KCRag Forum

Since there are a lot of moving parts, I'll see if I can recap.

There are currently two separate actions being considered by the council. You are correct if you think think the order of these actions doesn't make sense.

The first is the resolution considered in the Ethics and Legal Review committe. The details of which I listed above. The resolution doesn't really make sense because there already is a negotiation ongoing, so if it is passed on the 22nd (the next time the council meets) it won't really do anything. As McManus stated, he thinks the resolution provides a framework for Cordish to understand what the Council wants. Other Council people may have different designs with the intent of the resolution. Ultimately, though, it is just a resolution and has no real authority.

The second is the ordinance considered in the Finance committee. It approves the ongoing negotiations and appropriates future funds to that affect. If this passes on the 22nd, the conversation is over.

It should be noted, that today during the finance committee Cordish made clear that the original form of this ordinance came with concessions from Cordish that had been negotiated over the past two years. (Taking over operations of garages and associated costs, increasing PILOTS...maybe others?)

Today, Cordish agreed to additional changes in the MDA (if the ordinance is approved):

• -4 light and beyond would REQUIRE the development of 10% affordable housing units. Those units do not have to be in the building(s), but could be anywhere in the city. If they are w/n the district (eg. Midland Offices), affordable is defined as 100% of AMI, if they are outside the district it is defined as 80% of AMI.
  
  -Reducing city participation in incentives for parking garages from 99 years to 45 year OR a maximum of "6 Lights", which ever occurs first. - In exchange, the boundaries in which these terms are applied would extend 3 blocks beyond the currently defined Power and Light District.
  
  -A CID w/ an additional 1% sales tax would be added to the district to be split between Cordish and the city. Cordish to use for operations and the city could use to either offset the cost of bond payments for the garage or to cover future capital maintenance costs for garages within the district.

I think that is it, but there may be more.

Canaday made it sound like this wasn't acceptable and wanted all future projects funding sources to be determined in this current amendment. Cordish said they have already negotiated way beyond the original commitments in the agreement and didn't seem too keen on any more concessions. The committee basically agreed to move the ordinance to the council for consideration on march 22 to allow for "continuing negotiations".

cityscape wrote:I agree. Was fascinating to hear the Cordish rep discuss all the concessions they've made and the expenses they've incurred to help the city. One item that was interesting was that the City has to pay Cordish a $4 million developer fee, I guess for 3 Light? Didn't quite understand what that money was for.

The fee isn't paid by the city to cordish. The fee is calculated into the overall costs of the building. Basically, it is Cordish paying itself for the work they put in... If the city analyzed the project correctly, that fee should be incorporated into Cordish's estimated return on the project.

StrangerThings wrote:

DaveKCMO wrote:

StrangerThings wrote:So now these two city council members are really making a mess. They want 15% of one, two Light and future buildings to be set aside for low income housing. Are you kidding me? How’s that fair to people (like me) that are paying full rent? I’ve had to work hard to be able to afford this place, not sure I’m down with someone getting a fat discount because they don’t make enough money.

Um, okay. This is a major investment by the taxpayers and there's an affordable housing crunch. A small number of units carved out will not hurt you. Who the hell do you think will want to work in those restaurants when they have to commute in from Blue Springs just to afford the rent?

So I’m expected to pay full rent while someone else can live in the same building, same unit and get a steep discount? Explain to me how that’s far? There are several income restricted apartments downtown. I’m all for affordable housing, I’m not ok with low income housing being in a “luxury” apartment building. How in the hell does that make any sense.

How is it fair that Cordish has enough money to build a bunch of buildings that look the same but still gets tax incentives when there are people with no homes at all in Kansas City?

yeliab wrote:

StrangerThings wrote:

DaveKCMO wrote:
Um, okay. This is a major investment by the taxpayers and there's an affordable housing crunch. A small number of units carved out will not hurt you. Who the hell do you think will want to work in those restaurants when they have to commute in from Blue Springs just to afford the rent?

So I’m expected to pay full rent while someone else can live in the same building, same unit and get a steep discount? Explain to me how that’s far? There are several income restricted apartments downtown. I’m all for affordable housing, I’m not ok with low income housing being in a “luxury” apartment building. How in the hell does that make any sense.

How is it fair that Cordish has enough money to build a bunch of buildings that look the same but still gets tax incentives when there are people with no homes at all in Kansas City?

How is it fair that Cordish agreed to take huge risks to help the city and now that they were able to help the city they are being cut off from what they were promised?

yeliab wrote:How is it fair that Cordish has enough money to build a bunch of buildings that look the same but still gets tax incentives when there are people with no homes at all in Kansas City?

I think if the city heard your plan to build housing sufficient for those who need it while making enough money on the investment (through increased property, sales taxes or increased employment) to pay for the construction and make a profit for citizens, they would be open to it.

beautyfromashes wrote:

yeliab wrote:How is it fair that Cordish has enough money to build a bunch of buildings that look the same but still gets tax incentives when there are people with no homes at all in Kansas City?

I think if the city heard your plan to build housing sufficient for those who need it while making enough money on the investment (through increased property, sales taxes or increased employment) to pay for the construction and make a profit for citizens, they would be open to it.

We're talking about fairness here, not feasibility. But considering we have more vacant homes than homeless people and are quickly running out of important non-renewable resources necessary for building, I'd say if there was a will, there is a way.

