Historical signed opinion letter by Roy D. Bell. Characterizations of SDCC and Pantheon, economic forecasts and the printed literary allusion are the writer’s views, not independent findings or editorial endorsement.
On Sept. 28 the Skinker-DeBaliviere Community Council held a joint meeting of its Board of Directors and the Redevelopment Advisory Committee to review the phasing of Pantheon Corporation’s redevelopment of the Pershing-Waterman area and to consider an application to the Neighborhood Assistance Program.
This program provides tax credits to businesses that buy revenue bonds issued by the Missouri Housing Development Commission, the proceeds of which would be used ‘to reduce the interest rate for redevelopment projects in the City of St. Louis.
In order for Pantheon to be eligible for these funds it needed the sponsorship of a not-for-profit organization and was asking the SDCC to sponsor the application.
The presentation by John Roach went very well.
The proposed project will include 219 rehabilitated rental units, 20% of which would be Section 8 subsidized.
The total cost would be $10.7 million which, in this economic climate, almost seems audacious.
It was pointed out that with conventional financing the project would not be undertaken and, if it were, rents for a one-bedroom apartment would start at $600 a month.
There was very little, if any, criticism of the proposal.
When we were asked to endorse the proposal, several people objected that they were unaware that the council was being asked to vote that night.
The endorsement was moved, seconded, and passed 7-3 with two abstentions.
At the Oct. 12 meeting the SDCC rescinded its endorsement. What happened in-between times? Did the Council suddenly decide that it did not want $10.7 million worth of housing dumped in its backyard? Did it decide that more people would just attract a grocery store and other nuisances? No.
It was pointed out that this was going to benefit Pantheon and that we should extract something (I resist any allusions to Shylock) before we endorsed their proposal. That we were receiving no “direct benefits” from Pantheon was the leit motif of the opposition to the proposal. I am no housing economist, but it seems to me that having property values double or triple as a result of nearby redevelopment is a direct benefit; that having once vacant buildings rehabilitated and occupied is a direct benefit.
After prolonged discussion and screaming, the Council voted to rescind the application and negotiate with Pantheon to provide low-interest loans to the people adjacent to the redevelopment area. (You read that right—the amendment does not specify low interest loans for low-income people. How adjacent is adjacent?) To my way of thinking that stops just short of blackmail and I hope Pantheon tells the Council to go soak its collectivist head. I am sure there are a number of clearthinking, not-for-profit organizations that will endorse their application.
The most important point in all of this, however, is that the Council has allowed itself to be intimidated by a rudely vocal minority.
The truth is that the revitalization of this community did not come about because of the anonymous leafleters; nor is it the result of the magical thinkers who believe that anyone who can read the MHDC regulations can be a successful developer; nor is it the result of those whose favorite pasttime is confrontational politics. Confrontational politics is a lot like recreational sex, nothing is ever born of it but it feels awfully good at the time.
The revitalization of the community came about as a result of the Council, the groups that form the Council, Pantheon, and mostly, individuals who took a risk and in some instances (God Forbid!) even made a profit. Unless the Council can reassert itself as an effective voice for the promotion of this community, then I think it is time to consider a new coalition, perhaps even a new organization. Sincerely, Roy D. Bell
Originally published in The Paper, November 1981.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1981_11.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
