Nineteen year ago I started this blog as a distraction from my father’s heart attack and slow recovery. It was late 2004 and social media & video streaming apps didn’t exist yet — or at least not widely available to the general public. Blogs were the newest means of …
The new NGA West campus , Jefferson & Cass, has been under construction for a few years now. Next NGA West is a large-scale construction project that will build a new facility for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in St. Louis, Missouri.This $1.7B project is managed by the U.S. Army …
Book publisher Island Press always impresses me with thoughtful new books written by people working to solve current problems — the subjects are important ones for urbanists and policy makers to be familiar and actively discussing. These four books are presented in the order I received them. ‘Justice and …
This post is about two indirectly related topics: the new Siteman Cancer Center building under construction on the Washington University School of Medicine/BJC campus and an update on my stage 4 kidney cancer. Let’s deal with the latter first. You may have noticed I’ve not posted in three months, …
One hundred years ago today the 1916 Democratic National Convention was happening at St. Louis’ new Coliseum, at Washington & Jefferson. Woodrow Wilson & Thomas R, Marshall were nominated for 2nd terms as President & Vice-President, respectively. As recently noted, the Jefferson [Arms] Hotel was the official host hotel, it opened in 1904.
Postcard for the “New Coliseum” on the SW corner of Jefferson & Market. It was replaced by the Jefferson National Bank. Click image for 2012 post
The old coliseum, better known as St. Louis Exposition and Music Hall, had been located between 13th-14th on Olive — after just 24 years it was razed in 1907 to build our Central Library, which opened in 1912.
Three national nominating conventions were held in three separate buildings in or near the complex between 1888 and 1904 including the 1888 Democratic National Convention, 1896 Republican National Convention, and 1904 Democratic National Convention. In addition to the 1904 Democratic convention, it was used as a large venue for other conventions and congresses during the 1904 World’s Fair.
The 1896 Republican National Convention, held in St. Louis, began 120 years ago tomorrow. My loft is just blocks from where all this took place, but mansions lined Locust St back then, known as Lucas Place at that time.
Back to the present day and the nominations for the conventions that start in July, not June as they used to.
There is a growing feeling among many of us that 1) the way the two major parties pick their nominee is flawed and 2) having a two-party system has failed the country. From a recent poll:
Some of the poll’s key findings are:
Just 10 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the country’s overall political system while 51 percent have only some confidence and 38 percent have hardly any confidence.
Similarly, only 13 percent say the two-party system for presidential elections works, while 38 percent consider it seriously broken. About half (49 percent) say that although the two-party system has real problems, it could still work well with some improvements.
Most Americans report feeling discouraged about this year’s presidential election. Seventy percent say they experience frustration and 55 percent report they feel helpless.
Few Americans are feeling pride or excitement about the 2016 presidential campaign, but it is grabbing the public’s attention. Two-thirds (65 percent) of the public say they are interested in the election for president this year; only 31 percent say they are bored.
The public has little confidence in the three branches of government. A quarter (24 percent) say they have a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court and only 15 percent of Americans say the same of the executive branch. Merely 4 percent of Americans have much faith in Congress. However, more than half (56 percent) of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the military.
Only 29 percent of Democrats and just 16 percent of Republicans have a great deal of confidence in their respective parties. Similarly, 31 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of Republicans have a lot of faith in the fairness of their party’s nominating process.
Neither party is seen as particularly receptive to fresh ideas. Only 17 percent of the public say the Democratic Party is open to new ideas about dealing with the country’s problems; 10 percent say that about the Republican Party.
The views of ordinary voters are not considered by either party, according to most Americans. Fourteen percent say the Democratic Party is responsive to the views of the rank-and-file; 8 percent say that about the Republican Party.
Most Republicans (57 percent) say Trump’s candidacy has been good for the Republican Party, although only 15 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of independents agree.
Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Democrats say Sanders’ bid for the nomination has been good for the Democratic Party, along with 43 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of independents (54 percent of independents report it is neither good nor bad).
What options exist?
In multi-candidate races, the winner is often the person with the most dedicated base, not the most widespread support. In many cases, the majority of voters backed another candidate, leaving much of the electorate dissatisfied with the outcome and the winner with a dubious mandate to govern.
