Jason Brown & Chapel Ridge to cost taxpayers $136,750,000

If people think the corruption surrounding Jason Brown's JE Dunn contract costing taxpayers $350,000 is bad, the Chapel Ridge Ponzi scheme is even worse, as it could cost taxpayers $136,750,000 over a 20-year period.   This deal in the short-term will enrich Jason Brown's donor buddies and Brian Mertz and his investors,  and in the long-term taxpayers will pick up the tab.  Shame on Jason Brown.

Related Info:

"Jason Brown Helps Buddies Out, at Expense of Platte County"

Jason Brown Helps Buddies Out, at Expense of Platte County

Well, folks, we had the county commissioner meeting today and Jason Brown single-handedly rammed the PR version of Chapel Ridge through, after making a couple cosmetic conditions of reducing a handful of houses along Countrywood and moving a fence by horses back 20 feet.

Beverlee Roper voted against Chapel Ridge.  Jason Brown, using his power of presiding commissioner, voted twice and voted in favor of Chapel Ridge.   (Duane Soper had recused himself because of his involvement with Wells Bank investment in Chapel Ridge.  Jason Brown should have recused himself too, but didn't.)

In other words, among the 15 votes on Chapel Ridge so far (6 from first P&Z hearing, 7 from second P&Z hearing, and 2 from this county commissioner hearing), there have been 14 votes against Chapel Ridge, and one person has voted in favor of it and decided it.  Doesn't sound very fair, does it?

The whole hearing was a farce.  Jason Brown (by his own admission) had secret meeting last week over Chapel Ridge (to make a few minor concessions, for appearance sake).  Some contractors were standing in the back of the room in favor of Chapel Ridge, who were probably being paid by the hour by the developer or someone else to stand there.  (Obviously they weren't too interested in the meeting.  At one point, while the contractors were horsing around, they knocked a picture off the wall.)

Nonetheless, a huge turnout against Chapel Ridge showed up, and we would like to thank everyone for taking time out of their day to show up.  The majority of people at the meeting were opposed to Chapel Ridge.

What now?  This will probably be challenged in court.  This decision has corruption and cronyism written all over it.

Why did Jason Brown turn against his constituents and vote in favor of something so at odds with the surrounding area and so unanimously opposed by people living in this area?

Simple answer:  Jason Brown is in the pocket of Platte Valley Bank (financing Chapel Ridge and set to make millions off it) and other developers and real estate interests.  (See donations list below.)  A letter was sent to Jason Brown on Oct. 2 asking him to recuse himself from voting on Chapel Ridge because of a conflict of interest (i.e. Jason Brown being in the pocket of a handful of people benefiting financially from Chapel Ridge), but apparently Brown had to help his buddies out, even if it costs him politically, as it will.  Already a Republicans Against Jason Brown committee is forming for his re-election next year. Brown will probably be challenged both in the Republican primary and the general election, and we won't forget this.

In the meantime, send an email to Beverlee Roper (beverlee.roper@co.platte.mo.us) and thank her for looking out for south Platte County.  And maybe send an email to Jason Brown (jbrown@co.platte.mo.us)  and thank him for siding with a get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme against the legitimate interests of his voting constituents.

Who Owns Jason Brown?

Brian Mertz's Phony Letter Writing Campaign

Regarding the second hideous version of Chapel Ridge, which was unanimously voted down by the planning and zoning board, it has been brought to our attention that developer Brian Mertz has employed some phony letter writing campaign. Allegedly, someone on Mertz's team (Tabb Reese?) has created some generic form letters, is taking them around to various places to have people sign them (friends of the developer, real estate offices, etc.?),  and is sending them to Dan Erickson to make it look like there is widespread support for Chapel Ridge.  Hopefully, the county commissioners will be able to see through this scam, and realize that nearly everyone in the vicinity of the proposed Chapel Ridge is against it.   Unlike Mertz's buddies set to profit from Chapel Ridge, our property values and quality of life will be devastated, and our lives and children's lives will be put at risk by the extreme doubling of traffic on K Highway and surrounding roads.  Stop Chapel Ridge!

