Another historic building potentially lost

On Friday, the Star reported that it seemed likely that the Hotel Cosby at 9th and Baltimore would be likely be torn down -- potentially as quickly as this weekend.

According to the city, there are concerns over bricks falling off the building that may endanger pedestrians. Instead of looking at possible solutions to secure the building, the city is looking at paying $115,000 to tear it down.

The Hotel Cosby was built in 1881 and sits almost in the center of our city's downtown. It sits jus a block from the newly renovated public library, from hundreds of loft units and offices and within a short walk of the Power & Light entertainment district and the River Market.  In this case, the city has already provided Tax Increment Financing to SAVE the building.

And yet, somehow this building has set empty for the past 15 years and is now set to be torn down.

If you care about Kansas City keeping its historic buildings at all, then call your city council person and the mayor TODAY to be sure they know how you feel about the city's decision.

Then, let's ask ourselves (or, the city), how our incentive structure works to cause this to happen.

The story of this building is the same story that has plagued this city for far too long.

Owner owns building and leaves it to sit unoccupied for decades.

Building is near colapse. Is called blighted. The city provides TIF incentives for them to repair the blight that they helped create by allowing the building to sit empty for decades. 

And throughout the metro, dozens of building sit empty, abandoned by owners waiting for the city to give them tax breaks to clean up the mess they've created. The city's codes department does little to anything to mandate the building's upkeep. And it falls in disrepair.

And if it can happen in the heart of our revitalized downtown, think about how often it happens in less desireable areas along Troost, on the East side, and in the Northeast Neighborhoods.

It's a complete failure by the city, on all fronts to allow a builidng to just crumble before its eyes.

Here's an idea. Tax abandoned buildings differently than those that are occupied. All buildings in the city require a certain amount of public infastructure to support. But abandoned buildings don't generate the same type of tax revenue that inhabited ones do. Inhabited buildings have residents who buy taxable items and earn taxable salaries. Commercial spaces generate sales tax revenue, or have workers in them who buy lunches out, or generate income tax revenue.

Abandoned buildings cost the city money. So let's tax them that way. If a building is sitting empty, it should get taxed at a higher rate than one that is at full occupancy. This will encourage people to to fill up empty store fronts or apartments by lowering rents. It will help incent people to DO SOMETHING with their buildings vs incenting them to do nothing and allowing the building to fall in dis-repair.

It is my understanding that Iowa City, IA has such a policy (I can't find how the bylaw is written and thus can't verify this, but it's where I got the idea) and there are almost no empty store-fronts or apartments in Iowa City -- because people are not incentivized to just sit on empty, rotting buildings.

Here, we incent the wrong things. We don't enforce basic bylaws. And yet another piece of our city's history remains destined to be another surface parking lot in the middle of our downtown. Tragic.

More on the Hotel Cosby at BlogKC and Hyperglobal.

Comments

[smh]

The "good" news is that as of late yesterday nothing had happened yet. I feel like this is very wait and see--permit issued, but when will it start, how much time do we have to fight it. All very interesting/sad/infuriating.

[Hyperblogal]

Friday morning I emailed all the city council, the mayor, the city manager and the landmarks commission.... have heard back from NO ONE.... the city that works my fanny.... many thanks for this posting though....

[InsideBub]

The idea of charging vacant buildings a higher tax because of the increased public costs, or "Reverse taxation," is an intriguing one. The concept has been around for years. I'm not sure if this is allowable under Missouri law, but is certainly worth investigating.

[Max]

"Abandoned buildings cost the city money. So let's tax them that way. If a building is sitting empty, it should get taxed at a higher rate than one that is at full occupancy. This will encourage people to to fill up empty store fronts or apartments by lowering rents. It will help incent people to DO SOMETHING with their buildings vs incenting them to do nothing and allowing the building to fall in dis-repair."

HERE HERE! Our tax policy currently is ridiculously stupid. We tax to IMPROVE buildings while abandoned buildings sit as speculators hope to cash in. While I think this property owner is behaving like a petulant child, the policies we have in place give him every incentive to let the place rot so he can demolish it and turn it into a parking lot. If we want to end this practice, we need to change the way we tax property (this may require state-level changes in tax codes)

[Hyperblogal]

The demo is on hold "pending further review" by the city.

[Jon]

The idea makes sense. How quickly could the city enact a tax change like this?

My original thought was that this tax would instead lead to owners simply demolishing the abandon buildings for surface lots. But then I remembered the $100k+ price tag.

I also don't understand the motivation behind owners leaving buildings to rot. Can someone please tell me what they think will happen?

[Max]

" Can someone please tell me what they think will happen?"

The city will help pay for demolition costs and they will put up a surface parking lot, which will reap them tons of income while requiring next to nothing in operating costs.

[Gabrielle Jeromy]

Good point. Historic buildings should be preserved, and more initiative should be put forward for their protection. These aren't just buildings, anyway. They're a part of the local residents' legacy.