Have You Heard of the ‘Market Street Interconnect Project’?

I had not heard the phrase “Market Street Interconnect Project” until I was reviewing board bills for introduction tomorrow at the Board of Aldermen. From Board Bill 338 to be introduced by Lewis Reed (D-6th Ward):

An Ordinance, recommended and approved by the Board of Public Service of the City of St. Louis (the “Board of Public Service”), establishing a public works and improvement project for the design and construction of the Market Street Interconnect Project between Compton Avenue and Tucker Boulevard (the “Market Street Interconnect Project”); and authorizing and directing the City of St. Louis (the “City”) by and through its Board of Public Service to let contracts and provide for the design, construction, materials, and equipment for the Market Street Interconnect Project, authorizing the Board of Public Service to employ labor and consultants, pay salaries, fees and wages, acquire real property interests, and to enter into supplemental agreements with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Federal Highway Administration, utilities, and other governmental agencies for the Market Street Interconnect Project all in accordance with the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 110, et seq.)

It looks as though the design & construction of the project is estimated at $1.55 million with the city’s 20% match being $310,000, the balance coming from federal transportation money. I’ve read through the entire bill and nowhere does it actually state what the project is. I can tell it involves Market Street from Tucker (aka 12th) to Compton (basically end of Market) but beyond that I have no clue.

Along the route is the 22nd Street Interchange, just West of Union Station. From MoDot:

The I-64 at 22nd Street Interchange is the key entry into the St. Louis Central Business District (CDB). It will stimulate development of vacant land and reuse of older, underutilized buildings. The current interchange configuration consists of high-speed ramps, which take up a significant amount of state owned land that could be made available for higher density uses compatible with surrounding activities and supported by transportation infrastructure. The location of the interchange area is in the Locust Business District, a Special Taxing District and political subdivision of the State of Missouri, which is in the process of carrying out initiatives to revitalize the residential and business opportunities in the area and improve the economic well being of the area.

Reworking this old space-consuming interchange should be a top priority for the city, and a natural fit while looking at anything along Market Street. A competition is also being planned for the tired Gateway Mall area so I don’t know how the Market Street Interconnect Project fits in with those intentions. I certainly known the length of Market from Jefferson to Compton, adjacent to A.G. Edwards is depressing and unwelcoming. I suppose we’ll know more about this once the design is complete and they ask for public input.

My First Time Meeting Patrick Cacchione, 6th Ward Candidate for Alderman

I had a brief chance meeting with 6th Ward Aldermanic candidate Patrick Cacchione earlier tonight. There I was with a friend finishing up my hot chocolate at The Gelateria and in walks Cacchione and a 6th Ward resident volunteering on his campaign. The volunteer introduces us and I say, “While you are here, do you know about the valet parking issue?” To which Cacchione responds to the effect of, “I think you’ve already made up your mind.” At first I thought he was referencing the valet parking — yes I’ve made up my mind I thought to myself.

After that initial second I relealized he was referencing my December 19th post entitled, “I Know One Candidate I Am Not Endorsing.” Here are a couple of paragraphs from that post:

After witnessing the 6th ward executive meeting from two tables away last night I can say this, there is no way in hell that I’d endorse Patrick Cacchione for alderman. He is clearly an integral part of the factional ward system I seek to destroy. This is the very system that has been holding back our city for decades. Why do we allow our city to be run this way?

In the end I may not make any endorsements at all, I might find reason enough to write-off every last candidate in the upcoming election. To one degree or another they all play the ward game. We’ll see what happens over the next couple of months but at the moment I can scratch one name off my list: Patrick Cacchione.

He indicated they were there for coffee and turned around, he was unwilling to talk. I can’t exactly say I blame him for not wanting to be chatty, I was a bit strong on my commentary. Still, we are in a popular establishment located in the 6th Ward and he just met a friend of mine that happens to live downtown. Cacchione certainly didn’t make a good impression on her!

Candidates and elected officials have to be able to have conversations and deal with those who are critical of them. Yes, I made it clear he would not be getting my endorsement but he had a golden opportunity to make me feel like a heal for such a position. Boy did he miss his chance! Is this how Cacchione will treat others who voice objections to him?

How To Save the City Up to $125K Every Two Years!

Yes, with my sure fire plan we can save city taxpayers roughly $125,000 every two years.  How?  Simple, switch to non-partisan elections for local offices and eliminate the March primary.  I spoke with a Deputy Director of the St. Louis Board of Elections, Gary Stoff, who indicated the upcoming March primary will cost the taxpayers between $100,000 to $125,000.

