KCRag Forum

Forcing a certain % of Affordable housing reduces the quantity supplied. This just makes apartments less plentiful, more expensive, and less maintained. Making everyone worse off. There are plentyyyy of affordable priced housing units near downtown. Increasing low cost public transit options to those areas would be much better

Programs to artificially suppress housing costs never work in the long term. Keep building more supply. Eventually, prices will drop as an effect once the wave of demand is met.

If you build enough to drive down the market rate on apartments aren’t you also saturating the market and lowering the rate of return, this disincentivizing apartment construction?

For the record I think affordable should be part of a host of things we should be doing, including zoning reform.

chaglang wrote:If you build enough to drive down the market rate on apartments aren’t you also saturating the market and lowering the rate of return, this disincentivizing apartment construction?

For the record I think affordable should be part of a host of things we should be doing, including zoning reform.

No, with increased building, you will get economies of scale to keep the return rate stable while increasing population. Actually, what the city really should be focusing on is job attraction. We had a goal of adding 10k new residents. We need to move to adding the same amount of jobs DT. Those incentives are better for overall economic health than subsidies for housing.

I agree with ST it's unrealistic to expect affordable housing to come in the p&l plan.

We’re already working on affordable housing. MAC properties is opening lots of it in Midtown. Get the streetcar extension done and let the expansion continue.

StrangerThings wrote:I'm still in favor of turning the midland office building into either mixed use or affordable housing. I think you could rehab that building and while you're not going to make much profit, you'd likely break even.

I would agree that the Midland Tower would be the most likely that Cordish might do as affordable housing, since as you stated earlier on another thread that it had the worst views. It might not also have the greatest layouts, and there is the potential noise problem from the theater. So if it's housing, then it might have to be affordable housing.

Now there are ways to get there where it isn't full of unruly and undisciplined tenants. It could be affordable housing for seniors and the disabled, who struggle to find safe, affordable housing citywide near transit and a grocery store/pharmacy. For example, there are over 55 only affordable housing complexes/buildings. Those types of affordable housing situations have less trouble associated with them.

Depending the funding mechanism, there might be a way to tie the affordable housing to downtown workers only. For example, you have to be employed downtown to qualify for an affordable unit (waiters/waitresses/hotel workers, etc.).

I can't remember, but didn't the City buy the Midland Theater and Office Building, and turn around and give it to Cordish to redevelop? I can't remember if the City technically retained ownership of the building and leased it to Cordish. The point of this is if the City bought the building for Cordish to redevelop, and since the District is underperforming, and the City is making up portions of the bond payments, can't the City negotiate here and say: "We want this building to be affordable housing. The District is costing our taxpayers money, and we need to get something out of this to compensate the fact that we are paying for these bonds?"

StrangerThings wrote:I'm still in favor of turning the midland office building into either mixed use or affordable housing. I think you could rehab that building and while you're not going to make much profit, you'd likely break even.

A THOUSAND TIMES, YES.

With no "on site" parking, make Midland all affordable or a mix that's heavy on the affordable.

DaveKCMO wrote:

StrangerThings wrote:I'm still in favor of turning the midland office building into either mixed use or affordable housing. I think you could rehab that building and while you're not going to make much profit, you'd likely break even.

A THOUSAND TIMES, YES.

With no "on site" parking, make Midland all affordable or a mix that's heavy on the affordable.

Thus, seniors and the disabled without cars who need to live near transit.

Great idea. Approved.

I'm watching Ch 2 right now and the discussion on this financing and the district as a whole is fascinating. I highly recommend going back and watching it once its posted if you're interested in the weeds of this. Cordish is up now if you can tune in.

kboish wrote:I'm watching Ch 2 right now and the discussion on this financing and the district as a whole is fascinating. I highly recommend going back and watching it once its posted if you're interested in the weeds of this. Cordish is up now if you can tune in.

Cliff note version from your account of watching?

Overall- good discussion and worth having. They held it for another week with the understanding that it will be voted on next week. The resolution asking questions about the city's "obligation" and other things will be.

According to City Attorney- city may not be 100% legally obligated to fund the garage, however it is a renegging of the contract which calls into question the city as a reputable partner to make agreements with.

Cordish is saying they cannot make the deal work if their PILOTS are over 550k (ie. new revenue to taxing jurisdictions). Chp 353 board or PIEA would approve these. If PILOTS are approved at higher amount, city would cover (if this agreement moved forward as written).

