Valentine District

[TheLastGentleman]

To this point, they could have good intentions but lack the ability to execute. Their approach is heavy handed for the neighborhood they were given. Think it speaks volumes that they have not even tried to develop anything in or around Broadway.

Their intentions are not good. Not sure how anyone could possibly think that at this point

They believe they are offering rehabilitation. Which no one here thinks is actually happening.

If it was happening, I'd love to see any evidence.

[FangKC]

They are the corporate version of the Abnos family of property owners.

[taxi]

They are the corporate version of the Abnos family of property owners.

This is sadly an accurate comparison. They have not done a single thing that is beneficial to the neighborhood or city for over 50 years. They appear to be capable only of destruction and BS. If I were mayor, or sheriff, I would run them out of town.

[FangKC]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DHg6aKDv4lu ... BiNWFlZA==

https://savevalentine.com/

[Belvidere]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DHg6aKDv4lu ... BiNWFlZA==

https://savevalentine.com/

What's the best guess on KC Life motives? Pure speculation with no plan?

Empty lots cost less to maintain/tax than buildings.

[FangKC]

Why buy the structures to begin with if you want to avoid property taxes? Wouldn't rent on the structures cover that and essential maintenance?

It's difficult to know their motives, which might have changed over decades and different leaders.

I don't expect them to do any development. I think those drawings are a public relations move to allow them cover to demolish all the rest of the structures, then sit on the land.

If I were to wager a guess, I'd say they are waiting for some other developer to make them a tidy offer on the vacant land.

[Chris Stritzel]

I know a few developers have reached out to them and were met with silence.

[FangKC]

The Mayor needs to meet with them.

[Belvidere]

Why buy the structures to begin with if you want to avoid property taxes? Wouldn't rent on the structures cover that and essential maintenance?

It's difficult to know their motives, which might have changed over decades and different leaders.

I don't expect them to do any development. I think those drawings are a public relations move to allow them cover to demolish all the rest of the structures, then sit on the land.

If I were to wager a guess, I'd say they are waiting for some other developer to make them a tidy offer on the vacant land.

Because those vacant structures cost next to thing in property taxes, typically. It may even be a business write-off. I don't understand real estate economics enough to get the motivations, but we are surrounded by vacant buildings that people just sit on and allow to rot.

[langosta]

Positive Movement: https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... b=moreinfo

[moderne]

It still just sounds so fishy that they want to tear down existing buildings to do this while they have had plenty of vacant land for the past 50 years to do something similar and they are responsible for the destruction of one of the finest colonnade
apartments and KC's only private street--Knickerbocker Place.

[FangKC]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Lots of projects get proposed and never happen.