KCRag Forum

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 3:33 pm I view this project as a reduction of current incentives. The current non-profit ownership of this land is effectively a 100% TIF which never expires.
Anti-tax incentive fans should be jumping on this.

If there is such market demand for this product, and they are so confident of that, then why can't they finance it themselves? A block away--the Courtyard by Marriott/Residence Inn was built -- without incentives. Courtyard even paid for their own garage. The Hampton Inn across the street also was built -- without incentives.

I guarantee you that the PAC would never sell this land to someone wanting to build a Courtyard Marriott/Residence Inn or Hampton Inn equivalent. They want something high-end to compliment the PAC. They would probably rather have grass or landscaping next door than a mid-tier hotel chain which features EIFS/stucco as an exterior finish.

But to do this analysis you have to account for the fact that building a hotel on this site will likely mean one less hotel built on some other site downtown which would pay full taxes, or close to it. I assume that the value of the abatement (in absolute dollars, not percentage terms) on vacant land is small relative to the tax value of a new hotel. The bottom line is that it just doesn't make sense financially for the city to give a huge tax break on a hotel when developers are lined up to build hotels without tax breaks. There's finite demand for hotel rooms. You can't just look at one project in a vacuum. If one owner wants to sit and land and try to extort the city then so be it. There's hardly a scarcity of alternate development sites downtown. If there's market demand, someone will build something.

As mentioned in another thread, downtown incentives from this point need to provide more direct public benefit methinks. A Target as part of a hotel project would fill a missing downtown need as an example.

I mean the real alternative here is to start taxing greenland and parking lots more aggressively.

I'm not sure anyone thinks we're there yet?

I just wish the tif wasn't so damn long. Can't they make payments in lieu of taxes and make everyone happy here?

earthling wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:05 pm As mentioned in another thread, downtown incentives from this point need to provide more direct public benefit methinks. A Target as part of a hotel project would fill a missing downtown need as an example.

I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm not sure subsidized housing, where a lot of the city governance had turned their focus, will do anything to help downtown.

I agree on the Target, but we also need infill.

They're not going to plop down a Target or affordable housing on this lot. I think limited tif here makes sense. Just wish they could present it in a better way.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:12 pm They're not going to plop down a Target or affordable housing on this lot. I think limited tif here makes sense. Just wish they could present it in a better way.

Ain’t that the truth! They did the same thing with that building across the street they wanted to build green. Terrible PR. Even that it’s called Hotel Bravo. If they came out and said this is going to be a luxury Hyatt that is returning to DT or a high end brand like Ritz Carlton, it would have much more support, I think. There’s a sense of entitlement that’s hurting their case, and I’m for the development.

Yeah, I also do not agree with incentives for affordable housing in most cases, such as in luxury residential projects. We don't have an affordable housing crisis in KCMO. And the Target mention was just an example, not necessarily something realistic.

The point is that downtown has enough momentum that incentives should be used to address gaps in public needs, not just because the project won't happen w/out.

I’d rather have new construction like this than have the Federal Reserve converted to hotel. Not that I’m not glad it’s being redone, but it would be much better as residential and seems to just be a hotel to avoid parking requirements.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:06 pm I mean the real alternative here is to start taxing greenland and parking lots more aggressively.

I'm not sure anyone thinks we're there yet?

I just wish the tif wasn't so damn long. Can't they make payments in lieu of taxes and make everyone happy here?

No, in this instance you'd have to change state law to remove property tax-exempt status from 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations.
Not going to happen.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:23 pm I’d rather have new construction like this than have the Federal Reserve converted to hotel. Not that I’m not glad it’s being redone, but it would be much better as residential and seems to just be a hotel to avoid parking requirements.

I think its perfect for a hotel. There's only two other hotels near it and both are much smaller. It also has a big lobby that wouldn't see much use in an apartment conversion, judging by how disused the lobbies of most other apartment buildings are.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 3:47 pm I think comparing this to a courtyard down the street is pretty stupid.

The ambassador and the courtyard have the same flag but completely different markets.

My worry is just that they get the incentives and it's just a backdoor door for Hyatt to come in with a mini, subsidized convention hotel and all the luxury goes away.

