Star publisher Mi-Ai Parrish
Read her lips: “No new taxes”
The Kansas City Star couldn’t pat itself on the back enough…
The year was 2003 and editorial page editor Miriam Pepper was ecstatic about the prospects of the newspaper building a new $200 million press facility in the heart of downtown.
“I’m ready to cheer, sling dirt, or dig with my hands,” Pepper panted.
“By building in a brownfield, an older urban neighborhood just south of the downtown loop, the paper is walking its talk,” she continued. “It’s not the easiest or least expensive way to go, even with a $12.8 million tax break. Many newspapers today head to suburban greenfields because they are cheaper to buy and build on.”
Indeed the Star could have asked for far greater tax breaks, but chose not to.
Something about wanting to set an example for other developers by not being greedy and doing the right thing for Kansas City.
That was then.
The latest: After threatening to move its press facility out of KC if it was not granted an extension of it’s tax breaks from 10 to 25 years, the Kansas City Council blinked and granted the newspaper another 15 years, depriving the city of millions of dollars in funding for schools, libraries and other uses.
That despite an advisory board recommendation that the council reject the Star’s request.
Board member Michael Duffy said the tax break was “not intended to be a bailout provision for a troubled business, which is what we heard today.”
Star publisher Mi-Ai Parish followed that admonition with a not-so-veiled threat to move the press out of KCMO if the newspaper didn’t get its tax break.
“We would like to stay,” Parish whined. “(But) the economics have to be there.”
Seriously?
The odds of the newspaper being able to pack it’s gigundo press and move elsewhere?
“(Those) odds are zero,” said a former high level Star executive. “But they are saving a lot on taxes. Maybe they (could) just mothball the place and job out the printing. Except, whoops, who is big enough to print the Star? Answer: nobody.”
As for backing out of its commitment to the city, “I suppose you could rationalize backing out on a commitment, but that’s what it is — backing out… I do think the press will continue to be a valuable asset — as long as they are printing the Star, and printing others. It may extend the economic lifetime of the paper because of the added contract printing revenue and the general efficiency of printing the Star there.The old press required a lot of manpower.”
The $64 million question: What happens when print goes away?
“When the print Star and other print customers stop printing altogether, it will have to find another use, as will the old Star building. If Downtown thrives, there ought to be a use, wouldn’t you think? The print building has giant floor plates and so it ought to be pretty adaptable.
“And I personally think the old building would make a pretty nifty condo complex, once the day comes. It’s a classic building in what is eventually going to be a pretty good location.”
As always, stay tuned…
May I suggest contacting:
Ryan Kimball
Assistant Treasurer & Director of Investor Relations
916-321-1849
rkimball@mcclatchy.com
Seems like a very decent gentleman, and is rather accessible. Don’t be surprised if he personally takes your call, or promptly responds. They can’t make changes at the Star if McClatchy doesn’t know how the customer feels. Do know that the customer is really the advertiser, but advertisers need/want readers. I don’t trust the Star is giving an honest assessment to McClatchy. Feel free to forward this article, or any others, or just let McClatchy know your opinion. I don’t think it would be very constructive to write a hateful tirade (even if it is warranted), but honest opinions can’t hurt.
After what they charged for my son’s obituary, how can they be going broke?
Perhaps a little knowledge of state law and real estate taxes are in order here, but for the sake of time, the question is really what the city wants to do with a printing press fifteen years from now. Perhaps they can give it to the school district if even that exists after the next 15 years. Actually, it will be 18 years. After the tax breaks, when the taxes become due, anyone can step up to the plate and buy the tax liabilities of the Star. If the Star wants to keep the building, they have to pay the investor the tax plus 10% per year. After the third year, of buying taxes, the property conveys, all liens are wiped out, and somebody has a 2003 era printing press and building for the cost of three years of back taxes, (plus the tax breaks from 2003). No thanks. In the corporate world, we call this malfeasance. We send people to jail. Well, this is the big city where there is no responsibility. What Kansas City forgot was that if the Star cannot pay the 13 million they owe now, there is little possibility of them coming up with another 200 million to move to another city, as the 200 million press should have been collateralized in the deal. Well, so much for the financial wizards at City Hall. Perhaps every resident of Kansas City, Missouri should have a $26 subscription to the Star (13,000,000 debt divided by 500,000 people). For the family of four, that’s four years of free paper. Or perhaps, the idiots that put this effort together should pay for it. Fat chance! I’d be happy if they just had to find another job.
CFPCowboy shoots.
CFPCowboy scores.
It would be an easier sale to me if the newspaper were unbiased. In a city that is mostly Democrat it is a hard sale for a clearly Republican slanted news publisher. Also the influence they have had in the internal workings of the city… Strictly my opinion of course, but hey aren’t opinions for sale if we call them news? I would support an unbiased newspaper, even the Star.
“A clearly Republican slanted publisher”? When was the last time the Star endorsed a conservative Republican for anything? Who is a conservative on the Star editorial board? What coverage of Missouri and Kansas state politics can you point to that shows a Republican slant ? Favoring corporate welfare for themselves and their political cronies does not make them conservative,any more that Hillary and Bill Clinton’s multi-millions through influence peddling do. It makes them greedy and hypocritical for holding themselves out as the champions of the poor and disenfranchised.
Dwight, are you saying that a wealthy person that holds themselves out as a champion for the poor and disenfranchised is a hypocrite??? I’m sure I misunderstood that last comment.
Champions of the poor and disenfranchised are one thing,billionaire or cent-millionaire scourges of wealth and/or privilege are another. I’m sick of being singled out as an evil person because of my class background by people with names like Kennedy,Kerry,and now Clinton.Why are the Koch’s the spawn of the devil and Corzine,Soros,and Steyer angels if the objection is to too much influence of the wealthy in politics?
Whoa, slow down D Man. I’m not picking on you or your class background, I just wanted to make sure that you did not regard every wealthy politician ( that’s a redundant phrase) that advocates for the poor as a hypocrite.
I’m not defending the Star or attacking the Koch’s here. Just saying that having wealth does not preclude one for speaking for the poor and disenfranchised. Take a deep breath.
The hypocrisy is the constant jeremiads of the Star against tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations in the name of “fairness”,when asking for a 25 million dollar subsidy for itself.