Buyer Beware

Buying/selling vehicles is a dreaded process for me, but I just went through both. As I posted recently, I’m no longer car-free. Yesterday I registered the 2007 Honda Civic EX my fiancé and I recently purchased. The process started months ago; researching cars, auto loans, and insurance.

On Monday we sold my fiancé’s old car.  We listed all the known defects, including failing emissions, in our Craigslist ad. The new owner is mechanically-inclinded so I know he’ll fix all that is wrong with it.  We got our bottom line price and were honest about the car. The same cannot be said for some of the cars we saw online.

After looking at ads for months we finally applied for a loan with our credit union. We were approved but the car needed to be a 2007 or newer and have less than 100,000 miles. We’d narrowed our search to Toyota Corolla/Camry or Honda Civic/Accord. Finding one we liked for under $9,000 and less than 100,000 miles wasn’t going to be easy.  There are plenty listed with manual transmissions, for example, but since my stroke I need an automatic transmission.  In early April I saw a car we might like, though neither of us likes red cars.

I’d focused on “by owner” listings because dealer prices are generally higher. I emailed the seller, then we spoke by phone. He suggested we meet at his office to see the car. Once I got the address I Googled it and discovered it was an auto broker. First red flag. I found a website for the broker and the car was listed in the inventory, with the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). A Facebook friend who works for a dealer offered to run a CarFax reports for us so I sent him the VIN.

I emailed the guy and said we wouldn’t be coming to view the car after all, noting he wan’t a private seller and the title wasn’t clean. The next morning we found the Civic we ended up buying.

Later today I’m mailing a dealer complaint to the Missouri Department of Revenue.  It took some time & effort to make the complaint but I don’t want someone getting tricked into buying a vehicle like this. I saw ads in Craigslist where people were honest and listed the fact the car they were selling had a salvage title, but not this guy. This car might have been rebuilt well and serve the next owner for years, or it might be a nightmare.

Buyer beware!

— Steve Patterson

Parking in Former CPI Corp Lot Now $5/Day or $65/Month

It was a year ago that CPI Corp shuttered all of its US portrait studios, leaving most of the downtown workforce without a job.  I’ve kept an eye on the company since moving downtown, as I look up from my screen as I type this post I can see the former CPI HQ building outside my window.

The lot was vacant for a while but over the last year more and more area residents began parking there, a nearby restaurant valet used the lot on weekends, etc. It got used, but nobody collected any revenue. CPI Corp had sold their building & lot prior to shutting down so I knew it had to be just a matter of time until the owner decided to collect from everyone using the parking lot.

A a couple of weeks ago St. Louis Parking began putting this flyer on cars, effective Monday April 28th they’d be charging $5/day.

It would’ve been easy to go around the sign, but not if someone parked in the adjacent space. Using my power wheelchair I pushed the sign into the adjacent space then I sent this pic to a few officials, and posted on Twitter & Facebook. Hopefully St. Louis Parking  won’t place this sign on the sidewalk again. One response brought up a very good question:

Off topic, but isn’t there now a rule requiring pay lots to supply an attendant or have a locked fence to prevent car break-ins? Does that not invalidate honor boxes? http://www.stltoday.com/…/article_a546ebc4-a261-11e0…

The link was to a June 2011 Post-Dispatch article: St. Louis to require parking lot attendants, curb downtown break-ins. Three months later the following press release was issued:

Released: 09-19-2011

To reduce car break ins, the City of St. Louis has implemented common-sense regulations for parking lots. These rules are designed to make parking lots safer and more secure.

“Our City –especially Downtown –is the hub of our region’s activity,” said Mayor Francis G. Slay. “Hundreds of thousands of people come to our City for festivals, sporting events, concerts, and other events. They should know that their car will be secure while they are having fun.”

The City of St. Louis and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD), worked together to create new public parking lot rules. The highlights are:
• Parking lots shall be attended by an employee when in operation; and
• Parking lot attendants shall be educated by the SLMPD; and
• Parking lots shall be secured when not in operation.

The City of St. Louis Building Division will grant waivers to parking lots that have demonstrated they are safe and secure. These waivers will be reviewed periodically.

“Waivers will only be given to specific lots that historically have been safe places to leave a vehicle,” said Frank Oswald, Building Commissioner. “My staff will work with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to ensure that we are giving waivers to only those lots without problems.”

The SLMPD will coach parking lot attendants on how to spot suspicious activity, and has vowed to be available to quickly respond to parking lot calls for service.

“These attendants will act as an extra pair of eyes for the SLMPD,” said Mayor Slay. “And our hope is that their watchfulness will give the SLMPD a greater chance to catch car clouters in the act, and to make our City even safer.”
The City of St. Louis has implemented new parking lot regulations to reduce break-ins per Building Commissioner’s Order #1001. The Building Division will grant waivers to parking lots that have proven to be safe and secure.

