Minutes from Hearing on McDonald’s Drive-Thru
If, by chance, you are not sick of the McDonald’s issue yet I’ve go more for you. I have received a copy of the minutes of the meeting. This is not to be confused with a word for word transcript. Still, it gives you a good summary of those that spoke and their main points.
And I have posted the letter of approval from the city on the drive-thru. Thankfully, Gravois Park residents have appealed this decision.
Once I receive the audio cassette of the hearing I will digitize it and make it available as a series of MP3 files for all to hear. The next best thing to being there!
Make no mistake, the Florida/Pyramid camp will likely stop at nothing to get there way over the objections of not only the immediate residents but all of us that consider this a critical area for St. Louis even though we don’t live within a few blocks of the area.
The continued attempts by officials in this city to discount the opinions of myself and others simply because we are not in the direct path of a poor decision shows how limited their thinking really is. Florida talks a good game about the big picture but the only big picture plan for the area she willfully choosing to ignore.
I am so over the “we need any development no matter how bad” mentality.
– Steve
I’m trouble by the comments of James Proctor, the franchise owner, as shown in the minutes. Per the minutes he says “makes it impossible for us to have a double drive-thru”. The minutes are so poorly written, go figure, that it is hard to understand exactly what he is talking about. But I wonder if there are plans for a double drive-thru at the proposed Grand and Winnebago site? The site plan submitted to the Board of Adjustment only shows one drive-thru lane. But it does have a large 24ft wide one way aisle around the building. My concern is that later down the road that 24ft one way lane will turn into a 12ft one way lane and another drive-thru lane will be added. It sounds like a issue of “bait and switch” to me.
I stand corrected. It appears the alderwoman from the 15th ward does not wish to negotiate, or consider resident outcry. Rather, Ms. Florida appears to be trying to ram this project through all necessary approvals, despite strong opposition.
Grand Oak Hill Community Corporation should be ashamed of siding with their benefactor on a property outside their neighborhood. If Florida understands what it’s like to be countered by a fellow alderman in her testimony, I’m sure she can then understand what it must feel like for Gravois Park and Dutchtown residents to be countered in testimony by “Tower Grove South.”
But Grand Oak Hill Community Corporation is unlike a fully volunteer, resident-based neighborhood association. GOHCC depends on Florida for their Community Development Block Grant funding, including Maggie Lampe, GOHCC’s top paid employee.
Maybe Jennifer needs to go back to Metamora (outside Peoria, IL) and see how much development they need.
That area (and Dunlap) are sprouting developments like weeds, so they’d probably appreciate that double drive thru McDonald’s.
Just my $0.02….
Yikes. Now, I haven’t taken minutes for a meeting since high school Model U.N., but I think even those were better than the minutes from this meeting.
When the alderman doesn’t want to negotiate or listen to resident outcry, I think it’s reasonable to talk of a recall.
If she had the zoning laws on her side, that would be a bit different. But she’s pushing through something that earlier planning clearly saw as harmful to the area. Now she’s trying to pass it off as the best we can get, and good for the neighborhood at the same time. She says it’s good for pedestrians, but this project is only good for pedestrians in other parts of the city, far away from this car-oriented nightmare.
Her actions clearly show that she is not interested in sound planning, pedestrian safety, existing zoning requirements, openly presenting all pertinent facts at public meetings, neighboring wards, neighborhood associations.
It sounds to me like recall is the only thing she will understand.
Just what are the steps to the recall process?
I’ve only lived in her ward about 2 years, but in that time I’ve seen/heard/witnessed nothing but angry residents and communities. Plus she exudes credibility when faced with Elliot Davis on TV saying “Don’t you just love my hair? Everybody else does!”
In this time she has personally argued against me, lied through her teeth to my face, and told me broken concrete sidewalks do not pose a safety issue because “no children walk on your street.”
And this woman is making important decisions for her constituents regarding pedestrian safety, sound planning, and doing what’s best for her neighborhoods?
