A Look at St. Louis’ MLK Drive, Part 3 of 5

This post is part three of a five part series. Part three looks at MLK Drive from Jefferson Ave to Grand Ave.

• Part One — Introduction.
• Part Two — MLK from Tucker to Jefferson Ave.

“Melvin’s Permanent Village” isn’t so permanent afterall. Debris from the roof collapse is pushing at the front gates that used to cover the store windows. This is just west of Jefferson.

This stretch of MLK from Jefferson to Grand has few buildings left. Many that remain are in poor condition but a few are quite outstanding. The main thing you notice in this section of MLK is the new sidewalks, curb bulb outs and street lighting as shown above. Last year I said it was good to have the improvements, adding:

I think it is important to send a message of hope to current residents & business owners as well as those that are prospective residents and/or business owners. My fear is that sidewalks and street lamps is a little too late.

I then went on to advocate a streetcar line as the needed push on MLK. I still believe it will take a major force such as that to fully revitalize this street but we will save that discussion for another day. In the last year I have spent more time on MLK than I have in my prior 15 years living in St. Louis. I’ve also spent a lot of the last year learning about and reporting on poorly planned pedestrian access.

Sadly, in this one mile stretch of MLK where we’ve spend a good sum of money (I don’t have exact figures so I am not going to speculate), only at one point are the sidewalks and ramps designed for actually crossing MLK. This is worth repeating — in an entire mile only one place exists where it is suggested via the sidewalks that you can cross MLK.

This is it, the one spot where the sidewalks and accessible ramps are actually pointed across MLK and aligned with each other. Of course, an able bodied person can easily cross the street anywhere along this mile stretch but we don’t spend this kind of money only for those that are able bodied. Others using wheelchairs and mobility scooters need to be able to get around as well. Maybe they are trying to get to church?

Above is looking from Glasgow Ave across MLK at a popular church (it got much busier on my return trip past this location about an hour later). As you can see, coming from the North the sidewalk continues along MLK both east (and west). However, someone wanting to cross MLK to reach this church is not afforded the basics of a sidewalk. Again, someone who is able bodied can easily walk across but someone using the assistance of a wheelchair must get through the standing water and then attempt to locate a break in the curb on the opposite side or have someone assist them in getting over the curb and through the grass.

Such lack of consideration for how people might actually get from place to place on a sidewalk shows the lack of common sense with respect to planning as as well as oversight and review prior to construction. Former Ald. Mike McMillan, now the city’s license collector, has touted this streetscape among his accomplishments. I presume he has never actually walked it himself.

A little further west, at N. Garrison we see a similar situation. Here we are looking east along MLK (the street to the right) with Gamble St off to the left (although not through at this point). The sidewalk for MLK heads over toward Gamble but the actual ramp is pointing out to the still too wide crossing. Again, despite this being a significant crossing point, no walks are provided across MLK.

The senior housing that was being built last year near Compton & MLK is now complete and open. It does a nice job of respecting the street pattern in the area as well as giving a nice massing to a largely vacant area. The building has good sidewalk connections to the entrances.

Across MLK from the senior housing, rubble is all that remains of the former Blumeyer housing projects at the intersection of MLK and Page. Ironically, the new housing that is being built in the area is quite pedestrian friendly but as we’ve seen, the sidewalks to the east are not so friendly. The development happening to the west is not pedestrian friendly either.

In the triangle formed by MLK, Page and Grand are these fine old warehouses and a gas station (behind these buildings). It would be nice to see these renovated into retail & housing but I’m afraid a lack of vision and leadership in this area will lead to their demolition for something suburban.

And finally we arrive at North Grand where work is underway for a brand new suburban Walgreen’s store. A very urban (and stunning) building facing Grand was razed for what will be a generic and short term building that only drains money from the neighborhood. See my prior post on this subject.

My Flickr photoset on this section of MLK contains a total of 41 images, click here to see them all.  Click here to continue to part four of this series.

A Look at St. Louis’ MLK Drive, Part 1 of 5

Tomorrow is our national holiday to honor the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was assisinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis Tennessee. I took the photo, at right, of the Lorainne Motel where he was killed when I visited Memphis in March last year.

