Don't panic everyone. McKee is not a bad guy, and if there is a way to positively use development to bring people into the City, it could be a very good thing.

No one is panicking, stlguy. People who are and have invested in these areas are asking the right questions about what the short term and long term plans of these companies are. There are literally millions of dollars of investment occurring in these areas by a range of developers who have legitimate concerns and who want to lessen their risk by understanding what the motivation is here.

The short term issue is that some of the buildings bought by these companies are the dogs that have attracted vandalism, dumping, and other activities over the last couple years. There are basic maintenance, board-up and cleaning issues for both the buildings and the vacant lots that the city shouldn't be expected to perform.

Additionally, the process of purchasing property has to be up-front and beyond reproach. There have several examples where agents on behalf of these entities have been callous in their dealings with owners, including taking advantage of one owner who had to resort to a legal advisor when the error was pointed out. There actions probably have not been illegal, but they boarded on unethical behavior.

The long term issues is that, let's face it, Winghaven is not known as an infill project. Although the different entities more or less separate out by neighborhood, the locations of the properties being purchased is so disparate as to raise the hackles of the conspiracy theorists. While I don't think this is Winghaven II in North St. Louis, I understand how one could be nervous.

The lack of communication drowns out the voices like stlguy who might want to look for a win-win. Over the long term, whoever is doing the purchasing is doing a real disservice to investment in these neighborhoods by not being upfront. Since there seems to reasonable proof as to who is behind the various entities, it is time for that person to step forward and begin the process of dialogue.

Will Winter

No one is panicking, stlguy. People who are and have invested in these areas are asking the right questions about what the short term and long term plans of these companies are. There are literally millions of dollars of investment occurring in these areas by a range of developers who have legitimate concerns and who want to lessen their risk by understanding what the motivation is here.

The short term issue is that some of the buildings bought by these companies are the dogs that have attracted vandalism, dumping, and other activities over the last couple years. There are basic maintenance, board-up and cleaning issues for both the buildings and the vacant lots that the city shouldn't be expected to perform.

Additionally, the process of purchasing property has to be up-front and beyond reproach. There have several examples where agents on behalf of these entities have been callous in their dealings with owners, including taking advantage of one owner who had to resort to a legal advisor when the error was pointed out. There actions probably have not been illegal, but they boarded on unethical behavior.

The long term issues is that, let's face it, Winghaven is not known as an infill project. Although the different entities more or less separate out by neighborhood, the locations of the properties being purchased is so disparate as to raise the hackles of the conspiracy theorists. While I don't think this is Winghaven II in North St. Louis, I understand how one could be nervous.

The lack of communication drowns out the voices like stlguy who might want to look for a win-win. Over the long term, whoever is doing the purchasing is doing a real disservice to investment in these neighborhoods by not being upfront. Since there seems to reasonable proof as to who is behind the various entities, it is time for that person to step forward and begin the process of dialogue.

Will Winter

Is there a fear that the vacant lots will remain vacant under the new owners and this will be worse than when they were vacant lots under previous owners? Is there something historical about these vacant lots begging for an archeological dig? Is there some reason to believe that the vacant lots will be replaced with bordellos, drug houses? Did the previous owners of these vacant lots not receive a fair price? Do nearby owner occupieds have reason to believe their homes will be taken away by eminent domain? What is the concern here?

I'm with you Will. In these types of projects, education and communication are key..and when they are done right, Developers find that residents and others who are affected can be powerful advicates for a project. Developers need to learn not to be afraid of people and let them become vested in a project.

If you announce you are buying up vacant lots for development, the price tag on the development goes up, does it not?

Howard, the desire is that we raise the quality of city living by encouraging at least semi-rational development processes based on communication and dialogue. The desire is that we raise the bar in terms of ownership of vacant housing and lots that encourages maintenance and development rather than just neglect and speculation.

Will Winter

So because you are doing a project you aren't responsible for how you buy property, take care of property you own, or communicate with anyone else about the project?

That doesn't sound like a very credible developer to me, and it doesn't sound like the sort of development that the city should encourage.

Communication isn't that hard--that's why you hire public relations firms and consultants.

Will Winter

What no one is saying is how this group of similarly registered LLC's also own the Clemens house on Cass (IOW, guilt by association). I think that's what some preservationist interests have as their beef against a group that otherwise may someday benefit the City.

Blairmont Associates LC owns several historic properties that they are allwoing to fall into the ground. These include the James Clemens, Jr. House at 1849 Cass Avenue, the Brecht Butcher Supply warehouses at 13th and Cass (across from Greyhound), and several houses and multifamily dwellings in Old North St. Louis and St. Louis Place. I live a half-block from a Blairmont-owned building at 1215 Wright Street, and the building has had its doors unboarded and wide-open frequently. Not only has Blairmont not performed basic maintenance and security tasks, they have ignored legitimate offers from rehabbers to purchase these buildings. Again, their ownership was not problematic in itself; few people could afford to rehab the Clemens House and most of us were excited that a new owner might restore it. If Blairmont had secured these buildings and met with neighbors to discuss restoration plans, there would be no suspicion or animosity.

