One Light - 13th & Walnut

[FangKC]

Directly East on same block. Behind HR Block oval building in pics above.

Checked it out on google maps. Is there a surface lot there now - kind of hard to tell from google map even with the angle view. Kind of a small footprint.

This rendering implies it would also go over or close to the Consentino's garage. None of the renderings seem proportionally consistent to each other or relative to surroundings.

It looks like they will probably build on top of this loading dock building attached to the garage. I assume they will also remove that exterior fire escape and replace it with some emergency staircase with a door accessing the rooftop next to The Jones.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.098979,- ... ,,0,-10.18

While it is a small footprint, it is about the same size as the footprint the Midland Tower is on.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.099254,- ... 6&t=h&z=19

I did an experiment using Microsoft Paint to see if 909 Walnut tower would fit at 13th and Walnut. The base wouldn't, but the upper tower shaft portion would fit on that site, and it's one of the tallest buildings downtown.

[FangKC]

Representatives of the KCMO school district, library, et al., are protesting that they aren't going to get some of the tax revenue from One Light tower that is being applied to paying off the bonds for Power & Light. They want half of what the City is getting to pay off P&L bonds.

I'm with the City on this one. The City is the one responsible for having to cover shortfalls in revenues to service bond payments. If I were a judge making a decision on this case, I would favor the City.

While it may not be legally-based, my judgment considers the fact tax revenues that go to service P&L debt deny residents of all Kansas City spending on other needed things. Many parts of Kansas City are not in the Kansas City Public School District. The school district is asking for half the non-abated revenues, but all KC residents are ultimately responsible for the debt, or related infrastructure postponements because that money has to be diverted into bond payments. The school district took no risk in building Power & Light. The City did. In addition to the bonds, the City is also granting another $8 million to build One Light, and convert the Midland Tower to apartments. It's need to pay off bonds supercedes the school district, et al. Again, if the school district got half of the the non-abated revenue, it would come despite the school district taking no risk and the City assuming great risk.

The school district will benefit in the long-term if all tax revenues from downtown are enhanced with future new development because the City took the initial risk at public financing to get the ball rolling. Had the City not done that, we wouldn't be talking about any significant tax revenue from those former vacant lots, because they weren't producing anyway. In fact, those parcels were probably bringing down all the surround property values.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... 3&page=all

[aknowledgeableperson]

And people wonder why other jurisdictions do not trust KCMO. These silent, behind closed-door deals that come to light after the fact hurts the city's credibility.

Much like the TIF deal for the soccer fields in Swope Park that hurt the Raytown School District this is the city cutting deals using other people's money without their say-so.

FANG, I understand your logic about the city's risk and all but those other jurisdictions did not have full knowledge of the deal when the decision was made. Therefore the city is taking money from those entities without their approval. Those entities need money now, not at some point in the future.

[KC-wildcat]

Any project that brings residents and/or new development to the City/Downtown is 100% A-OK with me.

New residents are the lifeblood of the City, including the school district (assuming it isn't disbanded).

In summary, school district, shut the fuck up.

[pash]

.

[kcjak]

And people wonder why other jurisdictions do not trust KCMO. These silent, behind closed-door deals that come to light after the fact hurts the city's credibility.

Much like the TIF deal for the soccer fields in Swope Park that hurt the Raytown School District this is the city cutting deals using other people's money without their say-so.

FANG, I understand your logic about the city's risk and all but those other jurisdictions did not have full knowledge of the deal when the decision was made. Therefore the city is taking money from those entities without their approval. Those entities need money now, not at some point in the future.

I understand Raytown being upset about the soccer fields since there may be little direct benefit to Raytown from the development, but with the P&L tower the KCMO school district is currently receiving no revenue (or very little revenue) from the parking lot. My view is similar to FANG's in that the tower will only enhance the area by bringing in new residents that will be spending money in the area, making it more attractive for other, future, non-subisidized development.

[KCMax]

While it may not be legally-based, my judgment considers the fact tax revenues that go to service P&L debt deny residents of all Kansas City spending on other needed things. Many parts of Kansas City are not in the Kansas City Public School District. The school district is asking for half the non-abated revenues, but all KC residents are ultimately responsible for the debt, or related infrastructure postponements because that money has to be diverted into bond payments. The school district took no risk in building Power & Light. The City did. In addition to the bonds, the City is also granting another $8 million to build One Light, and convert the Midland Tower to apartments. It's need to pay off bonds supercedes the school district, et al. Again, if the school district got half of the the non-abated revenue, it would come despite the school district taking no risk and the City assuming great risk.

The school district will benefit in the long-term if all tax revenues from downtown are enhanced with future new development because the City took the initial risk at public financing to get the ball rolling. Had the City not done that, we wouldn't be talking about any significant tax revenue from those former vacant lots, because they weren't producing anyway. In fact, those parcels were probably bringing down all the surround property values.

I understand your point, but while the district did not put up any risk, it is losing a lot of tax revenue here without any say in the matter. And when you're talking about a poor school district with major holes all over the city in tax revenue base due to TIF, its going to majorly affect its ability to produce enough revenues to teach students.

