Home » Politics/Policy » Recent Articles:

Clear the Downtown Streets, It is Time for the Mayor’s Mardi Gras Ball

A year ago a motorcade with flashing lights whizzed through stoplights as aldermen went from a hotel party sponsored by Anheuser-Busch to City Hall for the annual Mayor’s Ball. The story was first told in the St. Louis Business Journal by Dave Drebes of the Arch City Chronicle, expanded upon by the RFT. From the RFT story:

So was Dave Drebes, editor and publisher of the local political tabloid Arch City Chronicle. Drebes, who also writes a weekly column for the St. Louis Business Journal, referenced the soirée in the March 3 Business Journal. Noting that pomp reigns as power wanes among city lawmakers, Drebes described “whizzing through stoplights” with three (unnamed) aldermen in a motorcade from the hotel to city hall as sirens and flashing red lights attached to the caravan’s lead car helped clear a path through traffic.

Gregali, Florida and Kirner say the February 24 motorcade was orchestrated and led by the private security firm Special Services Inc. The aldermen and Drebes followed in Gregali’s Mercury minivan, with Gregali behind the wheel. The aldermen say they don’t know who else was in the procession.

Here is a bit from Drebes’ story talking about the waning power of aldermen:

So what has the job become? Visit an alderman now and you’ll most likely find a yellow legal pad — a running list of calls from constituents about the most inane and yet pressing matters — a street light that’s not working, an overflowing trash can or dumpster, an alley that needs repaving, a sidewalk that need to be reset. That is the bulk of their day.

As their stars fade, is there some outrage, some pang of despair at the lack of power? No. Some itch for rebellion, some wish to put the mayor on notice that they still matter? No.

They’re content with their place. They’re zooming through red lights on the way to the Ball.

Click here to read my story from 2006 with links to the RFT article and the Business Journal commentary by Drebes. Party safely and watch out near city hall.

 

Development Neanderthals Need to Know the Real Meaning of ‘CAVE’

If you read the propaganda in today’s St. Louis Business Journal on development you might think the term CAVE is “Citizens Against Virtually Everything.” Instead, it is actually Citizens Against Vulgar Environments. And vulgar is what we often get from the developers complaining in the journal.

In the face of hundreds of millions of dollars of redevelopment activity in the St. Louis area in recent years, a vehemence against commercial development has risen to new levels.

Just in the last month,

Paul McKee Jr. has been accused of planning to “bulldoze the ghetto,” and Chris Goodson’s site for a new development on downtown’s edge was picketed on the same day plans were unveiled. Gundaker Commercial Group’s Mike Hejna denounced the new force in development: “CAVE” men, or “Citizens Against Virtually Everything.”

Hejna made the comments to a group of real estate brokers Feb. 6 after detailing the several-years-long process of getting his and Duke Realty’s $750 million Premier 370 business park approved in St. Peters.

Read the above again, it is all about the money. Dollar signs are all they see. If millions of dollars are being “invested” it must therefore be good. The developers like McKee and Hejna can’t have a discussion about pedestrian-friendly design, planning for various modes of transportation, and sustainable development. Lisa Brown continues:

Anti-development sentiment has risen to a level beyond civil discourse, to a point where developers have received threats at their homes. And this opposition is harder to overcome with the Internet as a tool — it’s hard to fight an opponent you can’t see or identify.

“Because of the blogosphere, it exaggerates things,” said Stephen Acree, president of the Regional Housing and Community Development Alliance (RHCDA). “The folks that are most vocal on the blogs are not necessarily part of the neighborhood organizations that are working in the community to build it.”

Many of the blogs, such as mine, are well identified. In fact, we are often more identifiable than the Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) these developers employ to keep their identities hidden from public scrutiny. We wouldn’t want our prominent citizens being connected to a string of properties being left open to vandals, arsonists, homeless and the elements.

And Mr. Acree, you are correct. Many of the bloggers such as myself are not part of the neighborhood organizations. Why? As an example, when I tried to get my neighborhood organization to help save a historic building they refused to act because their funding is tied to the alderman that was in favor of demolition. This is St. Louis you know and politicos can be be spiteful if crossed. Acting outside the organization you can, in my view, have a bigger inpact. By the way, the building was saved (despite claims it could not) and is being converted to condos.