As someone who has been involved in the torturous process provided to concerned residents desiring to hold their bad neighbors- absentee landlords and vacant lot owners- accountable for maintenance of their properties, the City has quite a ways to go in making it a process that is responsive to citizens. That is an altogether different issue than how someone buys property. Property maintenance is required by law. I do not believe there a law that says you have to tell someone your intentions for properties before you buy them. Intentions before purchase are different from what you get permitted to build or use the property. If you build houses on vacant lots that once had houses, I do not see that as controversial. If you buy up vacant lots and neither maintain the lots or build anything on them, then that is indeed a problem. Is that the nature of the concern, these vacant lots will be in worse shape than they are now?

OK, some advocate total preservation of buildings; you can read their websites. However, not everyone opposes development or demolition. I have supported the demolition of structures that are historic and supported new housing projects.

My issues have nothing to do with demolition perse. I support the appropriate public discussion of development plans. I think development plans of this potential scale need to be sophisticated enough to communicate with residents and stakeholders so that they can understand the costs and benefits of developments and the sorts of tools the development will use. I think that should be true of all neighborhoods in the city.

People have been talking about this process of purchasing property for at least two years, the past year more frequently. It appears to be the time for some basic discussion on the project to begin, in a form that assists both the potential developer and people who have legitimate interests in the area. Communication not only fosters trust and buy-in, but reduces overall uncertainty. There is a lot of good, in-fill development going on in this part of the city, by a bunch of different developers, including both for sale and rental, and I for one want it to continue.

Will Winter

Howard, you appear to have a different concept of how residents and stakeholders should be involved in public discussion of development projects than I do, so I will have to accept that. I believe that residents and stakeholders can play a constructive role in planning and predevelopment, because I have seen situations where their input has helped. I have also seen situations where prospective developers have mismanaged communication and built ill-will.

I also believe that a capable developer should work with neighborhood residents to maintain property in the predevelopment period. Maybe the problems with the dumping and open just haven't occurred to the owners of the property and it soon will. Solving the problems would seem to be an easy way to build good will with neighborhood residents.

Will Winter

While I lean more toward the "total preservation" stance Will identifies than most people, I have to say that my biggest problem with this cluster of companies has little to do with demolition at this stage. After all, I can't oppose something that has not been proposed.

The big problem is that there is no communication; there is nothing to support or oppose except the one thing that we know about Blairmont/VHS/N & G/Noble: their negligence of property maintenance. Almost everyone opposes that! That's not a good way for any project to get started -- not for the developer, who will engender greater opposition no matter how good his plans are, or neighbors, who have to live in uncertainty (and near wide-open vacant buildings and trash-strewn lots).

While I will oppose demolition of most Blairmont-owned buildings as strongly as I oppose the neglect, I don't necessarily want to oppose any new construction in my neighborhood. I would, however, prefer that large-scale projects reflect the desires of residents here and respect the development processes our neighborhood organization has initiated.

I agree that the best case scenario is for residents to be in on projects from the onset. But I think there is a difference between buying up residential vacant lots to build homes and or buying up residential vacant lots for commercial development. In the case of the latter, your intent is to do something different with the properties and you better have all your ducks in a row including support from your neighbors.

Playing devil's advocate here, I was raising the purchase price issue. If you come into a neighborhood and tell folks that you want to develop properties, then I think the price of those parcels goes up. I am not sure that works very well in encouraging someone to assemble parcels to build homes. You run the risk of others coming in, buying up what you need, jacking up the price. Or is that what someone is doing here? The new owners do not plan on developing it, just waiting for someone else to want it?

Other developers have suspected Blairmont et al of being that company that comes in to buy what they need to jack up the price. They certaint have thrown a wrench in a few owner-occupant rehab projects.

At the least, I suspect that their purchase of the Brecht Butcher Supply buildings -- located in the footprint for a ramp to the proposed new bridge -- was not a blind purchase.

What's the difference between a group of investors buying agriculturally-zoned farmland "in-the-path-of-development", and another group betting on the future revitalization of north St. Louis?

Saw some Wildwooders on TV the other week protesting something regarding zoning. The odd part, for me, was hearing someone with ten acres and Mr. Ed in the backyard refer to it as a farm. What constitutes a farm these days? I am totally ignorant of such things and would like to know.

"What's the difference between a group of investors buying agriculturally-zoned farmland 'in-the-path-of-development', and another group betting on the future revitalization of north St. Louis?"

Nothing, except north St. Louis already is the better investment.

Are you so sure it's McKee?

There is a positive connection to Pyramid's John Steffen, so maybe it's Pyramid.

LRA has no $$$ to do anything, McKee does.