Citizens & CVS clash over proposed Ferguson development

admin | Feb 03, 2010 | Comments 21

This 1920s house on Royal Avenue in Ferguson is one of eight vintage homes being proposed for demolition to make way for a CVS Pharmacy.

I created NOCO as a forum for positive news and information, never intending to delve into controversy. But the proposed development of a CVS Pharmacy in Ferguson and the confusion and angst it has created in the community have led me to try and present a balanced view of the issue, weighing all sides of the debate.

In full disclosure, I am a member of the steering committee of Preserve Our Ferguson Neighborhoods, the citizen group organized in opposition of rezoning the proposed CVS site, though I have never officially participated in the group’s activities. After meeting independently with the developer and speaking with city officials and numerous residents, I remain personally opposed to rezoning of the proposed site primarily because I believe that Ferguson’s historic homes are its greatest asset, but I also feel it is vitally important that residents have the opportunity to know the facts and to form their own conclusion. So, here is the information I’ve gathered…

In spring 2009, representatives from the Clayton-based real estate firm The DESCO Group quietly began approaching Ferguson homeowners in the first block of Hereford and Royal Avenue, aiming to purchase their residential properties for an unidentified commercial development. Around the same time, DESCO also placed a contract on the half-acre commercial property at 200 N. Florissant, the site of the former Sinclair gas station that had been on the market for $270,000.

12 Royal, circa 1900

Ann Chisholm of the Royal Avenue Neighborhood Association learned of DESCO’s plans in May, and in mid-July (the same time that Ferguson city officials first started hearing rumors of the potential development), she met with most of the targeted homeowners, learning that some were eager to sell, some weren’t, and nearly all were contractually barred from publicly discussing their deals or speaking out against the development. They didn’t have to support the project, they just couldn’t publicly oppose it.

Of the eight houses currently under contract, two are vacant, one is eligible to be a Century Home, and all are quality vintage structures built between 1900 and 1930. DESCO initiated the contracts on behalf of Ohio-based real estate developer Cedarwood Development, Inc., which was in turn representing the national retailer CVS Pharmacy – a fact that Chisholm and city officials didn’t learn until late September.

By then, Chisholm had formed Preserve Our Ferguson Neighborhoods, meeting with a handful of other residents to object to the rezoning required in order for the development to move forward. “Our primary issue is changing the zoning from residential to commercial, and what the lasting impact of that will be on the community,” she says.

30 Royal, circa 1928

“We’re concerned that once you start demolishing houses and scraping land and removing trees, the Royal neighborhood will be changed forever,” adds Blue Tapp Scheffer, who serves on the group’s steering committee. “If we start losing houses on Hereford, will it set a precedent for more commercial development? Will it keep moving further down the street, taking more nice older homes, until Hereford looks like Lindbergh?”

Chisholm and her group raised these concerns when they launched a petition drive in November, collecting 200+ signatures in opposition to rezoning. She and 22 others then attended the December 8 Ferguson city council meeting, stating their position and submitting their petitions as public record during the meeting’s public forum.

Several council members later privately admitted to feeling blind-sided that night, acknowledging that Chisholm’s group seemed to have more information about the proposed development than city officials did, despite the fact that council members met with the developer in a closed session in October. That sense of surprise was compounded even further when the Ferguson Times published a front-page story on the proposed development two weeks later, authored by Chisholm but presumed by many to be wholly endorsed by the newspaper’s owners, Bud and Dorothy Seiter.

27 Hereford, circa 1930

“The fact that it was on the top of the front page…everyone knows what that means,” said one resident who asked to remain anonymous. “It means that Bud and Dorothy agree with it. And if they agree with it, along with other influential people in Ferguson, chances are slim that the council will disagree.”

Some in the community, wrongly assuming that the Times is owned by the city, believed that the article indicated the council’s stance on the proposed development, when in fact, council members didn’t see the revised (and informal) preliminary proposal, incorporating their own suggestions from the October meeting with the developer, until January 13 – three weeks after the article was published.

At that time, citing concerns about dividing the community, Mayor Brian Fletcher asked the council to pull its support of the proposed development and a majority of the members obliged, essentially halting the developer’s plan to submit a formal development proposal. “I believe the required time and energy being spent, and the opposition being generated by the proposed site outweigh the benefits,” Fletcher wrote in the February Ferguson Times.

25 Hereford, circa 1927

At least one council person, Ward 3 representative Kynan Crecelius, disagrees with the mayor, not because he’s specifically in favor of bringing a CVS to Ferguson or necessarily enthused about tearing down eight homes, but because he’s worried about the city’s long-term financial outlook.

“Every year I’ve been on the council, we’ve looked at projections showing expenditures increasing and revenues decreasing,” he says. “In the interest of achieving balance on this issue, I have to wonder if preserving these homes will help to preserve the city in the long run, particularly if our infrastructure continues to decline.”

Crecelius pointed to Ferguson’s parks budget – one of several funds the city manages – and noted that it’s projected to operate at a deficit starting in 2017. He also cited the substantial sales tax revenue that was lost when Walgreens and Circuit City recently closed locations in Ferguson.

21 Hereford, circa 1920

“We all want the community to succeed. I’m just focused on doing what we need in order to maintain the services that make Ferguson a great place to live,” he says.

