St. Louis’ International Award-Winning “Strategy for Renewal”

Two weeks ago this Wednesday St. Louis won a “World Leadership Award” in the category of Urban Renewal for its submission entitled “Strategy for Renewal.” The mayor’s website was full of excitement and the RCGA sent out a glowing press release. I was sceptical as nobody knew what we submitted. On Friday I received a paper copy after submitting a request under Missouri’s Sunshine Law. Here are a few tidbits.

Mayor Francis G. Slay sent a letter accepting the invitation to submit an entry on April 1, 2006. In that letter he writes,

“I am writing to let you know that we do plan on submitting an entry, and we would welcome the favorable publicity that we would receive if we won or even if we were a finalist.”

Our entry was submitted to the organizers on July 10th, 2006. Here is a quote from the opening page:

After losing 500,000 people in 45 years, the City of St. Louis has reversed the trend and become a model for “rebuilding” cities around the world. New residents are returning; businesses are starting to meet the growing market; and we have initiated education reform to make our public schools again, schools of choice.

Education reform? Since when is criticizing the school board education reform?

We have turned the corner. After decades of record population loss, growth is occurring. The U.S. Census Bureau ranked St. Louis 43rd in percentage population growth over the past year. I believe our strategy has become a model for other cities to follow.

While I will agree the massive droves of people fleeing the city has stopped I don’t know that we can say the city is growing. I’d say more like stabilized. Furthermore, I don’t know this is due to any policies enacted by Mayor Slay or simply the fact we hit bottom. And I find it rather amusing this strategy that is supposed to be a model for other cities had to be obtained via Missouri’s Sunshine Law regarding open documents.

The document talks about a number of objectives and strategies, some which have been done, some of which are in process and others that I am not aware of any effort to complete. One area that seems a bit of a stretch is around the city’s Strategic Land Use Plan. From the Strategy for Renewal:

A critical stage in our Great City renewal strategy was to provide a concise roadmap to direct public and private resources to where we needed them most. Until 2005, St. Louis operated under a Master Plan conceived in 1947.

That plan called for wholesale demolition of 35% of the City, coinciding with demographic changes. Conceived before the loss of 500,000 people, the Plan offered no strategy for addressing wholesale urban disinvestment. The Strategic Land Use Plan adopted in 2005 has changed how we think and do business. We have identified those parts of the City where public investment is most needed, to help stimulate private investment that builds on our strengths.

All levels of City government act in a coordinated manner to create nodes of growth. Subsequent efforts then connect “these nodes”, creating corridors of positive change. From a new housing project; a loan to a small business owner to repair a building; grants to remove lead paint from the schools and homes to enhance the welfare of the children; a combination of small incentives helps to stabilize declining neighborhoods.

Gee, last time I checked we still operate under that 1947 plan. Yes, the land use designations have been updated but our archaic zoning is still in place. Earlier this year, when arguing before the city’s “board of adjustment” regarding the McDonald’s drive-thru issue, I suggested the South Grand the area was to have certain character, as described in the land use plan. They told me, in a public hearing, the land use plan does not trump zoning. The mayor can tell people in London all he wants about this land use plan but in reality until we have new zoning it is worthless. The implimentation page for the land use plan admits as much:

Zoning designations are continually problematic in the City, and more often than not new development requires a variance from the existing zoning code. It is anticipated that once this plan is adopted zoning designations will be modified to conform to the plan and “overlay districts” may be developed and adopted that are specific to the character of specific neighborhoods and development areas.

While the mayor and his staffers are flying off to London to accept awards we are still waiting for meaningful action. Why we’d go to all this trouble to enter a competition and then not share the winning entry is beyond me, unless the mayor and his staff didn’t want to be held accountable for their strategy?

But you don’t need to take my word for it, I’ve uploaded the original submitted for judging and the presentation for your review.

• Strategy For Renewal (34-page PDF, 1.4mb)
• Presentation from 12/6/06 (49-page PDF, 2.9mb — I believe the actual PowerPoint would have had some video clips and such, I will likely request the actual PowerPoint as this PDF file seems incomplete. Plus you will need to rotate it to view)

Check them out and share your thoughts below. Even better, ask your alderman what he/she thinks about the objectives, strategies and current progress!

French & Patterson on KDHX’s Collateral Damage Tonight, 7pm

Antonio French of PubDef and yours truly will be on KDHX’s Collateral Damage program tonight at 7pm. Among the topics we’ll be discussing is the 6th Ward issue over new ward organization members and the case of the missing by-laws. Other likely topics will be the immediate future of the St. Louis Public Schools (note to self: read the state’s report), and recent changes on Cherokee Street. If you have suggestions for other topics for us to discuss use the comments section below.

St. Louis Politics: The Triumph of Tradition

My holiday reading has started with UMSL Professor Lana Stein’s 2002 book, St. Louis Politics: The Triumph of Tradition.   I’ve only just started reading the book so this is not a review, more of a teaser.

Dr. Stein was a guest speaker this Fall in one of my graduate classes at SLU and realized this would be a great way for me to get caught up on all those people and events that not being a native I would not know.  Dr. Stein, by the way, is not a native either — she moved to St. Louis in 1987.

