I’ll be a guest on KDHX’s Collateral Damage program Monday 8/10/09 from 7pm to 7:30pm. Use the comments below to suggest discussion topics. Tune in at 88.1FM or listen online at kdhx.org.
Is it time for St. Louis City to take on a greater leadership role for the region? It seems like we’re too timid and/or scared of what the county may or may not do on too many issues. Three examples that come to mind immediately are the no-smoking debate, funding for Metro and handing out incentives to developers. In the first two cases, we’ve either passed laws or are considering passing laws that require adoption of similar laws by the county before ours take effect. That makes about as much sense as Valley Park passing their illegal immigrant law dependent on St. Louis doing the same thing. We’re big enough that we should decide what we want or need to do, then just do it! The same goes for blighting, TIF’s, revenue bonds, etc. – someone needs to say enough is enough, show me the money, and prove that all this front-end government funding of development delivers true back-en net gains to the city.
Absolutes always have unintended consequences. In cities where legal demolitions were made too onerous, owners simply shifted to demolition through neglect or “I-have-no-idea-who-did-it” arson. How would you structure the prohibitions to allow, for example, the demolition of the old McDonalds at Grand and Chippewa for the construction of something, anything better?! If we’re going to make the city more dense, it’s going to take more than just adding onto existing structures. Appropriate preservation, yes; blanket ban, no.
And, unfortunately, parking is a fact (curse?) of modern life. I agree, too many surface parking lots are a bad thing. But I also know that the economics for providing structured parking simply don’t work in much of the city, so it becomes a choice between no new investment versus some new surface parking. How about a compromise for much better standards, including screening and landscaping requirements?
When I say “no demolitions” I am already recognizing the fact that this will not be strictly obeyed, nor should it be. Exceptions will exist, but should be few and far between.
If you lay down a policy of “not alot of demolitions” too many will probably happen, if you lay down a policy of “no demolitions” an acceptable number will happen. But our current, extremely lax policies have contributed to an inordinate amount of demolitions.
Criminals will always try to skirt the laws, but I am sure, Jimmy, that you believe that most businesses and property-owners are not criminals who will burn their buildings down. If owners choose to let them rot instead, we have imminent domain laws for such negligent, selfish owners.
Angelo, we must come from different perspectives when it comes to laws. If the reality in St. Louis is “the fact that this will not be strictly obeyed”, that aldermanic discretion trumps anything written into ordinance, then I understand why you’re so adamant about an absolute ban. I guess I was working under the naive assumption that “no” would simply mean “no”. Either way, the following are a couple of interesting takes on how other cities are managing the same types of problems we’re facing:
Will you and DJ put St. Louis aside for a momentito and perhaps muse on the Tate/LaBianca murders forty years after? Will you discuss Leslie Van Houten’s pursuit of parole and whether she should receive it?
I never said anything about Alderman, at least alone. There are lots of laws already on the books that developers and owners skirt, some for good reason….and they just don’t get prosecuted. Every law on the books, anywhere, can be, and has been, transgressed without punishment. Sometimes because the deed isn’t discovered and sometimes because it just isn’t worth it (or feasible) to go after every perpetrator.
It’s a simple recognition of the way the world works: imperfectly. So you have to overcompensate in some instances to make the imperfection acceptable.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
Is it time for St. Louis City to take on a greater leadership role for the region? It seems like we’re too timid and/or scared of what the county may or may not do on too many issues. Three examples that come to mind immediately are the no-smoking debate, funding for Metro and handing out incentives to developers. In the first two cases, we’ve either passed laws or are considering passing laws that require adoption of similar laws by the county before ours take effect. That makes about as much sense as Valley Park passing their illegal immigrant law dependent on St. Louis doing the same thing. We’re big enough that we should decide what we want or need to do, then just do it! The same goes for blighting, TIF’s, revenue bonds, etc. – someone needs to say enough is enough, show me the money, and prove that all this front-end government funding of development delivers true back-en net gains to the city.
Anything leading to the call for a strict policy of no demolitions and no parking lots.
Why no demolitions, Angelo? Surely there are cases when it makes sense to demolish a building. Though I agree on the parking lots.
Absolutes always have unintended consequences. In cities where legal demolitions were made too onerous, owners simply shifted to demolition through neglect or “I-have-no-idea-who-did-it” arson. How would you structure the prohibitions to allow, for example, the demolition of the old McDonalds at Grand and Chippewa for the construction of something, anything better?! If we’re going to make the city more dense, it’s going to take more than just adding onto existing structures. Appropriate preservation, yes; blanket ban, no.
And, unfortunately, parking is a fact (curse?) of modern life. I agree, too many surface parking lots are a bad thing. But I also know that the economics for providing structured parking simply don’t work in much of the city, so it becomes a choice between no new investment versus some new surface parking. How about a compromise for much better standards, including screening and landscaping requirements?
Okay, how about no demolition (through neglect, or otherwise) of structures that predate say, 1920. 🙂
When I say “no demolitions” I am already recognizing the fact that this will not be strictly obeyed, nor should it be. Exceptions will exist, but should be few and far between.
If you lay down a policy of “not alot of demolitions” too many will probably happen, if you lay down a policy of “no demolitions” an acceptable number will happen. But our current, extremely lax policies have contributed to an inordinate amount of demolitions.
Criminals will always try to skirt the laws, but I am sure, Jimmy, that you believe that most businesses and property-owners are not criminals who will burn their buildings down. If owners choose to let them rot instead, we have imminent domain laws for such negligent, selfish owners.
Angelo, we must come from different perspectives when it comes to laws. If the reality in St. Louis is “the fact that this will not be strictly obeyed”, that aldermanic discretion trumps anything written into ordinance, then I understand why you’re so adamant about an absolute ban. I guess I was working under the naive assumption that “no” would simply mean “no”. Either way, the following are a couple of interesting takes on how other cities are managing the same types of problems we’re facing:
http://www.citymayors.com/development/demolition_usa.html
http://www.otrfoundation.org/ReceivershipCodeChangeProposals.pdf
Will you and DJ put St. Louis aside for a momentito and perhaps muse on the Tate/LaBianca murders forty years after? Will you discuss Leslie Van Houten’s pursuit of parole and whether she should receive it?
Jimmy,
I never said anything about Alderman, at least alone. There are lots of laws already on the books that developers and owners skirt, some for good reason….and they just don’t get prosecuted. Every law on the books, anywhere, can be, and has been, transgressed without punishment. Sometimes because the deed isn’t discovered and sometimes because it just isn’t worth it (or feasible) to go after every perpetrator.
It’s a simple recognition of the way the world works: imperfectly. So you have to overcompensate in some instances to make the imperfection acceptable.