St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Want to talk about your favorite places besides Kansas City? Post any development news or questions about other cities here.
Post Reply
User avatar
StL_Dan
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3659
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:04 pm
Location: Olathe via St Louis

St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by StL_Dan »

The project is set to begin another round of extensive efforts to raze condemned buildings and clean up areas in North StL neighborhoods.
This year, in-kind donations amount to $750,000 for Clean Sweep, according to the Urban League. Since the program’s inception, it has benefitted from $5 million in in-kind donations. Once the decaying homes are knocked down and cleared out, the city will maintain the empty lots.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... ing%20News

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 18849
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by DaveKCMO »

Haven't we learned this lesson yet? Rampant demolition is a cancer.

User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by KCtoBrooklyn »

Yeah, the push to demolish all of those houses in KC a few years ago is looking quite foolish right now with the current housing shortage and increased investment and property values on the East Side.

I know some houses are too far gone and need demolition (and I've seen the pics of the crumbling, dangerous structures in North STL), but too many homes have been destroyed that could be saved. The focus should be getting the properties into new hands more quickly before they are allowed to rot.

Also, the program in KC of basically giving neighbors the vacant lots after demolition helps ensure that nothing will be built back

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9364
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by flyingember »

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:54 pm
The focus should be getting the properties into new hands more quickly before they are allowed to rot.
How? One fundamental of property rights is you can't take away a building for private gain. An owner is allowed to let their building rot as long as it's not a public safety risk.

User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by KCtoBrooklyn »

flyingember wrote:
Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:09 pm
An owner is allowed to let their building rot as long as it's not a public safety risk.
That's not exactly true. There are codes that need to be met. The city could step up code enforcement and increase fines (particularly for vacant properties, not struggling homeowners). I'm not suggesting taking away properties, but the city should have disincentives for holding onto vacant properties and lots.

The biggest thing would be to streamline the process for new ownership once a property has gone into tax foreclosure or has been determined to be abandoned.

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15555
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by FangKC »

How One Kansas City Neighborhood Is Transforming Its Dangerous And Abandoned Buildings

https://www.kcur.org/housing-developmen ... -buildings

User avatar
StL_Dan
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3659
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:04 pm
Location: Olathe via St Louis

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by StL_Dan »

FangKC wrote:
Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:31 pm
How One Kansas City Neighborhood Is Transforming Its Dangerous And Abandoned Buildings

https://www.kcur.org/housing-developmen ... -buildings
Love this

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9364
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by flyingember »

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:
Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:13 pm
flyingember wrote:
Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:09 pm
An owner is allowed to let their building rot as long as it's not a public safety risk.
That's not exactly true. There are codes that need to be met. The city could step up code enforcement and increase fines (particularly for vacant properties, not struggling homeowners). I'm not suggesting taking away properties, but the city should have disincentives for holding onto vacant properties and lots.

The biggest thing would be to streamline the process for new ownership once a property has gone into tax foreclosure or has been determined to be abandoned.
What codes apply to anything except public safety? All available actions come back to this aspect in some form.


No city should ever have disincentives for holding onto vacant properties. Ever. (excepting not fulfilling legal obligations like paying taxes as you mention)

You can own property to use as available capital for the purpose of a loan and nothing else.
You can own property to serve as a conservation easement, leaving it in an unused state by design.
Land can be tied up in a lawsuit over ownership and action on the land being legally prohibited.
You can be banned from a preferred use and purposefully do nothing as a form of speech.

User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by KCtoBrooklyn »

flyingember wrote:
Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:50 am
What codes apply to anything except public safety? All available actions come back to this aspect in some form.
I'm talking about nuisance and property maintenance code violations like graffiti on the property, litter, interior furniture outdoors, failure to register a vacant or rental property.
flyingember wrote:
Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:50 am
No city should ever have disincentives for holding onto vacant properties. Ever.
I strongly disagree. I understand there are reasons why it could be beneficial for a property owner to have a vacant property (some more valid than others). But it is in the city's best interest to not have vacant and abandoned homes. Not only is the city losing out on tax revenue, but as in the whole reason for the topic of this discussion, the city then may have to pay to demolish properties.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9364
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by flyingember »

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:
Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:20 am

I strongly disagree. I understand there are reasons why it could be beneficial for a property owner to have a vacant property (some more valid than others). But it is in the city's best interest to not have vacant and abandoned homes. Not only is the city losing out on tax revenue, but as in the whole reason for the topic of this discussion, the city then may have to pay to demolish properties.
Gaining tax revenue shouldn't be the primary goal of government.

A well functioning government will deny development projects and maintain vacant lots.

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15555
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by FangKC »

Yet, a city that doesn't gain, or maintain, tax revenue ends up being Gary, Indiana, or East St. Louis, Illinois. Governments make decisions all the time in an effort to gain tax revenue. California, for example, made the decision to tax cannabis sales.
California leads the way, generating an estimated $1 billion in tax revenue in 2020 alone, while Washington state has produced the most since 2014 ($2.6 billion).
https://mjbizdaily.com/marijuana-legali ... x-dollars/

tskev
Ambassador
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by tskev »

Governments could also, you know, reduce their budgets

phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by phuqueue »

Yeah, this country isn't third world enough yet, let's keep cutting

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15555
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by FangKC »

The larger, and more complex, a society becomes the more need there is for government and taxation. Cities have a higher need for taxation than small towns. The same for urban counties with multiple small municipalities like St. Louis County.

Taxes in California are high because it's a much more complex state than Mississippi or Wyoming.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1249
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by DColeKC »

FangKC wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 8:50 pm
The larger, and more complex, a society becomes the more need there is for government and taxation. Cities have a higher need for taxation than small towns. The same for urban counties with multiple small municipalities like St. Louis County.

Taxes in California are high because it's a much more complex state than Mississippi or Wyoming.
Why is CA such a complex state? Could it be because of the laws enacted by a historical democratically held state?

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15555
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: St Louis - Clean Sweep effort

Post by FangKC »

It isn't that simple. California is a much more populous state with more complicated infrastructure to build and maintain. It is in an earthquake zone, so there is need for more building, construction, and insurance regulations; inspections/code enforcement. Because of the topography, pollution accumulates above urban areas requiring stricter pollution measures, etc. Because much of the state is arid, water cannot simply be extracted from nearby rivers, and requires a complex infrastructure to move water to where it's needed.

It has a much more complex economy than Mississippi or Wyoming. It is the largest economy in the USA, and now the fifth largest economy in the world (larger than India). It has the most Fortune 1000 companies of any state.

It has oil being extracted next to dense subdivisions of houses; intense agriculture (50 percent of US produce in grown here) requiring a lot of water in a state with arid parts; where a vast amount of US shipped goods arrives (40%) / leaves (30%) in its' ports and require heavy trucking and rail to move to/from other states (again requiring some regulation and oversight); massive acreage of forests that are frequently on fire requiring various levels of governance; the largest primary public education system, and 23 state universities to fund and administrate.

Because it is most populous, it also requires more courts, prisons, law enforcement, health care, sanitation, mass transit, state parks, and general governance because there are so many different sectors to regulate. For example, California produces more dairy products than any other state -- by far. Dairy requires health inspectors. It has the most manufacturing of every kind than any state, which requires regulation for air, water, and safety.

When a state grows this complex, it adds layer upon layer of governance and oversight. And yes, the voters often demand more regulation and oversight.

Democrats aren't the only party responsible for laws and regulations. Republicans: Theodore Roosevelt created the department that became the FDA, and the EPA was created under Richard Nixon. These two agencies alone are responsible for a vast array of rules and regulations in everyday life.

Post Reply