Reed Campaign Uses Crime Report with “Questionable Methodology” Against Shrewsbury
The Reed campaign postcard I just received blames Jim Shrewsbury for being “ranked as the worst city for crime in the country.” No reference is given to which ranking but I assume it is the controversial one from Morgan Quitno. Here is what MayorSlay.com had to say about that report:
Every year, a guy in the Kansas City suburbs publishes a list that points out St. Louis as one of the most dangerous cities in the country. He isn’t an FBI agent, a former police chief, or a criminologist. He’s just a publisher with a good gimmick, a readable press release, and some questionable methodology.
St. Louis is not a dangerous city. There are certainly some high-crime neighborhoods – just like in every city. But, the vast majority of St. Louis neighborhoods are safe places to live, work, and raise families.
There are plenty of other cities in the country with the same amount of crime within a similar area. Every city has high-crime neighborhoods. But, unlike most other cities, St. Louis is locked into the 19th century borders that separate us on the charts (but not in any real sense) from places like Clayton, Webster Groves, Maplewood, University City, and Shrewsbury. If these nearby communities were added to the City, we’d be one of the safest cities in the country – with no change in the patterns of local crime.
But, putting a thoughtlessly designed list into perspective isn’t my final word. Crime is up in some City neighborhoods and that does require a response. While most City neighborhoods are safe, a few are not.
Although the deployment of the police force is not in local control, I have found Chief Joe Mokwa to be responsive to our concerns. City voters recently approved an increase in the graduated business license fees that will help pay for more police officers on the Most Dangerous Offenders unit. The same revenue will also create a Career Criminal unit in Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce’s office to beef up her ability to prosecute repeat- and multiple-offenders; and it will expand the problem property and nuisance crime strike force. In addition, new state and federal grants we sought and received are aimed at reducing the number of paroled criminals who return to lives of crime.
I actually thought the report had some validity and that we should address crime in a more direct manner. Here is how I finished my post at the time:
St. Louis may well be the most dangerous city in America. I can accept that and work to change the underlying causes. When you vote Tuesday keep that in mind, are you voting for more of the same? When filing opens at the end of this month for half the seats in the Board of Aldermen & two seats on the school board will you sit back and assume that others will solve these issues or will you step forward to chart a new course for the city? Our entrenched leadership has gotten us where we are today — the top of the most dangerous city list. It is now up to us to work to change that reality. If we do not, we cannot bitch about remaining on top in the years to come.
In my post I outlined causes dating back nearly a hundred years. The root causes of our crime issues pre-date anyone currently in office or working for the police force.
I’m not a fan of political postcards that make bold statements yet fail to provide the necessary information to validate the claims. If you want to make reference to items then let me know what those are.
I looked up the archives of the Post-Dispatch and found no such headline. The headline on October 31st ran as; “City fears fallout from crime ranking ‘This thing is bogus,’ chief of staff for Mayor Slay says.” I reviewed several articles and columnist stories and not only did I not find such a headline I did not even find such a combination of words. Basically, it appears the Reed campaign has attempted to give the impression the Post-Dispatch ran such a headline. [Update 2/15/2007 @ 9:30pm — I was wrong in the above statement — the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did indeed run the above headline for a article on page B4 on 10/30/2006. My apologies for anyone damaged by my research error.]
The backside is even harder to verify. What was the legislation on which Shrewsbury said no to additional revenue? Was that part of a bigger budget — I don’t think he has any sort of line item veto power. Also, MayorSlay.com indicated above that we the voters approved additional revenues for prosecutors. What is the real story?
And this letter signed by “every prosecutor” in the city? Did that relate directly to Shrewsbury as this is hinting or was it a general plea for more funds — which they will be receiving due to our vote to increase business licenses fees.
I think we do have crime issues to address but it seems to me that Mr. Reed and the majority of aldermen backing him have more than enough votes to pass whatever legislation they see fit to improve the situation in St. Louis. It is Mayor Slay that seems to be the one indicating crime is not as big of a deal as this “bogus” report makes it out to be.
To my knowledge this is postcard is the first such swing by either candidate in this race. If one or both are going to go this route they need to back up their claims with names, dates, and places so the information can be verified. Without such verification, I do not give much credibility to these types of statements. And for the record, I have not spoken with either the Shrewsbury or Reed campaigns about this postcard — it came in the mail this afternoon and I knew I needed a post for today.
