KCRag Forum

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:28 am PIEA voted no. Think this passed all requirements in place when they applied

Jeez. KCMO is really shooting itself in the foot. Why are they even building the streetcar?

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:28 am PIEA voted no. Think this passed all requirements in place when they applied

Why??

GRID wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:46 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:28 am PIEA voted no. Think this passed all requirements in place when they applied

Jeez. KCMO is really shooting itself in the foot. Why are they even building the streetcar?

Lol

One of the reason cited for the "no" votes was the supposed subsidizing of market rate units in the RM. I'm curious, is that really the only thing that can be subsidized today? I thought TOD and all of its benefits were a goal of the city's as well.

kboish wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 12:41 pm One of the reason cited for the "no" votes was the supposed subsidizing of market rate units in the RM. I'm curious, is that really the only thing that can be subsidized today? I thought TOD and all of its benefits were a goal of the city's as well.

Or developing hard to develop lots. The transfer beams and developer taking risk of the water/sewer failing are big expenses

Now that I’ve read more about this, it seems like it could be like Katz where they could come back and get a deal together at some point. They were only 1 vote shy of getting it passed.

25 years is a long time but this makes me wonder if the new Lux Living proposal on the river will get denied too.

GRID wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:46 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:28 am PIEA voted no. Think this passed all requirements in place when they applied

Jeez. KCMO is really shooting itself in the foot. Why are they even building the streetcar?

Not hyperbole. It's pretty obvious that KCMO is making things very difficult for development to continue. They have shut down several developments including that big one on Main and Armour and how knows how many developers are just totally staying out of KCMO right now.

If KCMO truly wants new development to have affordable housing that is actually affordable, the city is going to have to help contribute to these projects and it's gong to cost more than they seem to think.

Shutting down all development is not the answer. It's only chasing these higher end developments and their potential residents to places like Overland Park while prices in KCMO will continue to increase due to lack of inventory.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 12:36 pm Lol

Not hyperbole. It's pretty obvious that KCMO is making things very difficult for development to continue. They have shut down several developments including that big one on Main and Armour and who knows how many developers are just totally staying out of KCMO right now.

If KCMO truly wants new development to have affordable housing that is actually affordable, the city is going to have to help contribute to these projects and it's gong to cost more than they seem to think.

Shutting down all development is not the answer. It's only chasing these higher end developments and their potential residents to places like Overland Park while rents in KCMO will continue to increase due to lack of inventory.

These are market rate not affordable housing.

It should be hyperbole

The other thing that is weird about this getting denied is that the city council signed off on an ordinance just the other week that allowed this development to move forward.

3G Development on Third & Grand incentives denial: “We are going to take some time to re-evaluate and determine our next steps. We hope to have some definitive direction in the coming weeks.”

https://twitter.com/KCBJ_Thomas/status/ ... 2060598282

Seems to point to this one coming back in some form

Probably for the better. Nothing wrong with not rubber stamping everything now

What happened to the project right across the street form this? Is that dead now? Seems like a very prominant location and would probably be grandfathered in with the old affordable housing rules.

Thought I remember they were having site difficulties

viewtopic.php?p=638546&sid=fcee9760ba35 ... af#p638546

Collison has a nice write up of what exactly they rejected.

They turned down
$9.5 million in new revenue through Pilots to all jurisdictions
$3.4 million in sales and earnings tax revenues.
$2.4 million for the property to be divided between the city and the KCATA.

So the board turned down about $15 million dollars in new revenues from a site that produces no revenue for anyone today and is actually a cost.

It was also interesting to learn that Councilman O'neill was one of the 'no' votes despite letters of support from both 4th district council people and the city manager.

I wonder when Councilman O'neill will tire of incentivizing Data Centers and warehouse development on GREENFIELD sites in the northland and at the airport.

Incentives for me but none for thee

Would think Mayor Q and City Manager step in on this one. 25 year tax abatement does seem high though, maybe 15 years a decent compromise. It doesn't have much TOD component to it either, should have an element with more public engagement. That would help justify 25 years.

I was surprised to see it was for the max abatement amount. It is a bit different than other sites developed. They are burying the garage, they will accommodate ATA buses, they gave up part of their property for a bike lane, they are limited in height they can build, the sewer connections are deeper than normal....i mean it is not a typical site. plus, its a site the city/ata themselves have identified as a priority to develop. So i mean this is truly a KC Special here where we state its a priority and then shoot ourselves in the foot.