Power & Light residential tower (next to P&L Building, not Cordish related)

[JosieWells]

I read the entire Biz Journal story and the developer said the city and Old Rep. was the worst business experience they've ever had. The city wouldn't meet with them. The seller was holding out indefinitely to get more $$. It seems almost impossible to do business in downtown KC.

[FangKC]

Any seller would hold out for as much as they could get.  It's not the business' job, or responsibility, to move just because a developer, or the City, wants their property.  It's very disruptive and costly to move a business from a  long-time location. It's very time-consuming to find an appropriate location with the necessary square footage in which to do business where one can still serve one's customers.  In fact, it's quite an inconvenience to have to move just because someone wants your property.

[eliphar17]

In fact, it's quite an inconvenience to have to move just because someone wants your property.

Isn't all that built into the normal value of the property? If the owners were holding out for 3-4 times the appraised value, they are just being greedy jerks in my opinion. We aren't talking about a family farm here - it's just a building in a city and they can easily find another one down the street in the Crossroads. They demanded more money just because they knew their property was crucial.

On the other hand, the developer was dumb to begin marketing and make a lot of noise about the project three years ago if he didn't have all the property in hand to actually start construction. He set himself up to be robbed by the Old Republic property owner.

[FangKC]

Indeed, that wasn't very wise, and they payed for the foolishness.

[KC-wildcat]

They demanded more money just because they knew their property was crucial.

[gasp] . . . a Free Market Economy!  Say it isn't so!  Supply and Demand.  What is this world coming to!!!

[DaveKCMO]

[gasp] . . . a Free Market Economy!  Say it isn't so!  Supply and Demand.  What is this world coming to!!!

thank goodness the TIF will help even things out. 

[eliphar17]

[gasp] . . . a Free Market Economy!  Say it isn't so!  Supply and Demand.  What is this world coming to!!!

I was trying to refute Fang who seemed to think that any price was fair just because it would cause Old Republic some trouble to move to a different building. I don't really see that. I do think that at some point, the city should be able to step in and order the property to be sold, since they would have higher property tax revenue from the new development.

[FangKC]

I have no problem with the City using eminent domain for public projects. But I have no problem with Old Republic trying to get as much money for their property either.  Apparently, Gailord believes it stands to profit, so Old Republic should also be allowed to profit.  My premise is that if you are going to profit by taking someone's property, they have the right to profit too.

[chrizow]

yeah, i'm pretty sure one of the goals in owning real estate is to make as much of a profit as possible if/when you sell the real estate. 

[KC-wildcat]

I have no problem with the City using eminent domain for public projects. But I have no problem with Old Republic trying to get as much money for their property either.  Apparently, Gailord believes it stands to profit, so Old Republic should also be allowed to profit.  My premise is that if you are going to profit by taking someone's property, they have the right to profit too.

I would love to see you explain how a condo tower is even remotely a "public project."  I have no problem with eminent domain for public projects/infrastructure and blighted areas.  I could even be convinced that ED is appropriate in quasi-blighted areas if economic development will be benefit the public - in the form of jobs, commerce, tax revenue, etc. - in the long run.

As a condo tower will be privately owned by individuals, the Eminent Domain power would merely shift ownership from one private entity to another at the will of the government.  This is commonly seen in communist and socialist governments where ownership of private property is not a basic tenant of a functioning society.  Here, in America, the right to own and use private property without government intervention is fundamental and sacred to all free people.  There are various reasons why property can be stripped from one owner and given to another at the hand of the government.  Increased tax revenue - alone - is not one of them.  

[FangKC]

I didn't say that the P&L Condos constitutes a public project.  Eminent domain wasn't used to secure the Old Republic Building.  The City didn't intervene and allowed the market to solve the issue.

[KC-wildcat]

My correction.  After re-reading your post, I understand what you're saying. 

But, my point still remains.  In the future, with the resurection of DT development, these issues are assuredly going to surface frequently.  When they do surface, I will point to the Old Republic transaction as a perfect example of how these issues should be allowed to resolve themselves under the guidance of natural market forces.  Private owners should not be forced to sell unless their ownership is injurious to the public. 

