Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
FangKC wrote:
I guess KCMetro is one of those people that thinks history is of no value, and that anyone interested in the past is useless.
Harry Truman used to say that (to paraphrase) "the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know."
We are what we are today (whether it is the city, state, country, or ourselves) because of our past. To truely understand 'us' today we need to know what we were in the past and why and/or what things happened to make us they way we are now.
Plus there is a saying that goes something like this "those who don't know history are bound to repeat it". At the same time we look back 50 years and wonder why, I also believe that in 50 years they will look back at this time and also wonder why, why we did this or didn't do that.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
I know this isn't the Appreciate FangKC thread, but I've always enjoyed reading your posts and marveling at the pictures you dig up. You help me to see the KC that once was, the city I loved.
And as far as whether urban renewal was the "right" thing to do...
I guess it's a matter of what you prefer: a surface lot or blighted homes and businesses?
I get the impression that the highways destroyed a lot of neighborhoods, and our city leaders had no vision for preserving KC's wonderful history. It's hard to determine whether they had more enthusiasm for tearing down neat old buildings or for constructing highways and Section 8.
Additionally, I pretty much echo what Fang said, and you could even apply it to recent developments downtown with the P + L District. I'm not sure why they didn't try to keep some of the old buildings and move the new businesses inside them. A city, or any place for that matter, loses its identity rather quickly when great numbers of its historic buildings are wiped away forever.
Last edited by barkerr on Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
It reminds me of a lot of cold war-era foreign policy interventions - we can look at it now, after the fact, and realize that the decisions probably caused much more long-term harm than the short term issues we were reacting to - but at the time they made fairly logical sense. I just hope that the lesson has been learned - reducing density is almost never the right thing to do.
Don't confuse the federal highway program with the federal urban renewal program. Two different and distinct animals. Yes, the highways had a certain impact on urban areas but the urban renewal program with targeted specially to commercial areas or to the development of commercial areas.
Example, in downtown KCK that area was dying. Vacant storefronts, no activity, etc. Urban renewal came in and "fixed-up" the downtown. Of course within a few years they came in and reversed the "improvements".
The federal urban renewal program was one of those programs that took the appoach that money fixes everything.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Don't confuse the federal highway program with the federal urban renewal program. Two different and distinct animals. Yes, the highways had a certain impact on urban areas but the urban renewal program with targeted specially to commercial areas or to the development of commercial areas.
Example, in downtown KCK that area was dying. Vacant storefronts, no activity, etc. Urban renewal came in and "fixed-up" the downtown. Of course within a few years they came in and reversed the "improvements".
The federal urban renewal program was one of those programs that took the appoach that money fixes everything.
Much like some of our education policy. Both noble causes. Varying effectiveness.
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
- Mark Twain
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I thought I should let people know about what is going on in MO politics, regarding state tax credits. MO (and KS) has one of the best and most successful state historic tax credit programs. There's really no arguing that many bldgs would get raised if not for these incentives. There's a bill in the Senate right now, SB 121, that would put a 2 year moratorium on all state tax credits. This would kill many historic preservation projects and have serious, negative and far-reaching effects. I can't speak for other MO state tax credit programs, as I'm only familiar with the historic one.
From what I know, that bill probably won't get far. However, I understand that historic tax credits are on the chopping block and will likely become restricted on an ongoing basis.
There are many, many reasons to save our old and historic structures. I don't want to get into a pissing match about this, but some of these reasons are: re-using older buildings is inherently more "green" than new construction; the conservation and improvement of our existing built resources, including re-use of historic
and older buildings, greening the existing building stock, and reinvestment in older and historic communities, is crucial to combating climate change; several studies have shown that historic tax credits help alleviate urban flight and property abandonment, while benefitting economically distressed neighborhoods; once buildings and neighborhoods are torn down or allowed to deteriorate, a part of our past disappears forever. When that happens, we might get a new highway stadium or entertainment district, but we also lose history that helps us know who we are, and we lose opportunities to live and work in the kinds of interesting and attractive surroundings that older buildings can provide. So, while it may often have sentimental and economic motivations, preserving older buildings is also practical.
I urge everyone who has an interest in saving KC and the rest of our state from a fate like what is mentioned above, to write their senators and reps and everyone else with influence and voice their concern.
Thanks, I'll step off my soapbox now. BTW, I'm all for Bourbon Renewal. Sometimes we have to chug that Old Crow to make way for the Maker's Mark, especially when cabinet space is limited. Cheers.
"Hit it, lick it, split it and quit it." -James Brown
The other thing to consider is that the use of Historic Tax Credits also creates jobs in the communities, and redistributes funds into the state economy. It often creates new spaces for commerce as well, and reintroduces more sales and property taxes back into state and local coffers.
mlind wrote:Urban renewal (aka 'negro removal') was a disaster. There are areas in San Francisco that have never recovered.
Be careful. Mentioning the possibility of untoward motivations behind public policy in the mid-20th-Century has a tendency to make some people flip out.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
taxi wrote:
From what I know, that bill probably won't get far. However, I understand that historic tax credits are on the chopping block and will likely become restricted on an ongoing basis.
Much like anything else if you want to keep these credits then you need to make the case that these credits 'make' money for the state. The points you made are quite nobel but in tight budget times, such as these, most legislators will see these credits as costing the state. Make the point that for every $1,000 in tax credits a greater amount is returned to the state. But the further down the road that return is the less effective it becomes. They need to see immediate returns. Afterall, they are trying to balance a budget and you can't balance a budget this year by giving away $1,000 and seeing a $1,500 return 4 to 5 years later.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
That's why it's important to remind legislators and leaders that historic tax credits create jobs in the community, and payroll and sales taxes that are recouped. Because federal and state historic tax credits can provide funding for up to 50 percent of the cost of renovating a historic building, it makes it possible for some projects to get financing, and get done at all.
Not providing historic tax credits basically will curtail some construction activity, and reduce tax revenues collected on construction material sales.
If I recall, the Midland and Mainstreet restorations/renovations were budgeted around $50 million. That's a fairly sizeable chunk of money that went back into the community for materials and related payrolls. It's also put two development projects on the fast-track to start producing commerce again in revenues and taxes. There is peripheral increase in business for the P&L District as well since some attendees at events will go to the nightclubs and restaurants around the theaters.
Last edited by FangKC on Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FangKC wrote:
Because federal and state historic tax credits can provide funding for up to 50 percent of the cost of renovating a historic building, it makes it possible for some projects to get financing, and get done at all.
I never thought I'd correct FangKC, but here goes: 20% federal tax credits and 25% state, and that's for qualified rehab expenditures, which covers most things, but not everything. Still, 45% is a lot, and more important at present, when the costs of construction have skyrocketed. The rest of Fang's post is dead on. And fer crissakes, nothing pays back immediately; however, saving and renovating historic structures almost always results in relatively quick returns. The big projects, like Fang mentions below, see quick returns. The smaller ones are maybe a little slower, but not much.
Also, let's not forget, there are some things more valuable than money. While retaining the HTC program may cost a little in the short term and make balancing the budget more difficult, losing a building or for that matter an entire neighborhood is irreversible. And there's nothing imprudent about legislatures creating a budget deficit if the result will be better for their constituents.
"Hit it, lick it, split it and quit it." -James Brown
Thanks for the correction. I should have said 45 percent. However, some municipalities in the USA kick in funds in addition to federal and state. They probably aren't called HTCs though, but instead come in other forms such as TIF.
One should also look upon historic tax credits as infastructure reinvestment. Old buildings are part of the infastructure of the state since they provide locations for commerce, social interaction, and living. Often restoring an old building, or set of them, can provide essential node redevelopment that results in spinoff renovation of surrounding properties. The Crossroads would be an example of this.
Another example would be renovation of standing historic hotels like the Phillips, President, and Aladdin. This rejuvenates the hospitality sector without the need to build a new hotel. It may not add rooms but it prevents the loss of rooms in the downtown market.
Maintaining historic built environment also provides potential for tourism.
taxi wrote:
And there's nothing imprudent about legislatures creating a budget deficit if the result will be better for their constituents.
State and local governments cannot have a budget deficit like the federal budget (or individuals). They have to have a balanced budget. So that is why many governments in a budget crisis will take the short-range view instead of the long-range view because they are dealing with the 'now' instead of some undetermined point in the future.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
kcmetro wrote:
No. What I can't comprehend are your bad grammar habits.
Fixed it for you Olathe/metro! But I guess you thought about what I said and now agree with me because you have no response to what I said or what fang said.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
State and local governments cannot have a budget deficit like the federal budget (or individuals). They have to have a balanced budget. So that is why many governments in a budget crisis will take the short-range view instead of the long-range view because they are dealing with the 'now' instead of some undetermined point in the future.
Yes, they float bonds for capital improvements but where the budgets are in trouble now are in their operating budgets which involve general tax revenues. Capital improvement bonds are retired using dedicated tax streams, ie gas taxes, sales taxes, and so on. State and local governments could also be in trouble with these bonds since the funds generated to retire them are not generating the funds to meet the debt payments entirely. An example of this would be bonds for TIF projects that are not generating the revenues to meet the amount of payments and force the city to use general taxes to make the balance of the payment.
You can have capital improvement bonds that are general obligation bonds and retired by general taxes but then those take generally take away funds for general operation purposes. For instance school districts can pass a bond issue for school construction or remodeling that is retired by a capital improvements levy that is part of the district's property tax.
Anyway, all bonds do is to pay current costs for whatever by using future revenue streams.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
Something that FangKC said earlier made me curious. I tried searching the internet for what Fang called the Wayne Minor project and I couldn't find anything. What was it, and why was it a failure?
And PS: When I started visiting this board a couple years ago, one of the only reasons I continued to return is because Fang's posts were so incredibly interesting. PLUS I've noticed that the board hasn't been nearly as interesting since he stopped posting as frequently as he once did. So I'd just like to thank you, Fang! Keep it up!
But I guess you thought about what I said and now agree with me because you have no response to what I said or what fang said. 
