Private Gate Blocks Public Sidewalk in Midtown, Ties to the Castle Ballroom

Often I encounter annoying things as I make my way around the city, dismissing many as flukes. I took photos of a gate blocking the public sidewalk on November 28, 2012 and again on March 7, 2014.

This is the side gate for 2840 Locust St., owned by Barry Adelstein & Scott Gundolf. Years ago the renter of the property was Michael McMillan, former alderman, license collector, and cureently head of the Urban League of St. Louis. To my knowledge he still lives here. This property is directly north of the neglected Castle Ballroom.

The owner of the Castle Ballroom is SAG PROPERTIES LLC, with tax bills sent to 2840 Locust St.  Documents show Scott Gundolf is the President of SAG Properties LLC.   He’s also a licensed real estate broker with One West Associates, Barry Adelstein is also a licensed broker.

Just what is the relationship between Michael McMillan, Barry Adelstein, and Scott Gundolf? McMillan’s close associate, Marlene Davis, became the 19th ward alderman when he was elected to the office of license collector. Adelstein was a partner with Marlene Davis in a failed midtown bar, Gene Lynn’s, which closed in 2008.  Davis was forced to file for bankruptcy in 2010.

Did these associations help get officials to look the other way regarding maintenance of the Castle Ballroom building? And to a lessor degree, feel like it’s ok to block the public sidewalk with a private gate? But wait, there’s more!

The real estate deal in question involves the old Castle Ballroom at 2839 Olive, which Rainford says Reed bought and sold for a large profit, before helping the developer who bought it get a taxbreak. Reed’s campaign says sale was profitable, because it happened during the 2004 market peak; and the tax break was sought by the alderman in that ward, passed unanimously by the board, then signed by Mayor Slay. (KMOX)

A tax break? There’s much more to this, I suspect! Plus I don’t want the gate left open blocking the public sidewalk.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Keep President of the Board of Aldermen Position Elected Citywide; Salary Elevated After 1981 Charter Change

In the poll last week readers indicated they didn’t want to change the city charter with respect to the office of President of the Board of Aldermen:

Q: Should the President of the Board of Aldermen be selected from within the BoA or continue as a citywide office?

1. Keep office elected citywide 39 [52%]
2. St. Louis needs to stop tweaking its 100 year old charter and start fresh 16 [21.33%]
3. Aldermen should elect presiding officer from within their ranks 14 [18.67%]
4. Unsure/no opinion 4 [5.33%]
5. Other: 2 [2.67%]
   1. abolish the position
   2. Term limits are more important.

I hoped a majority would’ve selected the #2 answer, to start over with a new charter. Our charter has been changed many times over the last 100 years. Until 1981, the President of the Board of Aldermen salary wasn’t much more than each of the 28 Aldermen.

Mayor Conway succeeded in getting voters to lift the $25,000 salary limit that had been contained in the city charter. Some saw the salary cap as a hindrance in recruiting and retaining highly qualified civil servants. (Wikipedia) 

After the charter was changed to lift the cap, the president’s salary was given a big boost from the roughly 10-12% premium over the alderman’s compensation. Tom Zych was president for two terms (1979-1987), followed by Tom Villa, Francis Slay, Jim Shrewsbury, and now Lewis Reed. Zych’s 2nd term was the first with the higher salary.

I think our structure deserves at least being examined. Perhaps we’ve got the best possible charter, but we won’t know until we compare to alternatives.

— Steve Patterson

Poll: Should the President of the Board of Aldermen be selected from within the BoA or continue as a citywide office?

A recent article caught my eye because of the suggestion of a major change in governance in St. Louis government:

For decades, the politicians in City Hall’s marble-columned aldermanic chamber have jostled and jockeyed for power.

Now, as they gather this morning to celebrate the city’s 250th birthday, some are contemplating changes that would fundamentally recast the municipal makeup.

One of those would hand the aldermen more power by having them choose the president of the Board of Aldermen, an office that has long been elected by a citywide popular vote.

No bill has been written or introduced, but the possibility is filled with intrigue because St. Louis’ system of government vests considerable power in the board president’s office — and Mayor Francis Slay’s chief electoral opponent from last year, Lewis Reed, holds its gavel. (stltoday)

This isn’t about Slay & Reed though, it’s about the city’s charter — it’ll be 100 years old in June.

Most legislative bodies elect their leader from within their ranks. St. Louis County Council, for example, has 7 members. They elect a chairman from within. District 2 Councilman Kathleen Kelly Burkett is currently Chairman, current Councilmen Hazel Erby (Dist 1) & Greg Quinn (Dist 7) have both served as Chairman of the council. Would any of these three be able to win a countywide election to be chairman?  Probably not.  But being a good leader and being able to win a wide popular vote are two separate issues.

