Alderwoman Florida To Discuss Proposed McDonald’s

I recently commented on the land swap that would mean the construction of a new McDonald’s fast-food franchise on the site of the former Sears store on Grand at Winnebego. An upcoming conditional use hearing is reportedly to be held on the 16th but I have not been able to confirm the date, time and place.

However, I have received word that Ald. Florida will be fielding questions from the folks in Dutchtown:

As per the request of the DSCC Board of Directors, Alderwoman Jennifer Florida will meet with the DSCC Board of Directors and Commercial District Committee to discuss the McDonald’s on Monday, February 13, 2006 @ 4:30 PM @ Dutchtown South Community Corporation.

Sunshine Laws require this meeting be open to the public so be sure to attend if you have an interest in this project. The Dutchtown office is located at 4204 Virginia (@ Meramec), 63111 (map)

In short I feel the McDonald’s should not be allowed to build on the site. The fast food structure surrounded by parking and a drive-thru lane is an incompatible use in an urban environment. This section of Grand is becoming increasingly urban and has the potential to extend the feel of the area to the north. Allowing this former Sears site to become a low-use sprawl project is a careless use of resources that will make it increasingly difficult to finish the residential development directly behind the site.

But we are not alone in dealing with dreaded drive-thrus.

McSpotlight.org is a world-wide resource for fighting McDonald’s restaurants. Another great resource is No McDrive-Through!, a Toronto group that successfully prevented a McDonald’s drive-thru from being constructed in their pedestrian neighborhood.

– Steve

Conflict of Interest Within the Mayor’s Administration?

The online version of PubDef Weekly just published an in-depth report on conflicts of interest within Mayor Slay’s administration. At issue is the personal relationship between Deputy Mayor Barbara Geisman and PR Consultant Richard Callow.

The picture painted by Antonio French, at the very least, shows an appearance of conflict if not literal conflict. A must read.

– Steve

On-Street Parking on Washington Avenue — Finally!

Yes folks, we finally have on-street parking along a two-block stretch of Washington Avenue — from 10th to Tucker (aka 12th). Thanks to Ecology of Absence for the heads up on the change. Before we get into the new changes I want to give you some background.

Getting on-street parking has been a topic of mine for sometime now, it first came up on December 29, 2004 when I was reviewing the recently completed streetscape improvements in the area. On that post I wrote:

Downtown Now’s Tom Reeves was quoted in a St. Louis Business Journal story about the improvements:

“The idea is to make a safe, pedestrian-friendly environment so we can have tourists, convention goers, residents and business people all walking up and down the street,” he said. “That’s going to lead to a lot of new retail business.”

Sorry Tom, despite the attractive benches, street trees and brick pavers this area will not be as pedestrian-friendly as hoped.

Why you ask?

Lack of on-street parking.

Someone made the foolish decision to not have parking on Washington Avenue East of Tucker. This decision is going to have a negative impact on the friendliness of the street by having four lanes of fast moving traffic going by you.

The street will seem dead – parked cars have an amazing ability to indicate that something is going on. Can you imagine sitting on one of those benches near the curb line knowing cars, SUVs & buses are going to be whizzing by just a few feet away? Not me!

As a result, these blocks will not be as successful as the blocks to the West. Just imagine the Loop without on-street parking and four lanes of traffic. Yes, you could get through during rush hour much easier but that shouldn’t be the goal. Think of Euclid without street parking – it would be boring and lifeless.

Expecting to have a successful urban retail street without on-street parking is simply naive. Sure, Chicago’s Michigan Avenue doesn’t have on-street parking but it is an exception rather than the rule. This is so basic a principle it makes me continue to wonder if anyone at City Hall or Downtown Now get what urban life is all about.

This is likely the fault of city traffic engineers or perhaps Downtown Now. Could just be a lack of thought – these blocks didn’t have on-street parking before the improvements. Maybe it was just assumed the parking & traffic lanes would be the same? However it came to be, it is unfortunate. Traffic moving faster is always contrary to pedestrian-friendly.

