Are our Elected Officials Competent?

First, in the realm of full disclosure, I spent 5 years as an elected member of a quasi-governmental transit agency, first being appointed to fill a vacancy, then running and being elected to a four-year term.

When our country was founded, the framers of the constitution did not envision professional politicians. Elected officials were expected to serve limited terms for little or no compensation, taking a leave from their farms or mercantile operations to do so. Over the last 230 years, things have changed, sometimes substantially, and there no longer is only one way of having a legislative body. Most traditional bodies continue to deal with a broad range of issues, everything from finances and taxes to land use and urban design to criminalizing texting while driving and having saggy pants. We’ve also seen the rise of many specialized districts and boards, covering everything from fire protection and water and sewers to schools, transit and “improvement” districts.

In pretty much every case, there are few, if any requirements for running or being appointed to a position, other than a minimum age, residency requirements and/or being a citizen. There rarely, if ever, is any sort of requirement that you be educated in, or even actually understand, what you’ll be voting on and rejecting or approving. A farmer can approve a multi-million dollar highway bond package and a teacher can approve a union contract or the purchase of 3,000 tires for a transit agency.

Our tradition is to elect generalists to office, and our pay structure is all over the map. In many positions, compensation can best be defined as “token” – you either have to be retired or comfortable in your “real” job (and able to take time off) to be able to serve. Working stiffs need not apply, especially if your boss (or spouse) won’t give you the time off to serve. A few bodies do pay “living wages” to the people elected to serve on them. St. Louis’ Board of Alderman is in kind of a gray area – it pays well enough for a part-time job, but not enough for it to be a full-time one for many folks.

In a roundabout way, this gets us back to the original question, especially when it comes to our Board of Aldermen. It’s very much a traditional body, and its makeup of 27 members should guarantee enough diversity in expertise (the Law of Large Numbers) to be able to cover almost any topic. Unfortunately, this is counteracted by both the tradition of Aldermanic courtesy, where each ward acts very autonomously, and the tradition that the Democratic party selects candidates more for their loyalty and hard than for their expertise.

Bottom line, there is no consistent answer. We have good people serving for very little money and we have mediocre, or worse, people showing up just to collect a paycheck and enjoy having the power. We have bodies that work well together, building on their individual members’ strengths and hiring and listening to good professional staff. We have bodies that are essentially dysfunctional and either ineffective or counterproductive. And we have bodies that can fit either description, depending on who won in the last election! It’s something nobody can legislate, but it is something we can all impact, by supporting the best candidates AND by staying involved and vocal after the election is over . . .

– Jim Zavist

Citygarden Dedication Today

At 10am this morning (Tuesday 6/30/09) Mayor Slay will dedicate Citygarden, the new 2-block long sculpture garden downtown.  Before I get into the garden I want to talk about what existed on these two blocks previously.

The two blocks (bounded by Market St on the South, 10th on the West, Chestnut on the North and 8th on the East) were the last two blocks to have their historic long-standing structures razed for a grand vision of a Gateway Mall — a vision of a long green spine that dates back to the early 20th Century (map).  The city was vastly different then — it was populated, dirty (coal was still burned for heat) and anything but uniform.  Early planners sought to clear away a section of the city to offer some relief and to bring some order to a bustling chaotic city.

The problem is city leaders over the decade became addicted to demolition as a solution.  That new order would invigorate the city, they thought.  But it was the unplanned chaos that gave the city life.

In 1993 two city blocks remained to complete this ordered new vision.

Stunning huh?  But in a city with more open green space than people to occupy what we had it was decided we should create more.

What we got was two more passive (boring) city blocks.  I argued with the city’s head architect at the time but it did no good:

Unlike some older mall blocks, particularly ones west of Tucker Boulevard, Royse said, the new ones “will be inviting and attractive . . . and
people should use the mall more.” (Post-Dispatch of July 16, 1993)

Royse, now retired in Seattle, was in town recently.  I saw him last Thursday at the Loop Trolley forum.  He had not yet seen how his two blocks of the mall, the last two, had been altered.

But the two blocks were not inviting, unless you wanted to be alone with nothing to do.  The buildings surrounding these two blocks have been uninviting since new. Blank walls, raised entrances, parking garage entries.  The stuff that sucks life out of a city.

And now, these two blocks are once again recreated.  They are the opposite of the 1993-2008 blocks — a good thing as Martha Stewart would say.

