Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

[beautyfromashes]

Nor do I. Parking requirements haven’t decreased at any point on this project though IIRC

I'll have to look back. I was pretty sure that the first iteration with renovation of the New Yorker that they had more spaces listed and pulled back that with second run. Maybe, it was less spaces per unit.

[langosta]

If Mac and this TOD project can't win, is there literally anything else that can?

I mean...this incentive request should've been denied IMO. Mac straight up lied to the city about seeking incentives and they shouldn't be able to shop around to different agencies. The first incentive request should've been approved, I don't think this one should have, though.

Did they? The development plan application asks about EDC type incentives from your reading of the page. KCATA and port KC aren’t listed options

[langosta]

The rent required to build a lot of new construction projects without incentives exceeds what the market can afford...at the profit return demanded.

None of the large no incentive proposals have moved forward so far

The problem is that as we see more demand and success, that profit required will also continue to grow. Unfortunately, this makes waiting on a project almost better...until, the market turns from speculation (where we've been for 20 years now) to full demand (where we should start to be soon). When this market starts to run downhill instead of trying to climb the hill, watch out! Developers will start racing to build to beat a bust or the saturation of the market. This movement from speculative market to full growth market is going to be crazy exciting!

What? Even so called successful cities have continued to incentive projects

[phuqueue]

The rent required to build a lot of new construction projects without incentives exceeds what the market can afford.

Building truly affordable apartments along the streetcar line is probably not a desirable thing over the long term. The construction would be shoddy and without amenities. Better to build better, even if the rents are high, and let older projects that were once high end become affordable as supply increases. The supply and price issues are not going to be solved with cheap to rent new-build apartments; there are very few builders that would take that on without even greater subsidies than currently requested (if at all).

This seems like a pretty good strategy for killing any future streetcar expansions or other mass transit enhancements. Low-income communities already worry that mass transit improvements drive gentrification and displacement, but let's not make that the explicit goal. It doesn't sound like we are going to wring much more streetcar out of the current funding model, and you're going to poison large voting blocs against future expansion if you just make it a toy for people rich enough to live next to it.

Better to build better, even if the rents are high, and let older projects that were once high end become affordable as supply increases.

Supply will never increase. I don't see supply outpacing demand increases for decades, if ever. We can try to keep up with the increased demand coming, but I don't see how that is near possible. I think before that, you'll see mass affordable living moving to the poorer suburbs, a reverse flight, if you will.

Also, this is correct.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

The rent required to build a lot of new construction projects without incentives exceeds what the market can afford.

Building truly affordable apartments along the streetcar line is probably not a desirable thing over the long term. The construction would be shoddy and without amenities. Better to build better, even if the rents are high, and let older projects that were once high end become affordable as supply increases. The supply and price issues are not going to be solved with cheap to rent new-build apartments; there are very few builders that would take that on without even greater subsidies than currently requested (if at all).

This seems like a pretty good strategy for killing any future streetcar expansions or other mass transit enhancements. Low-income communities already worry that mass transit improvements drive gentrification and displacement, but let's not make that the explicit goal. It doesn't sound like we are going to wring much more streetcar out of the current funding model, and you're going to poison large voting blocs against future expansion if you just make it a toy for people rich enough to live next to it.

Better to build better, even if the rents are high, and let older projects that were once high end become affordable as supply increases.

Supply will never increase. I don't see supply outpacing demand increases for decades, if ever. We can try to keep up with the increased demand coming, but I don't see how that is near possible. I think before that, you'll see mass affordable living moving to the poorer suburbs, a reverse flight, if you will.

Also, this is correct.

TBF though, this is the only major fixed rail corridor in town, and the trunk/spine of a future system. Desirability is a key point here, and as expansions grow the system, the standards lower exponentially as it won’t be regarded as THE main line anymore, it’ll just be the system overall.