Both Republicans and Democrats have attempted to address that in presidential primaries with complicated delegate allocation formulas. But some voters in Maine who have wrestled with a similar problem think they’ve hit on a simpler solution: let voters rank their favorite candidates.
In November, Maine voters will decide whether they want to become the first state in the U.S. to implement ranked-choice voting. If a ballot initiative is approved, future Maine voters in primaries and general elections will be allowed to rank their choices for governor, Congress and statehouse races instead of voting for just one. If no one gets a majority in a race, the candidate who came in last is eliminated and the second choices of their voters are redistributed, in much the same way that a runoff election works. That process continues through multiple rounds until a single candidate reaches a majority. (Time)
See a 1:11 minute video illustrating ranked-choice voting here. Though we haven’t hosted a nominating convention in decades, we do still play a roll in the election process. Once again, a general election debate will be held at Washington University in St. Louis. Back in September the non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) selected Washington University in St. Louis to host a debate on October 9, 2016.
Washington University has earned the distinction of hosting more debates than any other institution in history. This is the sixth time the university has been selected by the CPD to host a debate since 1992, and it will be the fifth debate to be held at the university. The presidential debate scheduled at the university in 1996 was canceled just two weeks prior. (Washington University)
Don’t expect to see Libertarian or Green candidates in these debates, the CPD reinforces the 2-party system. Which brings me to the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll:
Q: Agree or disagree: the presidential nominating process in both major parties should be revised
Strongly agree 13 [40.63%]
Agree 9 [28.13%]
Somewhat agree 3 [9.38%]
Neither agree or disagree 3 [9.38%]
Somewhat disagree 0 [0%]
Disagree 1 [3.13%]
Strongly disagree 2 [6.25%]
Unsure/No Answer 1 [3.13%]
Count me among the the 3/4 who think we need major changes to how we elect presidents to local officials.
I thought I was done pointing out glaringly bad intersections for pedestrians, but on Saturday I went through one that was odd. Yesterday I returned to study. Usually when I cross Olive Street at 18th I do so on the East side of 18th. Though I’ve lived nearby for over 8 years, I can’t think of one time I crossed Olive on the West side — until Saturday afternoon.
We were headed to the St. Louis Science Center, catching MetroLink and then a MetroBus. Knowing we’d need to be on on the West side of 18th I crossed at Locust and headed South. At Olive I pressed the button for a walk signal — something I shouldn’t need to do in a pedestrian-friendly city. The traffic light turned green but the pedestrian signal remained don’t walk. We were in a hurry to catch the train so we went based on the green traffic signal. Yesterday morning I went back to try to figure out why I didn’t get a walk signal after pressing the button. What I found is this intersection is one of the most inconsistent in the city.
Each crossing point in an intersection is called a leg, typical intersections have four legs. Intersections where are four are treated consistently is a challenge, but the is among the worst — if not the worst in the city. And it’s recent work!
Looking South across Olive from the NW corner
At the NW corner of 18th & Olive I see the traffic light turn green and the pedestrian signal remain on don’t walk. I press the button at the next red and when the light turns green the pedestrian signal remains don’t walk. At the next red I press the other button marked for crossing 18th Street. This time when the light turns green the pedestrian signal gives a walk symbol. It should be noted, the pedestrian signal to cross 18th St always gives a walk sign when the traffic signal is green.
Looking South across Olive from the NW corner
Pushing a button to cross Olive but not a side street is consistent with the other intersections redone along Olive at the same time. After posting about Olive & Leffingwell in April I was told by the City’s bike/ped coordinator, Jamie Wilson, that a button was necessary to cross Olive there because vehicle traffic on Leffingwell is infrequent and they didn’t want to stop traffic on Olive to cycle through stops when there were no pedestrians or vehicles to cross. Makes sense…at Leffingwell. Leffingwell is one of the many streets where the city gave away the public right-of-way to private interests a block South of Olive. PROW that doesn’t so through sees fewer vehicles & pedestrians.
Back to 18th & Olive — 18th Street is always a busy street. Recently many MetroBus routes were moved to 18th. So switch the buttons and it’s fine? I decided to check every corner to see. So I pressed the button to cross 18th so I’d get a walk signal to cross Olive.
Looking North across Olive from the SW corner
At the SW corner I pressed the button to cross Olive. Like the NW corner, I didn’t get a walk sign. Thinking it must also be reversed like the NW corner, I pressed the button to cross 18th. Still nothing, neither button activates the walk signal for NB pedestrians wanting to cross Olive on the West side of 18th Street!
Looking North across Olive from the SE corner
I crossed 18th to the SE corner — no button is necessary — these always give the walk signal when vehicles get a green light. Interestingly, the pedestrian signal gives a walk sign when the traffic light is green regardless of the button or not. It’s possible pressing the button adds additional crossing time. I crossed to the NE corner.
Looking South across Olive from the NE corner, the automatic walk light
Southbound pedestrians don’t need to press the button to cross Olive on the East side of 18th. Same as those crossing NB. What’s different is those crossing SB get a countdown timer, those crossing NB do not.
Looking South across Olive from the NE corner, the countdown timer has started
So I have many questions for Jamie Wilson:
Why only one countdown timer?
Why do three legs automatically get a walk sign, while the forth doesn’t?
Why don’t NB pedestrians on the West side of 18th ever get a walk sign?
For the legs where pedestrians do get a walk sign, does pressing the button give additional crossing time?
Why not have all four legs automatically get a walk sign?
It should be noted this work was done prior to Mr. Wilson starting his current position. It was done either by the Board of Public Service (BPS) or the Streets Dept, not sure which. Hopefully I’ll know more soon, and the city will clean up this intersection’s bad pedestrian experience.
As I recently learned, we must keep a close eye on the Board of Aldermen or a damaging bill might try to sneak by. So I’m introducing a new weekly post: a listing of new bills before the St, Louis Board of Aldermen.
Legislation is introduced by Aldermen in the form of bills. The mayor may introduce bills or cause them to be introduced by requesting the chairmen of specific committees to sponsor such a bill. Bills are read before the entire Board upon introduction. After the first reading the bill is sent to specific standing committee for study and recommendation. The committee, after considering the bill, reports it back to the full Board for a second reading.
It may be referred back to committee for some reason or it may be put on the informal calendar. It is possible, however, to suspend the rules so that a Bill may be read for a third time and passed in the same meeting. If the Bill is delayed in committee or elsewhere it eventually will be read a third time being either passed or defeated.
Approval by a simple majority of fifteen or more is required for passage except for those dealing with the sale of any of the City’s real estate or for the discontinuance or establishment of administrative divisions which require a two-thirds or 20 vote. The Mayor may sign or veto a bill within 10 to 20 days after it is presented to him. If he or she does not take action, the bill automatically becomes law. A two-thirds majority is required to over-ride a mayoral veto. Unless the measure is an emergency it does not take effect until 30 days after the Mayor signs the bill or it is adopted over his veto.
After a bill is adopted by the Board of Aldermen and signed by the mayor it becomes a City Ordinance. St. Louis City Ordinances available in electronic format cover 1991 – present.
Ok, here are recently introduced bills being considered:
BOARD BILL NO. 66 ALDERMAN JOHN COATAR An Ordinance pertaining to vending; repealing Section One of Ordinance 66655 pertaining to the definitions, codified as Section 8.108A.010 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis (hereafter “Revised Code”), and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section Three of Ordinance 65061, codified as Section 8.108A.020 of the Revised Code, pertaining to prohibited vending – exceptions, and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section Seven of Ordinance 65061, codified as Section 8.108A.060 of the Code, pertaining to a vendor’s license, and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section Fifteen of Ordinance 65061, codified as Section 8.108A.150 of the Revised Code, pertaining to the rules and regulations, and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section Four of Ordinance 68603, codified as 8.108A.310, pertaining to rules and regulations for City Parks Vending Districts and adding a new section in lieu thereof; adding a new section pertaining to pilot programs, to be codified as Section 8.108A.300(K) of the Revised Code; and containing a severability clause and an emergency clause.