From what I’ve seen from Citygarden so far it is interesting, complex (requiring exploration),  colorful, and a delight to the senses. With a permanent cafe on the Eastern block you can stay and enjoy the space.  There is seating throughout.  We shouldn’t have razed the old buildings but once they were gone we should have created dynamic space.  Instead we got 16 years of dead passive space added to the many acres of additional dead passive space we’ve had for decades longer.

While I like the Citygarden I don’t like the process that led to today.  I wrote the following just over 2 years ago (see post):

In a classic St. Louis move, the city’s “leadership” is already moving forward with a plan the public has yet to see. Mayor Slay, Aldermanic President, Alderman Phyllis Young, and Downtown Parnership’s Jim Cloar last week talked of the newest concept as a done deal even though we the public have not seen anything yet. Typical.

The public open house is scheduled for this evening, Monday June 11, 2007 at 6:30pm in the rotunda at City Hall. This is one of those meetings designed to give the appearance of public participation without any actual participation. The usual round of types — officials, business executives, etc… — have already approved of the plan on our behalf. How big of them to do so. I assume tonight will also be a chance for all these folks to congratulate each other on a job well done. I’ll be there simply because I need to see what sort of disastrous plan the city has drafted this time. Any comment forms will likely be a waste of paper.

Hopefully these two blocks will serve as an example of the level of excitement necessary as we look at the remaining blocks of the Gateway Mall.  I’ve got a good relationship with Patricia Roland-Hamilton, the person in charge of The Gateway Mall Project.  We’ve had ongoing conversations about the qualities needed along the mall.

Once inside I’ll do a full review of Citygarden.  Again, I like it already.  But I have noticed a few details I would like to have seen done differently.  These can now serve as lessons for when the remaining blocks are addressed.

– Steve Patterson

Three National Health Organizations to Oppose Proposed St. Louis Clean-Air Act

Next week three national organizations; American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and  American Cancer Society, will announce their opposition a proposed smoke-free ordinance for the City of St. Louis.  Yes, you read correctly.  These organizations will be opposing local efforts to clear the public air of cigarette smoke.  Why you ask?  The bill is not pure.

Alderman Lyda Krewson’s bill (#46) includes a triggering mechanism  — it would not go into effect until a similar measure does in St. Louis County:

SECTION FIFTEEN. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall be effective on such date that the Saint Louis County Council enacts Smoke Free Air legislation which prohibits smoking in the enclosed public places as defined in Section Four of this Ordinance.

These organizations don’t like such measures being dependant upon other jurisdictions.  So they plan to oppose the measure.  They and the pro-smoking lobby will be on the same side.  Just seems wrong.

The St. Louis region is second only to Baltimore for the number of units of government on a per capita basis.  St. Louis County has 91 municipalities plus area that is unincorporated.  Ideally we’ve have a Missouri smoke-free law like the one covering the Illinois side of the region.  But that may be a while.

Krewson had several choices:

1. Do nothing and continue to wait for a state law.
2. Wait for St. Louis County to pass a law and then react.
3. Introduce a bill with no trigger and watch it never get out of committee.

The fact is that the chances of getting a smoke-free bill for the city only is slim to none.  Remember we have 28 wards.  Securing enough votes on a controversial measure takes considerable work.   Going it along, which I wouldn’t object to, would never pass.

Before Krewson introduced the bill I was among the persons advocating the trigger mechanism.  It would let the city take a leadership role iuin the region and give some assurances to the St. Louis County Council that when they passed a law that it would trigger the city law.  Maybe these national groups don’t realize that St. Louis is not in St. Louis County?

Getting this law on the books in the city would be an important first step to getting St. Louis County on board.  Passing this bill with the county trigger shifts the debate to the county.  They may pass a measure triggered by a similar measure in St. Charles County.  I agree, it is not ideal.  Politics is never pretty and when practiced in a highly fragmented environment it is downright ugly.  So I have a problem with these organizations standing in the way of the only way we are going to get smoke-free air on the Missouri side of the region.

Krewson returned my request for comment ysterday morning.  She was aware these groups are planning to oppose her bill.

She has been at the Board of Aldermen for nearly 12 years now.  Her day job is as a CFO.  She can count.  She knows how to get legislation passed.  These organizations don’t get it — the St. Louis region is not typical.  We need to change out city charter.  We need to consolidate the 91 separate municipalities in St. Louis County.  But I don’t want to wait for those events to get smoke-free air.

The one size fits all strategy these national organizations seek just doesn’t cut it.  It irks me they may ruin our chances.  Hopefully we can overcome their objections.  Hearings on the bill begin Tuesday at noon in room 208 at  city hall.