With Republicans, Libertarians and Greens not even able to fill all their ward committee positions the idea of having a partisan primary election before a general election is silly.  We all know the real election in St. Louis is the Democratic primary in March every two years.  Yet we also have to have a general election in April for school board seats and that rare example of a challenger from another party.  I think we’ve only seen independent candidates in special elections when an alderman is recalled.

So, with nearly everyone as Democrats it is really pointless to waste the time and money on a primary and general election every two years.  Plus, with only a single general election in the Spring every two years we could possibly get more voters to the polls rather than have to push for them to show up in March and again in April for the school board elections.

Locally the democratic ward committees seem to focus much of their attention on races such as state house, state senate and bigger races such as statewide offices, congress and president.  Switching our local elections to non-partisan, such as most of those in our region, would not negate these groups from supporting Democratic candidates for state and national offices.

Board Members Violated Missouri Sunshine Law

From the St. Louis Business Journal comes a story of violations of Missouri’s open meetings law by “several current and past members” of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (aka MOHELA):

In the settlement, MOHELA and the other defendants agreed that “various procedures and communications” related to the meetings constituted violations of the Sunshine Law, but they deny that they “knowingly, purposefully or willfully” violated the law.

…MOHELA agreed to comply with the Sunshine Law and take steps to ensure its compliance, including establishing a written policy and providing annual training sessions for MOHELA’s board and employees.

Were talking about a board responsible for $6.5 billion in assets, per the Business Journal. Imagine some of the little local boards that get even less attention. Do the board members all “chat” beforehand and have a sense how they are going to vote? I wonder if St. Louis has any written policy for board members to follow? Any training they receive just to make sure they don’t accidently tread into waters they should not? This should be a wake up call that individuals serving on these board can end up making mistakes and paying fines for them.

Conveniently, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has a Sunshine Law Quiz for the public (11 questions) and a member of a public body (10 questions).  I suggest taking both as they cover different areas of the law.  Below is an example with the correct answer in bold and the followup explaination afterwards:

10) Your public body has formally established a three person committee to review bids for city trash service. The three person committee intends to report back its recommendations to the full body. After the committee meeting, two of the committee members continue to discuss the merits of the bids submitted. What best characterizes this development?
a)    Discussions by committee members, even outside the meeting, are allowed because the committee cannot make any final decisions anyway.
b)    Two committee members are not a quorum of the city council and so there is nothing illegal about this discussion.
c)    While the two members of a committee do represent a quorum of a public body, there is no violation if they merely discuss the bids but do not make a decision about who to recommend.
d)    This discussion is a violation of the Sunshine Law because a discussion of public business among a quorum of a committee is illegal if not posted.

By law, the discussion was a meeting because it was a discussion about public business and it took place among a quorum of a committee – see Section 610.010(4)(e) (a majority of the committee was present, 2 out of 3). The discussion was in violation of Sunshine Law because public business was discussed and there was no notice of the meeting posted in advance. 

Gee, do you think a majority of say, the Preservation Board, end up emailing each other about a topic prior to the public meeting?  They’d better hope not.  Of course, a Sunshine Law request for email records might shed some light.

James Trout Challenges Missouri’s New “Ethics” Law in Court

Today James Trout, a St. Louis County resident, filed a lawsuit against the State of Missouri challenging the new “ethics” law known as H.B. 1900. From AP/KWMU:

The law that took effect Monday repeals state limits on individual campaign contributions.

It also prohibits any contributions to those seeking a state office while the Legislature is in session.

A lawsuit filed today contends the fundraising blackout violates free speech protections.

The case was filed in the 19th Judicial Circuit (Cole County — Jefferson City) earlier today, a motion hearing is set for noon on Friday before Judge Richard C. Callahan. Trout, through his attorney Charles Hatfield of Jefferson City, is seeking a temporary injunction. Trout, a Democrat, recently lost his first race for office against Republican State Rep. Kathlyn Fares.

I called Jim Trout at home to get more information. Basically he makes a good argument that the new law overly favors incumbents. Essentially, campaigning is prohibited while the Missouri legislature is in session. Sounds fair right? Except that incumbents can be talking with potential contributors during this time but a potential challenger is prohibited from being out on the campaign trail trying to drum up support and needed contributions. Not so good.

Invalidating, or just an injunction, could have implications here in St. Louis as candidates for the President of the Board of Aldermen and a number of aldermanic seats are likely counting on not having any limits to contributions leading up to the March 6, 2007 primary. I presume the blackout during session does not apply to the local level.

Attorney General Jay Nixon, also a Democrat, is responsible for defending the law. However, Jay Nixon is running for Governor and if the law remains in place he cannot receive contributions during the legislative session. Will his office “settle” the lawsuit by declaring it unconstitutional? You can track the case on Casenet.  Update 10:50pm — blog post from Post-Dispatch.