KCRag Forum

bobbyhawks wrote:Don't know if you have ever walked by this warehouse, but it is far from "blighted."...I was on-board with an abatement to clean that up, but I fail to see how it is needed in this case.

Nice perspective. Confirms some of my suspicions (though there is another major factor besides parking that is being willfully danced around in the "discussions"), but also adds some detail that is new to me, and I can understand a little better.

I will say that I, for one, think the developer should build without tax incentives, and if that means pushing the parking onto the street, where apparently everyone has a supposed "right" to park, established as near as I can figure by having "called dibs" first, I kind of feel like the neighbors made their own bed and should have to lie in it. I don't find it annoying, as much as just a natural consequence of what I think is pretty shitty behavior on the part of the Westside's supposed old guard, and some of the new ones too.

chingon wrote:I still don't buy that the primary objection to the development is economic, but couldn't/shouldn't the city and county easily fix that concern by freezing property assessments based on some metric of income/age/employment status?

There is, in my mind, not much that is a greater detriment to the life of poor, working class and elderly people than blight, vacancy and auto-dependency. I also find the idea of working to intentionally freeze or devalue the worth of my home, which is my primary investment and the item that is most likely to provide monetary stability for my children in the event of my death, horrifyingly stupid and shortsighted.

That said, I'm middle class, working age and employed, so it's not really my place to determine what I see as a threat to a community I'm not part of. I'm not sure I see the hang-up in a policy designed to assure that people on a fixed income can continue living in homes they own, or at least to mitigate the effects of rising assessments. There seems to be little impediment, after all, to foregoing property taxes entirely for owners of new development.

There's a podcast about Brooklyn and gentrification. One point they made is in some of these neighborhoods the homeowners, mostly black, in the neighborhood are living in their wealth. The point was that many were getting scammed out of the wealth. People faking titles and buying homes for the fraction of the value. Like someone owes $400k in debt, has a $1.5 million home and a daughter sells the home for $0 and the debt is taken over, a clear bad deal.

Maybe that's the best end result for some of these older neighborhoods, that many are in a position to sell their home for a large uptake to someone that renovates and resells. Just on the lot there could be $100k in value in parts of it, more than many homes. That would be enough to move to assisted living, to the country or such when retired.

chingon wrote:

bobbyhawks wrote:Don't know if you have ever walked by this warehouse, but it is far from "blighted."...I was on-board with an abatement to clean that up, but I fail to see how it is needed in this case.

Nice perspective. Confirms some of my suspicions (though there is another major factor besides parking that is being willfully danced around in the "discussions"), but also adds some detail that is new to me, and I can understand a little better.

I will say that I, for one, think the developer should build without tax incentives, and if that means pushing the parking onto the street, where apparently everyone has a supposed "right" to park, established as near as I can figure by having "called dibs" first, I kind of feel like the neighbors made their own bed and should have to lie in it. I don't find it annoying, as much as just a natural consequence of what I think is pretty shitty behavior on the part of the Westside's supposed old guard, and some of the new ones too.

The developer has stated that they would scrap the current plan entirely, redo it (hopefully not to the awful first iteration), and then try to buy more property nearby and create surface parking on that property. So, they aren't really comfortable giving up parking spaces and are claiming the development as currently illustrated would be impossible without the abatement. More territory and surface parking would certainly suck, but I also have a difficult time believing they couldn't do this project anyway without incentives. My neighbors who were most closely involved in attending meetings and EPC's outreach were somehow really turned off by them. Some of them are nearby vacant lot-owners and residential/commercial developers of the Westside and West Bottoms themselves, so I'm not sure where that puts them in the conflict. They are not generally knee-jerk-NIMBYs, so that certainly got my attention.

It is true, though, that the old guard community in the Westside South and North just does not appear to want any significant development that has the feel of a wealthier demographic moving in. Understandably, this is a great historic neighborhood of many different waves of different ethnic migrations to the area, and people do not want to lose that history. That will continue to be a hot button issue, but I still think people who say the area is gentrified or is in a mature gentrification phase are way off. Once these new move-ins take place, the $50k houses near the park are going for $500k, and someone wants to build a Whole Foods, then we are talking. Get back to me in 2 or 3 years, and we can have that discussion. So far, the only "force-outs" have been families who wanted to escape the school district.

send the developers to the crossroads, please!

Bobbyhawk I've had many come to me in opposition to this development and their key issues have been 'change' and more concretely the anticipated increases to property taxes on the established neighbors (especially seniors and poor families).

Change is difficult for most. The unknown has a lot of possibilities within and people gravitate to the worst. Regarding property taxes, there is concrete work being done on a parallel path. A form of property tax abatement for fixed or lower income, long term homeowners needs to be put into place in neighborhoods about to recognize gross change in assessment.

There are quite a number of old-guard from both the north and south Westside who have come around to support this development and especially this developer. They express their appreciation for the sense of cooperation and recognize that change is upon the hood and that this is not as negative as once perceived.

Though there are still a sizable number who have their swords well placed to fall upon.

The ordinance has been postponed from today's hearing until further notice.

loftguy wrote:Bobbyhawk I've had many come to me in opposition to this development and their key issues have been 'change' and more concretely the anticipated increases to property taxes on the established neighbors (especially seniors and poor families).

It looks like a majority of the signatures in opposition (the ones not verified by a notary) are from South of 20th Street. That definitely does point to concern over property taxes and new development's impact, but it also distracts from the people who will directly be impacted. Most of my comments have been in regard to the two or three blocks that will be directly impacted by the new apartment complex. I've personally not met anyone in support of the current proposal, and it looks like the EPC-provided map of supporters contradicts some of the signatures that have been gathered in opposition, so I don't know what they are basing the "support" figures on. I've got a very limited perspective on the matter, though, just having spoken with my immediate neighbors and received email updates.

loftguy wrote:Regarding property taxes, there is concrete work being done on a parallel path. A form of property tax abatement for fixed or lower income, long term homeowners needs to be put into place in neighborhoods about to recognize gross change in assessment.

I'm not generally a fan of adding more specific considerations to any taxable situation, but I'm sure something could be done to lessen the impact of immediate change to certain percentage increases in property taxes (like an adjustable rate mortgage that can't adjust more than 1% per year). However, any revision needs to take into consideration undeveloped parcels and make sure to tax them at a regular rate regardless of ownership.

bobbyhawks wrote:The ordinance has been postponed from today's hearing until further notice.

loftguy wrote:Bobbyhawk I've had many come to me in opposition to this development and their key issues have been 'change' and more concretely the anticipated increases to property taxes on the established neighbors (especially seniors and poor families).

It looks like a majority of the signatures in opposition (the ones not verified by a notary) are from South of 20th Street. That definitely does point to concern over property taxes and new development's impact, but it also distracts from the people who will directly be impacted. Most of my comments have been in regard to the two or three blocks that will be directly impacted by the new apartment complex. I've personally not met anyone in support of the current proposal, and it looks like the EPC-provided map of supporters contradicts some of the signatures that have been gathered in opposition, so I don't know what they are basing the "support" figures on. I've got a very limited perspective on the matter, though, just having spoken with my immediate neighbors and received email updates.

loftguy wrote:Regarding property taxes, there is concrete work being done on a parallel path. A form of property tax abatement for fixed or lower income, long term homeowners needs to be put into place in neighborhoods about to recognize gross change in assessment.

I'm not generally a fan of adding more specific considerations to any taxable situation, but I'm sure something could be done to lessen the impact of immediate change to certain percentage increases in property taxes (like an adjustable rate mortgage that can't adjust more than 1% per year). However, any revision needs to take into consideration undeveloped parcels and make sure to tax them at a regular rate regardless of ownership.

I anticipate that if successful such a 'tax freeze' program would apply to owners of longer duration (10/15+ years) who are of limited income (50-60% of median).

Any newly transacted properties would be at full market assessment, as would more recently arrived owners and owners with income levels of means.

Tax freeze for Westside and tax increase for neighborhoods along the streetcar line. Where is the equity?

beautyfromashes wrote:Tax freeze for Westside and tax increase for neighborhoods along the streetcar line. Where is the equity?

It's a touchy issue, but I have a difficult time arguing that it is equitable. I know I'm new to the hood, having only lived here for 7 years, but I think I feel like I am in a neighborhood that is a part of "downtown" (River through Crown). Not all share that way of thinking.

It is certainly a different profile than much of downtown, but it, along with Columbus Park, are urban suburbs or quasi-urban areas that are 100% tied to the prosperity, safety, and conveniences of all features of the urban core. I understand the impacts of gentrification (which are still only hypothetical from the property tax perspective at this point), but it does seem a bit odd to increase property taxes for those just a few blocks away and to create special rules for others nearby who can use the same amenities. I'm not sure about others in the Westside, but my property's assessed market and taxable value hasn't gone up for the last 5 years recorded online. I have no idea what the change in my home value has been, but the "market value" attributed to my house is only around 55% of what I paid. If property values are adjusted, it really goes back to assessed values being 10 to 15 years outdated and not to some very recent sharp rise in property value. So, it should be noted that taxes have already been frozen for some time and have not reflected the market for many years. Part of it is the scattershot nature of home values in the Westside, but a complete freeze of property taxes would lock people in at what was already an unrealistic level.

beautyfromashes wrote:Tax freeze for Westside and tax increase for neighborhoods along the streetcar line. Where is the equity?

At the ballot box.

Not sure if still in existence but California use to have property tax assessments frozen and only increased when property changed hands. That of course lead to houses next to each other have a quite varied property tax. Missouri also gives some sort to property tax credit on income tax returns to those 65 and over.

I was wondering when Prop 13 was going to be directly brought up in this discussion, as the past day's worth of posts in this thread have been alluding to the something very much like it. It's a case study in unintended consequences.

.

bobbyhawks wrote:

beautyfromashes wrote:Tax freeze for Westside and tax increase for neighborhoods along the streetcar line. Where is the equity?

It's a touchy issue, but I have a difficult time arguing that it is equitable.

It seems that the primary thinking in promoting such a tax abatement is to mitigate what is perceived to be the worst impact of gentrification, which is the displacement of the poor and elderly.

This is combined with the opinion that there is value in developing neighborhoods that are diverse, with residents from all income levels and backgrounds? (Was that diversity part of what attracted you to the neighborhood?)

People get funny notions about what tax abatement is, but in my view it is just the taxing jurisdictions not receiving the full load of windfall payments as values in neighborhoods jump significantly.

Also Bobbyhawks, hold on to your shorts, because next year appears to be a reassessment year for the Westside and the assessors have been pretty ruthless.

https://www.facebook.com/RosinPreservat ... =3&theater

New windows in West High School building.

Simulated muntins!

FangKC wrote:Speaking of the 1747 Madison house, I was looking at it on Google Streetview and noticed something.

There are no stairs going from the street up to the house. That's not so much a problem since the owners probably enter the house from the alley. However, look at the mailbox for the house, which is on the street.

How do the owners of the house get their mail? They can't just walk down the hillside to the sidewalk. Do they have to get their mail from their car on the street, and then drive up to their house? I also wonder how UPS and delivery services like Federal Express deliver packages to their house.

Dwell has an article featuring his house.

https://hello.dwell.com/article/nature- ... e-e783e3b3

Dwell also has an article featuring this house near 16th and Belleview.

https://hello.dwell.com/article/afforda ... y-001dc8fc

http://tinyurl.com/h33whnk

New house being erected at 1727 Madison on the east side of the street.



The house is being built on this parcel.

Across the street on the west side of the 1700 block of Madison is a foundation being poured for another new house.



The house is being erected on this parcel.