KCRag Forum

Yep, great time to flail them in public about garages and subsidized housing!

I hate the idea of having cracks in the cap. Maybe they could design ventilation stacks so the fumes and noise don't bother the park. If done right, they could become landmarks like the bartle pylons

Something I failed to consider when I made my first post about ventilation is that the westernmost block would naturally have openings due to the way that Truman Rd functions as a de facto on/off-ramp at that spot. Assuming that those gaps qualify for the safety regs, that cuts down on the continuous tunnel area a bit, but it still leaves well over 800 feet between there and Grand. While I understand the desire to value-engineer the hell out of this thing, I'm wary of a bait-and-switch where we get images of a full cap and then at the last minute we instead get a couple small caps with a huge hole between them.

kboish wrote:

WoodDraw wrote:It sounds like cordish knows that they're going to have to find a significant part of this. I'm both thankful and nervous at the same time.

How do you reach the conclusion that Cordish will contribute anything to this? they are not even funding parking garages physically attached their buildings.

According to the article, they funded the study. My assumption is that cordish, aeg, and our convention business will all be asked to pay with some money coming in from private philanthropy.

In return, I expect all of those to ask for something.

kboish wrote:

WoodDraw wrote:It sounds like cordish knows that they're going to have to find a significant part of this. I'm both thankful and nervous at the same time.

How do you reach the conclusion that Cordish will contribute anything to this? they are not even funding parking garages physically attached their buildings.

They can fund their garages, but the city legally agreed to fund the garages a decade ago. Why would cordish leave money on the table? I can't fault them on that, as much as I hate the deal.

In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.

horizons82 wrote: In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.

Oh great! 670 Live! Park. &

horizons82 wrote:

kboish wrote:

WoodDraw wrote:It sounds like cordish knows that they're going to have to find a significant part of this. I'm both thankful and nervous at the same time.

How do you reach the conclusion that Cordish will contribute anything to this? they are not even funding parking garages physically attached their buildings.

They can fund their garages, but the city legally agreed to fund the garages a decade ago. Why would cordish leave money on the table? I can't fault them on that, as much as I hate the deal.

In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.

The city agreed to fund the garages to the same extent Cordish agreed to include affordable housing in their developments...which is to say, it was written without recourse. Neither is obligated.

Before my following rant, let me just say, if 3 light passed today with its proposed amendments, I'd be totally fine with it, but I also think its good to discuss it further.

Here is what i don't understand. People say, why not let the city fund the garages in exchange for cordish paying for the cap or some portion of the cap. Even if the new, lower estimate is correct, the cap costs $140 million. How much of that is Cordish will to pay for? $1million? That gets us nowhere. $10 million+? Still not even close and you can bet they're not paying that much. And you suggested Cordish pay, "the majority of the funding". Thats crazy. They would never do that. Thats at a minimum $70 mil. That would cover garages for 3, 4, 5, and 6 light.

If they were willing to pay for any of that, the city is smarter to ask them to put that money into the garage. The garage incentive is coming out of EXISTING general fund monies. Not future hypothetical TIF, not abatement, not new CID sales tax, but EXISTING money. That means corresponding cuts in actual services are being made to make this happen(1). It seems to me that if Cordish has money to throw around on a cap, the city is smart to tell them to put that money into the garages and protect the general fund. I'm not saying the city shouldn't support the garages, but what I am saying is its ludicrous to think Cordish will or should put significant money into the cap. The garages are directly tied to and support Cordish's investment and at least garages have a revenue source to help reimburse your investment.

Besides, the cap is a long way off and is unlikely to happen unless MODot steps up. And we know thats not happening. This is all likely a pipe dream.

(1) I will note, the amendment proposed today (which if passed as described, i would support) addresses this issues by forming a new CID for a 1% additional sales tax in the district. This allows the city to not use general fund as the source of debt payment...however it is not approved yet and this brings the districts overall sales tax to 13%. Thats pretty high? Is it worth it? I think its better than using the general fund.

The garages cost $x. They are part of a big picture that bring in taxes worth $y over the long run.

So right now with conflicting needs, accept the deal that gets the city decades of new income rather than a short term benefit and a new liability. Six towers could provide a huge portion of the money to cap the loop without needing to change deals.

beautyfromashes wrote:

horizons82 wrote: In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.

Oh great! 670 Live! Park. &

Well played.

kboish wrote:Here is what i don't understand. People say, why not let the city fund the garages in exchange for cordish paying for the cap or some portion of the cap. Even if the new, lower estimate is correct, the cap costs $140 million. How much of that is Cordish will to pay for? $1million? That gets us nowhere. $10 million+? Still not even close and you can bet they're not paying that much. And you suggested Cordish pay, "the majority of the funding". Thats crazy. They would never do that. Thats at a minimum $70 mil. That would cover garages for 3, 4, 5, and 6 light.

You lamented them not paying for their garages, implying they can't or would never pay for said garages. They're taking advantage of the language of the contract to extract funding. Any business person worth anything would try the same thing. Cordish asking for funds to build the garages, saying it's needed, is not the same thing as Cordish being unable to pay for the garages. Quit acting like they are.

Would you prefer I say they could be the largest private player in this? ST has suggested as much. I have no idea what their internal accounts look like, but they seem fine as an outsider. One light cost $80 million alone. I mean for ffs they're the main player in a $2.2 billion development in Spain.