Fears over eminent domain and the proliferation of blogs on the Internet have created a difficult environment for developers, said Marian Nunn, chief operating officer of St. Louis-based THF Realty, one of the largest private commercial developers in the country.

“There seems to be heightened alertness on the part of the public when you need to tear anything down, even if it has to be torn down,” Nunn said. “The Internet has really created a whole new venue for people who are misinformed to communicate on a large scale. It’s very mean spirited, and they don’t have to do it face to face or face rebuttal.”

You want a face to face rebuttal? Name the time and place and I will be there. Shall we have that face to face meeting in the massive wasteland THF calls Maplewood Commons? Or we could debate the value of the development THF placed in the flood zone in the Chesterfield Valley? Talk about “mean spirited” — these developments are absolutely horrid in every possible category. Would I have stopped those projects dead in their tracks if I could have? Yes!

[Update 2/16/2007 @ 11:35am — I just left a voice message for Ms. Nunn inviting her and her developer friends to a face to face discussion on development practices. If she accepts, I will arrange for a meeting room at St. Louis University where the public can be invited.]

Trust me Ms. Nunn, I am not at all “misinformed” on development. It is the likes of you and others that are clearly misinformed about good design, sustainable development and anything remotely resembling a true walkable community. The interesting thing is most of you are all members of organizations such as the ULI (Urban Land Institute). You must get the monthly manazine and simply toss it in your lobby. I’ve got a suggestion — open it up and actually read the articles. Attend the workshops, not just sponsor them. Once you’ve managed that perhaps actually buying some of the books published by them and the APA (American Planning Assocaition). Same goes for Ms. Brown and the others at the Business Journal — who knows you might actually learn why that big ugly parking garage next to your office is not a good thing for the long term future of St. Louis.

Of course, these developers are not in it for the long haul. Sure, they may retain all their “projects” but that is all they are to them. They boil it down to so many leasable square feet and how much it cost to build. When it gets old they either sell it or return to the local government and hold out their hand for more tax money to retrofit the now-obsolete project.

Myself and others are not anti-commercial development as this article attempts to paint us. I happen to be very pro-development, but not any development just for the sake of development. Unlike these wealthy developers who are complaining about being challenged on their projects, some of us actually know the difference between good and bad design. We know what makes an area sustainable in the long term which is a different goal than short term profits. But the whole issue of good vs. bad development is not agreed upon by everyone so it is time to have that civilized discussion about what constitutes good design for our community.

This is where the developers and people like Mayor Slay’s staff (Barb Giesman & Jeff Rainford) go running. For decades development has happened in a vacuum, with little oversight into the process. Today, in 2007, the situation is different. People, believe it or not, actually care about their physical environment. Yes, we live in a city or suburb for a reason. I did not move to a city consisting of gridded urban streets to have it change into low density sprawl like Ballwin. If I would have wanted that I would have moved there. So we are standing up for what we want, the choice is yours. Either sit down at the table now and lets work through some good zoning for the city (tossing aside our 60-year old auto-centric codes) or be prepared to see an escalation in the level of opposition at every turn.

Jeff Rainford, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff:

We simply have to stand up to the very small number of people who are fighting progress for their own financial or political gain.

Boy, that is rich! Who is seeking financial or political gain here? The funny thing is any population gains the city might be seeing are from people who want to actually live in a city, not the city re-made into some bad suburb. Once again, politicians define “progress” as so many millions of dollars being spent. A wonderful dense urban neighborhood could be built at Pruitt-Igoe but if a medical waste facility were to cost another $10 million they’d probably consider that more progress and go that direction. We need people at the top that actually have a clue. After all, good urban design is not rocket science, even a caveman could do it.

We, the Citizens Against Vulgar Environments (CAVE), need to stand up against a very small number of small-minded people who are, through their prehistoric development practices and political positions, holding back the true potential of the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis Region.