For the past two years I have done posts looking at the St. Louis street which bears his name, this year will be no different. However, I have broken the street into four sections and each will receive a full post with numerous pictures and commentary (these will be posted indiviually as done).

Although I’ve never read any of Dr. King’s books I, like most Americans, have heard bits and pieces from his various speeches including the famous “I have a Dream” speech given the day before he was killed. I reviewed a number of quotes from Dr. King, all brilliant and insightful, and pulled these as having particular meaning to me personally and what I strive for in my life and work:

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

Each quote gives me reason to pause and think about my own life and why I continue to fight the fights that I do. As I am labeled a radical or zealot I know I am on the right path. Dr. King’s words give me strength to keep up the battle for a better St. Louis.

If Dr. King were with us today no doubt our cities would be different — better — places to live. Without question, white flight to the suburbs would have continued but the black flight that followed may not have happened, or not to the same degree as it did. I do not believe we’d see the black on black violence that we have in many cities, including St. Louis. This is, of course, pure speculation on my part. We will never know what the world would have been like had Dr. King not been killed that April day nearly 40 years ago. The best we can do is think how he would have guided society toward peace and brotherhood and work toward such a vision.

The posts that follow this one will examine the current state of St. Louis’ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. First, some background:

• Most of the street we now call MLK Drive was known as Easton Ave and a small part of Franklin Ave. (East of Jefferson).
• Easton Ave & Franklin Ave were named for Dr. King in 1972, four years after his assasination in 1968.
• In 1948 the US Supreme Court ruled on a St. Louis case, Shelley vs. Kramer, that racially restrictive covenants prohibiting non-whites from owning property in certain areas could not be enforced by the government. That case involved a house on Labadie Ave just 10 blocks north of then Easton Ave near Kingshighway. And yes, it was the “Kramer’s” that were seeking to keep the Shelley’s off their street, long before Michael Richards portrayed character Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld.
• The historically black neighborhood, The Ville, borders MLK and is just blocks to the east of the area where the Shelley vs. Kramer case was attempting to keep out blacks. Following the 1948 ruling, black families could search for housing throughout the city. And leave they did, the Ville’s population dropped by nearly 40% between 1950 and 1970. For perspective, the city’s overall population drop in the same period was roughly 28% so we can see the Ville experienced a much higher rate of outflux. To be fair, restrictive actions meant to contain blacks in the Ville and a few other small areas meant the Ville was likely far more overcrowded than many other parts of the city. Still, the city lost 237,527 residents during this two decade period so the writing was on the wall for urban commercial streets like MLK Drive.
• Partly in response to the loss of population, the streetcar line that once traversed the length of then Easton ran its final time on July 28, 1963 — nearly 44 years ago! It was replaced the following day with bus service.

It is my personal belief that our current political establishment is not well prepared to deal with the magnitude of rebuilding that St. Louis needs to take on over the next 40 years. As our black population has become an increasing percentage of the shrinking population we’ve seen a rise in black leadership, a good thing. However, I believe many of these to have simply accepted the factional ward-based political machine politics that St. Louis has had for over 100 years. I do not believe that black representatives are looking our for their constituents any better than a white politician. Their retention of power has trumped the interests of rebuilding strong and vibrant neighborhoods out of fear they will be replaced. For St. Louis to once again prosper we must get beyond this type of political system to one where we all focus on repopulating our neighborhoods.

As you will see in the following four posts, St. Louis’ MLK Drive is not worthy of the man it is intended to honor. We should be ashamed of the condition we’ve let this once vibrant street get to. We must also hold up higher standards for how we invest in the future of the street. Dr. King deserves better.

Selected prior posts relating to MLK Drive:

• January 17, 2005 (Let Us Turn Our Thoughts Today to Martin Luther King)
• January 17, 2006 (A critical look at MLK Drive)
• February 2, 2006 (Metropolis Walk in the Ville)
• April 24, 2006 (AIA Holds Charrette in the Ville)
• September 26, 2006 (St. Louis’ Neighborhood Boundaries need to be Examined)
• September 27, 2006 (A fine building on MLK Razed)
• October 13, 2006 (McMillan rezoning for Walgreens)

Click here to continue to part two of five.

Price To Be In The Know at SLDC: $17/month!