Get involved today.

Chapel Ridge goes before the County Commissioners

Developer Brian Mertz's PR (planned residential) version of Chapel Ridge (which was unanimously voted down by the planning and zoning board on Nov. 12) will now go before the county commissioners.

Meeting info:  Monday, Dec. 2, 10:00 AM,  County Commission Meeting Room, Platte County Administration Building,  415 Third Street, Platte City, MO.  Please attend.

Let's hope that the county commissioners will side with maintaining the safety and charm of this area of Platte County, and not with some short-sighted Ponzi scheme that's completely incompatible with this area and will devastate the local property values and quality of life.

Get involved today.

Second version of Chapel Ridge unanimously voted down by P&Z Board!

Last night, Nov. 12, the Platte County Planning and Zoning board unanimously, 7 - 0, voted down developer Brian Mertz's second Chapel Ridge proposal (the PR, planned residential, version), which was barely different from his first version.

Some reasons it was voted down:

(1) Potential flooding of surrounding areas and the destruction of local waterways, such as lakes.

(2) The doubling of traffic for surrounding area, which will cost lives.

and

(3) In terms of density, Chapel Ridge is completely incompatible with the surrounding area.


Regarding density, although the PR Chapel Ridge's "gross density" is 2.51 homes per acre (as this includes streets, flood retention structures, etc.), Chapel Ridge's real density is over 6 homes per acre.  Some lots are only 7,150 ft. in size.

Here are a couple great slides the opposition used last night to illustrate the incongruity of Chapel Ridge to surrounding area.

The matter will now go before the County Commissioners.  Let's just hope that the County Commissioners have to good sense to side with truth and long-term vision to maintain this area's charm, rather than siding with the short-sighted greed and poor planning of a developer.

Let's support responsible development.  If land is to be developed, it should be rezoned to R-80 (to compliment surrounding area) and no lots smaller than 1 acre should be permitted.

Get involved today!

Revisions to Chapel Ridge: Still the same hideous Chapel Ridge

On Oct. 30, Brian Mertz submitted a new plat plan [PDF], with minor revisions to his recent PR (planned residential) zoning request for the Nov. 12 meeting.   It's still the same monstrous high-density plan, with just a few changes.  In fact, this version is barely different from the R7 version, which the Planning and Zoning board unanimously rejected on Sept. 10.

Some facts about the updated Chapel Ridge:

- Unlike the first Chapel Ridge (seeking R7 zoning), this version is seeking PR (planned residential) zoning.

- Chapel Ridge 2.0 is only 5.2% less dense than first version.

- Chapel Ridge 2.0 crams 359 houses onto 143 acres.

- Chapel Ridge 2.0 will result in the likely flooding of surrounding areas.

- Chapel Ridge 2.0 will cause an extreme increase (over doubling) of traffic on K Highway.

- Chapel Ridge 2.0 will cause the destruction of wildlife habitat, etc.

- Chapel Ridge 2.0 will cause the lowering of the quality of life and property values for the surrounding area.

- Although the "gross density" is 2.51 homes per acre (as this includes streets, flood retention structures, etc.), Chapel Ridge's real density can reach as high as nearly 6 homes per acre.  Some lots are only 7,150 ft. in size.

- PR (planned residential) zoning could be even more extreme than R7, as this is the zoning often used for multi-family housing.  Although Brian Mertz is seeking single family PR, his plan could later be amended to a higher density, or even to  include multi-family housing.

- The hundreds of students this proposal will bring to Union Chapel almost certainly will result in a drastic redistricting of Union Chapel.

- The plan does not comply with the Platte County Land Use Plan.  It is not compatible in character, density or scale to the surrounding neighborhoods.   It will disrupt the stability of our area and destroy the rural charm that we sought in moving here.

- If this plan is approved, it clears the way for more of the same which will result in greatly compounded impacts in the community, and an unsustainable drain on public resources.

- If area is to be rezoned, it should be rezoned to R80 to compliment surrounding area.  Lots should be 1 - 3 acres with no lots smaller than 1 acre permitted.

In short, say No to PR (planned residential) zoning.  It's wrong for our area. Contact the Planning and Zoning board and the county commissioners today.

 Stop Chapel Ridge.

Get involved today.

Developer Brian Mertz's Past Projects

In light of Brian Mertz's recent request for the extreme PR (planned residential) zoning for Chapel Ridge, people have been discussing Mertz's previous high-density developments.

Recently in the Platte County Landmark (Oct. 9), Sue Land wrote the following letter to the editor:

Brian Mertz, developer of the planned Chapel Ridge subdivision, using TV and newspaper interviews, and even letters to the editor, has described himself as a self-proclaimed benefactor to Platte County; a long time resident, a home-grown boy who just wants to make a living and help the county with it's needs. He's indicated, too, that this is his livelihood, his money, on the line. The property owners of the would-be-Chapel-Ridge development, have referred to the opposition as "vigilantes" and bullies. Okay, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not, however, entitled to their own facts.
So let's review these facts: 

1) Mertz (or someone on his team) took the original logo used on their website and Facebook page to promote Chapel Ridge, from an unrelated development in North Carolina. That entity has since contacted him and forced him to change it. 

2) Mertz has repeatedly appeared on web-based forums whose only purpose is to find investors for pre-completed properties. Selling single family rental properties before they are even built is not about investing in our county's future, it's about grabbing a cut off the top and cutting out fast. His comments indicate a pattern of building lower-cost homes next to very high value homes, artificially raising the value of his units while decreasing those surrounding it. His comments also indicate a "get in and get out" action plan, leaving others to deal with the fall out. 

3) Tiffany Estates, a relatively new development of his, is already on the 'downhill slide' in terms of appearance and maintenance and by no small coincidence, all but two of these 18 homes are owned by persons who don't live there, essentially they are rental properties inside of only a few years 

4) Mertz repeatedly uses the term "gross density" and indicates the number of houses will be 2.65 per acre. But the real density, after you take out the land that must be allowed for roads, green space, etc, is 5-and-some-change-per-acre. 

Mertz can say whatever he wants about himself. If his support team writes enough letters, they may all begin to believe it. But the facts, ladies and gentlemen, tell a different tale. In my opinion he's not an honest man; honest men don't take other people's art work (or associate with those who do), and they don't deliberately misrepresent the truth about how many houses will be placed on a single acre. If there is nothing wrong with what he's building and where he's building it, then just spit out the actual number of houses per acre and quit trying to morph it into something that "sounds better.” 

While it is true that he is an investor of sorts, he is not investing in the betterment of Platte County, he is investing only in his pocket, and the pockets of friends. I don't have a problem with that either, but let's "tell it like it is.” Don't pretend that he's somehow 'saving' the county,” as if this county doesn't have good developers who can make a decent profit by putting R40 and R25 homes where they belong. 

And as to that hometown boy whose life savings is at risk? We have investments to defend too. If the rest of us, who have invested huge sums in our properties and the maintenance thereof, get burned by the soon-to-be-rental-district that gets parked next to us, or if people along K Highway get forced out of their homes for the eventual widening that will surely follow, you can bet Mertz doesn't care. He'll get his and then cut and run along to the next project regardless.

I have to ask, is that what what "good people" do? I don't think so. Brian Mertz is a lot of things, but he is hardly the victim here. 

--Sue Lange
Parkville

What Lang writes is verified by the facts.  Below are some slides compiled by various people opposed to Chapel Ridge.

Mertz says he is building a landscape buffer around Chapel Ridge, but here is his previous landscape buffer from Tiffany Estates:

Note too that 16 out of 18 of the homes at Tiffany Estates are owned by people out of state, which means that they have probably quickly become rental properties:

This seems to be a pattern in Mertz's development strategies:

Some screen shots from various investment websites where Brian Mertz has tried to sell properties from previous developments.  (Click on images to enlarge.)

If you're not worried about Mertz's latest proposal, you should be.

Stop Chapel Ridge.

Get involved today.