Readers Split On Best Age For Legal Tobacco Sales

The Sunday Poll got more votes than usual, but the voting pattern stayed consistent for the 12 hours the poll was open. This indicates to me the subject was controversial & interesting — but the poll was not the target of a campaign to influence the final outcome.  Here are the results:

Q: What’s the right age for legal tobacco sales?

• 12: 1 [1.69%]
• 15: 2 [3.39%]
• 18: 25 [42.37%]
• 21: 25 [42.37%]
• 24: 0 [0%]
• Ban cigarettes: 6 [10.17%]
• Unsure/No Answer: 0 [0%]

Ten percent were unrealistic — picking the option to ban legal sales. I abhor tobacco, but a ban on sales isn’t a good idea. So why this topic?

A measure to raise the age to buy tobacco from 18 to 21 in Illinois got initial approval Tuesday, with the lawmaker behind the proposal telling colleagues he wants to make it harder for youth to pick up a lifelong habit.

“Smoking will kill you and before it kills you it will harm your lungs, your heart and other various organs,” said Chicago Democratic Sen. John Mulroe, the bill sponsor, before reading the surgeon general’s warning on a box of cigarettes during a committee hearing.

The bill comes as California Gov. Jerry Brown considers whether to sign legislation that would raise the tobacco-buying age to 21 in his state. Last year, Hawaii became the first state in the country to do so.

The Senate advanced Mulroe’s bill to the full chamber on a 6-3 vote. (Post-Dispatch)

I’ll be watching to see if SB3011 passes the Illinois General Assembly. We know that many kids start smoking well before their 18th birthday, would increasing the legal age to 21 make any difference? I can’t speak to that, but the Tobacco 21 movement thinks it can help reduce teens from smoking:

After a decade of consistent decreases in tobacco use by teenagers, The National Youth Tobacco Survey reports that in 2014 overall use of tobacco among youth rose, exposing dangerous new trends. Clever marketing by the tobacco industry, pushing small cigars, hookahs, e-cigarettes, and flavored vaping products, has put millions of young people at risk of lifelong lethal nicotine addiction.

There is no one magic bullet for preventing youth tobacco use. Increased taxes, counter-marketing and school programs all play a role. However, funding has shriveled and tax increases face mounting opposition causing fewer and fewer to be enacted. There is now growing interest in another tool: access restriction to age 21.

Last month the California legislature voted to raise the age to 21, Gov Brown hasn’t yet signed the measure.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Opposed To Naming St. Louis Cardinals Official Baseball Team of Missouri

The St. Louis Cardinals home opener is Monday, downtown will be packed with Cardinals fans. A mile away we can hear the fireworks when they get a home run.

In the non-scientific Sunday Poll more than three-quarters (78.43%) oppose a bill in the Missouri House that would name the St. Louis Cardinals the official MLB team of Missouri:

Q: If passed, a bill in Jefferson City would make the St. Louis Cardinals the official baseball team of Missouri. Support or oppose?

• Strongly support 7 [13.73%]
• Support 0 [0%]
• Somewhat support 1 [1.96%]
• Neither support or oppose 2 [3.92%]
• Somewhat oppose 2 [3.92%]
• Oppose 17 [33.33%]
• Strongly oppose 21 [41.18%]
• Unsure/No Answer 1 [1.96%]

Why would so many be opposed? Because Missouri has two MLB teams — the Cardinals and Kansas City Royals.  How would we feel if a legislator from the KC region wanted to name the Royals the official state team? Now if Rep Courtney Curtis wants to name the St. Louis Blues the official hockey team for Missouri or the Kansas City Chiefs the official NFL team for Missouri I don’t think anyone would object. Of course, when you only have one of something it’s sorta the state’s team by default.  There’s no incentive to when you have two of something to make one official.

I emailed Rep Curtis and suggested he withdraw HB2831 — and copied my state rep so he’d know my position.

— Steve Patterson

New NGA West Location Will Gut St. Louis Place Neighborhood, Not Revitalize What Remains

The National Geospatial Agency decided to keep its Western headquarters in the City of St. Louis. The narrative around this decision is summed up nicely here:

The decision means the city will keep 3,100 jobs, currently housed at the Old Arsenal complex south of Anheuser-Busch brewery, and move them to a $1.75 billion development just northwest of downtown. The move is expected to further the city’s pursuit of redeveloping the near North Side with a massive federal anchor — something that could lure more investment to the struggling area, but also give a major boost to nearby Washington Avenue. (Post-Dispatch)

I get the first part — keeping thousands of jobs within the city. I do hear that many of the 3,100 don’t live in the City of St. Louis — they aren’t thrilled about driving to North City. But, it’s the second part that I don’t get — how does putting many acres behind chainlink fencing help those outside the fence?

The NGA’s high-security entrance will be facing Jefferson Ave — it’ll turn its back on the remaining neighborhood.  The NGA as an anchor institution? Hardly:

Anchor institutions are nonprofit institutions that once established tend not to move location. Emerging trends related to globalization—such as the decline of manufacturing, the rise of the service sector, and a mounting government fiscal crisis—suggest the growing importance of anchor institutions to local economies. Indeed, in many places, these anchor institutions have surpassed traditional manufacturing corporations to become their region’s leading employers. If the economic power of these anchor institutions were more effectively harnessed, they could contribute greatly to community wealth building. The largest and most numerous of such nonprofit anchors are universities and non-profit hospitals (often called “eds and meds”). Over the past two decades, useful lessons have been learned about how to leverage the economic power of universities in particular to produce targeted community benefits. (Source)

Once open, the NGA will be like the current site. Thousands will drive there, do their job, drive home. They won’t be running outside the barbwire fence to grab lunch. An employee living in, say Arnold, isn’t suddenly going to move to the neighborhood. A high-security government spy agency will never be a neighborhood anchor.

For those employees driving to work from Arnold, they currently drive 15.8 miles, about 20 minutes or so each way. The new location will be 20 miles, roughly 30 minutes or more.  For others, the commute to work will be shorter.

The best we can hope for is its presecence convinces others to consider relocating to the former Pruitt-Igoe site, South across Cass Ave. MetroBus might improve frequency to the area…might.

Jefferson Ave & Cass Ave both need to be updated — fewer & narrower lanes, new sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.

Sadly, our leadership still thinks razing block after block — totally erasing the street grid — is a positive thing to do. Is is 2016 or 1946?

— Steve Patterson

Readers Support 3 of 5 Propositions on Tuesday’s Ballot

Here are the results from the Sunday Poll (see for full ballot language):

PROPOSITION E Shall the earnings tax of 1%, imposed by the City of St. Louis, be continued for a period of five (5) years commencing January 1…

• YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 32 [78.05%]
• NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 9 [21.95%]
• Undecided 0 [0%]

PROPOSITION F $25 million dollar bond

• YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 26 [72.22%]
• NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 8 [22.22%]
• Undecided 2 [5.56%]

PROPOSITION 1 School Tax Levy Increase

• YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 25 [69.44%]
• NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 10 [27.78%]
• Undecided 1 [2.78%]

PROPOSITION Y MSD Bonds

• YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 19 [43.18%]
• NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 22 [50%]
• Undecided 3 [6.82%]

PROPOSITION S MSD Property Tax for operations

• YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 12 [31.58%]
• NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 24 [63.16%]
• Undecided 2 [5.26%]

The polls here are non-scientific, actual voting will vary.

Until there’s a vote on a tax to replace the earnings tax, I’ll vote to continue every five years.  I’m still uncertain on the other four, though I’m inclined to vote yes on all of them. Anyone want to argue the pro or con position on any of these?

— Steve Patterson

$4.1 Million Dollar Judgement Against Owner of Condemned Parking Garage

In July 2014 the parking garage at Tucker & Locust closed for repairs. It seemed routine at the time.

It turns out the damage to the post-tensioned structure was more extensive than originally known. Since my original July 2014 tweet, I’ve posted quite a bit about it:

• December 2014: Parking Garage Undergoing Time-Consuming Multi-Million Dollar Restoration; Businesses Closed, Jobs Lost
• April 2015: Parking Garage Repairs Halted, Emergency Structural Condemnation Issued
• July 2015: Car Hit Planters & Scaffolding Outside Condemned Parking Garage
• July 2015: Readers: New Building Should Replace Condemned Parking Garage
• January 2016: Court Documents Shed Some Light On Condemned Parking Garage

Central Parking System, who operated the garage, sued the owners — two LLCs that begin with Tucker Parking.  Tucker Parking countersued.

