Three Light

[kboish]

Just so we're all clear on what is actually being discussed, below is the guts of the proposed resolution.

It looks to me like hard negotiating tactics. And good for them. The resolution says retroactively put 15% affordable housing in 1 and 2 light and require 15% in three and four light OR redevelop Midland as affordable and include 15% set aside in 4 light.

I think pretty much everyone (on the forum) is on board with the latter.

The other requirements then look to limit the city's exposure in future projects.

Seems worth negotiating to me.

● Not less than fifteen percent (15%) of all existing units in One Light and Two Light, and proposed future units in Three Light and any Four Light, shall be reserved for rent by persons making not more than one hundred percent (100%) of HUD’s Median Income calculations for Jackson County, Missouri, or the Midland Office Building shall be developed as affordable housing prior to any Four Light, which Four Light shall also include 15% affordable housing. Any future affordable housing in the District will be developed in accordance with the City’s affordable housing policies.

● A cap of four (4) residential buildings for which the City would provide parking, i.e., incentives would terminate with what is anticipated to be known as “Four Light.”

● A date certain by which Four Light is to commence construction, with an expiration of any City obligation if such date is not achieved for any reason.

● Kansas City Live, LLC, will be responsible for, at its expense, all future maintenance and capital repairs. City will retain responsibility only for structural repairs to the walls, roof, foundations and floors as is necessary to the essential stability of the Block 110 and Block 126 Garages.

● The creation of a profit sharing mechanism that would provide for a percentage of net parking garage revenues to be made available to the City for debt service of existing and any future debt obligations with respect to the District.

● The reduction of the proposed Parking Subsidy to an amount consistent with the Parking Cost Cap as it presently exists in Section 6.9(a) of the MDA or such amount as the City’s Director of Finance reasonably determines would result in a financial commitment that can be serviced by the City without negatively impacting the City’s General Fund, whichever is less.

[kcjak]

I'm generally fine with everything except retroactively making 1/2 Light 15% affordable. And does the wording mean that if the Midland is developed as affordable, then 1/2 Light remain as is and then only Four Light becomes 15% affordable (on top of the Midland)?

How does affordable housing work in a building where rent increases by floor?

Given the fact that Six Light has been getting some whispers lately, does it make sense that it could be started before Three and Four and therefore excluded from the second bullet point?

[missingkc]

I don't agree with any of the affordable housing requirements. And I could only afford "affordable housing" for a big chunk of my life.

[kboish]

I don't agree with any of the affordable housing requirements. And I could only afford "affordable housing" for a big chunk of my life.

You don't think the city should require a portion of units be income restricted even when the city is giving direct cash contributions?

[KCPowercat]

Just so we're all clear on what is actually being discussed, below is the guts of the proposed resolution.

It looks to me like hard negotiating tactics. And good for them. The resolution says retroactively put 15% affordable housing in 1 and 2 light and require 15% in three and four light OR redevelop Midland as affordable and include 15% set aside in 4 light.

I think pretty much everyone (on the forum) is on board with the latter.

The other requirements then look to limit the city's exposure in future projects.

Seems worth negotiating to me.

● Not less than fifteen percent (15%) of all existing units in One Light and Two Light, and proposed future units in Three Light and any Four Light, shall be reserved for rent by persons making not more than one hundred percent (100%) of HUD’s Median Income calculations for Jackson County, Missouri, or the Midland Office Building shall be developed as affordable housing prior to any Four Light, which Four Light shall also include 15% affordable housing. Any future affordable housing in the District will be developed in accordance with the City’s affordable housing policies.

● A cap of four (4) residential buildings for which the City would provide parking, i.e., incentives would terminate with what is anticipated to be known as “Four Light.”

● A date certain by which Four Light is to commence construction, with an expiration of any City obligation if such date is not achieved for any reason.

● Kansas City Live, LLC, will be responsible for, at its expense, all future maintenance and capital repairs. City will retain responsibility only for structural repairs to the walls, roof, foundations and floors as is necessary to the essential stability of the Block 110 and Block 126 Garages.

● The creation of a profit sharing mechanism that would provide for a percentage of net parking garage revenues to be made available to the City for debt service of existing and any future debt obligations with respect to the District.

● The reduction of the proposed Parking Subsidy to an amount consistent with the Parking Cost Cap as it presently exists in Section 6.9(a) of the MDA or such amount as the City’s Director of Finance reasonably determines would result in a financial commitment that can be serviced by the City without negatively impacting the City’s General Fund, whichever is less.

Think this is fair (option b)...thanks for getting the details straight for us

[WoodDraw]

Kansas City isn't land limited. Normally these make sense when you're building new in DC or NYC or SF and you know there is going to be no affordable housing built. And even then it only kind of makes sense.

We have affordable housing accessible by public transit and ample room to introduce more. Why not subsidize building on all of the parking lots?

[DaveKCMO]

We have affordable housing accessible by public transit and ample room to introduce more. Why not subsidize building on all of the parking lots?

Instead of the $17.5 million parking subsidy? Sure!