A jobs/jobs training program is a good start that would stimulate the economy, give people jobs repairing dilapidated buildings for housing, fix infrastructure, improve areas that are not seeing the same level of development, etc. I think the will part is more of an issue than the way part. We'd have to move away from a neoliberal model of managing the our economy, but its not like thats working for the masses anyway.

ldai_phs wrote:

yeliab wrote:

StrangerThings wrote:

So I’m expected to pay full rent while someone else can live in the same building, same unit and get a steep discount? Explain to me how that’s far? There are several income restricted apartments downtown. I’m all for affordable housing, I’m not ok with low income housing being in a “luxury” apartment building. How in the hell does that make any sense.

How is it fair that Cordish has enough money to build a bunch of buildings that look the same but still gets tax incentives when there are people with no homes at all in Kansas City?

How is it fair that Cordish agreed to take huge risks to help the city and now that they were able to help the city they are being cut off from what they were promised?

I mean, I don't like what Cordish or the city has done as far as their dealings with Cordish, so you're going to find about as much sympathy from me for Cordish as their employees apparently have for lower-income people.

I don't really think they have a problem with poor people? Raising thr quantity supplied of housing by thousands of units does a whole lot more to help than a few dozen "affordable" units.

ldai_phs wrote:I don't really think they have a problem with poor people? Raising thr quantity supplied of housing by thousands of units does a whole lot more to help than a few dozen "affordable" units.

I was being snarky and referencing a previous comment about how unfair it is that someone needing affordable housing might get to live next to them. I don't think they individually, consciously have issues with poor people, but I also don't think that their improving the housing supply by thousands of unaffordable units does much for anyone other than the small subset of people that can afford them. We can agree to disagree on how "fair" and beneficial incentives to big developers like Cordish are.

yeliab wrote:I also don't think that their improving the housing supply by thousands of unaffordable units does much for anyone other than the small subset of people that can afford them.

It does a lot for the thousands of people who don't get displaced from existing apartments.

If you are in affordable housing, I don't think you need to have granite counters, tile or wood floors, stainless steel appliances or excessive square footage with a fantastic balcony and an amazing view. Not to mention a pool and other amenities.

And no, it's not fair to those that pay full price for the same units. It's not that people don't want to be mixed with lower income people. If you want a top of the line apartment with all the bells and whistles, then you will have to be in an income bracket that can afford that. Otherwise, you are going to have to settle for something less luxurious. I'm not talking ghetto or the projects here, just not units in some of KC's highest end residential properties.

I just don't get what you guys want here. I can see the city trying to get Cordish to renovate the Midland tower into very nice, perfectly located affordable units that won't be a nice as the Light towers, but still quite nice for entry level apartments. But to make Cordish incorporate them into the new construction towers (especially the ones that already exist and are fully built out with luxury units), just does not make sense.

Ask them to help deck 670 or something in return for the garage subsidies. They might do that, since it would actually benefit them to do so. I'm not sure they will help fund the park without some reason (like continuing to get the garage subsidies.)

ldai_phs wrote:I don't really think they have a problem with poor people? Raising thr quantity supplied of housing by thousands of units does a whole lot more to help than a few dozen "affordable" units.

So much this.

You want affordable housing? Keep building, get rid of parking requirements, and make transit better.

I honestly can't process that people here think three/four light should be affordable housing.

Bizarre that this is even debatable. The City already had an agreement with Cordish and it did not include affordable housing. The aid Cordish got should have a public benefit but it doesn't need to be affordable housing rather in this case public use of the parking garages.

WoodDraw wrote:I honestly can't process that people here think three/four light should be affordable housing.

It kind of blows my mind. There are so many other ways to bring affordable units downtown.

KC is going to scare off potential national developers that are putting up 35 story towers in places like Nashville, Denver and Austin, hell, even St Louis has a couple of 30 story plus towers going up in addition to their Cordish tower. I can't see that new 36 story tower in Central West End having affordable units lol.

The Light towers are the cream of the crop in KC for new construction high end urban apartments. It just doesn't make sense to make them 15% affordable units.

I can see doing some or all of the Midland Tower, but not the Light Towers. Even so, the city made a deal with Cordish and should honor that deal. Jesus, if t wasn't for that deal, there probably still wouldn't be a new residential tower in downtown KC yet. It makes no sense to punish the very company that took a chance on downtown KC, just because they ended up being successful. I kind of thought that was the original goal.

It's beyond dumb to the point of self parody.

earthling wrote:Bizarre that this is even debatable. The City already had an agreement with Cordish and it did not include affordable housing.

Yes it did

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... 32924.html

Cordish agrees to:
- Ending city agreement in 2045 or upon completion of 6th tower, whichever first
- Provide 10% of 4 light's unit count as affordable units
- ^These units do not have to be in 4 Light itself, but anywhere in the city.

That last part seems like wiggle room for negotiation to me (or poor reporting). I think the whole debate is stupid, but if you're going to have it, what good does having units elsewhere in the city do for downtown? I'd much rather they agree to midland conversion with 10% of those being affordable.

Of course, Canaday and Shields still think the whole thing is unacceptable.

I like this plan. Cordish makes a good faith effort to move towards the city. We need affordable housing in this city but it doesn’t have to be in the most expensive buildings in town. Cordish made the right decision and should be commended for giving back.