KCRag Forum

earthling wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 5:48 pm Yeah asking for TIF so they can retrofit a pool was pure TIF exploitation. At least for private use. If publicly accessible pool, great use of TIF.

If they add a public element as significant as a public market that is generally inclusive to MIdtown demographics, enough TIF to add private pool or deckspace on top just might pass. More reasonable tradeoff than last stance.

Just as a contrast...

The town of Aspen, Colorado requires ALL swimming pools that serve a hotel or large condo conversion, and built since a certain date, to be free and open to the public during the same hours as they are open to the private use. This fact is not well known (obviously the hotel operators don't want it well-advertised), but I have used this loophole to avail myself of the rooftop pool at the W Aspen (room rates regularly over $1000/ night), when staying with friends.

No developer may otherwise install a swimming pool. SFH pools are exempted.

I like the idea of an indoor market in the River Market, next to the outdoor one. That way it could be one mega-market with the indoor and outdoor options. It would help improve the outdoor one too I bet with the greater density than splitting it up with one in Midtown and one in river Market.

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:34 pm I like the idea of an indoor market in the River Market, next to the outdoor one. That way it could be one mega-market with the indoor and outdoor options. It would help improve the outdoor one too I bet with the greater density than splitting it up with one in Midtown and one in river Market.

I agree, and think an indoor euro-style or Pikes Place-like market would fit great either on steamboat arabia’s block or where the outdoor sheds are in the middle

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:56 pm

AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:34 pm I like the idea of an indoor market in the River Market, next to the outdoor one. That way it could be one mega-market with the indoor and outdoor options. It would help improve the outdoor one too I bet with the greater density than splitting it up with one in Midtown and one in river Market.

I agree, and think an indoor euro-style or Pikes Place-like market would fit great either on steamboat arabia’s block or where the outdoor sheds are in the middle

Absolutely. I may not be with you on the park stances, but I'm with you on the market idea's.

^No reason public markets can't be in both areas with different vibes and demo targets. Much better use for Katz building than nearly entire private use.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:51 pm

earthling wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 11:44 am The incentives would be more justified if perhaps the building made into an indoor neighborhood farmers/world market or something along those lines.

It seems the outrage is pretty focused on the rent, not an overall "public benefit".

However if significant public benefit were proposed, probably a better shot for TIF given the Katz application apparently went in before the new affordable conditions.

The TIF conditions do need to be adjusted some but private market rate projects shouldn't get TIF at this point unless either including a fairly significant public benefit or kickstarting a depressed area that needs it, affordable units or not.

There are several obvious locations for these types of public markets. The former Firestone Auto building at Troost and Linwood is one that comes to mind. I think there is one planned for the former Quartermaster Depot site at Independence Avenue and Hardesty as well.

earthling wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 8:37 am ^No reason public markets can't be in both areas with different vibes and demo targets. Much better use for Katz building than nearly entire private use.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:51 pm

earthling wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 11:44 am The incentives would be more justified if perhaps the building made into an indoor neighborhood farmers/world market or something along those lines.

It seems the outrage is pretty focused on the rent, not an overall "public benefit".

However if significant public benefit were proposed, probably a better shot for TIF given the Katz application apparently went in before the new affordable conditions.

The TIF conditions do need to be adjusted some but private market rate projects shouldn't get TIF at this point unless either including a fairly significant public benefit or kickstarting a depressed area that needs it, affordable units or not.

Is the Katz developer asking for TIF? I thought it was just a straight tax abatement. There's a world of difference between TIF and a tax abatement.

Sorry brain fog moment, meant incentives/abatements/TIFs in general are not particularly appropriate for private use, especially for a locally admired 'historical' building that would be better for broader public use than private. Add to that the momentum RCP corridor already has and additional momentum the streetcar will bring.

Sometimes though, the only way to save a historic building is a combination of these tools. Historic tax credits aren't always enough, or as we have seen, the state has become stingy in granting them. Many of our historic buildings end up in private hands for private use -- mostly as apartments.

One of the approaches that might be taken with Katz is to award incentives just on what is done with the original building, and separate the new apartment building entirely. Restore the Katz for a small market for example. Then build a separate new apartment building without incentives. No pool on the roof of Katz. If they want a pool, put it in the basement of the new apartment building or on the roof.

Yeah something along those lines. The building can't be that complex to save. Asking for incentives to retrofit deck and/or pool for private use was a bit over the top. Asking for significant incentives for significant public use could be possible, maybe even enough to put pool on top for private use if the lower original building is something like a public market.

Lucas confirms on Twitter Katz project is on Council agenda today.

Moved to full council tomorrow with no recommendation

kboish wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:55 pm Moved to full council tomorrow with no recommendation

Chance the project comes through?

No clue. Id guess it wont be unanimous either way this time though

Does it still need 9 votes?

PIAC will pay $600,000 to Katz which is equal to the NPV difference between the 10 and 15 year abatements. Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC.

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:12 am PIAC will pay $600,000 to Katz which is equal to the NPV difference between the 10 and 15 year abatements. Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC.

Does that mean it’s a go?

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:12 am PIAC will pay $600,000 to Katz which is equal to the NPV difference between the 10 and 15 year abatements. Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC.

Says it comes from 4th district pIAC funds. How is this better for 4th district residents? Why would Bunch approve this but not the old plan that didn’t take money from the 4th district pot?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:51 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:12 am PIAC will pay $600,000 to Katz which is equal to the NPV difference between the 10 and 15 year abatements. Midtown MarketPlace TIF will repay PIAC.

Says it comes from 4th district pIAC funds. How is this better for 4th district residents? Why would Bunch approve this but not the old plan that didn’t take money from the 4th district pot?

PIAC isn’t run by the city council and he isn’t on the committee that voted on this yesterday

https://www.kcmo.gov/programs-initiativ ... ittee-piac

The council ultimately is the one who approves how PICA funds are spent. From the website you link:

PIAC consists of 13 people, two from each council district and a chairperson, appointed by the mayor and City Council... ...This committee finishes its year by submitting its balanced five-year capital improvements program and neighborhood recommendations in early February.