Poll: How Should The St. Louis Region Respond To The Rams?

ABOVE: Dome would be expanded across the existing Broadway and Baer Plaza

The CVC has until June 1 to accept or reject the Rams’ proposal:

The Rams’ proposal was released against their wishes on Monday, a response to the dome improvement plan submitted by their landlord, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission, in February. And the discrepancy is wide: The CVC plan called for $124 million in upgrades, 52% of which would be paid for by the Rams; the team’s plan called for a complete overhaul estimated by the city to cost more than $700 million, and it wasn’t clear how it would be funded. (USAtoday.com)

My post from Tuesday is here, it includes a link to the proposal. Who holds the cards in the negotiations?

Los Angeles is really the only viable remaining market in North America that would potentially support an NFL team and help the league generate greater revenues. If they don’t build a facility, or if they do but another franchise beats Kroenke to the punch, then Kroenke’s negotiating leverage versus the CVC will be weakened. (Forbes)

Well we’ve got great negotiators here in St. Louis! We got the Kiel Opera House 20 years ago and that vibrant Ballpark Village in 2006. Oh wait…

The poll this week asks how the St. Louis region, via the CVC, should respond. I say we wish them well wherever it is they move after the 2014 season.

- Steve Patterson

Rams Proposal For Edward Jones Dome Calls For Significant Changes To Structure And Broadway

As promised, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster released the confidential proposal from the St. Louis Rams to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC).

To Whom It May Concern:

In compliance with Chapter 610, the Missouri Sunshine Law, Attorney General Chris Koster made the following documents publicly available in response to various media inquiries and Sunshine requests regarding ongoing negotiations between the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and its lessee.

Respectfully,

CHRIS KOSTER

Attorney General

Their proposal is significantly different than what the CVC had proposed. To me it seems like a new facility given how much would be entirely new.

ABOVE: Plan calls for removing most existing seating and the roof, moving the field 51'-8" to the east

ABOVE: Dome would be expanded across the existing Broadway and Baer Plaza

This means the dome is getting significantly larger than it is currently. The near corner of the drawing above includes access to the casino tunnel. The 2010 image below shows you where that is currently:

ABOVE: Baer Plaza with the Lumiere Link entrance in the foreground

As you can see that’s a lot of new building. Clearly the Rams want more than the lipstick the CVC proposed (see CVC Plan To Improve Dome Improves Broadway).

This brings up several thoughts:

1. Perfect excuse to make 4th & Broadway each two-way rather than the current one-way configurations
2. This would work well with the boulevard replacement of the I-70 elevated lanes, see CitytoRiver.org
3. Unlikely the St, Louis region is going to pony up the money for this.

I haven’t read the proposal in detail yet. You can read the proposal here.

- Steve Patterson

Missouri Transportation Meetings Not Accessible Via Transit

Missouri wants your input into our future transportation needs:

Missouri House Speaker Steve Tilley recently formed a Blue Ribbon Citizens Committe on Missouri’s Transportation needs which will be holding public meetings across the state in the next several weeks. The committee is being chaired by Rod Jetton and Bill McKenna, and they will be looking at total transportation needs in the state. (Source: CMT-STL)

The first such meeting is at 1pm today at 14301 South Outer 40 Road, Chesterfield, MO 63017. I’d like to attend but guess what, I can’t physically get there — at least not safely. I can get close after an hour or so ride on MetroBus but getting from the bus stop into the building safely looks impossible. The following is from a MoDOT Customer Relations Manager:

“One of the presenters at this meeting also uses a wheelchair and I know he will address the importance of access as the committee considers the transportation needs of Missourians. The area that you’re referencing is not a state road but I am familiar with it. I believe the bus stops at a paved shoulder then there’s a sidewalk and crosswalk across the street from the meeting site.”

