The number of wards

In looking back over the many posts I’ve done over the nearly five years I’ve been publishing this blog one of my favorite topics is local politics.  Reforming the city’s charter is always a good discussion.

In 1950 the City of St. Louis had 28 ward-elected Aldermen representing 850,000 residents (30,350/Alderman) covering 61.9 square miles.  By 1970 the population was down to 622,000 but we still had 28 aldermen.  By 1990 the population was below 400,000 yet the number of elected Aldermen & wards remained unchanged since the city had more than double the population. Today each Alderman micromanages a fiefdom of less than 13,000 subjects.

In January of this year I presented the following chart created with the assistance of a friend:

The current level of Aldermen causes each to focus on their ward only.  Constituent service becomes their top priority: stop signs and other items better suited to a bureaucrat.  Because our elected  aldermen focus mainly on issues within their ward, the bigger city-wide issues often lack leadership.  Many corridors cannot be planned because different aldermen control opposite sides of the street.

I don’t believe our city will prosper again until we make a number of structural changes, including reducing the number of ward-based aldermen.  I tend to believe we need both ward-based and city-wide representation.  I’d like to start from scratch.  At the very least change all the names — City Council instead of Board of Aldermen, Districts rather than Wards. Shake City Hall from top to bottom.

The poll this week deals with one aspect of charter reform, the number of representatives for our city.  The number of representatives cannot possibility be right in 1950 and in 2009 with half a million fewer residents.  Did they have too few in 1950?  No, we have too many today. Would this mean less Black elected official?  Yes.  Less White officials too.  I think the proportions would remain unchanged.

Vote in the poll in the right sidebar and discuss your views below.

– Steve Patterson

A Tale of Two Existences

Between recent comments here on the blog and the URBANEXUS gathering downtown recently, it has been striking how vehemently people feel about the urban vs. suburban existence. The vitriol is mostly one-sided, the urbanists against the suburbanites. To most suburbanites, there is little passion for that fight because the city is basically irrelevant to them. Suburbanites tend to fall into three main groups: they have lived in the city at one point and subsequently chosen a suburban path; they enjoy visiting city amenities but don’t want to live there; or it never appealed to them. So what lies behind this divide?

If urbanists disdain the suburbs and speak arrogantly toward those who live there, where is the fuel? I would suggest it is, at heart, anger. The suburbs represent everything they hate: sameness, conformity, uniformity, and detachment or entrenchment from the world at large. But aren’t these all illusions? Aren’t they just as conformist to an urban identity and shared disdain for the suburbs? Aren’t both cities and suburbs created landscapes representative of their times? Aren’t as many people isolated and detached from the world in their urban condos and apartments as the folks who inhabit split-levels, ranch houses and huge suburban great rooms? Is one really better than another? Or are they neither better or worse, just different?

I am the most unlikely defender of the suburbs. I have hated them most of my adult life. I grew up in a small town, 100 miles from any large city, and I didn’t really experience city life until after college when I started my career in Peoria, then Chicago. I lived on the Chicago’s north side, in Lincoln Park before it became ultra chic. Then I moved to Seattle in the Queen Anne neighborhood. I spent my vacations in cities visiting friends in New York, LA, San Francisco and Boston. Nothing else appealed to me and I was horrified by friends and relatives as they abandoned the cities for the suburbs. Not me, not ever, I said.

So here I am, in Maryland Heights, and (gasp) I enjoy it. It’s a second-ring suburb so it’s grown-up, it’s mature, it has huge trees and sidewalks. Its houses were built in the peak era of the rise of middle class. Large enough to be comfortable, but small enough to be considered now as modest in comparison to much larger, new suburban homes and mega mansions. The lawns aren’t huge, the neighborhood is extremely walkable for exercise and recreation, and the energy footprint is modest like the houses.