– Steve Patterson

NorthSide Project Has Potential to Transform St. Louis

For five years now Paul McKee of McEagle Properties has been acquiring properties in a large swath of land in the near North side of St. Louis.  These were purchased through a long list of holding companies such as Blairmont Associates LLC.  The first few years this was under the radar. But people, notably Michael Allen, began to notice the properties and their common ownership.

Many are upset about how events transpired.  Quietly buying property, little to no maintenance, and so on.  These issues have been hashed out here, on other sites and in the meeting on the 21st when a guy stood and called McKee a f-ing liar.  I’m not going to rehash it all again.  Instead I’m going to jump into the proposal.

McKee wants to partner with other developers to transform about 40 percent of the land inside a 2,100-acre redevelopment area over 15 years. McKee said he owns roughly 130 acres of the 430 acres he’d like to see redeveloped. Twelve new residential areas would be created and four new business campuses,  bringing 22,000 jobs.

The plan would include about 5.5 million square feet of office, retail and warehouse space, 10,000 new homes, 250 hotel rooms and developers would welcome improved or new schools. McKee said his business does not build homes, and would work with other developers on that and other aspects.

He’ll pursue federal economic stimulus money, state tax credits and tax increment financing, where he said a portion of the increased taxes resulting from the development would be used to pay for infrastructure improvement costs.  (Source: The Associated Press via Forbes.com, see Developer has $5.4B vision for north St. Louis)

Keep in mind I will graduate in December 2009 from Saint Louis University with a Master of Arts in Urban Planning & Real Estate Development.  In our course of study we look at policies, their cause-effect and the full complexity of issues surrounding planning & development.  I think because of this academic background I’m able to step aside from my anger at the loss of the warehouse at Cass & Tucker and the many other reasons so many are angry.  Three years ago my reaction would have been quite different.   So what do I think of the plan now that I’ve had a chance to see the proposal?

I like it.  I don’t like how we got to this point (Urban Renewal trashing North St. Louis, city dropping the ball, McKee coming in).  Typically we expect government to do what the private market fails to do.  Here we turn this around, the private market is stepping in where the public sector has failed:  planning. I like what it has the long-term potential of doing for the city.

To start let’s look at the project area so we know where we are talking about:

Here is the same image cropped to give you a close up of the proposed redevelopment area:

The carefully drawn boundary line includes some property but excludes others.  Here is the boundary laid on top of an aerial image:

For at least a couple of decades now the city should have been doing some big picture planning (beyond a single ward) to figure out how to bring new life to this part of North St. Louis.  But they didn’t.  The Pruitt-Igoe site has sat vacant for 35 years.  Old North St. Louis, adjacent to the project area, has taken decades (and plenty of tax credits) to get where it is today.  Same for downtown and much of the city.

McKee’s plan calls for four job centers — large sites suitable for one or more companies to have a new campus setting.  No surprise here, this is what McEagle does in suburban areas.  This is a chance to get these jobs (and taxes) in the city.  I was not able to obtain the image with the four marked sites so I have indicated them in blue below

Starting in the upper left and going clockwise we have Jefferson @ Parnell, where the new Mississippi  bridge will land near Cass, the 22nd street interchange and finally in the middle left, the long-vacant Pruitt-Igoe site.

If we think about the process of redeveloping a large area you can do what Richmond Heights did with the Hadley Township area.  Draw a boundary and put all the properties inside up for development proposals.  Not surprisingly the residents there who’ve lived in flux while proposals came in picked not the best plan but the plan that would give them the most for their homes.  After being in play for several years the owners were told the developer couldn’t come through.  Same thing happened in Sunset Hills and elsewhere throughout the country.  Often municipalities put areas up for development not because they are distressed but because they are chasing limited sales tax dollars.  McKee has gone a different route.  One based not on Ward boundaries but on where development potential exists.

While I love the rebirth happening in Old North St. Louis, without some serious infrastructure investment we’d not see much happening in the outlined development area.

“A tax credit for one man” is often heard about the Missouri Land Assembly tax credit written by McKee’s attorney.  To be precise it is a tax credit for one company.  But many companies will be involved.  Others own land within and adjacent to the development area, including individual owners.

TIF financing will be used, no doubt, to fund massive improvements in public infrastructure, bridges, roads, sidewalks, sewers, etc.  Will McKee & company make money?  Yes, of course.  We all need to make money.  The question is if the outcome will justify the level of public investment.  I hope so.  I’m waiting to review the financing proposals. Remember that a “TIF” is tax increment financing.  As property taxes rise due to the development that increment of increase is paid by the owner — yes, they pay the higher tax.  That increment is used to pay off bonds used to build public infrastructure.  Development & infrastructure are both needed here.  The city doesn’t have the money to build the infrastructure to attract the development.  McKee’s proposal may be the only way to redevelop this section of our region.

