Don't Baste Your Pipe Dreams, Maul Em!
posted by PTT at 8:49 AM
Friday, November 17
13 Comments:
-
Nazrudin said...
-
Gravy Mauler, the ideas that Friends of Wild Acres tossed out came from brainstorming. There must be countless more ways to develop the land. How much revenue does a park generate?
Gravy those volunteers should be commended for trying to create something that inspires awe and respect.
Whether the seminary purchase was made to have a park is disputable. Chances are some ward 4 residents believed that Joyce Meyers was going to turn it into a magnet for welfare moms - i.e., unwed mothers. NIMBY. By taking it off the market, gaining control of it, ward 4 leveraged the resources of the three other wards.
Assess the buildings, tear down what's not salvageable? Gravy Mauler - what's that going to cost?
FOWA certainly has a longer list than what the NCH speaker detailed.
Gravy, Overland's default motto seems to be "Apathy, Indecision, Inactivity, with Stagnation and Complacency for all. Amen."
Maybe we should all get drunk together - up at 2500 Ashby - and think up some really outstanding uses for the park.
How about a cemetary, with special events at Halloween? -
PTT said...
-
Forty-Six & 2 said...
Nice work Matlock. Were you using induction or deduction? Town & Country Mauler is not Gravy Crane Durham. If I had written the post I would have taken credit for it myself. Come on Naz. But you always have it out for the Gravy man so I understand.
Personally could care less why the property was purchased or the original intent of the elected leaders who made the purchase.
"Ward 4 leveraged the resources of the three other wards." I am not sure what that means. To leverage means to borrow against existing assets, cash-flows or resources. I don't believe residents of Ward 4 borrowed monies from Wards 1,2,3 using their property as collateral in order to purchase Wild Acres.
I believe the City of Overland purchased the property from seminarians with any leverage being supplied by a bank or lending institution. How Ward 4 borrowed monies to purchase the park is outside of my experience.
If demo costs or lower than rehab + maintenance costs tearing down buildings will increase property value.
I don't know where the apathy you mention comes from. I am not apathetic in the least. In fact I am full of zeal in arguing for demolition of buildings.
I would be happy to brainstorm uses at the park but you will have to leave the drugs at home, don't do em.
How about a park?
I put the Mauler's post up because I liked it and it expresses an actual point worth considering.
3:15 PM
Posted to Don't Baste Your Pipe Dreams, Maul Em!
Delete Comment Cancel -
suzyjax said...
-
Sorry to step on your post.
I have hesitation about something like a hotel. However, I would like to see the building used for SOMETHING and hopefully something that can generate income such as conference/meeting center, wedding chapel, reception hall, etc.
At the minimum, they should be restored and could charge for tours. -
onelayer said...
-
A hotel or bed-n-breakfast would be quite demanding.
I would think they should go explore what is out there now in Kirkwood, Florissant Old Town or St. Charles. Get an idea of what works and what doesn't.
I do give them credit for trying but I am partial to old buildings, I would hate to see it tore down.
Why not make a Tea Room for lunch only, renting out the upstair rooms. Renting out the chapel for weddings, private parties, etc.
I really don't care what they do as long as it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. -
onelayer said...
-
From what I've heard about Purzner and Sweaty they should rename Overland the best Bedroom Community. I'd hate to see them on a regular basis if they turned it into a hotel.
-
Town & Country Mauler said...
-
Naz,
I ain't Gravy but want to thank Gravy for pushing my post to the top. I was just thinking that I hadn't heard from Gravy in a bit.
Now my rejoinder. Their presentation may have come off as half-baked because it is only half-baked but since when is a citizens comment period a place for brainstorming? Effective people and organizations may engage in free thinking and listening in a group to flush out all options but not in a public comment period where the others cannot talk back. In order to brainstorm, their needs to be more than one brain. Get with your peeps. Form an idea. Unveil it to the public. Its like building a model or arts and craft project, well I guess it isn't.
If Overland didn't want a park then why did they turn a large portion of it into a park. Last time I saw it maintained, it was by the Overland Parks Department..... they maintain parks.
By the way, it wasn't just the residents that believed that it was going to be turned into a group home. If you were watching the meetings back in the day (and not just post-Purzner) you would know that there was actually several presentations from a ministry in Tennessee affiliated with Joyce Meyers to do just that.
