Central Valet Zone Now On Tucker

I’ve been writing about valet parking since July 2005. Years ago valets would take every on-street parking space on the block in front of the restaurant that hired them. leaving no spaces for the public to use. They’d place valet signs in bike lanes.

Finally the city to placed signs on the meter of the spaces that were permitted for valet service, including days of the week and hours of operation. The valets continued to take more spaces than given, again inconveniencing the general public. For example, until recently, we had three different valet stands in the two city blocks of Washington Ave between 10th and Tucker (12th), two were directly across the street from each other!

The city has permitted valet on Thursday-Saturday evenings after 6pm. Lately the city did something it should’ve done 8 years ago — created a central valet zone to cover these two blocks. So now on Tucker from St. Charles St to Washington Ave you have a bus stop and a valet zone. This area didn’t have any on-street parking before, it was just excessively wide.

Half the block from St. Charles St to Washington Ave is now designated for valet parking 3 nights per week after 6pm. Copia, Prime 1000 & Mosaic customers now valet here.

Valet problems are solved, right? Wrong! The valet companies still feel they have the right to take public parking whenever and where ever they like.

Valets covered two meters in front of Prime 1000 on Monday May 13th, I took this photo at 3:50pm.

Empty spaces mean the city isn’t getting revenue to pay off bonds to cover parking garage debt. Since it was before 5pm I was able to email the above pic to the appropriate people so they could come out and tell them they couldn’t do this.

I personally don’t care if valeting happens 7 days a week, as long as it is in the central spot on Tucker so the public spaces remain available for the public to use.

– Steve Patterson

Two-Thirds of Readers Opposed Decision to Raze Cupples 7 Warehouse

Cupples 2 (left, renovated) and Cupples 7 (right, slated for demolition by the city)

No surprise in the poll last week, readers are opposed to the city razing the Cupples 7 warehouse building, here are the results from the poll last week:

Q: The city plans to raze Cupples 7; support or oppose?

1. Strongly oppose 65 [44.52%]
2. Oppose 31 [21.23%]
3. Support 24 [16.44%]
4. Unsure/No Answer 10 [6.85%]
5. Strongly support 9 [6.16%]
6. Neutral 7 [4.79%]

Nearly half “strongly opposed” to razing the building. If they’re like me, they’d risk collapse while holding out for a developer with deep pockets.

When we simplify the results the contrast becomes even stronger: two-thirds are opposed.

2/3rds of readers were opposed to demolition

Yesterday I met with Treasurer Tishaura Jones and Cupples 7 was one of the topics we discussed. Per the previous treasurer, that office must buy the bank note on the property if the city demolishes the building. Jones told me they don’t have any definitive plans for the site once it is cleared. I suggested a transparent process to get the community involved in brainstorming ideas.

I want to see a building, not parking or green space.

– Steve Patterson

Press Release: More Strikes Hit St. Louis’ Largest Fast Food Chains

The following is from a press release:

—

MORE STRIKES HIT ST LOUIS’ LARGEST FAST FOOD CHAINS

Inspired by New York City and Chicago Fast Food Walkouts, St. Louis Workers Strike Major National Chains

First-ever St. Louis Fast Food Walkout; STL Can’t Survive on $7.35 Campaign Launches Calling For $15 and the Right to Form a Union without Retaliation; Aims to Get St. Louis’ Economy Moving Again

ST. LOUIS— Workers walked off their jobs at Jimmy John’s and McDonald’s Wednesday in the first-ever fast-food strike to hit St. Louis and more 100 workers are expected to join them today. In their one-day strikes of major national brands like McDonald’s, Jimmy Johns, Domino’s, Hardees and Wendy’s are on strike, the employees are calling for wages that support their families and the right to form a union without retaliation.

The workers’ campaign, STL Can’t Survive On $7.35, seeks to put money back in the pockets of the 36,000 men and women who work hard in the city’s fast food restaurants, but still can’t afford basic necessities like food, clothing, and rent. The Self-Sufficiency Standard for an adult with one child living in St. Louis County is $14.84 per hour working full time. If workers were paid more, they’d spend more, helping to get St. Louis’ economy moving again.