 

Reed Campaign Uses Crime Report with “Questionable Methodology” Against Shrewsbury

February 15, 2007 Politics/Policy 29 Comments

The Reed campaign postcard I just received blames Jim Shrewsbury for being “ranked as the worst city for crime in the country.” No reference is given to which ranking but I assume it is the controversial one from Morgan Quitno. Here is what MayorSlay.com had to say about that report:

Every year, a guy in the Kansas City suburbs publishes a list that points out St. Louis as one of the most dangerous cities in the country. He isn’t an FBI agent, a former police chief, or a criminologist. He’s just a publisher with a good gimmick, a readable press release, and some questionable methodology.

St. Louis is not a dangerous city. There are certainly some high-crime neighborhoods – just like in every city. But, the vast majority of St. Louis neighborhoods are safe places to live, work, and raise families.

There are plenty of other cities in the country with the same amount of crime within a similar area. Every city has high-crime neighborhoods. But, unlike most other cities, St. Louis is locked into the 19th century borders that separate us on the charts (but not in any real sense) from places like Clayton, Webster Groves, Maplewood, University City, and Shrewsbury. If these nearby communities were added to the City, we’d be one of the safest cities in the country – with no change in the patterns of local crime.

But, putting a thoughtlessly designed list into perspective isn’t my final word. Crime is up in some City neighborhoods and that does require a response. While most City neighborhoods are safe, a few are not.

Although the deployment of the police force is not in local control, I have found Chief Joe Mokwa to be responsive to our concerns. City voters recently approved an increase in the graduated business license fees that will help pay for more police officers on the Most Dangerous Offenders unit. The same revenue will also create a Career Criminal unit in Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce’s office to beef up her ability to prosecute repeat- and multiple-offenders; and it will expand the problem property and nuisance crime strike force. In addition, new state and federal grants we sought and received are aimed at reducing the number of paroled criminals who return to lives of crime.

I actually thought the report had some validity and that we should address crime in a more direct manner. Here is how I finished my post at the time:

St. Louis may well be the most dangerous city in America. I can accept that and work to change the underlying causes. When you vote Tuesday keep that in mind, are you voting for more of the same? When filing opens at the end of this month for half the seats in the Board of Aldermen & two seats on the school board will you sit back and assume that others will solve these issues or will you step forward to chart a new course for the city? Our entrenched leadership has gotten us where we are today — the top of the most dangerous city list. It is now up to us to work to change that reality. If we do not, we cannot bitch about remaining on top in the years to come.

In my post I outlined causes dating back nearly a hundred years. The root causes of our crime issues pre-date anyone currently in office or working for the police force.

I’m not a fan of political postcards that make bold statements yet fail to provide the necessary information to validate the claims. If you want to make reference to items then let me know what those are.

scan_7215155659_1

I looked up the archives of the Post-Dispatch and found no such headline. The headline on October 31st ran as; “City fears fallout from crime ranking ‘This thing is bogus,’ chief of staff for Mayor Slay says.” I reviewed several articles and columnist stories and not only did I not find such a headline I did not even find such a combination of words. Basically, it appears the Reed campaign has attempted to give the impression the Post-Dispatch ran such a headline. [Update 2/15/2007 @ 9:30pm — I was wrong in the above statement — the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did indeed run the above headline for a article on page B4 on 10/30/2006. My apologies for anyone damaged by my research error.]
scan_721516451_1

The backside is even harder to verify. What was the legislation on which Shrewsbury said no to additional revenue? Was that part of a bigger budget — I don’t think he has any sort of line item veto power. Also, MayorSlay.com indicated above that we the voters approved additional revenues for prosecutors. What is the real story?

And this letter signed by “every prosecutor” in the city? Did that relate directly to Shrewsbury as this is hinting or was it a general plea for more funds — which they will be receiving due to our vote to increase business licenses fees.

I think we do have crime issues to address but it seems to me that Mr. Reed and the majority of aldermen backing him have more than enough votes to pass whatever legislation they see fit to improve the situation in St. Louis. It is Mayor Slay that seems to be the one indicating crime is not as big of a deal as this “bogus” report makes it out to be.

