Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
Post Reply
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by chaglang »

kenrbnj wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:47 am The leadership in Kansas City is incredibly naive. Just reading the piece about "Imagine KC".

..Exactly who and how will "mixed and affordable residential" be constructed? A developer will be motivated strictly by market-rate product. If the city will build the high-density "mixed and affordable" component, there is a precedent: The high rise housing projects al-la the LBJ era.

Most of those were crime-ridden as they had been mismanaged universally throughout the United States. Consequently, most high-density public housing was demolished in favor for market-rate with a modest affordable component.

A "housing project" on the doorstep of a stadium is a recipe for failure. Memories run long -- and if there is a question of personal safety; people will just watch ESPN.

If the city leadership wants to keep housing prices in-check; they should undo this TIF restriction. Offer incentives to developers which provide incentive for some below-market-rate product together with market rate housing. Build stock

Let the progressives complain -- because when they do; the direction is usually correct.
When people bemoan that local developers are having rings run around them by out-of-town companies like MAC, I will refer them to this post. Thank you.
kenrbnj
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:16 am

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by kenrbnj »

TheLastGentleman wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:01 am If JC Nichols were planning his racist developments today, a lot of you would absolutely be cheering him on
Careful: The assertion that my/our statements had foundations in racism are.. ..racist.
Riverite
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by Riverite »

TheLastGentleman wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:01 am If JC Nichols were planning his racist developments today, a lot of you would absolutely be cheering him on
I’m not going to speak to the coded language as it’s despicable, but we don’t have to kowtow to anti intellectual populism to be against racist housing practices, particularly when it’s been studied and studied and shown that stopping development accelerates gentrification.

If the city shows that they are able to build quality housing as dense as is needed and as much as private development I’ll happily eat crow. I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again I’m not in it for the developers getting money I’m in it for the improvement of the city and the citizens. In other places I’d happily be on the other side, but prentending that Kansas City will build quality urban housing ala Europe or Asia without help from the federal government is frankly outlandish.
TheBigChuckbowski
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

Riverite wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:35 am If the city shows that they are able to build quality housing as dense as is needed and as much as private development I’ll happily eat crow. I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again I’m not in it for the developers getting money I’m in it for the improvement of the city and the citizens. In other places I’d happily be on the other side, but prentending that Kansas City will build quality urban housing ala Europe or Asia without help from the federal government is frankly outlandish.
KC Tenant's proposal for the housing trust fund is for only $20m/year if you want to understand how out of touch with reality they are.
User avatar
beautyfromashes
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 7189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by beautyfromashes »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:39 am KC Tenant's proposal for the housing trust fund is for only $20m/year if you want to understand how out of touch with reality they are.
And they want to control it. It's the establishment of a slush fund. It's gangs of New York.
SilentSpades24
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: KCK

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by SilentSpades24 »

Call me late to the party here, but what is KC Tenants end game here? Like really? How do they suppose they're helping "the little guy"?

Like most social movements, you hear a lot about how things should change, but not much about what actually needs to be done to meet the stated goals.

Also, why does NOBODY point the finger at the city or county here? Why is it when your property values go up, suddenly you get absolutely bent over on property taxes? That's a big reason people don't and can't stick around, or have to raise their rents high to stay afloat. Yet, nothing is ever said about it. It's always the big bad developer gentrifying everything.

I don't know, killing every development in the city in the name of social housing is a bad move and will just lead Kansas City right back to where it was in the 90s and kill any momentum the city has.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by FangKC »

They are taking the wrong approach. I agree that killing other development achieves little. Instead of protesting other developments, they might better protest lack of funding for Section 8 vouchers, and years-long waiting lists to get them.

Or maybe their approach should be is to organize the build social housing on a different model than in the past. Perhaps the government might be involved in financing the construction of the housing, the City/County might own the land, or a non-profit entity. The residents might own their units in a cooperative, or they could be rentals. The units are kept affordable either by federal Section 8 vouchers for renters, and others could own their apartments. If and when they sell, the apartment price is set by some formula and not be market-based. Essentially, owners wouldn't be making a big profit. Owning really means building a small bit of equity that can be used later to purchase a better market unit, or just the privilege of being able to decorate as one wishes. You are buying the interior.

Governments could set up a policy that this type of housing pays no property taxes since the land is government-owned or owned by a non-profit. The exteriors or skeletons of the buildings would also be owned in this way. Residents would only own the interior like a condo. Since the value of the units would be kept cheap, residents could more easily afford the maintenance fee to keep up the property instead of paying a lot of principle and interest on a mortgage. This avoids the horror stories of past public housing projects.