I have a garden and enjoy yard work after years of container gardening on porches and balconies. I have a giant sweet-gum tree in my front yard and love raking leaves. I know my neighbors. My sister and her family live less than a mile away. My mother lives with me. It is easy to get around and run errands, pick up library books, and every night, for the first time in my life, I park my car in an enclosed garage. I no longer have to get up early to scrape the ice from my windows, shovel myself out of street parking, or get soaked in the pouring rain before I’ve ever left home.

Located smack in the middle of I-270, I-70 and Page Avenue, I can get to the airport in under 15 minutes (important when I commuted weekly to Seattle for my job) and there’s almost no place in the metropolitan area that I can’t get to in about 20 minutes or less. I have fresh, locally grown food available at Thies Farm and the many charms of Creve Coeur Park are less than a mile from my house.

My city is small enough that I can easily attend meetings and interact with city government. I know the people who run my city and I can work both with them and in opposition to them to build a better city with a sustainable future. I have easily met others and formed a residents’ group that will continue to educate and inform the political process.

Maryland Heights is also auto-centric, lacks a town center and informal gathering places, and, like every other place on earth, is sometimes boring. So I think it comes down to this: time of life and love. Our decisions about where to live are not abstract concepts. They are practical and they come with a constellation of considerations, many beyond our control, and many of them related to love.

We fall in love with someone who already owns a house in the suburbs or we move to have a vastly shorter commute to our suburban employer. We move to the suburbs of St. Louis because our toddler will soon be in school and we believe in the value of public-school education, but not in the St. Louis city schools. Our parents grow old and need help and comfort in their old age. They move in with us, into a single-story ranch house with an attached garage, and easy access to medical facilities and grocery stores. We can simply be ready for a change of pace: ready to garden in our own yard, to participate in civic activities, and take care of our extended families while we still have them.

Time is precious. I wouldn’t trade my 25 years as a fervent urbanist for anything. It was the absolute right thing for me. I have come to love my life in the suburbs in service to those I hold most dear. There will be other chapters in my life and I will, doubtless, live other places, including the heart of a great city.

I wish I had been more thoughtful, and less shrill, about my choices when I was younger. I wish I could have been more confident in my own choices without thinking everyone had to feel the same way. I wish I had known more about the value of family ties and the difference between sacrifice and a loving sacrifice. I wish I had been kinder to my friends who married and left for the suburbs.

One of the great gifts of age is a truer appreciation of diversity and how we all make choices for love. My neighborhood is as integrated as my neighborhood in the city, maybe more so, because of all the nationalities that live near me. But it isn’t race that makes us diverse, it’s all the stories of how they came to be here, the choices they made for love, and why this is only one chapter of a long and varied life.

-Deborah Moulton

Readers Favor Breaking Up the St. Louis Political Machine, But How?

In last week’s readers overwhelmingly favored breaking up the St. Louis political machine (89%).  Sixty people indicated we need to break up the political machine.   In one answer option I suggested switching our municipal elections to non-partisan – only 25 selected this answer.  The other 35 that agreed we should break up the machine didn’t think non-partisan elections would accomplish that goal.   In hindsight I should have provided a choice for someone that favors both breaking up the machine and non-partisan elections even though they they don’t think the latter will accomplish the former.

Here is a random list of possible reform measures:

• non-partisan elections
• reduction in the number of wards
• have some or all aldermen elected “at large” rather than from a specific ward
• reduction in the number of ‘county’ offices elected by voters
• term limits
• switch to City Manager-Council form of government
• Some variation on joining or consolidating with St. Louis County

I’m sure you can think of other options, if so list them in the comments below.  We probably need some combination of the above.

Changes to the existing charter will, no doubt, be characterized by the establishment as 1) a measure to reduce the influence on the Democratic party within the state and 2) will reduce the influence of African-Americans in the city & state.  On the first one, jurisdictions can have non-partisan elections for dog catcher and still be partisan when it comes to higher offices.  I think having St. Louis’ offices be non-partisan would help how we are viewed by the rest of the state.  On the second issue, fewer elected offices would mean fewer blacks in office.  It would also mean fewer whites.  We’ve elected blacks to nearly every city-wide office in the city. Given the demographic composition of the city I don’t see that changing.  Our current political structure doesn’t work — it should not be kept just to keep people in office.

As we’ve seen over the years the opposing political factions within the black community are fierce.  Many are decades old family feuds.

We’ve got to move our political power structure to actual serve the city & region, not just the politicians in office.  I know, crazy idea — government that actually works for the people.  Until we have a fundamental shift in leadership the region’s core will continue to not live up to its great potential.

– Steve Patterson

Why We Need Non-Partisan Elections in St. Louis

Except one, all the elected officials from the City of St. Louis are Democrats. Local, state, or federal — if their district is in the city they are a Democrat.  I firmly believe we need to break up the political machine in the city. Why?  Corruption:

Another state politician from St. Louis pleads guilty to a corruption charges — revealing new details about allegations involving other local government officials.

State Representative T.D. El-Amin entered a guilty plea in U-S federal court to one count of soliciting and accepting a bribe.   El-Amin admitted he received $2,100 from a northside gas station owner, in exchange for helping the man get city hall  to stop a series of “nuisance inspections.” (Source: KMOX)

Of course State Reps would still be partisan even if our municipal elections were non-partisan.  It should be noted that the City of St. Louis is rare in having partisan municipal elections.  Cities such as Springfield & Kansas City appear to be non-partisan.  We should remember that Democrats are not the only ones that have issues.

Take former Republican State Rep T. Scott Muschany of Frontenac as an example:

On August 6, 2008, Muschany was indicted by a Cole County grand jury for the alleged sexual assault on May 17, 2008 of a 14-year-old daughter of a woman with whom Muschany had an admitted 2 year long extramarital affair.  Muschany resigned from the Missouri House of Representatives on September 9, 2008.

Muschany was acquitted of all charges March 20, 2009 after a jury deliberated for four hours. “Standing naked next to a 14-year-old girl in bed is not a crime,” defense lawyer Robert Haar told jurors who held the legal fate of Muschany in their hands.  (Source: Wikipedia)

We all need to remember that the majority of all elected officials, from a major party or not, are honest hard working public servants.  But I think the partisan machine in the City of St. Louis creates a closed system that can breed corruption.  Partisan elections for out local offices serves no purpose for the City.  In fact, it may work against the it.

We all know Missouri’s previous Governor, Republican Matt Blunt, made disparaging remarks about the city — something like a place where nobody would want to live.  Conversely, out-state Republican’s might wonder if a Democrat Governor is paying too much attention to St. Louis to earn party favors.

Partisan elections for local offices doesn’t help the city or its citizens, we need to go non-partisan.  This is the subject of the poll this week (upper right sidebar) so please vote.

– Steve Patterson

St. Louis’ Planning a Mess on so Many Levels

Paul McKee’s NorthSide project may, eventually, be a good thing for the City of St. Louis and the entire St. Louis region.  But by that time most of us won’t be around.  We’ve had a 60+ year decline (1940-2000) and it will take at least 60 more to recover (2010-2070) from numerous past mistakes.

Looking at unused land (Pruitt-Igoe, 22nd Street Interchange, etc) as potential job centers connected by tree-lined boulevards and transit is sound urban planning.  But good urban planning in the community is best done by the community, not the private sector.

Famed planner (engineer actually) Harland Bartholomew guided much of the destruction of the city during his tenure, 1916-1950.  He rejected everything Jane Jacobs valued in cities.