Update 2/16/2007 @ 10:15pm — An update has been posted at LewisReed.net regarding this postcard. Included in a PDF copy of the letter signed by prosecutors requesting additional funds from E&A. Like BJC, the motion failed to get a second. All the blame is being laid on Jim Shrewsbury while Darlene Green is getting none of the blame. This seems unfair. Why not call out Darlene Green as well?
Update 2/20/2007 @ 9:40am — From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on 6/16/2005 – the day after the E&A did not approve Joyce’s request:
With nearly two dozen prosecutors watching, top city officials reached a compromise Wednesday that will give St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce some of the extra money her office was seeking.
The Estimate Board voted to allow Joyce to spend an additional $60,000 on salaries but denied an earlier request for about twice as much money.
Mayor Francis Slay wanted the higher amount.
“It’s a step in the right direction but an extremely small step,” said Slay, whose motion to inject $123,111 for prosecutor pay raises died without a second.
The Estimate Board, which must approve the city’s budget, is composed of Slay, Board of Aldermen President Jim Shrewsbury and Comptroller Darlene Green. Joyce, with many of her employees crowded behind her, asked the board for a larger budget to help retain senior attorneys and recruit new ones.
She said that she was disappointed in the Estimate Board’s decision — that it does not put any new money into the budget, but only allows money previously dedicated to unfilled positions to be spent on existing personnel.
So Joyce moved unused money from her budget to give some raises to some attorney’s on her staff. Oh wait, the postcard didn’t mention that? I for one think the prosecutors deserve fair compensation for their work, especially relative to the City Counselors office but I don’t for a moment think if the E&A had approved the extra funds for their budget that somehow we’d not appear in the top five of that annual report. The day before the vote the Post-Dispatch wrote:
Mayor Francis Slay has come out in favor of the money for Joyce’s office. James Shrewsbury, president of the Board of Aldermen, said Tuesday that he’s unlikely to support the request. The final member of the Estimate Board, Comptroller Darlene Green, is said to be on the fence.
Joyce’s effort falls in a year in which cases handled by her office created some political tension in City Hall.
In February, for example, Green had to testify in the trial of Operation Big Vote founder Nonaresa Montgomery, who was found guilty of perjury for lying about whether she could track fraudulent voter registration cards. Part of the trial centered on what was said during a meeting in Green’s campaign office although she was not accused of any wrongdoing.
It seems to me that if people want to be upset it is both with Green & Shrewsbury. The above postcard makes it out as though Shrewsbury killed it on his own. And that if he hadn’t, we would not have been named the worse city for crime some 15 months later.
I don’t subscribe the newspaper…was there really a headline that looked like that?
If not, shouldn’t the Post Dispatch be a little upset with their brand name being used like that?
That’s it. I’m leaving…
Done, done, and done.
Thanks Steve for your blog on this. I too was a little shocked when I received this in my
mailbox. I called the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and they requested to see this postcard.
Seems someone might be held responsible for this misleading information. This might have
made me decide my vote much earlier.
We all know it was not Travis Reems as he is busy getting the coffee.
Just so we’re all on the same page here, I went to Lexis-Nexis and located the article in question. The Post-Dispatch did in fact run a story “Survey calls St. Louis worst big city for crime,” on Monday, October 30, 2006.
The article does in fact cover the Morgan-Quitno report.
It wasn’t, however, on the front page, as this postcard makes it appear. It actually appeared on page B4.
Also, if anyone wants to see for themselves who doesn’t have access to news search engines: if you go to the P-D archive search, and use the search terms “survey AND crime” for articles in 2006, it’ll turn up the 10/30/06 article I mentioned above.
I agree with you that it’s a sketchy presentation, but don’t blow the credibility of your argument with an assertion that the Post never printed such a headline.
Steve said: “…it seems to me that Mr. Reed and the majority of aldermen backing him have more than enough votes to pass whatever legislation they see fit to improve the situation in St. Louis.”
Steve, I think you know that the Board of Aldermen do not control the purse strings in our city, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment does. In fact, even if the Board of Aldermen approved something by a vote of… um, say 26-2, on a matter like, um, say extending a lease on piece of public land, then just two votes on the Board of E&A could kill it.
You asked “What is the real story?” Well, I can recount it only as I’ve heard it around City Hall.