For only $17/month you too can know what is happening with seven different public boards operated by the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC). Yes, the SLDC operates seven different boards but the only way to know what they are talking about it is look for the agendas posted at 1015 Locust or pay $17/month to have them sent to you via U.S. Mail. Yes, in 2007 a major entity of city government is incapable of posting agendas online or even having an email list where they are sent out electronically.

From the SLDC website:

St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) is an umbrella, not-for-profit corporation organized under Chapter 355 of the Missouri State Code with the mission of fostering economic development and growth in the City through increased job and business opportunities and expansion of the City’s tax base.

SLDC is directed by its own Board of Directors, and its employees serve as staff support for the City’s seven economic development authorities:

Industrial Development Authority (IDA)
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA)
Land Reutilization Authority (LRA)
Local Development Company (LDC)
Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA)
Port Authority
Tax Increment Financing Commission (TIF)

The Executive Director of SLDC is also Executive Director for each authority. The agency’s department directors make policy recommendations to the authorities, the Mayor, Board of Aldermen, and the business community.

I had sent an email request under Missouri’s Sunshine Law to SLDC Director Rodney Crim asking to receive the agendas at the same time as the board members. It was my assumption, at the time, that this information was sent out via email. Monday I received a phone call from SLDC Legal Director Leslye Mitchell Yancey responding to my request, informing me of the price to know about public information.

I do understand that preparing and mailing out information doesn’t come free, I’m not asking to get something for nothing. Still, I’d kinda like to know the various issues they are addressing without having to make numerous trips to 1015 Locust each and every month. I enquired about receiving just three (3) agendas a month and I was quoted a price of $7.25. Basically it is pro-rated. The more you know, the more it costs.

As an example, the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) is meeting this afternoon at 1:30pm at 1015 Locust. Do I want to attend? I’m not sure, I have no idea what they are reviewing. I’m sure those seeking approval certainly know what is on the agenda. Those who have managed to make it to 1015 Locust to see the official posting know. For the rest of us we are left in the dark.

I should point out that the SLDC is perfectly compliant with Missouri’s Sunshine Law regarding meeting notices, they are posting meetings as required. Of course, there is a big difference between minimal compliance and open & responsive government. SLDC has a long way to go toward the latter.

I had to make sure it was indeed 2007. One would think such a large agency would be able to post these agendas online. Of course, I couldn’t find their annual report online to actually demonstrate how large of an agency they really are. I went to their press release section and noticed the most recent was from April 2005 — the only press release that year. Clearly the management issues for SLDC extend far beyond the posting of meeting notices.

Candidates for Aldermanic President Speak at 15th Ward Forum

Last night I attended the candidates forum sponsored by the 15th Ward Democrats, not to be confused with Democrats of the 15th Ward. They are not one in the same, but I will cover that later. The format was Mr. Shrewsbury had the first half hour and Mr. Reed the second half hour. They were asked the same questions. Below are videos for each opening statement, I included Mr. Reed’s closing statement as well to give him roughly equal time at Mr. Shrewsbury. Both vidoes are raw — I have not edited any content.
Jim Shrewsbury — current President of the Board of Aldermen (opening statement):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuayjEYA7CM[/youtube]

Lewis Reed — current 6th Ward Alderman (opening & closing statement):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KbjPchJAQQ[/youtube]

The nine questions asked of both candidates related to the following:

• TIF for St. Louis Centre
• Example of Impact You’d have on City
• School Board appointment in case of state takeover
• BJC/Forest Park lease
• Charter Reform
• Aldermanic Courtesy
• Air Quality
• Gentrification
• Large-Scale Development

For more detail of each question and each response see the summary prepared by 15th ward resident Steve Wilke-Shapiro.One question related to pollution/air quality. Mr. Shrewsbury spoke of legislation he passed related to prohibiting the burning of medical waste. Mr. Reed indicated he would support future legislation similar to the bill passed by Ald. Flowers prohibiting the burning of medical waste. So who sponsored the bill on medical waste? Well, quite a few aldermen did. In fact, the bill (now Ordinance #65701) had 23 sponsors out of a possible 29. It would appear both Pres. Shrewsbury and Ald. Flowers were the primary sponsors. Aldermen Carter, Bauer, Florida, Long, Roddy, Villa, Clay, Ryan, McMillan, Smith, Ortmann, Reed, Sondermann, Gregali, Krewson, Schmid, Conway, Ozier, Kirner, Kennedy and Heitert all joined in. So Shrewsbury was a sponsor and Reed was a co-sponsor. That didn’t help me in distinquishing between the two candidates.

