Advertising Blocks Public Sidewalk

Over the weekend I drove across the newly rebuilt and just reopened Chouteau bridge. At the end I pulled into the parking lot for Bellon’s Market Deli & Pizzeria, owned by the family which razes much of St. Louis’ history. I could not believe my eyes, a big cheap sign ugly blocking the public sidewalk.

I will be contacting Bellon’s as well as Ald. Joe Roddy, asking them to immediately remove the sign. If you spot other situations where the public space is being abused let me know.

UPDATE 1/22/07 – 2:45pm:

I received the following email response back from owner Carrie Bellon:

“I am very sorry about the sign. MODOT workers have been moving it around for several months, while all the road construction was going on. We will move the sign asap. Sorry I did not notice that it had been moved to the sidewalk.”

I’m glad they are on top of the situation now but I guess I am a bit confused why MoDot workers would be moving a sign that should be contained on private property, not in the public right of way where they have been working.

UPDATE 1/24/07 – 2pm:

The Potato, not to be confused with The Onion, did a really funny posting today mocking this post:  Newspaper Blocks Public Sidewalk

Third Establishment Gets Valet Zone, Others Remain Out of Control

Last night I drove around for a bit over an hour looking for all the valet parking areas I could find. Starting at 9pm, I figure I hit pretty much all of them. In the past I’ve pretty much focused on the 1100 & 1200 blocks of Washington Avenue with Copia and Lucas Park Grille, respectively. Just over a week aga the Department of Streets set up new valet guidelines which includes the establishment of designated valet zones, they started with Copia & Lucas Park Grille. These keep the valets within a certain boundary but also alert motorists where they cannot park after a certain time.
Keep in mind the intent of the valet zones is to provide an on-street space for customers to drop off or pick up their cars — it is not intended to provide any sort of “VIP” parking for really nice cars. Here were my findings last night.

Restaurants w/valet zones:

• Lucas Park Grille, 12?? Washington, a Range Rover was parked within the no-parking valet zone. Keep in mind they have an 88ft long zone which by many accounts is too long. If they can keep a Range Rover parked there then they don’t need the space.
• Copia, 1122 Washington, a Maserati and Mercedes were parked within the no-parking valet zone. The Mercedes was parked in a designated no-parking area blocking fire access to stand pipe for an adjacent building — the fire marshall needs to keep a closer eye on them. Copia’s zone is an amazingly long 129ft so it is no wonder they feel they can park two cars within that
• The Loft, Olive east of Compton, no problems to report. Zone is a very reasonable three spaces long, all were empty around 9:45pm.

Restaurants w/o valet zones:

• Eleven-Eleven Mississippi, 1111 Mississippi, large amount of space, cones in street reserving spaces.
• Pepper Lounge, 2005 Locust, cones reserving large number of spaces on both sides of street.
• Kyo, 14xx Washington Ave, cones in front of business,
• Dolce, Broadway @ Olive, massive quantity of spaces reserved on both sides of Broadway, charging $5. Midwest Valet.
• Tony’s, Market St, block-long no-parking zone in front of restaurant was full of cars presumably parked by valets. Should be designated as parking with time slot for valet service like all other establishments or cars should be ticketed or towed from no-parking zone. Tony’s should not receive any special treatment simply because they are Tony’s.
• Ten14, 1014 Locust, cones on both sides of street.
• Harry’s, cones on both sides of street creating lanes with cones and signs.
• Dante’s, Olive west of Compton, cones reserving spaces on both sides of club, Midwest Valet sign placed within marked bike lane.
• Mandrin, Maryland Plaza, a few cones out but using limited space not yet marked as valet zone.
• Bar-Italia, Maryland, cones reserving quite a few spaces.
• Sub-Zero, Euclid, four spaces taken.
• Restaurants on Laclede @ Euclid. Valet sign out, two cars parked on Laclede at narrow area.

I have no idea how many of the above actually posses a valid permit. If they do they will, at some point soon, be forced to comply with the new valet regulations and be limited to a still genereous valet zone. Those operating on the streets without permits will become more and more obvious to everyone as the will be the places lacking a designated zone.