And how could a new CVS contribute to that goal? According to Joe Flaherty, Cedarwood Development’s director of site acquisition, the proposed Ferguson CVS would likely generate $5 million in annual revenue after five years, with Ferguson collecting 7.825% in sales tax. It’s also expected to create 30-35 permanent jobs and 75-100 temporary construction jobs.

During the first year, Flaherty estimates that the Walgreens directly across the street at 190 N. Florissant would see a 5-8% decrease in business, though he claims the store would be back up to or possibly even ahead of its usual revenue levels in the second year. “The mass brings in more people and the pool expands,” he says.

Flaherty is helping CVS open 50-55 new stores in the St. Louis area, including at least two in Florissant. Locations in Ellisville, Olivette, Mehlville and south St. Louis were successfully opened in January, but community opposition helped to kill the proposed development at Lindell and Sarah in the Central West End.

17 Hereford, circa 1917

Residents there opposed the site location, the store’s possible liquor sales and the impact of noise and traffic from a 24-hour retailer. Like some here, they also questioned whether CVS was needed with a Walgreens already nearby. “There are 29 pharmacies within five miles of that corner, including three within short walking distance,” Chisholm says of the proposed site in Ferguson.

Flaherty acknowledges the duplication of services but says that CVS offers the community something a little different. Shelves are lower, giving the store a more open feel. Plus, CVS caters more to female shoppers.

In terms of similarities, CVS and Walgreens both have around 7,000 stores nationwide. Both draw significant revenue from drive-through pharmacies and have numerous locations on highly visible corners that are open 24 hours. In January, the Ferguson Walgreens applied for a liquor license; Flaherty admits that CVS would pursue the same.

He also says that if the Ferguson development moves forward, CVS will abate environmental issues at the former Sinclair site, seeking several hundred thousand dollars in tax increment financing (TIF) to deal with “leaking underground storage tanks.”

15 Hereford, circa 1929

Chisholm disputes the need for this, as well as the public financing, citing a letter she received from the director’s office of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. “According to the DNR, there is no immediate danger at the site,” she says. “Sinclair is responsible for dealing with any problems, and so far they’ve done everything that has been required.”

“Besides, if this site is supposedly so ‘dirty’ and has so many other challenges, why not consider another one?” Tapp Scheffer asks, raising a question that many residents have posed.

The property now occupied by Aaron Rents at the southwest corner of Airport and N. Florissant, catty-corner to the proposed CVS site, seems like an obvious choice. Once home to Walgreens, it enjoys the same traffic volume as the intersection’s other corners – around 40,000 cars per day. It’s also zoned commercial already and would require far less demolition.

But Flaherty says it’s just not workable. Noting the time and money already invested in the proposed site, he also claims there might be a lease restriction on the Aaron’s site, prohibiting CVS from doing business there. “We want to work with the community on [the Sinclair] site,” he says flatly.

Indeed, he and CVS have tried to compromise, proposing increased green space to buffer the adjacent neighborhood at the request of the city council. Current plans call for a 13,225-square-foot store with 65 feet of green space on the east side of the site and a minimum of 87 feet on the north side. Flaherty has also floated the idea of saving two homes on Royal, including the 110-year-old house at #12, and giving both to the city for some civic use. CVS may even agree to allow the remaining homes to be sold for a nominal fee and moved, if logistics and timing will allow.

“We really are trying to be a responsible developer, open to ideas,” he says. “We just want the opportunity to present our plan so the community can decide.”

That’s all that Old Ferguson West resident Susan Donnell wants as well. So incensed was she by the lack of open dialogue on this issue that she launched her own petition drive in front of Shop N’ Save, collecting signatures of those who simply wanted more information.

“It’s not that I actively support CVS. My basic objection is to the process and procedure of this whole thing, and how it feels like this decision was ramrodded by a select few,” she says. “Those who oppose the development have had a great advantage in disseminating information, while the rest of us have been deprived of the opportunity to even develop an opinion.”

Built in 1962, this former Sinclair service station would be torn down for CVS, but the commercial building housing Little Caesars next door would remain.

This Thursday, Donnell and everyone else will have that opportunity, as Flaherty and other CVS reps will host a public forum to present their side of the debate and listen to input from the community. The event is not sponsored or endorsed by the city but council members say they will be interested to hear residents’ feedback afterward.

They’ve already heard from Susan Schilligo, whose family has owned the house at 12 Royal since 1966. She recently submitted a lengthy letter in support of the proposed development, stating that her mother has unsuccessfully tried to sell her historic home for two years.

In 2009, 12 Royal was listed for $109,900. Chisholm says that homeowners in the proposed development area, including Schilligo’s mother, have been offered between $150,000 and $250,000, a number that Flaherty confirms. His company is prepared to spend upwards of $2 million just on property acquisition.

Chisholm and Tapp Scheffer sympathize with homeowners like Schilligo but insist that the needs of the entire community need to be considered. “I realize this development may seem like a God-send for people who are eager to sell, especially in this depressed market,” Tapp Scheffer says. “But for the most part, these are people who want to leave Ferguson, and to me, this is an issue that should be decided by those who are invested in the community for the long term.

“Those of us who oppose this plan want new development in Ferguson, and we would gladly welcome CVS. We just don’t think we should have to ruin a neighborhood and lose eight nice houses to do that.”

To hear more from Tapp Scheffer and others opposed to the proposed CVS development, visit the Preserve Our Ferguson Neighborhoods website.

To learn more about the development proposal, attend Cedarwood’s public forum: Thursday, February 4, from 6-8pm at the Savoy, 119 S. Florissant.