Ald Young Missed a Billboard in Her Ward

This post is a continuation of a post from yesterday, regarding signs. Seventh ward Alderman Phyllis Young had written the following regarding a painted anti-eminent domain sign/mural on the side of a building:

I have worked diligently throughout my career as an alderman to reduce the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city. As you drive I-44 you’ll see no billboards in my ward from Compton east to the intersection with I-55 other than the one in the commercial area at Jefferson. The wall sign is an affront to the neighborhoods, drivers, and the city. It should be denied and removed.

In yesterday’s post I included countless signs mostly from her ward, few if any had permits. I’m pretty certain, for example, that Dodge does not have a car dealership located within the stadium east parking garage despite large signs for the car company. But among my many pictures I did not have the one shot I should have had and as a result someone had the following comment:

In the alderwoman’s defense, the pictures you show do nothing to refute that paragraph, as none of them are visible from I-44.

To clarify here, Ald Young indicates reducing “the number of billboards cluttering our neighborhoods and our city” but I was able to illustrate many signs cluttering the city, and the 7th ward. But wait, what it that I see at I-44 & I-55, viewed from the Mississippi St bridge over I-44?

Oh yes, that would be a billboard located in the 7th Ward and seen from east bound I-44. This is in addition to the one seen at Jefferson & I-44 that is in the 7th Ward and a couple at Jefferson located in the 6th Ward.

Above: From the McKinley-Heights neighborhood you can see the highway and the forgotten billboard in full glory.

Here is the same billboard as seen from Gravos near Tucker. Gee, I’m not sure how Ald Young could have forgotten about this billboard. I’m guessing she’s been too busy figuring out how to raze Bohemian Hill to notice? If you look closely under the highway you can see the eminent domain sign that is such an “affront.” Take a look at the above picture again. Someone please tell me how that painted political slogan on the side of a relatively small alley building is the affront and not everything else I am looking at?

 

From the Tucker bridge over the highway(s) the sign is visible but in the big scheme of things is not the most offensive sight.

Directly in front of the sign suggesting we end eminent domain abuse is this area inside the cloverleaf where storage trailers are covered in graffiti. I’m sure Ald Young and all the neighborhood groups have been working hard to clean this up too…

Here are some additional thoughts:

• All the other signs I showed, I did not say I objected to those.  I was simply showing the proliferation of signs and the city’s inability to recognize the fact that vinyl banners are put up ‘temporarily’ for years as a means of skirting their antiquated sign ordinance.  I actually like a good many signs although I prefer higher quality signs over the long-term use of vinyl banners.
• Painted signs have a long history in cities — a good ‘model example’ to use our local historic preservation preference for citing other examples in the city.  Several buildings adjacent to this one but closer to Tucker have evidence of much larger painted signs as one time.
• The city’s sign ordinance is long overdue for a major overhaul/replacement.  In the late 60s and early 70s it was thought that clutter contributed to the loss of population and general decline of the city.  However, many cities that are thriving and full of life and people exhibit what St. Louis officials consider to be clutter to be removed.  They’ve managed to remove the clutter and the people that go with it.
• Roos’ sign is downright ugly, but that doesn’t mean he should not have the legal right to paint the side of his building.  In other words, do we all not have the right to place some art or message on the sides of our own buildings facing an adjacent property rather than a public street?
• As everyone has noticed, the message is wrong — you shouldn’t say ‘end eminent domain abuse’ and have the red circle with cross through it  — that looks like you support eminent domain abuse.
• Words do not make a sign per the ordinance just as images only without words automatically makes something an artistic mural.  I bet someone could paint a wonderful mural without a single word to communicate the same message.  Sounds like a fun contest to me…
• Two web addresses are shown on the mural but are more a ‘signature’ if you will and are not readable by anyone passing by on the highway or other roads like Gravois — you must seek out the sign to notice the web addresses, which are, mo-cpr.org and medac.info.
• The St. Louis political establishment has no problem with signs throughout our city as long as they are for beer, smokes, or cars and those companies donate to campaigns or throw big parties with lots of free booze and food.  Policical positions against the wishes of the establishment are simply not tolerated.