In the past I’ve seen on-street valet service at a few other restaurants but none were observed last night. If you can think of additional locations where valets routinely operate let me know using the comments below. I will keep an eye on them and make sure they are all known to the Department of Streets – I’m just thinking they don’t have the staff to drive around at 9pm on a Saturday night.

Dante’s on Olive just west of Compton:

The actual club is up where the cars are parked. These three spaces plus about that many on the other side of their club are being reserved for those willing to shell out $5 to park at public parking spot after you are no longer required to feed the meter. Note the bike lane to the left of the image above.

Midwest Valet has placed their sign within the bike lane, a complete disregard for the safety of others. In more urban minded cities this sort of abuse of bike lanes would not be tolerated.

Harry’s on 22nd at Market Street:

Here they are using public parking spaces across the street from their restaurant to establish a valet lane. This place creates an interesting delima in that most customers will arrive off Market Street (behind me) and their parking lot used to park valeted cars off-street is up ahead. So here a valet zone directly in front of their location might present functional problems for both customers and the valet operator. That said, a reasonable solution needs to be worked out as they are taking up way too many public parking spaces but unless someone is visiting the FBI at night (behind fence at right) they literally are the only users of this street.

Dolce at Olive & Broadway (SE corner):

Once again Midwest Valet is up to old tricks. Here their sign is actually out of the way along Olive but that is only because Olive is two lanes between Broadway and 4th street to the east. My observations on several occassions has been they use Olive for customers to drop off or pick up their cars. It appears they take the cars to a parking garage and do not use the spaces coned off on Broadway.

Dolce is located at the far corner of the building on the right. They’ve coned off 10 spaces on the east side of Broadway and another 3 on the west side (visible at left above). The balance of the west side is no parking in front of the Metropolitan Square building.

This shot gives you a good overview of how empty the area looks, a false impression. Again, I think they park cars in a garage and simply cone off all these spaces so customers will be forced to use the valet service. If customers self-parked, how would they make any money? Again, these are public spaces and someone visiting a friend at a nearby hotel might wish to park there or perhaps going to see friends in the newly opened loft building seen in the background.

It is pretty clear these valet companies, especially Midwest Valet, will continue to abusively take spaces away from the general public until they are forced not to. I’m just glad the Department of Streets if finally taking charge of the problem.

FYI on Committeepersons in St. Louis

In keeping with some recent posts on various ward committees endorsing candidates I wanted to bring you the how and why of these committee postions. Basically, the state of Missouri requires each party to maintain committees.

Chapter 115 of the Missouri Revised Statutes governs the “Election Authorities and Conduct of Election.” A number of sections mandate political parties to maintain committees at various levels. In the city the ward-level committtees can be open or closed to member vote on endorsements. In fact, just finding out who comprises each ward committee in the city’s Democratic party is a chore. Before I get into that, here is some selected text from the statutes:

Purpose of committee.
115.605. Each party committee shall be selected as provided in this subchapter for the purpose of representing and acting for the party in the interim between party conventions.

County committee members, when elected (St. Louis City and County).
115.609. In each city not situated in a county and in each county which has over nine hundred thousand inhabitants, all members of the county committee shall be elected at the primary election immediately preceding each gubernatorial election and shall hold office until their successors are elected and qualified.

County committee members, filing fees.
115.611. 1. Except as provided in subsection 4 of section 115.613, any registered voter of the county may have such voter’s name printed on the primary ballot of such voter’s party as a candidate for county committeeman or committeewoman by filing a declaration of candidacy in the office of the county election authority and by paying any filing fee required by subsection 2 of this section.

