Wednesday, April 12th, 2006,
by Fred (,
environmentalists, Forest Park, parks, St. Louis
,
Barnes may build on Forest Park
A push to let Barnes-Jewish Hospital build over a part of Forest Park has critics worried it could set a troubling trend: private development over St. Louis’ most storied landscape.For the city, the need is clear: money to preserve the rest of the park.
Seeking a way to provide park upkeep for years to come, the St. Louis parks department has proposed leasing an isolated, 12-acre swath of the park to the hospital, which would eventually put a medical building on the land.
Handing over a such a large piece of land to the hospital would be an unprecedented step in the 130-year history of Forest Park, a regional gem that is among the nation’s largest urban parks.
The deal concerns some who warn that eliminating open space - even if it is aimed at helping the park - could have broader, unintended consequences.
The environmentalists that oppose leasing the land to the hospital raise the tired old warhorse argument of the “slippery slope.” Lease this 12-acre plot, and the next thing you know, there’ll be a car dealership in Turtle Park. Funny how that slippery slope argument works - it’s great when it’s on your side, but ridiculous when it’s not.
This is a perfect opportunity for the city, which would be foolish to give it up. Most people don’t even know the parcel east of Kingshighway is part of the park. It’s not green space - it contains tennis courts and four racquetball courts. Leasing part of the park is not unprecedented - the parcel in question already sits on top of an underground hospital parking garage. Leasing this plot, which will bring in $180 million over its 90-year term, makes fiscal sense. The city is not in a position to pay for the upkeep of the 1,280 acre park, and the lease will pay for half of the annual park maintenance cost. Lease 1% of the park space to pay 50% of the maintenance cost? How can that not be a good idea? Only to “environmental activists”, who believe government largesse is unlimited.
More at Talk of the Day.
Share This
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006,
by Fred (,
police, St. Louis
,
Activists Press for Police Review Board
From 1998 to 2003, the Internal Affairs Division examined 409 complaints that officers had verbally or physically abused someone. Of those, it “sustained” just one, meaning one was sent to the Police Board for discipline.The rest? Some were withdrawn, some proved false. Investigators exonerated a handful of officers, finding that their actions were reasonable given the circumstances.
But in about 80 percent of abuse complaints, Internal Affairs investigators found insufficient evidence to prove it true or false. The department has not released more recent statistics.
The activists claim that this proves the need for an independent civilian police review board, given that Internal Affairs virtually never sustains an allegation of abuse. But neither does IA side with the officer. In most cases, it does not have enough evidence to reach a determination. This is hardly surprising, as there are unlikely to be witnesses to such altercations, and in a he said/he said argument, finding insufficient evidence to decide is the most just result. If IA was really interested in sweeping abuse under the rug, they would find for the officers more often.
And in allegations other than abuse, where eyewitnesses other than the complainant are more likely, IA does in fact find against the officers. The Post article notes that Internal Affairs sustained 42% of allegations of “conduct unbecoming/uncivil treatment” and 79% of of allegations of “improper handling of assignment.”
So is a civilian review board necessary? The St. Louis police are already subject to civilian review. The department is not run directly by the city but instead is operated by a five-member St. Louis City Board of Police Commissioners, composed of the mayor and four appointees of the governor. Mayor Slay’s compromise proposal would establish a civilian panel reporting to the Police Board.
Slay’s proposal would establish a panel of seven members nominated by the Board of Aldermen, selected by him and confirmed by the Police Board. Its members would receive police misconduct complaints from the public that are now made to Internal Affairs. It would be able to investigate after Internal Affairs investigators finish their own inquiries and forward findings to the chief of police.
The police would thus be subject to two levels of civilian review, albeit by boards composed of political appointees. If the city police are to continue to be operated by the Police Board rather than the city, this seems a reasonable approach. It is not the civilian review panel activists want, but if the Slay proposal doesn’t produce results, the city can revisit the issue.
Share This
Friday, April 7th, 2006,
by Fred (,
KTRS, NAACP, Nathaniel Cole, politics, St. Louis
,
Bill McClellan makes a good point in a column about the KTRS/Lenihan flap
Still, whether the NAACP is right or wrong seems beside the point. So much of the work I see done today is done by other, more focused organizations. Girls Inc. tries to prepare girls for an uncertain future. The Matthews-Dickey Boys’ and Girls’ Club does the same for boys. CHIPS provides health care for those who cannot afford it. Rabble-rousers like Eric Vickers fight for jobs and economic justice.Meanwhile, the NAACP gets embroiled in a flap about a word. It’s enough to make a person think that the NAACP is as outdated as its name.
In St. Louis at least, the NAACP seems more interested in making the front page of the Post than in contributing to meaningful discussions. In the KTRS matter, they jumped in with both feet, praising the station for firing Lenihan 20 minutes after he referred to the possibility of the NFL hiring Condoleezza Rice as Commissioner as a “real coon” [Lenihan says he meant to call it a “real coup”]. Then, after Lenihan addressed the group, the NAACP came out in favor of his rehiring by the station. The vitriol facing Lenihan seems out of proportion, given that he has no track record of such statements and his explanation seems feasible, if not exactly probable. But why the about-face, unless it was the chance to get two headlines out of one pseudo-controversy?
This has been the pattern of late for the NAACP. Such as when the NAACP attacked the St. Louis police when the police chased 23 year old punk Robert Smith after Smith pulled a gun on police in a traffic stop, a chase that led to the death of Nathaniel Cole. Cole and Smith were both black. In all the controversy over the chase, the NAACP could have encouraged their constituency not to draw down on the cops on a busy city street, but they didn’t. That would be productive, and wouldn’t get the headlines that a press conference blaming the cops for Cole’s death did.
Share This
Thursday, March 30th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Ballwin, government, nanny state, smoking, St. Louis
,
Restaurant owners who have been harmed by the Ballwin smoking ban have banded together with other concerned citizens, vowing to defeat the re-election bids of Aldermen who voted for the ban
Opponents of a smoking ban are hoping to prevent the re-election of three aldermen who voted for the ban.Aldermen banned smoking in restaurants that don’t serve alcohol and other public places last year. On Jan. 2, the ban widened, and fires went out in ashtrays all over town in bars and restaurants serving alcohol.
Some restaurant and other business owners and residents opposed to the smoking ban have formed Concerned Citizens for a Better Ballwin. The group says that business is down at restaurants and that bar and restaurant owners blame the ban.
The targeted Aldermen include Tim Pogue, 1st Ward; Jane Suozzi, 2nd Ward; and Charlie Gatton, 4th Ward.
Elsa Barth, who owns the Seventh Inn Restaurant on Seven Trails Drive in Ballwin, said her sales were down 35 percent under the ban. Alderman Charlie Gatton, on the other hand, says that employees at local restaurants report that the businesses were doing as well if not better under the ban.
The Aldermanic candidates the group is supporting propose to replace the ban with an ordinance requiring businesses to post notices on their doors to say whether they are smoking or nonsmoking facilities. This is essentially the compromise proposal put forth in the District of Columbia during debate over the DC smoking ban. Tobacco abolitionists are unfazed with this appeal to personal choice and responsibility. According to the Post, “Martin Pion, president of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution Inc., said the opponents’ proposal is ‘pure tobacco-industry inspired.’”
There are a lot of non-smokers (like yours truly) who oppose smoking bans, not because we like the smell of smoke or exposure to smoke, but because it should be the exclusive province of property owners and not government to determine whether smoking is allowed. There will always be non-smoking establishments to cater to that market - why can’t there be smoking establishments for that market as well. If a non-smoker doesn’t want to be exposed to the smoke, just go somewhere else.
The last word goes to Concerned Citizens:
Peggy McCain, a spokesman for Concerned Citizens, said business owners, not the government, should decide whether to allow smoking.
“To me, it’s not about smoking or not smoking, it’s about freedom - as a citizen, to go to a smoking or nonsmoking establishment,” she said.
