Post in Shhh!... Legislature's $371 Subsidy Undermines Central Cities

May 05 22:10 UTC

What are public subsidies of building projects suppose to achieve? I was led to
believe, for example, that TIF funds were meant to create a level playing field
for developers. It is clearly more expensive to construct on an urban infill
site, than it is to build on raw land. If anyone doubts this, walk/drive down
to the Farmer's Market in Lowertown and take a look - it is very scary. If we
are going to curb the terrible sprawl in this metro area and protect and
rebuild our inner cities, the subsidies must be appropriately targeted.

TIF for the West/jail site? As long as it is done out in the open, you bet.
However, the property to be developed at the MOA site is about as close to raw
land as I can be found within the Cities and their first rung suburbs. Can
anyone explain to me why it will cost more to build the MOA addition on that
land, than it would on raw land in Chanhassen, or Woodbury? This seems more
like tribute than a subsidy.

I will be the first to admit, that the scope of my interests are very narrow. I
am concerned about Downtown Saint Paul and how I can live there comfortably.
Now I have seen a lot of discussion about malls in Roseville and Eden Prairie,
etc., that are surviving and/or thriving, or not, due to the MOA. However, if
you want to consider a real retail miracle, go where I do most of my shopping
now - take a drive down Robert Street in West Saint Paul. Since the MOA opened,
West Saint Paul has added several big box stores, in particular, a Lowes, Wall
Mart and Home Depot. Need a car? Head on out! Two new dealers have opened since
the first of the year. The Robert Street Menards and Target have been super
sized, etc., etc.. With the big boxes have come a number of smaller specialty
stores. I have not read anything about these developments being subsidized, but
I must admit that I have not researched the issue. In any event, in decending
order this is where I spend my money shopping, West Saint Paul, MOA, other
Saint Paul, Downtown Saint Paul.

Anyway, paying tribute to the MOA developers is just wrong. However, laying
blame on the MOA for the fact that Downtown is now a retail waste land is just
as foolish, e.g., how did the MOA retail cause a 20% vacancy rate in office
space Downtown? Between the MOA and a 20% vacancy rate, which do you think has
the greater effect on Downtown's retail?