Who Represents Us?

A Guest Editorial by Jim Zavist, AIA

With the recent changes at the School Board, I wanted to raise the following fundamental question – who do (or should) our politicians represent? Do they represent the people who nominated or appointed them, the people who funded their campaign, the people who voted for them and/or everyone in their district, ward, area or city? It seems like a simple question, but many times actions speak louder than words. And, having done time as both an appointed and an elected politician, I can vouch that it’s not an easy answer.

The “old”, elected School Board had one or more members with close ties to the teacher’s union. The old Board also had an appointed member who obviously split ways from the mayor (who appointed her). The “new”, appointed Board is being portrayed, negatively, as somehow more removed from the issues facing our schools. Is it better or worse? I don’t know, yet.

My own experience is that my actions and reactions changed as my constituency broadened and the role of the various organizations changed. In Denver, in the late ’80′s, I became active in a neighborhood organization, rising quickly to president. One issue facing us was a new light rail line. My personal, libertarian bent was that it would be highly subsidized and shouldn’t be built. The voters disagreed and it was built.

In the late ’90′s, a vacancy occurred on the transit district’s elected board. Denver’s mayor appointed me to fill the balance of the term. I changed my focus from a very-local, neighborhood perspective to a regional perspective. I made the commitment that my role was to make the system the best it could be and not to try and “destroy it from within” as some previous board members had attempted. I also tried to be responsive to constituent comments and concerns, especially individually-generated ones, and not so responsive to petitions and multiple, identical post cards and emails.

Which gets me back to both the St. Louis School Board and the Board of Aldermen. Who do they actually represent? Who “has their ear” and exerts the greatest influence in their decisions? Is it the Democratic “machine” and the ward committee people? The various unions and their political-action committees? The Mayor, Governor and President of the Board of Aldermen? Those parts of town that voted heavily for them (and not those parts that didn’t)? The major corporations and donors that funded their campaign? Every citizen who personally contacts them? Only those citizens that actually reside in “their” ward or live in the city? The politician’s own vision, education and close circle of friends?

I know, I know, everyone is different. That’s the beauty of “representative” government. But when the representative sample becomes too small and/or too closed, more and more people become disenfranchised and excluded from what should be a very public and inclusive process. And, yes, we can always get worked up and “throw the rascals out”, but that rarely happens, and even when it does, you still need to overcome institutional inertia. So two final questions – do the systems (and the people) we have now, work (well enough)? And if not, what should change and how should we get that change started?

Local architect Jim Zavist was born in upstate New York, raised in Louisville KY, spent 30 years in Denver Colorado and relocated to St. Louis in 2005.

21st Ward: Unfinished Subdivision for Sale

This past April I did a post on the unfinished subdivision, Ville Phillips Estates, in the City’s 4th Ward. It was an interesting story involving multiple aldermen, a recall election and buyers stuck in the middle. It is my understanding newly elected Alderman Sam Moore intends to set things right at Ville Phillips Estates.

Here is the sequel, similar story but different setting and actors.

The subdivsion started by current and former 21st Alderman Bennice Jones King is called King’s Estates. City records show building permits issued in 1999 for new homes on each of the seven lots, none were started. In 2001 King was not re-elected, Melinda Long was instead voted into office. Apparently Long went on a quest to take properties up and down the 21st ward’s section Natural Bridge — enough of a plan to get her recalled just two years into her term (KSDK story on recall vote).

Bennice Jones King was re-elected and is the current aldermen. Additional city records show new building permits were issued for new homes in 2005. Three of the seven were built, two are sold and owner-occupied. A third, shown above at left, is completely finished but boarded up. MLS (Multiple Listing Service) records show Pyramid Realtors was the listing agent for the houses. However, Pyramid had nothing to do with the development and construction of the homes. The development and construction was by Mosley Construction, Inc of Kirkwood.

