Readers Support Proposed Bike Parking Ordinance

Readers overwhelmingly support a bill before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen to require bike parking for some projects:

A proposed law would require bike parking for new construction or renovations in access excess of $1 million dollars. Auto parking requirements would be reduced.

1. Great, more bike parking is needed 44 [50%]
2. A good start, but it doesn’t go far enough 18 [20.45%]
3. Ugh, more government regulation 16 [18.18%]
4. Other: 9 [10.23%]
5. Unsure/No Opinion 1 [1.14%]

I had a stupid mistake in the poll, corrected above, and a few of the other votes pointed that out:

1. A good first step; besides handicapped parking there should be no reqirements
2. don’t you mean “in excess?”
3. What comes first demand or supply?
4. need more bike lanes and paths first…
5. Like the bike part, but no reduction for cars
6. excess =/= access. We need more accessible and safe biking paths first.
7. How about an option for not a good idea?????
8. excess, not access
9. Security is a MAJOR concern of those who use bike racks. Theft is a conern.

The 20% that said this bill is a good start but it doesn’t go far enough are correct, the number of projects in excess of $1 million dollars are few.The amount of verbiage to describe what is required in the context of our tired & old use-based zoning code is a nightmare to read and understand. Take a few minutes and read any section of Title 26 (Zoning) and you will quickly realize it’s easy to get lost in the cross references and lists of prohibitions all the while you don’t get an image of what’s actually desired.

Instead of trying to improve the city by amending our 1947 zoning code to current standards we need to toss it out completely and start over with a form-bsased code that is easy to read and understand.

– Steve Patterson

Missouri GOP Primary Today, Caucus Next Month

Missouri’s GOP primary is today so where are the millions of dollars in ads? the national media? the candidates? They know that no delegates will be awarded based on today’s vote:

Because of a mix of party decree and legislative inaction, taxpayers will foot the bill for a statewide election that will be officially meaningless for Republicans and virtually irrelevant for Democrats. 

Many Republicans were in favor of scrapping the election altogether, which comes with an estimated price tag of nearly $7 million. (STLtoday.com)

Party decree?

The National Republican Party had threatened to cut the state’s delegates in half if Missouri did not move its primary to March. Legislative attempts to move the primary to March failed, so Missouri Republican Party officials decided to elect convention delegates in March at caucuses. (Examiner.com)

Thus, nobody is expecting a big turnout:

Officials forecast a turnout of fewer than one in four voters. But this could have been our time to shine and show off the best presidential bellwether in the country. What other state in the Union best represents the United States — North, South, East or West? Answer: Nobody (Kansas City Star)

The Democratic ballot includes three challengers to president Barack Obama but the GOP ballot has 10 candidates (see list). I may go vote just for the fun of it; maybe for Cain, Huntsman, Bachmann, or Perry? Gingrich didn’t file the form and pay the $1,000 fee to be on the ballot.

– Steve Patterson

CVC Plan To Improve Dome Improves Broadway

Last Wednesday the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission announced the plan it submitted to the Rams to remake the Edward Jones Dome into a “top tier” facility.  Rather than rush to post about the plan I decided to take my time to revisit Baer Plaza (between the Edward Jones Dome and I-70), read & reread the plan, and offer more than a knee-jerk reaction. I’m not going to rehash the big picture you’ve read elsewhere but I’ll focus on a couple of areas: the point where the Dome and convention center meet and Baer Plaza. Click here to download the 22-page PDF plan.

On page 14 of the CVC’s plan they talk about the boring space shown above:

We are proposing the conversion of the courtyard between the convention center and the Dome into a flexible pre-game fan destination for pre-game concerts, food and beverage sales and exciting fan entertainment offerings. This can facilitate earlier ingress into the Dome and reduce congestion created by new NFL Security requirements for wandings or patdowns. It will also generate additional food and beverage sales and create a ‘friends’ gathering place for pre-game activity. 

The courtyard is certainly not an asset in it’s existing condition. The CVC plan includes an image of how they think this courtyard could be revised.

Presumably this updated courtyard space could be useful throughout the year as other events are hosted in the convention center and Dome. If so, this could be a good investment in updating a drab area. But it’s outside around Broadway and in Baer Plaza that big changes will take place so lets go there.

From up high this looks nice but both sides of Broadway are dreadful.

