The St. Louis County TIF Commission has rejected the request for $15 million in public financing for a controversial re-development of Kenrick Plaza that would bring a Walmart to Shrewsbury.
The Wednesday night meeting at the Shrewsbury City Center drew an audience numbering in the hundreds and entailed more than an hour and a half of impassioned written and oral testimony during a public hearing from residents eager to weigh in on an issue many see as vital to the future of the city of around 6,000.
The commission voted 9-3 against a motion to recommend the proposed development agreement for the blighted property and the request for $15 million in tax increment financing.
In this case, the TIF would have generally split any increase in taxes collected as a result of the $46 million development 50-50 between the city and the project’s developer, G.J. Grewe for a set period of time.
The action by the commission is a non-binding recommendation that will be forwarded to the Shrewsbury Board of Aldermen, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the TIF and the development agreement that would go along with it. Such an agreement allows the city to stipulate the conditions of any proposed construction, from landscaping details to the physical appearance of buildings.
However, the rejection does have some impact. The Shrewsbury Board of Aldermen will now be required to pass any deal by a 2/3s majority instead of a simple majority, according to the city’s legal counsel, Mark Grimm.
The most current version of the plan along with a cost-benefit analysis are available on the city’s website.
Critics Call Project 'Corporate Welfare'
The proposal by Grewe was initially brought to the city around 3 years ago, and since that time it has sharply divided Shrewsbury’s residents. This division was on display Wednesday night as some speakers were interrupted with boos and taunts during the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Critics of the proposal generally argued that the TIF amounts to a handout of tax payer money to one of the largest corporations in the world. John Bruce, a resident of the city since 1972, crystallized the feelings of many.
“I own two businesses and I have never gotten one dime from any goverment agency of any kind,” he said. “So why should a company like Walmart get anything from us."
Many also voiced opposition to Walmart itself, including Shrewsbury Alderwomen Dee Weicher, who has criticized the development on numerous occasions and spoke as a private citizen on Wednesday.
She alleged that the retail giant offers low wages and poor health insurance for its workers, discriminates against female employees and actively seeks to put local companies out of business.
“I simply desire that the taxpayers and school children not be required to subsidize the business of a retailer I find morally and ethically objectionable,” she said. "A retailer who could afford to build this development with its own funds."
Supporters See Need for Economic Development
On the other side, the development’s supporters frequently said that Shrewsbury is not in a position to turn down any economic development, especially re-development, that presents itself. In recent years, the city has been forced to cut its budget and dip into its fund reserves.
Many residents said they feared that by letting Kenrick Plaza stay largerly vacant, they risked losing the kinds of public services they have come to enjoy. Karen Wolf called the police, streets and park departments “unbelievable” and said it’s the reason she moved to the community.
“I could have gone further out, gotten more space and for cheaper, but I wanted to live in Shrewsbury for those reasons,” she said. “If this doesn’t happen, we will lose those services.”
There was also a sense among supporters that while a TIF may not be a perfect instrument, it has become so commonplace in St. Louis that large-scale redevelopment doesn’t happen without one.
“I'm not for it [the TIF], but communities do it in order to survive,” said resident Karen Diehl. "If there is an either-or proposition, either the TIF or the cutting of services in Shrewsbury, it's not even close."
For each side of the issue, the commission's decision means that after years of debating and adjusting, the redevelopment plan is one step closer to a final vote.
It's a shame that the naysayers feel that Shrewsbury is run by a bunch of "clowns". I feel that they're playing their cards right and that they haven't hastily acted upon this project. Lots of planning, patience, and thinking have gone into this. I have to laugh when I see all of these negative comments because I'd certainly like to see all the bright ideas that these people have for Kenrick Plaza's property if they don't want a Walmart there. Target? They never submitted a plan. Neither did Kohl's, K-Mart or any other major retailer! Walmart is the ONLY major player that wants to develop the property. Get over it, people! And residential development? It's not zoned for that! Plus, residential properties wouldn't bring in nearly the amount of revenue that retail will. Oh, and to all the people that are against Walmart in Shrewsbury: I guarentee most of you WILL be shopping there! You may grumble and whine now, but, oh yeah, you'll be there!
If the "excitement dropped off" about anything, it was the poor to nonexistant maintenance of the Plaza. It's rotting. The owner has done nothing to stop it, and now is using its condition - that the owner created! - as a pretense for public aid. Instead of telling us how these fundamental facts are "misguided," why don't you inform us of this secret 30-year history, and how Lipton-Kenrick somehow did not know of the state of the Plaza when they purchased it? I admire the Shrewsbury leaders and appreciate their efforts, but the fact remains that the previous administrations did not help much as the property deteriorated to the point of being a public nuisance as defined by city codes.
Continue....
I agree with Mr. Odenwald in that the infrastructure of Kenrick Plaza has to change in order to be financially successful. And that means tearing the old center down and starting from scratch. From what I understand, Kenrick Plaza in its heyday was a success. When I look at it now, it's difficult to fathom it was ever that!
"Rumor has it," right Keith? Hard to believe that two men think that the phrase "And that means tearing the old center down and starting from scratch." means that the city has to pay for it. Too bad the previous crop of aldermen and administration dropped the ball: <i> The following conditions of buildings and structures ..constitute a nuisance: *Those which are ...open at door, window, wall or roof. * Those containing therein substantial accumulations of trash, garbage or other materials susceptible to fire, or constituting or providing a harboring place for vermin or other obnoxious animals.. * Those which have parts thereof which are so attached or deteriorated that they may fall upon public ways or upon the property of others or may injure members of the public .. Any building or structure found to be a public nuisance because of the conditions described in Subparagraph (7) of Section 550.020 of this Chapter shall be ordered demolished. The owner, occupant or lessee in possession ... shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). Each day that a person fails to comply ..may be deemed a separate offense. </i> And now, with the latest plans, we see that the dangerous public health menace, the theater property, is not even going to be replaced until some unnamed "phase 2". So WE are paying to demolish it and getting nothing in return.
If you can not afford to keep up your house because it's falling down, you don't ask for public financing. The sad truth is, you sell it for what it is worth now that it is deteriorated. The only problem I have is with unjust enrichment of the property owner, and that is what happens when the city is duped into being a "partner" to finance remediation of a property and turning it back over to the same owner, now worth more thanks to tax infusion. You may think risk-reward capitalism is no longer relevant, but many of us disagree.
The TIF is 23 years long. Kenrick Plaza, when it was 23 years old.....was an eyesore. Connect the dots.
I actually would still be upset about a Target. Though, I'm not ashamed to admit that I wouldn't be AS upset, simply because Target has a much better reputation than Wal-Mart. I live near St. Vincent street. I see people walking up that street on a daily basis that are heading toward Watson from Metro-link. My kids have been chased out of places like McDonalds and Taco Bell by "city kids" who come in to the area like thugs. I don't recall Dierberg's needing a cop car in the lot before Metro-link. If you think Wal-Mart isn't going to attract the un-attractive, crime, etc.... think again. Have you seen the law suits against them? Years of litigation. They have cameras outside of their stores, but not for security. Those cameras are union-buster cameras, in order to catch employees talking about or to someone about creating a union in the store. People have been car-jacked, robbed, and even raped in their parking lots across the country. But, because Wal-Mart doesn't employ people to watch those cameras (because they're not for security), these people were harmed. Their headquarters even has documentation showing a mall-cop in a golf cart would decrease crime substantially. But, they don't want to pay for that. Your safety isn't worth it. We want THAT in Shrewsbury??? Again, JG Grewe needs to be held accountable. It seems to me that no one understands that word anymore... and Wal-Mart is a prime example.
Loads of traffic on Weil St. Michael the Archangel School Highway 44 Metro-link Kenrick Seminary put a fence around their property. Why? They see what's coming. They've had cars broken into, like me. Kenrick was my playground when I was a kid. Now, they keep everyone out. It's a shame. This neighborhood is not the same as it was when I grew up here. Not as safe. Wal-Mart will only make it worse. If this happens, I may have to try to sell quickly to get my money out of my house before it's too late. I can't count how many times I've been told by perspective buyers that they are not purchasing a home they like because it's too close to a Wal-Mart. I had a listing for a year in a nice area ($300K+ homes) off of Gravois that could not sell because Wal-Mart was built right behind the subdivision. Property values declined rapidly, and people moved. The house never sold because I could not convince the Seller to reduce the price for a 5th time. They are still in this house, with many empty homes around them. What was once a quiet, safe subdivision quickly became a high trafficked area with car break-ins. I wish people would understand this stuff. It's a fact, different stores attract different shoppers.
I do not consider what I wrote as "speculation" at all; I'm just going by what information I've gathered, plus it's been in the newspapers and internet about the possible redevelopment up and down Watson Road. If you would read more than just the 'Affton-Shrewsbury Patch', you might find out these things. And I will reiterate: The former Marnatti's/The Brick Restaurant has been torn down, as well as the small building that once stood in front of Courtland Manor Apartments. Why have they been torn down? Because the property owner wants to sell it to a developer that will turn it into something financially lucrative. And Jody Hoffman, those cameras outside of Walmart ARE indeed security cameras! To say that they are there strictly there as "union busters" is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! It's a shame that people are so dead-set against Walmart coming into Shrewsbury that they make up the most ridiculous things to try to scare people into thinking that these things are true! I'm sure that you read that story on the internet, and as we all know, what we read on the internet is all true!
Wow, so a developer tore down a building that was empty, not providing income, and could be turned into something better. And he did it without government assistance. Imagine that. Then contrast it with an owner who created a public health hazard through neglect and who needs public financing to tear down his own building. One can't do it and one can. "Rumor has it" that capitalism is still alive. It just crossed the road.
For the record, I'm not crazy about TIFs either, and they have gotten out of control. But most developers today, besides Grewe, ARE asking for TIFs when wanting to build. Look at the old Crestwood Plaza site; the developer wants to TIF that as well. If you recall, Dierberg's at Mackenzie Pointe was also TIF'd, but I don't see anyone saying one negative thing about it. But then again that was Dierberg's and not Walmart. Yes, Chris, I do know you haven't said a bad thing about Walmart. I do read very well, thank you! Your beef is about the $15 million TIF and the city "allowing" the deterioration of Kenrick Plaza, i.e. being "remiss" in enforcing the codes. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'd like to see proof before blaming the city. That's speculation on your part.
http://z2codes.sullivanpublications.com/sullivan/Z2Browser2.html?showset=shrewsburyset (edited for space) The following conditions of buildings and structures [are] detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents .... and therefore constitute a nuisance: *Those which are uninhabited and are open at door, window, wall or roof. *Those containing therein substantial accumulations of trash, garbage or other materials susceptible to fire, or constituting or providing a harboring place for vermin ...or in any way threatening the ...health of persons in the vicinity thereof. * Those which have parts thereof which are .. deteriorated that they may fall upon public ways or upon the property of others or may injure members of the public or the occupants thereof. [Look at the PGAV blighting study - the very document that is used by law to justify the TIF, and you see clear photos indicating every one of the above conditions, and more!] What to do about it? "Any building or structure found to be a public nuisance ....shall be ordered demolished." [NOT tear it down with the city as a "partner"!] and the teeth: ...any person violating any other provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and...shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00).
The damage to Shrewsbury has already started years ago. This township has been a part of my entire life. My parents still live in the house I grew up in. You can cheer-lead for Walmart all you want. I'll never set foot in that store if it goes up in my neighborhood. Our local government is going to eventually get rid of Shrewsbury altogether because of their decisions. Soon enough the bull-dozers will be "needed" to widen streets like Weil Avenue... for "traffic problems"... taking houses down. But, you go ahead and believe that won't ever happen. Just like people didn't believe there'd ever be a Mackenzie Point. I remember people saying the seminary would never sell out to a developer. (Yeah, right!) I was just a kid back then, but the changes my parents and their friends talked about was scary even then. Many townships across the country have been successful at keeping Walmart out for the same reasons I want them out (and many more). I care about Shrewsbury. Walmart cares about Walmart.
To believe this redevelopment is only about the area it sits in is absurd. This affects ALL OF SHREWSBURY.
I believe everyone in Shrewsbury is entitled to their opinion. I'm sharing mine, from the standpoint of a person who has grown up here and seen the decline. I'm also coming from a Realtor's standpoint, sharing my views about how these proposed changes could ultimately cost Shrewsburians their neighborhood and home values that they bought in to. I don't understand why this would make anyone so angry. If anything, I'm trying to help people see what I have seen out in the world of buying and selling. I would think that would be considered helpful information. I don't accept the proposed changes because I believe they will create a Shrewsbury that is so different from the one the current homeowners know and love, that it will eventually cause mass exodus. This will cause a decline in property value. I don't believe a conglomerate has the right to come in to a neighborhood that has survived 100 years and change it. Businesses interested in the area should do what's necessary to blend into our area, not change it. (Can you imagine Walmart in the heart of Webster Groves? I don't think so!) It's the audacity that bothers me. Don't spoon feed me and expect me to swallow, which is what our current local government is trying to do by saying this is the only way. I'm too smart for that. I'm not a sheeple.
Thank you. As a sidebar: I'd be glad to send anyone interested a Comparative Market Analysis of the value of their home in Shrewsbury... free of charge. Email me at: jodyhoffman@kw.com. I'm here to help!