St. Louis Board of Aldermen Week 24 of 2017-2018 Session

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen will meet at 10am today, their 24th week of the 2017-2018 session. No new bills were introduced last week.

THIRTEEN (13) NEW BOARD BILLS ON THE AGENDA* FOR INTRODUCTION TODAY 11/17/17:

*Note that just because a bill is on the agenda doesn’t mean it’ll be introduced, similarly, bills not on the agenda might be introduced if they suspend the rules to do so. This information is based on the published agenda as of yesterday @ 8am:

• B.B.#188 – Coatar –An ordinance to terminate and dissolve the Orpheum Theater Community District pursuant to the Community Improvement District Act, Sections 67.1401 – 67.1575 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.
• B.B.#189 – Moore –An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2017, to change the zoning of property as indicated on the District Map and in City Block 3666, from “C” Multiple?Family Dwelling District and “F” Neighborhood Commercial District to the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District only, at 2505 N. Sarah Street; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#190 – Boyd –An Ordinance pertaining to the administration and use of the Parking Meter Fund and repealing Subsection B-2 of Section Two of Ordinance 70611.
• B.B.#191 – Roddy –An ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission to provide for the establishment of a FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST Form-Based District; and containing a severability clause and an effective date clause.
• B.B.#192 – Roddy – An ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission to repeal the Grove Commercial Area Special Use District, Ord. 67924, and setting an effective date.
• B.B.#193 – Pres. Reed –An ordinance amending Ordinance 69429 by repealing Section Two and Section Three of that ordinance and enacting in lieu thereof a new Section Two and a new Section Three pertaining to the same subject matters; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#194 – Howard –An ordinance submitting to the qualified voters of the City, a proposal to repeal Section 2 of Article VIII of the City Charter requiring City officers and employees to reside within the boundaries of the City and thus allow said officers and employees to reside outside of the boundaries of the City and; providing for an election to be held for voting on the proposed revision and the manner of voting thereat and; for the publication, certification, deposit, and recording of this ordinance; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#195 – Coatar –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 2001?2003 Ann.
• B.B.#196 – Conway/Pres. Reed –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 4121 Russell.
• B.B.#197 – Martin –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 7500-7518 South Broadway.
• B.B.#198 – Vollmer –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 5231-5233 & 5239-5241 Shaw.
• B.B.#199 –Guenther –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 4601 South Broadway.
• B.B.#200 – Roddy – An ordinance determining that the Tax Increment Financing Plans listed in Exhibit “A” are making satisfactory progress under the proposed time schedule for completion of projects therein.

The meeting begins at 10am, past meetings and a live broadcast can be watched online here. See list of all board bills for the 2017-2018 session.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: A Burrito Is Not A Sandwich

A century ago retailers could lease or buy a storefront where they pleased, but with shopping centers/malls leases began to include clauses to exclude potential competition.A Boston-area franchisee of St. Louis-based Panera sued their landlord when it leased a space to a burrito place. The lease prohibited another sandwich place.

The burrito brouhaha began when Panera, one of the country’s biggest bakery cafes, argued that owners of the White City Shopping Center in Shrewsbury violated a 2001 lease agreement that restricted the mall from renting to another sandwich shop. When the center signed a lease this year with Qdoba, Panera balked, saying the Mexican chain’s burritos violate its sandwich exclusivity clause. 

Not so, Qdoba countered, submitting affidavits from high-profile experts in the restaurant and food industry. (Denver Post)

Interestingly, the White City Shopping Center directory lists Panera, but not Qdoba. So that settles it, right? Not quite.

From 5 Ways to Define a Sandwich, According to the Law:

1. CALIFORNIA: HOT DOGS ARE SANDWICHES
2. MASSACHUSETTS COURT: A BURRITO IS NOT A SANDWICH
3. USDA: A SANDWICH IS MEAT BETWEEN TWO SLICES OF BREAD
4. ALSO THE USDA: A BURRITO IS A “SANDWICH-LIKE PRODUCT”
5. NEW YORK: IF IT’S SERVED ON SOMETHING REMOTELY BREAD-LIKE, IT’S A SANDWICH

Sandwich-like?

The recent non-scientiofic Sunday Poll was one I’ve had ready for a while, saving it for the right time. Slow recovery from wrist surgery was the perfect time.