On March 22nd Judge Dowd ruled:

JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S ORDERS OF OCTOBER 13, 2015 AND JANUARY 21, 2016, WHICH THE COURT EXPRESSLY INCORPORATES HEREIN, THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS:

1. BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COUNT I) AND BREACH OF LEASE (COUNT II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

So Central lost on their first two counts against Tucker. Let’s continue…

2. ON PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC’S CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT (COUNT III), THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF FOUR MILLION ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-SIX CENTS ($4,161,424.76).

Ouch. What is “unjust enrichment” anyway? The Wax Legal Dictionary defines it as:

The retention of a benefit conferred by another, that is not intended as a gift and is not legally justifiable, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. 

The elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment are:  the enrichment of the party accused of unjust enrichment; that such enrichment was at the expense of the party seeking restitution; and the circumstances were such that in equity and good conscience restitution should be made.  An additional requirement is that the party accused of unjust enrichment must know of the benefit conferred; to ensure that the benefit was not foisted on the recipient and is something for which compensation is reasonably expected.

Recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment typically occurs where there was no contract between the parties, or a contract turns out to be invalid.

The specifics of this principal aren’t clear to me from the ruling.

3. ON DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC’S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC FOR BREACH OF LEASE (COUNT I), THE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC IN PART AND IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC IN PART. SPECIFICALLY, TO THE EXTENT DEFENDANTS BASE THEIR BREACH OF LEASE CLAIM ON CENTRAL PARKING’S ALLEGED OBLIGATION TO REPAIR THE GARAGE’S POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE TERM, THE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI LLC. TO THE EXTENT DEFENDANTS BASED THEIR BREACH OF LEASE CLAIM ON CENTRAL PARKING’S ALLEGED OBLIGATION TO REPAIR DETERIORATION OR DELAMINATION TO THE GARAGE’S CONCRETE SURFACE BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE TERM, THE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC. HOWEVER, THE COURT FINDS THAT TUCKER CANNOT PROVE ANY DAMAGES FOR THIS BREACH BECAUSE, AS SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S ORDER OF OCTOBER 13, 2015, THE GARAGE IS AT THE END OF ITS USEFUL LIFE, THE GARAGE’S POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM IS BEYOND REPAIR, AND THE FAILURE OF THE POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM WAS DUE TO NORMAL OR ORDINARY “WEAR AND TEAR.” AS A RESULT, THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC.

Above we can get the message — the garage can’t be repaired.

4. ON DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC FOR WASTE (COUNT III), NEGLIGENCE (COUNT IV), AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COUNT V), THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC.

5. BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT DISMISSES DEFNDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES, LLC’S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION FOR SUIT ON GUARANTY (COUNTII), WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6. COSTS ARE ASSESSED AGAINST DEFENDANTS TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC AND TUCKER PARKINGS EQUITIES, LLC PURSUANT TO RULE 77.01. SO ORDERED: 32929-JUDGE DAVID L. DOWD

So who owns this garage, who is behind these two Tucker Parking LLCs?

Both were created in Missouri on April 19, 2007, indicating a home state in Delaware. TUCKER PARKING EQUITIES LLC was formed in Delaware two days earlier. City records indicate tax bills are mailed to 24 Church Street, Montclair NJ.

The legal battle may continue for a while. Still, we can accept some facts:

• The existing garage is unusable, it’ll need to be razed eventually.
• The owner isn’t in St. Louis.
• The owner of the adjacent former Post-Dispatch building would like to have parking for tenant use.
• Many downtown residents, myself included, don’t want any surface parking or even more obvious parking garages.

I contacted 7th Ward Alderman Jack Coatar via email, who said:

It is my understanding that this garage has reached the end of its lifespan and that it would be extremely expensive to shore up this garage and make it safe to use. I would like to see the garage demolished and replaced with another parking structure that includes a first floor retail component.

I would like the development committee of the Downtown Neighborhood Association’s Planning and Zoning Committee to take an active role in the planning for any future use of this site.

If a new garage is built, I’d like it to be enclosed with an exhaust system rather than being open.

— Steve Patterson