashion. So any new development won't show up as new tax revenue for at least 10 years and then at only 50%. In this case, the use of the state's redevelopment incentives is completely appropriate and will support the redevelopment that's beginning to happen at the former Christian Church Hospital (46-senior apartments) and with several new single-family homes under construction in the neighborhood.

shinatoo
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Lee's Summit

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby shinatoo » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:12 pm

So there will be no new property tax revenue from this development for ten years?

What purpose does that serve? Incentive for buyers so they save 2 grand a year?

Doesn't seam like a good plan.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby dangerboy » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:24 pm

shinatoo wrote:So there will be no new property tax revenue from this development for ten years?

What purpose does that serve? Incentive for buyers so they save 2 grand a year?

Doesn't seam like a good plan.



You have to spend money to make money.  While the propery tax benefits won't be realized for several years, think about the effects of 500 new families moving in... That's a lot more revenue in terms of sales tax on their groceries, personal property tax on their cars, earnings tax, etc.  Is it really so bad if it costs a little in property taxes in order to create a whole new neighborhood from severe blight?

shinatoo
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Lee's Summit

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby shinatoo » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:33 pm

Be patient with me. I'm just really trying to understand.

That being said. I would rather have both. Also, it seams to me that this development will probably attract more KCMO residents than new/suburban residents.

Are there any projections on net gains in residents from this development?

After reading about some of Hickman/Ruskin area residents who still don't have sanitary sewer services, 40 years after being annexed, it is kind shocking to hear that the city is passing on property tax revenue. Plus, if i understand it correctly, property tax goes into the public schools and sales tax does not. Adding that many residents will put more of a burden on the school system without the revenue.

Am I off base here?
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
TheNorthlander
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:34 pm

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby TheNorthlander » Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:13 pm

Beacon Hill is a great idea gone horribly wrong.  My bet is that it can be saved, but will take some definate hands-on from the city.

The idea is simple, develop a new neighborhood/new homes in the core of the city, rather than on the fringe.  In order to do this, sometimes an entire area has to rebuilt from scratch.

There is no way to do this without public subsidy, basically because the KCMO school district is horrid and the area is not established as an attractive neighborhood.  Therefore, the homes will never sell for the price necessary to pay for the redevelopment.

Keep in mind that government subsidizing housing ownership has been around for centuries (homesteads, mortgage tax break, etc.). 

I could be wrong, but I think that the case for long-term economic benefit of building stable neighborhoods has been made several times over.
"Keep the Status-Quo! Yes on 1, No on 2!" - Jackson County Voters

User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby dangerboy » Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:31 pm

Shin, in the long run there will be a net increase in tax revenue that wouldn't happened if the area remained blighted and mostly empty.  In the mean time, the current tax rate still applies so there isn't any loss to the city, schools, county, or libraries.

You are correct that we are giving up some tax revenue, but it's still an investment that will have greater returns in the future.

shinatoo
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Lee's Summit

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby shinatoo » Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:46 pm

Same tax  revenue with increased burden on city services.

Maybe you could direct me to a study on this or some other resource as I ma becoming inceasingly intrested in this type of thing?
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby dangerboy » Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:01 pm

shinatoo wrote:Same tax  revenue with increased burden on city services.

Maybe you could direct me to a study on this or some other resource as I ma becoming inceasingly intrested in this type of thing?


I don't think it's an increased burden.  Like you said, most of the people moving here are probably already in the city.  With the blight gone, there will be less demand on police and emergency services.  Plus, those people will still be paying other taxes.

eliphar17
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:30 am
Location: Norman, OK (from KC)
Contact:

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby eliphar17 » Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:45 pm

dangerboy wrote:I don't think it's an increased burden.  Like you said, most of the people moving here are probably already in the city.  With the blight gone, there will be less demand on police and emergency services.  Plus, those people will still be paying other taxes.


But if the people were already living in the city, how can you say there will be an increase in tax revenue?

I totally agree that building new neighborhoods in the city is a good thing. It seems like the city is engaging in supply-side economics here, trying to get people to use their product (housing) by offering tax breaks to lower the cost rather than taking steps to increase the demand for said product (improving schools, upgrading utilities like water and sewer, offering more comprehensive transit options, etc.). Well, I guess that's not entirely true, but I still think these 25-year property tax abatements are excessive. I would rather see the city work on making the various aspects of city life worth the unabated taxes people should be paying.

User avatar
TheNorthlander
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:34 pm

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby TheNorthlander » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:07 pm

Even if you fix the things mentioned, I think you have to have a base product to start with.  Some of these areas are in such bad shape that nobody will rehab or build new, because the house across the street is vacant, run-down, boarded up, etc.

