91 Municipalities in St. Louis County Too Many, Too Few or Just Right?

Two interesting stories this week, one saying 91 municipalities in St. Louis County is a strength.  The other from an alderman in one of those municipalities, wanting to unincorporate.

Mayors of some of St. Louis County’s 91 municipalities say they’re tired of being portrayed as one of the county’s biggest problems — and they hope to spend 2011 setting the record straight.

“There’s a wrong perception that the number of munipalities [sic] makes (St. Louis County) less competitive,” said Glendale Mayor Rich Magee, president of the St. Louis County Municipal League. “We’re the solution, not the problem.” (The more, the better: Municipal League says county’s many cities are its strength)

Here is the long list:

In contrast is St. George:

Alderman Carmen Wilkerson wants to erase the city she represents from the map.

St. George covers just 0.2 square miles and has a population of about 1,400. Wilkerson says there’s no reason to keep a city so small. She wants it to revert to unincorporated south St. Louis County. (St. George official backs end to city)

The poll question this week asks “91 Municipalities in St. Louis County Too Many, Too Few or Just Right?“  The poll is located in the upper right of the site.

– Steve Patterson

St. Elizabeth Academy’s Historic Structures Should Be Preserved

Contributed by Christian Saller

St. Elizabeth Academy, (SEA) located at 3401 Arsenal Street in the Tower Grove East neighborhood since the late 19th century, seeks to demolish its most historic campus structures. This long-term goal is referenced in brochures produced to promote a “master plan” for the institution. These buildings are structurally sound and have been well maintained. The Tower Grove East Neighborhood Association, while expressing support for and interest in assisting SEA, voted unanimously to oppose this demolition. This action was subsequently communicated to the leadership of SEA and to 6th Ward Alderwoman Kacie Starr Triplett, herself a graduate of the school.

SEA contains historic structures that form the basis of a National Historic District established in the Tower Grove East neighborhood in 1983. The campus includes a 1914 gymnasium with the last known lamella roof in St. Louis. The original school building, facing west on Crittenden Street, was constructed in 1894, with adjacent wings dating from 1914 and 1922. The current plan to consolidate SEA in the 1957-vintage structure on Arsenal Street while abandoning and destroying the original historic structures will exert a negative impact on the established Historic District, the larger neighborhood of Tower Grove East, and the City of St. Louis.

The historic SEA campus fostered development of a distinctive two-block cul de sac, Crittenden Street, which runs from the west side of SEA to a gate at S. Grand Blvd. across from Tower Grove Park. The relationship of SEA to these residential structures is a key aspect of the historic district itself. The buildings on these two residential blocks are of unusually high-quality construction with a cohesiveness of scale, set-back, materials, and architectural detail. It is clear to even casual observers that builders and architects of Crittenden Street saw an opportunity to develop a charming residential district for residents of varying means, with picturesque structures that complement one another while varying in size and occupancy. The presence of SEA made this distinctive street possible, terminating as it does at S. Grand Blvd. near a main pedestrian entrance to Tower Grove Park. The significant relationship between the historic institution and the dwellings to its west was formally articulated in the National Register nomination for the district nearly 30 years ago. The character and atmosphere resulting from this architectural juxtaposition are perhaps unique in the City of St. Louis. From its inception, the Crittenden Historic District accommodated a variety of incomes, institutional, and residential uses that do not merely co-exist but complement one another in an intimate and gracious extended community. At the same time the district includes characteristics commonly seen in more exclusive private streets.

Loss of the historic core of SEA would be a detriment far beyond the loss of the structures themselves. The carefully conceived character of the entire Historic District would be permanently undermined and diminished. In the varying fortunes of the Tower Grove East neighborhood over the years, Crittenden Street was relatively stable and intact, due in part to its unique configuration and the ambiance afforded by the presence of historic SEA. Today, Crittenden Street is a highly desirable place to live and its stability has contributed to the revitalization of adjacent blocks, including Pestalozzi and Arsenal Streets, which border it on the south and north, respectively. Destruction of the core buildings in this district will alter the aesthetic character that makes it historic in the first place and will erode the value of its related structures. Their original, historical reference and context will be gone.

Understandably, institutions such as SEA face challenges in maintaining and utilizing historic structures, as do homeowners with houses of similar age. As part of an established Historic District, the SEA campus is eligible for historic tax credits that could provide 20% to 25% of total project renovation costs. The 1957-vintage structure where the school seeks to consolidate is itself also now potentially eligible for historic tax credits, which was not the case when the district was established. The executive director of Landmarks Association, Jefferson Mansell, has offered pro bono services of his organization to write a historic register nomination for the 1957 building, making it formally part of the historic district and eligible for these credits. If the historic campus behind the 1957 building is destroyed, this structure would not be eligible for credits without the original institutional fabric.

The leaders of SEA should reconsider their stated course of action and recognize the importance of retaining these historic buildings. Practical alternatives to demolition exist and should be exhaustively explored. The costs of demolishing these buildings, preparing the site, and perhaps eventually constructing a new building are likely greater than those of renovating and improving the existing structures to more aptly suit the school’s contemporary requirements. I hope for SEA to prosper and thrive at its current location for generations of students yet to come, ideally in the handsome historic structures that give the school its distinctive atmosphere and identity. The most prudent stewardship of the millions of dollars in donations currently sought by SEA’s capital campaign would be to fund renovation and reuse of the historic buildings.