The destruction continued after he retired his city job in 1950, guided by his 1947 Comprehensive City Plan.  Big picture planning basically stopped after he left.  Planning became seeking federal Urban Renewal & Model Cities money. In 1973 the Rand Corporation issued the report St. Louis: A City and Its Suburbs:

A summary statement of the research findings and policy implications of a series of studies conducted under the St. Louis project of the RAND Urban Policy Analysis Program. Three possible futures for the city are posed: continued decline; stabilization in a new role as an increasingly black suburb; and return to a former role as the center of economic activity in the metropolitan area. The analysis argues that without major policy changes beyond the local level, the city will most likely continue to decline, and suggests that, among the alternatives open to the city, promoting a new role for St. Louis as one of many large suburban centers of economic and residential life holds more promise than reviving the traditional central city functions. However, new resources, available to the city from sources outside the city, are essential to any improvement. Several mechanisms are offered for consideration: (1) a more substantial federal revenue-sharing program; (2) a state revenue-sharing program to support selected public goods; (3) a metropolitan revenue program, sharing revenue generated by industry in the metropolitan area; and (4) a metropolitan earnings tax.

This report shocked city leaders. The planning commission hired a consulting firm to update the 1947 Plan and to reverse the decline cited in the Rand Report.  The draft 1975 INTERIM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN was the city’s response.

The Interim Comprehensive Plan was introduced to the public as a replacement of the 1947 Comprehensive Plan . The City Planning Commission claims that the planning needs of St. Louis had changed over a period of thirty years and therefore the comprehensive plan for the City should change as well. This draft document was written for citizen review. The overall focus of this comprehensive plan was to provide citizens with the highest quality of life, socially, economically, and physically. The plan contains policies and recommendations for land use, transportation, public facilities and housing, all of which are aimed at establishing a quality residential environment, job opportunities, economic development, and expanded opportunities for the disadvantaged.

This never adopted draft plan is best known for the firm the wrote it, Team Four. The Team Four plan was urban triage — cutting off municipal services to those areas deemed too far gone.  Save what can still be saved.  Today this approach is applied to shrinking cities.   Back in the day it was viewed as a plot to drive black citizens out of the city. Many still feel that was the intent or would have been the result if the plan would have been officially adopted.

After the backlash against the Team Four plan the City of St. Louis got out of the big picture planning business kicking off the second 30 year period without a plan.

We look to the government to provide services where the private market has failed or those for the common good, such as fire protection.  But three decades of government being out of planning the primate market reversed the roles and developed their own plan.  Of course the private market’s main goal is profit.

Today’s residents, many not born when the city gave up on planning, are not willing to turn over community planning to a private business.  I don’t blame them.  So the first part of the mess is the city’s abandonment of planning.  Next is the realization that a businessman from St. Charles County wants to do the planning the city should have been doing.  Of course, the city has a poor track record of planning.

But the citizenry had an ideal of community planning so when McKee purchased thousands of properties people naturally got suspicious of his intentions.  Numerous meetings this year announced those intentions but poor community & media relations has made a bad situation even worse.  Myself and others of the media were barred from a meeting, a discussion board was set up by McKee’s company only to be taken down due to a mountain of criticism.  Uh, duh.

Tonight McKee is asking for public TIF funds to help finance his project yet a few days ago, at a public meeting, he objected to his statements being recorded on video.  In decades earlier deals could get done without such documentation by the public.  But it is 2009, not 1959.  Cameras are a fact today and public meetings are subject to being recorded.  Holding meetings in private to circumvent this reality is even worse.  Our elected leadership is not equipped to manage the conflict.

Parts of McKee’s plan are sound: developing the vacant Pruitt-Igoe site, using wasted land at the 22nd Street Interchange, planning for jobs at the landing of the new Mississippi River bridge, narrowing Jefferson Ave, and building a streetcar to tie the near North side into downtown, filling in gaps in the urban fabric.  Had these ideas come out of a community planning process most would be on board today.  Instead we have a huge mess with a substantial section of the city hanging in the balance.

I’m not sure which is worse; Harland Bartholomew’s highly planned destruction of 19th century neighborhoods, a 30-60 year gap in planning, or planning serving private interests.  None will lead to the city I envision St. Louis becoming.

See Matt Mourning’s excellent post With NorthSide Project, the Villain is in the Process for more thoughts on process (this sentence added 9/23/2009 at 7am.)

– Steve Patterson