In retaliation for Circuit Atty Jennifer Joyce’s support of Shrewsbury’s 2003 opponent, Lyda Krewson, Shrewsbury acted behind the scenes to kill her budget request to increase the number of prosecutors in her office. “Political payback,” one of his top aides was quoted as saying to Joyce directly.
Now, as you and everyone else knows, I’m supporting Lewis Reed and working for his campaign. So if you don’t take my word for it, call around. Others, I am sure, will say they have heard the same story.
And as for your questions about where the other facts come from in the mailer, check http://www.LewisReed.net tomorrow. Just for you, buddy.
The money for the circuit attorney’s office, to increase assistant attorney salaries and stop exodus of experienced prosecutors, was a mid-fiscal year matter for E&A. Shrewsbury’s now infamous line about having “all the power and none of the responsibility” comes from a meeting on this matter. Shrewsbury let it be known that the mayor and circuit attorney were on their own, resulting in no vote and no accountability. The result of this was that the circuit attorney was forced to layoff support staff in order to raise lawyer salaries.
Shrewsbury’s staff would use the same tactic or worse. They delve into people’s personal and professional lives and create havoc “behind the scenes” on a regular basis. As a result of their actions, Shrewsbury has lost my vote.
I see Reed signs all over south city. I rarely see any Shrewsbury signs and most of the signs are those little ones in yards.
I’m not sure Shrewsbury is planning to win this thing. People will vote for Reed because his name is all over town, at least in my south city area of 63118. He’s doing a great job of getting his name out there.
Both SEEM like good guys but one has an ego and the other is humble. I don’t know them personally but I’ve met both candidates in a public forum. Reed took the low rode by altering a PD graphic in an attempt to place blame on Shrewsbury for our city woes. That disturbs me; it frankly pisses me off as I had a little interest in Reed due to wanting to have someone “fresh” at the Presidents’ seat.
And to Antonio French: “Don’t hate the players, hate the game”. Right? You have contributed to what you hate by justifing Reeds marketing tactics of deceit! I expected better from you. Please, UrbanReviewSTL, never fall into the “game” if you know what I mean.
Is the real issue here dirty politicking or crime prevention? No doubt using ugly headlines to smear an opponent is an effective tactic but obscures and misleads the public. Is the real problem liberal judges who hand out “GET OUT OF JAIL FREE” cards to repeat offenders OR lack of revenue support? Probably both but as is so typical in StL, the fight over the headlines is more important than the underlying issues.
To site a study that has been overwhelmingly discreditted, makes the aldermen less appealing in over-all. Channel 5 interviewed Quitno about the study and found more than half of his research methods were flawed.
The biggest mistake was how he garnered info on the number of police and police units in any given city or metro area. Quitno admitted he did not realize each little suburb in STL metro had their own Police force, he counted only the number of St. Louis County Poilce, and did not count the police for each given area that have their own, i.e.- Chesterfield, Warson Woods, Kirkwood, Shrewbury, Webster, Ferguson, Sunset Hills, and list goes on and on, and on. He (Quitno) is a crack-pot and anyone using his study to drum up charges against someone should be taken with a grain of salt.
Shrewsbury appeals to a progressive base. And he wins with the old lady vote. How many of them were aware of his history with Jennifer Joyce?
Since Joyce is allied with Slay, how many will care?
63118 is hardly south city. It’s a very diverse area, and not one that I would expect to be solid for Shrewsbury.
But even in the 23rd ward, which really is south city, there are a lot of Reed signs out, including in the Alderman’s yard.
63118 hardly south city?? What an inane comment. Now we’re making distinction between “hardly south city” and “really south city”? What are your standards that you judge what “south city” is? Last I looked at a map 63118 IS south of downtown, which I assumed is why people call it south city, same as north city.
It amazes me that those of you who can’t even perform credible research (ie. Steve) are the first to cast aspersions toward those with GREAT CREDIILITY (ie. REED). The archcitychronicle is the one lacking all credibility!!!! I won’t even waste my time reading your blog anymore because you are of dubious talent to report fact.
You all are acting as if you are unaware that it was national news that we have been declared ‘the most dangerous city’ in the country. I was in Omaha when that was announced on the news and it appeared in the paper there. So, it seems to me that at a minimum we need to do something about the “appearance” of dangerousness. Shrewsbury has shown no support in this regard. Maybe his neck of the woods is safe enough (or maybe that’s why he operates his ‘other’ business in west county). I am ready to change leaders. I will vote Reed.
You are acting like Reed did something to stop crime and Shrewsbury didn’t. As far as the circuit attorney goes, didn’t Jim give up his right to a city-owned vehicle so the circuit attorney’s office could use it to transport witnesses? Sounds like he is doing what he can to help.
Antonio – the “facts” of the mail piece have not been added to the lewisreed.net website as of this post, unless you buried them somewhere.
Travis (“They do worse”) – Where has Shrewsbury used these tactics? I haven’t seen any negative mail pieces or advertisements from him. Where have they gone into people’s professional lives on a regular basis. There is only one side making this campaign negative, you claiming that Shrewsbury is too just makes you look even less credible.
Thank you for owning up to your mistake. I think, perhaps, you rushed to judgement because you are not a proponent of Reed. I think if you genuinely gave him an opportunity to address those issues near and dear to your heart regarding the urban landscape, you may find a like-mind in the world of urban planning. I come from a land-use background, too, Steve, and generally agree with much of your espousals regarding bad development. Albeit not happily, I do nevertheless accept a certain degree of inevitable environmental change. In that regard, I find Reed to be a fair-minded, rational, decision maker, in balancing growth with the ecomomic interests of our city. I find Shrewsbury to be too non-commital to stand for anything which makes me distrustful of him. But, thanks again, for being man enough to say you were wrong.
Dear population, You must be someone in Srewsbury’s campaign. He (Shrewsbury) only gave up the “right” to a city vehicle because the city didn’t allow him to drive it to his law offices so he could do his “real”job (whichis where he is 98% of all working hours). AND I DO NOT WORK FOR REED.
Dear Cathy, I do not work in Shrewsbury’s campaign. You, like Antonio and whoever did Reed’s mailpiece do not seem to believe in referencing where you get your information. Even if you believe that Jim is only in City Hall one and a half days a week (Reed’s assessment) that leaves only 70% of his time to be spent in the field meeting with constituents, going to meetings at the airport, etc and yes working part-time in his law office. So you made up your 98% figure and you made up the fact that he gave up the car because they wouldn’t let him drive it to his practice. You are quite credible.
Shrewsbury won my vote when he took the time, or had someone respond to my letter about the proposed McDonald’s on Grand. I didn’t get a grunt out of my alderman (Kirner) and Ald. Florida was busy defending her “lynchpin” of redevelopment. Of all the letter I sent to the mayors office, the board of aldermen, his was the only response.
I hope no one is dumb enough to blame ANY one person for crime in St. Louis. Crime prevention has to start with citizens caring about their neighbors and surroundings. If you see something wrong, get off your butt and report it. Don’t assume that someone else will do it. I probably report more than half of the problems on this block.
Steve, Although I share a computer with Cathy, Mark and others, I do not share a brain nor have control over their thoughts/comments. You haven’t once again rushed to judgement, have you? We work in a quasi-governmental capacity and, in an effort to contain cost, share certain resources.
The quickest way to lose my vote is through mudslinging. Lewis Reed may very well have lost my vote.
Sara, Mark and Cathy –
Its funny how you have all this time to blog at your quasi-governmental job.
From your succession of posts on the 16th it looks as if ya’ll where really sharing that computer allot.
12:02 pm, 12:17 pm, 1:39 pm, 1:45 pm, and lastly at 3:48 pm.
TROLL – I thought we had this discussion over at the ACC website?
http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/002381.php
Creating fake conversations is lame.
So, you hate Shrewsbury… we get it… quit the multiple personaltity thing and get back to you “quasi-governmental” job!
P.S. if your going to be a TROLL then step up your game.
Oh, the evidence behind the post card is up.
From the documents provided it looks like the proposal was for 108,000 increase in the payrole of Assistant Circuit Attorneys(ACAs). That amount Divided by the 56 ACAs means about $1,928 more per Lawyer.
I don’t think a pay raise for 56 lawyers is the number one way to prevent crime.
BTW- Mary Entrup is an Assistant Circuit Attorney, she also signed the letter asking for the raise, lent Reeds campaign $2,225, and is Reeds wife.
After receiving this mailing, I must say I was disgusted.
One: This mailing was mailed in such a cowardly manner by noting it was sent out by the ‘Committe’ (of course spelled incorrectly) to elect Lewis Reed in white letters on a yellow background which is very hard to read. If Reed had thrown in his huge yellow on blue signs all over the city and plans to represent the city, he’d better have some balls and put that huge Reed stamp on it or his picture boldly on his mailings. Apparently it is much easier and juvenile for Lewis Reed to slam and attack Shrewsbury rather than send out a mailing indicating what he has done, and what he plans on doing to make the problem better.
Two: The Worst City report, as has already been discussed, and to my understanding has somewhat been beaten to death in that fact that we all know that the report and its means of getting there are flawed. HOWEVER, St. Louis has been teetering in and around the top 5 for years and as long as places like Camden NJ, (population barely 100,000…more similar in to East St. Louis than St. Louis City) and ‘perennial favorite’ Detroit get the most dangerous city award, St. Louisans keep living their lives as if nothing is wrong…until we get the title. The fact of the matter is, crime in St. Louis is a huge problem, but it is a combination of a whole plethora of things that are a bad mixture of local issues, state and federal judicial failings, juvenile laws and offenders, a select few repeat offenders and soft punishment, the overall socioeconomic divide, racial mentalities and ‘things not said’, failing public schools, and longstanding ways of dealing with problems. Yes, this is a sad title to bear (seemingly canceling out the World Series Win ‘symbolizing’ the underdog mentality of St. Louis in the new ballpark, the hallmark of revitalization of the city) but it is one that we all must face together with new approaches and ideas, not attacks and finger pointing. Apparently this is what the Reed camp seems to be better at.
Three: One very successful crime prevention initiative is the Weed and Seed program. As a regular monthly attendee for the last 5 years, I have seen numerous changes take place in the designated neighborhoods that were the direct result of citizens voicing their concerns to police, their aldermen, their NSO, and to other public officials or guest speakers. During this time, Alderman Schmid, Ortmann, Young, and many times Florida were regulars in attendance, always willing to work with citizens on problem properties and serious issues affecting their community. When citizens had problems they could always turn to their alderman to get things done knowing that the next week they would have some report on the status of a problem or an update on some new concept or development affecting the neighborhoods. The NSOs mostly handled these problems and kept the citizens updated. This was never the case with Mr. Reed, and including with him the 6th Ward NSO- Jimmie Miller. Both of Reed and Miller were continual no-shows even to the extent that Kim Norman- head of Weed and Seed, and Lt. Boxtrut (sp?)- head of Weed and Seed cops, joked and accepted the fact that Reed and Miller are never there and that new 6th Ward members shouldn’t expect it. Interestingly, both Reed and Miller, did coordinate with Alderwoman Young to help establish an organized move to clean up the 2600 Michigan block…conveniently just before Reed declared his candidacy and those problems have moved to Magnolia and Sidney. However, just up the street in his ward on the 3000 Sidney block the same habitual players are up and dealing as they have been for years. Similar nuisances and problems that were dealt with in other high crime wards by Aldermen Schmid and Ortmann have been eliminated because of direct NSO and Aldermanic work. However, I will agree that the new MAP program, partially initiated by Reed is successful and hopefully will be much more successful in the future, yet when things need to be done, citizens need to be able to able to directly work with their aldermen- because in theory, they can get things done. Too bad this is not the case for Mr. Reed and his ‘dedication’ to crime prevention- unless it was in Lafayette Square.
To confused citizen:
Mary Entrup is a former Assistant CA. She is now a PT City judge and in private practice. The raises were not for all Assistant CA’s — only those who had been employed by the office for several years. The raises were to bring their salaries in line with those earned by Assistant City Counselor’s with equivilant experience. At the time, there was a huge disparity between CA’s and City Counselors with the same experience. It was not to be an across the board raise.
I HEAR THAT ____STEPHEN GREGALI ______IS BEHIND THIS CARD HE’S DESPARATELY CAMPAIGNING ON OUTREACH AND SINCE IN HIS WARD THE 14TH CRIME HAS SOARED HE IS TRYING TO HURT JIM FOR REED….I THINK SOMEONE NEEDS TO COME CLEAN ON THIS HORRIBLE ATTEMPT AT CAMPAIGNING AND I FEEL SURE ITS THE GODFATHER HIMSELF AS HE CAMPAIGNED ON THAT HIMSELF >>> HEDID THIS SAD LITTLE CARD……REED how LOW CAN YOU go!!!!!!!!