If historic buildings of this caliber are not a priority for protection by the city’s Preservation Board and our elected officials, it is hard to imagine what historic structures should be saved anywhere in the City of St. Louis. These architecturally significant buildings are located in a neighborhood that has stabilized and substantially improved in value over recent decades, in no small measure because of investment in and renovation of historic buildings throughout the district. The structures in question are among the most historic and architecturally significant in the entire neighborhood. Needlessly demolishing them in the name of “progress” would be an antiquated and counterproductive approach to addressing the challenges posed by older buildings. The leadership of SEA wishes to strengthen its student enrollment and position in the St. Louis region and says that it is committed to the city and to the Tower Grove East neighborhood. I hope that it gives action to this commendable sentiment by embracing the valuable resource of its historic campus and the surrounding urban community of which it is an inextricable part.

- Christian Saller

Prior Post: St. Elizabeth Academy Raising Funds To Raze Historic Structures by Steve Patterson, October 2010

Chriustian & Rene Saller live on Crittenden

Poll: Thoughts on Local Control of the St. Louis Police?

The controversial idea of returning control of the St. Louis Police to local officials rather than with the state in Jefferson City is again a hot issue. A recent editorial in the St. Louis American got me thinking this would make a good poll question:

Given our determined opposition to the proposed elimination of the city earnings tax and of the state income tax, both promulgated by billionaire ideologue Rex Sinquefield, and the many times we have questioned the leadership and motives of Mayor Francis G. Slay, we can understand why it raises suspicions to see Sinquefield helping to fund the latest effort to put St. Louis city government in control of its own police force, with Slay stumping for it heartily. Sinquefield has ponied up $300,000 to fund a ballot initiative for local police control in St. Louis and Kansas City, and Slay – so often silent when needed – has been very outspoken in favor of passing local control this session.

We certainly agree with critics of Sinquefield and Slay that they may have ulterior, and even sinister, motives for supporting local control, which for years has been a rallying cry for the African-American and progressive communities in St. Louis. Furthermore, we have a long-standing criticism against the form of local control currently provided for in the St. Louis City Charter, which would become the governing document should the state Legislature pass new legislation that ends the current system of administration by a police board appointed by the governor. The City Charter provides for a single police commissioner who reports to the director of Public Safety (a mayoral appointee) and who could be fired by this mayoral appointee – or the governor – “with or without cause.” Plainly, this would make the police commissioner helplessly vulnerable to both city and state politics. (full editorial – recommended!)

State Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-60) has introduced House Bill 71 which “Allows the City of St. Louis to establish and maintain a municipal police force completely under the city’s authority.” There are no shortage of opinions on this issue, here’s mine.

If I were to organize city government from scratch I would do many things differently.  Local control of police is logical.  We don’t live in the Civil War era anymore.  That said, there are many officers who have risked their lives for years that have earned their pensions, soimething they fear they might lose under local control.

I’m no expert on union contracts & pensions but hopefully those that are experts can find a way to make this happen, it is time.

As always the poll this week is located in the upper right corner of the blog.

– Steve Patterson

Readers: City Meets Snow Removal Expectations

Last week readers weighed in on the topic of snow removal:

Q: How good of a job does the City of St. Louis do at snow removal?

1. About what I expect 68 37.57%
2. I expect better 60 33.15%
3. Better than I’d expect 31 17.13%
4. Other answer… 18 9.94%
5. No opinion 4 2.21%

A close second was the expectation of a better job. The other answers were numerous:

1. We specifically bought an AWD drive car because we live IN the city.
2. I am betting that “I expect better” wins.
3. Snow removal is an unecessary expense.
4. what about sidewalks
5. I would like better, but realize it is not realistic due to budget realities.
6. It’s sporadic, sometimes good, sometimes bad. unpredictable.
7. pathetic, northern states do much, much better
8. Worst ever for a city with annual snow.
9. They do a great Job!
10. Great!
11. Snow in STL is so infrequent; the city spends to much time and energy on it.
12. the lack of plowing side streets is a reason to live in inner suburb.
13. I’d LIKE better
14. Depends how good your Alderperson is
15. About what I expect, but I expect a terrible job.
16. Embarrasingly awful
17. If you want side streets plowed, you need to pay more in taxes.
18. Laughable

Clearly readers have different expectations causing a wide variety of answers. Wondering if the ice & sleet this week has changed any opinions?

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Current Thoughts on McKee’s Northside Regeneration Project?

Friday 5th ward alderman April Ford-Griffin introduced Board Bill 278 regarding Paul McKee’s stalled Northside Regeneration project:

An Ordinance authorizing the execution of a project agreement between the City of St. Louis and Northside Regeneration, LLC; prescribing the form and details of said agreement; authorizing other related actions in connection therewith; and containing a severability clause.

This agreement would cover only a fraction of McKee’s overall project:

The proposal includes cleaning up 14 vacant lots, tearing down six empty buildings and rehabbing seven more, including the old Greyhound Bus station at Cass Avenue and 13th Street. It also would build a $750,000 materials recycling center on 10th Street near Interstate 70, where bricks, wood and other materials from demolished buildings and ripped-up roads would be stored and sold for reuse. (Post-Dispatch)

This is in response to a legal delay last July:

A St. Louis judge threw out a city ordinance Friday that authorized $390 million in tax increment financing – the largest in the city’s history – for Paul McKee Jr.’s $8.1 billion NorthSide redevelopment.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Robert Dierker ruled in favor of city residents who allege in a lawsuit filed last fall that the Board of Aldermen did not comply with state law when it approved a tax increment financing (TIF) package for McKee’s massive project. (St. Louis Business Journal)

So McKee’s Northside Regeneration project is the subject of the poll this week (upper right of blog).

– Steve Patterson