Developer Reportedly Ends Project After LCRA Vote
Steve Foutch is a Kansas City real estate developer who, at least before today, was pursuing taxpayer support to build a new 104-unit apartment complex in the Crossroads District. According to the Kansas City Business Journal, Foutch wanted a 10-year 100% abatement from the Land Clearance For Redevelopment Authority (LCRA), but according to the Star, the developer said he had negotiated a deal with Jackson County to pursue a tax abatement of 100% for five years and of 63% for the following five. The LCRA recommended, and approved, the 100% abatement but reduced the second five years to a 50% abatement.
That cut was apparently enough to instantly scuttle the project.
Seconds after the LCRA unanimously voted to approve the abatement package, Foutch shook his head and stood up from the 17th floor boardroom at Town Pavilion, where the agency holds its meetings.
"We're not going to do the project," Foutch told LCRA commissioners.
"That's your choice," LCRA chairman Michael Duffy responded.
…After the meeting, Foutch said that the financing for his project was "razor thin" and that the package that the LCRA approved was insufficient to make financing for his project work. He added that if interest rates or capitalization rates move "even a decimal," it would affect his project's financing.
Let's be crystal clear here: Taxpayers gave Foutch most of what he wanted. And if your financing margin for error is "razor thin" for a mixed-use project that sells upscale apartments in a growing district, then the bank is telling you that it doesn't think your project is a good one for their money. That Foutch was willing to cut bait immediately when he couldn't get all the taxpayer money he wanted tells you that Foutch doesn't think the project is a great project for his money either.
It isn't the role of taxpayers to be the investors of first resort for developments like this. Foutch's snap reaction to the LCRA's verdict suggests taxpayers may be dodging a bullet here with the developer's withdrawal from the project. And if the project is somehow resurrected? It shouldn't receive a wooden nickel of taxpayer support.
View the original at Show-Me Institute →
As confirmed against the Show-Me Institute's website on August 15, 2026, the Institute's stated policy permits reprinting of its published articles and commentary provided the original author receives credit. Letting the Institute know about a reprint is appreciated but is not a condition of use.
This entry was archived under that permission as it stood on the date above. If the Institute's policy changes after that date, it does not apply retroactively to entries already reproduced here under the terms in effect at the time — this is a record of the grant as confirmed, not a live status check.
The original remains hosted at the Institute's own site — use the link below for the canonical version, current formatting, and any images.