As for tearing the buildings down, what do they offer standing. Hey if you're a house hugger, so be it but I agree with Gravy. If demo costs less than repair and renovation, it needs to be on the table.
I hope to God that FOWA does not have a longer list than what the speaker detailed. That list went on forever including the gift shop where you can produce items produced by local artisans. Huh? Answering the groundswell of demand for local art?
As for your characterization of Overland's motto, you may be correct. If you think standing in front of a crowd after a meeting that had already ended and going on and on and on with this plan that will NEVER turn a profit or attract a SINGLE developer moves us to the next level, go for it.
As for me, I'm with Gravy. I could care less why it was purchased. It was purchased. It's a nice piece of property but that is all it is. If it was the dynamic investment opportunity that the hobby shop thinks it is, don't you think there would have been a developer who would have purchased it before it was "fire-sold" to Joyce Meyer? Or, at least one hell of a hobby shop.
The City has a very tough but basic decision. Keep it, which means use it for City uses such as a park, wedding facility, banquet room, square dance hall, etc and generate no taxes. OR shop it to a developers who weren't lining up before and aren't lining up now. It was a line of one, our favorite TV babe Joyce.
Don't get me started. -
John Moyle said...
-
It is my understanding that the gentleman behind this plan have significant financing lined up already. The reason they brought this to the Council Meeting is because they are seeking input from the Community. That makes sense if you think about it. Given the opportunity, who would not want to get a feel for public opinion before putting time and money into a project? It surprises me that so many businesses (including the various others interested in this property) do not do the same.
Personally, I think they are crazy entering into a deal where the City still owns the property. I understand the sentiment, but the winds of change blow through government all the time and I would not want millions riding on that personally. I would think it would make more sense to buy it under an arrangement where the City had the first option to buy it back should they decide to sell it.
As for the uses of the facility many seem to have missed the bulk of the plan. The hotel part is only a portion of it. The main goal is to be a complete location for weddings and other events. Where else can you plan to hold an outdoor event, but be able to instantly move it inside if the weather turns bad?
This facility has the possibility of holding a wedding outdoors and instantly moving indoors if the weather turns bad. The reception can be held at the same site (indoor or out), the out of town guests can stay at the same site, and the outdoor, natural background kind of photos people want all the time can be done at the same site as well. There is no facility like it in the area. Other then that, this facility would make a small, NICE hotel available to people in the area, as well as a restaurant, and several halls for various sized events.
The best part of it is that not only will not cost the City anything, but the City stands to profit on the lease (which would have to be more then the loan payments) the Sales tax revenues, and even a hotel tax if we should choose to enact one.
The bottom line to me is that this plan rehabs the buildings, puts them to use, eliminates the costs of the properties to the City, and generates revenues for Overland as well. I think we should give it a bit more consideration. When was the last time a business interest asked the residents of the area what they wanted in regard to their business plans? They deserve a bit more consideration in my opinion, based on the consideration they are giving us alone. -
Nazrudin said...
-
The area with the lake was purchased with the intention of remaining a park, I suppose. However, plans and motivations behind the purchase of 2500 Ashby to me remain uncertain.
Overland has only a leasing tenancy at 2500 Ashby so tearing down buildings isn't the first idea that comes to mind - for now. Perhaps five years from now, 2500 Ashby will be owned clear and debt-free by Overland.
T&C Mauler, and Gravy CD, I said that the "ideas that Friends of Wild Acres tossed out came from brainstorming."
I had no intention of implying that any brainstorming was associated with resident's comments. The FOWA have had meetings in which lots of people tossed out ideas.
At residents comments, there should always be a chance for residents to toss out ideas, be the ideas par-baked, clever, useless or genius.
'Matlock' is written by brains far more talented than Naz's. Guessing saves time.
Abusing language saves time too! The scheming to lease 2500 Ashby was done outside of my view.
"Leverage" in the financial sense is described better in Gravy CD's 3:15pm comments.
"Arm-twisting" was too harsh a term, but I believe Ward 4 got a heck of an investment from the City.
Ward 4 did not borrow money.
Has the council agreed to sink such funds into ONE ward of Overland, ever before?
Gravy CD - sure not ALL residents of Overland stand for "apathy, inactivity, indecision, with Stagnation and Complacency for all. Amen." Still when we look at Overland's history I don't see government fueled with ideals beyond adherence to doing things the old ways.
