Poll: What Do We Have That Will Help Our City Grow & Prosper?
At first I thought I’d go the negative route this week and ask what is it that will hold us back. But I quickly decided to flip it around and look at the positive first, saving the negative for a future poll.
Thus the poll question this week is: What do we have that will help the City of St. Louis to grow & prosper in the next 20-30 years is?
I’ve included a variety of answers, including that we won’t grown & prosper. Â No doubt you will have other suggestions. Â I’m optimistic that despite our leadership we will grow. Â This is mainly due to national trends of increasing disinterest in suburbia among young adults, demographic changes, etc.
– Steve Patterson
Three that you didn't list are a central location, abundant water and reasoable real estate costs. Whether it's transportation or communication, being centrally located has distinct advantages. We don't really get how blessed we are with abundant water resources, but much of the sunbelt (Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, etc) is facing a day of reckoning when it comes to supplying water to their growing populations. It's a finite supply, subject to drought cycles, and it's not easy to either acquire or transport. Finally, money talks. Whether you're starting a business or a family, or growing an existing one, affordability factors into most budgets. Compared to many coastal, urban areas, we are very affordable. The one thing we don't have (and is a big part of the equation) are the higher-paying jobs and job growth that drive demand, and balancing the two will hopefully be a challenge we all face.
Agreed.
Second the affordable living part, was telling someone this morning in my new hometown of Lafayette, CA (bay area) how affordable it was back in St. Louis.
Not trying to pick a fight or anything here, you are clearly an astute observer.
But as often as I hear the “affordable housing” thing, I'd be interested to see evidence of if and how that has helped the prosperity of other cities (cities not within a 50 mile radius of a high-price urban area, that is). I think the price of housing is often tied to the existing prosperity of the city in the form of jobs. I don't think St. Louis will be able to hang onto it's low cost housing if the quality of jobs increase, as the price of housing seems to generally be tied to median income. The high price of housing isn't hurting Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York.
I love St. Louis, I grew up there, and I've read this blog for years – but it's not likely that I'll live there by choice again in this lifetime. I'm okay with the fact that I pay over $1400/mo for a space the size of a $450/mo place in St. Louis because the opportunity, the pay, the culture, and the abundance of resources are vastly greater in my current location.
So in essence, as a productive and profitable member of the so-called “creative class”, the price of housing has little to no bearing on my location. I also think an important part of future prosperity is the ability to lure young residents and “young” professional jobs. Without those things, you may lure families that will stretch prosperity a half-generation or so, only to be met with the same kind of exodus St. Louis has been dealing with for the last 60 years. Which is why I say that nurturing the urban fabric and walkable infrastructure is St. Louis's only real hope for prosperity, because that is what is luring people to places like Portland and Vancouver – not the price of housing.
There's always a tension between where someone wants to live and where one can actually afford to live. My comment / observation was twofold, one, in many major urban areas, especially before the recession hit, “drive to find affordability” was the rule – relative housing costs gradually declined the further you were from the urban core and major employment centers. One-way comutes of two hours or more were not considered to be at all unusual. The only times you see that happening around St. Louis is when people are choosing true rural living; affordable housing can be found within a half hour of pretty much employer around here. And two, depending what type of business you're in the cost of commercial real estate can be either a minor or major consideration.
I also agree that “affordability” is directly related to supply and demand. Many “cool” urban areas, besides being desirable places to work, are physically constrained by either major bodies of water or artificail urban growth boundaries, which push prices higher. People moving from California to Colorado find great deals. People moving from Colorado to St. Louis find similar deals, as do people moving from St. Louis to third world countries. Are they “deal breakers”? Rarely. What's most important is finding good / better jobs, and everything else is secondary. Are they interrelated? Yes. But we also need to build on what we have to work with. We don't have mountains or beaches, so we need to accentuate what we do have.
And the glaciers in the Rocky's, which provide a huge natural reservoir, are disappearing due the climate change/disruption/warming. In addition to the glacial melt, the warming climate will drop rain onto the Rocky's, rather than snow. So instead of a slow and steady spring melt, we'll have erosive deluges blanketing the West. Of course, flooding in the downriver states will also become a more frequent and devastating occurrence.