Most likely the presenter will drive, or be driven, to the meeting. A shoulder? They expect me to get off the bus onto the shoulder of Woods Mill Rd? The few sidewalks that exist don’t have  curb cuts and their scarcity means I’d be a sitting target on the roads or in parking lots. I don’t expect the Blue Ribbon Panel to understand since most represent businesses/industries that profit from keeping Missouri locked into the auto culture:

Committee members include:

• Mr. Ben Jones, Union Pacific Railroad
• Mr. Blake Hurst, Missouri Farm Bureau
• Mr. Estil Fretwell, Missouri Farm Bureau
• Mr. Brian Meisel, Lake of the Ozarks Economic Development Council
• Mr. Duane Michie, First State Bank and Trust
• Mr. Joe DeLong, DeLong’s Inc.
• Mr. Len Toenjes, AGC of St. Louis
• Mr. Neal St. ONge, Coldwell BAnker
• Mr. Rick Neubert, Delta Concrete Inc.
• MR. Tom Crawford, Missouri Trucking Association
• Mr. Tony Thompson, Kwame Construction
• Mr. Dan Mehan, Missouri Chamber of Commerce
• Mr. Ed DeSoignie, The Heavy Constructors Association of Greater Kansas City
• Mr. Jim Anderson, Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce
• Mr. John Nations, Metro
• Mr. MArk Stidham, Dexter City Adminstrator
• Mr. Randy Verkamp, Phelps County Presiding Commissioner
• Mr. Scott Smith, HNTB Corporation
• Mr. Tom Dunne, Fred Weber, Inc.

The list is from CMT.

The other meetings are:

• May 21 – MoDOT Northwest District Office, St. Joseph, MO
• June 1 – Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce, Springfield, MO
• June 29 – Show-Me Center, Cape Girardeau, MO
• July 9 – ARC City Activity Center, Columbia, MO
• July 23 – MoDOT Northeast District Office, Hannibal, MO
• August 6 – Gamber Center, Lee’s Summit, MO

I doubt I could get to any of these safely.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: City Justified In Clearing Out Homeless Camps?

For a couple of years some homeless had set up camp near the riverfront. But that’s changing:

Hopeville was the second of three riverfront camps that the city plans to clear by May 18. The first, Dignity Harbor, was bulldozed last week. Officials said they have offered housing vouchers to residents of all the camps so they can stay in hotels and apartments. (STLtoday.com on 5/11/2012)

I visited Hopeville last year and while I was sympathetic to their situation I was also repulsed by what I saw.

ABOVE: The "Hopeville" camp in June 2011

The poll this week asks if the city was justified in clearing out these camps. The poll is in the right sidebar below the advertisement.

- Steve Patterson

Readers Support Bill To Reduce The Board Of Aldermen From 28 To 12 Members

ABOVE: St. Louis Board of Aldermen's chambers

Readers overwhelmingly support Board Bill 31 before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen that would allow voters to decide in November if the board should be reduced to 12 from 28. If so they change would be effective on January 1, 2022:

Thoughts on the bill to reduce the number of aldermen from 28 to 12 by 2022 (pick up to 2 answers):

1. Great, way past due 88 [63.31%]
2. Won’t get the 60% of voters needed 17 [12.23%]
3. Voters will finally approve this charter change 14 [10.07%]
4. It’ll never get to voters for approval 12 [8.63%]
5. Bad, we need to keep 28 aldermen in city hall 5 [3.6%]
6. Other: 3 [2.16%]
7. unsure/no opinion 0 [0%]

Some did feel that either the bill won’t be approved by the Board of Aldermen or that city voters won’t approve the measure with the 60% required.

Three “other” answers were:

1. Iceland has about 320k people and 60+ members in its parliament. Nuff said.
2. The problem isn’t the number of wards — it’s aldermen not working together.
3. Why not go for total charter reform?

Iceland?

I know that reducing the number from 28 to 12 won’t magically fix all the city’s problems, but it’s a start. If approved by voters we might see work on other charter reforms such as reducing county offices, switching to nonpartisan elections  or even becoming one of the 90+ municipalities in St. Louis County. The original post introducing the poll is here.

Ald Young, the bill’s primary sponsor, was on St. Louis Public radio speaking in support of the bill and Ald Vaccaro was on speaking against. You can hear the 20 minute segment here.

- Steve Patterson

June 5th Special Election: Metropolitan Sewer District

Four weeks from today voters in St. Louis City & St. Louis County have identical June 5th special election ballots.  They contain the same nine items, each to be approved or rejected.  Eight of the items are changes to MSD’s charter:

The Charter Plan of the Metropolitan St Louis Sewer District is a blueprint for how MSD is operated. The plan was created when MSD was formed in 1954 and was amended and approved by voters in 2000. These amendments provided MSD with the necessary tools to continue providing quality service and to address additional water quality and stormwater needs that exist or may develop in the years ahead. (Source w/link to actual charter)

The first proposition is related to a recent settlement:

A judge approved the settlement of federal lawsuit against the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, paving the way for $4.7 billion of work over the next 23 years to help clean up local rivers and streams and prevent backups into basements and yards.

The Environmental Protection Agency, state and Missouri Coalition for the Environment filed the lawsuit almost five years ago , citing more than 500 million gallons of raw sewage discharged into local rivers and streams between 2000 and 2006 in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. (stltoday.com — recommended reading)

The following are the ballot items:

PROPOSITION Y

To comply with federal and state clean water requirements, shall The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) issue its sewer revenue bonds in the amount of Nine Hundred Forty-Five Million Dollars ($945,000,000) for the purpose of designing, constructing, improving, renovating, repairing, replacing and equipping new and existing MSD sewer and drainage facilities and systems, including sewage treatment and disposal plants, sanitary sewers, and acquisition of easements and real property related thereto, the cost of operation and maintenance of said facilities and systems and the principal of and interest on said revenue bonds to be payable solely from the revenues derived by MSD from the operation of its wastewater sewer system, including all future extensions and improvements thereto?

PROPOSITION 1

Shall Article 2 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to provide that the portion of the boundaries of the District that are located within St. Louis County shall be as described in records kept in the office of the Secretary-Treasurer of the District and no longer required to be contained in the text of the plan?

PROPOSITION 2

Shall Articles 3 and 9 of Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to (a) establish procedural requirements relating to the formation of subdistricts within the District and the design, construction and funding of improvements in such subdistricts, and (b) establish the method for levying special benefit assessments, all subject to a vote of the property owners in the affected subdistricts?

PROPOSITION 3

Shall Article 3 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District relating to powers of the District be amended to (a) permit the District to establish environmentally sustainable standards and practices, and (b) clarify the existing authority of the District to enter into contracts pertaining to stormwater facilities?

PROPOSITION 4

Shall Articles 5, 7 and 10 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to provide that notice of the expiration of the term of office of a Director, notice of tax levy hearings, notice of proposed rate changes, and notice of elections under the Plan (Charter) shall be given by mail, publication or electronic media, or such other form of communication as may be permitted by Missouri law?

PROPOSITION 5

Shall Articles 7 and 9 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District relating to budget and finance be amended to (a) require the budget of the District to include a list of capital projects, (b) require a public hearing at least 21 days prior to adoption of the budget, and (c) provide that proceedings to make certain improvements shall be initiated by approval of a list of capital projects and a general appropriation ordinance rather than by resolution?

PROPOSITION 6

Shall Article 9 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to permit the District to use design-build and other alternative delivery methods to make improvements, as permitted by Missouri law?

PROPOSITION 7

Shall Article 11 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to provide that a District Plan Amendment Commission shall be appointed on or before July 1, 2019 and every ten years thereafter?

PROPOSITION 8

Shall the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to (a) make various typographical, grammatical and stylistic revisions to the text thereof, (b) correct outdated statutory citations and references, (c) change gender specific language to gender neutral language, and (d) eliminate the requirement that records of the Board of Trustees maintained by the Secretary-Treasurer be kept in bound or book form?

I’m just now starting the process to research these before election day so I’ll be curious to hear your thoughts.

- Steve Patterson

Then & Now: Racial Segregation

A century ago whites went to great lengths to keep out non-whites, including deed restrictions:

On February 16, 1911, thirty out of a total of thirty-nine owners of property fronting both sides of Labadie Avenue between Taylor Avenue and Cora Avenue in the city of St. Louis, signed an agreement, which was subsequently recorded, providing in part:

‘* * * the said property is hereby restricted to the use and occupancy for the term of Fifty (50) years from this date, so that it shall be a condition all the time and whether recited and referred to as ( sic) not in subsequent conveyances and shall attach to the land, as a condition precedent to the sale of the same, that hereafter no part of said property or any [334 U.S. 1 , 5] portion thereof shall be, for said term of Fifty-years, occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race, it being intended hereby to restrict the use of said property for said period of time against the occupancy as owners or tenants of any portion of said property for resident or other purpose by people of the Negro or Mongolian Race.’