From Mosley’s website:

In our twenty five years in commercial construction and construction management, we have never failed to complete
an awarded contract. Our commitment to quality and hard work is what we deliver to our clients.

Boy, time to update that website.

In December 2006 UMB Community Development Corporation foreclosed on the properties. Mosley Construction has not returned my call. My email to Mosley Construction from 6/5/07 was returned, “user is over quota.” Twenty-first ward Alderman Bennice Jones King has not responded to my email, also from 6/5/07.

I also contacted real estate attorney Daniel J. Burke from the firm Armstrong Teasdale which handled the foreclosure on behalf of UMB Community Development Corp. Today I spoke with a representative from UMB, Mary Amburg, who called me back regarding my request to speak with someone about the disposition of the properties. Ms. Amburg indicated they are accepting bids for the sale of the four remaining lots and the one finished but unsold house, the offer deadline is 5pm tomorrow. When I asked for a website or other information to pass along she said none existed.

Homes across the street are more of what you’d expect to see in the city although this area does have newer homes from the 1940s-1960s.  Very few streets in this area have alleys with homes having front garages or rear garages accessed via front driveways.  Apparently this site was part of a dairy at one time. From the city’s development webpage on this project, last updated on 6/27/2005:

This former dairy location is being developed by the Mosley Group into five dwellings that will be for-sale, market rate homes. Construction of the new housing is expected to begin in 2004.

The land, as you might suspect, was city owned property.  This project received 10-year tax abatement and who knows how much additional subsidies.   The homes that sold and the last listing on the finished home were all around $200,000.  The street name is Kingston Court, click here for a map.

Bulk of City Legislation is Development Related

The new session of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen is just beginning and already they have introduced bills numbered 2-65.  Of these, I counted roughly 45 that were development related — either redevelopment plans, TIF financing, PUDs (Planning Unit Developments) or related.  Thus, so far, roughly 70% of the legislation is development related (45 bills).

Of couse, if one alderman introduces a bill for a development (or redevelopment) in their ward the other 27 go along under their unwritten rule of “aldermanic courtesy.” Basically, the 28 aldermen get to do what they want within their ward with no legislative oversight.  It is doubtful the city’s planning & urban design office has reviewed any of the projects.  Mayor Slay keeps planning director Rollin Stanley and his staff hidden over at 1015 Locust, pulling them out only when used to talk about census numbers and such.

Here is an example of the “summary” of one such bill:

Board Bill#:      18
Title:      Redevelopment Plan for 2652 Ann
Summary:      An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 2652 Ann Ave. Area (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statute” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated March 27, 2007 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Section 99.430; finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available five (5) year real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan
Sponsor:       Phyllis Young

You can click here to view this summary and reach the full PDF bill.   Don’t look for Exhibit “B” online because, just as in the days of Jim Shrewsbury as President, this information still does not exist online.  Hopefully, with a bit more time, Lewis Reed’s office can begin to put all the related materials online.
Reed, during the campaign, made an issue out of not being able to get access to informtion on the board of Estimate & Apportionment, including minutes.   We’ll see what action he takes, if any, to make this hard to find information more accessible to the rest of us now that he is one of the three on E&A (along with Mayor Slay & Comptroller Green).  It will also be interesting to see if Reeds idea of more open government will extend to basics such as including bill attachments online — something certainly within the control of the President of the city’s legislative body.
These redevelopment bills read almost identical to each other.  It makes me wonder how much thought is actually put into each project and by whom?  A staff person at the St. Louis Development Corporation?  Under what guidelines, our 1947 anti-city zoning code?   My guess is the developer says what they want to do, the alderman directs staff to make it happen and it just does.  No scrutiny, no checking against a master plan.  Certainly no critical review for pedestrian access and other signs of greater public good when tax money is being involved.  Just routine business.

We are talking about legislators whose backgrounds are as business persons, accountants and such.  When reviewing the city budget they may be very helpful but with the bulk of their legislation in the development arena I get a bit uneasy.
You can view all the current Board Bills here.