Steve, Didn't know what you were going for but one of my votes was for The People. However, my take was what people decided to do in the next couple of years will really break or make the area. The city earnings tax this week and then the city residents voting in April will be big. Their is a very good chance in this political climate that serious tax reforms and cut in services or coming to the city. Another big one in my mind, will the city residents as whole continue to sit on the sidelines while McKee's lawyers and the plaintiff's lawyers spar over a huge chunk of the city and its future or will a defining majority step forward. In other words, will a defining majority step forward on how to right the ship to speak. Finally, Arch grounds competition is the framework for a big challenge that is far beyond the scope of the city garden, post office plaza or even art and zoo improvements. Does city and region as a whole embrace real connectivity to the Arch Grounds and the riverfront neighborhoods? Will this finally provide the support to remove I-70? and what will Stan K propose for a Ram's stadium?
Steve, it is your right to express dissatisfaction with our leadership.
I have come to the conclusion that often our leadership is exactly what we deserve, whether one feels good, bad or indifferent about them.
Leaders come from their own community's schools, churches, businesses and social strata. These leaders are put in place by a political machine, certainly (democrats run this place!), but it is ultimately the voters who decide who our leaders are. Sure not everyone votes, but much polling suggests the pool of non-voters fall along the same percentages as election results.
My point is that continual frustration with leadership often points to a frustration with the community at large. So that to effect real change, one must change the mindset of the community, then appropriate leadership will follow. And if a change in mindset of the community is not possible, then dissenters are either left as disinterested outsiders or self-proclaimed enlightened ones who end up coming across as elitist and out of touch.
For better or worse, in the end our Amercian society is driven by private individuals and their organizations and businesses not central planners or government officials. This means that meaningful corporate, macro community planning can only be achieved by influencing private individuals.
Not sure if youve ever been married, but the best way to get someone you care much about is to be flattering, encouraging and only when appropriate teaching and correcting.
You often seem to take a pejorative tone with many your issues. And I'm sure this stems from your passionate feelings of perceived injustice or just plain stupidity.
I appreciate your positive tone in this post, even with the immature and unconstructive dig at leadership.
When our leadership ensures they have only a single candidate on the ballot is is impossible for voters to decide anything. What's to decide in a one-way race?
While we're essentially a one-party town, many of the primary races ARE contested. Yes, it's tough to beat an incumbent, and yes, the “annointed ones” will always get more financial support, but it has less to do with party and a lot more to do with no local term limits. Politics is all about building relationships and coalitions; and while having money helps, just having great ideas isn't enough to get anyone elected or any initiative passed . . .
In our last municipal primary, March 3, 2009, 43.75 of the races in the Democratic side were contested. Not bad until you look closer at the 7 contested races: There was no serious challenger to Slay, two were open seats, three were minor challenges to the incumbent alderman and Antonio French defeated the incumbent. The two open seats turned into a free for all which is why Ald Gregali left office before the end of his term, so our leaders could hand pick his replacement so that person would be an incumbent in March.
As 39.62% (as of yet) voters have already agreed – I think the walkability and building stock of St. Louis's urban fabric will serve as the foundation for whatever growth and prosperity the city will see in the future. Should, however, the city chose to overlook and underfund that aspect by – for instance – neglecting to add more connected infrastructure for transit and human-powered transportation (bikes, peds, etc); I think you could easily see the recent resurgence of interest in the city turn into hopelessness as young minds with big ideas look elsewhere for life, culture, and inspiration.
Do not ignore the mainstream media in their complicity in making St. Louis a backwater city. Whether it be third party candidates or ignoring new ideas the MSM is nothing but a tool of the political establishment which has brought about nothing but failure. (Need I offer evidence?)
Take the Paul McKee situation on the north side, brought to light by bloggers, it would have never seen the light of day without the internet. Even with this exposure by citizens, the useless crap of yesterday's world is being shoved down the throats of the people of St, Louis.
The obvious need for new directions is ignored by the mainstream press, other than a few feel good articles pretending to be in the public interest, in depth analysis is nonexistent. Always those in power are supported, and they are not leaders, simply people who have jobs because they know someone else in the political establishment. As Steve points out elections are mostly a joke, with a few exceptions.
It is much more than a political, democratic dictatorship that has brought St. Louis to its current impoverished state. The compliant, and mostly useless MSM media has played an important role.
If there is no debate how can progress ever occur? That debate is limited to the Danforth's, Slay and the other marginal zombies who pretend they know more than everyone else, and the MSM plays along so well.
Where is the success with their leadership? It is nonexistent. That is what has to change in the next 20 to 30 years. It needs to change now.