Either citizens 100 years ago got it right, or wrong, by having our legislative leader elected citywide. In 8 years the number of wards in the city will be cut in half — from 28 to 14. I think it’s worth considering having the leader of the Board of Aldermen not be elected citywide, but chosen from within among the 14. So this is the topic of the poll question this week, you can vote in the right sidebar.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Overwhelmingly Support Reduction of Police Districts

In the unscientific poll last week readers gave approval to Police Chief Sam Dotson’s reduction in police districts:

Q: Your thoughts on the number of St. Louis Police districts being reduced from nine to six

1. Good move, better distribution of officers 53 [76.81%]
2. Won’t make any measurable difference in reducing crime 9 [13.04%]
3. Unsure/No Opinion 5 [7.25%]
4. Other: 2 [2.9%]
5. Should’ve stayed with 9 districts 0 [0%]
6. Should’ve increased the number of districts to match wards 0 [0%]

Here’s the two “other” answers:

1. No change in crime; but less expensive for the City
2. Probably won’t reduce/ increase crime, but it MAY reduce some operational costs.

It’ll be interesting to see if it has a measurable impact on crime statistics. Regardless, I do think it’ll boost the perception of improved law enforcement.

— Steve Patterson

Readers OK With New Light Bulb Efficiency Standards

Last week some of you were probably thinking a poll about light bulbs was trivial. Who cares, right? It was news reports in January that got me thinking about the subject.  You see, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 received bipartisan support, including 36 House Republicans, in 2007 and was signed into law by President Bush.   That didn’t stop Republicans from trying to defund enforcement since taking control of the House after the 2010 mid-term elections. July 2011:

House Republicans on Tuesday failed to advance a measure that would repeal regulations that increase efficiency standards for light bulbs, rules that they have assailed as an example of government overreach.  (NY Times: G.O.P. Bid to Void Light Bulb Law Fails)

Like vehicles, the government isn’t banning the incandescent, just raising performance standards:

Now, incandescent bulbs aren’t “banned” under this standard, as is often suggested. Manufacturers can still produce incandescents, so long as they meet these energy standards. Companies like Philips have been doing just that, putting out incandescent bulbs that are filled with halogen gas, so that the filament burns more efficiently.

But it’s true that the traditional, cheaper incandescents that cost 50 cents a bulb are getting phased out, since they can’t meet the standard. As of Jan. 1, 2014, it is illegal to manufacture or import these bulbs. Stores can sell off their remaining stockpile. But, eventually, those old bulbs will be gone. Home Depot says it only has a supply that will last six months. (There have even been reports of bulb hoarding.) (Washington Post: Republicans are still trying to save traditional lightbulbs. It likely won’t work.)

This, as you might expect, has free market types upset. Never mind that taxpayers subsidize energy production. Some might think this is another example of interfering with business, pushing companies to develop new technologies against their will. Not exactly:

So some years ago, Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards. “We felt that we needed to make a call, and show that the best-known lighting technology, the incandescent light bulb, is at the end of its lifetime,” says Harry Verhaar, the company’s head of strategic sustainability initiatives. Philips told its environmental allies it was well positioned to capitalize on the transition to new technologies and wanted to get ahead of an efficiency movement that was gaining momentum abroad and in states like California. Other manufacturers were more wary, but they also understood the downside to selling a ubiquitous commodity: the profit margin on a bulb that sells for a quarter is negligible. After much negotiation, the industry and environmental groups agreed to endorse tightening efficiency by 25 to 30 percent. (NY Times: Bulb In, Bulb Out)

The lighting industry and environmentalists together backed the change in standards!  The new standards are getting people to think about light bulbs.

No more 2 for $1. I’m not complaining though, I’m glad to see new LED lighting come down in price. We have three LED light fixtures now plus three LED light bulbs in older fixture. The last three are from Philips, their Hue “personal wireless lighting”  system — I bought the set on the first day available in the US, the Apple Store at The Galleria hadn’t even set up their display yet. Eighteen months later it keeps getting better with app developers improving functionality.

Each weekday morning our lights come on a little one minute before our alarm goes off and over the next 9 minutes come up to full brightness.  When was the last time you got excited about light bulbs?

Anyway, here are the results from last week’s poll:

Q: 40 & 60 watt incandescent light bulbs on store shelves are the last ones, thoughts?

1. No biggie, I/We use CFLs &/or LEDs 29 [34.94%]
2. Good, they waste too much energy 20 [24.1%]
3. Oh no, I’d better go stock up 17 [20.48%]
4. Unsure/No Opinion 6 [7.23%]
5. Other: 6 [7.23%]
6. I’ve got enough to last me a few years 4 [4.82%]
7. I was counting on the GOP to repeal the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 signed by Bush 1 [1.2%]

And here are the “other” answers:

1. Poor Easy-Bake Ovens….
2. Will miss the heat they provide! Used in thermoregulation e.g. bird rehab.
3. It’s just light bulbs
4. I’ll just buy them direct from China
5. Absoutely against it – why was this not an option?
6. Incandescent were much better

Hopefully we can move on now as the demand for new lighting has caught up to technological advancements.

— Steve Patterson