To my knowledge this is postcard is the first such swing by either candidate in this race. If one or both are going to go this route they need to back up their claims with names, dates, and places so the information can be verified. Without such verification, I do not give much credibility to these types of statements. And for the record, I have not spoken with either the Shrewsbury or Reed campaigns about this postcard — it came in the mail this afternoon and I knew I needed a post for today.

Update 2/16/2007 @ 10:15pm — An update has been posted at LewisReed.net regarding this postcard. Included in a PDF copy of the letter signed by prosecutors requesting additional funds from E&A. Like BJC, the motion failed to get a second. All the blame is being laid on Jim Shrewsbury while Darlene Green is getting none of the blame. This seems unfair. Why not call out Darlene Green as well?

Update 2/20/2007 @ 9:40am — From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on 6/16/2005 – the day after the E&A did not approve Joyce’s request:

With nearly two dozen prosecutors watching, top city officials reached a compromise Wednesday that will give St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce some of the extra money her office was seeking.

The Estimate Board voted to allow Joyce to spend an additional $60,000 on salaries but denied an earlier request for about twice as much money.

Mayor Francis Slay wanted the higher amount.

“It’s a step in the right direction but an extremely small step,” said Slay, whose motion to inject $123,111 for prosecutor pay raises died without a second.

The Estimate Board, which must approve the city’s budget, is composed of Slay, Board of Aldermen President Jim Shrewsbury and Comptroller Darlene Green. Joyce, with many of her employees crowded behind her, asked the board for a larger budget to help retain senior attorneys and recruit new ones.

She said that she was disappointed in the Estimate Board’s decision — that it does not put any new money into the budget, but only allows money previously dedicated to unfilled positions to be spent on existing personnel.

So Joyce moved unused money from her budget to give some raises to some attorney’s on her staff.  Oh wait, the postcard didn’t mention that?  I for one think the prosecutors deserve fair compensation for their work, especially relative to the City Counselors office but I don’t for a moment think if the E&A had approved the extra funds for their budget that somehow we’d not appear in the top five of that annual report.  The day before the vote the Post-Dispatch wrote:

Mayor Francis Slay has come out in favor of the money for Joyce’s office. James Shrewsbury, president of the Board of Aldermen, said Tuesday that he’s unlikely to support the request. The final member of the Estimate Board, Comptroller Darlene Green, is said to be on the fence.

Joyce’s effort falls in a year in which cases handled by her office created some political tension in City Hall.

In February, for example, Green had to testify in the trial of Operation Big Vote founder Nonaresa Montgomery, who was found guilty of perjury for lying about whether she could track fraudulent voter registration cards. Part of the trial centered on what was said during a meeting in Green’s campaign office although she was not accused of any wrongdoing.

It seems to me that if people want to be upset it is both with Green & Shrewsbury.  The above postcard makes it out as though Shrewsbury killed it on his own.  And that if he hadn’t, we would not have been named the worse city for crime some 15 months later.

 

Cherokee Street: Big Controversy Over Tiny Place

You’ve all heard the story by now, Ald. Craig Schmid has a moritorium on liquor licenses for the 20th Ward. You want to sell beer, then you need to have 50% of your revenues from food. In other words, restaurants are OK, bars are not. Enter Steve Smith, owner of The Royale on Kingshighway near Arsenal. Smith wants to open a bar along Cherokee street and and serve no food in the space located at 3227 Cherokee known as “Radio Cherokee.”

The controversy has escalated to the point that Schmid, a 12-year veteran at city hall, is being challenged by resident and business owner Galen Gondolfi in the election for alderman to be held on the 6th of March. This issue has some fun little twists and turns that I have not seen in the media.

First, opponents cite a number of concerns. One is parking, another is food sales. Of course, I fail to see how Smith getting 50% of receipts from food sales lessons the parking issue any — it might in fact make it worse? Parking too seems like a red herring, the city has literally thousands of corner storefront places but we cannot expect them to each have a dedicated parking lot without destroying the character of our neighborhoods.

IMG_0717.jpg

Above is the location in question, located on the NE corner of Virginia (street on left) and Cherokee. The very tiny storefront can only hold so many people and quite a bit of on-street parking is available along the side of the building above (on Virginia). Similarly, more cars could easily be parked on the west side of Virginia.

The neighborhood is not ready,” was one comment I heard. Well, what defines ready? What is the plan to get the area ready?  Granted, this property is much closer to Gravois and is therefore not part of the main commercial area we think of as Cherokee.  This is outside the Cherokee community improvement district.  Still, every block between here and the main section of Cherokee contains at least a single storefront, in many cases several.

IMG_0726.jpg

On the same block as “Radio Cherokee” is the former Cherokee Auto Parts with a greenhouse/nursery business on the end of the block.  In the background of the picture you can see a corner storefront on the next block.  Back to the site in question.

IMG_0724.jpg

The small place is actually part of a 4-unit building, with one residential unit above and two attached but set back from the street.  The building lot is only 24ft 8 inches wide.  So as you can imagine, both the residential units and the bar space are narrow.

IMG_0720.jpg

Peaking inside through the front door glass we can see a place basically ready to go.  No major build out or extensive rehab required.  Currently the space is simply sitting empty, not being productive for the neighborhood or city.  Now, I’ve never been in the food services business (well, except those 4 days at Arby’s when I was 16) but logic tells me you need a certain volume of business to operate a restuarant.  With such a small place and lacking a kitchen space it seems unrealistic to expect this space to be anything but a bar.

Sure, I suppose it could be gutted and turned into a retail space of sorts but that seems even more likely to fail.  Retail operations would do better in the main commercial district.

Currently, to my knowledge, Cherokee street has no master plan — no vision has been established.  In looking at the blocks on this end with a mix of storefronts of varying sizes, flats and single family homes I see a small bar fitting in nicely, nothing too big.  A block or two east is the old Black Forest restaurant which has been closed for sometime.  That is a very large space with a large kitchen (I’ve shown the building to prospective buyers so I’ve been through the whole thing).  It is even complete with a parking lot.  But the pro-forma to buy and renovate that place relative to this is night and day.  In reality, both spaces need to be open and active.  We just can’t fault Steve Smith for not having the cash/credit of a say Joe Edwards.   The old Black Forest space will make an excellent restaurant once again.  As a bar only, it would be way too big.

So my solution to this issue is this — for Cherokee Street only:  Set up a sliding scale, the very tiny Radio Cherokee space that Steve Smith is interested in should have a zero percent food requirement.  On the other end, spaces like the large Black Forest should be required to have 50% food.  Other storefronts, such as the old Auto Parts place, might fall somewhere in the middle.  What this does is set up a guideline along Cherokee only where small bars can be introduced and have a chance to succeed while the larger spaces cannot be bars only.  This should be implimented along the length of Cherokee from at least Jefferson to Gravois while the area works on a master plan for Cherokee.
In the interest of disclosure, I have not spoken with either candidate about this concept but I did happen to run into Steve Smith yesterday and he seemed to think it might be a good compromise.  In researching this post I discovered that Galen Gondolfi owns the property in question along with another person.  He also owns the old auto parts place on the same block.  He owns larger buildings in the next block east where he lives, has a gallery space and leases out a storefront to a cafe.  He clearly has a vested interest in seeing this section of Cherokee street succeed and prosper.

 

Cacchione on Public Service, Gates for Compton Heights and Cigarette Taxes

Last night I attended the 6th Ward debate sponsored by the Downtown Residents Association and the League of Women Voters. Turnout was good despite the weather and all three candidates were in top form. Patrick Cacchione reiterated his many years of experience in public policy — working as a paid lobbyist. So rather than rehash some of the same stuff that was said last night, I thought I’d look into some of Cacchione’s statements from the past.

LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE St. Louis Post-Dispatch February 20, 1997

New Entitlement: Elected Office

If you asked people what they considered the fastest growing entitlement program they might answer Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. However, it appears the fastest growing entitlement in this country is elected office.

Today, elected offices are being transferred from one generation to another like season tickets to the St. Louis Blues games.