BOARD BILL NO. 67 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN ANTONIO FRENCH An ordinance revising The Transparency in Government Law, Ordinance 69707, codified at Chapter 3.115 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, to require the video recording of all public meetings of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, including committee meetings; the Board of Estimate & Apportionment; the Board of Public Service; and the Preservation Board.
BOARD BILL NO. 68 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMEN LYDA KREWSON, FRANK WILLIAMSON An ordinance approving a petition for the creation of the East Loop Community Improvement District; authorizing the district to impose special assessments; finding a public purpose; and containing a severability clause.
BOARD BILL NO. 69 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN CARA SPENCER, ALDERMAN SAMUEL MOORE An ordinance amending the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis by amending Section 26.08.384 (and Section 3 of Ordinance 68185) and adding a new Section, titled the “City of St. Louis Short-Term Lending Code,” pertaining to the regulation of Short-Term Loan Establishments, as defined herein.
Board Bill No. 70 | Election Approving Permit Fees for Short-Term Loan Establishments
BOARD BILL NO. 70 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN CARA SPENCER, ALDERMAN SAMUEL MOORE An ordinance calling and providing for the holding of an election in the City of St. Louis on November 8, 2016, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the City of St. Louis the question of charging a fee for the issuance of a permit for the operation of a Short-Term Loan Establishment, and directing the Clerk of the Board of Aldermen to notify the responsible election authorities of this election.
The following bills were introduced on Friday June 10, 2016:
BOARD BILL NO. 71 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN LYDA KREWSON An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the Director of Airports and the Comptroller of The City of St. Louis (the “City”) to enter into and execute on behalf of the City the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport® (the “Airport”) Lease Agreement No. AL-019 (the “Lease Agreement”), between the City and Southwest Airlines Company (the “Lessee”), granting to the Lessee, subject to and in accordance with the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Lease Agreement, certain rights and privileges in connection with the occupancy and use of the Premises, which is defined and more fully described in Section 201 of the Lease Agreement that was approved by the Airport Commission and is attached hereto as ATTACHMENT “1” and made a part hereof, and its terms are more fully described in Section One of this Ordinance; containing a severability clause; and containing an emergency clause.
BOARD BILL NO. 72 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN LYDA KREWSON An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the Director of Airports and the Comptroller of The City of St. Louis (the “City”) to enter into and execute on behalf of the City the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport® (the “Airport”) Space Permit No. AL-016 (the “Space Permit”), between the City and Delta Airlines, Inc. (the “Permittee”), granting to the Permittee, subject to and in accordance with the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Space Permit, certain rights and privileges in connection with the occupancy and use of the Premises, which is defined and more fully described in Section 201 of the Space Permit that was approved by the Airport Commission and is attached hereto as ATTACHMENT “1” and made a part hereof, and its terms are more fully described in Section One of this Ordinance; containing a severability clause; and containing an emergency clause.
BOARD BILL NO. 73 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN KENNETH ORTMANN An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3525 Illinois Ave. Area (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive and Chapter 353), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated May 24, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 and 353.020 (4); finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement with five (5) years of payments in lieu of taxes or up to five (5) years real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.
BOARD BILL NO. 74 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN JOHN COATAR An ordinance approving a blighting study and redevelopment plan dated May 24, 2016 for the 3127 Shenandoah Ave. Redevelopment Area (as further defined herein, the “Plan”) after finding that said Redevelopment Area (“Area”) is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, as amended (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 RSMo inclusive and Chapter 353, as amended); containing a description of the boundaries of the Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 RSMo and 353.020 (4), as amended; finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the redevelopment of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”), a public body corporate and politic created under Missouri law, through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that no property within the Area is occupied, but if it shall become occupied, the Redeveloper (as defined herein) shall be responsible for providing relocation assistance pursuant to the Plan to any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available up to a ten (10) year real estate tax abatement with five (5) years of payments in lieu of taxes or up to five (5) years real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of this St. Louis Board of Aldermen (“Board”) and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan; and containing a severability clause.