I don't know how one would set up the mortgages for owners of a coop of this type. Banks would be wary of them in case of default. I guess the homeowners association might buy the unit back at some fire-sale price the bank offered.

This setup might work better since the value of the units is kept artificially low, and most of the cost of living there is paying the maintenance fee. This way the property is kept up better instead of government-run projects where the buildings weren't maintained well. One of the problems of low-income residents owning properties is that they cannot afford the maintenance, so it sort of will have to be baked into the formula. They will defer maintenance otherwise if it's a personal responsibility like a single-family house would be. This happens a lot with Habitat For Humanity houses. The homeowners can't afford maintenance and the house deteriorates quickly. After a bad water leak, the house gets mold and they abandon it and the mortgage. When the water leak happened, they were broke and couldn't repair it.

It has to be a situation where the maintenance fee is baked into their house payment. Otherwise, the residents in other unit will suffer as well.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by chaglang »

SilentSpades24 wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:48 pm Also, why does NOBODY point the finger at the city or county here? Why is it when your property values go up, suddenly you get absolutely bent over on property taxes? That's a big reason people don't and can't stick around, or have to raise their rents high to stay afloat. Yet, nothing is ever said about it. It's always the big bad developer gentrifying everything.
Jackson County was lowballing property values for years, in violation of state law. The state told them to get in compliance, and here we are. (None of that as a comment on how they've gotten into compliance.) Short of some provision that caps the amount that property taxes can raise in a year, perhaps based on the length of time someone has owned the property, I don't see this changing much.
User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

chaglang wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:33 am
SilentSpades24 wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:48 pm Also, why does NOBODY point the finger at the city or county here? Why is it when your property values go up, suddenly you get absolutely bent over on property taxes? That's a big reason people don't and can't stick around, or have to raise their rents high to stay afloat. Yet, nothing is ever said about it. It's always the big bad developer gentrifying everything.
Jackson County was lowballing property values for years, in violation of state law. The state told them to get in compliance, and here we are. (None of that as a comment on how they've gotten into compliance.) Short of some provision that caps the amount that property taxes can raise in a year, perhaps based on the length of time someone has owned the property, I don't see this changing much.
It would be a better route than attacking the developers though, even if it would be more of an uphill battle.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by phuqueue »

Fang, you might already be aware of this, but what you're describing sounds pretty similar to Mitchell-Lama. A problem Mitchell-Lama has run into is that thousands of units have been pulled out of the program in recent decades (the program now covers fewer than half as many units as it had at peak) because the units are, after all, owned by profit-seeking private parties and the tight housing market supports higher returns than the statutory rate guaranteed for Mitchell-Lama units. If KC were going to design a similar program, there should be new controls included to keep units from leaving the program, but the harder you make it to get out of the program in the future, the more you disincentivize private developers from participating in it in the first place, so it's a tricky balance.
herrfrank
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by herrfrank »

SilentSpades24 wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:48 pm Call me late to the party here, but what is KC Tenants end game here? Like really? How do they suppose they're helping "the little guy"?

Like most social movements, you hear a lot about how things should change, but not much about what actually needs to be done to meet the stated goals.

Also, why does NOBODY point the finger at the city or county here? Why is it when your property values go up, suddenly you get absolutely bent over on property taxes? That's a big reason people don't and can't stick around, or have to raise their rents high to stay afloat. Yet, nothing is ever said about it. It's always the big bad developer gentrifying everything.

I don't know, killing every development in the city in the name of social housing is a bad move and will just lead Kansas City right back to where it was in the 90s and kill any momentum the city has.
These are good points. As another post mentions, the local governments for KCMO under-valuated property for decades. The "fair market values" reflected the pricing from a different era, like 1975. I don't know if this was intentional, perhaps to incent some residents to stay in the city during the final phases of white flight, but in any case, the pricing was way off reality.

My family owned a commercial property in Westport from about 1980 until 2020 -- it was taxed less there than the same property would be taxed in Lenexa or even De Soto. AND the abutting residential properties were so lightly taxed as to be comical. Valuations (not assessments, but the estimate of actual FMV) under 50k for properties that would sell for 300k. Tax revenues were accordingly small. The one place that valuations were more market-like were the wealthiest bits of the city, like zip codes 64112 and especially 64113.

