Aldermanic Options for Razing St. Aloysius
My last post on St. Aloysius had to do with the notion of effectively spot zoning the one city block by removing only it from the City’s Preservation Review ordinance. A couple of others options exist for Alderman Vollmer to go around the appointed volunteer body that reviews demolition applications.
First is to pass an ordinance removing the 10th Ward or much of the ward from the Preservation Review ordinance. By doing so he avoids the look of favoritism for a single property owner, in this case a private developer from Wildwood. This could have dire consequences for the ward in the future.
When a building owner applies for a demolition permit the City’s Building Division checks to see if it falls within a historic district (local or national) or within a preservation review district. If so, it seeds the request over to the cultural resources office for review. The staff at Cultural Resources looks at the building in question as well as the criteria of the enabling ordinance to make a judgement call. This was done to give some oversight so that we don’t accidently erase buildings of value. They staff routinely approves demolition of buildings after reviewing the criteria. In the case of St. Aloysius, they approved two of the six structures on the site. The other four they sent to the Preservation Board for a decision. This is a valuable process for protecting our heritage.
Removing all or part of the 10th Ward from this process will mean buildings could be razed without any public input.
The other option Alderman Vollmer may seek is a Chapter 99 Development Plan. In short this is a process of blighting the property and passing an ordinance for the redevelopment. This is complicated and the public doesn’t generally follow along. Of course, the other 27 aldermen in the city will use “aldermanic courtesy” and approve the ordinance no matter how they or their constituents feel about the damaging affects it will have on the city as a whole. The city has a brief summary of the process which you can read here.
Finally check out the Suburban Journal today. The Southwest City Journal has an article by Shawn Clubb titled “Developer to appeal decision on St. Aloysius.” [Note, the Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journals do not offer permanent links to their articles so I cannot provide valid links to them as much as I’d like to.]
The alderman, developer and neighborhood executive director are claiming nobody objected to the proposal. I’m getting calls and emails from neighbors thanking me saying they either weren’t aware of what was going on or thought it was a done deal so why bother.
I seriously doubt any of them ever asked the neighborhood a balanced question like, “Would you rather see all the buildings razed and replaced with new single family homes or would you like to see the church, rectory and convent converted to condos with new single family homes on the west end of the site?”
– Steve
I’m also getting notes from neighbors who oppose demolition and thanking me for speaking out against demolition. I think that this is a case of manufactured consensus. Were neighbors and parishioners ever informed of the bid on the buildings that would have resued the old church, convent, rectory and gym?
The way information about development flows, the neighbors are likely some of the last people to know — news stories of the Preservation Board meeting were the first some people on The Hill had even heard about the future of the church.
I agree that removing the 10th Ward from Preservation Review is a bad idea. Especially now that Bill Waterhouse is promising to bring the adjacent 24th Ward back in.
On another point: Won’t Vollmer need to do a Chapter 99 ordinance anyway, in order to offer the much-discussed 10-year tax abatement?
Any news on the status of Vollmer’s BB #361 – the one setting up the Planned Unit Development approving the zoning change that the Planning Commission OK’d in December?
One must question the process whereby a Chapter 99 Redevelopment Plan or Planned Unit Development can be approved for a project apart from the original demolition request.
Shouldn’t the issue of the demolition be settled first, or else isn’t the whole exercise a waste of time and resources? That is unless the demolition is presumed to be a fait accomplis, even prior to the permit request.
“…If a development plan is approved in the forest, and no one is around to see it, is it really a project?”
Vollmer’s BB #361 was introduced on the full board floor for first reading on December 16th, but according to the minutes, was not referenced to any committee at that meeting, nor was Krewson’s BB #358, another PUD for the tower at Lindell and Euclid, at least according to the minutes.
Bills dealing with PUDs are referred to the HUDZ committee chaired by Wessels. Following the redistricting, HUDZ co-chair Schmid was technically alderman over St. Al’s during the Head Start fiasco.
Since the December 16th meeting (maybe erroneous minutes), BB #358 and #361 have been referred to HUDZ, according to its committee website:
http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/committeeDetail.cfm?comId=1
From the meetings link, it appears the next HUDZ committee will be in the Kennedy Hearing Room of City Hall on Wednesday, January 18, at 10am. It would be rather odd though if both Krewson’s BB #358 and Vollmer’s BB #361 are heard the same day, as many of those trying to save St. Al’s buildings also like Opus’ plans for a second, taller tower in the CWE.
Is there a way for the parties that are opposed to demolition to meet and discuss alternatives and opinions?
[REPLY – That would be ideal. I contacted the Neighborhood Association via email but I have not heard back from them. They are having a board meeting on Monday that I plan to attend. A compromise development which includes the existing church, rectory and convent with new construction to the west is a perfect solution for the site. – SLP]
Apologies in advance for venting, but here goes…
Am I the only one who is tired of seeing priests insert themselves into the development process?
Isn’t it their role to tend to their flocks? What business do they have inserting themselves into development? They aren’t even property owners.
Besides, most are short timers anyway. Many priests are bounced around from parish to parish every five-ten years.
Does a degree in divinity give you expertise in real estate development, urban planning, and historic preservation?
But you know what irks me even more? A tag team comprised of a priest and an alderman. How is the average person, let alone average Catholic, supposed to take a position contrary to their priest and their alderman?
[REPLY – Well, I actually think that all persons living in our city should have a voice in the future of the city — we shouldn’t limit opinions strictly to property owners. That having been said, the problem is when a priest or other person speaks on behalf of an entire group. Are they really representing their views? I’ve got more than one resident that now attends St. Ambrose saying otherwise but they are afraid of repercussions of speaking out against the wishes of this “tag team” as you put it. – SLP]
When I read the title to this entry, I thought it was going to be about aldermanic alternatives to demolition. Instead it turned out to be a discussion about the various options the alderman has open to clear the way for demolition. Oops.
One of the problems with this situation is the way the developer, priest, and alderman are already so far down the road toward demolition. Changing course now is more difficult.
It doesn’t sound like there was much formal public input into this project during the planning stages, at least at the neighborhood level. As a resident of South St. Louis, I know I never heard about it.
That’s one of the over-arching problems with the whole notion of aldermanic courtesy. If an alderman is, as some have said, crowned “king or queen” of their ward, then it’s not required for them to seek public input on their plans.
As the saying goes, “it’s nice to be king”. Kings get to do what they want.
Limiting their authority won’t make them very happy.