Gravy CD ... whatcha mean that I "have it out for the Gravy man"?
I'm not the best at idioms. -
PTT said...
-
Any church with a courtyard has the capability for indoor/outdoor wedding. The Botanical Garden also host such events every weekend. The Midwood can use the roof for indoor/outdoor capability.
What does "significant financing" mean?
The One Stop Wedding Shop would need to charge $50,000 a weekend to generate enough revenue to make a modest plan work.
Anyone ever been to a wedding in which the wedding party and other guests all stayed at same location? I've been to one but can't quite remember how the place got so trashed when I woke up.
Brainstorming ideas is great but without any financials we might as well be talking about building a dome stadium. I have never known successful businesses to be designed through public comment. Successful business tend to be founded on the opinions of customers, clients, users of the service.
You want ideas? Here is a big idea. Sell Mort Jacobs Park to residential housing developer through competitive bidding process. Use proceeds from sale to develop and maintain Wild Acres. -
Town & Country Mauler said...
-
Mr. Sailor, I enjoy your site. I enjoy your objectivity and I appreciate your personal goal to keep things balanced. With all due respect, let this one go.
It is, at best, hare-brained. Businesses are run for profit. Governments are run to provide services. Businesses are not democracies. Developers who decide to "get a feel for public opinion" by presenting the Hotel Hubris to a group of people with nothing better to do than to hang around a meeting after it is over are, well, let's just say they are not going to be in the development business long. That is not to say that developers should not engage in market research, focus groups, etc. to gauge the likelihood of success..... this is not getting a feel for public opinion. Once they have developed their plan, they need to then convince the City (and the public) that it will work. They are not asking the City (or the public) whether it will work. Cities are in the government business not the profit business and, hence, we have come full circle.
If you believe that significant financing is lined up for this...... let's see how did Mr. Herman put it to Mr. Owensby....
No developer and no lender will involve themselves in a plan wherein the City retains a right to purchase the property. If they do, the right will be for fair market value or a right of first refusal. The City can't afford the property now. How do you suppose the City will be able to afford it once improved? If they can't afford the right, then the right is meaningless.
As for missing the bulk of the plan, I think others are missing even a lick of business acumen. A hotel will take more capital than any banquet facility. A hotel needs a lobby, a computer system, in-room video systems, amenities, workout room, etc etc., not to even mention staffing. A banquet facility requires a big room and a plug for the DJ. If the dream for this once-in-a-lifetime real estate opportunity is as a banquet hall, maybe the City should also buy Lion's Hall for a warm-up. You know, dip your toe in.
Where else can you plan to hold an outdoor event but be instantly able to move it inside you ask...... Shaw's Garden, any private or public golf course, any City Community Center in a park. Get out the phone book.
Out of town guests staying on site? See my post that started this. Do you know why there are no small nice hotels? Because hotel guests demand certain services and amenities: phones, internet access, movies, workout faculties, restaurant, lounge. It's a simple numbers game. Your sunk costs will require you to charge a room rate that makes no sense. Small NICE hotels can only exist in exotic or amenity laden locations. Even the smaller hotels in Clayton (Danielle and Seven Gables) struggle for this very reason. I do agree with you on one thing, "There is no facility like it in the area".
Hotel tax? 15 rooms X 365 days a year equals 5475 room nights. I guess we could tax them $20 per night and if they sold out every room, every night, we could raise a whopping $100,000.
I am sure they are well intentioned but we need to get past this idea quickly and let the developers talk about development. The City should be patient. They bought it. They own it. I would wait for the market to shake out and the vision to emerge. -
Unknown said...
-
Agreed. This City cannot manage the promotions of 4 police officers, how the hell are they going to run/lease an entertainment facility. Look at the location and its proximity to the Page Avenue Extension, Ashby leads to the Airport. Of course, I have the luxury of patience. I will try to remember to bounce it off Don Breckenridge next time I run in to him.
-
John Moyle said...
-
My problem with the response of some to this issue is the appearance of a lack of willingness to even consider the idea. Its been suggested that without a full business plan it cannot be taken seriously. Well in the absence of a full business plan how can it be so easily written off completely?
Those gentleman did not go to that Council meeting to address the issue to "a group of people with nothing better to do than to hang around a meeting after it is over", they went to that meeting to present the initial idea to the Mayor and the Council. They were also hoping to get some feedback on the idea from residents. They certainly got that here.
It was the Mayor and several of the Council who chose to leave without hearing the concerns of the Residents, including this initial idea. Those people who remained after the meeting was adjourned did so because they wanted to hear the Residents comments portion of the meeting that was scheduled to happen after it adjourned. The Meeting may have been "over" but the agenda had that one item remaining.
As I have stated before, I would not personally want to invest in a project where any government body maintained ownership of the buildings and land. I do not trust any government that far and I don't think this is necessary for the proposal at all. However, I am not willing to completely write off what these gentleman are considering, nor am I am willing to belittle them for considering it. I obviously will reserve judgement until the proposal is presented in it's entirety. What I do not understand is why people are so willing to write this off so quickly? It costs us nothing to consider this idea so what is the issue?
One last note: "Significant Financing", as it was explained to me in this case, means financing that will completely cover the project, the rehabilitation of the buildings and maintain the operation through the startup phase.
What is the worse case scenario if this plan has the financing they suggested they have? The property gets fully rehabilitated and ready for occupancy by another interest which would drastically increase the property value. What do we have to loose here?
I am not asking people to sign up for this project at this point, I am only asking that they not write it off. -
John Moyle said...
-
The Bowling alley analogy is a bit off the mark.
If the building is rehabbed into a hotel / reception hall / restaurant it can easily be changed into office space, or even apartments.
A bowling alley on the other hand is a building that is built for a limited purpose and would be difficult to change for a different use (other than a storage facility perhaps) without tearing it down.
I agree that the City needs to see the entire financial picture, a business plan, etc before something like this can be decided on one way or the other. My issue is that all too many people are willing to completely write it off immediately.
Show me a better plan that has been offered for the property. There are none that I am aware of, just other ideas out there. So, when we are limited to the various ideas being floated why shouldn't we consider them all when we are seeking ways to make the property work for Overland?
Previous Posts
- If by "socks on the floor" you mean total disregar...
- How Rude!
- Postcards (and news interviews) from the Edge
- remember remember the 5th of November
- What's in a name? Sh*t by any other name would sti...
- Tax Abatement vs. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
- Put it on the Ballot
- The Mayor's Next Tactic to Fill the Ward 3 Seat?
- Yes, but does he know Tom Cruise?
- Perhaps the Mayor is in Good Company
I watched the show last night. The meeting itself was drollery and I must admit that even I am wearing thin on the residents' comments.
Did you get a load of the idea for the seminary buildings? A boutique hotel. This might be the most grandiose, half baked plan I have ever heard. Pure comedy.
Let me get this right. The City will continue to own the "hotel" buildings but will lease them to a hotel operator. The hotel will have 15 rooms....... anyone even considering what kind of rate you would have to charge to return a profit on 15 rooms and that's with no service.
Of course, the area is what would drive occupancy. I can see the sales collateral now. "Come to our 15 room boutique hotel nestled on a 4 lane major arterial county road. Magnificant vistas of the aprtments across the street. Just blocks from the Page Avenue restaurant district where you can stroll between Steak n Shake, Taco Bell and Valvoline. Or, saunter into the hill counrty of West Overland for a relaxing drink. Sit and chat with the locals at Suewallers or test your bilingual abilities with a stop at the liqor store. If high tech is your fancy, well we have that too. Gaze at the 100' tall Lambart Field geodesic radar installation just next door as its emmissions jam all cellular communications."
Quick tip to the "partners" running the hobby shop...... stick to running the hobby shop, maybe stand a little farther from the model glue.
Here is my proposal for Wild Acres. Keep it as a park. Assess the buildings and determine whether any of them have vlaue as public buildings (or can be repaired to become public buildings) tear the rest down. More open space, plant more trees, have a bigger park. Dare to dream.
This notion that the property is somehow part of our heritage is nonsense. It was a seminary and we weren't even allowed on the property except to to sneak into the woods with a chance of scaring some unsuspecting molester-in-training hiking through the forest. Overland bought it to preserve it as a park and keep it form developing. Whether this is good or bad is matter of personal opinion but is not a matter of right or wrong. What is wrong with owning it for the purpose for which it was purchased? A park.
Conlan, please help us.