[beautyfromashes]

Make no mistake, these programs don’t help the poor. The single mother with two kids isn’t going to live in Three Light. The subsidies will be going to medical students with no income being supported by parents, retirees living off big savings, business owners who had loses on their business for a year so showed depressed income, ‘single’ person living with a significant other with money, etc. And, for most of these programs, once you’re in the apartment, your price is set, even if you win the lottery the next year. It’s a huge waste of money and a total scam.

[DaveKCMO]

Make no mistake, these programs don’t help the poor. The single mother with two kids isn’t going to live in Three Light. The subsidies will be going to medical students with no income being supported by parents, retirees living off big savings, business owners who had loses on their business for a year so showed depressed income, ‘single’ person living with a significant other with money, etc. And, for most of these programs, once your in the apartment, your price is set, even if you win the lottery the next year. It’s a huge waste of money and a total scam.

I know lots of people who've been helped by these affordable units that don't fall into any of these categories.

[beautyfromashes]

I know lots of people who've been helped by these affordable units that don't fall into any of these categories.

You think the truly poor will be helped by subsidizing the Lights? I’m not talking about waiters or concierges...truly lowest class? We’re talking about below median income. So, you’d just need to be just barely lower than the average person in the city.

[loftguy]

Make no mistake, these programs don’t help the poor. The single mother with two kids isn’t going to live in Three Light. The subsidies will be going to medical students with no income being supported by parents, retirees living off big savings, business owners who had loses on their business for a year so showed depressed income, ‘single’ person living with a significant other with money, etc. And, for most of these programs, once you’re in the apartment, your price is set, even if you win the lottery the next year. It’s a huge waste of money and a total scam.

Most of this is simply false.
Full time students are excluded from low/moderate housing.....so no med students.
Retirees are income restricted too, so 'big savings' income would disqualify them.
If there is a 'significant other' living in a space, their income is counted as well. (I guess sugar momma's living elsewhere are not excluded though...may have to concede that)
And in most of these programs, if your income increases over the limit you are forced to move....

For 25 years, 1/3 or more of the River Market was low/moderate income housing and it was an awesome tool for school teachers, artists, warehouse, service and office workers, not for profit employees, fixed income retirees, etc....and it really made for a great community mix.

The tax credit also served to facilitate the renovation of twenty downtown buildings that otherwise were more likely candidates for demolition.
It was a great investment and it has provided a valuable social service.

[Riverite]

While I am a huge fan of affordable housing, I agree that the city already negotiated this aspect. I would love to see them negotiate the midland as affordable, but I'm not sure trying to negotiate the light buildings will do anything but piss cordish off. If another developer comes in then we can negotiate. I am not even sure this is the best place to start. I as the city would approach developers to start on the east side of downtown, and offer subsidies in exchange for affordable units. I also think realizing that this is bringing high paying tax payers to downtown and pushing supply up which will help rectify pricing. It isn't like this building isn't doing anything and we aren't getting any return on investment.

[beautyfromashes]

Most of this is simply false.
Full time students are excluded from low/moderate housing.....so no med students.
Retirees are income restricted too, so 'big savings' income would disqualify them.
If there is a 'significant other' living in a space, their income is counted as well. (I guess sugar momma's living elsewhere are not excluded though...may have to concede that)
And in most of these programs, if your income increases over the limit you are forced to move....

For 25 years, 1/3 or more of the River Market was low/moderate income housing and it was an awesome tool for school teachers, artists, warehouse, service and office workers, not for profit employees, fixed income retirees, etc....and it really made for a great community mix.

The tax credit also served to facilitate the renovation of twenty downtown buildings that otherwise were more likely candidates for demolition.
It was a great investment and it has provided a valuable social service.

All of the examples I provided were real cases based on conversations with friends who have lived/still live in the urban core and midtown.

[kboish]

It is being discussed on Ch 2 right now

[KCPowercat]

This isn't the right place to start riverite....I agree...but it was a convenient place for them to jump in and grandstand a bit.

[KCPowercat]

I think this will get resolved at three light will be approved on the 22nd

[cityscape]

It passed out of committee with no recommendation. Basically, I understood that Cordish will evaluate whether or not they want to negotiate and potentially meet some of the requests of the city in the next two weeks. The resolution to pass 3 light as it stands today stays on the agenda for 3/25 meeting. If Cordish does decide there are concessions they can make, it sounded like they would pull the resolution for the 25th and work on a new resolution.

[WoodDraw]

-deleted-

I don't think this argument is going anywhere.

[KCPowercat]

It passed out of committee with no recommendation. Basically, I understood that Cordish will evaluate whether or not they want to negotiate and potentially meet some of the requests of the city in the next two weeks. The resolution to pass 3 light as it stands today stays on the agenda for 3/25 meeting. If Cordish does decide there are concessions they can make, it sounded like they would pull the resolution for the 25th and work on a new resolution.

Sorry I meant 25th. I think a deal will be made to get 7 on council to a yes.... Just the feeling I'm getting

[cityscape]

I agree. Was fascinating to hear the Cordish rep discuss all the concessions they've made and the expenses they've incurred to help the city. One item that was interesting was that the City has to pay Cordish a $4 million developer fee, I guess for 3 Light? Didn't quite understand what that money was for.