Vollmer & Deferring Colleagues Vote to Raze St. Aloysius
I’m not sure what feeling is the strongest: anger, disappointment, sadness. In truth it is all of these. According to the Post-Dispatch the Board of Aldermen passed legislation to bypass the Preservation Board and allow the demolition of the former St. Aloysius Gonzaga complex. Keep in mind the Preservation Board is a volunteer citizen board appointed by the Mayor — the very ones who are supposed to give a balanced view of demolition requests as they relate to the development potential.
On December 19, 2005 the Preservation Board gave the property owner a very clear message: no you can’t tear down these buildings. It was a preliminary review and the owner could have come back another time with more documentation as to why he couldn’t save the buildings.
But instead he relied on the area’s Alderman which delivered the required legislation to snub the city’s 1999 Preservation Review ordinance. Basically the legislation stands to protect our neighborhoods and building stock unless one person, the area’s alderman, decides otherwise. Why even bother having a Cultural Resources Staff and a Preservation Board? Why not streamline the careless destruction of those very buildings and urban settings which make our city unique.
In the end Ald. Vollmer make a horrible decision not only for the immediate area but for the city. As expected, the other 27 “legislators” deferred to his judgement. I guess we have 28 cities within a city.
In place of this unique setting we’ll have some very ordinary houses — maybe. I’m not holding by breath. Based on what I’ve seen to date this developer he won’t get very far beyond razing the historic structures. My prediction is he’ll get no more than 5 houses completed and sold this calendar year with another 5 in 2007. More than half the sites will remain vacant eyesores.
This is if he does the project at all. Some have suggested he is busy shopping the building lots to other builders. This might be a good thing as ugly suburban looking homes are better than vacant lots with weeds and debris.
Neighbors will be hugely disappointed by the end result of all this. Of course, at that point it will be too late. As with so much of what we’ve lost, we don’t miss it until it is gone.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about all of this is we’ve failed to learn from past mistakes. Mistakes around razing great old buildings. Mistakes around electing the same types of folks.
You can express your feelings on this project in the comments below, to the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor.
– Steve
Can we get the voting record to find out who needs to be recalled next?
I guess we should probably start with the sponsor of this bill, Joe Vollmer. I’m willing to move a few blocks to the north. lol.
Recall is not the answer. Getting viable non-“machine” candidates to run in the regular elections would be the first step, convincing the voters to vote for them would be the second step, and, most importantly, changing the culture on council that an alderman can do no wrong in his or her ward would the third and most-important step. Recall is crude club that cuts both ways (warped analogy, I know), and should only be used in cases of true criminal malfeasance. Using it every time a bad decision is made is not a good idea.
No matter what anyone says, thinks or believes, nobody is all-knowing and all-seeing, and especially based on recent results, are St. Louis’s aldermen and women. The concept behind having multiple members is some critical thinking and a majority review of all actions, including “reigning-in” members who get too far off on personal agendas. If all our Board of Alderman is going to do is “rubber stamp” every bill that comes through, why even bother?
An alderman probably knows his ward better than anybody else on the Board, but in today’s highly-mobile and well-connected society, it’s not hard to have a clue about what’s going on elsewhere in the city. Thse people aren’t idiots, either. They just choose not to be good leaders for the CITY, choosing instead to take the easy way out and to defer nearly every ward-centere decision to a single person that may or may not be qualified to make the best decision. That’s the most unfortunate outcome of this case, and the hardest thing to change as St. Louis moves forward.
It would be great to hear this topic debated on KDHX’s “The Wire” with some of the regular guest representives from the B of A.
We do have viable non-machine candidates, if only people would support them!
Chris Thomas ran against Vollmer in the 2003 primary election.
Green Bud Deraps ran against Tom Bauer in the 2003 general election, garnering 29% of the vote without yard signs or much support from all of those people who talk about Bauer so much.
Thankfully, people did come out to help Steve Patterson in his 2005 aldermanic bid. But where were the progressives in the mayoral race? Even after the Century Building debacle, so many progressives were silent on Slay’s re-election. While the general election opponent was not credible, Irene Smith could have been a serious primary challenger.
We have to support the candidates that we have before we’ll ever change anything.
Recall for this decision should be up to the voters in Vollmer’s ward. It sounds to me like he didn’t give the residents/neighbors the whole story. It was presented to them as a done deal. Vollmer should have known it required an act by the Alderman since demolition was required.
Instead of accepting the ruling of the Preservation Board–a board set up to prevent senseless damage to our city–Vollmer looks for a sneaky way to help the archdiocese and developer further rip our neighborhood fabric.
If I lived in that ward, I’d be working on his recall now. As it is, I’ll be ready to volunteer in the effort.
Vollmer. What an Ass.
I wonder if the Preservation Board hearing wasn’t just a ruse to deflect opposition to demolition by giving preservationists a “victory” while the real deal was being carried out elsewhere.
“We do have viable non-machine candidates, if only people would support them!”
If not supported, not sure you could call them “viable”.
“Chris Thomas ran against Vollmer in the 2003 primary election.”
Didn’t Chris get way less than 10% of the vote?
“Even after the Century Building debacle, so many progressives were silent on Slay’s re-election. ”
Change needs to begin in the Board of Aldermen. The *aldermen* were the ones who were silent on the Century demolition. Like St. Aloysius, without their endorsement, there would have been no project.
We have a weak mayor system, subject to the control of the Board of Aldermen.
As long as the public focuses its attention on the Mayor’s office, the Board of Aldermen will continue to be unchecked in its divide and conquer leadership approach.
[REPLY – I keep hearing this “weak mayor” BS. Uh, the mayor’s office was behind the Century issue, they are apparently supportive of the St. Aloysius razing and they are in support of the new suburban McDonald’s on Grand. What is weak in the mayor’s office is the mayor. Where is the veto on the legislation???? – SLP]
AWB – “A sneaky way?” Vollmer made it very clear in front of residents at the Southwest Garden Neighborhood Association meeting that pulling the ward out of the Preservation ordinance WAS an option if demolition was not approved. Nothing was presented as a done deal.
“Rip our neighborhood fabric?” – if done right, these new single family residential houses will strengthen the fabric of the neighborhood, the same neighborhood which stopped going to St. Al’s, which in turn forced the church to close.
Get a clue – Vollmer is doing what he thinks is best for the ward and I support him.
[REPLY – Get a clue? Uh, how about Vollmer saying nobody has objected to this for a couple of years. Yes, this deal has been in the works long before the church was closed. The folks at St. Ambrose supported tearing down St. Aloysius because it would strenghten them. The whole bidding process was a joke given the church turned down an offer 2/3rds higher than the one they accepted. This is a prime example of a backroom deal and clueless voters like you are why we have the f’d up system we do. – SLP]
The mayor is upholding the St. Louis tradition of aldermanic courtesy.
Did the Archdioceses not have the right to take whatever offer they wanted? What makes that backroom?
They had every right to take a lower bid from a developer whose plans they believed would benefit the neighborhood more.
Of course St. Ambrose was going to be strengthened. Thanks for pointing out the obvious Steve! That would have happened no matter whose bid was accepted. The decision to CLOSE the church had been made long before then.
Thankfully this f’d up system didn’t allow you to get into office!
[REPLY – Yes, the Archdiocese had the right to sell to whomever they liked. But why go through the misleading charade of pretending like the property was available on the open market. We all know it wasn’t but they had to make it look like a deal wasn’t already in the works. Is the Alderman going to do anything to improve the area and risk the real estate deal? What if a St. Aloysius group had rallied the troupes to bring in new members? Wouldn’t have helped because the deal was done long ago. – SLP]
Hill Res,
Yes, “Rip our Neighborhood Fabric” is pretty fitting. St. Al’s is a big part of the context of that neighborhood. The houses are enhanced by the church property. Removing St. Al’s changes the context in a negative way.
What will, as Steve once called them, uninspired single family dwellings do to replace St. Al’s? Certainly the house at 2712 January (by Wohlert) doesn’t do much.
“Hill Res” is not a SW Garden neighborhood resident. “Hill Res” is a Hill resident.
“Hill Res” is, however, a St. Ambrose parish resident, which apparently, trumps neighborhood identity.
All of which, of course is trumped by ward identity, and aldermanic courtesy.
So Hill Res is protected and justified in St. Louis.
Put him on a float during Hill Day.
Maybe he already is.
Maybe Hill Res is actually Alderman Vollmer in disguise???
By the way: Southwest Garden — formerly known as the Fairmont District — is not historically part of The Hill. Officially, it’s a separate neighborhood, too.
As for not supporting candidates, I meant more than voting for them. I mean going out and doing hard work to make sure that people know that they are running and why. In the case of Chris Thomas, I bet few people knew that he was running — both inside and outside of the 10th Ward.
Yes, the Board of Aldermen is a huge problem. So is the Mayor. Two sides of the same coin under the current charter, in my opinion.