“There are days I wonder, ‘how am I going to get home’ because I can’t afford my bus fare,” said Patrick Leeper, who has worked at Chipotle for more than three years, “Sometimes I walk for more than an hour just to save my train fare so I can spend it on Ramen noodles. I can’t even think about groceries.”

Fast food workers bring $1 billion a year into the cash registers of St. Louis, yet most of these workers earn Missouri’s minimum wage of $7.35, or just above it, and are forced to rely on public assistance programs to provide for their families and get healthcare for their children. They’re coming together for $15 per hour and the right to form a union so they can support their families, and put money back into the economy.

“I’ve been at Jack in the Box for four years, cleaning and prepping food and all I get paid is $7.55 without any benefits,” said Anita Gregory, a mother of one, who is expecting her second child in the next few weeks. “I’m tired of having to struggle to survive while working so hard.”

It would take a typical St. Louis fast food worker minimum-wage full-time worker more than 1,300 years to earn as much as the CEO of YUM! Brands, which owns Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut, made in 2012.

The two days of strikes here in St. Louis come just weeks after hundreds of fast food and retail workers went on strike in Chicago and hundreds more walked off their jobs in New York City. The strikes by low-wage workers began on Black Friday back in November, with hundreds of Walmart workers walking off their jobs. It spread weeks later to fast food, with workers embarking on the first-ever strike to hit the industry.

Low-wage jobs have accounted for the bulk of new jobs added in the recovery, and fast food positions are among the fastest-growing in St. Louis. Workers here, like those around the country, are increasingly joining together to fight for higher wages that will lift the economy.

“Workers in fast-food jobs are no longer freckle-faced teenagers looking for some summer pocket change,” said the Rev. Martin Rafanan, director of STL $7.35. “Increasingly, fast food jobs are the only options for St. Louisans, but these workers can’t even afford to pay for rent, food and bus fare. If the workers earned more, fast food workers would spend that money at local businesses here in St. Louis and help lift our economy.”

Founded in February of 2013, the St. Louis Organizing Committee is an independent union of fast food workers. The workers’ STL Can’t Survive on $7.35 campaign seeks a $15 an hour wage and the right to form a union without retaliation. The STL Can’t Survive on $7.35 campaign is supported by a coalition of dozens of community, labor and faith-based groups including: ACTION; Adorers of the Blood of Christ; St. Louis AFL-CIO; AFSCME Illinois Council 31; Aquinas Institute; ARAW/Jobs with Justice National; Ascension Episcopal; Bethel Lutheran; Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, St Louis, Central Reform Congregation; Central Reform Congregation; Eastern District Laborer Council 110; Eden Seminary; Epiphany UCC; Episcopal Diocese; Families USA; Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Jobs with Justice Workers’ Right Board; Kirkwood UCC; Missouri Jobs with Justice; MO Health Care For All; MORE; National Nurses United; New Life Evangelistic Center; Parkway United Church of Christ; People’s World; Personal UFCW655; Presbyterian Church USA; PROMO; ProVote; SEIU Health Care; SEIU Local 1; St John’s Catholic Church; St John’s Episcopal; St Joseph’s Catholic Church; St Margaret of Scotland; St Mark Lutheran; St Peter’s United Church of Christ; St. Pius; St Thomas United Church of Christ; Teamsters 688;The Bridge at Newtown; United Church of Christ in Afton; United Food and Commercial Workers 655; United Food and Commercial Workers 88; Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church; Westminster Presbyterian; Westside Baptist; Young Activists United

Poll: Thoughts on Demolition of Cupples 7

South wall of the Cupples 7 warehouse

Last week the city announced the Building Commissioner will order the demolition of the  historic Cupples 7 warehouse if a savior doesn’t come foreword.

The city’s building commissioner is expected to file a demolition permit next week.

The seven story building will be demolished at the end of the month if a developer doesn’t purchase it first.(KSDK)

That’s not much time to find someone with deep pockets to save the structure. Interesting information also came out last week about finances.

Unless a new buyer emerges, the city will be out $850,000. That’s because former Treasurer Larry Williams took an option on the property from Montgomery Bank, lender to the development firm that was unable to follow through on its plan to put condos in Cupples 7. (stltoday)

It looks like Cupples 7 will be coming down because just stabilizing the structure is estimated by some to cost millions.

