Candidates for Aldermanic President Speak at 15th Ward Forum
Last night I attended the candidates forum sponsored by the 15th Ward Democrats, not to be confused with Democrats of the 15th Ward. They are not one in the same, but I will cover that later. The format was Mr. Shrewsbury had the first half hour and Mr. Reed the second half hour. They were asked the same questions. Below are videos for each opening statement, I included Mr. Reed’s closing statement as well to give him roughly equal time at Mr. Shrewsbury. Both vidoes are raw — I have not edited any content.
Jim Shrewsbury — current President of the Board of Aldermen (opening statement):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuayjEYA7CM[/youtube]
Lewis Reed — current 6th Ward Alderman (opening & closing statement):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KbjPchJAQQ[/youtube]
The nine questions asked of both candidates related to the following:
- TIF for St. Louis Centre
- Example of Impact You’d have on City
- School Board appointment in case of state takeover
- BJC/Forest Park lease
- Charter Reform
- Aldermanic Courtesy
- Air Quality
- Gentrification
- Large-Scale Development
For more detail of each question and each response see the summary prepared by 15th ward resident Steve Wilke-Shapiro.One question related to pollution/air quality. Mr. Shrewsbury spoke of legislation he passed related to prohibiting the burning of medical waste. Mr. Reed indicated he would support future legislation similar to the bill passed by Ald. Flowers prohibiting the burning of medical waste. So who sponsored the bill on medical waste? Well, quite a few aldermen did. In fact, the bill (now Ordinance #65701) had 23 sponsors out of a possible 29. It would appear both Pres. Shrewsbury and Ald. Flowers were the primary sponsors. Aldermen Carter, Bauer, Florida, Long, Roddy, Villa, Clay, Ryan, McMillan, Smith, Ortmann, Reed, Sondermann, Gregali, Krewson, Schmid, Conway, Ozier, Kirner, Kennedy and Heitert all joined in. So Shrewsbury was a sponsor and Reed was a co-sponsor. That didn’t help me in distinquishing between the two candidates.
In fact, not much was helpful. Overall I’d say Shrewsbury gave more direct answers with some specific examples whereas Reed stayed more general. Still, neither seemed to offer a radically different perspective on the questions. It was not like Democrats vs. Republicans debating gay marriage.
Immediately following the presentations the eligible members of the 15th Ward Democrats voted to endorse Mr. Reed in the race. I have inquired directly and on several sites as to the voting process. The reason I was curious is it seemed to me that half the room was people from the press or workers/volunteers for each of the two candidates. I estimate that roughly only 10 or so were from the 15th ward and a couple of those were not eligible to vote in the endorsement.
Remember that I said at the opening not to confuse the 15th Ward Democrats with the Democrats of the 15th Ward, let me elaborate. The Democrats of the 15th Ward is the old guard if you will, and that ward group is a closed ward. That is, the membership is not allowed to vote. I’m not even sure they have any actual members. However, the two leaders of that group, Greg Thomas & Jo Ann Perkins, were both elected in 2000 & 2004 to represent the Democrats of the 15th ward (in 2004 Thomas received over 1,600 votes while Perkins received over 1,700 votes). Neither were opposed in 2000 or 2004, just as Ald. Jennifer Florida was not opposed in 2005.
So this other group, the 15th Ward Democrats, is not elected by anyone. They are a political action committee (PAC) that was formed because they were unhappy with the closed ward group. Their website indicates they are an “open” ward where members are allowed to vote in endorsements. Yet, when I inquired about their membership numbers, how many voted last night and such I was told they don’t disclose such information. Doesn’t sound very open does it?
I can understand not wanting to indicate the outcome of the ward vote — they are indicating they as a group back the person they selected, in this case Ald. Reed. I have to respect that as they want to be a united group to support their selected candidate. Still, they can disclose the number of eligible voting members as well as the number of those that participated in the ward vote without damaging that united front. Again, I believe it to have been around 10 people that comprised the vote. Frankly I don’t care if it was 6-4, 9-1 or 10-0 for Reed, I want to know how representative these groups are relative to the number of residents and registered voters. In 2004 the 15th ward had 5,759 registered voters so personally I don’t see much difference between a “closed” ward where the two duly-elected democratic representatives endorse candidates and a small group of 10 people in an “open” ward endorse candidates.