Least we think this is a St. Louis phenomenon (Jo Mannies’ Feb. 9 column, “In St. Louis Politics, Family Counts, As The Names Around City Hall Show”), consider the Republican and Democratic conventions we witnessed in August. The keynote for the Republican party was Congresswoman Susan Molinari, daughter of former Congressman Guy Molinari. The keynote for the Democratic party was Evan Bayh, son of former Sen. Birch Bayh.

These speakers were accompanied by a host of other political offspring including Vice President Al Gore, son of Senator Albert Gore Sr., Gov. George Bush, son of former President George Bush (son of Sen. Prescott Bush), Congressman Jesse Jackson, son of presidential candidate Jesse Jackson, Sr., Congressmen Patrick and Joseph Kennedy, son and nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, daughter of Gov. Alf Landon. The list is endless, Dodd, Cuomo, Daley, etc.

Why is this of concern? It merits our attention for a variety of reasons. It renders “public service” obsolete because the public (except for the wealthy) are excluded, and service has become an entitlement (unearned and expected). The result is a political class that speaks its own language and has its own common experiences, neither of which prepares them to address the needs of the people.

Further, the fact that money or name recognition are increasingly the elements that attain elected office, the average citizen is closed out of the political process. These factors only continue to alienate an already disengaged and apathetic electorate. Which brings us full circle to answer the proverbial “chicken and egg” question: generational politics because of a disengaged electorate or visa-versa?

Patrick J. Cacchione
St. Louis

In St. Louis we have many of the examples Mr. Cacchione cites. Ald. Villa, Ald, Roddy, Ald. Conway, Ald. Kennedy just to name a few. But the issue of entitlement goes beyond simply being related, it goes to being next in line. Mr. Cacchione has said he deserves to be the next alderman for the 6th ward because he has earned it — by dutifully being a part of the 6th Ward Democrats. This entitlement could simplify things so much — why bother with elections. We’ll just have someone take attendance at ward functions and the person with the most gold stars will be the next alderman. He who has been in line the longest gets the job. Such a process takes away all that hard work of sorting through positions on issues. Sadly much of the city’s politicos believe this to be a logical system. Take a look around this city and ask yourself how well that has served us for the last 50 years.

Mr. Cacchione speaks of the wealthy above, speaking a different language. Interestingly, he lives in one of the wealthiest areas of the city: Compton Heights. A few years ago, residents of Compton Heights sought city funding to install a gate to close off access to public streets. Mr. Cacchione was among the supporters. From the Post-Dispatch story GREAT GATE DEBATE IN CITY PITS ISSUES OF SAFETY VS. ISOLATION dated 4/24/2003:

In St. Louis’ Compton Heights, discord is brewing between residents who want a gate at the main entrance to their neighborhood and those who don’t. The neighborhood is bordered by Interstate 44 on the north, Nebraska Avenue on the east, Shenandoah Avenue on the south and Grand Boulevard on the west.

Proponents point to traffic concerns and security, while opponents say not only is a gate unwarranted, but no traffic studies have been done to demonstrate the need, and no vote has been taken on the issue.

They add that a gate would isolate the neighborhood and require the use of city money to close a public street.

But Dr. Shahrdad Khodamoradi, president of the Compton Heights Neighborhood Betterment Association’s 12-member board, says that adding a gate at Grand Boulevard will not create a gated community. The board unanimously supports a gate.

“We’re not closing the neighborhood; we’re closing just one entrance. We’re not creating a gated neighborhood; we’re putting gates that can be opened and closed at Grand,” he said.

Compton Heights is split between two aldermen who disagree on the issue – Alderman Lewis Reed, 6th Ward, and Alderman Phyllis Young, 7th Ward.

Reed has said he is prepared to ask the Board of Aldermen for up to $15,000 in city money to help pay for a gate. A final cost for a gate has not been computed.

“This is an attempt to liberate the neighborhood,” Reed says of the traffic concern – an issue he says has simmered for more than 33 years.

He says the city and residents have looked at other alternatives, including cobblestone strips, at a cost of $180,000, to be placed on the streets as an attempt to slow traffic.

Young said she would be reluctant to support a gate but hasn’t decided how she would vote.

“It seems quite divisive … from what I’ve seen,” she said of the brewing discord.

Opponents suggest that a gate would foster a sense of elitism for the neighborhood.