The poll this week seeks to find out if you support the city’s decision, vote in the right sidebar. See Saving Cupples 7: The Importance of Urban Context for more photos.

– Steve Patterson

Missouri Needs A Better Jury System

Today is Law Day and part of Juror Appreciation Week.

I was called in last month for jury service and I was looking forward to it. For the first time I was to start on a Wednesday rather than a Monday. We were all dismissed for lunch at 11:30am and told to return by 1:15pm. At this point no numbers had been called for the first jury pool. Finally at 2pm the first group was called and my number was among those.

We get to the courtroom and the staff take care of details. The judge comes out and explains the importance of jurors but the case wasn’t ready to be heard that day after all, we were dismissed. I wanted to serve on a jury like I did last time. I wasn’t losing money by being there.

States like Illinois & California have systems available for each circuit to use where jurors can call in the day before to see if they are needed or not. Alternatively, prospective jurors can login online to see if they are needed. This lets people go about there lives. For my Wednesday service I would’ve checked on Tuesday. It likely would’ve told me I was needed since the judge thought he’d need a jury. But others might have been told to call in on Wednesday to see if they were needed on Thursday. A friend I saw on jury duty was losing money sitting there, he could’ve been working on Wednesday instead.  Missouri needs such a system so people don’t spend days just sitting there!

Here are the poll results from the poll last week:

Q: How do you feel about jury duty?

1. I go and want to serve 58 [50.43%]
2. I show up (if called) but don’t want to be called 29 [25.22%]
3. Other: 14 [12.17%]
4. If called, I try to get out of it. 5 4.35% 4.35%
5. Unsure/no opinion 4 [3.48%]
6. I don’t care 3 [2.61%]
7. I don’t vote, so I don’t get called. 2 [1.74%]

The 14 “other” answers from readers were:

1. would love to go but never get called
2. I have no problem serving. But saying “want to serve” is a bit of a stretch.
3. Love it! After voting, it’s the most important way we act as a democracy.
4. never been called
5. I’ve lived in the city for 4 years and still haven’t been called. I want to go!
6. Dont vote, get called anyway
7. I’ve never been called, but would go.
8. I have never been called for it.
9. Considering who I’ve seen picked, I hope I never face a jury trial in stl city
10. I go – depends on the case
11. Reform. Current system has too many uneducated people making critical decisions.
12. I do vote, but haven’t been called.
13. Never been called!
14. It’s my civic duty.

I like serving and I think others would too if we only have to show up when we are needed for a jury pool.

– Steve Patterson

Readers Support Full Legalization of Marijuana in Missouri

In the poll last week nearly 82% favored some change in Missouri with respect to marijuana laws, with more than half supporting full legalization:

Q: How should Missouri treat marijuana?

1. Fully legalize 71 53.38% 53.38%
2. Legalize for medical / decriminalize for recreational use 32 24.06% 24.06%
3. Keep it illegal 21 15.79% 15.79%
4. Legalize for medical use only 6 [4.51%]
5. Unsure/no opinion 3 [2.26%]

Recently the St. Louis Board of Aldermen approved a bill (#275) that would give police the ability to issue a summons to people rather than arrest them for violating state law:

Right now, under that state law, first offenders who are caught with a small amount of marijuana — from a gram to 35 grams— is given a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. A second offense for possession of more than 35 grams is considered a felony. (stltoday)

This action is a reflection of changing attitudes, and perhaps realization the federal “War on Drugs” has largely failed:

For decades, the politics of the drug war were straightforward: Being tough could help at the polls and came with no political downside; being open to reform had few advantages, but would be used against a candidate on the campaign trail. (Huffington Post)

Nationally support for full legalization has picked up speed, Colorado & Washington states even legalized marijuana in the November 2012 election.

From Pew, click image to view source

Seeing such a shift in Missouri will likely take a while.

