Doggie Diner Bill on Today’s Board of Aldermen Calendar (Updated)

Soon, restaurant owners in 3/4th of the city may opt to allow patrons to bring their dogs onto restaurant patios, provided certain criteria are met. Here is the full language of the bill:

Board Bill No. 67 FS Introduced by: Alderwoman Krewson, Alderman/Alderwoman Wessels, Gregali, Young Ortmann, Hanrahan, Waterhouse, Baringer
An ordinance pertaining to food service establishments; permitting a food service establishment to allow a customer to be accompanied by a dog in the permitted outdoor dining area of such food service establishment located within the City of St Louis, except the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 12th, 18, 27th and the 21st wards, under certain conditions. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION ONE: A food service establishment may permit a customer to be accompanied by a dog in an outdoor dining area if:
1. The food service establishment posts a sign in a conspicuous location stating that dogs are allowed in the outdoor dining area; and
2. the food service establishment provides waterless hand sanitizer in a convenient location for customers and employees, or upon request; and
3. the food service establishment immediately cleans up any unsanitary condition resulting from a dog; and
4. the customer and the dog access the outdoor dining area directly from the exterior of the food service establishment; and
5. the dog does not enter the interior of the food service establishment; and
6. the customer keeps the dog on a leash which keep the dog close to the customer; and
7. the customer controls the dog; and
8. the operator of the food service establishment may ask the customer to remove any dog whose activities or behavior are deemed undesirable or disruptive at the sole discretion of the operator; and
9. the customer does not allow the dog on a seat, table, countertop, or similar surface;and
10. the customer does not allow the dog to come in contact with plates or utensils; and
11. in the outdoor dining area, the food service establishment does not:
a. prepare food; or
b. permit open food, except for food that is being served to a customer.

Yes seven out of 28 wards will be exempt from the new rules. Those seven are the wards of Troupe (1st), Flowers (2nd), Bosley Sr (3rd), Heitert (12th), Kennedy (18th), Jones-King (21st), and Carter (27th). Six of the seven are northside wards with Heitert’s far south Republican ward the seventh.

The rebirth of the commercial district along Olive between Taylor & Walton will be an interesting test of this. The south side of the commercial cooridor is in the 28th Ward (the bill is sponsored by 28th Ald Krewson) while the north side of the street is in the except 18th ward. A small dog park is located on the street in the 28th ward but don’t look for any patios across the street allowing dogs — such as at Bowood Farms when their cafe opens.

But the real test of this ordinance will be in about four years when redistricting is being debated. Will we have a restaurant with a patio that allows dog owners, say near the dog park on Olive in the 28th ward, only to have that property end up in the 18th ward and suddenly the restaurant owner is told he/she must now forbid dogs on the patio? Or does this practice become grandfathered in? Given that our ward boundaries change every 10 years after each major census I don’t see how we can simply exempt wards without some clarification about exact boundaries for doggie diners.

UPDATE 7/13/2007:

The bill passed its final hurdle and will become law in 10 days.  Remember, this does not grant you the right to your dog into restaurants.  This permits a restaurant owner to allow dogs on their outdoor dining spaces in 21 out of 28 wards.

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.

St. Louis’ Board of Adjustment Votes to Restrict Free Speech on Eminent Domain

You’ve likely seen Jim Roos’ anti-eminent domain statement on the side of a building he owns in an area known as Bohemian Hill. Yesterday attorney John Randall argued before the Board of Adjustment the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of citizens to voice free speech. The Board of Adjustment hears appeals from those who’ve been denied permits by the building department. The member’s names, date appointed, term length, term expiration are not posted online on the city’s website, nor is their agenda published online.

During the meeting a total of three appeals were heard relating to signs — all did not meet the strict letter of the city’s antiquated zoning code regulations (see the “Comprehensive” Sign Control Regulations). All three were larger than allowed by the code, two were approved but one was not. Laclede Gas got approval for a large sign on top of their building in downtown St. Louis so they could hopefully get spotted by TV cameras during Cardinals games. Laclede Gas argued their sign on the top of their building would be a positive “contribution to the St. Louis skyline.” I saw the mock-ups of the sign, it wasn’t something to hail as great nor was anything bad. They indicated that the city’s maximum allowable size for a sign on their building would look like a “postage stamp.” If the city really wants to be business friendly they will take a fresh look at the sign regulations and I don’t know, maybe publish something on the building division site about signs rather than make the public wade through the technicalities of the ordinance.

Roos and his attorney argued this is not a sign, per the city’s regulations. I’m not going to take you through all the various points of the ordinance but in large part, per the code, a sign faces a public street. The building above was originally a rear building — the public street is to the left out of view. The side of the building, clearly visible from the interchange of highways I-44 & I-55, does not face a public street — it faces an adjacent parcel of land owned by someone else. The poorly constructed zoning code relating to signs also addresses the question of what is a sign vs what is not:

If for any reason it cannot be readily determined whether or not an object is a sign, the Community Development Commission shall make such determination.