And yard signs that say “Residents Against Gates” jar the serene impression of the century-old mansions on the neighborhood’s quiet streets with literary names such as Longfellow, Hawthorne and Milton.

Phyllis Calhoun, who has lived on Longfellow for several decades, calls the move to put up a gate “an arrogant breach of authority.”

She says that although at peak traffic times, occasional speeders zoom through the neighborhood, the streets are quieter than most.

Patrick Cacchione, a neighborhood association board member, says the push for a solution to the traffic problem is not new.

“Talking to the fire and the street departments, we’ve concluded that if we want to solve the problem, you put up gates at Grand,” he said.

Reed said he plans to introduce the gate proposal within the next two weeks.

Thankfully Compton Heights didn’t get their costly gates to privatize the public streets, something both Reed & Cacchione supported.
On April 2, 2002 Mr. Cacchione had an editorial in the Post-Dispatch commenting on the state of the city’s health department:

First, there’s a leadership crisis. The department has had five directors in five years and needs a permanent director. Other key staff members are needed as well — particularly a communicable disease physician and a finance director. But budget shortfalls keep those positions unfilled.

The city needs to see the big picture here: It is unconscionable for a major American city to operate one of its most important departments without critical staff needed to do its work.

Second, the Health Department needs to attract top-level talent. Public health is a knowledge-based enterprise. But with its host of problems — and its antiquated city residency requirement — that talent is going elsewhere. Even though the department does not provide medical services, it needs physicians. Right now, only one is on the staff full- time. Our city boasts an excellent school of public health at St. Louis University — but its top students go elsewhere.

Perhaps the note takers could enlighten us on Mr. Cacchione’s view on the “antiquated city residency requirement” as it relates to teachers, police and such. If I am not mistaken, he has recently spoken in favor of the residency requirement? Is it no longer “antiquated.”
For many years Mr. Cacchione lobbyied on behalf of Daughters of Charity National Health System and Carondelet Health System. His letters to the editor on health care issues were thoughful, passionate and very democratic. He spoke elequently of the need for health care for the poor.
So when the issue of an increased cigarette tax came up last year to assist health care providers with funding to help the poor you would have thought Mr. Cacchione would have been right in there working to increase the tax. Well, if you thought that you’d be wrong. From the Post-Dispatch on October 12, 2006:

Missouri voters will decide next month whether to raise the tax on cigarettes by 80 cents a pack and triple the tax on other tobacco products.

Opponents already have blanketed the airwaves with television ads opposing the tax. Many convenience stores and gas stations display “No on Amendment 3” placards.

“We’ve been running a full campaign, with the full anticipation this would be on the ballot,” said Patrick Cacchione, a consultant for an opposing group called Missourians Against Tax Abuse. The group includes cigarette-maker R.J. Reynolds Co., as well as tobacco farmers and retailers.

Mr. Cacchione’s group, Missourians Against Tax Abuse, gave $500 to 17 different wards in the city, including the 6th ward where he was and is the committeeman. The city’s central committee received $5,000. What keeps coming up is how Cacchione spoke before the 6th against the tax increase, convincing ward members to endorse voting no on amendment 3. The one thing he forgot to mention, however, was he was a paid lobbyist working on behalf of the interests of those seeking to kill the amendment. And before you start to think it was a small group of convenience store owners think again, their latest report shows they raised nearly $6 million to defeat the proposal with much of it coming from R.J. Reynolds.

Mr. Cacchione does have far more “experience” than probably his two opponents combined. The problem is that his experience is to say what it takes to win. Last night his answers were great — he said literally everything I wanted to hear while some of Saller’s and Triplett’s answers gave me pause. But that is exactly the problem, he is saying everything we want to hear. If he were to spend his four years as alderman working passionately on behalf of the 6th ward residents and the city as a whole I probably would support the guy, but the words come too easy for him. He seems like the poster child for slick politician. Sixth ward voters need to look to Kacie Starr Triplett or Christian Saller for the less polished but more direct candidate.

Note: St. Louis Post-Dispatch archives are not something I can link to. These can be accessed through their archives system if you desire the full articles.

 

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe