Re Parkville Mayor Alderman Declare 16 Main Street Blighted At Mertzs Request ID: 42026

From A Better Parkville - Transparency Search Tool
prev current thread (12) next

?Thank you for your e-mail. They are working on the 16 Main Street site today. Please make the time to visit, so you can see the condition of the property for yourself. Then see if you believe it is blighted.

Until there is an application for taxpayer assistance, I have no basis for drawing any conclusion.

Greg Plumb

Alderman, Ward 4

City of Parkville


From: Jacqueline Maiseroulle
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 10:30 PM
To: Philip Wassmer; Tina Welch; Dave Rittman; Doug Wylie; Robert Lock; Brian Whitley; Marc Sportsman; Greg Plumb; Joe Parente; "Chris Williams " ; Cc: " "; " "; " "; " "; Nan Johnston; Samantha Watson
Subject: Parkville Mayor & Alderman declare 16 Main Street Blighted at Mertz's Request

16 Main Street (formerly Pirate Pete's and Finders Keepers) declared as blighted at the request of Brian Mertz (PC Homes LLC) and by a unanimous vote of the Parkville Mayor and Aldermen (Alderman Lock being absent) at the most recent Board of Aldermen meeting on April 2nd. That's right folks, builder and land developer, Brian Mertz, the same gentleman we can thank for the forthcoming Creekside development at I-435 and 45 Highway, has successfully acquired another blight determination. You can watch the whole thing go down beginning around 28:10 and ending around 47:28 right here: 328-xxxx 77

Because of the current state of disrepair of the property he's ``contemplating public assistance under Chapter 353 (Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law), found here: This chapter of the Missouri Revised Statutes provides incentives to redevelop blighted areas through property tax abatement for up to 25 years, thus his need for the blight declaration. His end game is to acquire property tax abatement, freezing the annual property tax where it is today, prior to any improvement, at approximately $5,000 for up to the next 25 years. With out such incentive, once this property is developed and rehabilitated, considering the state it's apparently in at the moment, the property would normally be reassessed at an exponentially higher amount than where it currently stands and continue to increase over 25 years...just like yours and mine.

Note that the incentive has not yet been officially requested or approved, instead, only the foundation for the incentive was unanimously approved by those present. Due to the thoughtful questions and discussion presented by the Mayor and Aldermen, I'm going to choose to believe that they made this blight declaration out of a genuine concern for the maintenance of the building and to curtail seeing these landmarks possibly fall into a condemnable state and be razed. Kudos to you Madame Mayor and Aldermen.

My purpose in writing this and what I find completely unbelievable is the audacity of Mr. Mertz in even considering a request for tax abatement for his investment. That's exactly what this is. Mr. Mertz, PC Homes LLC, a private company, made a real estate investment. Now, he's a seasoned builder and land developer, if you believe that he didn't realize that this property was in need of some serious renovation, not to mention if he's worth his salt as a businessman, use that state of disrepair in negotiating his purchase price, then I have many, many bridges that I want to sell you.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe the state of disrepair is more than what he had bargained for but that's on him, that's the cost of doing business, if he made a bad business decision, I'm sorry and it's unfortunate but it's on him. How is it in any way something that taxpayers should subsidize for the next 25 years? Although, this is a pittance, moreover a fraction of a pittance compared to the Creekside TIF, it's still a taxpayer subsidized incentive. Yes, before someone pops off saying that TIFs or tax abatements are not subsidized by the taxpayer, just sit back down, you can't sell that here. Likewise, if that same someone wants to say that if you're not a Parkville proper resident this is not of your concern, well, you're wrong on that one too, Buddy. When Parkville provides tax incentives that draw on public services utilized by both Parkville and those outside its city limits (Park Hill School District and South Platte Fire just to name a couple) its decision is very much the concern of ALL those affected, not just those with the right to run or vote for a Parkville elected office.

That all being said, I'll leave you on a lighter note. If Parkville wishes to be in the business of providing taxpayer funded assistance to incentivize the repair and/or renovation of privately owned real estate within their city limits, I've got all kinds of projects around my house, it might be high time I rethink my aversion to the prospect of annexation.