Board Bills Related to BJC Deal Posted, Then Pulled
Today Three Board Bills relating to the controversial proposal to grant a long-term lease to BJC Healthcare for a section of Forest Park were posted on the Board of Aldermen’s site. However, seven hours later these three were replaced with three non-related bills.
The above image is from my RSS reader, showing three bills posted between 10:24am and 10:32am this morning (the lower three). The numbers in question are 371, 372 and 373. Later in the day the same numbers were used again. Clicking on the links for the three earlier bills takes you to a blank board bill page — the three bills had been pulled.
At first glance you might not think the lower one, BB371, is related to Forest Park as it has to do with rezoning. But, if you look up city block 2022 it is the parcel in question. Was the decision made by Ald. Roddy to pull the bills from consideration this week?
Opponents of the plan have gathered the required signatures to require a city-wide vote in order to lease or sell park land. It is possible we may see some not-so-good old fashioned machine politics at work this week to shove this through the pipeline before we as citizens get a chance to vote on the ballot measure.
Based on my understanding of the rules, the board cannot introduce and pass the measure all in the same day. However, it could be introduced Friday for its “first reading” and then come out of committee in a coming week and get its second and third readings all at once (requires suspending the rules which is done although usually not for something so contentious.
Jake Wagman of the Post-Dispatch had more to say on this subject today on Political Fix. For more information on the grassroots citizens group fighting the proposal visit ProtectForestPark.org.
UPDATE 1/18/07 – 7am
I received an early morning return phone from President Shrewsbury with answers to questions I had reqarding this situation. Here is the story. The bills were submitted to the clerk yesterday but apparently someone wanted to make some changes so they were pulled from the agenda. Mr. Shrewsbury indicated the deadline for the printed agenda is 10am today so we will see in the next few hours if they are resubmitted.
Mr. Shrewsbury indicated two will be sent to the Parks committee, chaired by the bills’ sponsor Ald. Roddy. The third bill, relating to zoning, will be sent to the HUDZ (Housing, Urban Development & Zoning) committee chaired by Ald. Wessels. Apparently the two bills going to Parks do not require a public hearing, but the zoning bill will.
So despite a successful cititzen group getting the question of the sale or lease of parks on the ballot for all of us to vote on, Ald. Roddy is going to attempt to shove this through prior to that vote. While the zoning change may come in the next session they are trying to get the two bills related to the lease structure approved ahead of a citizen vote on the issue. As has been the case all along with the BJC deal, the process stinks. Something is wrong in the way the entire issue has been handled from day one. It is not getting any better.
I’ve not seen a report from the aldermen the mayor selected to be on a committee reviewing the lease terms. I’ve not been invited to a public forum to talk through and educate the public on the exact terms of the deal.
Please contact your alderman immediately! I would also ask that you contact President Shrewsbury as well as 6th Ward Alderman and candidate for the President’s seat, Lewis Reed. Let both of them know how you feel about them voting on this issue prior to a citizen driven ballot initiative. Time is of the essence folks, if you are concerned as I am about how deals get done in this city you will speak up now.
8am — let BJC know what you think too (contact form);
I’m sure you’ll let us know when the bills receive new numbers – I’ve found that it’s always more effective to have as much detail as possible when contacting any elected official (it gives you more credibility).
Whether it’s the layout of MetroLink, fast-tracked demolishion permits, or more control of park land, WashU typically gets whatever it wants. The process here stinks… really stinks as these “simple” errors demonstrate. These leaders have heard from the public and the initiative disrupts their plans. Forest Park is an asset to the whole region and therefore call your alderman and Dooley too!
Slay received money from the son of BJC Chairman Paul McKee Jr., Joe (Paul) McKee III who is President of PARIC, during his 2005 re-election bid. Slay also received money directly from Junior, through McEagle, albeit a smaller sum.
City Hall’s position has been made quite clear. I am sure further investigation into campaign finance will reveal more monies given to the various actors in this deal. It seems that not only do the McKee’s have a hand in Blairmont but also the acquisition of Forest Park.
Presuppose this deal goes through. What construction company will be getting the bid? I wonder!
To be fair, while I am a fan of the City and Aldermen working with the public to acomplish the public’s will, I am not at all sold that this ballot measure requiring a public vote on the sale or leasing of any parkland is a good idea. To me, the move severly constrains the ablity of the City to activly market and develope the many many worthless parks that have been created in the past 30 years in a poor attempt the increase the “ameneties” in the City.
Now, I know Steve will say, but if the public doesn’t want parkland sold then we should not sell it. I can’t really argue against this point. The only argument I can make is that in most cases, I really do think the public does not and would not understand the issues involved. You tell me Steve, will any public vote ever be fore selling park land? Groups such as those pushing for the ballot matter seem to see a very complex issue (the leasing/ selling of Forest Park land) in very black and white terms. Therefore, I am all for the City and the Aldermen getting this deal done before the poorly worded and short sighted ballot initative gets a chance to be passed.
As a side point, I would be more suppotive if there were constraints on the need to ask the public to vote on the sale or leasing of parkland. Why can’t we limit the need for public votes to say only those cases where a sale or lease is proposed AND there is no plan by the City to replace 90% of the parkland involved in the transaction?
I just got done going to the city website (http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/) and sending my alderman a quick email: “I understand that there may be two or three bills coming to the Board of Aldermen soon that deal with BJC’s proposed expansion into Forest Park. While I have mixed feelings about the proposal itself, I do object strongly to any attempts to circumvent a vote of the public on the issue, especially since it appears that more than enough signatures have been collected to place the issue on the ballot through the initiative process.”
Your “Give your Alderman a call” comment got me thinking. You’re wanting each alderman to get their own blog so go ahead and set one up for them. I guess it could be done with just one blog and use Tags for each individual ward. Inform each alderman about their blog and if they choose to use it great, if not, you can post that they choose not to and their reason.
The Tags would be long and confusing but it’s a start.
The bills have been reintroduced as 374, 375, 376.
As one of the members of Citizens to Protect Forest Park, I share some of the reservations expressed about the process proposed in Proposition P (the park initiative). However, in our current political environment–campaign financing, aldermanic courtesy, development at all cost, etc.–I don’t beleive that our civic leaders are committed to preserving our cultural legacy, and I don’t see that changing because of the parochial nature of this place. Cumbersome as it may be, the citizens are more prepared to stand up on individual issues than our conflicted politicians.
Mayor Slay has posted on this issue on his blog today. Some of the points he makes and benefits of the revised lease (plan) seem good to me.
This proposal is wrong on two fronts.
First, the City should no longer bow to the will of corporations. What we need to emphasize is our monopolies: unique historical housing and a built urban environment. By maximizing these assets, employees would be naturally attracted to the City, thus employers like BJC would face opposition for a proposed relocation. Thereby the City would no longer need to please business as they would be compelled to St. Louis City. We would have a competitive advantage over our neighbors as few possess our unique assets. Yet we are pursuing policies of demolition and suburbanization which are counterproductive as they erase our unique draws. Eventually the City will no longer have the most historical housing in Missouri and its walkable environment will be disconnected. In an extremely competitive region we are failing by actively destroying that which grants us an edge!
Second, the way to pay for a historical park is to increase taxes thus yield not sell of sections to pay for what remains. The park is aging thus incurs increasing maintenance costs, therefore the citizens who use it should pay. This is pretty basic. When your car breaks down do you sell parts to pay for the oil change?
Yet our elected officials are in power in order to remain in power not to challenge the status quo or inspire the citizenry. So much for leaders!
This story once again illustrates why the City of StL cannot be trusted. Whether it’s a school district, a police force, urban design, etc., the City government continues to hand out favors under the table instead of engaging the public. No doubt, due to exogenous factors, the Mayor has moved in the right direction but is it enough? The City Parks Protection initiative is still on the table and creative political maneuvering doesn’t change that. It would be helpful if PFP would address the latest proposals and whether they adequately address their concerns. Of course BJC is the City’s largest employer but I doubt the directors would move it without the lease. The need for money should move the City to work with the whole region not just favoring a small subset.