UPDATE 1/11/2007 @ 8:45am — I totally forgot to mention, in order to comment on the “open” 15th Ward Democrats blog you must be a registered user of blogspot yourself. This, of course, dramatically limits feedback they might receive. The software offers other options for feedback while still controlling for spam but then just anyone could comment.
Steve, I got to agree with you (where is my drink?).
I found the forum could have used a lot more concerned citizens. I can barely (mind you, barely) understand the group not wanting to divulge the exact tally because that will give others the impression of a non-united group, an opportunity to divide and conquer if you will.
As for the medical waste bill. If memory serves, the largest incinerator at one time was located right near where Belon salvage and now Deli is located..Vanderventer and Manchester. Though not in her ward directly, by the time the ash and smoke went up and came back down, it would have settled over her ward and adjacent area (South and North Tower Grove Park areas).
Steve, I have read the other Steve’s review of last night’s forum and I have taken the liberty of copy and pasting my responses to the 9 points rather than retyping everything.
Steve, I think you summed up the meeting very well. So if I may use your space to post my comments:
First off, I think it was poorly attended. It was great that each candidate had their support people, plus a few reporters (you, Steve Patterson, and a few others)…where were the members of the 15th ward democrats? I have to agree with Steve P., if they can’t get a majority of their members to attend an important event, then why would I (even though a democrate) be motivated to join? What’s the use? I don’t agree with Jan’s response of reasons people don’t attend. In my opinion, it is important because getting to know candidates determines part of the path that the city will go. ‘It doesn’t concern me (enough) is not a good enough reason for political apathy from a political group. Or did I misunderstand?
As for #1, I agree that the deal stinks. Shrews. was correct when he said it wasn’t the best deal, but it was the right thing to do. Reed was right in that it takes incentives to rebuild the city. But in my opinion, neither addressed the issue of how to attract more JOBS to the city. Housing is not going to do squat if people don’t have jobs to pay for it. We also need to rebuild the job base and neither canidate addressed that issue.
#2, What have you done is a gimme. But I will side with Reed on this one simply because he has nothing to go on but his record as Alderman and it is hard to determine what happens with an Alderman versus what happens because of market forces.
#3, School board. For the kids is a given, and there is too much politics. Both were vague in their answers. Hell, I’m even contemplating filing for board member because even I think I can review budgets and set goals better than what we currently have going on. Will they recommend someone that is going to continue the turf wars or really, really focus on the kids? As much as I hate the teachers/jobs comment (there are more good and great teachers than there are bad or uncaring), I hate even worse the attitude of let’s throw more money at it line of thinking. Also I think someone needs to address why teachers aren’t required to live in the city. I think that alone might make a major difference in the system…not just teachers, but administrators as well.
#4, Lease to BJC. What Reed said was honest, but also very concerning. Why don’t the Aldermen know the details? But what Shrewsbury said was also good. The deal needs to be above board, out in public with debate, and always, always, looking out for the good of the city as a whole and not just BJC, Forest Park. Personally, I agree to leasing since the land is already considered by many to be “out of the park” what I don’t agree with is the measly amount that was settled for. Plus I would like to see increases due to inflation and rising property values included.
#5, Charter reform. I agree with both answers and with Steve. I would have like to see them explain how they stood on each of the proposed changes.
#6, I’m not thrilled with any answer. Direct contact should be required and expected. In this day and age, there is no reason to not return a call, an email, a letter. Conflict is GOOD, as long as it is managed. Conflict just for conflict is a waste of time.
Also, neither candidate addressed the long-term future vision of what they see the city to be. There are no plans for a planning committee either. If the Parks district and the County can do a citizen community plan, then why can’t the city? Lack of money is a cop out. I can not believe there are not plenty of grants out there to get this going and have a professional group lead citizens to plan a future and put it to the voters.
#7, Neither addressed the obscene lead poisoning levels in city children and remediation steps, the lack of effective and easy recylcing within the reach of every citizen, the sky high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, the increasing amount of city poor and the lack of medical care, mental health issues, the list goes on and on from which they could choose from.
#8, Gentrification. I agree with Steve, both had good answers but I liked Reed’s better. But there is more than just the loft district. There are plenty of wards were the poor are being forced out or forced to migrate towards wards (that perhaps through ineffective ward management for a number of reasons) that tend to have higher crime rates, higher truancy, and other problems. Where is the city wide view?
#9, I agree with Steve on this. Leadership comes when one needs to make and implement the difficult decisions…where is the leadership?
Sorry for taking up so much space.
What happens when government becomes too big? The public looses control and that is exactly what is being witnessed here. Even a live forum cannot elicit answers to basic questions, and a local community group acts similarly and becomes closeted. In our region the typical response has been to reallocate authority to another governmental unit so as to have even more layers of bureaucracy and less accountability. Local leaders can then hide behind the curtain created by divided government. The democratic process becomes distorted to favor incumbents and other direct participants/beneficiaries and exclude the very people it was designed to represent. Apathy coupled with nonaccountability has been going on for so long that it has become a StL tradition. It will be difficult (impossible?) to change as demonstrated by the attitudes. Sounds like the area needs a tea party and a constitutional convention…good luck!
Aldermanic courtesy does not need to be an either-or issue. While some issues truly apply to only one ward, many cross ward boundaries, some have more-regional impacts, and in certain cases, some even apply citywide. Just because a site or property is (barely?) in one ward does (should?) not mean that no other alderperson can (should?) state/have a differing opinion. In the same vein, each alderman brings an existing skill set (doctor, lawyer, union organizer, retired city employee) to the chambers that might actually be useful in other wards, and to ignore or minimize it makes little sense. Unfortunately, it’s hard for incumbents to push for change without a groundswell of support from other members (and the public), and it’s hard to believe any opponent that says they’ll actually be able change the existing culture. A good first step would be the simple acceptance that symbolic opposition votes do not equate to personal snubs. When an issue has enough votes to pass, what’s wrong with a few “no” votes, especially if it results in an open airing of all the side issues? Unanimity isn’t important in getting things accomplished, a majority is all that’s required. And it’s also something that can’t be legislated or codified. While AC may be based in tradition, it’s also something that reflects trust in one’s contemporaries, along with a willingness to view debate as a positive part of the legislative process.
“Affordable” housing is directly tied to good jobs. Housing in Ladue is affordable to a certain strata of society, but not to someone making minimum wage. The keys to attracting new, well-paying jobs include a “business-friendly” tax environment, a well-educated and motivated pool of potential employees, good transportation facilities for both goods and employees, and to a lesser degree, location, location, location. Until we can get past the negative perceptions of the city income tax and the public school system, we’re going to struggle in attracting new business. Viewed from a national perspective, housing in the city is not very expensive. Affordability gets back to what we’re being paid!
Yes, most fast-food workers make little more than minimum wage. But when it comes to working as a cashier at Schnuck’s or driving trash trucks for the city (Heavy-Equipment Operator II – $28,340.00 – $42,510.00), you’re no longer in the minimum-wage category. Minimum wage is (should?) not perceived to be a living wage. The problem with mandating a higher “living” wage is that it won’t solve the problem! There will always be a certain percentage who are at the bottom of the pay scale, and the market for housing, especially rental units, is driven by supply and demand. You can find solid and very serviceable housing for significantly less than $100,000, even $75,000 around here. As you saw in the Bay Area, and as I know from living in Denver, that’s a half or a third of what you’d pay there and in many other locations around the country. I haven’t looked for an apartment around here (other than to note that lofts can be pricey), but I’m guessing rents track similar to purchase prices. If you can’t afford a place of your own, you find a roommate or move back in with mom. If you really want to make housing (relatively) more affordable, make it cheaper to build – allow higher densities, allow smaller units, reduce the amount of parking required, reduce permit fees, eliminate repetitive housing inspection requirements and fees. Increase supply and rents will drop. Reduce the imposed governmental cost of constructing basic units, and the costs of basic units will drop. Where we’re more at the mercy here of a weak local economy is when we try and buy products that are sold nationally – a big screen TV or that new SUV cost the same here as it does on the coast, yet, we’re making a lot less here since employers don’t have to pay a housing premium.
Most of the people working at the Taco Bell and other minimum or near minimum wage jobs are young workers not supporting a family. They are often students.
Surely there are people struggling to make ends meet, but the least of our society’s problems is the state of the minimum or “living” wage.
And, if there was a government enforced “living wage” it would mostly have the effect of eliminating many lower-end jobs so that the business owner’s could keep their costs low.
So, what IS your “solution” to gentrification (“affordable flats in 2 & 4-family buildings are being converted to pricey townhouses”)? Prohibit conversions? Rent control? Limits on appreciation? I have yet to see any viable, positive, long-term “solution” imposed by any government that tries to manipulate the free market. The “solution” always either results in hoarding/favoritism or a decline into slum conditions. We’re screaming for reinvestment throughout St. Louis – why would we want to impose additional hurdles, now that things are just getting rolling?!
Steve,
I have to say I was very disheartened in the turnout for the forum. Since it was posted in your blog I thought there might be more people there considering the importance of the position. I am not a member of the press or the 15th ward but I was there, my guess is there were less than 10 people who voted to endorse Reed. How can so few people claim to represent the entire 15th ward? My prediction is the citizens don’t really give a damn and Reed will win just because he has more signs.
Steve, I’m at work or I would be having a drink again because I find myself strangly agreeing with you again.
I have to take issue with what Jim and some of the others have said. Low wages is typically meant fast food workers and teenagers. That simply is not the case. But that is what people typically think of because that is what they encounter most of the time.
Low wage earners are all around us…one just need to open their eyes. Open the eyes to the cashier at Schnucks that needs to work to cover the cost of medicine (they are 75…and their going to move home????). Then, yes there is the food worker at Taco Bell. But strangely the workers at Jack in Box are paid very well. Let’s not forget the state workers, particularily the welfare workers and mental health ones that make less than 25K. And look at the casino workers who make low wages while the operators reap Billions. I could go on and on.
Many low wage earners have families. Yes some are there by bad choices, some by lack of education, others because of no fault of their own. You simply can’t get a higher paying job with out a good education and transportation. When you lack one, you suffer, when you lack both you are in a hole so deep it is near impossible to get out of.
I’m not sure a generic “cheap affordable housing” is the answer either. That just means high crime rates and slum areas. Rent controls? Rent subsidies? I guess the bottom line is it is complex issue that no one wants to discuss.
But one thing is for sure, affordable housing and rental property that is safe, efficient, that promotes mental and social health is quickly being converted to out-of-reach status and those that can not afford it are going to be left behind. We can’t outsource everything nor can youexpect everyone to work two, three or four part time and full time jobs to make ends meet and still expect the family unit to remain intact. This is not the 50’s anymore.
Craig:
Where’s your data to back up the statment that Most of the people working at the Taco Bell and other minimum or near minimum wage jobs are young workers not supporting a family. They are often students.?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics writes, Around one-fourth of food and beverage serving and related workers were 16 to 19 years old—about six times the proportion for all workers…Food and beverage serving and related workers held 6.8 million jobs in 2004. (Approx. 465,000 are counter attendants, cafeteria, food concession, and coffee shop employees.) Therefore, 1.7 million “high schoolers” hold food and beverage service jobs. It’s inaccurate to say “most” as statistically “most” would be closer to 60% of all positions. Additionally, the United States Restaurant Association correlates the number of food service/counter employees, for instance, to individuals supporting families, if not single-parent homes (which is NOT the same as individuals without a family).
Generalizations, especially unfounded ones, have a tendency to inappropriately label and disenfrancise those who need information, assistance and support. *and yes, I’ll admit that statement is in it’s own right a generalization. can’t always win!*
The data to back up my point is here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mary, for some reason you focused only on restaurant workers, rather than focusing on the workers that my point was about — those making the minimum wage (or close to it).
If you don’t want to go to the link, I’ll give you some highlights that support my point about the nature of minimum wage workers:
— About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25
— Only 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less
— Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were much more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 7 percent versus 1 percent)
–About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in the hospitality industry, primarily in food services and drinking places. For many of these workers, tips supplement the hourly wages received
As I’ve said, Mary, I know there are people out there who are struggling to get by. But we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that a “living wage” can help them. A higher minimum wage will only have the effect of eliminating marginal jobs (this is even more so if the minimum is raised dramatically) and increasing costs. And when the price of a taco or burger goes up, who does that hurt? Mostly it hurts the low-income people who tend to rely on fast food for meals.
Unfortunately, poverty, even in the wealthiest of societies, is probably a problem that cannot be eliminated. There are simply some people who cannot be trained to a level where there is a demand for his or her labor.
For those who can be trained for more in-demand jobs, the answer is not a government mandated wage, but programs that provide training and education and little to no cost to the student. Many such programs (and government loans for training and education) already exist.
A final thing. The goods and services available to low income Americans today are tremendously improved from 100 and even 50 years ago. The utility to consumers has never been so great — one need only think of what type and quality of car, food, medicine, and, yes, housing, one can get for the money today versus 50 years ago.
It’s sad to say, but with all of the opportunities available to Americans today, a person’s poverty is probably attributable to their lack of IQ, work ethic, ambition, health, or social skills.
You’ve got to be kidding! I’ll give that the goods and services available today are improved over the years and with that the utility (happiness).
But to think that a person’s poverty is attributable to lack of IQ, work ethic, ambition, health or social skills….that if far disconnected from the truth.
Is a child living in poverty a result of her actions? Of course not. Is if because of their parent(s)? possible for the reasons cited, but also quite possible because the cycle of poverty repeats itself, and unless you have far, far above average opportunities and ambition at an early age, they probably won’t escape.
And as for government loans and such. Mark my words, one of the next biggest crisis will be students graduating from college with 100K in debt. That can never be paid back, can’t be written off in bankruptcy. Those programs were meant to help out the needy not support a kid that needs to go to restaurants instead of dorms, drive an SUV instead of a Taurus.
But we are getting off on a wide tangent than the candidate forum here so I will stop.
Poverty is indeed probably something of a cycle, Maurice. If you are raised by an ignorant parent, lacking in ambition and social graces, and surrounded by a community of others with no work ethic, you will most likely fall into the pattern of your surroundings–and you will continue to be poor because you lack the social skills, knowledge, and habits to be otherwise. You’ve proven my point.
I’ll be on the lookout for this student loan crisis, Maurice. But I think your prediction is foolish. Let’s look at some analysis done by economist Gary Becker. The average size of loan for bachelor degree graduates in ’03-’04 is $15,000 (not $100,000).
“The net present value of the earnings of typical graduates of four-year colleges over their lifetimes after discounting future earnings and subtracting out tuition and other costs has been shown to be over $300,000 more than what high school graduates earn. Even a $20,000 student loan debt is small relative to such a large benefit.”
With that type of benefit, the average borrower can pay off the loan and have a lot left over.
Many of the students racking up the $100,000 debt you posited are doing so by going to professional schools. These professional degrees confer, for the most part, benefits in excess of the $300,000 extra salary that a person with a bachelor degree makes. Therefore, they are able to pay off the loan and still have much left over.
Maybe you should dream up another bogeyman.
While one can manipulate data in a million different ways, clearly there are people out there supporting a family and not getting by.
Sure, some of them may have made mistakes or not worked as hard as they could have. We all do that! Some of us just have better safety nets than others.
The purpose of social policy, in my view, is to make it so almost everybody has some level of protection from the vicissitudes of life.
Anyway, this is incredibly off topic from Shrewsbury vs. Reed.
I still think Jim Shrewsbury is the best candidate for the job. Lewis Reed has good ideas and energy, but Jim has the experience and skills honed over 25+ years in public service.
It’s unfair to insinuate that I, or anyone else, “manipulated” numbers as if we are trying to distort the truth. The source of the data is very reliable and the calculations to get the “numbers” produced are very straighforward.
One must use the data rather than fall back on their misconceptions.
“Incredibly off topic from Shrewsbury vs. Reed”! WAY, WAY off…. To think that the position of Prez. of the BOA has any influence on economic trends is naive.
The ONLY benefit to the election of Lewis Reed is a typical one for St. Louis City politics – To place others in more powerful political standing! – Most outstanding will be that Jennifer Florida will be his Chief of Staff, which is a highly influential position.
Get a grip people! – Shrewsbury has been an oustanding and honest public servant. He has many backers in all sections of the city because of his consistent communication with the consituency. I predict he will win the Northside, as he has always made clear efforts to support these communities.
consistent communication with the consituency? Wouldn’t his consituency be all the citizens of St. Louis? I’m sorry, but I think he could use some improvement in this area.