[beautyfromashes]

Results will drive future streetcar expansion. If Midtown sees a 30-40% increase in property values over standard metro rates, you will start to hear Brookside and Fairway and NKC talking about extensions into their areas.

[phuqueue]

Building truly affordable apartments along the streetcar line is probably not a desirable thing over the long term. The construction would be shoddy and without amenities. Better to build better, even if the rents are high, and let older projects that were once high end become affordable as supply increases. The supply and price issues are not going to be solved with cheap to rent new-build apartments; there are very few builders that would take that on without even greater subsidies than currently requested (if at all).

This seems like a pretty good strategy for killing any future streetcar expansions or other mass transit enhancements. Low-income communities already worry that mass transit improvements drive gentrification and displacement, but let's not make that the explicit goal. It doesn't sound like we are going to wring much more streetcar out of the current funding model, and you're going to poison large voting blocs against future expansion if you just make it a toy for people rich enough to live next to it.

Supply will never increase. I don't see supply outpacing demand increases for decades, if ever. We can try to keep up with the increased demand coming, but I don't see how that is near possible. I think before that, you'll see mass affordable living moving to the poorer suburbs, a reverse flight, if you will.

Also, this is correct.

TBF though, this is the only major fixed rail corridor in town, and the trunk/spine of a future system. Desirability is a key point here, and as expansions grow the system, the standards lower exponentially as it won’t be regarded as THE main line anymore, it’ll just be the system overall.

This is wishful thinking. There won't be any expansions -- this "spine" will be the entire future system -- if the streetcar comes to be seen as a tool of exclusion and displacement. People won't vote for a streetcar expansion that they worry will cost them their homes.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

This seems like a pretty good strategy for killing any future streetcar expansions or other mass transit enhancements. Low-income communities already worry that mass transit improvements drive gentrification and displacement, but let's not make that the explicit goal. It doesn't sound like we are going to wring much more streetcar out of the current funding model, and you're going to poison large voting blocs against future expansion if you just make it a toy for people rich enough to live next to it.


Also, this is correct.

TBF though, this is the only major fixed rail corridor in town, and the trunk/spine of a future system. Desirability is a key point here, and as expansions grow the system, the standards lower exponentially as it won’t be regarded as THE main line anymore, it’ll just be the system overall.

This is wishful thinking. There won't be any expansions -- this "spine" will be the entire future system -- if the streetcar comes to be seen as a tool of exclusion and displacement. People won't vote for a streetcar expansion that they worry will cost them their homes.

Pending a regional funding mechanism, there’s already 3 corridors with studies… it won’t be the final expansion.

[phuqueue]

"Pending a regional funding mechanism" being the key phrase there. You're not getting your regional funding mechanism if you alienate broad swaths of the voters you need to approve it.

[grovester]

The same combination of east side voters and anti-progressives that got Q elected over Jolie Justus could certainly get any new transit defeated.

[dukuboy1]

This seems like a pretty good strategy for killing any future streetcar expansions or other mass transit enhancements. Low-income communities already worry that mass transit improvements drive gentrification and displacement, but let's not make that the explicit goal. It doesn't sound like we are going to wring much more streetcar out of the current funding model, and you're going to poison large voting blocs against future expansion if you just make it a toy for people rich enough to live next to it.


Also, this is correct.

TBF though, this is the only major fixed rail corridor in town, and the trunk/spine of a future system. Desirability is a key point here, and as expansions grow the system, the standards lower exponentially as it won’t be regarded as THE main line anymore, it’ll just be the system overall.

This is wishful thinking. There won't be any expansions -- this "spine" will be the entire future system -- if the streetcar comes to be seen as a tool of exclusion and displacement. People won't vote for a streetcar expansion that they worry will cost them their homes.

You bring up good points and really the next big expansion for the street car as it sits today will be South through Brookside & into Waldo at 75th St. Doing that will connect the shops & entertainment of Brookside around 63rd St/Brookside Blvd and then Waldo 75th & Wornall. Then somewhere we will see an line down 39th ST to Service KU Med area.

