More Sprawl Planned Adjacent to Soulard Neighborhood in 7th Ward

A Walgreen’s and attached strip center next to Bohemian Hill and across from City Hospital is not enough. Nor is the under construction strip center at 7th and Russell. The latest in Phyllis Young’s plan to surround Soulard with all the beauty of O’Fallon (Missouri or Illinois — they look the same) is on the former parking lot of Nooter, at Broadway and Park (map). Mere blocks from The Lasalle Park neighborhood, the rebirth of the Chouteau’s Landing area, Soulard Farmers’ Market and other establishments between this site and downtown.

Site is located to the right in the above image. On another day I’ll have to deal with the bike lane suddenly ending at Park with the Bike St. Louis sign pointing you to the left — like somehow you are supposed to get into the left turn lane, across two lanes of traffic, from the bike lane at the intersection.

Closer up you see the nearly four and a half acre parking lot which is to become this:

Is this the future of St. Louis? Filling in every vacant area with generic strip malls fronted by a sea of asphalt parking lots? While I hope not I am afraid this is the best we can hope for given our politically crippled planning department and inept leadership at city hall. Of course the sketches are pretty honest, they never show an ADA-compliant access route for pedestrians from the main public sidewalk. Bike racks, who needs those? Plenty of “free” auto parking? You bet!!! While the above image is from the sign posted in front of the property it could be anywhere in the region. There is nothing about this that says it is blocks from the river in one of the oldest areas of town.

For years cities had massive change forced upon them in the way of urban renewal — interstate highways ripped through established neighborhoods and high-rise public housing projects wiped out more neighborhoods. These areas really stood no chance of survival with such a large scale approach. Today we cannot afford to come in and reconnect areas on such an equally large scale — nor would we want to. The bigger the scale the more watered down the solution. What we need is to methodically and incrementally piece our city back together again.

While this incremental construction would take place over many years, on many parcels and via many different builders/developers the planning must be done upfront and on the bigger scale. This does not mean we design every building. No, what is means is that we set out a community vision — what will we expect of the building types once built. Will they be multi-story and built up to the street with any parking below or behind the structure? Cities such as Seattle, Portland and Denver are seeing great success through the use of districts-scaled plans with the power of zoning. The goal is not to control uses but forms of new buildings, relationships to the street and the disposition of parking. Slowly but surly the vision will come together — getting increasingly urban and dense with each passing project. Biking and walking from place to place will become better and friendlier over time. This approach takes the long view on rebuilding a walkable city that also happens to accommodate motorists along the way.

I have no problems with generic chain stores in this location. What I do have a problem with is the form in which they are proposed. Even smart suburban areas in the US aren’t allowing this sort of lowest common denominator of development anymore. Yes, this is probably better than a vacant parking lot but when we have no standards at all we get development that is a reflection of that lack of vision.

If you share my perspective on this the people you need to talk to are long-time 7th Ward Alderman Phyllis Young, “Planning” and [Sub]Urban Design Director Rollin Stanley and Deputy Mayor Barb Geisman via Mayor Slay.

Citizens Rallied in Favor of Sherman George, Called for Recall of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay

On a windy but beautiful Sunday afternoon citizens gathered on the main steps of St. Louis’ city hall to express support for demoted/retired Fire Chief Sherman George while calling for the ouster of Mayor Francis Slay before the end of his 2nd term in the spring of 2009.

The diverse crowd included various religious leaders from Metropolitan Churches United, members of the Green Party, anti-eminent domain advocates and even a few Black Panthers. I think most were your average everyday citizen that felt compelled to come out and be counted.

State Rep Jamilah Nasheed (D-60th), above left, was one of the first speakers. Following her speech the crowd began chanting “Slay must go.” Nasheed indicated that Slay took away one of the black leaders in St. Louis.

Numerous flyers were being passed around including one with a cartoon of Slay as a “fat cat” vampire. Common themes were the take over of schools, Slay being soft on crime, development activity focused on downtown, and Slay’s support of charter schools. One flyer included the domain name firefrancis.com which was not working on the times I tried it (clever name though).

Bright yellow t-shirts were being sold for $10. Some said “Injustice to One is Injustice to All” while others had to do with a recall. On the front of these they had a number like 43,xxx (I forgot the number) to go (alluding to the number of signatures needed for a recall vote) and on the back asking “What Number Are You?”

Interestingly, one of the flyers asked in support of recalling Francis, “Did you know that for the past 10 years, you have been paying for the redevelopment of downtown instead of improvements in your own neighborhoods?” Given that Slay was elected Mayor in the Spring of 2001 he has only been in office shortly more than 6 years. However, the city’s 2nd African-American Mayor Clarence Harmon was in office the preceding four years. So I’m a little confused — did the flyer intend to blame Harmon as well or was the implication that from the Board of Aldermen’s office Slay was responsible for downtown development?

If you actually get past the sound bites over the last couple of months you’ll get from George that this was strictly about testing standards to determine the best candidates. He expressed disapproval over two out of something like 10 tests offered to him — before the final test was administered. The city’s Personnel Department used one of the two tests that George had objected to. Remember that George became Fire Chief under the aforementioned prior administration of Clarence Harmon. I personally take George at his word that this was about proper testing and it boiled down to a power play between him and the Mayor’s office. I don’t believe that race was a motivating factor on either side — power and control was the trump card here. Slay has been seizing power anywhere he can — regardless of race. Those appointed by a prior mayor are not necessarily seen as a supporter and someone that outright challenges the authority of the mayor gets in the way — again regardless of race. Now, I could be wrong. Perhaps this is about both power and race?

Regular readers know that I am hardly a Slay supporter and I couldn’t help but grin as I heard the crowd chatting that Slay must go. Still, I’m not overly optimistic they’ll be able to muster the signatures required. I believe that signatures must represent 20% of registered voters at the time of Slay’s 2005 re-election in at least 18 out of 28 wards. While blacks represent a majority of the population, black aldermen represent only 12 wards. Speaking of aldermen, I didn’t see a single one present at the rally. Nor did I see prominent African-American officials such as President of the Board of Aldermen Lewis Reed, Comptroller Darlene Green or sidelined as License Collector, Michael McMillan. No white elected official was anywhere in sight. Slay PR guru Richard Callow briefly stopped by on his bike, I asked him if I should get him a t-shirt to wear.

The protesters called for the removal of Slay before 2009 in order to heal the racial divide in this city. Well, sorry but that just ain’t gunna help. I think white folks are too busy protecting turf and maintaining control while the black folks are doing the same thing. There are plenty of internal struggles within the black community — you can’t expect the majority population to be 100% aligned simply based on race do you? Hardly. These leaders were brought up through the St. Louis political scene the same way the white ones were — learning how to work the system and wrestle some little bit of control. When Craig Schmid & Jennifer Florida, both white, fight over development on Grand it is business as usual. When the 4th ward continues to have power struggles it is business as usual. However, when opponents happen to be of different races it ceases to be business as usual and now it is racism. Slay would have sought to oust George even if he were white — he was appointed by a previous mayor and George challenged Slay’s desire for greater control.

As long as our elected officials, black and white, use their positions to get their piece of the pie we are going to continue to have struggles. I personally want elected officials that don’t see race and/or economic class as dividers but as symbols of our diversity — something to celebrate and embrace. As a white male I can be represented say by a black woman as long as I am not labeled as part of “they.” We will have black people in office and white people may replace them. The reverse is true, blacks will be elected to offices never once held by anyone that was not white. Hopefully too we will see diversity beyond just black and white.

Sadly as we approach the end of the decade that means we’ll see a new census and a fight over redistricting. White and black sides will draw lines to retain control of their respective parts of the city. Ward based control will continue to rule the day rather than seeing the big picture of the city within a region. Today’s rally was not, in my view, a step toward a more unified city.

UPDATE 10/22 – 7:20am — Per PubDef.net Comptroller Darlene Green was present at the rally.

City of St. Louis Says Even Small Landlords Need a Business License

Say you buy that problem house next door to yours so you can do a better job of screening renters. You buy the house in your personal name, just like your own house, and proceed. But wait, even though you’ve got a day job the city license collector’s office says you are operating a business and therefore must obtain a graduated business license — at $200 per year.