Maybe the school district would benefit from the future, maybe they won't, but the point is they are a stakeholder in this and should have some say about their future.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The problem is how the deal was handled. The agreement went against the city's policy on PILOTs and was done without prior knowledge to the other taxing authorities. In other words it was a deal not made in the open and the city not being honest with those authorities. That reinforces the feeling that they cannot trust the city, something that the city needs.

Sounds like good government policy.

[KC-wildcat]

I understand your point, but while the district did not put up any risk, it is losing a lot of tax revenue here without any say in the matter. And when you're talking about a poor school district with major holes all over the city in tax revenue base due to TIF, its going to majorly affect its ability to produce enough revenues to teach students.

Maybe the school district would benefit from the future, maybe they won't, but the point is they are a stakeholder in this and should have some say about their future.

The only problem with this analysis is that the KCMO school district isn't poor. It's more than sufficiently funded. And, considering the billions of dollars pumped into the SD over the last 2 decades, it's abundantly clear that there's little correlation in this case between $$ and performance.

[KCMax]

I understand your point, but while the district did not put up any risk, it is losing a lot of tax revenue here without any say in the matter. And when you're talking about a poor school district with major holes all over the city in tax revenue base due to TIF, its going to majorly affect its ability to produce enough revenues to teach students.

Maybe the school district would benefit from the future, maybe they won't, but the point is they are a stakeholder in this and should have some say about their future.

The only problem with this analysis is that the KCMO school district isn't poor. It's more than sufficiently funded. And, considering the billions of dollars pumped into the SD over the last 2 decades, it's abundantly clear that there's little correlation in this case between $$ and performance.

That's fine, but lack of performance doesn't excuse taking revenue away from them without them having a say in the matter. Their performance is a whole different issue.

[beautyfromashes]

^^^
Couldn't disagree with this post more. If they aren't going to do their job, then they shouldn't be mad when they don't get paid.

[pash]

.

[KC-wildcat]

That's fine, but lack of performance doesn't excuse taking revenue away from them without them having a say in the matter. Their performance is a whole different issue.

But the correlation between $$ and performance is precisely the point. You're arguing, literally, that without all of this $$$, KCMO will lose the ability to teach its students.

This is false. KCMO will be able to "teach its students" when, for starters, it becomes an accredited school district again. KCMO has proven the inability to adequately teach its students even when receiving the most funding of any public school district in America.

There are problems with the District, of which, funding is not one.

Back to the Condo Tower... TIFing this project isn't depriving Johnny Pupil the opportunity to go to college.

[grovester]

This seems to be the main point in this case:

"...Dave Frantze, a Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP attorney representing the apartment developers, said that if the project
had been able to move forward in the absence of the abatement approved Tuesday, all property taxes it generated
would have been diverted for repayment of the Power & Light District bonds.

Thus, city officials felt that if the 100 percent abatement were granted and 50 percent payments in lieu of taxes were
made, those payments should go toward the bonds, he said...."

Special circumstances, the school district wouldn't have got anything in the first place.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Again, the issue was how the process was done. The city broke its policy without informing the other parties about what was going on and the rationale of the decision. It was like the city was hiding something.

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some payback in the future.

[mean]

Around there, probably. 280-320 feet, I'd guess.

[KCMax]

@aalonzoBCBJ

Cordish Co. expects to build three more towers after One p&l opens.

[smh]

From the Downtowners lunch today:

"@KCDowntowners: Gym is coming to the space above Cosentinos. This lease and others will put retail at 93% occupied. And its right on the #KCstreetcar route!"

[gem]

From the KC Downtowners luncheon - Mr. Nick Benjamin, Executive Director of the Power & Light District:

One Light will have a theater, fitness center and access to the Jones Pool. The fitness center in One Light will be small and a larger one will be located in the footprint of the Cosentino's building.

Street level will be lobby and retail. Two retail spaces at street level, a total of 3,000 sq. ft.

Floors 5-24 will have 14 units per floor.

One Light will consist of 70% studio and 1br, and 30% 2br.
This may shift if the market shifts.
$1.70+ per square foot.
$1,100/month for 24th floor. $2,500/month for penthouse.
Two weeks to a month away from apartment renderings.

Parking will be bottom three levels in Cosentino's garage, accessed by tunnel.

One Light will receive funds by city financing and HUD 221(d)(4).

Construction for One Light is estimated at approximately 16-18 months.

When One Light reaches stabilization (93% occupancy), Cordish will start construction of Two Light. When Two light reaches stabilization...and so on.

1,100 units total for One Light, Two Light, Three Light, and Four Light.

Future buildings will be 20-25 stories tall, depending on demand, and have parking deck and retail space.

Attendees of the KC Downtowners luncheon received a handout by Cordish with image of downtown Kansas City before the Sprint Center; post Sprint Center; image of P&L; image of fans at P&L during World Cup; One Light (day) and One Light (night) by Selbert Perkins Design; and all four buildings at night by Humphreys & Partners.

Mr. Benjamin said the KC Downtowners are the first to see the image of One Light day/night.

[grovester]

Post the rendering to photobucket and link to it.