The entire district described in the agreement included fifty-seven parcels of lamd. The thirty owners who signed the agreement held title to forty-seven parcels, including the particular parcel involved in this case. At the time the agreement was signed, five of the parcels in the district were owned by Negroes. One of those had been occupied by Negro families since 1882, nearly thirty years before the restrictive agreement was executed. The trial court found that owners of seven out of nine homes on the south side of Labadie Avenue, within the restrit ed district and ‘in the immediate vicinity’ of the premises in question, had failed to sign the restrictive agreement in 1911. At the time this action was brought, four of the premises were occupied by Negroes, and had been so occupied for periods ranging from twenty-three to sixty-three years. A fifth parcel had been occupied by Negroes until a year before this suit was instituted. (Source)

The above was part of the majority decision of the US Supreme Court on May 3, 1948 when they ruled it was unconstitutional for the state to enforce such deed restrictions.

ABOVE: This house at 4600 Labadie was at the center of the case Shelley v Kraemer. Click for map.

Today the situation is reversed, some African-Americans are trying hard to keep whites out of north St. Louis.

In March the BBC did a video report on the dividing line:

Delmar Boulevard, which spans the city from east to west, features million-dollar mansions directly to the south, and poverty-stricken areas to its north. What separates rich and poor is sometimes just one street block. (BBC)

I was recently told that whites shouldn’t be involved north of Delmar because it’s not their community. Whites that move north of Delmar are gentrifiers. North St. Louis is sparsely populated and and incomes are substantially less than south of Delmar.  Clearly more people with higher incomes are needed in north St. Louis to reduce this disparity.

When I was in real estate I had a middle-class African-American family looking to move from St. Louis County to the city but they made it clear to me — they didn’t want to live in the ghetto. I represented them in the purchase as  a fully renovated home in McKinley Heights. We did look at property in north St. Louis, but only for rental purposes, not for them.

Some see whites as a threat, gentrifiers that will cause rents and sale prices to go up.  Maybe, but more people with greater income will mean more jobs as businesses spring up. Some of the new entrepreneurs  could be current African-Americans.

My interest in St. Louis doesn’t stop at Delmar. My interest in the region doesn’t stop at the city limits. If a white person wants to live north of Delmar then go for it.  It was wrong last century for whites to attempt to exclude nonwhites and it’s wrong today for African-Americans to attempt to exclude whites from the same area.

I didn’t like being told to butt out of areas north of Delmar.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Thoughts On Ald Young’s Bill To Reduce The Board of Aldermen From 28 To 12 Members In 2022

ABOVE: St. Louis Board of Aldermen's chambers

An interesting bill was introduced to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen on Friday:

BOARD BILL NO. 31 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN PHYLLIS YOUNG, ALDERMAN STEPHEN CONWAY, ALDERMAN ALFRED WESSELS, ALDERWOMAN CAROL HOWARD, ALDERWOMAN JENNIFER FLORIDA, ALDERWOMAN DONNA BARINGER, ALDERMAN JOSEPH RODDY, ALDERWOMAN MARLENE DAVIS, ALDERMAN SCOTT OGILVIE, ALDERMAN SHANE COHN, ALDERWOMAN LYDA KREWSON An ordinance submitting to the qualified voters of the city of St. Louis a proposed amendment to the charter of the city of St. Louis restructuring the board of aldermen as a body of twelve (12) aldermen representing twelve (12) wards, providing a transition schedule for such changes, and other related matters; providing for an election to be held for voting on the proposed amendment and for the manner of voting; and for the publication, certification, deposit, and recording of this ordinance; and containing an emergency clause. (BB31 page)

The bill details how over the next ten years the change would take place. The new 12 wards would be based on the 2020 census figures released in 2021. On December 31, 2021 we’d have 28 wards and on January 1, 2022 we’d have 12.  The bill language contains typos such as 1915 instead of 2015, those will get corrected in committee presumably.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Phyllis Young, and one co-sponsor, Fred Wessels, were both first sworn into office on April 16, 1985 — over 27 years ago. They are the most senior members in the Board of Aldermen. Wessels is a candidate for the citywide Treasurer’s seat. Is Young making one big push as before retirement at the end of her current term next year?

