St. Louis’ Great Divorce Finalized 134 Years Ago Today

One hundred thirty-four years ago today The City of St. Louis divorced itself from St. Louis County, becoming an independent city.

“The vote took place 22 Aug 1876, and the initial count indicated that the separation question had failed by just over 100 votes. Supporters of separation then brought charges, including fraud, and a recount was ordered. The recount took four months so it was late 1876 before it was determined that the vote for separation had passed.” (source)

Further reading on the “great divorce” here and here.

Past attempts at a reconciliation have failed but leaders in both the city & county are again talking about getting back together. But these talks are a point of disagreement in the race for St. Louis County Executive between Charlie Dooley & Bill Corrigan:

“Bill Corrigan, the Republican candidate for St. Louis County Executive, spoke out this week against any proposed merger between St. Louis City and County.

“Inheriting all the economic problems that exist in the city, and the funding liabilities that the county would incur by merging the two,it would be an economic disaster for the county,” Corrigan said during Thursday’s edition of St. Louis on The Air.

Corrigan’s opponent, Democratic incumbent Charlie Dooley, told the Post-Dispatch last month that a city-county merger would make government more efficient. St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay expressed support for that idea after his re-election last year.” (KWMU)

Originally the city saw the county as a financial liability.  Now Corrigan thinks the city would be a burden to the county.  In an “us vs them” mindset, he is right. In a “we are in this together” mindset, he is wrong.

The issue of the region’s governance is a huge, complicated issue.  The options include:

1. Do nothing.
2. Make the City of St. Louis the 92nd municipality within St. Louis County.
3. Create one large city-county government that includes most, or all, of the city & county.

The last option is the best option from a regional governance perspective, but it would also be the most complicated. Instead of 92 mayors, a county executive and hundreds of aldermen/council members having a single mayor, city manager and a dozen elected representatives?

For more on modern regional governance check out “Moving Toward Regional Governance Incrementally: The St. Louis Case“ by E. Terrance Jones & Don Phares, the two leading local scholars on the issue.

– Steve Patterson

Pedestrian Improvements At Utah Place & Gustine Ave

I recently noticed some pedestrian improvements at Utah Place & Gustine Ave.  To note the changes we need to look at a similar intersection, Utah Place & Spring Ave:

Scroll up and look at the aerial again, the ramps on west side of Gustine crossing Utah point into the center of the intersection, not at the crosswalk.  These new improvements are a step in the right direction, but not without flaws.

– Steve Patterson

Celebrating Six Years Of UrbanReviewSTL This Month

Halloween marks the sixth anniversary of this blog. In that time I’ve published over 2,300 posts. To celebrate I’m going to have some Top Six lists this month.

To start things off here is my Top Six Priorities I want to work on in the next 12 months (short term):

6) Moving the taxi stand off the sidewalk in front of the convention center.

5) Getting good policy, procedures and oversight in place regarding valets.

4) Opening up food vendor options (stand & truck) throughout the region.

3) Increased bike parking in the region.

2) Some municipality in the region to begin adopting form-based zoning, even if for a small area.

1) Switching city elections to be non-partisan.

These are not the region’s top priorities but what I’m personally interested in working on.  Discuss.

– Steve Patterson

Sorry Rex, Readers Oppose Proposition A

The poll last week showed most readers disagree with Rex Sinquefield about Proposition A on the November  Missouri ballot.  What does he think of the municipal earnings tax in St. Louis & Kansas City?

“Instead of paying income and earnings taxes — in which the more you make, the more you’re taxed — Sinquefield wants to boost sales taxes.

In his mind, this is a more equitable way of taxing the public — a theory that makes lots o’ cents if you’re loaded but not so if you’re middle-class (or below) and forced to pay additional sales taxes to make up for the elimination of income taxes. (RFT: Hey St. Louis, About That Billionaire Knocking on Your Door…)”

The following was the results:

Q: Missouri Prop A would require votes in KC & STL to retain the 1% earnings tax. Thoughts?

1. Missouri voters should reject Prop A 135 [62.5%]
2. The earnings tax needs to go and passing Prop A is the first step 40 [18.52%]
3. Passing Prop A is OK, that allows local voters to decide to keep the tax or not 33 [15.28%]
4. Unsure/no opinion 5 [2.31%]
5. Other answer… 3 [1.39%]

And the “other” answers:

1. Keep it but eliminate it for people living in the city.
2. The whole thing is a charade perpetrated by a rich Tea Party jerk
3. For most of the state, this is voting on taxes for other people.

Vote no on Prop A November 2nd!

– Steve Patterson

The MVVA Team Won, Now What? Part I

Today at 10am in the rotunda of the Old Courthouse the public will meet the MVVA Team — now the winner of the City+Arch+River Competition — and hear the next steps in the process leading up to the 50th anniversary of the Arch in October 2015.

The MVVA video:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArNdigN48Kg

The project area is large and includes both sides of the river. I have hot button issues both inside & outside the project area, these include:

• The elevated highway lanes north of the Arch grounds as well as adjacent to the memorial site itself.
• The flow of pedestrians and vehicles of those passing by as well as visiting the Arch.
• As a member of the Gateway Mall Advisory Board, we will be asked to advise the St. Louis Parks Dept on proposed changes to Kiener Plaza.
• The viability of the proposed changes within the project area and beyond.

Today I will look at parts of their proposal on the Missouri side.

The diagram above shows current circulation and proposed. The diagram is misleading to a degree in that it shows only the current vehicular access point at the north end. What is true is the pedestrian access points will be greatly improved.

From page 133 of their narrative:

“The Interstate 70 trench is now the most striking barrier between the Memorial and the city. Our proposal creates physical and experiential continuity by creating a pedestrian overpass between Market and Chestnut Streets. Both the deck itself and the landscape hoods on either side will break direct lines of sight and sound between the highway and Memorial-bound pedestrians, creating a quiet, landscape-focused choreography of approach between Luther Ely Smith Square and the Arch grounds.”

“We have proposed a one-block overpass, rather than an at-grade boulevard, because it is less expensive, easier to achieve by 2015, and would require fewer jurisdictional and regulatory negotiations. But the benefits of removing the highway altogether are clear, and we have purposely created a proposal that is compatible with either solution.”

I like that highway removal was something they designed for.  More tomorrow in part II.

– Steve Patterson