BOARD BILL NO. 75 INTRODUCED BY ALD. JOHN COATAR An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 801-25 Ann Ave. (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statute” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated May 24, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Section 99.430; finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.
BOARD BILL NO. 76 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN MEGAN GREEN An ordinance approving a blighting study and redevelopment plan dated May 24, 2016 for the 3935-37 Wyoming St. Redevelopment Area (as further defined herein, the “Plan”) after finding that said Redevelopment Area (“Area”) is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, as amended (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 RSMo inclusive and Chapter 353, as amended); containing a description of the boundaries of the Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 RSMo and 353.020 (4), as amended; finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the redevelopment of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”), a public body corporate and politic created under Missouri law, through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that no property within the Area is occupied, but if it shall become occupied, the Redeveloper (as defined herein) shall be responsible for providing relocation assistance pursuant to the Plan to any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available up to a ten (10) year real estate tax abatement with five (5) years of payments in lieu of taxes or up to five (5) years real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of this St. Louis Board of Aldermen (“Board”) and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan; and containing a severability clause.
BOARD BILL NO. 77 INTRODUCED BY ALD. MARLENE DAVIS An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3637-51 Washington Blvd. (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive and Chapter 353), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated May 24, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 and 353.020 (4); finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available up to a ten (10) year real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.
BOARD BILL NO. 78 INTRODUCED BY ALD. CARA SPENCER An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3839 Indiana Ave. (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive and Chapter 353), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated May 24, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 and 353.020 (4); finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.
BOARD BILL NO. 79 INTRODUCED BY ALD. CARA SPENCER An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3944 Michigan Ave. (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive and Chapter 353), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated May 24, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 and 353.020 (4); finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.
BOARD BILL NO. 80 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN JOSEPH RODDY An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2016, to change the zoning of property as indicated on the District Map, from “J” Industrial District to the “G” Local Commercial and Office District, in City Block 3919.03 (3700, 3702, 3702H, 3704 & 3710 Laclede Avenue and 11 7 13 S. Spring Avenue), so as to include the described parcels of land in City Block 3919.03; and containing an emergency clause.
BOARD BILL NO. 81 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN JOHN COATAR An Ordinance Recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment Authorizing The Execution Of A Cooperation Agreement And Authorizing Reimbursement In Accordance Therewith, And Containing A Severability Clause.
This way we’ll know about bills and participate in the process.
Both major political parties hold their conventions next month. Both parties now have a presumptive nominee, but some think the processes used by the Republicans & Democrats should change:
Both parties have complex mechanisms for choosing presidential nominees, with each state holding caucuses or primaries under different rules. Candidates earn delegates to back them at the summer nominating conventions, with a certain number required to clinch the nomination.
Democrats embraced superdelegates in 1982 to make sure party leaders have a say in who is nominated. By giving key insiders more voice, leaders hoped to avoid what some saw as a mistake in 1972, when George McGovern won the nomination but was a weak general election candidate. (AP)
This is the subject of today’s non-scientific poll:
As always, the poll is upon for 12 hours, 8am-8pm CST. Wednesday I’ll have the results along with some St. Louis history.
BB64 passed unanimously in committee, though Downtown Neighborhood Association Executive Director Jared Opsal spoke against it. Had we all known about it we would’ve packed the hearing room. Which is why the developer & Ald Davis didn’t tell us. However, my post today isn’t about BB64, it’s about the broader issue of notification about street vacations.
The fact that a bill giving away a public right-of-way (PROW) so many of us use daily could move so quickly before being noticed is shocking. I don’t want this to happen to others in the city. Your alderman might tell you of such things, but not all of us are that lucky.
What we need is a process for public notice, not unlike the one used for liquor licenses, zoning changes, etc. I think it need several components:
Posted notice at the location for at least 15-30 days in advance of first hearing
Mailed notice to property owners within 500′-1,000′ of location
The same should apply to blocking an end of a street, severing the street grid. It was the street grid that first attracted me to St. Louis 25+ years ago, it has been painful watching as we repeatedly make short-sided decisions here and there. Death by a thousand cuts.
I urge the Board of Aldermen to establish a process of notification regarding proposed street closures & vacations.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