Forest Park is an important regional asset and should be managed and financed as such. Currently the Zoo/Museums are managed as a district and which should include the whole park, not simply a few buildings. Many citizens in the Metro area donated funds to help finance the Master Plan and this lease deal was not part of it. Unfortunately, many of the less-than-transparent decision making in the City is also evident in the County. ALL the citizens of the region should be involved and alarmed. What do you think?
dumb question:
how do you get the feeds? by that I mean from what site does your reader retrieve them?
I am halfblonde. I found it…
“Currently the Zoo/Museums are managed as a district and which should include the whole park, not simply a few buildings.”
No, they aren’t.
Our Region can accomplish much when put to the task. There is no reason to sell off sections! Raise money through taxes and donations!
The City of St. Louis committed to raising half of the cost of implementation in public funds. Forest Park Forever, a private, not-for profit organization, is raising the remainder in private funds from mid-sized and small corporations, national and local foundations, and individuals. In addition, Forest Park Forever is committed to increasing annual giving over the life of the capital campaign, insuring appropriate maintenance in the park.
The City of St. Louis immediately issued $17 million in bonds to allow work on the lakes, roads, sidewalks and infrastructure to begin. The bonds are being repaid though a half-cent sales tax, approved by voters in 1993, that generates about $1.7 million annually for the park. A portion of the annual revenue generated by the tax, about $1.3 million, is used as debt payment on the bond issue.
The initial goal of raising $86 million was reached in 2000.
Funding as of Feb. 28, 2003, shows $55.7 million raised by the City of St. Louis and $46.9 from Forest Park Forever for a total of $102.6 million, the largest amount of money ever raised by a public/private partnership for an urban park renovation anywhere in the country.
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/parks/forestpark/fpmasterplan.html
Steve said:
“Frankly I don’t trust the mayor’s explaination — it is never as simple as they try to make it out to be. The continue to take action that drive people to other cities.”
Steve, it is very easy to dismiss every plan outright if you start with the premise that every elected official trying to destroy the city.
Putting that aside for a second, what objections do you have with the current plan as presented by the mayor?
The “issue” is not whether the mayor is out to destroy (of course he isn’t) but about process! The elected leaders have been caught handing out favors again and consequently revised lease terms to avoid further embarrassment. In the mean time, the citizens have spoken with an initiative that should be respected instead of being treated as an obstacle to be out-maneuver by political shenanigans. The park is an asset of the whole region and should be treated as such. It’s hard to trust leaders who refuse to deal honestly with the public and it continues to amaze me why this is accceptable here.
FYI some history from the P-D:Howard Baer came to revere the zoo — so much so that he joined its board in 1956 and was its chairman from 1960-70. From the inside, Baer saw how years of tight budgets had decayed the Zoo. But the city’s tax base had decayed, too, as postwar population drained into the county.
Even so, county residents still flocked to the Zoo. So late in the ’60s, Baer decided to appeal to their good will, and their wallets. He proposed a city-county district, with voters in both places paying for the Zoo. In 1971, St. Louis County voters agreed to pitch in and help pay for those institutions, plus the Science Center. They did so by joining city voters in approving the Zoo-Museum District.
The ZMD, an entity that oversees revenues collected through property taxes in the City and the county and redistributed to several major institutions, remains a great example of public support for some important private institutions.
The original ZMD included the Zoo, the Science Center, and the Art Museum. The History Museum and the Botanical Garden were added a decade later.
The ZMD, while farsighted and generous, does not completely fund any of these institutions. It covered, for example, less than half the Zoo’s budget last year. The rest of the Zoo’s budget was raised privately, including admission charges for some attractions.
The ZMD does not, of course, manage any of the institutions it helps support.
One of these days, voters may consider expanding the footprint to the ZMD to include taxpayers in other counties, to include other private (or public) institutions as members, or to change the percentages of revenue allocated to each of the current members.
PE is correct. The ZMD has a board, each subdistrict has a board — but their only functions are setting tax rates. Each institution still has its own independent, non-profit board of directors that sets policy and budget and leads fundraising. Some of the institutions do get Federal and State grants, but certainly lots of dollars come from private sources.
I think Forest Park Forever is an admirable example of trying to make a similar effort for the entire park, without creating another special taxing district. FPF raises the private dollars; the city kicks in what it can via general revenue and bond issuances.
This lease deal is much improved. I also think the initiative petition drive may be a bit misguided, if it does actually apply to constructing public facilities in parks, such as the desperately needed new animal shelter proposed for Ellendale-Arsenal Park. The initiative has placed an un-necessary obstacle to the fundraising efforts for that facility.
I’m not as informed on this issue as perhaps most are who read this blog, but at its surface I have no problem with the proposal to allow BJC to lease the land directly to their south, which is now considered part of Forest park. I believe that the separation caused by Forest Park Parkway separated this parcel from the rest of that park if not technically then at least in spirit a long time ago. Sandwiched between highway 64, BJC and Kingshighway if anything it is indeed the perfect place for supporting infrastructure, including parking, for the future expansion of BJC and the CWE in general. I am not commenting on the other issues at hand or the potential for financial oversight, which by their own right may require the rejection of the proposal. But to lump this area in as important as the rest of forest park is a knee-jerk reaction. Forest Park is a great amenity to the area, and I’ll be damned to sit still if anything were to happen to the west of Kingshighway, but the proposed area in my opinion serves better use as something other than pure parkland. I’m not a native of STL, but it also seems hypocritical to me to bash BJC as a money-hungry business, yet as you arrive to the city as a newcomer its one of the first institutions held up by locals as a beacon of the quality of life to be had in Saint Louis. I understand many people revere forest park, and rightfully so, but compromise is always a facet and inevitability of modern development and civic progress. I would expect that if BJC threatened to move its operations to chesterfield due to lack of potential expansion opportunities people would be singing a very different tune.
-Brent
One, the current proposal is substantially better than the current lease. Two, if it’s not indexed to inflation, there’s a very real possibility St. Louis will lose money over time. Three, this is a lease, not a sale – if the city (or that part of the city) needs its land back in 99 years, it can (in theory) get it back. Four, money is fungible – there’s a finite amount of tax dollars that the public will (and can) support. Just because a dedicated funding source is created (in this case a multi-million dollar lease) there are absolutely no guarantees that general tax dollars now dedicated to Forest Park won’t be redirected to other needs and uses – my prediction is that if this passes, in ten years, Forest Park will be in relatively the same funding position they’re in today. Five, while Forest Park (and Tower Grove Park and Carondolet Park) is a large and well-loved gem in the St. Louis Park system, there are other large parks (as well as many smaller parks) in need of TLC, as well (Fairgrounds Park comes to mind immediately). While I’d prefer seeing any trust associated with a lease being dedicated to all city parks, I’m willing to defer to my previous point and hope that overall parks funding does not get cut as a part of this deal (I’m betting on aldermanic courtesy on this one). Six, don’t count on BJC staying put even if they get this deal. In Denver, about ten years ago, Children’s Hospital tore down a modernist school and relocated a major street to expand – they’re now building a whole new facility in the suburbs and will be closing down their current location in a year or two. (The VA Hospital and the CU Medical Center are moving out, as well, also vacating long-term in-town sites like BJC’s.) Seven, based on prior discussion, I am concerned that the citizen’s initiative may create too many hurdles, especially on city park property other than Forest Park (but I haven’t read it yet). My experience In Denver was that you could never convince the voters to sell any parkland (even if it made a lot of sense), since the city could not advocate for the issue – they had to remain neutral, but the state Dept. of Transportation could always use emminent domian when they “needed” parkland. Finally, eight, I have major concerns about any elected body that wants to accelerate their deliberative process to get ahead of a lawful citizen’s initiative. Yes, we elect representatives. Yes, we should defer to their “wisdom”. But outside of recalls, I see very little in the way of citizen initiatives around here. Either the thresholds are too high or the elected bodies are doing a good job. In either case, there’s obviously a reason why this is coming to a vote and that vote must be respected. Plus there’s also that very real possibility that both the BOA lease will be adopted AND the initiative will pass and the whole issue will be stuck in court for years – BJC would be better off not pushing for an end run – they (and the city officials) may win the battle but lose the war . . .
Like the new stadium deal struck just before Prop.S, I look forward to being impressed again by aldermen legislating pragmatically at the eleventh hour.
Jim–I had previously (over the summer) understood the proposal to include a yearly inflation adjustment starting in year ten of the lease. However, I don’t see that provision in a quick perusal of the Board Bills as placed on the internet.