Share This
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006,
by Fred (,
advertising, government, St. Louis, taxes
,
St. Louis set to unveil new slogan, logo
The St. Louis ads will begin running in mid-April, marking the first time the slogan and logo will appear before a large national audience. The local marketing campaign is part of a larger, $20 million economic development program that’s being led by the St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association.The five-year program was crafted amid concerns that St. Louis has trailed the nation in job growth over the last 30 years. The plan is being funded with public and private dollars…
The agency also hopes to persuade national reporters to write stories about St. Louis topics such as the efforts to build a biotech hub and revive downtown. In addition, plans call for more face-to-face meetings with consultants who advise companies on where to locate and for promotions at events such as an upcoming biotech conference in Chicago. A redesigned Web site is supporting the effort, too.
Putting aside the aesthetic merits of the logo (which aren’t many - what’s up with that upside-down exclamation point), the endeavor is not likely to have significant effect on job growth in St. Louis. If the region wants to attract business and create jobs, it should start with tax policy by repealing the St. Louis wage tax that drives existing business out of the city. A government that welcomes business and that doesn’t drive it out of town through high taxes would do a lot more good than a fancy new logo and ad campaign.
Share This
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006,
by Fred (,
light rail, Metrolink, St. Louis
,
Metro service will map out trips
Customers will be able to go to www.metrostlouis.org, enter departure and arrival locations and customize results to show options such as the fewest number of transfers, least amount of walking and fastest trip.
It’s about time - I remember using the DC Metrorail’s system in 1998. Why St. Louis hasn’t offered a similar tool before now is both befuddling and indicative of the problems with Metro. These tools have one inherent flaw - they don’t prioritize types of transit. Most riders would rather take a longer trip that is all on rail than have to transfer to a smelly, crowded bus.
MetroLink is still a boondoggle. All light rail is. It’s virtually useless in St. Louis County, and even the $84.5 million-per-mile boondoggle boondoggle Cross County Extension won’t help much. Here’s the Census 2000 map of St. Louis county (darker areas are where all the people are):
The shaded area indiactes the only part of the county served by the Cross County Extension, showing that most of the population of the metro area remains ill-served by MetroLink. It’s useless for the North County. Useless for Webster Groves and Kirkwood. Useless for South County south of 44. And really useless for West County. But it’s nice to know that Metro will introduce a tool showing you just how useless their latest $700 million boondoggle really is.
Share This
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Florissant, ofallon, politics, St. Charles county, St. Louis
,
Suburban politics gets messier
Former O’Fallon Aldermanic President Lyn Schipper has requested almost six months of e-mail and cell phone records as well as city credit card receipts from Florissant Mayor Robert Lowery Sr. Lowery’s son, Robert Lowery Jr., is O’Fallon’s city administrator.Lowery Sr. called Schipper’s request “pure harassment.”
“I have enough going on in Florissant. I don’t need to worry about that political mess. Unfortunately that’s my son’s job,” Lowery said.
“I have nothing to hide. I have nothing to do with the city of O’Fallon, thank God.”
Florissant responded to the request with a $1,540 bill to Schipper. The bill covers $1,200 in projected legal fees and $340 in research fees required to process some 50,000 documents.
The $1200 legal bill follows the $34,000 demanded by O’Fallon in order to comply with Schipper’s request there. Clearly, neither city intends to comply with the Sunshine Law, which requires public records to be provided within 72 hours. The legal fees also violate the Sunshine Law, which is quite specific as to the fees that may be charged:
Fees for copying public records, except those records restricted under section 32.091, RSMo, shall not exceed ten cents per page for a paper copy not larger than nine by fourteen inches, with the hourly fee for duplicating time not to exceed the average hourly rate of pay for clerical staff of the public governmental body. Research time required for fulfilling records requests may be charged at the actual cost of research time. Based on the scope of the request, the public governmental body shall produce the copies using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time. [italics mine]
And what precisely, other than family connections and a little bit of old-fashioned developer shake-down, led the mayor of Florissant, Mo to attend a meeting in O’Fallon, a city 25 miles away? How often does the mayor meet with developers in, say, Arnold? The whole thing stinks — the corruption, the soap opera infighting, using “legal fees” to obstruct public record access.
Share This
Monday, March 20th, 2006,
by Fred (,
St. Charles county, St. Louis, UFCW, Walmart, Wentzville
,
The Wentzville Board of Aldermen is set to meet today to consider Wal-Mart’s proposal for a 70,000 foot expansion of its Wentzville Parkway location. The Board was to vote on the proposal at its regular meeting on March 8, but “Wake Up Wal-Mart”, an activist group opposed to the retailer and front for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, claimed the meeting violated the state open meetings law because there was not enough room in the council chamber for all the union activists.
Section 610.020 of the Sunshine Law requires that “[e]ach meeting shall be held at a place reasonably accessible to the public and of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated attendance by members of the public, and at a time reasonably convenient to the public, unless for good cause such a place or time is impossible or impractical.” Wentzville likely had no reason to anticipate that a meeting to consider expansion of a retail store at an existing location, which complies with all applicable zoning laws, and which has been anticipated for at least five years, could not be held in council chambers. Nevertheless, Wentzville tabled the matter until it could find an alternate location. The meeting is now scheduled for 6 p.m. at Wentzville Middle School.
The union is, of course, not happy with this arrangement either. They claim that the city didn’t give enough notice, even though notice of the meeting was posted on Wednesday, well in advance of Monday’s meeting. The Sunshine Act only requires 24 hours notice. They claim that the meeting should be held at the Wentzville General Motors plant instead of the middle school, which would conveniently have allowed union members at GM to stay after work to protest the plan.
Opposition to Wal-Mart is de rigeur these days, but this doesn’t even rise to the level of most Wal-Mart arguments. This is about Schnuck’s and its union employees trying to keep out a competitor, even though Wal-Mart only agreed not to build a Supercenter in the first place to allow Schnuck’s to gain a foothold in Wentzville. The Aldermen should do the right thing by their constituents and approve the Wal-Mart plan.
Share This
Friday, March 17th, 2006,
by Fred (,
eminent domain, Hazelwood, Missouri, property, St. Louis
,
Yet another reason to oppose use of eminent domain by private developers - they have no reason to negotiate in good faith when they can use the hammer of government.
McEagle wants the land because it represents an entrance to Hazelwood Commerce Center. For Select Drink, that creates a problem. The company was founded at 5401 Lindbergh Bouldevard in the 1970s by Woltering’s father.“As it stands, we’re going to have to go into debt to build or acquire a new building,†Woltering said.
McEagle initially offered Select Drink $25,000 for the land, and gradually upped its offer to $375,000, said Robert Denlow, an attorney representing the businesses. Select Drink believes the land is worth more.
A court-appointed commission agreed. In December, the commission ruled McEagle should pay $1.6 million for the property.
So for property worth at least $1.6 million, the developer offers $25,000. Seems fair.
And why shouldn’t Select Drink get to keep its property in the face of a developer? There’s no reason to believe the property is blighted, no justifiable reason that a successful business should have to move just to accommodate a developer who wants a better entrance to its development.
Share This
Friday, March 10th, 2006,
by Fred (,
economics, Show Me Institute, St. Louis, taxes
,
As noted here a couple of days ago, a new study has found that St. Louis’ earnings tax has been partly responsible for the flight of residents and jobs to the suburbs. Now David Nicklaus notes that St. Louis has placed itself in a vicious cycle in which it may not be able to eliminate the tax:
The property tax is the biggest money-raiser for many other cities, and some theorists consider it the ideal funding source for local government.
“Property taxes in general are considered to be less distortionary than other taxes,†said Patrick Fleenor, chief economist at the Tax Foundation in Washington. “It’s harder for people to avoid.â€
But St. Louis has set up a big barrier to increasing its property-tax take: For decades, nearly every project built in the city has received either tax abatement or tax-increment financing.
That’s partly because the city has been desperate for any investment in an era when residents and businesses were fleeing. The flight is due in part to the earnings tax. But tax abatement makes the earnings tax more important in the city’s revenue picture.
That’s the inherent problem with high taxes - St. Louis put itself in a bad position by taxing earnings of workers and the businesses that employ them. Then, when the residents and businesses fled to the low-tax suburbs, the city used tax gimmickry to attract development. Now the city is hamstrung by the tax gimmickry in its attempt to get rid of the tax that caused the problem in the first place. Far better to (a) spend less and (b) avoid TIFs and tax abatement that distort financial incentives and the revenue base of the city. Unfortunately, is it too late already?
Share This