An unintended consequence is that the last revaluation appeared to be targeted at the poorer neighborhoods, as they "caught up" with the wealthier neighborhoods. It looks like gentrification, which may be a part of it, but it is mostly bringing properties back to actual values.
User avatar
Cratedigger
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by Cratedigger »

KCUR article today seems relevant to this discussion.

https://www.kcur.org/housing-developmen ... disneyland
User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

freedog wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:54 pm KCUR article today seems relevant to this discussion.

https://www.kcur.org/housing-developmen ... disneyland
Haven’t people complained about lack of investments in these very places for years? Have their cake and eat it too scenario here
CorneliusFB
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:40 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by CorneliusFB »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:11 pm
freedog wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:54 pm KCUR article today seems relevant to this discussion.

https://www.kcur.org/housing-developmen ... disneyland
Haven’t people complained about lack of investments in these very places for years? Have their cake and eat it too scenario here
The article raises a good question about who the “revitalization” is for, and how do you balance so many disparate interests. For the city as a whole, there is an interest in fostering a destination that will increase the tax base and preserve a very important piece of history. Residents also want to preserve the area’s heritage, but would like investment that increases businesses that serve the area residents. Are their concerns that different from discussions involving the W&R building and downtown residents looking for an active storefront and street activation when the developers didn’t really care about that.
User avatar
Cratedigger
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by Cratedigger »

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/de ... 20Tuesday.
GreatLife KC, the owners of Deer Creek Golf course, has announced it will close April 1 after the Overland Park City Council denied the rezoning and special use permit applications for a proposed apartment complex on Tuesday.
I know the resistance here is a very different type of anti-developer tone. But I have to imagine we will see more of this sort of move publicly floating the negative results for the property if the propsal is truly denied.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by FangKC »

KCUR has been holding community forums in the Jazz District with residents and business owners, to hear their feelings about these recent changes. Many of them told us that they crave a sustainable neighborhood with a variety of shops and services.

“A grocery store, a pharmacy, maybe even a medical office or two,” says Marvin Goode. “Those types of things because a lot of people that live in this building don’t have transportation.”
I do think the Aldi at 7th and Paseo would have been better located somewhere around 18th and Vine.

The City has done a terrible job educating residents about the "math" of how the City pays for things, and why it can't take better care of parks and City streets, etc. A good portion of the City budget comes from the earnings tax, which a lot of people don't pay (seniors, disabled, etc.). About 40 percent of the earnings tax (I believe) comes from workers in KCMO who don't live in KCMO. If the City didn't have the earnings tax, things would be much worse. Still, there are parties who would like to get rid of the earnings tax, and have taken steps to do it. If the City lost just the portion of the earnings tax paid by people who don't live in KCMO, it would still be devastating. It would mean the City would have to raise other taxes that many can't afford to pay.

Many residents are rightfully suspicious and fearful. They have been forced out in the past, or simply don't have the money to keep up with rising rents and taxes. However, the City does need to redevelop to be able to maintain infrastructure and provide services. They need to gather more sales taxes where they can, and not count on it developing at the edges of the City where more new infrastructure is required that the City can't really afford.

Redeveloping what already exists is paramount. But again, the City never explains this to residents. That if they want cleaner parks that are mowed more often, less crime, less dumping, etc., there needs to be an increased tax base for it. That is unless they are willing to raise their own taxes on what already exists to pay for it.

The City partially funds the Negro Leagues Baseball and Jazz museums. They might not even be able to stay open without that City money. If residents protest new development in the Jazz District and adjacent, they are preventing the City from raising more revenue that funds protection of their heritage.
User avatar
Cratedigger
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by Cratedigger »

This article seems relevant to the discussion. Quotes KC Tenants in it.

Obviously the attitude of Matthew Chase doesn't represent all landlords. But its not hard to see this attitude provoking a reaction like KC Tenants.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022 ... f=6SIErc4i
User avatar
Karambit25
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:10 am

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by Karambit25 »

The answer to the question for this thread is "Yes."
These whiners never produce anything, they only destroy what exists and try to stop the new.

Their ideas will change nothing other than stop development and paint businesses as the enemy. AFter all, bad landlords are an easy target and they should be exposed. But their real goal is to destroy the city and keep the cycle of poverty going. They will do everything in their power to support the addicted, the criminal, the free loader and bad tenant behavior while doing nothing at all to help anyone in any tangible way.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by chaglang »

Why hello, LandlordBot.
User avatar
FlippantCitizen
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

Post by FlippantCitizen »

Karambit25 wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:18 pm The answer to the question for this thread is "Yes."
These whiners never produce anything, they only destroy what exists and try to stop the new.

Their ideas will change nothing other than stop development and paint businesses as the enemy. AFter all, bad landlords are an easy target and they should be exposed. But their real goal is to destroy the city and keep the cycle of poverty going. They will do everything in their power to support the addicted, the criminal, the free loader and bad tenant behavior while doing nothing at all to help anyone in any tangible way.
That is basically as reductive as KC Tenants can be. That rhetoric only poisons the well further.
Post Reply