Isn’t their Hyatt House proposal larger than Hotel Bravo?

earthling wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:20 pm Yeah, I also do not agree with incentives for affordable housing in most cases, such as in luxury residential projects. We don't have an affordable housing crisis in KCMO. And the Target mention was just an example, not necessarily something realistic.

The point is that downtown has enough momentum that incentives should be used to address gaps in public needs, not just because the project won't happen w/out.

Where people struggle with you is at "public needs". It's a pretty hard term to define.

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 3:47 pm I think comparing this to a courtyard down the street is pretty stupid.

The ambassador and the courtyard have the same flag but completely different markets.

My worry is just that they get the incentives and it's just a backdoor door for Hyatt to come in with a mini, subsidized convention hotel and all the luxury goes away.

Isn’t their Hyatt House proposal larger than Hotel Bravo?

Purely unsubstantiated speculation from me. It's just a very convention friendly area and a worry in the back of my mind.

LCDSI wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:38 pm If it is indeed a Park Hyatt, I'd be impressed. That is high end, and there are only 7 in the states.

You're missing the exclamation point!

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:36 pm

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:06 pm I mean the real alternative here is to start taxing greenland and parking lots more aggressively.

I'm not sure anyone thinks we're there yet?

I just wish the tif wasn't so damn long. Can't they make payments in lieu of taxes and make everyone happy here?

No, in this instance you'd have to change state law to remove property tax-exempt status from 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations.
Not going to happen.

It's worth noting that the original proposal for this vacant land was what became the Todd Bolender Center next to Union Station (so it would have remained a nonprofit parcel and use).

Re-reading the KCStar article.. (Shameful what that newspaper has become. Biased heavy left.. Tons of opinion/politics staff; ONE person on their business desk. ONE!)

Kansas City Star, 8-May, 2019:

"They’re also looking for a package of other benefits: redirection of 50 percent of personal property taxes; a sales tax exemption on construction materials; a community improvement district to levy a 1 percent sales tax for public improvements related to the project, and a Super TIF, which would reimburse developers for a range of other taxes paid, including for utilities, food and beverage."

TIF is a wonderful thing, when used sensibly. The initial thinking, "Hey, hospitality taxes will handily compensate the city for the loss of incremental property taxes." However, the tax breaks requested by "Bravo" are onerous. "Sales tax exemption on construction materials"? "Utilities, food, and beverage?" (I'll take the liberty of fixing the Star's punctuation).

It prompts the question, "What's in it for KC, Mr. Kerr?"

Disclosure: I would love to see a top-tier hotel serve the convention center. There needs to be a hint of a concession by the developers, however.

AP Style dictates that newspapers don't have to use the Oxford comma. The history is to save space when newspapers were typeset by hand (same for adding only a single space between sentences and avoiding tabs at the start of paragraphs).

kenrbnj wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 8:38 am There needs to be a hint of a concession by the developers, however.

You mean like no new parking?

Dave, the origin of the omitted comma is historic perspective I did not realize...

I thought the single space between sentences was a product of the "155 character twitter restriction."

@FlyingEmber: When I went from engineering to what I do now, my mentor educated me: "Ask big, see if your customer will fall off his chair laughing; then negotiate." Mr. Kerr is an old KC boy and know this. The City Council had apparently fallen off their chairs.

It's worth noting that the original proposal for this vacant land was what became the Todd Bolender Center next to Union Station (so it would have remained a nonprofit parcel and use).

Indeed, designed by Moshe Safdie to complement the PAC if I remember correctly. Between that and the UMKC Performing Arts plans you can really see the vision for a miniature Lincoln Center that was initially the idea here. The Bolender Center appears to be a beautiful and successful adaptive reuse project, but the loss of UMKC plans still sting.

Here's hoping the commercial development that ends up surrounding PAC (like this hotel proposal) ends up being worthy of those initial lofty plans for a cultural hub. The rehab of the Quixotic building in addition to Bravo is a step in that direction.

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 3:33 pm I view this project as a reduction of current incentives. The current non-profit ownership of this land is effectively a 100% TIF which never expires.
Anti-tax incentive fans should be jumping on this.

I agree that it is strange that the anti-tax generally protest TIF - I assume they hear "incentives" and don't really want to understand the mechanics.