I think not. Even if we can’t fight the beaurocracy of the new McDonalds, we should do what we can to recall her.
Here is the process, not to complicated…
…”that if the officer shall have been elected by the voters of a ward or district, the petition need be signed by only twenty percent of all the registered voters therein at the time of said mayoralty election.”
“The signatures need not all be appended to one paper, but all papers comprising the petition shall be uniform in character and shall each be verified by affidavit stating that each signature thereto was made in affiantÂ’s presence by, as affiant verily believes, the person whose name it purports to be. Each signer shall state, opposite his signature, his residence address. Any person shall be deemed a registered voter whose name is unerased on the registration books.”
blah, blah, blah…
http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/charter/data/art03.htm
She needs to be ousted. I do not see how she is representing her ward, or the city at large.
Let’s do it.
Florida is also the sponsor of the ridiculous ordinance going before voters on April 6 that would limit the right to recall alderpersons. Hmmm. Great timing, huh?
And she has the Arch City Chronicle running interference with the South Grand set, too.
On April 6th:
~~~~
“Shall the Charter of the City of St. Louis be amended by repealing Section 9 of Article III relating to limitations on the time of filing recall petitions and enacting a new section to be numbered Section 9 of Article III relating to the same subject matter which shall be and read as follows?
Section 9. Limitations on Use.
The Board of Election Commissioners shall prescribe the form of the recall petition. Any such form shall provide for the dating of all signatures thereon. At the time a recall petition is requested the Board of Election Commissioners shall notify the officer who is the subject of the recall petition. No recall petition shall be filed against any officer within the first six months or the last six months of his term nor within eighteen months after a proposition for his recall has been defeated at an election. No recall petition shall be filed against any officer later than one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date the petition is requested by the petitioners from the Board of Election. ”
~~~~
The way I read it, sounds like it shores up the stipulations for a recall… doesn’t seem to favor either side…
“Arch City Chronicle running interference for the South Grand Set”. That’s a juicy one!
If she’s recieving under-the-table benefits I can understand why she won’t consider dropping the issue… what I’m having difficulty understanding is why she refuses to even discuss the issue of revising the site plan. I think many of us would be appeased if the site plan was revised in such a way as to make it truly urban and pedestrian friendly. While I’d rather see the McDonalds gone altogether, I’d rather see the building more urban and pedestrian friendly than stay as it is. By refusing to even discuss it she’s getting dangerously close to causing a local uprising and risking her own position by doing so.
At this point I want to see her gone based purely on her arrogance, short sightedness, and lack of interest in the opinions of her constituents and concerned St. Louisans. But I guess I don’t understand why she’s risking that for something she could easily change. I think half of the readers of UrbanReview could give her a better site plan for free… what gives?
She is now an alderman and that gives her power and prestige.
She is protected by the majority of other alderman. Or is she?
Schmid has taken exception to this project…and he’s the former alderman for the area.
What about other aldermen? Will they side with their ruling class elite, or the common people?
Fry, I think you are being a little to Marxist. These people are not ruiling class elites, the position only pays 20 grand per year. Obviously they do have a level of power, but we can get them out of office. We are not talking about US Senators, we are talking about St. Louis Aldermen, lets get back into perspective. Getting them out of office is not impossible if we are organized.
[REPLY – Actually the position pays around $32K per year plus lunches & trips. – SLP]
“Getting them out of office is not impossible if we are organized.”
Agreed. Look at Ward 24′ recent recall.
Then again, how many aldermen were even challenged in 2005? There were maybe five primary challengers and two general election challengers. Organization is going to have to be better than that to make any difference.
“Board Bill #310 does not limit aldermen from immediately running again after they have been recalled., although some observers believe that such added language would offer an attractive trade-off for city voters.
Even if it does pass the Board of Aldermen and is signed by the Mayor, it still requires approval by 60% of the voters to change the city’s charter and become law.”