The good news is this is reversible. Re-stripe the street and install some parking meters and the life of the street will improve dramatically. Plus, this reduces the need for ugly parking lots and garages. But, I’m not optimistic the city will wake up and realize the folly of this mistake.
I revisited the issue again on July 1, 2005 in a post called ‘East Washington Avenue: To Park or Not To Park?’

This evening on the way to the First Friday Gallery and Design Walk downtown I couldn’t help but notice cars parked on Washington Avenue East of Tucker. This is special because the street has neither parking meters or no-parking signs. So is it allowed or not? I was excited to see people parking along this stretch of Washington Avenue. It looked and felt so much better. But later what did I spot attached to the lamp posts with string? No-parking signs. At some point after 6:30pm the city came by and attached temporary “no-parking tow away zone signs.” They weren’t ticketing or towing. They were simply trying to keep the area lifeless and sterile.

Five months had passed without any indication of parking being allowed or not allowed. So people started parking on the street when visiting restaurants or galleries. Realizing the error of not blocking parking the city put up paper signs until they could get permanent signs in place to prohibit parking. This was all very deliberate and poorly executed. Two days after this post the Mayor’s blog announced a downtown traffic & parking study.

On July 15, 2005 the issue came up again:

Today Downtown St. Louis Partnership President Jim Cloar included the following in his weekly notes to members:Curb-side parking is prohibited along Washington Avenue east of Tucker. Some “entrepreneurial” motorists realized that “No Parking” signs had not been installed and have been camping out all day, playing havoc with buses, delivery trucks and traffic in general. That has been corrected and tickets will be issued going forward.

The stupidity of his statement is so infuriating. Where does one begin?

I concluded the post stating, “We must rescue our streets from the very organization that is charged with promoting downtown!”

I quickly did a couple more posts on the subject in the following days. On July 17, 2005 I posted an online poll and on July 18, 2005 I posted findings from an informal traffic count.

My most recent post on the subject was this past December in reviewing the draft traffic/parking study:

While they say that on-street parking has not been ruled out I’m suspicious. They hinted at allowing parking except during peak hours. I pointed out after the meeting to Doug Shatto [study consultant] how KitchenK will not use their sidewalk cafe license until they have a row of parked cars to make sidewalk dining more hospitable to their patrons. I also pointed out that Copia is allowed to take a traffic lane for valet parking. If we can take a lane for a valet we can certainly take the balance of the lane for parking as the flow is already restricted. I still want to see on-street parking all the way from Tucker to at least Broadway.

While I was rightfully suspicious in December it also seemed pretty clear that many folks living and working in the area that on-street parking was going to be necessary to continue the vibrant street life we see west of Tucker to the blocks east of Tucker. In between posts I talked up the issue to as many people as possible, including those that might be able to have some influence such as developers Kevin McGowan, Matt O’Leary and Craig Heller. I already knew the city’s Planning & Urban Design director, Rollin Stanley, would be supportive of on-street parking. I just wasn’t sure if he’d be able to charm his political colleagues enough to get them to concede on this issue.

Not sure what finally tipped the scales but this week signs permitting on-street parking were installed.
… Continue Reading

Eminent Domain for Private Use Likely in Hadley Township

This is a first for me, I’m running a guest column. Scott Rendall wanted to tell the following story which relates to my prior post on the Hadley Township area in Richmond Heights:

Joann Bailey lives with her husband one block east of Hanley Rd. in the Hadley Township area, just as she has done since 1964. A retired accountant, she loves where she lives, she loves her modest but well kept and attractive home, she desperately wants to stay, but she may be forced to leave.

Her front window displays a sign reading “Stop Eminent Domain Abuse”, as do the homes of a few other neighbors on her street. But when the Richmond Heights City Council voted to approve the redevelopment of the entire Hadley Township area on Monday, it was clear that if Mrs. Bailey and her neighbors don’t come to an agreement with the developer, the City will use Eminent Domain to force them off their property so that the 60-acre development can move forward.

“Money is not what I want.” says Bailey, “Money is not the issue over my home.” But if the City of Richmond Heights has their way, Bailey’s home will be removed to make room for a parking lot, while others in her neighborhood will have their homes removed to make room for… more expensive, privately owned homes.

