Home » St. Louis County » Recent Articles:

Public Meeting Tonight on Redevelopment Proposals in Richmond Heights

hadleytownship.jpg

The City of Richmond Heights is holding at meeting this evening to show proposals for a redevelopment area called Hadley Township. The meeting will be held at The Heights on Dale Avenue from 7pm to 9pm.

The site is just North of the big box mess on Hanley created by THF Realty. Four proposals for this area were submitted to Richmond Heights, including one by THF Realty.

I’ve downloaded all four proposals but haven’t had a chance to review them in detail. I plan to stop by the meeting tonight to see them in person.

At first glance we see lower income housing being marked for replacement while across the highway multi-million dollar mansions have little to fear. The more money you have the less likely you are to lose your home to redevelopment proposals.

Click here to see more information on the project including all four proposals.

– Steve

 

Political Changes Moving U-City Forward

I recently discovered a group called U-City Forward that has a simple website listing some principals they seek for their community. It begins:

To regain the excitement and energy of the past, we believe that U City needs to reinvigorate, revitalize, broaden and deepen citizen enthusiasm and involvement in government at every level.

In the two years since they’ve started apparently they’ve replaced a few members of the City Council. I like it, a citizen based group organizing to take control of city government. Now if only I could think of another municipality where such an organization might do some good…

– Steve

 

But Will It Pay For Itself?

Yesterday afternoon I attended the Metro South MetroLink study meeting in South County. This was the final public meeting to close out the study period. Public comment continues until January 6, 2006.

After a short presentation an old man asked about a number within the 2 inch thick report that showed the area currently has 2,400 bus riders. He questioned the need for the light rail and “would it pay for itself?” The presenter did a great job with the comeback, “No, it would not be the first in the country to do so.” This man ignored the estimated ridership numbers which were pretty good. Remember, our MetroLink system has continued to exceed expectations in terms of usage. But why pick on transit?

Do people ask if the billion dollars to be spent on the proposed Mississippi River Bridge will pay for itself? No. What about the hundreds of millions already allocated for the rebuilding of I-64/Hwy 40 in the next few years — will that “pay for itself?” I think not. These are all just taken at face value as something we must do.

Why the public continues to apply a different standard to public transportation than to the subsidizing of private auto transportation I’ll never understand. Is it the love of the car? Is it a generational thing?

Fuel taxes don’t pay for all our road building and repairs and we keep building more and more. So much more we are going to struggle even more to maintain our sprawling region. This is a formula for disaster. I say we abolish all fuel taxes and other means of funding road projects. Then we add up the cost of building & maintaining roads on a state by state basis. As you register your vehicle your mileage is recorded and you pay your share based on miles driven. The more miles you drive the more you pay. If you have a car but drive it rarely you pay proportionately less.

Once people start paying on a per mile basis you’ll see a major drop in driving. Car pooling will increase. Transit ridership would rise along with calls for more service. Sprawl would virtually stop. If only…

The best long term investment in public funds is not rebuilding I-64 or building a massive bridge. No, the best investment we can make is to connect more of our region through good public mass transit.

– Steve

 

Wildwood Should Retain What’s Left Of Its Rural Character

The Post-Dispatch has an interesting story in the paper titled; Suburbia, horse country collide.

It seems the Wildwood City Council is considering a measure to limit the size of outbuildings. This is not uncommon as most municipalities have such ordinances. However, most do not have such large parcels of land. A newly formed group, Wildwood Horse Owners & Acreage Association, or WHOA for short is fighting to maintain the rural rights to barns and stables:

The organization opposes a plan before the City Council tonight to limit the size of unattached “accessory” buildings to 1.5 percent of the square footage of a property parcel. It would set a maximum building size of 6,500 square feet without special City Hall permission.

The proposed legislation, bill #1245, can be read here. I can see how people might not want someone building a barn bigger than the house on a 3 acre lot. But on land of say 20 acres a large barn seems like a basic element. I support keeping the rural character of Wildwood and don’t care for all the new McMansion subdivisions.

Still, I’ve seen some awful new metal barns and indoor riding arenas. It is one thing to argue for the right to keep horses and quite another to put up some enormous boring beige metal box. Wildwood probably needs to do some combination of both, limit size for smaller parcels (under 3 acres) and create some design guidelines for structures on larger sections.

Riding lessons are still on my to-do list. Maybe for 2006…

– Steve

 

Miklasz asks “is it too late to put the old Busch back together again?”

Local sports writer Bernie Miklasz had a great column in yesterday’s St. Louis Post Dispatch.

I don’t normally reprint full columns but the Post-Dispatch’s links expire in a couple of weeks. So, to keep a permanent record, here is his must-read column:

The old Busch Stadium is down. All that remains are scattered debris and a circular outline of where a ballpark used to stand. And that’s unfortunate. We should have stopped the wrecking ball, if for no other reason than to help the team’s owners.

I say this because I had no idea the new Busch stadium would create such financial hardship for team chairman Bill DeWitt and his partners. Actually, for years the media and fans were told the opposite: that the owners needed a new ballpark to increase revenue and payroll. And the new ballpark will open in 2006, so this should be a happy time, yes?

