Re: OFFICIAL - Traders on Grand
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:57 pm
.
You heard thispash wrote: And I'm pretty sure I heard something about the city talking with ZipCar about providing spaces for an expansion downtown. Or did I dream that?
Oak Tower isn't that bad, but would look so much better if they would return it to it's original look...harbinger911 wrote:One of the top 10 ugly buildings downtown. I hope this happens
2 other top 10 fugly buildings.
1) Oak Tower
2) Old Federal Reserve (north side)
*waves*DaveKCMO wrote:it might help a household of two who already work downtown get rid of one (or both) cars.
Traders on Grand conversion will get tax break on top of tax break
Unfortunately, that ornamentation was stripped and discarded in the 1970s façade change. Thank heavens that the 1970s ornamentation was also subsequently removed, as the building looked so out of place for its 20+ "disco" years.dnweava wrote:Oak Tower isn't that bad, but would look so much better if they would return it to it's original look...harbinger911 wrote:One of the top 10 ugly buildings downtown. I hope this happens
2 other top 10 fugly buildings.
1) Oak Tower
2) Old Federal Reserve (north side)
A couple of interesting tidbits from the article:joshmv wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ement.html
Traders on Grand conversion will get tax break on top of tax break
This is something to keep in mind when there is cheering for an office building conversion to residential. When a building goes residential, it is taxed at a much lower rate. Thus, it is becoming more important to build new office space--to replace some of the lost tax base.The PIEA board members also considered the fact that the project's assessed valuation, and thus the base, stand to be lowered by the building's conversion from a commercial use to residential use, which is taxed at a nearly 50 percent lower rate.
It appears this might affect the Copaken proposal for the 12th and Grand site. If he wants to develop that site, he's going to have to buy back the Traders on Grand parking lot, and probably work out a deal with them to include parking for that building in his new project.In addition to the $102,000 "base," the developers have agreed to make additional payments in lieu of taxes to the taxing jurisdictions in the amount of $12,000 for each of the first 10 years. Another $18,000 in tax revenue to be split by the jurisdictions will come from a 70-space parking lot south of Traders on Grand, which the developers will purchase from the city's Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority.
Which illustrates the need for Land Value Tax. Almost certainly, the building will be a better asset to the city and downtown as a fully-occupied residential building than its current state.FangKC wrote:This is something to keep in mind when there is cheering for an office building conversion to residential. When a building goes residential, it is taxed at a much lower rate. Thus, it is becoming more important to build new office space--to replace some of the lost tax base.
i'm calling this out as clear bias towards midtown (or against downtown). what happened to the "only 50%" stance?▪ MAC Properties’ reconstruction of four vacant historic multifamily properties at 100-118 W. Armour into 34 apartment units. The agency granted 95 percent abatement over 16 years, to supplement an $840,000 contribution from the Midtown Business Interruption Fund. The Old Hyde Park neighborhood fully supports the project, and construction could begin this fall.
▪ Wichitawest Hospitality’s plans for a $10 million, 95-unit Marriott extended stay hotel on 39th Terrace in Westport. The agency granted a 90 percent property tax abatement for five years and 75 percent abatement for 15 years, with payments in lieu of taxes of $1.4 million over those 20 years. The taxing jurisdictions did not object.
harbinger911 wrote:One of the top 10 ugly buildings downtown. I hope this happens
2 other top 10 fugly buildings.
1) Oak Tower
2) Old Federal Reserve (north side)
With so many incentive-bearing projects in KCMO, I wonder how projects without them can compete. It seems they would have to demand higher rents and would be at a fairly significant economical disadvantage.pash wrote:Not surprising given the abatement-on-top-of-abatement aspect. Are developers and officials completely oblivious to the recent backlash?
That said, I hope somebody makes the case that this and other residential projects will create significant new unabated earnings and sales taxes, unlike abatements that shift office workers around while abating their earnings taxes. Of course, the minor taxing jurisdictions don't get a slice of the sales-tax and earnings-tax pies. ...