The exciting part for me is a new 50,000 square foot multilevel building to be built here as part of an expanded club experience for the well-off football fan:

The new club seats will become part of an exciting contemporary club experience, with the addition of a new 50,000 square foot building referred to herein as the Baer Plaza addition. The suite corridors on the club level will be remodeled with lighting upgrades and finishes to flow nicely into newly remodeled club lounges. The club level renovations will add an ADA platform and expand the club floor plate by filling in the open sections to the floor below. All club level guests will be able to enter the facility through a new club entrance in Baer Plaza. This new building will improve the club experience and enhance the facility as a whole. It will provide a premium entrance for the Rams’ highest dollar customers and will be outfitted with club lounge space, a technology area currently dubbed the ‘Geek Suite’ and an open air deck for a rooftop beer garden. The Geek Suite will be outfitted with Wi-Fi connections and an abundance of HD flat screen monitors and is intended to be a location for the club/suite customers who want to stay connected to Fantasy Football with their handheld Smart devices. This space would be similar to a high-end technology store like an Apple store in fit and finish. The development of Baer Plaza will function as a gateway to the stadium, offering the Rams premium seat fans a new front door experience. The bridge connects to the stadium at the suite and club level(s).

I’m not a fan of bridges over roads but the massing of this new structure is worth a pedestrian bridge over Broadway. This new building, with a “street level restaurant”, will enclose Broadway and give it a needed urban feel that’s been missing since buildings on that side were razed for the open Baer Plaza. The building would also include a team store and rooftop space. Building massing is absolutely needed on the east side of Broadway so this has great potential. Ideally the restaurant and team store would be open all year. Hopefully the rooftop space could be used for other events when the Rams are playing.

Retractable bollards would allow Broadway, a major road into downtown, to be closed on game days. The bollards would be attractive whereas the current concrete barriers are not. It would also close off the disabled drop off area on Broadway. I’ll need to ask how the CVC plans to address that.  This new building would serve as a connector between the CBD to the south and the future “Bottle District” to the north of Cole.

Financing is another issue.

Congrats to Kitty Ratcliffe and her team at the CVC, I’m not easily impressed but I think these improvements (plus interior changes) will greatly improve the game day experience for those attending the games, increase revenues for the Rams,  and improve the area the rest of the year. Remember if the Rams accept this solution, and stay in the Dome until 2025, we must think about what happens after then. The new natural lighting, massive video scoreboard and this building could serve other uses in the Dome after a new facility is built for the Rams for after 2025.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Should Cannabis Be Removed From The Missouri Statutes List Of Controlled Substances

A group, Show-Me Cannabis Regulation, is collecting signatures to place a proposed amendment to  the Missouri constitution on the November 2012 ballot. With legal marijuana dispensaries in some cities the topic seemed like a good subject for a weekly poll (see right sidebar).

The following is the text that will be on the the ballot if they collect about 150,000 signatures by May 6, 2012 (source):

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:

1. Cannabis shall immediately be removed from the Missouri Revised Statutes list of controlled substances and shall no longer be listed among Missouri’s drug schedules.

2. Definition of terms, as used in this Act:
(a) “cannabis” and “cannabis hemp” refer to the natural, non genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.
(b) “agricultural hemp” and “agricultural cannabis” means all products made from cannabis hemp with a THC content of less than one percent.
(c) “medical cannabis” means all products made from cannabis that are designed, intended, or used for the treatment of any human disease or condition.
(d) “adult use” and “personal adult use” refer to the non-medical consumption of cannabis with greater than 1% THC by persons twenty-one years of age or older.
(e) “cannabis accessories” means any equipment, products, or materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis into the human body.
(f) “Department” means the Department of Health and Senior Services or its successor agency.
(g) “cannabis establishment” means a cannabis cultivation facility, a cannabis testing facility, a cannabis product manufacturing facility, or a retail cannabis store or other entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, manufacture, package, transport or sell cannabis, cannabis products and cannabis accessories.
(h) “impairment” means the inability of a person to safely perform functional tasks associated with his or her job or with driving due to the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Missouri law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Missouri law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:
(a) Possession of cannabis for personal adult use by persons twenty-one years of age or older.
(b) Cultivating cannabis that is not intended for resale within an area measuring ten feet by ten feet for personal adult use, or in an area sufficient to produce the quantity necessary to address a patient’s medical needs under the recommendation of a physician.
(c) Cultivating, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, packaging, distributing, transferring, displaying or possessing cannabis, cannabis accessories, and cannabis products for commercial purposes providing the person has a current, valid license to operate a cannabis establishment or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed cannabis establishment.
(d) Providing cannabis, cannabis accessories, and cannabis products for sale to consumers twenty-one years of age or older for personal adult use if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a retail cannabis store or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed retail cannabis store.
(e) Leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied or controlled by any person, corporation or other entity for any of the activities conducted lawfully in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection.