Lastly, you're implying it'd all be an upfront payment. What if they agreed to provide payments back to the city over XX years till they've hit YY million? Seeing as they can/will own the whole north side of this thing, that's a lot of value captured by them.

beautyfromashes wrote:Oh great! 670 Live! Park. &

horizons82 wrote:

kboish wrote:Here is what i don't understand. People say, why not let the city fund the garages in exchange for cordish paying for the cap or some portion of the cap. Even if the new, lower estimate is correct, the cap costs $140 million. How much of that is Cordish will to pay for? $1million? That gets us nowhere. $10 million+? Still not even close and you can bet they're not paying that much. And you suggested Cordish pay, "the majority of the funding". Thats crazy. They would never do that. Thats at a minimum $70 mil. That would cover garages for 3, 4, 5, and 6 light.

You lamented them not paying for their garages, implying they can't or would never pay for said garages. They're taking advantage of the language of the contract to extract funding. Any business person worth anything would try the same thing. Cordish asking for funds to build the garages, saying it's needed, is not the same thing as Cordish being unable to pay for the garages. Quit acting like they are.

Would you prefer I say they could be the largest private player in this? ST has suggested as much. I have no idea what their internal accounts look like, but they seem fine as an outsider. One light cost $80 million alone. I mean for ffs they're the main player in a $2.2 billion development in Spain.

Lastly, you're implying it'd all be an upfront payment. What if they agreed to provide payments back to the city over XX years till they've hit YY million? Seeing as they can/will own the whole north side of this thing, that's a lot of value captured by them.

No. I'm approaching this from a different perspective than you. You are trying to see how a private company can maximize their investment by taking advantage of contract language and leveraging future projects. Thats fine. I'm trying to see how my tax dollars can best be put to use by taking advantage of that same contract language in relation to the city's broader revenue sources and funding obligations.

We will reach different conclusions.

And yes, i do understand that Cordish has access to plenty of capital and has the ability to fund the garages. Thats not what I've said. I've said they are not funding their own garages.

kboish wrote:No. I'm approaching this from a different perspective than you. You are trying to see how a private company can maximize their investment by taking advantage of contract language and leveraging future projects. Thats fine. I'm trying to see how my tax dollars can best be put to use by taking advantage of that same contract language in relation to the city's broader revenue sources and funding obligations.

We will reach different conclusions.

And yes, i do understand that Cordish has access to plenty of capital and has the ability to fund the garages. Thats not what I've said. I've said they are not funding their own garages.

But even from a tax dollar angle, your argument is that a $70 million investment from Cordish is better spent on the towers than later on the park. I disagree. In theory, the city funding contribution should help to short the lag between each building's construction. Obviously that translates into added property, employment, and sales tax revenue for the city sooner than it would be there otherwise.

Following that, if Cordish's funding is gone from the park, the city reallocating its $70 million to the park does nothing to shorten the time those lots remain undeveloped or underdeveloped, but it does have those towers paying higher property taxes from the start.

I'm a big fan of the cap but if they don't reroute Truman and fully fleshout the cap, I think KCMO's investment isn't nearly as beneficial and would better be used in parking garages....I'd only support a cap in the "cheaper form" with a lot of private investment.

While this ideal is popular on this forum, I predict that any money the City spends on it won't be popular with many KC residents.

FangKC wrote:While this ideal is popular on this forum, I predict that any money the City spends on it won't be popular with many KC residents.

When it appeared on FaceBook, there were lots of comments section and nearly everyone of them saying it was a waste of money. Most common response - fix potholes first. People don't think things through.

It should be primarily privately funded.

grovester wrote:It should be primarily privately funded.

Here's how the park that triggered the latest obsession was funded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klyde_Warren_Park

Construction of the park was funded through a public, private partnership including $20 million in bond funds from the city of Dallas, $20 million in highway funds from the state and federal government through TxDOT, and nearly $50 million from private donations. In March 2009, the Park was selected to receive $16.7 million in stimulus funds that were specifically for transportation enhancement construction.

IMO what keeps that park afloat is the intense programming. It's location is less than ideal (big stroads and big setbacks) and the roar of cars underneath is omnipresent.

Imagine if we spent $139 million improving Washington Square Park or Penn Valley Park and then programming the shit out of it?

I tend to agree. This is a Cordish thing, if they want it, they should pay for it (mostly).

For my bang for the KCMO buck, I'd opt for losing the north trench.

grovester wrote:I tend to agree. This is a Cordish thing, if they want it, they should pay for it (mostly).

For my bang for the KCMO buck, I'd opt for losing the north trench.

I think a mixture of funding sources (like Dallas) would be most appropriate. I think the federal government should at least help fund similar projects around the US since they instigated the wasteful practice of destroying large swaths of urbanity all around the US for highways (I think it's the biggest mistake the US made in the 20th century). The north loop, including the green slope to the highway is unfortunately twice as wide as the south loop. It would not be really cap-able but the highway could simply be removed. Not sure what that would accomplish though. That side of downtown is too undeveloped to make a useful park there and infilling the space would take decades. A cap on the south loop from the convention center to just north of Sprint Arena would be an absolutely brilliant addition to the city. Having it done solely by Cordish makes it far too easily controlled by Cordish.