Further, I think it is quite hypocritical and naiive to refer to private property owners as "greedy jerks" simply because they are demanding the highest return on their investment that the market will tolerate.  Nobody should be asked to or expected to ask for less than the highest amount of return in the name of development, progress, or public welfare.  We have no right to ask people to make these "donations" to the community.  The fact that it's a building downtown or a family farm is irrelevant. 

[FangKC]

I agree. I've always supported Gigi Wigs owners' (on Grand) right to retain their building for example, and not sell to Copaken.  Or at least they should exact the price they want. The owners have kept the property up when most properties around them were allowed to deteriorate.  The fact that it's a tacky wig store is also irrelevant. 

However, I do believe that the City, in our primary business district, should be able to buy a building using eminent domain, if the owner isn't keeping up the property and it contributes to "real" blight--meaning the building is deteriorating and is in danger of becoming dangerous, bringing down the property values of adjacent property owners that are maintaining their buildings, or affecting their business in some negative way (building harboring a crack den).  I cite in this case the Empire Theater. Larry Bridges, who controlled it through Executive Hills, didn't maintain the building to prevent further deterioration of a structure the City had plans for redeveloping. 

The City had public plans for the building, but Bridges still allowed it to deteriorate hoping for demolition first.  As a result, additional millions had to be spent on restoration work that might not have been needed if the building's roof had simply been maintained.  It would have been in the City's, and taxpayers', interest to have acquired that building beforehand to save on restoration costs.

This is one use of eminent domain where I advocate taking of historic properties for the public benefit of protecting our architectural heritage. I realize it's a controversial stand.   However, in appropriate cases, it's in the public interest to protect a potentially historic building. The Empire met all the criteria for being on the National Register of Historic Places, and landmarked, but Larry Bridges never allowed it.  In the meantime, it appeared that there was a deliberate attempt to allow the building to deteriorate to the point of becoming a danger, and a blight, for purposes of justifying demolition.  That said, the  property owner should be able to negotiate with the City for fair market value, plus some payment for volunteering to give up future development rights.

In this case, the City would have used eminent domain to preserve a historic building, but the property owner would have been compensated.

I also would support the ability of any city to take a historic building using eminent domain for the single purpose of acquiring ownership to place it on the National Register. Once owned by the City, a protective covenant could be placed on the property to prevent demolition without the City's Landmarks Commission's, and the City Council's, permission.  Also it could be taken for purposes of stabilization of the property for a future use. An example would be suitability for affordable housing--in the public interest.  If the will of local residents is to preserve a building they deem historic and part of the fabric of the city, I think this tool should be used, or at least attempted.  I have no problem with each instance coming up for a public vote either.  That would then demonstrate that it's in the public interest.  It would also prevent City leaders doing developers bidding at the expense of the public interest and private property owners.

I'll give an example.  I think the City should have purchased the Law Building when its' owner lost his financing. It was already on the National Register and landmarked.  The purpose would have been so the City could place a property covenant on any future owner demolishing it without consent of the Landmarks Commission, and the City Council, or voters.  Since a convenant of that nature could only be placed by an owner, the City would have had to purchase it first to do so.  Again, at fair market value.

The City could have held onto the property until another owner and financing for redevelopment were found.  They could have done this using the Land Redevelopment Authority they use for buy up other buildings for redevelopment projects through the Economic Development Council.  Usually for demolition.

I would support using this type of tool to buy and perserve the facade of the Grand Opera House for example.

[KC-wildcat]

You make some good points.  Novel points, I might add.  Obviously, we are in aggrement that "blighted" properties should be taken by the government because of the injury to the public.  The empire theatre probably met this criteria outright, ending any further discussion on the matter. 

We are also in agreement that property, blighted or not, may be taken for public projects; hospitals, schools, highways, police stations, etc. 

Where the topic becomes interesting is where one attempts to define 'public injury' and define 'public use.'  Is a movie theatre a public project subject to public use or is it more of an intolerable transfer from one private owner to another private owner; or both?  Obviously, this is a grey area.  In various situations, even though a taking will result in subseuqent private ownership, if that 'new' ownership will serve a public purpose, it will be allowed.  Again, I think that the P&L district - including the Midland Theatre - were largely blighted areas injurious to the public and beyond repair.  The benefit to the public of remedying this harm was obvious. 

