Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Other Commitments and Contingencies We are obligated under various completion guarantees with certain lenders and lease agreements with tenants to complete all or portions of a development and tenant-specific space currently under construction. We believe we currently have sufficient financing in place to fund these projects and expect to do so primarily through borrowings on the Credit Facility. In connection with the joint venture that owns the Embassy Suites at Notre Dame, we provided a repayment guaranty on a $33.8 million construction loan, of which our share is $11.8 million (reflecting our 35% ownership interest in the hotel). Our portion of the repayment guaranty is limited to $5.9 million. The guaranty's term is through the July 1, 2024 maturity date of the loan. The outstanding loan balance as of September 30, 2021 is $33.6 million and our share is $11.8 million. The loan is secured by the hotel. As of September 30, 2021, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $1.2 million. At that date, there were no amounts advanced against these instruments. Legal Proceedings We are not subject to any litigation that management considers material nor, to management’s knowledge, is any litigation that management considers material currently threatened against us. We are parties to routine litigation, claims, and administrative proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes that such matters will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows taken as a whole. As previously disclosed in our joint proxy statement/prospectus, beginning on August 27, 2021, two purported RPAI stockholders filed substantially similar complaints against RPAI and the members of the RPAI board of directors (the “RPAI Board”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. One of these complaints also names Kite Realty and Merger Sub as defendants. The complaints are captioned as follows: Wang v. Retail Properties of America, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-07237 (S.D.N.Y. filed August 27, 2021); and Hopkins v. Retail Properties of America, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-07324 (S.D.N.Y. filed August 31, 2021). The complaints variously assert, among other things, claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against RPAI and the members of the RPAI Board and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the RPAI Board (and, in one case, Kite Realty and Merger Sub) for allegedly causing a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement on Form S-4 to be filed on August 23, 2021 with the SEC. Four additional lawsuits were filed against RPAI and the members of the RPAI Board between September 14, 2021 and October 8, 2021 under the captions Callebs v. Retail Properties of America, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-07593 (S.D.N.Y. filed September 10, 2021); Sheridan v. Retail Properties of America, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-04066-SCJ (N.D.Ga. filed October 1, 2021); Whitfield v. Retail Properties of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:21-cv-04390 (E.D.Pa. filed October 6, 2021); and Reinhardt v Retail Properties of America, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-04187 (N.D. Ga. filed October 8, 2021), which are substantially similar to the other two complaints. Also, on September 15, 2021, a purported Kite Realty shareholder filed a complaint against Kite Realty and the members of the Kite Realty board of trustees in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned as follows: Gentry v. Kite Realty Group Trust et al., No. 1:21-cv-05142 (E.D.N.Y. filed September 15, 2021). The complaint asserts substantially similar claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 as the other complaints against RPAI and the RPAI Board. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the merger, an award of damages in the event the merger is consummated, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.