I am excited about the potential this project brings to the city & region. A chance to get some large new employers — or to retain the ones we’ve got.  A chance to change perceptions about North St. Louis.  A chance to fill in the many gaps in our building stock.  A chance to add needed population.  A chance to get a modern streetcar/trolley line connecting the project area to downtown.  A chance to get thousands of parcels of land out of city ownership.

Before someone suggests I was bought off I can assure you I’m still a struggling grad student.  I’ve met Paul McKee twice — the 1st time 3-4 years ago at a meeting of the Dardenne Prairie Board of Aldermen.  The 2nd time was at McKee’s presentation last Thursday.  This 2nd time he knew who I was and he offered his card.  After a couple of emails I got the above images out of him, nothing else.

But while I like the big picture planning involved I have reservations about the follow through on the project.  Paul McKee promised New Urbanism at WingHaven but delivered a half-assed cartoon version.  The St. Louis Board of Aldermen, as a general rule with a few exceptions, do not get what compromises walkable urbanism.  How will they know what to require of McKee? To be sure our old 1947 zoning needs to be tossed aside for this area.  A new form-based code needs to be laid over the project area to guide future development to ensure we get what we are promised.

I want this project to succeed — financially & urbanisticly.  I want to live along the trolley line.  I want St. Louis to be a city of 500,000 people again in 20-25 years.

Selected articles for further reading:

• KWMU, For first time, McKee explains development plan to north St. Louis residents
• KSDK w/video,   Shrouded in secrecy, North St. Louis plan unveiled
• St. Louis Beacon, McKee unveils $5.4 billion redevelopment at meeting Thursday & Grand vision collides with neighborhood mistrust at meeting on north St. Louis redevelopment

Controversial “Blairmont” Project to be Revealed Tonight

Tonight we expect politically connected developer Paul McKee, of McEagle Development, to publicly unveil the controversial development project nicknamed “Blairmont.”

The project got this name after one of the early holding companies used to acquire properties, Blairmont Associates LLC.

Here is a video that explains Blairmont:

Another source of info on Blairmont is a January 2007 RFT article.

Out of the controversy came an August 2007 bus tour of McKee’s properties.  Here is 5th Ward Alderman April Ford Griffin:

The next month the meetings continued.  Here is 19th Ward Alderman Marlene Davis:

I got involved by asking a question of Alderman April Ford Griffin.  Griffin is the chair of the Neighborhood Development committee at the Board of Aldermen.  She has a warped view of zoning.  Rather than have excellent zoning that codifies the community vision, she likes outdated zoning so developers must come to her.  The video starts out rough but gets better:

Congressman Clay talks about a hearing held at city hall with a reference to the 1970s Team Four plan that called for reducing services in parts of the city:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsx_Ph8vEj41976

Here is a summary of the infamous Team Four plan:

This document contains the technical memorandum that was submitted to the Plan Commission by Team Four, Inc. in 1975. This memorandum proposed public policy guidelines and strategies for implementing the Draft Comprehensive Plan that was prepared by others. It offered a series of considerations concerning the process of adopting, staging, budgeting and ultimately implementing the Draft Comprehensive Plan. In addition, this document contains a preface dated 1976 that attempts to clean up any inconsistencies and or controversies surrounding the proposed implementation strategies and a bibliography or annotated listing of Technical Memoranda and Appendixes. Part I of this document focused on strategies for three generic area types: conservation, redevelopment, and depletion areas; and Part II of this document discussed major urban issues and their solutions.

Today “shrinking cities” are studied and various techniques are debated.  In the 70s in St. Louis the Team Four plan was seen as a racist plot to deny services to a minority population.  We know more today about how to adjust to shrinking populations.

Tonight we will see another, a huge heavily subsidized redevelopment plan.  Many are opposed simply based on the history of the project to date.  I for one plan to go with an open mind. I have reservations about both the developer and the political leadership.  Griffin’s view on the role of zoning doesn’t give me a lot of hope for what may be presented in pretty artist renderings actually being completed as promised.  A good framework of a zoning code can help ensure the promised vision develops into reality.

Tonight’s meeting starts at  7pm at Central Baptist Church Education Building 2843 Washington Ave (Google Map).  I’ll be there and will report on the presentation next week.