You suggest that allowing buildings that could be - and probably should be - placed on the National Register is of eminent public interest and it is the duty of the city to protect this interest.  I kind of agree with you.  Never really thought about it much, but it makes sense in a way.  Architecture and art are tangible things that have value to people.  By destroying these things, one may be able to argue that the public is being harmed.  Thus, allowing a building to fall into disrepair is an injury to the people.  In the end, however, I think this point is moot because the city is already permitted to condemn and take control of buildings that have become “injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare” in order to “eliminat[e] all such injurious conditions by employing all means necessary and appropriate for the purpose,” including eminent domain. 

I think that a building of architectural importance to a group of people should be protected.  If it is not kept in proper repair, it seems like one could argue, perhaps easily, that the danger of losing its status as a National Landmark would constitute an injury to the morals and welfare of society.  As such, the government should eliminate this injury by taking control of the property and repairing it.

[NDTeve]

You make some good points.  Novel points, I might add.  Obviously, we are in aggrement that "blighted" properties should be taken by the government because of the injury to the public.  The empire theatre probably met this criteria outright, ending any further discussion on the matter. 

We are also in agreement that property, blighted or not, may be taken for public projects; hospitals, schools, highways, police stations, etc. 

Where the topic becomes interesting is where one attempts to define 'public injury' and define 'public use.'  Is a movie theatre a public project subject to public use or is it more of an intolerable transfer from one private owner to another private owner; or both?  Obviously, this is a grey area.  In various situations, even though a taking will result in subseuqent private ownership, if that 'new' ownership will serve a public purpose, it will be allowed.  Again, I think that the P&L district - including the Midland Theatre - were largely blighted areas injurious to the public and beyond repair.  The benefit to the public of remedying this harm was obvious. 

You suggest that allowing buildings that could be - and probably should be - placed on the National Register is of eminent public interest and it is the duty of the city to protect this interest.  I kind of agree with you.  Never really thought about it much, but it makes sense in a way.  Architecture and art are tangible things that have value to people.  By destroying these things, one may be able to argue that the public is being harmed.  Thus, allowing a building to fall into disrepair is an injury to the people.  In the end, however, I think this point is moot because the city is already permitted to condemn and take control of buildings that have become “injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare” in order to “eliminat[e] all such injurious conditions by employing all means necessary and appropriate for the purpose,” including eminent domain. 

I think that a building of architectural importance to a group of people should be protected.  If it is not kept in proper repair, it seems like one could argue, perhaps easily, that the danger of losing its status as a National Landmark would constitute an injury to the morals and welfare of society.  As such, the government should eliminate this injury by taking control of the property and repairing it.

FWIW....Brettel is a scumbag.

[KCKev]

The search is on! It's out there in cyberworld somewhere.

This is all I can find, a post card on e-bay.

POSTCARD~EDDY'S RESTAURANT~ORCHESTRA/BAR~KANSAS CITY,MO

[PumpkinStalker]

This is all I can find, a post card on e-bay.

POSTCARD~EDDY'S RESTAURANT~ORCHESTRA/BAR~KANSAS CITY,MO

Looks like a linen style card from the 40s...good find.

[LenexatoKCMO]

This is all I can find, a post card on e-bay.

POSTCARD~EDDY'S RESTAURANT~ORCHESTRA/BAR~KANSAS CITY,MO

There just aren't enough good restaurants and bars with house orchestras these days.    I have often wondered if someone will ever try and make a go of a concept that harkens back the the big forties era nightclub/restaurants with swing bands, etc.  It seems like they have tried just about every other entertainment concept, so why not. 

[DaveKCMO]

There just aren't enough good restaurants and bars with house orchestras these days.   :D  I have often wondered if someone will ever try and make a go of a concept that harkens back the the big forties era nightclub/restaurants with swing bands, etc.  It seems like they have tried just about every other entertainment concept, so why not. 

not if places keep putting TVs all over the place.

[moderne]

Looks like something from a forties movie where the singing girl star would work.