Special Taxing Districts in St. Louis

Recent curiosity about special taxing districts has been a can of worms — the number of them just within the City of St. Louis is overwhelming. Plus, they’re not all alike. Some are Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) based on Missouri law, others are special business districts established by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen.  Another type is transportation development districts (TDDs).  Some collect sales taxes, others property taxes, possibly some collect both. Some collect money from business licenses.

These are different than Tax Increment Financing (TIF). From a 2012 Post-Dispatch story:

Local governments and school districts worried about a cash crunch have put extra scrutiny on the use of TIF, which uses future tax revenue generated by a project to help fund its construction. That can sap money from other needs down the road. CIDs and TDDs, on the other hand, don’t touch the tax base. They simply add a new tax on property owners, shoppers or both extra for an extra layer of service.

They are also popular because they’re flexible. Developers and neighborhood groups say CIDs are a way to raise money for things that cash-strapped city governments can’t afford. Many point to the Times Square Business Improvement District, created in the early 1990s by business owners to help clean up the New York City landmark, as an example of their potential. And similar examples exist in St. Louis. Like in The Grove. (Pennies add up as special taxing districts proliferate)

As an 8+ year property owner in the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District I’ve voted on the ongoing management — a state requirement to get approval by a percentage of registered voters. However, the accountably and transparency of these vary greatly.

In 2016 I’ll look into the differences between these districts.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Strongly Disapprove of Stadium Financing Plan

I watched quite a bit of the live stream of the Board of Aldermen special session yesterday as they debated a floor substitute version of Bill 219. Yes, the bill changed after the Sunday Poll was conducted and the BoA began yesterday morning.

More than 75% of those who voted in the non-scientific poll selected a disapprove answer. Conversely, just over 21% approve. Those who “strongly disapprove” accounted for a majority of the votes!

Q: Approve or disapprove of financing plan for a new stadium up for final vote by the Board of Aldermen on Tuesday?

1. Strongly disapprove 37 [56.06%]
2. Disapprove 11 [16.67%]
3. TIE  5 [7.58%]
   1. Strongly approve
   2. Approve
4. TIE 4 [6.06%]
   1. Somewhat approve
   2. Somewhat disapprove
5. TIE 0 [0%]
   1. Neither approve or disapprove
   2. Unsure/No Answer

Despite opposition, the Board of Aldermen advanced the bill:

St. Louis aldermen met in a special session to consider approving the city’s share of funding for a new NFL stadium – $150 million.

The aldermen approved the bill, which will come to a final vote on Friday. (KSDK)

The 2nd special session this week will start at 3pm.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Approve or disapprove of financing plan for a new stadium up for final vote by the Board of Aldermen on Tuesday?

Last week a Board of Aldermen committee moved forward a plan for the financing of $150 million of a $1 billion dollar new stadium. Though our Edward Jones Dome is only 20 years old, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke wants to move the team back to Los Angeles.

On Thursday, an aldermanic committee voted 7-2 to push the bill forward to a vote of the full Board of Aldermen.

The board could debate the matter as early as Friday, but procedural rules will require the board to come back next week for at least one special session to take a final vote. In order to debate the matter at Friday’s planned second reading, the aldermen will need to suspend the rules, requiring support from two-thirds of those present, and fast-track the bill. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

On Friday the bill wasn’t fast tracked so a special session will be held on Tuesday to meet the NFL’s end of the year financing deadline.

The poll closes at 8pm tonight, the answers are randomized.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Increase the Number of Syrian Refugees Coming to St. Louis

Most would agree the influx of Bosnian refugees to St. Louis 20+ years ago was positive — we had plenty of room — still do.

The Bosnian population in St. Louis, Missouri, numbers over 60,000, making it the largest Bosnian community outside of Bosnia. Nearly all of the members of this community came to St. Louis as a result of the war and genocide perpetrated in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. Bosnians were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. as refugees, and St. Louis became a preferred destination due to the availability of jobs and inexpensive housing. St. Louis’s population has continued to grow due to secondary migration of Bosnian refugees from other parts of the U.S. Increasingly, what began as a refugee community is becoming a part of the social fabric of St. Louis, as Bosnian refugees have become citizens, and as a younger generation has increasingly self-identified as Bosnian-American. (Fontbonne University)

The fact the majority identify as Muslim hasn’t been an issue. Yet, somehow, people desperately trying to escape religious extremists in Syria are unwelcomed by our own religious extremists. Thankfully the majority of this blog’s readership is open minded:

Q: Should the number of Syrian refugees coming to St. Louis be changed?

1. Increased significantly 27 [45.76%]
2. Unlimited 13 [22.03%]
3. Kept unchanged 7 [11.86%]
4. Increased somewhat 6 [10.17%]
5. Cut to zero 4 [6.78%]
6. Unsure/No Answer 2 [3.39%]
7. TIE 0 [0%]
   1. Reduced significantly
   2. Reduced somewhat

This was sort of a trick question — no specific number has ever been set. The Slay administration seems open to as many as possible.  Available housing, jobs, etc all play a role.

Be cautious about your sources, especially if they’re seeking the GOP nomination:

Fiorina said the “vast majority of (Syrian) refugees are young, able-bodied men looking for work.”

She repeated the essence of a claim that wasn’t accurate a month earlier and isn’t accurate today. A slight majority of Syrian refugees are female, and men age 18 to 59 comprise about 22 percent of all Syrian refugees.

We rate Fiorina’s claim False. (PolitiFact)

I agree with Sen. Elizabeth Warren — we cannot turn away Syrian refugees.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should The Number of Syrian Refugees Coming to St. Louis Be Changed?

In September we learned St. Louis would welcome refugees from the Syrian civil war.  Last week governors in numerous states changed their minds about accepting these refugees.

Which brings us to today’s poll question:

The poll is open until 8pm, the answers are presented in random order.

— Steve Patterson