For more information or to apply for a waiver please call the Office of the Building Commissioner at (314) 622-3318.

Since this lot lacks an attendant or any fencing to restrict use to the daytime, I assume it was granted a waiver. Which is interesting because this lot, and the one at 16th & Locust, are well known spots for car break-ins and/or robberies/assaults. I’ve emailed the building commissioner asking about waivers, I haven’t heard back yet.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Believe in Evolution

Some questioned the poll topic last week, religion on an urban blog? Well, yes. The two are not mutually exclusive, at least not for some like Eric Jacobson:

Eric Jacobsen the author of Sidewalks in the Kingdom: New Urbanism and the Christian Faith (Brazos Press, 2003) as well as numerous articles on New Urbanism (see related articles). He is a member of the Congress For the New Urbanism and a participant in the Colloquim on Theology and the Built Environment sponsored by St. Andrews University and the Calvin Institute for Christian Worship at Calvin College. He is a full-time student at Fuller Theological Seminary where he is pursuing a PhD in Theology and Culture. He is currently living in Passadena with his wife (Liz) and three children (Katherine – 7, Peter – 4, and Emma – 3). Formerly, he was the Associate Pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in Missoula, MT.

With just 16.1% of the general population indicating no religious affiliation (Pew) the results ended up far different than I originally thought they would:

Q: Which of the following comes closest to your view on the origin and development of human beings?

1. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process 70 [63.64%]
2. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process 29 [26.36%]
3. God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so 11 [10%]

This is interesting since the results are the opposite of the Gallop Poll this was based on:

Gallup has asked Americans to choose among these three explanations for the origin and development of human beings 11 times since 1982. Although the percentages choosing each view have varied from survey to survey, the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period — and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the “theistic evolution” view that humans evolved under God’s guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%).

Pew has found similar results:

White evangelical Protestants are particularly likely to believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Roughly two-thirds (64%) express this view, as do half of black Protestants (50%). By comparison, only 15% of white mainline Protestants share this opinion.

They offer much more detail here.

Even the term “creationist” has nuances:

Do “creationists” necessarily oppose an evolutionary understanding of the history of nature and the origins of species and humanity?

No. In principle all members of the three western monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are “creationists” in that they believe the order of nature exists because a reality beyond nature, commonly called “God”, is the ultimate cause of all existence. In this sense of the word, many creationists accept an evolutionary understanding of natural history. However, at least four types of creationism can be identified, and each has a distinctive view of the evolutionary sciences and human origins.

“Young-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text provides an inerrant account of how the universe, all life and humankind came into existence; namely, in six 24-hour days, some 6-10,000 years ago. Human beings were created through a direct act of divine intervention in the order of nature.

“Old-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text is an infallible account of why the universe, all life and humankind came into existence, but accepts that the “days” of creation are metaphorical and could represent very long periods of time. While many aspects of nature may be the consequence of direct acts of divine creation, at very least they hold that the very beginning of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of humankind are the consequence of distinct acts of divine intervention in the order of nature.

Theistic evolutionists also hold that the sacred text provides an infallible account of why the universe, all life and humankind came into existence. However, they also hold that for the most part, the diversity of nature from stars to planets to living organisms, including the human body, is a consequence of the divine using processes of evolution to create indirectly. Still, for many who hold this position, the very beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of what is distinctive about humankind are the consequence of direct acts of divine intervention in the order of nature.

Evolutionary theists hold that the sacred text, while giving witness to the ultimate divine source of all of nature, in no way specifies the means of creation. Further, they hold that the witness of creation itself is that the divine creates only indirectly through evolutionary processes without any intervention in the order of nature. (The Smithsonian’s Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer)

As an Anti-Theist (atheist), I believe what many of us have learned through scientific research. Each sunday night for the last couple of months I’ve been tuning in to see COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey.  In terms of St. Louis, these results tell me over 35% will continue to believe something regardless of facts to the contrary. With such numbers it is hard to change perceptions about place in our region. This show has religious folks upset, resulting in an Oklahoma Fox channel “accidentally: cutting out a mention of evolution and weekly stories like this:

Conservative Christians are really mad about the reboot of the legendary science series Cosmos, starring Neil deGrasse Tyson. The complaint? That an ancient myth about creation invented by Hebrews thousands of years ago is not being included in a show that is there to teach science. Christian conservatives have been taking to the airwaves complaining about the non-inclusion of ancient myths in a science program, with Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis whining, “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them,” and Elizabeth Mitchell of the same organization decrying the show for having “blind faith in evolution.” (“Cosmic” meltdown! Neil deGrasse Tyson under siege from Christian right)

I’m just thankful for the separation of church and state!