Q: Agree or disagree: a burrito is a sandwich

• Strongly agree 0 [0%]
• Agree 5 [14.29%]
• Somewhat agree 0 [0%]
• Neither agree or disagree 2 [5.71%]
• Somewhat disagree 0 [0%]
• Disagree 13 [37.14%]
• Strongly disagree 15 [42.86%]
• Unsure/No Answer 0 [0%]

Most of those who voted agree with the Massachusetts judge — a burrito is not a sandwich. Next Sunday the poll will be more serious and St. Louis specific.

— Steve Patterson

The LRA’s 10 Smallest Properties For Sale.

Last week I posted about the city’s Land Reutilization Authority, see Land Reutilization Authority Selling Vacant Lot That Is Less Than An Inch Wide. Today I want to highlight this property and nine others to make the 10 smallest properties for sale — out of 151 under 1,000 square feet.

The first nine are listed as vacant lots, the 10th is a house. The following links to the property page, followed by the lot size, date acquired, and value.

1. 2752 Wyoming St: 11 sq ft 08/30/1973 $21
2. 5137 Wabada Ave: 16 sq ft 02/26/1975 $16
3. 825 Canaan Ave: 17 sq ft 03/14/1975 $27
4. 4419 McPherson Ave: 35 sq ft 02/26/1975 $158
5. 3327 McPherson Ave: 35 sq ft 02/26/1975 $158
6. 4544 Manchester Ave; 35 sq ft no date listed $35
7. 4957 Lansdowne Ave; 37 sq ft 03/14/1975 $141
8. 5030 Claxton Ave: 40 sq ft 03/14/1975 $40
9. 3029 Lemp Ave: 41 sq ft 03/12/1974 $160
10. 4555 Lexington Ave: 50 sq ft 09/26/2013 $1,000

As the image caption indicates, the listing for 4555 Lexington is wrong — the lot isn’t 50 sq ft, but 5,275.68! The others appear accurate, but the question still exists — why does the city own an inch wide strip of land for several properties?Are these just recording errors? How have these been allowed to exist on the books for decades?

The LRA search lists 9,481 properties, including the 10 above. I’m going to keep looking int0 the listings and their marketing of these properties.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: What Qualifies As A Sandwich?

I’m still recovering from wrist surgery so this week’s poll is one I’ve been saving for a rainy day. Nothing too serious, yet highly controversial. Some have narrow definitions of s sandwich, while others have a more broad definition that includes hot dogs, tacos, and burritos.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of sandwich

1 a :two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between
b :one slice of bread covered with food

For the poll question I want to focus on one food item that is often part of the sandwich/non-sandwhich debate: the burrito.

This poll will close at 8pm, on Wednesday I’ll have my take on this debate, as well as some legal opinions from various lawsuits…yes, sandwich lawsuits…plural.

— Steve Patterson

Land Reutilization Authority Selling Vacant Lot That Is Less Than An Inch Wide

The city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) was a critical tool in the era of massive land clearance for urban renewal projects, like Pruitt-Igoe. This tool, largely unchanged, has been in continuous use since thr failure of urban renewal decades ago. It needs to be rethought or ditched entirely. They don’t even know what they have, or how to market it.

Their property search lists thousands of properties for sale. It takes a lot of staff to handle that much property, but not all property is equal. Take 2752 Wyoming.

I thought perhaps they also have an adjacent lot…but no. It says the value is $21 — for a long time I’ve wanted to get the paperwork together along with a cashier’s check and make a form,sl offer to buy one of these “vacant lots.”  There are other examples of lots like this.

It’s no wonder they can’t market properties. I do think they can when it means drawing a red line around any acres and telling someone they can raze everything inside the line. Otherwise, they seem clueless.

The recent non-scientific Sunday Poll:

Q: Agree or disagree: Land-banking city-owned properties in low-density neighborhoods is the best strategy for redevelopment.

• Strongly agree 2 [11.11%]
• Agree 3 [16.67%]
• Somewhat agree 3 [16.67%]
• Neither agree or disagree 1 [5.56%]
• Somewhat disagree 3 [16.67%]
• Disagree 1 [5.56%]
• Strongly disagree 3 [16.67%]
• Unsure/No Answer 2 [11.11%]

Land banking is a great tool — but it’s not the best way to prevent thousands of properties from sitting around for decades. It can also prevent slow incremental change. Geez, no wonder North St. Louis is so vacant and thr population has dropped more than a 100k since I moved here in 1990; We do the wrong thing for years and continue because “that’s how things are done.” Board Bill 187 doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.

— Steve Patterson