Anti-McKee Lawyers: City Ignored Facts That "Even Ray Charles Could've Seen"

By Nicholas Phillips Mon., Mar. 29 2010 at 12:22 PM

Categories: NorthSide Development

Photo by Jennifer Silverberg

Late last week, the legal team trying to shoot down developer Paul McKee's huge plan for the north side filed their post-trial brief. At 47 pages, it's the most detailed argument to date from attorneys Eric Vickers, Bevis Schock and Jim Schottel, and reiterates their major points:

Under Missouri law, the city must declare a predominance of blight in an area in order to grant a developer a TIF, or public subsidy, to revamp it. But in this case, the opposition claims, the Board of Alderman blighted a huge area, then subdivided it and granted a TIF for only certain parts. And those certain parts, standing by themselves, don't show a predominance of blight.

In passing the ordinances that greenlighted McKee's plan, the Board relied on insubstantial evidence, and thus acted arbitrarily.

For example, the anti-McKee team writes, city officials "ignored evidence...that even Ray Charles could have seen" when they determined that the north side would fester unless they gave McKee his subsidy. The lawyers insist that the redevelopment area is "virtually booming with development," of the small-scale, organic variety.

Vickers et al are also trying to get McKee to pay their attorneys' fees. They argue that in selling his plan, McKee acted in bad faith and used tactics that were "deceptive" and "misleading."

Here's the full document.
Anti-NSR Lawyers' Post-Trial Brief