2. Before filing such candidate’s declaration of candidacy, candidates for county committeeman or county committeewoman shall pay to the treasurer of such candidate’s party’s county committee, or submit to the county election authority to be forwarded to the treasurer of such candidate’s party’s committee, a certain sum of money, as follows:

(1) One hundred dollars if such candidate is a candidate for county committeeman or committeewoman in any county which has or hereafter has over nine hundred thousand inhabitants or in any city not situated in a county;

3. Any person who cannot pay the fee to file as a candidate for county committeeman or committeewoman may have the fee waived by filing a declaration of inability to pay and a petition with the official with whom such candidate files such candidate’s declaration of candidacy. The provisions of section 115.357 shall apply to all such declarations and petitions.

4. No person’s name shall be printed on any official primary ballot as a candidate for county committeeman or committeewoman unless the person has filed a declaration of candidacy with the proper election authority not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last Tuesday in March immediately preceding the primary election.

To summarize in plain English:

• Elections for committeeman & committeewoman in our 28 wards are held in the August primary in same year as Governor (& President). Next election is August 2008.
• Filing deadline is 5pm March 25, 2008 — just over a year away.
• $100 filing fee to be paid to party for which you are running (Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian). Can be filed at the St. Louis Board of Elections.
• Candidate must reside in and be registered to vote in the ward for a year prior to election (see 115.607)

So why do I bring this up now, so far away from the election? Well, I want plenty of time for people to consider getting involved. I personally dislike that our local elections are partisan but until we change the city’s charter we are stuck with that. In the meantime I want to challenge the establishment that has a hold on the committee-level positions within the Democratic party. I’d also like to see the other parties get more organized and actually field some local candidates in the 2009 municipal election. Note to Greens: elect an alderman before you think you’ll elect a Mayor.

Running for committeeman & committeewoman is literally the most basic level we have in St. Louis. Thought about running for alderman but family and work committements too much for you? This is the perfect way to get involved. And while such an election won’t be a cake walk most of these candidates are never challenged. The proof? I looked up the election results for all 28 wards for both 2000 & 2004. I’ve summarized the democratic elections, see Commitee Elections (pdf). I looked up the republican, green and libertarian for the city but they are a joke. Pretty much if you want to be a committee person for any of those three parties simply pay your fee and the odds are very good you’ll be the committee person.

I also requested a copy of the current democratic central committee (see citydems.org). I took the 5-page Excel spreadsheet that was sent to me and reduced it down to a 2-page PDF file, see Roster of Committee persons. This will show you who is currently holding each position within the democratic central committee and how to reach them. This is also helpful if you wish to be involved in your ward with respect to the upcoming elections. Sorry, at this point I don’t know which wards are open vs. which are closed although I did make a few notes about the ones I knew.

So contact your committee people and get involved. If you don’t like what it is all about, consider running next year to replace them.

Follow-up to the 6th Ward Democrats Meeting

As previously posted, Patrick Cacchione received the endorsement last night from the 6th Ward Democrats. With (115) votes to Kacie Starr Triplett’s (51) and Christian Saller’s (5) it was not even close.  Update 1/19/07 10am — 1/19 – 10am — I’m told Seller’s total might have been 20 rather than 5. Some people I talked to were expecting an even bigger turn out but it is clear it is probably easier to get people to sign up than it is to get them to sit through a political meeting.

Still, this was an impressive show to have that many people and I can say that a good 95% of them stayed through the entire meeting rather than voting and leaving early. These are the kind of numbers I’d like to see from all the wards — just goes to show what a good contested race will do for participation levels.

Here are some basic observations that I have:

• Everone was very civil to each other although anyone not eligible to vote was asked to leave once the candidates finished speaking. Mary Entrup, aka Mrs. Lews Reed, ran off a list of people that needed to leave such as campaign workers, press and bloggers. It felt nice to be included.
• Cacchione’s wife, Pam, made it a point to come over and introduce herself to me before the meeting. We spoke again afterwards briefly. At one point Cacchione said in his opening comments that she was the better candidate but could not convince her to run. I think he might be right, still he was a very good speaker.
• I think like most of these events, the people arriving at the meeting already had they minds made up. Still, I talked to a couple of people that changed their minds after listing to all three candidates.
• One friend that I talked with was supporting Cacchione because he earned the job. Indeed, Cacchione used this phrase in his comments. I’m not going to tell anyone that can’t hold that belief but I personally don’t think that we should elect representatives simply based on how long they’ve been loyal to those that went before them. Still, when it comes to an organization such as the 6th Ward Democrats Cacchione clearly was the person who had given the most service to the organization. So perhaps it is a reason for them to endorse someone that has been so loyal but that is not a reason to elect him into office for four years.
• All three candidates did a great job actually addressing the questions posed to them. They gave clear and direct answers unlike some of the political side-stepping I saw with Reed & Shrewsbury in the race for President of the Board of Aldermen.
• It seemed all three, on issues, were pretty much in step with each other. We didn’t get any polar opposite positions. The distinctions came down to experience with all three saying they have the experience that counts.
• The issue of the BJC lease came up but it was phrased a bit weird, having to do with building private buildings on public land. Triplett was pretty opposed to the idea, Saller was his usual seeing both sides (a very good trait by the way) and Cacchione gave a less than satisfactory answer for me. He spoke about how it should be based on the views of those immediately around the park, generally a good thing to involve those. However, park land is enjoyed by more than those who simply live adjacent to a park. Our parks belong to all of us and I don’t know that any single group should be allowed to have too much sway over something held by the city for all of us to enjoy.

The issue of eminent domain came up relative to a proposed project in the adjacent 7th Ward but immediately abutting the 6th Ward. Apparently the area across Lafayette from City Hospital has a proposed Walgreen’s and possibly a big box grocery store. Jim Roos of the Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition, and a resident of the 6th or 7th ward (I’m not certain), was among the audience. In the video you’ll hear all three candidates making reference to him. The candidates spoke in the order they appear on the ballot: Triplett, Cacchione and Saller:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h9tP3IXK-M[/youtube]

Cacchione gave a really passionate response. He seemed to draw a clear line in the sand regarding taking people’s homes away. Such a stand would have made him clearly opposed to Loughborough Commons where residents’ homes were taken away from them with the threat of eminent domain. Cacchione also seemed to make it clear he’d rally against the project even though it is not in his ward — going against aldermanic courtesy and long-time alderman Phyllis Young. My question is would he be so against the project if it did not abut the ward where he is seeking office? That is, if the situation were to come up in another part of the city several wards removed would he still feel strongly against eminent domain. To be fair, I wonder this about many of our elected officials — do they suffer the same thoughts on proximity that so many voters do? Our of sight out of mind.

Triplet and Saller both gave good answers as well. Triplet talked about eminent domain as a tool of last resort while Saller pointed out the old Foodland store on Jefferson & Lafayette is already in condemnation (aka eminent domain) so the city can redevelop the site. However, I don’t know that any adjacent properties outside the existing commercial site are threatened.

The thing I want everyone to remember is the ward endorsement does not necessarily reflect the final vote on election day. In other words, don’t count out either Triplet or Saller from this race simply because the committeeman received the endorsement of his own organization. If you missed this event don’t worry, all three candidates will appear at a debate sponsored by the Downtown Residents Association and the League of Women Voters to be held at the main library on February 5th. The event will start at 6pm with the debate getting underway at 7pm. Everyone needs to make sure you are registered to vote, the deadline is February 7th. If you are not registered, be sure to do so right away (learn how) or attend the above event on February 5th to get registered that night.

I count among my friends people supporting all three candidates. They all have their respective reasons, some of which I agree and others I do not. What is exciting for me is to see so many people engaged in this race and actually having real discussions about real issues. Hopefully the ward and city will come out stronger and remain engaged following this election on March 6th. I also hope all three work on fleshing out what may end up being some suburban sprawl at Lafayette & Truman Parkway.

Cacchione Gets Endorsement of 6th Ward Democrats

Tonight the 6th Ward Democrats, in a packed meeting, voted to endorse current committeeman Patrick Cacchione. The votes were as follows:

• Cacchione, 115
• Triplett, 51
• Saller, 5 (1/19 – 10am — I’m told this might have been 20 rather than 5)

I’ll have some commentary and hopefully some video in a separate post at some point tomorrow.