– Steve Patterson

McKee’s Northside Regeneration Moving Forward

As you’ve likely heard by now, last week the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a 2010 ruling that Paul McKee’s Northside Regeneration development plans were too vague for TIF financing:

After over 3 years of litigation, developer Paul McKee’s controversial Northside Regeneration Project is being allowed to proceed.  On Tuesday the Missouri Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision blocking McKee’s use of so-called “Tax Increment Financing,” (TIF) for the development. (St. Louis Public Radio)

I’ve never been thrilled about how McKee handled property acquisition and maintenance, but I recognize the city’s total absence of planning and working toward a common vision left an opening for private interests without public input.

Original outline of McKee’s Northside Regeneration project

The project area is large but it’s a fraction of the city as a whole. There are many other parts of the city, north & south, dealing with continued population decline, increases in vacant buildings, and other signs of decay. Where’s the people upset the city isn’t doing anything to solicit public input in the rest of the city? Transportation, housing, jobs, education, etc are all being ignored.

The Jaco report just had Paul & Midge McKee on taking about their project, see the video here.

One of the biggest issues is the massive TIF (tax increment financing) package for the project. What needs to be understood is the pros and cons of the TIF tool. When a municipality invests in new infrastructure in stable and up & coming areas few tend to object since people see the value of improving desirable locations. Conversely, this means declining areas don’t see improvements in public infrastructure (sidewalks, roads, sewers, lighting, etc).  Both are self-fulfilling in that rebuilding public infrastructure in the sable/improving areas further helps these areas while the lack of infrastructure investment in others accelerates decline in others.

Begin replacing sidewalks & lighting in sparsely populated declining neighborhoods and people will quickly question the return on that investment.  This is where the TIF tool come in, a private developer agrees to invest in a blighted area and pay much more in property taxes than the municipality currently collects but only in part of that tazx is used to pay off bonds used to rebuild the public infrastructure the municipality can’t afford to rebuild otherwise.

The developer needs the new infrastructure to attract investors/buyers/tenants but the municipality can’t rebuild the infrastructure without a way to pay for it. The municipality can’t risk existing revenues to pay off bonds to rebuild the infrastructure so that means new revenue must be used.  Sales taxes are a bad source for these revenues

• Residential & office development don’t pay sales taxes
• Sales taxes would take too long to accrue
• Our sales tax rate is already sky high

This leaves property taxes as a source of revenue. To simplify things say the property is paying $100/year in property taxes but after redevelopment the property taxes will now be $200/year. With the TIF the municipality/school district would still collect the $100 it always did, $5o (increment) would go to pay off infrastructure bonds and the remaining $50 would go to the municipality/school district. Do nothing get $100/year or do the project and get $150/year.

The actual numbers will be different but you get the point: public infrastructure gets rebuilt, building happens, more taxes are collected than if nothing happened. This is a simplified view and there are cons such as favoritism for the developer(s), risk of pushing out good people, etc.

My concern is St. Louis won’t require good urbanism such as strong pedestrian connections. The infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and TIF is the best way to do that, but we need to have a say on characteristics of the final development.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: How Should Missouri Treat Marijuana?

Views on marijuana use are changing rapidly, all age groups have shown dramatic increases in support for legalizing it:

Fully 65% of Millennials –born since 1980 and now between 18 and 32 – favor legalizing the use of marijuana, up from just 36% in 2008. Yet there also has been a striking change in long-term attitudes among older generations, particularly Baby Boomers.

Half (50%) of Boomers now favor legalizing marijuana, among the highest percentages ever. In 1978, 47% of Boomers favored legalizing marijuana, but support plummeted during the 1980s, reaching a low of 17% in 1990. Since 1994, however, the percentage of Boomers favoring marijuana legalization has doubled, from 24% to 50%.

Generation X, born between 1965 and 1980, came of age in the 1990s when there was widespread opposition to legalizing marijuana. Support for marijuana legalization among Gen X also has risen dramatically – from just 28% in 1994 to 42% a decade later and 54% currently.

The Silent Generation continues to be less supportive of marijuana legalization than younger age cohorts. But the percentage of Silents who favor legalization has nearly doubled –from 17% to 32% – since 2002. (Pew Research for People & Press) 

Below is the visual view of the above information.

