Why Type of Mayor Do We Have in St. Louis
Civic Stretegies, the consulting group that indicated the Post-Dispatch was one of the worst urban newspapers, has an interesting section on their web page titled, Five Types of Mayors:
We think there are five broad “mayor types” today. None is the right way to be a mayor; mayors can be successful in any of these types. But we do believe that two types tend to wear better over a couple of terms in office, the managerial mayor and the urbanist/neighborhood mayor. And if you want to be mayor more than eight years, probably the urbanist/neighborhood mayor is the right type to be. Some of the longest-serving mayors today, Richard Daley of Chicago, Thomas Menino of Boston and Joseph Riley of Charleston, are urbanist/neighborhood mayors.
Their five types are Deal-maker, Ethnic-Champion, Managerial, Reform/Protest, and Urbanist/neighborhood. Their site lists descriptions for each type.
Clearly Mayor Slay is a deal-maker type mayor. I’d be an Urbanist/neighborhood type mayor — here is the description they give:
These are mayors who are focused on making downtowns and neighborhoods healthy. They delight in the details and can talk endlessly about neighborhood groceries and tree plantings. Result: Some think of them as small-thinking fussbudgets. Perhaps some are, but there’s a reason these mayors last so long in office.
I think they’ve hit the nail on the head with these types. What do you think?
Given those choices, Slay is an “ethnic-champion.” Frankie the Saint is the “champion” of conservative whites who don’t want to rock the boat.
Given the choices and descriptions, I would say Slay’s public persona is that of the ‘deal maker.’
But then again is this really surprising when the city leadership (Board of Aldermen) operates in a ‘deal maker’ manor. Let’s face it, the practice of aldermanic courtesy is deal making plane and simple: Allow each alderman to act as the prime time player in his or her ward, able to put out the headlines and reap the reward when development occurs.
Mayor Daley in Chicago is definately an Urbanist Neighborhood Mayor.
Daley is a “deal maker” who happens to take credit for the work of “urbanist/neighborhood” community leaders. His survival strategy is making one big deal with culturally progressive people through pandering. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably hasn’t been south of Cermak Road lately.
Slay’s stance is quote similar to Daley’s, except much less convincing. Or maybe not: neither has had or is likely to have serious opposition.
I’m not sure that longevity in office is the best way to determine how desirable a mayor really is. Lists like these seem to have huge blind spots.
Jon notes that aldermatic courtesy makes our mayor a deal-maker. I tend to agree, to the extent that aldermatic courtesy makes city-wide planning difficult if not an impossibility. But, in my opinion, aldermatic courtesy is not bad in itself. It depends on what it is used for. In the 1940s, the alderman for the Hill neighborhood used aldermatic courtesy (i.e., no alderman would vote for a project if an alderman in the ward impacted by the project was against the project) to temporarily block the construction of the “Ozark Expressway” now I-44. I think most urbanists would say that interstates through dense neighborhoods is anti-urban and destructive, and would rather that I-44 had never been built through the city. It’s too bad that aldermatic courtesy ultimately failed in this instance. I don’t know why it failed. Does anyone else?
My guess is the thought of losing the 90% matching Federal money was too good a deal to pass up . . . .
I haven’t quite figured out which mode(s) our mayor and aldermen and women fit in . . . they all seem to want to make the next and best deal, and most profess to be looking out for their wards and neighborhoods, but the reults speak for themselves . . . .
I find it hard to believe that most mayors are anything but deal-makers. How can a mayor, especially in a machine system, not build coalitions while compromising with the opposition? Those who fail this task might make enough enemies to loose the next election. Personally I believe that St. Louis needs a combination of a managerial mayor/urbanist mayor. Although we do need to promote urbanism, we also need to deal with the fiscal problems. I believe through the promotion of urbanism along, with careful budgeting and an efficient bureaucracy, we can make big steps forward in areas besides downtown and the central west end.
One time, in a public setting, Mayor Slay identified me as a “good neighborhood” guy.
As a die-hard St. Louisan, it was one of the best compliments I have ever received.
Slay’s a neighborhood person too. To be successful in St. Louis, you have to be.
He’s a deal maker, no doubt. Let’s give him some credit. There has been more to transfer from the drawing board to reality under his leadership than in a generation of previous mayors.
But no one should doubt the fact that his base of support comes from a connection to people at the neighborhood level. This is St. Louis. We are known as a “neighborhood city”. How could a mayor of this town ever be anything but a “neighborhood person”?
When you hear him speak, whether in small groups or to large audiences, he always makes a point to give due credit for positive results starting at the neighborhood level.
“I’d be an Urbanist/neighborhood type mayor….”
Steve, is that a declaration for 2009?
Even this mayoral critic thinks Slay has ultimately been good for the Lou. I can see aspects of each type in Hizzoner. It’s only because I’d like to see him push harder for change, that I poked fun at our leader.
While a leader certainly faces assorted pitfalls during a city’s decline, I think sometimes a leader is proven more when taking on new challenges during a city’s ascent, even if ours is in its early stages. After all, you risk more by taking on something new when things are looking up than covering all your bases when times are bad. So now that the word on the street is that the City is back, it should continue to be a tough but rewarding job for a mayor to not just keep us moving forward, but actually quicken the pace.
Of course, the other word on the street (in addition to our revival) remains that our schools hold us back. But having already faced those trials, I think a more creative leader would now be searching other ways our City can continue its ascent. Now is not the time to devise Plan B, C, etc. for the schools, but rather create a completely new plan for a more vital urban environment. Rather than follow the lessons of the failures by administrations previous and present, true innovation is doing something like never tried before. After all, better schools could attract families to the City, but making the City an entirely unique and rewarding place to live will attract new and wake up existing households who appreciate the rewards of civic participation (from voting to parent-teacher involvement) and improved services, like public education.
Chris Goodson is stabbing city residents in the back.
Goodson has received millions of dollars in development funding from the city of St. Louis.
Now he thumbs his nose at city voters, the Mayor, the Board of Aldermen, and the Comptroller by refusing to allow city voters a say in the matter of residency requirements for police officers and civilian employees of the police department.
If Doug Duckworth is looking for a place to protest, he should forget about the McDonalds on South Grand and instead take his sign and march in front of City Hospital or any of the other myriad of devlopment sites where “libertarian” Goodson is asking for or receiving public assistance for his development projects.
The next time Goodson shows up in front of the TIF Commission, the commissioners should send him out the door.
Instead of thumbing his nose at city taxpayers and elected officials, Goodson should join the rest of us and lobby for local control of the police department.
Mayor Slay’s performance at the Police Board meeting was terrible. If he doesn’t even have the smarts to get a second to his motion, why is he even our leader? If the more likely case that his oppositon to the rules change was staged so he could take the high ground while tacitly approving the rules change, he also doesn’t deserve to be our leader!
Hey Wag,
What could Slay have possibly done differently to get a second to his motion or change the outcome of this vote?
Besides, what good would a second have done? His motion would have failed anyway.
The votes were 3-2 in favor of lifting the residency requirement.
This issue should be a clarion call for the leaders of City of St. Louis. Our leaders should march on the state capitol in Jefferson City and demand return of control of the city police department to the city of St. Louis.
This issue should be made into a national story.