Again, it was argued this was not a sign but Bob Lordi from the city’s building division determined it is a sign. The ordinance language is unclear as to how this debate of sign or not gets resolved. Some of the best humor was provided by a June 28, 2007 letter from alderwoman Phyllis Young (D-7th Ward):

“If this sign is allowed to remain then anyone with property along any thoroughfare can paint signs indicating the opinion or current matter relevant to the owner to influence passersby with no control by any City agency.”

When this was read during the proceedings I actually laughed out loud. The irony, of course, is that earlier this year Young advocated razing the entire area where the “sign” is located for a new development. She passed legislation blighting the entire area and now wants to protect it from a sign put up in response to the very real threat faced by these home owners. I will have more on the status of this project separately.  Click here to view the entire letter in PDF format.
Another part of the letter gave me reason to chuckle as well:

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.

One of the most telling comments is that being an alderman is a “career” rather than simply a public service. But I think Phyllis needs to get in her Prius, or better yet a good pair of sneakers, and just check out more of her ward, including downtown.

… Continue Reading

Halliday St. Illegal Parking Pad Fiasco Continues at City Hall Wednesday Afternoon

You know, I think the issue of the little parking pad that couldn’t typifies the City of St. Louis perfectly. Let’s examine the city hall logic/process so far:

• Because the building once had drugs and prostitution, Alderman believes anything the developer does should be accepted by neighbors without question. Those outside block have no say no matter what, even when tax incentives are used.
• The renovation must have parking because everyone has a car.
• The parking must be off-street and deeded forever to unit.
• Alderman dangles $30K of tax money in front of residents for street exit markers in exchange for accepting the idea of a concrete front yard used for vehicle storage.
• Developer paves yard without proper permits, Alderman blames residents for not approving final design of the bribe in time.
• Alderman calls meeting of residents of that block to make a decision about a public right-of-way owned and used by the general public.
• Alderman gives appearance of supporting wishes of residents while pushing for the paved parking pad.
• Alderman indicates on-street parking is OK (not really, wink wink) as long as the city vacates that land and gives it to condo owners, by deed, forever.

Sometimes I wonder how it is that we managed to stop losing population at 350,000. Why do we continue to elect the same people (or types of people) over and over again and think that somehow things will improve? Oh yes, the precious charter reform measures of 2004 didn’t pass so we continue to have 28 of these types of aldermen rather than half as many. BFD, so you’d have half as many people ‘effin up the city in wards twice as big. Stop using crutches that only continue to enable this dysfunctional line of thinking.

I believe:

• We should not pave front yards for parking.
• We should not design parking pads so that cars back out over public sidewalks.
• We should not use tax money to manipulate the public into going along with a bad idea.
• We should not deed a section of a public right-of-way to a few condo owners.

Like other areas of the city where a private building does not have any off-street parking, we should designate a portion of the public street as permit parking only and issue those permits to the residents of the condos. Then we should all take turns behind a jack hammer to remove the illegally poured concrete front yard.

The St. Louis circus continues at the next Board of Adjustment hearing on 7/11/2007 at 1:30pm in the Kennedy Hearing Room (Rm 208), City Hall. I’ll be there tomorrow, I haven’t been to a good comedy show in a while.

Related Links:

• My posts on this subject from June 4th and June 27th.
• Alderman Stephen Conway.
• St. Louis’ Board of Adjustment (worthless site, go ahead and see for yourself).

UPDATE 7/12/2007 @ 8:30am

This item, a continuance from last month, was heard first, although some who had called had been told it would be later.  The printed agenda, not available online but distributed at the meeting lists the item last (6th).

The developer was present and asked for another continuance for another month, indicating he is willing to remove the parking pad while they work out details of on-street parking.  Again, the developer and aldermen seem to want to vacate part of the street so that the condos take ownership of that section.  I’m not sure how they’d do that legally — would they also vacate the portion of the public right-of-way that contains the public sidewalk?

As I have previously stated, I think these condo owners shoud be able to have a single permitted space on the street — that seems like a reasonable compromise.  The problem here is that the developer promised parking spaces to the buyers and may face litigation if suddenly the owned space went away (either from a condo owner or their lender).  If the city does vacate part of the public street for private use I think it needs to come at a price — what is the value of that land?  The developer would need to buy it.

The other issue is that if the developer really intends to break out the concrete parking pad and go with the on-street parking they really don’t need to waste anymore time at the Board of Adjustment, this group of appointees by the Mayor hears appeals on denials of building permits — such as a parking pad/lot.  However, the Board of Adjustment has no authority to grant a variance to deed a portion of the publicly owned right-of-way to private citizens.  That would require legislation to accomplish that.  So I ask, why hasn’t the developer withdrawn his appeal?  The simple answer is that he and the aldermen will take another 30 days to wear down the residents of the block to keep the parking pad, illegally poured, in place.

The Dictatorship of the Wealthy

A guest editorial by Greg Michaud

A law that gives Paul McKee access to 100 million in tax credits for North St. Louis shows clearly the Dictatorship of the Wealthy is alive in Missouri and in America. No matter what happens in North St. Louis there are serious implications in writing a law that benefit one man and his companies.

The tax credit is unethical and represents a pattern of continual transferring of government resources to benefit a small select group. This pattern occurs on the local level all the way to the nations’ capital.

There are three main aspects of this tax credit law which has turned the political process into a playground for the wealthy. The first problem is the law is clearly written for Paul McKee, he owns some 500 properties in the area, no one else could qualify. The state legislators do not explore alternatives; they simply pass, almost mindlessly, the law for their patron. Donations figure into the passage of this law to the extent we should stopping clowning around and call donations what they are, bribes.

Beyond that serious breach of public trust is the complete exclusion of the citizens in the political process. Apparently neither Mayor Slay nor the aldermanic representatives know of any plans. The State of Missouri passes a 100 million dollar tax credit without assessment of the needs of the area in question is poor leadership, management and shows a lack of legislative skill and judgment. (I wonder if they would give a citizens group asking for passage of a 100 million dollar tax credit the time of day)

The final problem is the lack of a new city plan to accommodate any redevelopment. Citizens without a plan are not represented. If there was a plan, citizens in general would have been less concerned about McKee buying up property, as anything he did with the property would have to fit into an urban framework already agreed to by city government and the people. Unfortunately the city government has a reputation of just the opposite, rather than protecting the interests of the citizens, the wishes of developers are put first, hence the alarm at McKee’s purchases.

For the Dictatorship of the Wealthy topics such as the welfare of the people are meaningless. McKee has a trail of donations/bribes solidifying his interests. There are many variations this 100 million tax credit could have taken to help rebuild north St. Louis. A small scale tax credit is just as likely to be successful. And just why is 100 acres needed before redevelopment occurs? The questions, the options, and the possibilities are endless. Yet the way the state has handled this law it appears granting McKee 1 million dollars an acre to insure his profitability is the only viable option

The city of St. Louis, like most cities was built by many individuals and developers. The delight of a city like St. Louis is the visual variety and beauty. With someone controlling 100 hundred acres the visual monotony would become deadening, if not grim. In any case Soulard, the Loop, Lafayette Square, the West End and other neighborhoods revived without the input of a mega developer.

And is he going to bring his suburban outlook to the City? Will it be cul de sacs and a major strip mall every so often? He controls the real estate; it means his chain store friends will also be in line with their hands out. The little guy will be locked out in a suburban format.

America is at war, possible energy shortages loom in the future, global warming is real beyond a doubt, and fully 40% of the energy America uses comes from the built environment and another 28% from transport. There should be serious debate about what type of city to build now and in the future. It is past time to rethink how St. Louis is doing business. It is astounding there is a lack of political or corporate leadership (and courage) in this area; the conditions are so obviously headed for a potential crisis. Yet like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned, these modern day Nero’s don’t want to upset their status quo money making machine.

Reimagining the built environment is essential. Any rebuilding of the city must include all transit, which means a city designed for bicycles, walking, streetcars, trains and mopeds as well as cars. Any rebuilding should consider densities, including energy saving row housing. Any rebuilding should look at dispersing stores into neighborhoods and public space and parks should be included and connected to a city wide system of public spaces (also connected by transit).

In his blog Mayor Slay said he doesn’t know McKee’s intentions are exactly the problem. Mayor Slay and the Board of Alderman as the representatives of the people should be telling McKee what the plans are for St. Louis, not the other way around.

Without taking hold of Urban Planning within the city limits, without a plan that integrates transit, public space, housing densities and commercial areas, city officials and the mayor are derelict in their duty. The citizens are left out of the process.

Mayor Slay attempts to reconcile McKee with the citizens in his blog by saying he will need a “battery of commission and legislative approvals, and a forest of hearings and meetings will be necessary” and he also says “should there ever be a redevelopment plan for the area current stakeholders must be included in the process.” It sounds good, except citizens have been systemically excluded in the recent past; so it is difficult to trust his words now.

However flawed the planning issues are concerning this project, the Dictatorship of the Wealthy is no more than an inside deal for insiders in the political process. It is a deal signed off by state legislators without investigation and without due diligence.

The Post-Dispatch has shown independence from the pervasive power structure, but cannot ignore this insider trading. Until it is stopped, the notion of a tax credit for one man graphically illustrates the nature and condition of a dictatorship. It is “an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law or other social and political factors within the state.” McKee operates beyond the realm of democratic principles.

In summary Governor Blunt should veto the measure. Upon the veto the House and Senate should enact new legislation in cooperation of the people, leveraged for the benefit of society, not to protect the profit margins of McKee and his entourage.

Failure to enact new legislation will demonstrate the corruption of government and its dictatorship towards the public. As stated in the Declaration of Independence “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

The Dictatorship of the Wealthy subverts democracy and severely limits debate. It directs government funds into the pockets of a few. In the end it is destroying America with decision making colored with attempts to fulfill the lust of the wealthy. It is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

– Greg Michaud has lived in various parts of the world and is currently raising his daughter in South St. Louis.