At issue is what constitutes a business. Over the last few months this topic is repeatedly raised on the Rehabber’s Club discussion list.

Some argue, presumably in agreement with the city, if you receive money you are operating a business. Others cite the fact they own the property in their personal names, do not have an FIN (Federal Identification Number) and that the IRS considers such income as “passive” as opposed to their “active” income from work in which you typically receive a W-2 or 1099 as reasons why they are not a business.

Here is what I gather from the discussion:

• The license collector makes no distinction between owning the property in your personal name, an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), a partnership, or a corporation.
• The license collectors office does not distinguish between owning one rental unit or hundreds.
• The city cites ordinances requiring all businesses to have a license unless specifically exempt — a few professionals such as a doctors, engineers, real estate agents, etc. are exempt by state law.
  
• The license collector doesn’t consider it a business if you live in the building, say in the case of a two-family.

I do concur that if you establish some sort of legal structure (LLC, corporation, etc..) in which to own property that may well constitute a business even if the income is passive. That said, I once had a stake in an LLC that owned a piece of rental property and we didn’t have a business license — it never occurred to us as we didn’t think this was a “business.” The business license is that thing you post in your place of business for customers to see, right? And for the record, I no longer have an interest in that property and it is no longer held in an LLC.

Ironically, one person posting on the discussion list indicates he was told that the license collector is basically ignoring those hard to find landlords that have LLC’s but are tracking down individual owners of property where the property tax bill is mailed to an address other than the property address.

For ten years I owned a two-family building — living in the first floor unit and renting the 2nd floor unit. From what I gather, such an arrangement would be exempt — that does not constitute a business they say. However, after 10 years I bought another building and moved from that first 2-family so then it apparently would qualify as a business and require a license. I sold that first 2-family in January 2006.

If we look at the issues and policies being tossed around it would appear that owning a single family house that you rent and thus receive passive rental income (possibly at an annual loss on a cash accounting basis) you are operating a business. However, you can own a 20-unit building in which you live in one unit and rent the remaining but that is not a business.   WTF?
The license collector’s office says you need a business license for each location in the city. If you operate a chain of McDonald’s drive-thrus you must have a business license for each location even if all are operated under the name of one entity. Seems pretty logical.  So if you bought several properties on your block to help stabilize it I wonder if they’d require a license for each address? And if so, is it based on address or the assessor’s parcel number? For example, many corner storefront properties have two tax ID numbers — one for the commercial space and one for the residential space. Does each constitute a separate business from a landlord perspective? If so, each address may require more than one $200 business license.

The ordinances on this are not helpful.  Stating any business, except those that are exempt, requires a business license leaves far too much gray area.  Short of an ordinance clarifying how and when property owners must have a business license, I want to see a written policy.  I plan to talk with our License Collector, Mike McMillan, about this issue as I have many questions.  I’m sure you have plenty as well.  And finally, remember that it may be wise to talk to your attorney if you don’t think you should be required to have a business license.

Additional Notes from Hearing on Energy Center

Yesterday’s meeting on the conditional use application for the Energy Center to be operated by the New Life Evangelistic Center was interesting to say the least.  To clarify, it was only about the zoning for the use of the former florist shop & greenhouse.

Larry Rice spoke on behalf of his plan for the property, calling for “healing” between the white and black communities in St. Louis.  He commented that at last week’s informational meeting there was not a black person in the room (true) — implying this is some sort of white bias I guess.  Interestingly, the first person to speak against the energy center was a black homeowner that lives across the street from the property in question.

Rice, at one point, indicated the property looked better than it did a year ago.  This is certainly true, I’ve known the place since 1994 and it has never looked better.   Rice said the neighbors loved the improvements they had made, that they had cut down high weeds and fixed broken greenhouse glass that was inherited from the previous owner.  But Rice only bought the property in July of this year — after improvements had been made and grass cut.  The previous owner, Susan Jansen, is one of his supporters and she was seated in the row behind him.  His remark confirmed my suspicion — Rice bought the property last November but in Jansen’s name rather than New Life Evangelistic Center.  He views the previous owner as the one Jansen purchased it from.