Redoing a whole neighborhood requires a public subsidy. 
"Keep the Status-Quo! Yes on 1, No on 2!" - Jackson County Voters

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:17 pm

eliphar17 wrote:But if the people were already living in the city, how can you say there will be an increase in tax revenue?

I totally agree that building new neighborhoods in the city is a good thing. It seems like the city is engaging in supply-side economics here, trying to get people to use their product (housing) by offering tax breaks to lower the cost rather than taking steps to increase the demand for said product (improving schools, upgrading utilities like water and sewer, offering more comprehensive transit options, etc.). Well, I guess that's not entirely true, but I still think these 25-year property tax abatements are excessive. I would rather see the city work on making the various aspects of city life worth the unabated taxes people should be paying.


Chicken v. Egg - If you don't have the tax dollars, how are you ever going to improve the schools, sewers, etc?  Something has to give if you are going to avoid inertia.  At least if your new tax abated neighborhood gets built, you will hopefully attract a good group of law-abiding, civic-minded group of residents who will hopefully vote to do what it takes to fix the other things. 

User avatar
Thrillcekr
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2161
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Kansas City, Mo
Contact:

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby Thrillcekr » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:59 pm

I recently saw a house listed for sale in this area.  I'm seriously thinking about calling a realtor and going down to have a look.

User avatar
ozone84
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Brookside
Contact:

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby ozone84 » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:49 pm

dangerboy wrote:I don't think it's an increased burden.  Like you said, most of the people moving here are probably already in the city.  With the blight gone, there will be less demand on police and emergency services.  Plus, those people will still be paying other taxes.


But I think there will be an increased burden.  Entire blocks in that area were abandoned.  Tracy, Forest, etc.  The City wasn't clearing the streets of snow, maintaining curbs and sidewalks or cleaning out stormwater inlets.  The fire department didn't have to respond there very often, except for the occasional fire set by a vagrant.  From what I saw years ago the only police presence was the occasional cruiser passing through on their way back to the East Patrol station.

Now sewers had to be upgraded or replaced, new asphalt, new curbs, sidewalks, street lights, utilities.  As residents move in there will be demands for snow removal, police response, fire protection.  If these are indeed "new" residents the demands on schools will increase.  All this with no added revenue for 10 years.

I don't think the equation is as simple as spend money to make money.  Just my opinion.
"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." - Fred Kent : Project For Public Spaces

shinatoo
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6015
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Lee's Summit

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby shinatoo » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:53 pm

ozone84 wrote:But I think there will be an increased burden.  Entire blocks in that area were abandoned.  Tracy, Forest, etc.  The City wasn't clearing the streets of snow, maintaining curbs and sidewalks or cleaning out stormwater inlets.  The fire department didn't have to respond there very often, except for the occasional fire set by a vagrant.  From what I saw years ago the only police presence was the occasional cruiser passing through on their way back to the East Patrol station.

Now sewers had to be upgraded or replaced, new asphalt, new curbs, sidewalks, street lights, utilities.  As residents move in there will be demands for snow removal, police response, fire protection.  If these are indeed "new" residents the demands on schools will increase.  All this with no added revenue for 10 years.

I don't think the equation is as simple as spend money to make money.  Just my opinion.


Infastructure impovements are part of the lot cost and are passed on to the owner. The city requires them but does not pay for them (unless they pay indirectl through a TIF program). But the burden on police, trash, snow removal and schools is real.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
ozone84
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Brookside
Contact:

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby ozone84 » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:05 pm

shinatoo wrote:Infastructure impovements are part of the lot cost and are passed on to the owner. The city requires them but does not pay for them (unless they pay indirectl through a TIF program). But the burden on police, trash, snow removal and schools is real.


Initially that is true, but those brand new streets get driven on by heavy construction equipment as the houses are built.  Curbs get damaged by the same.  Mud from construction sites builds up in the stormwater pipes.  The contractor has to warrantee all that but the warranty rarely lasts long enough.  The potholes begin showing up soon thereafter and City is on the hook for fixing them.
"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." - Fred Kent : Project For Public Spaces

User avatar
Thrillcekr
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2161
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Kansas City, Mo
Contact:

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby Thrillcekr » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:54 pm

Perhaps putting together some sort of plan for retail in the area and using that as a CID would help take care of some of the infrastructure costs.

User avatar
ozone84
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Brookside
Contact:

Re: Beacon Hill Tax Revenue

Postby ozone84 » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:32 pm

Thrillcekr wrote:Perhaps putting together some sort of plan for retail in the area and using that as a CID would help take care of some of the infrastructure costs.


That makes too much sense Thrillcekr.  It's that kind of crazy thinkin' that will get you branded a pariah in this town.
"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." - Fred Kent : Project For Public Spaces


Return to “Urban Core”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests