Election Results – St. Louis County
Here is a look at some interesting tidbits from yesterday’s elections in St. Louis County:
• Voters in the City of Overland ended the year-long reign of Ann Purzner as Mayor with over 73% voting to recall her. Mary Beth Conlon, who lost to Purzner by only a few votes last year, will likely run for Mayor in a special election in August.
• My friend Andrew Podleski put up a good challenge to incumbent Florissant Mayor Robert Lowery, managing just over 42% of the vote. This is not bad considering they started in December and the disparity in funds raised/spent was huge.
• Valley Park has been in the midst of controversy lately over their actions to keep out illegal immigrants from their city. This stance is interesting as they don’t really have an illegal problem, just a growing latino population. In their election for 4th ward alderman candidate Drake narrowly defeated Rodriguez by a vote of 139 to 121. See the RFT for the story on the controversy.
• Voters in the Ladue School District gave a big yes (77.89%) to a tax increase for capital improvements at their schools. This is not always assured as many in the district send their kids to more exclusive (and costly) private schools.
• Looks like we had some really close races yesterday: In Green Park only 5 votes seperated two candidates in a 3-way race for alderman. In Cool Valley two candidates for an aldermanic seat received 42 & 43 votes. In Velda City the two candidates for alderman in the 2nd ward each received 37 votes each with one write-in name — that voter could have decided the race.
• Two cities were looking to change the terms for their aldermen from 2 years to four years. It should be noted most city council/aldermen positions in the county are only two year terms. Anyway, Moline Acres rejected extending the term from 2 to 4 years (60.69%) while Kinloch approved the change with a massive 88.46% approval. Kinloch also approved making the position of Mayor full-time (84.62%).
• All three bond measures in Shrewsbury passed, although one just by a fraction. The measures were for public safety, aquatic center improvements and street improvements. An operating tax levy also passed failed.
• Other tax increases and charter measures all passed with a few exceptions. Charlack rejected measures for economic development and storm water & parks. Velda Village also rejected a similar park & storm water measure as well as a utility tax. Beverly Hills also rejected their version of the storm water & parks measure.
• Voters in the Maplewood/Richmond Hts school district approved (barely) a capital improvment issue but rejected an operating levy. The Ritenour school district rejected a capital improvement tax increase.
Any thoughts?
Steve,
The operating tax levy in Shrewsbury failed.
While the other three bond issues passed, an alderman making them part of his campaign literature lost in a landslide, almost 3-1 against.
It’s easier to sell voters on a bond issue since there is no apparent tax “increase”. The combination of increasing property values and paying off previous bond issues allows current tax rates, while remaining constant, to cover the increasing debt service through increasing total collections. In theory, if bonded indebtedness were reduced, taxpayers could benefit from lower taxes, not constant or increasing ones. In an ideal world, our government would be saving up for future capital expenditures instead of borrowing money today pledged against future tax revenues. The reality is politicians sure like going to ground breakings and ribbon cuttings . . .
Andrew Podleski’s showing was commendable. It’s too bad Florissant will have to put up with Lowery the megalomaniac for another term.
I voted in Richmond Heights yesterday and stopped on my way in to talk to a MRH school district administrator who was campaigning for the tax increase and the bond issue. I asked her why they needed more money. The best she could do was a) they need to hire the best teachers and b) they want to introduce an initiative where every student would get a laptop.
I wholeheartedly agree with attracting good teachers through great salaries, but unfortunately, that’s not usually the place where administrators like to spend our money. No guarantee that the increased tax revenue would go to higher salaries. So reason (a) was dismissed.
All students with a laptop? Sure, students should be exposed to computers and have them at their disposal in school. But not every kid needs their own laptop. My nephews go to SLU High, which by all accounts is one of the highest testing schools in the region. My understanding is that SLUH has expressly rejected the option of giving every student a laptop. It’s just overkill to them. If they don’t need every student to have a laptop and they can still educate young men like few other places, then no one else needs them. It’s amazing what administrators will try to waste money on. You can guess how I voted.
Just curious, what is the problem with Lowry?
Illegal immigrants.
You would think those racists would realize that the new underclass is essential for cheap labor. Didn’t they get the memo that without them our hotels wouldn’t be cleaned? What are they thinking?
Really though. How about integration into mainstream society instead of exclusion. Clearly with the inner-City African American population, we can see how exclusion worked out.
My understanding is that most of the issues with Lowery are personality issues. i have not heard much regarding poor governance. But I don’t really have my finger on the pulse of Florissant politics either. I think the megalomaniac tag comes from the abundance of commercials/billboards/developments bearing the mayor’s name and image. It is a bit strange.
I have heard of some interesting use of uniformed police advocating annexation proposals. It wouldn’t surprise me either. If any place has an overkill of police, it’s Florissant.
See the website ElectAndrew07.com for details on why we attempted to change the leadership in Florissant – especially note the salary, benefits and perks received by a Mayor that has submitted 6 years of deficit spending with decreasing revenues while accepting 4% per year pay raises on top of a police pension – while pay and benefits for police has eroded and seasoned officers are retiring or leaving 54% of the police force has less than 3-5 years experience – additionally note that his money does not come from those he serves but from outside interests and developers – our streets are crumbling, our neighborhoods are declining and all he is worried about is where he can display his name next – and buying fountains and pretty clocks -any Mayor who greets you with “How am I doing and this is a really hard job” is not there to perform public service – as one who was verrry close to the campaign – I could also type for days of the intimidation tactics that were taken against business establishments and Citizens who dared to display a Podleski sign – especially enlightening are the citizens comments on the website – please note that only two citizens felt brave enough to use their names because of fear of retaliation by The Bob and his supporters – I know the comments are real I saw the original emails -there is also an interesting discussion on topix.net under forums Florissant – also as of 3/22 Lowery had spent in excess of $101,000 on this campaign – final expense numbers are not in but at the moment that is $22.95 per VOTE – I believe where there is smoke there is fire – it will just take a while longer to find the source – no one in the media would take an interest Elliot Davis has been a Lowery contributor and Bill McClellan is a friend from his days on the police beat of the newspaper and Lowery was on the Major Case Squad – which by the way Lowery claims that he founded in literature that he distributed during the campaing (NOT) – the next few months should prove very interesting
I THINK MAYOR LOWERY SAVED FLORISSANT….PLEASE HIS HARD CORE ATTITUDE IS WHAT PUT FLORISSANT BACK
ON THE MAP
Chris ……. You poor misguided fool !!!!!
I am one of the few of us living in St. Louis County that are in favor of reuniting the city and county into one entity. As I look over the election results, this belief has become even stronger. It seems that there are so many big fish in small ponds in our area. The limitations of the city of St. Louis caused by the foolish separation 120+ years ago has left us with countless mini-bureaucracies. Ladue raises taxes to improve a school district, but a large portion of the children living in that district go to private schools anyways. At the same time, St. Louis City School District, which was in the so forgotten past one of the best public school districts in the nation. Every election, when I see all of these aldermen take or keep their positions, and all of the corruption in the various mayoral offices, it makes me realize that as a community, we are blind to the things that are destroying our local economy and our local heritage. Vital tax dollars are wasted as we double up on everything from our public libraries to our police departments. The waste goes further as each municipality does the same thing. When ever someone suggests pubically that we unite together so we don’t fall apart, everyone seems to cry from the hilltops “Not in my backyard!!!!!”
Maybe it’s time that we all work together instead of applaud us being apart….
Just a thought as we all gloat over our municipal wins!
i believe the honorable mayor lowery to be a great leader and a fine man…his leadership here in the beautiful city of florissant is equaled by no other…i just hope he lives to be 100 and passes from this life in office…long live the mayor and his whole fine staff…if you can find a better city to live…move there…we don’t need you here…make room for the people that appreciate a great man…and a great city…