— Steve Patterson

Institutions & Businesses That Might Help Plan Rejuvenation of North Grand Blvd

In a post last week called Rethinking the North Grand Corridor for Jobs, Economic Opportunity I introduced the idea of a collaborative effort to do a corridor study of North Grand from Delmar to I-70, roughly 2.5 miles.

Today I’ll continue this line of thought by identifying institutions/businesses/amenities on or near Grand that might be helpful in this process.

Here is the list, starting from  Delmar (lower left):

1. Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis
2. Grand Center
3. Cochran VA Hospital
4. Clyde Miller Career Academy (SLPS)
5. Justine Petersen
6. St. Alphonsus Church
7. Chronicle Coffee
8. S. Louis Housing Authority
9. PNC Bank (Page)
10. Save-A-Lot
11. Vashon High School (SLPS)
12. CHIPS Health and Wellness Center
13. Lindell Bank
14. Herbert Hoover Boys & Girls Club
15. ALDI
16. Fairground Park (St. Louis Parks Dept)
17. Beaumont Career & Technical High School (SLPS)
18. St. Louis Public Library, Divoll Branch
19. PNC Bank (Grand @ N. Florissant)
20. Grace Hill Settlement
21. Grace Hill Water Tower Health Center
22. North Grand Water Tower (coronation column)
23. Bissell Water Tower
24. Bissell Mansion

There are likely many more places that can serve as anchors. Grand from Natural Bridge to I-70 is the The Grand Boulevard Vending District, so perhaps this can become an area where retail activity is organized, concentrated, & marketed. Maybe the 2.5 mile length is branded as one district or maybe it it broken up into segments.

It passes through four city neighborhoods:

1. College Hill
2. Fairground
3. JeffVanderLou
4. Grand Center

It primarily passes through two wards: 3 & 19. Two more wards have a few blocks each: 2 & 4. And a few more wards are very close to North Grand: 5, 18, & 21.

Metro is a big part too with eight MetroBus lines in the area:

• 70 (Grand)
• 4 (Natural Bridge)
• 30 (Soulard)
• 32 (ML King-Chouteau)
• 41 (Lee)
• 74 (Florissant)
• 94 (Page)
• 97 (Delmar)

So I’ve identified most of the players that could be involved in coming together to closely examine North Grand, developing a master plan, a marketing plan, etc.

b

b

b

An Urbanist Look at the Lewis & Clark Branch Library

For quite a while now I’ve seen the posts about saving St. Louis County’s  1963 Lewis & Clark Branch, located at 9909 Lewis & Clark Blvd.

Here are some examples of the posts:

• October 2013
  • 6 Reasons Why to Save the Lewis & Clark Library
• February 2014
  • Why save the Lewis and Clark Branch Library?
  • Take a Second to Support Lewis and Clark Library Patrons By Signing This Petition
• March 2014
  • Support Grows to Save Lewis & Clark Library
  • Controversy Brews Over Plans To Change Lewis & Clark Library Branch

I hadn’t written about this subject before because I’d never been to the Lewis & Clark branch, but that changed Friday. I took the #40 (Broadway) MetroBus to the Riverview Transit Center, then the #27 (No County Shuttle) directly to the library. I spent some time inside both levels, and outside.

Here is an incomplete list of arguments for both sides:

Arguments in support of replacement:

• Over 50 years old, old plumbing & electrical. etc.
• Poor relationship to neighborhood, main street
• Windows are inefficient
• Doesn’t meet ADA guidelines
•  Can remain open while new building is built

Arguments in support of renovating/adding on

• Only branch in St. Louis County considered architecturally significant
• Designed by Frederick Dunn
• Design still looks good, fresh
• Reusing the existing structure more sustainable than dumping it into a landfill
• This part of St. Louis County has few structures on which residents can take pride.

Based on my observations, the library is too small by today’s standards. It seemed busy during my morning visit, much more space is needed.  ModernSTL proposed a pretty predictable addition, which copies the original design. Good additions to historic buildings don’t mimic or repeat the original. That said, the idea is right. New entry connecting old & new wings.

I do like the idea of turning the entry toward Lewis & Clark Blvd(367), and getting St. Louis County/MoDOT to put a public sidewalk along the west side of 367 from Chambers Rd to Berwyn Dr, roughly 3/10 of a mile. This would connect users of the #61 MetroBus route on Chambers Rd to the library site. Currently only a shoulder exists.  Better pedestrian connection in the area should be considered and planned for regardless if a new building is built or the existing structure gets a needed addition.

I don’t think the St. Louis County Library board has given any thought toward renovating this historic structure, which is a real pity.  We need leadership that considers retention of historic structures, especially when it is their only one!

— Steve Patterson