From the book’s preface:

The roots of today’s system began in 1876 with the city’s divorce from its county and in its 1914 charter. Unlike a number of other cities, St. Louis failed to centralize either its government or its political function. It has practiced factional, ward-based machine politics for better than a century, and its political culture reflects the individual ward system and a distrust of any concentration of power. Although there have been bursts of leadership, the city has continued with a complacency and a lack of confidence. Changes to the system have not altered the fundamental modus operandi.

Ouch, that doesn’t sound too promising does it?  The book promises to enlighten the reader on our political history not from the city’s founding but from 1876 when we split from the county.   Here is one more teaser from the introduction:

Many newcomers to St. Louis look askance at the city’s political life, which may seem somewhat archaic to them.  St. Louis politics clearly hearken back to an earlier era in American history.  The city’s elections are partisan, a large number of offices need filling, and twenty-eight ward organizations serve as the focal point of campaigning, the source of endorsements, and the base of the city’s patronage employment.  Jobs still are provided in exchange for political support.  Power is fragmented, and ward-based factionalism remains a hallmark of the system.

Keep this archaic factionalism in mind this election cycle as candidates promise to change St. Louis for the better and as the 6th Ward organization attempts to locate their by-laws.

“You” Are Time’s Person of the Year

Time Magazine has named “You” their 2006 Person of the Year. Time says they could have named many individuals from 2006 stories, and they go on to name a number of world-wide events, then write:

“But, look at 2006 through a different lens and you’ll see another story, one that isn’t about conflict or great men. It’s a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It’s about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people’s network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It’s not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It’s a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it’s really a revolution.”

We’ve certainly seen this revolution here in St. Louis as this blog and others has changed the face of local politics and media. From Antonio French’s outstanding videos, some receiving national attention, to the Urban St. Louis discussion forum the community is coming together online to discuss ideas, expression visions and coordinate efforts.  The only folks not on board with the revolution are our leaders, the group desperately trying to freeze time or hope this whole internet communication thing blows over.  We are fully within the information age and it is about time St. Louis’ leadership begins to understand that.  After all, we are Time’s Person of the Year.

Ald. Roddy on the Euclid Streetscape Plan

Last Monday I attended a long public meeting on the Euclid Streetscape and wrote up my thoughts. Although I had a number of positive things to say it was mostly a critical take, offering criticism others may not know to suggest or be too afraid of offending someone. I, inevitably, offend people with my direct views. One such person was simply known as “CWE1”. This person suggested I was spreading misinformation.

My personal preference is not to rely on my notes for project details, opting instead to link to a website or perhaps a PDF document containing all the facts relevant to a project. That frees me up to talk about the design theory, the thought process (or often lack of), missing details and finally offering suggestings for improvement. Unfortunately, in the case of the proposed Euclid Streetscape no such basis exists — the public was not given any sort of fact sheet on the project nor is anything provided on the web for me to link to so that you, as the reader, can verify details for yourself. One such area where CWE1 says I am incorrect is how the study is funded, I wrote in my original piece:

These funds, as I understand it, came from an increase in the taxes on the property where we have the new Park East Tower high-rise. A diverse group of stakeholders were involved at the start of the project on November 9th.

To which CWE1 replied:

The funds being used for the Euclid project do not come from an increase in taxes on the Park East Tower property.

I then responded with:

You misunderstood the taxes comment relative to the Park East. The money for the design fees and some other projects, roughly $500K, are from an incremental increase in the taxes in the area due to the Park East. The land was vacant and city-owned before so the taxes are all new — an increment higher than before. As I mentioned, the actual work would be done via a grant from East-West Gateway using Federal funds.

CWE1 once again insisted he/she was correct with:

I repeat that the money for the design fees and other projects does not come from an incremental increase in the taxes. The Park East Tower has set up a CID and is receiving tax abatement. The $500K was a lump-sum contribution based on a percentage of the subsidy. If you have questions about the financing, I suggest a call to the development agency.

Again, I try to be very accurate with details such as the source of funding. If I am uncertain, I either don’t bring it up or try to verify. After sitting through a long meeting and taking extensive notes I thought I had the various nuances down. CWE1 disagrees, the source of the funds being just one example. So where did I get my information and can I back it up? Well, from Ald. Joe Roddy and yes I can.

Here is a short video (less than 5 minutes) of Ald. Joe Roddy starting off the meeting on the Euclid Streetscape, he discusses the “increment” at 2:50:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7pKsGcjT8c[/youtube]

So, CWE1, if any misinformation is being spread about this project it is either from Ald. Roddy or from you. I’m not sure which.  I regret that I did not record the full meeting to be able to good definitive answers to other areas of contention.

If the CWE-Midtown Development Corporation, or their communications consultant Vector Communications, wants to send me a fact sheet to set the record straight on this project I will be more than happy to publish anything and everything they send me. Given neither the development corp nor Ald. Roddy have a website of their own, it is the least I can do to help them communicate with the tax paying public.