In current form, City is responsible for long term capital maintenance of 1 light garage and PnL block garage. Cordish takes over management and routine maintenance of those. City is not responsible for long-term capital maintenance or routine maintenance of 2 and 3 light in the contemplated agreement, though city would still own them.

While original agreement mentions the inclusion of affordable housing, there is no recourse by the city to require it. Plus, Cordish argues they meet it already because there is disagreement as to what "affordable" means since it is not defined in the agreement.

Also, This is not delaying anything and really does not need to be voted upon until the Chp 353 (or PIEA) incentives are approved via PZE. This is not scheduled until March. So no overall timelines have changed.

There is definitely more info, but those are some of the bigger items.

What does the 2nd point even mean? They had some kind of gentlemen's agreement?

kboish wrote:Overall- good discussion and worth having. They held it for another week with the understanding that it will be voted on next week. The resolution asking questions about the city's "obligation" and other things will be.

According to City Attorney- city may not be 100% legally obligated to fund the garage, however it is a renegging of the contract which calls into question the city as a reputable partner to make agreements with.

Cordish is saying they cannot make the deal work if their PILOTS are over 550k (ie. new revenue to taxing jurisdictions). Chp 353 board or PIEA would approve these. If PILOTS are approved at higher amount, city would cover (if this agreement moved forward as written).

In current form, City is responsible for long term capital maintenance of 1 light garage and PnL block garage. Cordish takes over management and routine maintenance of those. City is not responsible for long-term capital maintenance or routine maintenance of 2 and 3 light in the contemplated agreement, though city would still own them.

While original agreement mentions the inclusion of affordable housing, there is no recourse by the city to require it. Plus, Cordish argues they meet it already because there is disagreement as to what "affordable" means since it is not defined in the agreement.

Also, This is not delaying anything and really does not need to be voted upon until the Chp 353 (or PIEA) incentives are approved via PZE. This is not scheduled until March. So no overall timelines have changed.

There is definitely more info, but those are some of the bigger items.

Thanks for the recap!

grovester wrote:What does the 2nd point even mean? They had some kind of gentlemen's agreement?

Probably that there are ways the city could get their way out of it with a technicality in the agreement but what would be the long-term impact of the overall relationship by doing so.

StrangerThings wrote:I wonder if the two city council members who are making a fuss realize or understand the history? Cordish volunteeringly took over the maintenance and management of garages for a few reasons. To lessen the burden on the city but to also expedite maintenance and service issues.

I’m not upset these conversations are happening at all. It’s probably a good time and a refresher course is needed. Cordish is just now in the middle of the master plan, so there are years left to go.

I'm sure there are other reasons cordish took over the maintenance....they aren't doing things out of the goodness of their hearts...even more than just "the city isn't fixing things fast enough". Gotta be more to it than that even if we never know pubically what that is.

KCPowercat wrote:

grovester wrote:What does the 2nd point even mean? They had some kind of gentlemen's agreement?

Probably that there are ways the city could get their way out of it with a technicality in the agreement but what would be the long-term impact of the overall relationship by doing so.

Resulting in a ton of lawyers fees certainly.

KCPowercat wrote:

grovester wrote:What does the 2nd point even mean? They had some kind of gentlemen's agreement?

Probably that there are ways the city could get their way out of it with a technicality in the agreement but what would be the long-term impact of the overall relationship by doing so.

Basically, yes. Mostly I just wrote it poorly.

As I understood what was said, Cordish is not explicitly owed the parking. The provision is subject to appropriating the money and other details (covered in the meeting). So in a sense, you are right, the city simply pledged (in writing) to provide parking for residential developments in the district. The city's legal counsel was pointedly asked, Is the city legally obligated to pay this money, to which he responded, No. He did go on to say there are potential political and legal consequences of this action. One he highlighted was a real risk to the city's reputation if one council does not hold up the pledges of previous councils (and maybe lawsuits). I recommend watching the exchange once it is posted. They cover this and more in great detail.

My sense is that the council people in the finance committee already knew much of this information and did not bother to publicly ask, however the other council people did not- so it was good it was discussed publicly so it can be more clearly understood why these decisions are being made. Despite the discussion, it seems to me that the agreement will move forward next week. But, it will be discussed again in the Ethics and Legal Review committee next week prior to the full council's vote.

The Cordish guy also made it clear, although this is a 99 year agreement, its not like there is an endless line of towers that will keep coming back for parking assistance, there are only 4 or possibly 5 high rise residential sites in the district where it is possible for them to be built and two already exist.

All this talk of parking is making me hungry for some drive thru Jimmy Johns!