Of the eleven sponsors of the bill only one is black, Ald. Marlene Davis. Other black aldermen likely see the reduction as a way to reduce black influence at city hall. One of the newest members, Scott Ogilvie, is a co-sponsor. Otherwise nobody elected after 2003 is a co-sponsor, they want their chance to be in office for nearly three decades.

If the bill gets through the Board of Aldermen it will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot where it needs approval of 60% of voters since it’s a change to the city’s charter.

The poll this week seeks to get your thoughts on this bill and the change it’s trying to accomplish, vote in the right sidebar.

- Steve Patterson

Readers: Concealed Guns On Public Transit Is A Bad Idea

Nearly two-thirds of readers thought concealed guns on public transit was a bad idea. The original post, Poll: Concealed Weapons Allowed On Public Transit, has great comments on the topic.

The pro-conceraled gun argument goes something like this:

“I rarely ride transit but when I do I’m scared beyond belief about what might happen to me while waiting or en route. If a dark person tries something funny I want to be a hero with my gun.”

Ok, my characterization is a bit unfair but these folks sound like they’re frightened by their own shadow. They might be well trained to use their gun on a paper target in a controlled setting but I’m transit dependent and I can assure you the bus and train are not a shooting range. They cite a drop in crime in areas where concealed  guns are allowed on transit but fail to mention the similar drop in crime in other places where concealed guns aren’t allowed on transit. I’ve yet to see one independent scientific study that says conclusively that concealed guns results in a drop in crime.

The total vote count was higher than usual (160) but the percentages stayed consistent throughout the week so I don’t think any side tried to alter the results with a campaign:

Q: Concealed guns on public transit is:

1. A bad idea 102 [62.96%]
2. A good idea 46 [28.4%]
3. Neither a good or bad idea 10 [6.17%]
4. Other: 3 [1.85%]
5. Unsure/No Opinion 1 [0.62%]

The other answers were:

1. Are you serious? Could we be any more uncivilized?
2. Already happening.
3. already happening & will continue no matter what the laws are

Drinking alcohol is legal and people drink & drive, we should make that legal by the logic of these last two. The pro-gun lobby (NRA) seems to think they should be able to carry their guns anywhere and everywhere. In 2008 the US Supreme Court declared Washington D.C.’s gun law unconstitutional but conservative Justice Antonin Scolia wrote in the majority opinion:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause. (District of Columbia v Heller) 

In other words, keeping a loaded gun in your own home is protected by the constitution. That doesn’t automatically extend to everywhere outside your home. Legislators that responded to my email on this subject tell me the bill to make concealed guns on public transit in Missouri legal won’t make it out of committee…this year.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Concealed Weapons Allowed On Public Transit

The National Riffle Association is in St. Louis and outstate Missouri legislators are trying to change Missouri law to force concealed guns onto public transit. House Bill 1483 was introduced in January but it had it’s first hearing last week in the “General Laws” House committee.  The bill summary:

This bill specifies that a political subdivision in the state cannot prohibit a person with a valid concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm onto a train or public bus.

This isn’t about preventing the City of St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Louis County, Richmond Heights or any over “political subdivision” from prohibiting concealed weapons on public transit vehicles. No, this is about preventing the Bi-State Development Corporation, the political subdivision that operates as Metro St. Louis, from prohibiting concealed guns.

ABOVE: Sign on MetroLink train, no such sign exists inside MetroBus vehicles

Metro St. Louis is the Bi-State Development Corporation is joint political subdivision of Missouri & Illinois. I personally don’t have fear using public transit but some seem so struck with fear they feel the need to carry deadly force on their person. The only guns I think should be on public  transit would be those of law enforcement:

Law enforcement officers (including reserve officers, police cadets and turnkeys) may ride whether in or out of uniform. These individuals must present an appropriate badge and identification card to the bus operator or fare inspector when boarding out of uniform. Firefighters may ride free of charge when in uniform and wearing appropriate insignia. These individuals are permitted to ride free of charge because of their ability to assist an operator with dealing with emergency situations that might occur while on the bus. Any of these individuals identified “above”, who accept free transportation are in fact, expected to assist in emergencies in return for their free transportation. (Metro FAQ)

What do you think about concealed guns on public transit? The weekly poll is in the right sidebar. Vote there and share your thoughts below.

- Steve Patterson