The LRA’s 10 Smallest Properties For Sale.

Last week I posted about the city’s Land Reutilization Authority, see Land Reutilization Authority Selling Vacant Lot That Is Less Than An Inch Wide. Today I want to highlight this property and nine others to make the 10 smallest properties for sale — out of 151 under 1,000 square feet.

The first nine are listed as vacant lots, the 10th is a house. The following links to the property page, followed by the lot size, date acquired, and value.

1. 2752 Wyoming St: 11 sq ft 08/30/1973 $21
2. 5137 Wabada Ave: 16 sq ft 02/26/1975 $16
3. 825 Canaan Ave: 17 sq ft 03/14/1975 $27
4. 4419 McPherson Ave: 35 sq ft 02/26/1975 $158
5. 3327 McPherson Ave: 35 sq ft 02/26/1975 $158
6. 4544 Manchester Ave; 35 sq ft no date listed $35
7. 4957 Lansdowne Ave; 37 sq ft 03/14/1975 $141
8. 5030 Claxton Ave: 40 sq ft 03/14/1975 $40
9. 3029 Lemp Ave: 41 sq ft 03/12/1974 $160
10. 4555 Lexington Ave: 50 sq ft 09/26/2013 $1,000

As the image caption indicates, the listing for 4555 Lexington is wrong — the lot isn’t 50 sq ft, but 5,275.68! The others appear accurate, but the question still exists — why does the city own an inch wide strip of land for several properties?Are these just recording errors? How have these been allowed to exist on the books for decades?

The LRA search lists 9,481 properties, including the 10 above. I’m going to keep looking int0 the listings and their marketing of these properties.

— Steve Patterson

Land Reutilization Authority Selling Vacant Lot That Is Less Than An Inch Wide

The city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) was a critical tool in the era of massive land clearance for urban renewal projects, like Pruitt-Igoe. This tool, largely unchanged, has been in continuous use since thr failure of urban renewal decades ago. It needs to be rethought or ditched entirely. They don’t even know what they have, or how to market it.

Their property search lists thousands of properties for sale. It takes a lot of staff to handle that much property, but not all property is equal. Take 2752 Wyoming.

I thought perhaps they also have an adjacent lot…but no. It says the value is $21 — for a long time I’ve wanted to get the paperwork together along with a cashier’s check and make a form,sl offer to buy one of these “vacant lots.”  There are other examples of lots like this.

It’s no wonder they can’t market properties. I do think they can when it means drawing a red line around any acres and telling someone they can raze everything inside the line. Otherwise, they seem clueless.

The recent non-scientific Sunday Poll:

Q: Agree or disagree: Land-banking city-owned properties in low-density neighborhoods is the best strategy for redevelopment.

• Strongly agree 2 [11.11%]
• Agree 3 [16.67%]
• Somewhat agree 3 [16.67%]
• Neither agree or disagree 1 [5.56%]
• Somewhat disagree 3 [16.67%]
• Disagree 1 [5.56%]
• Strongly disagree 3 [16.67%]
• Unsure/No Answer 2 [11.11%]

Land banking is a great tool — but it’s not the best way to prevent thousands of properties from sitting around for decades. It can also prevent slow incremental change. Geez, no wonder North St. Louis is so vacant and thr population has dropped more than a 100k since I moved here in 1990; We do the wrong thing for years and continue because “that’s how things are done.” Board Bill 187 doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should The LRA Bank Properties In Low-Density Neighborhoods?

Today’d poll relates to the LRA:

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.

A new board bill (#187) introduced Friday seeks to force the sale of excess properties:

BOARD BILL NO. 187 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN JOHN COLLINS-MUHAMMAD An ordinance requiring Land Reutilization Authority (the “LRA”) to sell LRA Land Bank properties which have been owned by the City of St. Louis for a period of more than ten (10) years and located within a Ward containing five-hundred (500) or more LRA Land Bank properties to purchasers for the sum of one dollar ($1.00), such sale to be conditioned upon the written approval of the Alderman of the Ward in which said property is located.

Would requiring the sale of these properties reduce the city’s ability to land a big project like the NGA?

This poll will close at 8pm — assuming the time change settings are correct.

— Steve Patterson

Great Potential, Little Hope

The above storefront building at 2909-2917 Marcus Ave is owned by the city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA).  The building is just west of the Shelley House I blogged about last Tuesday.  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.  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: 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.  That changed when I discovered the city owns the building.  Many have rightly complained about Paul McKee letting his properties deteriorate, but at least he has a plan.

The city has no plan for this area, other than let it continue to decline further.  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

Shaming Owners of Rundown Properties

St. Louis could learn something from Webster.  No, not the suburb Webster Groves, Webster Mass:

WEBSTER, Mass. – The health board in a Massachusetts town has approved a plan to shame owners of rundown buildings into fixing and securing their properties.The plan approved Monday by the Webster board allows the town to place 4-by-8-foot signs on the sides of dilapidated buildings with the owner’s names, address and telephone number. (Mass. town approves plan to shame property owners)

St. Louis could just print lots of signs with the same info — no, not Paul McKee:

The LRA “receives title to all tax delinquent properties not sold at the Sheriff’s sale. 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.” Maintains?

– Steve Patterson