KCRag Forum

Sounds like the origin of "KCMO owns these doors" and "cosentinos owns these doors" stickers.....that then finally pushed action.

KCPowercat wrote:Sounds like the origin of "KCMO owns these doors" and "cosentinos owns these doors" stickers.....that then finally pushed action.

Oh I missed that, that's awesome.

Shields' sudden and unprecedented interest in affordable housing really looks like her trying to curry favor with east side pols after crossing the NAACP on the Westport sidewalks fiasco. She's got a citywide election coming in 13 months. Time to make friends.

chaglang wrote:Shields' sudden and unprecedented interest in affordable housing really looks like her trying to curry favor with east side pols after crossing the NAACP on the Westport sidewalks fiasco. She's got a citywide election coming in 13 months. Time to make friends.

I have a hard time believing that anyone could be "wondering where the affordable housing is" inside the P&L District. Few residential towers in downtowns across the US could be built new if they had to depend on "affordable" rental rates. For the most part, such projects are limited to second/third use of existing towers or low rise apartments.

I think the council discussion has more to do with the terrible deal that the city is on the hook for than affordable housing. They’re asking why we should keep giving money and not seeing direct return while the partner is remaining profitable and expanding. It’s a renegotiation.

"I fought for affordable housing in KCMO-backed projects" is easy campaign fodder, regardless of whether one thinks the specific projects are plausible candidates. Otherwise, you have Shields fighting against parking, which would be rather unusual for her.

chaglang wrote:"I fought for affordable housing in KCMO-backed projects" is easy campaign fodder, even if the specific projects aren't plausible.

*with mandatory parking fees

Eon Blue wrote:

chaglang wrote:"I fought for affordable housing in KCMO-backed projects" is easy campaign fodder, even if the specific projects aren't plausible.

*with mandatory parking fees

Yeah, that makes this seem even more like a stunt to me.

MLB contracts can't be renegotiated btw.

It was a shitty agreement. But an agreement is an agreement. There's nothing wrong with a little politics. This will get approved and it might push Cordish to do a little more in the city.

The description made me think it would be easy for the city to get out of it....but incredibility dumb to do so.

Majority of KCMO residents would probably support it given they think there is no parking downtown and this would give them more options when they came down for the auto show.

Everything is renegotiable. Purposefully stalling a project is a great way to extract a concession. Threatening a lawsuit is another. The only way a partnership/contract zips along unempeded is if both parties are making money. In this case, one party is not. Cornish should make some concessions to continue a happy partnership.

KCPowercat wrote:Majority of KCMO residents would probably support it given they think there is no parking downtown and this would give them more options when they came down for the auto show.

I laughed.

since we're talking about MLB contracts now i can only assume that the new royals stadium will go where they're capping the loop!!!

StrangerThings wrote: But by all means, throw a tiny wretch in things to increase your political clout.

You take things SO seriously! It’s just business. I don’t understand how you can expect the city to take it so willingly, losing millions of dollars without any kind of push back. Cordish isn’t going to walk away from a sweetheart deal and hasn’t shown any future plans beyond Six Light. Honestly, Cordish should give in, even if it’s a mild concession. Of course, they could sue. It’s their right. But, it will cost more for them to drag this out and they know the deal is wildly lopsided. Oh, and the, “Cordish built this town”rhetoric is laughable at best.

beautyfromashes wrote:

StrangerThings wrote: But by all means, throw a tiny wretch in things to increase your political clout.

You take things SO seriously! It’s just business. I don’t understand how you can expect the city to take it so willingly, losing millions of dollars without any kind of push back. Cordish isn’t going to walk away from a sweetheart deal and hasn’t shown any future plans beyond Six Light. Honestly, Cordish should give in, even if it’s a mild concession. Of course, they could sue. It’s their right. But, it will cost more for them to drag this out and they know the deal is wildly lopsided. Oh, and the, “Cordish built this town”rhetoric is laughable at best.

I think a lot of us are VERY quick to forget the condition downtown was in when Cordish signed up for all of this. Yes, it was a sweet deal, but there was a LOT of risk assumed by them. Fortunately, for all, it has been a mostly positive experience. These concessions the city is still on the hook for only appear to not make much sense now because the downtown environment has changed so dramatically in the 15 years since this agreement was started. So, while the additional funds to build the garages are a tough pill to swallow, I do think we should honor the commitment we made to our partner. What we should stop doing is giving free parking to every other developer who now wants to come downtown but who has a minimal risk compared to what Cordish did when this started.

Agreed

I was there. DT was a mess 10 years ago. There are many more people who took on as much personal risk to rebuild it than Cordish, but they deserve credit. They’ve met the minimums of their obligations for the contract. Of course, a bad recession was likely the biggest factor to them not meeting their grandiose projections and plans. They deserve what they’ve gotten. I just don’t think they’ve done enough to match the saviour that they paint themselves or the ability to skate through without a little heat from citizens and representatives as it relates to their lopsided deal. Good for them for taking the risk and getting the deal. Fight for the deal and get on with construction or give a bit back to acknowledge the hit the city is taking. Probably best to make the concessions, look like the good guy who cares for the city than trying to squeeze every penny.

While they might not be the biggest changes to downtown, I would say Ron Jury redeveloping the President Hotel, and The Alexander Company redeveloping the Professional Building, took huge risks. The President had to open, and operate, while there was ongoing construction all around it.

KCPowercat wrote:Majority of KCMO residents would probably support it given they think there is no parking downtown and this would give them more options when they came down for the auto show.

So true it hurts.