Well, one of DeWitt’s associates called me last week to talk on background and he politely made the point that the team can’t increase payroll for 2006 for a simple reason: The owners have reached into their own pockets to pick up much of the cost for building the new ballpark, and resources are limited.

Thursday I wrote a column criticizing the owners for holding the line on payroll, a position that may force general manager Walt Jocketty to search under sofa cushions and car seats for loose change if he wants to hire some new relief pitchers.

And just to make one point perfectly clear, I’m not asking the owners to go berserk and spend irresponsibly. I just would like to see Jocketty have some reasonable payroll flexibility to find what he needs to keep the 2006 roster up to standard, because the goal is to win the World Series.

Imagine what Jocketty could do with an extra $10 million in payroll. I’m not asking DeWitt to be George Steinbrenner, OK? But with the cost of baseball salaries on the rise this off-season, Jocketty could use some wiggle room on the payroll. It’s a reasonable request.

Anyway, back to the owners’ plight. DeWitt and associates are responsible for funding about 77 percent of the cost on the $388 million project, and they’ll be paying about $15 million annually for the next 22 years to retire the stadium bonds. But public money, including a $30 million tax break, is part of the deal. And fans contributed $40 million in the owners’ seat-license program.

To frame this in the proper context we have to go back to the beginning, to the sweet deal that Anheuser-Busch gave DeWitt and partners in selling the team in 1995.

For a sale price of $150 million, the new owners got one of baseball’s most storied franchises, Busch Stadium, four parking garages and land beneath two nearby hotels. In less than a year, the new owners sold the garages for $91 million and received an additional $9 million for the land. After this benevolence from the brewery, the new owners entered the baseball business with a terrific head start.

DeWitt and the partners have been good for baseball in St. Louis, and baseball in St. Louis has been good for them. The value of the franchise has increased every year, and the Cardinals were valued at $370 million by Forbes magazine before the 2005 season. With a new ballpark in play, the franchise value will undoubtedly jump again in 2006.

The owners are paying for a substantial part of the new Busch for a reason: They believed it was a positive and necessary investment that would pay off handsomely for them.

As team president Mark Lamping said of the new stadium two years ago, “We’re going to have premium seats and luxury boxes generating significantly more money.”

Right. And the owners and management said repeatedly that they needed the revenue boost from the stadium, and the new radio deal, in order to field the kind of team the fans have come to expect.

“We’d have a lot more money to put into the payroll,” DeWitt said of a new stadium back in 2002. “We’ve made some projections on payroll in a new ballpark and payroll here (at the old Busch), and it’s significantly different. It means a lot.”

These words pleased Jocketty, who at the time said: “The biggest challenge I have this off-season is trying to rebuild a pitching staff with very limited resources. And if we were in the new stadium right now, I guarantee you we’d be in a position to raise our payroll significantly to the point where we probably could re-sign all the guys we have as free agents.”

Uh, not so fast there, Walt …

Jocketty might be confused these days. Because in 2004 DeWitt said: “The new stadium will provide us with increased revenues and the ability to have a higher payroll. We should be in a more competitive position.”

Wasn’t the OLD Busch Stadium a money pit, and a drain on the owners’ finances? Oddly enough, while competing at the old Busch from 1996-2005, these owners consistently raised payroll.

But now that the new Busch is just about here – complete with higher ticket prices, more premium seats, and all the revenue-enhancing amenities – the payroll is staying the same.

I’m sorry to ask, but is it too late to put the old Busch back together again?

I don’t want to see DeWitt and his partners suffer through the incredible hardship of having to compete in a new ballpark.

Miklasz raises some very good points about the arguments used to get the new stadium — the old stadium was a money pit and we need to compete with other teams. Now that it is too late it is beginning to look like St. Louis may have been snookered.

I enjoy watching baseball games in person. I’m not a devoted fan but on the times I’ve gone to the game I had a great time and paid close attention to what was happening on the field. While we like a winning team I think St. Louis fans have proven they’ll support the Cardinals win or lose. Sure, they’ll bitch about players or management making bad decisions but they will still line up to buy tickets. Only now they’ll pay more for the right to watch a game and with salaries not increasing as expected, maybe we won’t be so competitive after all. But the team owners will have more money in their pockets and their investment will be worth substantially more. Seems par for the course…

On a somewhat related note, my State Representative, Jeanette Mott Oxford, and Fred Lindeke will be in court on Wednesday December 14th at 9am:

The attorney for Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums will be pleading our appeal related to the lawsuit involving the St. Louis County bonds toward building of the new Cardinals stadium.

If you can attend to show support for Mott Oxford and Lindeke go to the Wainwright Building, Division One.

I don’t always agree with the view of the economists at the St. Louis Federal reserve but I found an interesting article on public funding of stadiums from 2001:

Cities go to great lengths to lure a new team to town or to keep the home team home. They feel compelled to compete with other cities that offer new or updated facilities; otherwise, the home team might make good on its threat to leave. The weight of economic evidence, however, shows that taxpayers spend a lot of money and ultimately don’t get much back.

I highly recommend reading the full article. Please remember, just because you love baseball and the Cardinals doesn’t mean you must love the team’s owners or that we must give them what they ask for. As responsible citizens it is our duty to educate ourselves, question leadership and challenge assumptions.

– Steve

 

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe