No Vote On Olive/170 Project Monday, Second Development In Talks

UNIVERSITY CITY, MO — The University City Council will not vote on bills authorizing a proposed taxpayer-funded development at Olive Boulevard and Interstate 170 Monday night as the city continues to negotiate the final specifics of its deal with Novus Development.

A proposed redevelopment agreement was made public on Jan. 11. But Allison Bamberger, the city's new communications director, told Patch the developer had requested some changes to that agreement earlier this week.

(For more stories like this, subscribe to Patch for daily newsletters and breaking news alerts. You can also download the free Patch app for iPhone and Android.)

"I cannot discuss the proposed changes, however I can tell you that we are taking the request under consideration and evaluating how each proposed change would impact the agreement and our community," she said in an email.

In a follow-up call, Bamberger didn't say when the proposed changes might be made public, but said both sides were working in good faith as of Friday afternoon. She expected negotiations to continue on Monday and said a vote would be scheduled as soon as possible after the last details were worked out.

Shifting Promises

But some residents say they were surprised to learn earlier this month that several changes were already present in the agreement that hadn't previously been discussed during any of the marathon public hearings or community meetings held last year.

For example, the agreement now includes a 50 percent tax abatement that was not accounted for in any of the budgets proposed during the TIF process. Apart from some residents' back-of-the-envelope calculations, it's not clear exactly how much money the city — and the school district — stand to lose from this proposal.

The city has also decided to contribute 100 percent of new sales taxes toward repaying TIF bonds, rather than the 50 percent required by law, further limiting new revenue for the decadeslong duration of the TIF.

U. City resident Ellen Bern called it a "bait and switch" in a widely-forwarded email to councilmembers.

"The overarching question is why is the city making significant changes to this deal that are NOT in the community's favor and have never been discussed in the many public meetings," she wrote. "The strong selling point of this project was the promise that it would bring lots of money to our city budget and generate greater taxes than the longtime businesses that are now located on the site. Actually, numerous changes will bring less money to the city and school district coffers."

The city also appears to be shifting its promises for how fast $15 million will be reinvested into the residential third ward and Olive business district. Officials initially said the money would be available almost immediately. In reality, it could take almost a decade.

"What I can tell you is that no later than the selling of bonds, there will be at a minimum $10 million available for reinvestment in the third ward, and an additional $5 million that will be available for reinvestment in the Olive Boulevard corridor,"city manager Gregory Rose said at a public hearing last June.

But, according to the redevelopment agreement, $7.5 million of that money may not be available for up to two years after bonds are issued, while another $7.5 million will come from sales taxes and incremental revenues over eight years.

Likewise, a promise not to use eminent domain — the government's power to seize private property — on owner-occupied homes has been significantly watered down with the addition of the phrase, "except as determined by the City Council in its sole and absolute discretion."

According to the city, about half a dozen residents have yet to commit to sell their homes.

A Second Olive Development?

The redevelopment agreement promises displaced businesses up to $10,000 in relocation assistance, plus moving costs, but Patch has learned that one official is also considering a second development father east on Olive Boulevard that may include space for a handful of Asian restaurants and other businesses.

Angela He — a member of Asian and Pacific Islanders Demanding Justice, a Washington University student group — tells Patch that Councilmember Bwayne Smotherson approached her earlier this month to schedule a meeting about the plan.

He told Patch that she hoped to include some of the Olive business owners in the meeting, but ultimately ended up meeting with Smotherson on the second floor of City Hall alone.

According to He, Smotherson proposed selecting business owners themselves as their own developers rather than choosing another company like Novus.

"Obviously, it's a little problematic that he came to us since we don't represent the people on Olive and the third ward at all," she said in an email about the meeting.

Nonetheless, He praised the idea, calling it a well-meaning gesture, and said Smotherson sounded genuine, despite not offering many details.

"It clearly sounded like this was the first time he was talking to someone about this plan," she said.

He provided a map, drawn after the meeting, that roughly sketches some of the ideas Smotherson proposed to her. They include developing some parking lots near Seafood City and Mandarin House, as well as moving some Asian businesses into Westover Center — currently home to All Nations Church and Elmo's Love Lounge, in addition to a handful of discount wireless stores, payday lenders, a Subway and a Dollar General. It's not clear how serious the plan is at this point, but it nonetheless provides some insight into the city's thinking about the third ward.

"Growing Pains"

But even if a second development is under consideration, it probably wouldn't come fast enough to keep many of the displaced businesses in U. City. Some have already left, while others say they simply can't wait for a new space to be built or renovated.

While supporters say the development is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to reverse the third ward's economic decline, others are concerned about gentrification if rising rents and property taxes push out current residents and businesses.

"There is a concern that things will change in the community that do not reflect the values or needs of third ward residents," said Sonya Pointer, one resident of the ward who has spoken publicly many times since the development was first proposed. "The type of businesses that may be put in place may not meet our interests as residents. For instance, how many residents would frequent a Costco or can afford its membership? Additionally, what will happen to the businesses along Olive that lead up to the proposed Costco...? There is a laundromat on Olive that may not look too appealing to some, however, it is used by many low [and] moderate income people who do not have washers and dryers. So, a shift in the kinds of businesses that are put in the third ward will also have the power to change the demographics."

Smotherson acknowledged the Olive/170 development will entail growing pains — "and I mean pain," he said — including the possible use of eminent domain, at a council meeting earlier this month. Nevertheless, he implored citizens to try to understand.

"There are things that we're learning, and we're actively learning those things every day," Smotherson said. "So please forgive us, or don't forgive us. ... All I'm asking is that you understand and talk to us, because we're learning this, and we're all doing this together."

Mayor Terry Crow, however, was less conciliatory. He said two weeks ago that if the development was put to the public for a vote, he'd be confident of the outcome. (The city has said previously it will not support such a vote.)

"I think I know clearly what would happen, and I think it was evidenced at all of our hearings," Crow said. "...Everybody got a chance to speak and to be listened to, but it doesn't mean that we agree."

Re-watch the hearings for yourself and see if the evidence supports Crow's statement:

• TIF Public Hearing Gets Heated In University City
• Olive/170 Project Raises Hopes And Fears In University City
• U. City Will Meet With Stakeholders Ahead Of Next Public Hearing
• CBA Demands Intensify At Contentious Olive Development Meeting
• TIF Vote Was Just First Step For Contentious U. City Development

Photo: University City resident Sonya Pointer challenges City Manager Gregory Rose at a community meeting held in August 2018. (J. Ryne Danielson/Patch)