From Pew, click image to view source

Right now no state bordering Missouri allows for medical or recreational use, but Illinois may soon have medical marijuana:

The sponsor of a measure that would legalize marijuana for people like Bauer says he plans to call the plan for a vote no later than next week.

Representative Lou Lang, a Democrat from Skokie, says his plan has the strictest regulations in the country.

Patients would only be allowed to purchase the marijuana from qualified vendors, who could only purchase from certified growers. (WUIS)

Would a neighboring state prompt a change in Jefferson City? Probably not.

The poll question this week asks how Missouri should treat marijuana, the existing illegal is one of the choices in the poll. My thoughts on Wednesday April 24th.

– Steve Patterson

Readers Overwhelmingly Opposed To Proposed Utility Surcharge

Click image for group opposed to the surcharge bills.

Readers very clearly oppose bills in the Missouri senate & house that would permit a utility surcharge, read specifics in the prior post. Here are the results of the poll:

Q: Support or oppose proposed electric utility infrastructure surcharge?

1. Oppose 48 [77.42%]
2. Support 10 [16.13%]
3. Unsure/no opinion 3 [4.84%]
4. Other: 1 [1.61%] – “support only if used for utility network, not plants”

You can lookup your Missouri state legislators here to let them know how you feel.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Oppose or Support Proposed Electric Utility Infrastructure Surcharge?

Most likely you’ve seen recent TV commercials talking about utility surcharges and regulations. These are sponsored by groups on opposite sides of Missouri Senate Bill 207 (link):

SCS/SB 207 – Currently, gas corporations may file a petition with the Public Service Commission for rate adjustments to recover costs incurred for infrastructure replacement projects. This act allows electrical corporations to follow a similar process to recover costs for infrastructure replacement projects. The types of costs that can be recovered include certain work on electric plants, certain capital projects undertaken to comply with environmental or safety regulations, and costs of facilities relocation due to public works projects.

This act details the process that an electric corporation and the Public Service Commission must follow in reviewing applications for infrastructure system replacement surcharges. If surcharges are approved by the Public Service Commission, this act requires electric corporations to submit to the Commission a reconciliation noting the differences between infrastructure system replacement revenues and appropriate pretax revenues. Additionally, this act modifies the amount of revenues that may be produced from an infrastructure system replacement from no less than one million dollars or half of 1% of the corporation’s base revenue and no more than 10% of the corporation’s base revenue. While the electric corporation is collecting an infrastructure system replacement surcharge, they may only adjust the rate two times every twelve months. If an electric corporation files a petition or change to an infrastructure system replacement surcharge, it shall not be considered an increase in the electric corporation’s base rate.

In other words:

The measure would let Missouri’s three investor-owned electric companies — Ameren Missouri, KCP&L and Empire District Electric — put the cost of replacing infrastructure on customer’s bills without first needing to get approval from the Public Service Commission. (St. Louis Business Journal)

Supportive viewpoint:

Under current law utility companies have to go through the Public Service Commission to increase rates to pay for infrastructure and other additional expenses. This process can take months. They said this bill fixes that regulatory lag and allows utility companies to invest faster while interest rates are low. Supporters said this will give the companies better credit ratings, which could make utilities cheaper in the long run and make infrastructure projects more attractive to investors. (KMOX)

Opposition viewpoint:

The Fair Energy Rate Action Fund, an opponent of the legislation, said the changes are not near enough to protect consumers. Executive Director Chris Roepe said the proposed expiration date is lengthy, the cap still would allow for significant costs and proving a case to get the refund would be difficult.

 “It’s still a really terrible bill for Missouri businesses and families,” Roepe said. (Southeast Missourian)

Who is the Fair Energy Rate Action Fund?

FERAF is a diverse coalition comprised by consumer protection groups. Members of FERAF include:

• AARP
• Missouri Association for Social Welfare
• Consumers Council of Missouri
• Missouri Association of Retailers
• Ford Motor Company
• Noranda Aluminum

The utilities have Missourians for a Balanced Energy Future with 19 co-chairs!

The poll this week seeks to find out how readers feel about this issue. The poll is on the right sidebar, mobile users need to switch to the desktop layout to vote in the poll.

– Steve Patterson