Outside of that I would not hold my breath for Street Car Service into the Eastside. Maybe Something as far as Troost or the Paseo but that would be a big if. The Street car is nice and unique and has had a tremendous impact on growth, development, where it runs. But it's not really what I would call mass transit. Yes it can provide elements of mass transit but the ridership of daily commuters vs. tourists and other leisure activity minded riders I would say is like 90% of total ridership numbers. Just my take, and please know I have no science behind the numbers outside of my own observations and instinct

[Pastense]

FWIW. There was a referendum/vote a few years back where the shortsighted residents of Brookside rejected the extension of the streetcar to 63rd Street. They were not convinced that the streetcar could co-exist with the beloved Trolley Trail path. I don't think a Brookside Boulevard option was being offered.

[langosta]

TBF though, this is the only major fixed rail corridor in town, and the trunk/spine of a future system. Desirability is a key point here, and as expansions grow the system, the standards lower exponentially as it won’t be regarded as THE main line anymore, it’ll just be the system overall.

This is wishful thinking. There won't be any expansions -- this "spine" will be the entire future system -- if the streetcar comes to be seen as a tool of exclusion and displacement. People won't vote for a streetcar expansion that they worry will cost them their homes.

You bring up good points and really the next big expansion for the street car as it sits today will be South through Brookside & into Waldo at 75th St. Doing that will connect the shops & entertainment of Brookside around 63rd St/Brookside Blvd and then Waldo 75th & Wornall. Then somewhere we will see an line down 39th ST to Service KU Med area.

Outside of that I would not hold my breath for Street Car Service into the Eastside. Maybe Something as far as Troost or the Paseo but that would be a big if. The Street car is nice and unique and has had a tremendous impact on growth, development, where it runs. But it's not really what I would call mass transit. Yes it can provide elements of mass transit but the ridership of daily commuters vs. tourists and other leisure activity minded riders I would say is like 90% of total ridership numbers. Just my take, and please know I have no science behind the numbers outside of my own observations and instinct

iirc, tourism was ~10% of ridership pre-covid.

Liesure travel is mass transit? Tourism is mass transit?

[dukuboy1]

Yes, they are all considered mass transit. Technically moving multiple people via a singular transportation method would be mass transit.

I think mass transit as commuters and connecting those from the outside the urban core into the urban core. The street car you have to get to it first, then use it.

Curious what they consider tourism, is it people outside the metro or metro users? Both are valid numbers but using it mainly to go to tourist places, dining, entertainment, etc. My guess those uses outpace the usage for getting to and from work strictly.

[Cratedigger]

Is there a reason why developers don't approach the incentive discussion by publicly stating: "Currently this property pays $A in property taxes. Even with the abatement, we will be increasing the amount paid to the city and KCPS by B% to $C. After 15 years, the abatement will expire and we will then be paying the city $D."

Plainly framing the tax abatement in this way may help increase understanding? Why not be transparent in this way? Maybe some developers already are?

[dukuboy1]

I believe they have done this in the past on incentives, especially for vacant lots. But people look at not what they are gaining but what they are losing, even when they are gaining so much. They focus on once the property after it is built and say they are losing out on $X during the 12-13 yrs after the thing is build if you had 15yr tax incentives. For them they would like to collect $100 instead of giving up 12-13 yrs of 100% tax collected. They glaze over the fact that it went from $100 to say $5000 but pissed they are not getting the full $15,000. Always thought for certain things it is such a weird argument. Eventually you will get the full amount but they do not appear to want to or understand about betting on the future

[beautyfromashes]

I believe they have done this in the past on incentives, especially for vacant lots. But people look at not what they are gaining but what they are losing, even when they are gaining so much. They focus on once the property after it is built and say they are losing out on $X during the 12-13 yrs after the thing is build if you had 15yr tax incentives. For them they would like to collect $100 instead of giving up 12-13 yrs of 100% tax collected. They glaze over the fact that it went from $100 to say $5000 but pissed they are not getting the full $15,000. Always thought for certain things it is such a weird argument. Eventually you will get the full amount but they do not appear to want to or understand about betting on the future

This is why I've always said the increased tax money shouldn't just go to the general fund after the expiration of the TIF. At least part of the new tax revenue should go to an affordable housing fund or some community development fund, at least for a certain period of time. This way, they could say, "After 12 years, this project will generate $Xmillion/year to the affordable housing fund for X number of years.

[herrfrank]

KC has large swaths of inexpensive housing -- the whole area from Red Bridge through Ruskin almost to Lee's Summit. The Old Northeast, much of the East Side. Still, the KC Tenants group is angry about development on Main Street in Midtown.

I feel the city would be better off accepting that the poor will always be among us, and move forward with the TOD plans. Let the gentrifiers do their thing, and continue to support low-income or affordable housing elsewhere.

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

A lot of interesting stuff over the last page or two, but I'll try to be brief:

- KC Tenants does hold a lot of sway with the Council and will have even more once Jenay Manley wins her at-large seat. She's the most well-funded candidate in that race and some of the big donors are already lining up to support her as it is seen as an inevitable win. She would then be in position to kill any incentive deal for market rate projects west of Troost by allying with sympathetic council members in the 3rd and 5th districts. You can't get two developers together without KCT coming up and how they have changed everything (at least when it comes to market rate development).

- Rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and a lot of incoming supply at the high end of the market (keeping rents from rising further) are already making new construction apartment projects nearly impossible to pencil. Without incentives, you will see very few if any new construction deals move forward until interest rates start to decline again. Multifamily has been on a bull run since 2008 but many investors are pulling back. While KC is less overbuilt than other metros, the same investors tend to fund projects across the country and they are skittish right now.

- Incentives that require setting aside 20% of units at 60% AMI are unusable, as the value of the incentive fails to outweigh the cost of setting aside that many units at a below market rent. So LCRA and PIEA incentives that require the set-aside are useless for the foreseeable future. The only projects that will use these incentives will be either grandfathered projects that applied before they took effect or projects that have exemptions from the requirement (low income tax credit projects, historic renovation projects, projects in continuously distressed census tracts, etc.). This is why all developers working west of Troost have been running to KCRTA because they aren't subject to the affordable housing set-aside. MAC was just unusually clumsy in how they went about this. I think they thought they could ram it through RideKC before anyone noticed. It was always clear to me that MAC would be looking for incentives of some sort - they've never done an unincented deal and aren't going to start now. They just fed Kevin Collison bad information last fall (or call it "shady" information, in that technically they weren't asking for incentives from the "city agencies" like LCRA/PIEA).

- With large (150+ unit) development projects about to go into hibernation for a few years, this should be a golden era for smaller, infill development projects. In my perfect world, LCRA and PIEA incentives are re-worked to have the required affordable housing set aside not apply to projects below 100 apartments. The current threshold of 12 units is way too little. Smaller projects are less politically toxic, are less disruptive to neighborhoods, and tend to be undertaken by more local development groups. The city should see 75% tax abatements as a positive investment in infill development, and actively encourage them to be used to create <100 unit developments. An independent financial analysis or blight study shouldn't even be required (though it is fine if there has to be one, an independent financial analysis will nearly always show an incentive for a small project is financially required). So count me in agreement with Chris S.'s general comment about big vs. little guys.

[TheUrbanRoo]

I agree with most of what you’re saying except for the Council composition coming after this election.

There are only two seats that are truly at-risk to be won by Tenant activists, and both of those seats were already with bad members in the first place.

On the flip side, there’s a really good shot that Hazley defeats Ellington, Short wins, Kelley wins, and Wes Rogers is running unopposed as well. There’s alot more room to grow flipping anti-development council seats than there is the other way around. I’m not even convinced French is going to lose to Manley yet either, but we’ll see.