4. Medical cannabis shall be available to patients who have a physician’s recommendation.
(a) All patients engaged in cannabis therapy shall be afforded the same rights and privileges afforded to any patient treated through other pharmaceutical means.
(b) Cannabis acquisition, possession, and consumption shall be permitted to patients under the age of twenty-one with the consent of a parent or legal guardian and through the supervision of a parent or legal custodian and a licensed physician.
(c) Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for nor restricted from recommending cannabis for medical purposes to any person.
(d) Opinions pertaining to, and willingness to recommend medical cannabis therapy shall not be a criteria for the licensure of physicians; no physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical cannabis therapy.
(e) Any individual who is a legal cannabis patient in another state shall be granted the same rights and privileges as a legal Missouri cannabis patient.
(f) Medical care, including organ transplants, shall not be restricted in any way based on a person’s use of cannabis.

5. Not later than February 1, 2013, the Department shall adopt regulations necessary for implementation of this section.
(a) All regulations and rules imposed by the Department or any other agency of government shall meet a standard of strict scrutiny as to whether they further the goals of this Act and must be narrowly tailored to meet those goals. Such regulations shall include:
(i) Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of a license to operate a cannabis establishment;
(ii) A schedule of application, licensing and renewal fees;
(iii) Qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a cannabis establishment;
(iv) Security requirements for cannabis establishments;
(v) Civil penalties for the failure to comply with regulations made pursuant to this section;
(vi) The Department shall not require a consumer to provide a retail cannabis store with personal information other than identification to determine the consumer’s age, and a retail cannabis store shall not be required to acquire and record personal information about consumers other than information typically acquired in a financial transaction conducted at a retail liquor store.
(b) Each application for an annual license to operate a cannabis establishment shall be submitted to the department. The department shall: 

(i) Begin accepting and processing applications on July 1, 2013;

(ii) Immediately forward a copy of each application and half of the license application fee to the county, municipality or city and county in which the applicant desires to operate the cannabis establishment;
(iii) Issue an annual license to the applicant between forty-five and ninety days after receipt of an application unless the department finds the applicant is not in compliance with regulations enacted pursuant to paragraph   (a);
(iv) Upon denial of an application, notify the applicant of the specific reason for its denial.
(c) Retail cannabis products for medical or adult use shall contain appropriate labeling, which outlines the weight and estimated potency of the product, lists all pesticides used in production, and summarizes the safe and effective use of cannabis. Labels shall not be promotional, false or misleading, and should be based on data derived from scientific study and prevailing human experience.

6. Nothing in this section shall:
(a) Require an employer to retain an employee who is impaired on the job by his use of cannabis.
(b) Permit operation of a motor vehicle by anyone who is impaired by cannabis.
(c) Permit the transfer or sale of cannabis intended for adult use to a person younger than twenty-one years of age.
(d) Forbid any individual or corporate property owner from prohibiting the distribution, sale or cultivation of cannabis within their dwelling.

7. Upon the passage of this Act, all persons incarcerated or under supervision of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole for non-violent, cannabis-only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act shall be immediately released.
(a) The Court shall order the immediate expungement of civil and criminal records pertaining to non-violent cannabis only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act.
(b) Within 120 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and make available to the public an application providing for the destruction of all cannabis-related civil and criminal records in Missouri and for any offense covered by this statute. These applications shall be distributed to all Circuit Court clerks within the State.

8. The Missouri General Assembly may enact a tax of up to $100 per pound of dried cannabis to be levied upon cannabis which is sold solely for personal adult use at the retail
level.

9. No Missouri law enforcement personnel or state funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of federal cannabis laws involving acts which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this statute.

10. Any person who willfully impedes the lawful exercise of these provisions is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

11. Commercial and agricultural cannabis farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive, or in any way significantly different from any other commercial or agricultural farmer, manufacturer, processor or distributor.

12. No person twenty-one years of age or older shall be arrested or prosecuted, nor be subject to any criminal penalties for the possession, cultivation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis.

13. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of Missouri hereby repudiate and challenge federal cannabis prohibitions that conflict with this Act.

14. Severability: If any provision of this Act or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

15. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.

16. All provisions of this section are self-executing and severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supersede conflicting state or federal statutory, local charter, ordinance, or resolution, and other federal, state and local provisions

St. Louis More An Island Than I Thought

I often find myself arguing that St. Louis isn’t so different from the rest of the country, other regions encounter the same problems we face. But then I see data that shows we are different in one respect.

Here in the St. Louis region and surrounding area we call soft drinks “soda” while those to the north say “pop” and to the south “coke”. The data from this map is from 2003 so it’s possible our region’s term for a soft drink it part of a larger area, but my guess is we are still a “soda” island.

 – Steve Patterson