Will aldermen consider McKee plan this year?

This could be a big year for developer Paul J. McKee, Jr. The developer who has assembled hundreds of parcels in north St. Louis without announcing a solid development plan will have to decide whether or not to apply for a new Missouri tax credit for land assemblage before other developers do the same. Since McKee’s attorney Steve Stone drafted the first version of the tax credit, I’d bet that McKee has a strong interest in applying.

However, there’s one hitch: the final version of the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit that passed requires applicants for the credit to secure an official redevelopment agreement with their municipal government that is ratified by the legislative body of the municipality. Once that and other requirements are certified by the Department of Economic Development, the applicant can be reimbursed up to 50% of land acquisition costs.

Hence, McKee can’t make a move without getting a redevelopment agreement through the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. All three aldermen who represent McKee’s project area – Freeman Bosley, Sr. (D-3rd), April Ford-Griffin (D-5th) and Marlene Davis (D-19th) – have announced opposition not only to McKee’s project but also the land assemblage tax credit itself. Furthermore, at the Board of Aldermen, an old-fashioned courtesy system dictates that redevelopment bills originate with the representatives of the affected area.

How’s McKee going to get past the Board of Aldermen?

Before we delve into that question, let us look at the other qualifications of the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit. The primary qualification is that the redevelopment project be at least 75 acres in size, and the applicant own at least 50 of those acres. The acres have to be in “distressed areas” as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the entire city of St. Louis qualifies. McKee’s holdings in Old North, St. Louis Place and JeffVanderLou probably already qualify and suggest a project scope substantially larger than 75 acres.

The credit act stipulates that 25% of the project area be developed by people who are not the applicant. Again, McKee is set if he includes other development projects in his total and “allow” the owners to become “co-developers” for purposes of the credit. McKee can also sell a lot of the land off after receiving the credit, and meet the requirement that way.
The credit does not cover property purchased from city government or acquired through eminent domain. McKee has done neither.

The Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit covers 100% of interest, maintenance and demolition costs for up to 5 years. McKee purchased his first north city property in June 2003. If he wants to recoup all of the associated costs, he has to apply for the credits this year.

We come back to the requirement that the applicant must be designated a redeveloper through a redevelopment plan approved by a “municipal authority.” In the city of St. Louis, that authority is the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA), governed by a board appointed by the mayor. LCRA typically drafts and approves redevelopment plans before passing them to the Board of Aldermen, where they usually get a rubber stamp.

One amendment to the original Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act made by Rep. Rodney Hubbard (D-St. Louis) stipulates that the redevelopment agreement must be approved by the legislative body of a municipal authority. Thus, McKee will need more than just a draft redevelopment plan from LCRA before applying for tax credits. He’ll need consent of a body most likely to be unable to come to consensus on his plan—if any alderman dare introduce it under the noses of Bosley, Ford-Griffin and Davis.

Short of making peace with one of these aldermen, McKee would have to go to an alderman representing another ward or to Board President Lewis Reed, whose campaign received $6,000 from McKee in 2007. With the Black Caucus firmly standing behind the representatives of the affected areas, it’s up to Reed or a south side alderman to carry water for McKee’s project and risk creating a racially-charged, rancorous debate.
In the wake of Centene Corporation’s backing out of Ballpark Village, big development has taken a political blow – especially ideas without blueprints and bank loans. McKee may have a tough time convincing aldermen he deserves a chance.

On top of everything, McKee’s property maintenance has not improved in recent months. McKee-owned buildings in St. Louis Place and JeffVanderLou have lost whole walls to brick thieves, while other buildings stand without boards on their front doors. Lots are strewn with debris and the remains of buildings completely lost to brick thieves. The conditions of areas with high concentrations of McKee-owned property remain an open wound on the city face. Who wants to poke it?

Obviously, McKee wants the tax credits to compensate his five years’ worth of purchases. Yet our elected officials should avoid conflation of the developer’s private interest and the public needs for comprehensive planning for the near north side and a chance to review McKee’s ultimate development plans. The city’s best interests are served by creating a real plan for the areas around McKee’s properties – and we won’t have one by June even if we start last week.

The requirement for aldermanic approval in the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act is wonderful leverage for local elected officials. This is the one chance for a public planning process related to McKee’s plans. Hopefully no one is in a hurry to let the opportunity pass.

Michael R. Allen is assistant director of Landmarks Association of St. Louis and is the editor of the website Ecology of Absence, http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/. You can e-mail him at michael@eco-absence.org.