A Post-Dispatch story posted yesterday following the meeting with a headline “Residents mad about Rice’ center” included this near the end:

After the hearing, Rice said he was dismayed at his opponents’ anger that’s built up over the last month.

“I’m  sensing a hostility directed at homeless people I haven’t seen in 35 years,”  said  Rice.  “I  grieve over the bitterness and fear I’m seeing in south St. Louis.”

Today the online version drops the above.  The new headline is  “Rev. Rice gets hammered by Dutchtown residents at hearing.”  New in this version is:

The property includes a former flower shop with a greenhouse and the house next door. Rice bought them over the summer for $216,000.

Rice said if he doesn’t get the permits, he’ll appeal the city’s decision. He said if his appeal fails, “we’ll use it as transitional housing or low-income housing.”

Terrell Eiland, a zoning specialist with the St. Louis department of public safety who chaired the hearing, said that Rice would need another permit to operate the property as a residence for multiple people.

Again, just to clarify the property that was under consideration for a conditional use permit yesterday was only the storefront and greenhouse — not the old frame house and open land.  Ironically Rice has said numerous times that you can’t house people in a greenhouse — it is too hot.  Certainly a logical statement.  So would he invest additional money to raze the storefront and greenhouse to build some sort of group home?  Doubtful.

Following the meeting Ald. Kirner asked me how everyone did.  I agreed that everyone, including her, did a good job.  I thanked her for withdrawing her prior support.  Still, I don’t think even Larry Rice should be subjected to our changes with the wind form of approval/non-approval from our elected officials.  This is not to say that Kirner should support the project because she earlier expressed support.  But while claiming that she must listing to constituents now, why weren’t they consulted before?  Conditional use zoning for any business that brings in large quantities of people to a residential block is something that at least the owners on that block need to be consulted on before approval is given.

A question that remains for me is if the city will allow him to operate his “energy fair” that he has already scheduled for October 27th from 10am to 2pm?  This is probably a question for our new public safety director, Charles Bryson.  Maybe it should go on — it would make an interesting backdrop for a protest along the public sidewalk in front of his property.

Blogging From The Conditional Use Hearing On Energy Center

This post is regarding the conditional use hearing for Larry Rice’s Energy Center in the Dutchtown Neighborhood (see prior post). I’m blogging from the meeting as it is underway. Updates will be added below in reverse order (oldest at the bottom).

10:10am: People are still talking outside the hearing room, reporters were getting quotes. I’m signing off now for a couple more meetings — I’ll have more later today.

9:55am: Post meeting notes. The opposition was strong. We all signed a sheet that we were hear to speak against the conditional use so it could be submitted since we were not all able to speak. The conditional use was only on the storefront & greenhouse — not the full property.

9:40am: Testimony is concluded. A decision will be reached later with the answer being mailed out.

9:33am: Ald Kirner withdrew her prior support.

9:31am: Only five people have been allowed to speak. The city’s staff person indicated that no further testimony will be taken. Many took off work to come to the meeting but they will not be heard. Ald. Kirner gets the last word before Rice.

9:26am: Downtown Dutchtown president Caya Aufiero spoke in opposition. I’ll provide a copy of their well-worded later.

9:21am: One person spoke in favor the energy center. Opposition is now beginning testimony starting with a neighbor across the street.

9:19am: City staff person raises issue about Rice’s sign for the business which has already been posted. He asks Rice if he has applied for a sign permit. Rice indicates he has not applied for a sign permit.

9:15am: Larry Rice indicates he has traveled all over the country taking classes on alternative energy. Has taken “8 courses” at the Solar Energy Institute.

9:10am: Larry Rice is now presenting his case.

9:05am: Representatives of both the Mayor’s office and the President of the Board of Aldermen are among the audience.

8:50am: Hearing is underway with other items on the agenda. The room is not full but there are more people here in opposition than in favor. Alderman Kirner is sitting among those opposed. The process is one person from the city asking questions of the applicant, the proceedings are audio recorded. Following the applicant there is a chance for anyone else supporting the application to speak. Then opposition gets to have a say. The applicant and one person from the opposition can speak briefly to close. The interesting thing is the opposition is not a collective group but simply a bunch a individual home owners — not sure how one person will be selected. More as it develops.