Monday editorial: Trust the people
Real estate mogul Paul J. McKee Jr. may have a brilliant plan to remake long-suffering sections of St. Louis, north of downtown.
But no one can say for sure because he has released very few details. The result has been years of rumors, speculation and innuendo. For the sake of his neighbors and the future confidence in the city, Mr. McKee should start talking about his intentions.
For five years Mr. McKee, the chairman and CEO of McEagle Properties LLC of O’Fallon, Mo., has been accumulating property in a broad target area — more than 500 parcels in an area of more than 1,000 acres. That shows unprecedented patience.
He’s risking considerable sums of his own money — $30 million, or more, by some estimates. Missouri lawmakers and Gov. Matt Blunt have set aside $95 million in tax credits that some day could be used to promote the development and offset part of the costs of that development. But Mr. McKee has had to put his money up first. He’s done so, and that bespeaks a rare confidence by a major suburban developer in a part of the city that could use a jolt of confidence.
But without steadfast support from sensible people in the community, the best calculated strategy could become bogged down — or worse — under the weight of political cynicism and public misunderstanding.
Mr. McKee has had bumpy relations with neighbors, mostly over poor maintenance of properties he has acquired. Some of this has been smoothed over, but Mr. McKee now needs to earn the trust of people who have been fighting the good fight for St. Louis’ revival long before he came on the scene.
He will need their help.
A long line of hangers-on will be looking for a handout (and be willing to cause trouble if they don’t get it) as Mr. McKee seeks the city redevelopment ordinance he needs to move ahead.
Without strong grass-roots support, Mr. McKee could end up spending all of his time dealing with critics selfishly angling for a piece of the action. That’s the reality of city development.
What’s more, Mr. McKee inevitably will need the city to exercise its power of eminent domain. The cases may be few in number, but on a project this size, eminent domain would appear to be unavoidable. Here, again, broad community support can blunt reflexive opposition to eminent domain, opposition that exists even when a development plainly is in the public interest.
Mr. McKee’s best strategy for earning trust is to trust the people by sharing information and listening to constructive criticism. Mr. McKee reportedly has been holding some small meetings in the project area, answering some residents’ questions. He should broaden the circle.
There may well be sound business reasons for withholding some project specifics — key parcels may still be in play — but nothing prevents him from addressing the principles that will guide the development, such as:
• Diversity of opportunity. Will this development create opportunity for people from all walks of life and income levels? What about displacement of residents? What opportunities will be available for young people?
• Design standards. How will St. Louis’ rich architectural history and streetscapes be woven into the project’s design standards?
• Preservation plans. Among the properties Mr. McKee has been buying are architecturally significant buildings with real restoration prospects. Will he participate in surveys and timely public discussion over what might be saved?
• Old North. The Old North St. Louis neighborhood is reemerging as a vibrant neighborhood. Mr. McKee has been acquiring property in Old North, even though it supposedly is outside his project’s development area. Mr. McKee’s intentions will determine whether the neighborhood’s legion of admirers become a valuable ally or formidable foe.
Depending on how — and how quickly — Mr. McKee responds to these matters, he could put people at ease and cultivate the support he will need for his project to succeed.
(Pictured: The property at 1936 St. Louis Avenue used to be a mortuary. The property is now owned by Paul McKee. J.B. Forbes | Post-Dispatch)
If Mr.McKee follows your recommendations for the progject good or bad, will be talked to death.
I haver tried your method. and it doesn’t work.
Developing property in North St. Louis is not easy. I’ve also been involved in a project, albeit not at this scale. I don’t know McKee, but I assume it isn’t a mystery why he hasn’t been as forthcoming as people would like. Once you disclose your plans, it precludes acquiring property at fair market value without a fight. There are two sides to that argument. Owners feel if there is going to be development and I have a house near it, I should get what my property will be worth if its built. Or, I should get the value of your development’s effect. The developer will take the argument, your property isn’t worth much now and I should be able to buy it for what it is worth today. You should not get anything for the potential of my investment. And so it goes.
The other reason this is dragging on is nobody is building new housing right now. We are in the middle of a real estate and financial crisis. That’s not his fault, but that doesn’t make the neighborhood feel any better about it.
That being said, there should be a balancing of the interests of both. It is entirely fair for property owners who may be contemplating repairs, for example to know if their property is going to be taken by eminent domain. Or even to know if they will be next to a commerical development that might impact their home.
The laundry list of issues you mention also presents developers with often unscalable barriers. You have these historical preservationists show up and with a straight face tell you a new frame home doesn’t reflect the character of the neighborhood, a neighborhood full of burned out buildings with plywood on the doors and windows. There is a Balkanization of not only Wards, with the Alderman being the Prince, but also the various sub-neighborhoods within the wards. All these groups have their own leaders with their own agenda. You don’t often find this in the County and developers in the City often need to hire hand-holders to get through the maze. Of course you have the City which must try to maintain some type of order between all the competing groups. Then there is the often unspoken, but very real suspicions if the developer is white. Even non-profit groups have been accused of trying to steal property from black owners. This type of heat can be vicious and is not for the faint of heart and only smolders more when rumors replace facts.
You have to really want to do such a project in North St. Louis.
In no area do developers find a blank slate, even in the former chicken farms of St. Charles. One of the interesting thing about the Blairmont story is how it has utterly erased from memory the track record of development in this are pre-McKee–a record of the modest pace of new housing projects and rehabilitation that occurred in the context of a consensus around development that specified some very basics–where to look for preservation activities, where the open space was for new neighborhoods, etc.
I suspect that most residents of the area would have wanted a continuation of those efforts and, where they were not working, some discussion of why. Even prior to the housing meltdown some projects were working and others were not. However, obviously, the introduction of McKeeville has changed everything. In this regard, the call for openness on the part of Post editorialists reads to my ears somewhat hollow and ironic at this point in the game, given the experience of the past two years. This includes of overly congratulatory stories about McKee throughout the media, a flood of campaign funds from McKee’s companies to such elected representatives such Mayor Slay and Rodney Hubbard, the constant critique of residents who have questioned the process as obstructionists, and the refrain from “those who know better” like Richard Ward that Paul McKee is a saint.
The one exception to the blowing of media kisses has been Charlie Brennan, bless his heart, at KMOX.
And behinds the scenes a consistent campaign by McKee and his lawyer Steve Stone to promote the project. How many times has McKee or his pr folks met with Jeff Rainford or Mayor Slay? How many times has McKee met with editorialists at the Post-Dispatch?
And how much access has McKee given to his political supporters and other key allies, while at the same time providing no information about the project to any credible representatives of the people who continue to live amidst the physical blight that the Blairmont campaign has brought up to this point? If there have been “small meetings” with area residents about the project on the part of Mr. McKee, I have not heard of them.
Now that a significant portion of private owners have been bought, what is left? LRA property and, as the editorial states, eminent domain. And, given the present housing market, some other form of public subsidy–it is inevitable.
The Blairmont project has long been a train wreck to be avoided. It is time to bring that train home. At this point, any remaining call for public engagement is mostly for the nice, liberal allies of preservation in Old North St. Louis and has very little meaning to residents. The truth is, as uncomfortable as it may be, the paternalistic desire of McKee that he was going to craft a vision for these neighborhoods with no regard for the history, energy and desires of residents who live there is going to come true. Just like powerful, rich, white developers have decided of the fate of poor, black neighborhoods in the past. Everything else–the preservation of buildings on St. Louis Avenue, design standards for Old North and jobs programs for area youth–is just cover.
In that light, it is time for Mayor Slay, Paul McKee, Rodney Hubbard and April Ford Griffin to put it up and let the rest of us figure where we stand in it.
johnh –
The talking doesn’t have to happen in public. McKee has created trouble not by avoiding public meetings, which is understandable, but by avoiding private give-and-take meetings with local stakeholders. He could have shut up a large legion of critics by rolling up his sleeves and sitting down over blueprints and coffee. Instead, he went to consultants like Freeman Bosley, Jr., Steve Stone and Lou Berra whose grasp of the political scene in the city is more than a little dated. They were supposed to have it in the bag but their old-boys networks are based on power, money and a cast of characters (like McMillan and Slay) who are losing control of city politics. These guys thought that residents would be too stupid to figure out what was going on. Huge mistake. the neighborhoods would have been allies, and much more loyal than the bought-off pols who turned coat on McKee for another developer’s dollars. What a mess!
Any use of eminent domain will be met with resistance. The Slay administration’s use of eminent domain has not produced the promised results. Just look at Gentry’s Landing. The City was promised a complete redevelopment of the existing building and a new condominium tower, if the owner of the building was allowed to take the land from the family that owned the land, because the developer said without the land none of this great plan was possible. Well guess what, the City allowed this fraud to take place and no new condo tower was built, and Gentry’s Landing looks worse than ever. The City enters into redevelopment agreements with well connected developers that contribute to the politicians campaigns with absolutely no teeth in the agreements so the developer can do as he wishes once the dust has settled and everyone forgets all the promises. Eminent domain is about corruption plain and simple and Mr. McKee should announce he will not use it. If he does this his plan will have a better chance of success.