Great Potential, Little Hope
![2909-2917 MARCUS AV](http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5268/5676149489_912496c60d.jpg)
The above storefront building at 2909-2917 Marcus Ave is owned by the city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). Â The building is just west of the Shelley House I blogged about last Tuesday. Â If not for being in a local historic district, the city would have razed this structure years ago. The LRA came out of urban renewal when the idea of razing buildings so land could be reutilized was all the rage. Â Today the LRA is a dumping ground for unwanted property:
The Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) receives title to all tax delinquent properties not sold at the Sheriff’s sale. It also receives title to properties through donations. The SLDC Real Estate Department maintains, markets, and sells these properties and performs land assemblage for future development.
The LRA has received attention in recent years, the RFT quoted a state audit in 2009:
The LRA does not have contracts related to costs incurred for property maintenance and upkeep. During the year ended June 30, 2008, the LRA paid approximately $660,000 to the St. Louis Development Corporation for property upkeep services, and $100,000 to the city’s Forestry Division for grass cutting, weed maintenance, and debris removal. In addition, there is no documentation to support why only $100,000 was paid while the Forestry Division’s billing records indicate it incurred charges of $1,658,000 for LRA properties. LRA staff indicated the land sales do not generate sufficient revenues to pay for all related costs and the city’s General Fund incurs the majority of the additional costs.
More recent:
A new study by the Show-Me Institute trains a spotlight on the largest St. Louis landholder. This is not any one individual or developer, but the Land Reutilization Authority, a joint creation of the city of St. Louis and the state of Missouri, which was set up in 1971 for the purpose of putting abandoned, tax-delinquent properties back into productive use.
The problem is, the LRA seems to have done more to thwart development than to encourage it. During the past four decades, the LRA has accumulated a larger and larger inventory of vacant properties in St. Louis, while rejecting many offers from private individuals and small businesses to purchase selected properties from the agency. (St. Louis Beacon:Â LRA needs to sell a lot of lots)
When I started this post I was just going to comment on how I liked the feel of the area, the arrangement of streets and buildings. Â That changed when I discovered the city owns the building. Â Many have rightly complained about Paul McKee letting his properties deteriorate, but at least he has a plan.
![North Newstead](http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5676710324_858f26b6e2.jpg)
The city has no plan for this area, other than let it continue to decline further. Â Then what?
The potential is all around, that “feel” I was talking about is great. Turning the area around takes leadership that appreciates the urban design of the period, rather than try to turn it into a late 20th century suburb. Given our lack of such leadership, with a few exceptions, I have little hope for this area. Of course I know our city can’t prosper if large areas are left to disappear.
– Steve Patterson
The fundamental question is WHY is the LRA “rejecting many offers from private individuals and small businesses to purchase selected properties from the agency”?! Are they trying to assemble larger tracts? Are they trying to limit land speculation / buy and hold? Are there politics involved? And, as you stated, do they have a plan?
The city does need a process (and likely a dedicated agency) to manage vacant property. The city also needs to work toward viable, long-term solutions – we don’t need a lot more small, non-denominational churches in former corner markets, nor do we need any more slum housing. Just transferring properties from public to private ownership isn’t the only or the ideal solution, either – unsuccessful private ownership is what stated this situation in the first place.
Something like what’s worked in Baltimore, where properties are sold, with strings, for $1, might work here. Marketing to the immigrant communities, like they do in Philadelphia, might work here, as well. The biggest problem seems to be a real lack of focus – it’s not apparent that many of these properties ARE for sale (no marketing), and there seems to be no effort to move many of them off of the public rolls!
The fundamental question is WHY is the LRA “rejecting many offers from private individuals and small businesses to purchase selected properties from the agency”?! Are they trying to assemble larger tracts? Are they trying to limit land speculation / buy and hold? Are there politics involved? And, as you stated, do they have a plan?
The city does need a process (and likely a dedicated agency) to manage vacant property. The city also needs to work toward viable, long-term solutions – we don’t need a lot more small, non-denominational churches in former corner markets, nor do we need any more slum housing. Just transferring properties from public to private ownership isn’t the only or the ideal solution, either – unsuccessful private ownership is what stated this situation in the first place.
Something like what’s worked in Baltimore, where properties are sold, with strings, for $1, might work here. Marketing to the immigrant communities, like they do in Philadelphia, might work here, as well. The biggest problem seems to be a real lack of focus – it’s not apparent that many of these properties ARE for sale (no marketing), and there seems to be no effort to move many of them off of the public rolls!
nextSTL.com has given some attention to LRA and its refusals to sell in recent months:
http://nextstl.com/urban-living/why-the-lra-should-sell-this-lot-but-won-t
nextSTL.com has given some attention to LRA and its refusals to sell in recent months:
http://nextstl.com/urban-living/why-the-lra-should-sell-this-lot-but-won-t
LRA properties are in a lot of neighborhoods. Does your lack of hope extend to those as well? Many LRA properties have been redeveloped. Many have been demolished. LRA is not a developer or planner, they receive abandoned properties and do what they can to maintain/secure them on an extremely limited budget. Focusing the city’s revitalization efforts on LRA is missing the mark. LRA has a role and is a partner. They can’t fix the city’s problems on their own any more than any one alderman can. LRA is an easy target and a symptom of complex underlying challenges.
LRA properties are in a lot of neighborhoods. Does your lack of hope extend to those as well? Many LRA properties have been redeveloped. Many have been demolished. LRA is not a developer or planner, they receive abandoned properties and do what they can to maintain/secure them on an extremely limited budget. Focusing the city’s revitalization efforts on LRA is missing the mark. LRA has a role and is a partner. They can’t fix the city’s problems on their own any more than any one alderman can. LRA is an easy target and a symptom of complex underlying challenges.
I agree, the LRA is both “an easy target and a symptom of complex underlying challenges”, but I’m also unclear about their mission. Literally, the Land Redvelopment Agency should be working to move properties out of public custodianship into higher, presumably private, uses. If all they’re doing is accumulating properties and demolising existing structures, there’s probably something fundamentally wrong with the concept and/or its execution!
Following the Beacon link it referenced a study by the Show-me Institute. The study explains that LRA rejects around 70 to 80% of the offers for property. The data goes back to 2003. Apparently LRA is holding the property for some future imaginary developer rather than allowing individuals to rehab or utilize the property.
LRA rejects property bids for lack of financial strength, but as the study points out LRA is inconsistent about applying this standard and does not go into detail about rejections.
It would be better to allow individuals to buy the property, as JZ suggests for a $1 and then give them a certain amount of time to accomplish work. Certainly sweat equity, a major item for many small time entrepreneurs can not be included easily in financial calculations, on the other demonstrated progress can be measured.
In any case apparently many properties are considered off limits on a permanent basis while being held for “future development” This ignores completely how cities are built. The Paul McKee types are not lining up to rebuild large swaths of St. Louis. It is also evident of the enormous amounts of public money needed to prop up McKee and those like him, with still unknown results.
This is a policy decision on the part of LRA not to allow properties into individual hands, as such it is still another policy failure in the long list of policy failures that have led to the gutting of St. Louis City. The policy should be changed immediately. The Show-Me report details the numerous rejected offers made for LRA properties. It is absurd that LRA holds on to these properties, especially given the financial shortfalls of the city government leading to tax increases (garbage collection).
Maybe the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen are waiting for the Wizard of Oz to show up and solve all of their problems.
Following the Beacon link it referenced a study by the Show-me Institute. The study explains that LRA rejects around 70 to 80% of the offers for property. The data goes back to 2003. Apparently LRA is holding the property for some future imaginary developer rather than allowing individuals to rehab or utilize the property.
LRA rejects property bids for lack of financial strength, but as the study points out LRA is inconsistent about applying this standard and does not go into detail about rejections.
It would be better to allow individuals to buy the property, as JZ suggests for a $1 and then give them a certain amount of time to accomplish work. Certainly sweat equity, a major item for many small time entrepreneurs can not be included easily in financial calculations, on the other demonstrated progress can be measured.
In any case apparently many properties are considered off limits on a permanent basis while being held for “future development” This ignores completely how cities are built. The Paul McKee types are not lining up to rebuild large swaths of St. Louis. It is also evident of the enormous amounts of public money needed to prop up McKee and those like him, with still unknown results.
This is a policy decision on the part of LRA not to allow properties into individual hands, as such it is still another policy failure in the long list of policy failures that have led to the gutting of St. Louis City. The policy should be changed immediately. The Show-Me report details the numerous rejected offers made for LRA properties. It is absurd that LRA holds on to these properties, especially given the financial shortfalls of the city government leading to tax increases (garbage collection).
Maybe the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen are waiting for the Wizard of Oz to show up and solve all of their problems.
I agree, the LRA is both “an easy target and a symptom of complex underlying challenges”, but I’m also unclear about their mission. Literally, the Land Redvelopment Agency should be working to move properties out of public custodianship into higher, presumably private, uses. If all they’re doing is accumulating properties and demolising existing structures, there’s probably something fundamentally wrong with the concept and/or its execution!
Offering high quality imitation handbags; wallets, 99% similar with the originals, including new Gucci handbag, prada handbag, coach handbag, chanel handbag, burberry handbag, MIU MIU handbag, marc Jacobs handbags,Hermes handbag,Giorgio Armani handbag. Take coupons to get prices off now.
Offering high quality imitation handbags; wallets, 99% similar with the originals, including new Gucci handbag, prada handbag, coach handbag, chanel handbag, burberry handbag, MIU MIU handbag, marc Jacobs handbags,Hermes handbag,Giorgio Armani handbag. Take coupons to get prices off now.
We offer best in-on ear headphones including monster beats by dre,monster headphones,lady gaga heartbeats headphones,beats studio,solo HD,beats tours, diddybeats,up to 70% OFF.Sound really matters.
We offer original running shoes 30% – 70% OFF price retail 7*24hours.Shop the latest styles of the best running shoes,nike brs,nike dunk,nike air max,adidas original,converse all stars,puma ferrari,puma BMW,adidas super star,adidas star wars,and many other kinds of custom Sneakers.
[url=http://www.bagsstyle.net]Diaper Bag[/url]
Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton
Diaper Bag
Diaper Bag
ZDYJRAGWMSAI like it very much!