The Castle Coalition, a non-profit organization that helps private landowners fight when Cities attempt to use eminent domain to acquire property for other private uses, says there have been more than 10,000 examples of these cases nationwide in just the last five years. The Hadley Township area fits the pattern of many of these land-grabs. The area is one of the first suburban areas in St. Louis developed by African Americans. Indeed, they paid for the original construction of the streets in the neighborhood. The 2000 census indicates that more than ½ of the 1,300 African Americans in Richmond Heights (total pop. 9,800) live in the Hadley Township area. It is an historically African American neighborhood, and today, the property values, or at least the current sale value of the homes, are a small fraction of those neighborhoods around it, where homes go for $130 – 300 K. The homes themselves may not be particularly valuable, but the property is a in a prime location for large scale retail development: Adjacent to the 40/Hanley interchange, across the street from recently built Best Buy, Sports Authority, and Home Depot stores, and right next to the year-old THF developed Wal-Mart /Sam’s Club monstrosity.

Eyed by developers for nearly a decade, THF now owns roughly 24 of the 200 odd properties in the area. Selling to a home-buyer in the area has been impossible for years now as rumors and proposals have swirled around the area. City Council Member Lillian Underwood, who lives in the area herself, has acquired 8 properties. She recused herself from voting, or commenting on the proposals, due to the conflict of interest. But she also told Bailey, who is her neighbor, that she is ‘embarrassed’ of the area, and ‘wants to see it torn down.’ Underwood now stands to make a small fortune if the City can force out the few homeowners who are still resisting moving out.

The City, as recently as a year ago, told Bailey that she would not be asked to leave her home. Since then, Bailey has paid for a new 30-year roof and re-paved her driveway. Recently the City and Developers have been assuring Bailey and other residents that they will be given first crack, and pre-purchase discounts, on the new $200 – 250K homes. But as retirees, Bailey and her husband live on fixed incomes, (as do some of their neighbors) and are concerned they won’t be able to afford the annual property taxes. Bailey says, “We don’t want to give it up, where are we going to find what we have here?”

Missouri Constitution Bill of Rights Section 28 states: That private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes, in the manner prescribed by law; and that when an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative declaration that the use is public.

Following the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, Governor Matt Blunt established a commission to study new guidelines for use of eminent domain. The commission delivered a report in December that recommended that “The public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health, standing alone, shall not constitute a public use.” It is likely that legislation that follows these guidelines will be enacted in August of this year.

Bailey spoke to the City Council and assembled citizens at the Monday meeting before the vote was taken. She pointed out that Maplewood, a city with significant fiscal problems, had just passed an ordinance that prevents the use of eminent domain for private use. She begged the City Council not to take her home. The Council said nothing. Less than an hour later, they voted to approve the Michelson development.

The Michelson plan leaves a few homes which are east of a creek, the Conrad proposal had an option of leaving the same homes. I certainly feel for people that thought they could enjoy retirement in their homes to find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

– Steve

Downtown [Organizations] By The Numbers

Don’t look for any population figures here. This post is about the financial numbers for the two organizations using public funds to ‘improve’ downtown, Downtown Now! and the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. Since our money is used to fund these organizations they are fair game for analysis and criticism.

The figures shown were extracted from 2004 tax returns (source www.guidestar.com). Downtown Now! uses the calendar year as their fiscal year while the Partnership has a July-June fiscal year. Executive Director compensation below is the total of base salary, benefits and expense account.

Here is a quick summary of the basics:

Downtown Now! is much bigger than I thought. But it also has taken on some debts. Its report showed a $10,000,000 loan at the beginning of 2004 but that it was paid off by the end of the year. However, they show other outstanding notes of $1,821,577 at the end of 2004. The maturity date for these notes was 12/31/05. The lenders for these loans were the Danforth Foundation and Bank of America.

Some serious money is spent each year. Lots of salaries, office rent, and travel expenses with too little to show. Yes, each year downtown gets better and better but I think that is a function of more and more residents and the businesses to serve them.

Downtown Now! was supposed to be a temporary organization but I don’t think the powers that be are willing to let it go.

What do you think?

– Steve