In fact, not much was helpful. Overall I’d say Shrewsbury gave more direct answers with some specific examples whereas Reed stayed more general. Still, neither seemed to offer a radically different perspective on the questions. It was not like Democrats vs. Republicans debating gay marriage.

Immediately following the presentations the eligible members of the 15th Ward Democrats voted to endorse Mr. Reed in the race. I have inquired directly and on several sites as to the voting process. The reason I was curious is it seemed to me that half the room was people from the press or workers/volunteers for each of the two candidates. I estimate that roughly only 10 or so were from the 15th ward and a couple of those were not eligible to vote in the endorsement.

Remember that I said at the opening not to confuse the 15th Ward Democrats with the Democrats of the 15th Ward, let me elaborate. The Democrats of the 15th Ward is the old guard if you will, and that ward group is a closed ward. That is, the membership is not allowed to vote. I’m not even sure they have any actual members. However, the two leaders of that group, Greg Thomas & Jo Ann Perkins, were both elected in 2000 & 2004 to represent the Democrats of the 15th ward (in 2004 Thomas received over 1,600 votes while Perkins received over 1,700 votes). Neither were opposed in 2000 or 2004, just as Ald. Jennifer Florida was not opposed in 2005.

So this other group, the 15th Ward Democrats, is not elected by anyone. They are a political action committee (PAC) that was formed because they were unhappy with the closed ward group. Their website indicates they are an “open” ward where members are allowed to vote in endorsements. Yet, when I inquired about their membership numbers, how many voted last night and such I was told they don’t disclose such information. Doesn’t sound very open does it?

I can understand not wanting to indicate the outcome of the ward vote — they are indicating they as a group back the person they selected, in this case Ald. Reed. I have to respect that as they want to be a united group to support their selected candidate. Still, they can disclose the number of eligible voting members as well as the number of those that participated in the ward vote without damaging that united front. Again, I believe it to have been around 10 people that comprised the vote. Frankly I don’t care if it was 6-4, 9-1 or 10-0 for Reed, I want to know how representative these groups are relative to the number of residents and registered voters. In 2004 the 15th ward had 5,759 registered voters so personally I don’t see much difference between a “closed” ward where the two duly-elected democratic representatives endorse candidates and a small group of 10 people in an “open” ward endorse candidates.

UPDATE 1/11/2007 @ 8:45am — I totally forgot to mention, in order to comment on the “open” 15th Ward Democrats blog you must be a registered user of blogspot yourself.  This, of course, dramatically limits feedback they might receive.  The software offers other options for feedback while still controlling for spam but then just anyone could comment.

Candidates for Aldermanic President Not Impressing Me So Far

Incumbent Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury is facing a strong challenge from 6th Ward Alderman Lewis Reed in the primary election to be held on March 6th. Unless an independent petitions to be on the April ballot (deadline is February 12th, hint hint, nudge nudge), one of these two men will be the next President of the Board of Aldermen and the other will be out of political office, at least temporarily.
So far Jim Shrewsbury seems to be running on a platform of starting board meetings on time and following the law. Well, I would certainly hope so! Reed, on the other hand, is bragging about how much development has happened in his ward during his tenure. The problem I have with Reed on this issue is how he is trying to say he’d be a better board president because he has produced so many millions in development while Shrewsbury has not.

I see the President’s job to run the administrative side of the Board of Alderman and to vote on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. The President’s job is not to start doing development deals throughout the city. Shrewsbury needs better arguments than simply starting meetings on time or following the law. Reed needs to think about what it is the President should be doing and suggest how he is better qualified to do those things than his opponent. Reed needs to understand that if elected his days of brokering development deals are over.  Right now neither candidate is impressing me.

We’ll see how they do at tonight’s candidate forum sponsored by the 15th Ward Democrats, 7pm at the Carpenter Branch Library on South Grand (see map). On-street parking is available along with a small parking lot accessible off of McDonald (a one-way street so you’d need to enter from the West). A bike rack is located on the Grand side near the main entrance. The library is also along the #70 Grand bus line.