Mayor Slay’s Spin Machine Goes to Eleven

It seems St. Louis received a World Leadership Award yesterday. From MayorSlay.com:

Recently, I told you that the City of St. Louis had been nominated from among 400 cities by the World Leadership Forum as a finalist for a World Leadership Award.

According to the Forum, the nominations were made to “cities whose leaders have shown exceptional imagination, foresight or resilience in a number of key fields — especially cities that have reversed trends, shaken off traditional images, and acted as an example and inspiration to others.”

St. Louis was nominated in the category, Urban Renewal. The other category finalists were Calcutta, India; Manchester, England; and Kansas City.

The finalist presentations were in London yesterday. The awards were presented tonight.

We won. Congratulations, St. Louis.

Well, hold on there Richard Callow, Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay. Nominated? Well, that would mean that someone had to nominate St. Louis? But that isn’t what really happened. From a World Leadership Forum press release:

Early in 2006 the World Leadership Forum contacted leaders in 400 of the world’s largest cities, and asked them to submit synopses of their most successful projects. These projects covered a very wide range of activities spanning the environment, urban renewal, housing, health, town planning, architecture, civil engineering, education, development of the young, the economy and employment.

This was a competition that St. Louis entered, as did all the other cities in the competition. St. Louis was not “nominated in the category, Urban Renewal” — that was the category the city selected when submitting the entry. This basically PR BS.

Still, competitions are good so the idea of entering one that is world-wide is fine. Winning is even better. Why the spin of “nominated” I don’t quite get but I usually don’t understand why many things are done the way they are around City Hall and especially Room 200.

A couple of things trouble me about the “nominations” and the short list of finalists. First, unlike other competitions where they announce the total number of entries, these do not. We know that 29 cities were shortlisted as finalists in 11 categories. That is great if they received 300 entries but not so great if they only received 30. As an example, earlier this year the ULI (Urban Land Institute) held their annual design competition in St. Louis. We know that 81 teams submitted entries which was narrowed to 16 and then to the final four before a winning entry was named best. The total number of entries speaks to the credibility of the competition. Back to these awards, the ‘Urban Renewal’ category had four finalists with the other three being Kansas City (An Urban Renaissance), City of Manchester (Shaping the City) and City of Kolkata (Holistic Urban Renewal through Strategic Initiatives). Their rules say they will select 2-4 finalists so I have to wonder if that is determined by the number of entries —three entries=three finalists, four entries=four finalists?

The second thing that bothers me, this World Leadership Forum organization seems to exist only to give out awards — that is what they do. Their site lists a number of award programs. And once a finalist you must pay a “presentation fee” of £3,000 (roughly $5,900 US based on current exchange rates):

Cities reaching the shortlists (from two four in each category) will be required to pay a fee of £3,000 to cover the presentation and judging costs (venue hire, audiovisual equipment, crew, catering, judges travel expenses etc.), as well as the cost of a table at the award ceremony (the table seats up to ten guests and includes complimentary cocktails, dinner, wine programs etc.).

Cities which fail to pay the fee within 30 days of the invoice date will be disqualified from the awards.

Cities that do not reach the shortlists will not be charged any fees.

So St. Louis submits an entry called “Strategy for Renewal.” Entries are supposed to be “up to 5,000 words, in English, describing a project your city has recently undertaken which shows exceptional levels of leadership.” Have you seen this document? I know I have not! Where is the link to the document Mayor Slay? Please let us read about our own winning strategy and our “exceptional levels of leadership.”
The 29 finalists presented in London this week and the awards were presented yesterday following the last of the judging. So besides wondering what we submitted I am curious who we sent to London to make the presentation to the judges. Did we pay for a contingent to go there and fill that table for 10? Who went? Were additional materials presented to the judges? If so, what?

The Kansas City Star reports they sent three people: Mayor, City Manager and President of their Chamber of Commerce. The Publisher of Kansas City business magazine Ingram’s had this to say last month:

As I write this, city leaders are preparing to present our story as a World Leadership Award Winner. Kansas City is one of only four cites on the globe selected as a finalist in the category of urban renewal. We at Ingram’s are proud to strategically position the City for this award by crafting The Urban Renewal Business Report—a Decade of Redevelopment in Downtown Kansas City. This publication will be presented to the judges and the attendees of the World Leadership Awards in London next month. Forgive me if I shed my Midwestern modesty and say that I think Kansas City has a damn good shot of beating Calcutta, Manchester and St. Louis for the title.

Locally KSDK is reporting the big news of the win:

Wednesday night, Mayor Francis Slay accepted the Urban Renewal Award at the annual World Leadership Awards in London.

Slay says it’s recognition for the city that it’s moving in the right direction.

“The more that we get affirmation from organizations not only nationally, but in this case internationally, of the successes we’ve been able to achieve, it really creates much more momentum here locally, more people become believers and as more people become believers the momentum continues to grow,” Mayor Francis Slay said.

I’ll be impressed after I read our entry into the competition as well as know the total number entries. And for those of you too young to get the headline, click here.

[Update 12/7/06 @ 7:20pm — I checked the Mayor’s site and a few hours after the item quoted above was from the Mayor’s Desk they posted a much more reasonable sounding item in the Latest News section (link). At no point in this piece is the word “nomination” used:

In the presentation, Slay talked about how the City of St. Louis had created a “culture of change” that has empowered people to improve the City’s quality of life. “It isn’t just bricks and mortar,” Slay said. “We are certainly revitalizing Downtown and our neighborhoods. But, we are also addressing health care, education, affordable housing, and homelessness.”

More than 400 cities around the world were asked to submit synopses of their most successful projects in a wide range of activities.

The other finalists in the Urban Renewal category were Kansas City; Manchester, England; and Calcutta, India. Last year’s winner was Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

This is a word for word match to the press release on the city’s site. The only difference being the city’s press release site doesn’t include the picture of Planning & Urban Design Director in his kilt next to Mayor Slay. OK, so they toned down the “nomination” lines, I still want to see this award-winning urban renewal strategy.]

[Update 12/8/06 @ 7am — I received an email back from Malcolm Turner of the The World Leadership Forum saying this about the number of entries and showing the projects:

I’m afraid it’s not our policy to publish details, or numbers of entries which failed to make the shortlists.

I’m also sorry to say that we don’t currently have the necessary copyright permission which would enable us to publish the winning entries on our website.

Sorry folks but this organization and their awards cannot possibly be taken seriously if we are not permitted to know how many of these 400 cities responded to the invite. Real competitions have no problems letting you know how many submittals they received and thus how many did not make the final cut. Our winning entry may well be outstanding but the award is bogus in my opinion.]

Is St. Louis Sticking to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement?

Seven mayors in the St. Louis Region have all signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The mayors, all from Missouri municipalities, are as follows:

• Ben Uchitelle; Clayton
• Robert G. Lowery; Florissant
• Mike Swoboda; Kirkwood
• Mark Langston; Maplewood
• Francis G. Slay; Saint Louis
• James A. Hobbs; Sunset Hills (note: John Hunzeker is current mayor)
• Joseph L. Adams; University City

From an Oct 18, 2005 press release from the Ozark Chapter of the Sierra Club we know St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay signed the agreement in October 2005:

A coalition of conservation-minded groups applauded Mayors Mark Langston of Maplewood, Joseph Adams of University City, and Francis Slay of St. Louis for making commitments to reduce global warming pollution in their cities. The event was the result of a grassroots campaign and part of the Sierra Club’s national “Cool Cities” tour. The event featured a fuel-sipping hybrid Mercury Mariner that is made in Missouri.

At the news conference in front of Maplewood City Hall, the mayors were presented with certificates of thanks for signing onto the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, an effort initiated by the mayor of Seattle earlier this year and now supported by 185 mayors nationwide. Mayor Slay, who signed the agreement last week, did not attend, but his office provided a written statement:

“`I am particularly interested in considering environmental policies that will create jobs for the residents of our City,’” said Slay in the statement. “`As we assess implementation of new policies, their potential to create new jobs will be the priority consideration.’”

The list of mayors is now over 300 strong. Here is the agreement to which they’ve signed on:

ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities, communities and the federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution; and

WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international community’s most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming pollution; and

WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include average global sea level increases of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40 percent decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness; and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the past decade; and

WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific community will cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world including: increased risk of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of smog; and

WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address climate disruption, went into effect in the 141 countries that have ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and

WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the world’s population, is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world’s global warming pollutants; and

WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and

WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed preference for the US to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means by which to remain competitive in the international marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote sound investment decisions; and

WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the United States are adopting emission reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming from Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike; and

WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing global warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced energy bills, green space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced traffic congestion, improved transportation choices, and economic development and job creation through energy conservation and new energy technologies; and

WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as amended at the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, reads: The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement

A. We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels;

B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes

1) clear timetables and emissions limits and

2) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries; and

C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities such as:

1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan.

2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities;

3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit;

4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology;

5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money;

6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use;

7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or a similar system;

8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel;

9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;

10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community;

11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and

12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting and urges mayors from around the nation to join this effort. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The U.S. Conference of Mayors will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations to track progress and implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended b73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting.

I’ve searched through St. Louis’ website looking for any evidence of action on the part of the Slay administration with respect to this agreement but I’ve come up empty handed. In fact, in searching the city’s press release system for the dates in which the agreement would have been signed I could not find a single mention of even having agreed to the concept. Who is working on this initiative? In particular I like #2 above:

Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities

Well, in St. Louis we are sticking with our 1947 pro-sprawl zoning which supersedes our new strategic land use plan so we are not doing so well on the reduction of sprawl. If fact, the mayor seemed supportive of Ald. Florida’s McDonald’s drive-thru in a walkable urban community and is advocating reducing public park land. I’ve heard nothing of looking into bio-diesel for the city’s fleet of trucks or hybrids for city vehicles. I have not even seen the establishment of any kind of committee or group to begin investigating options for compliance by 2012, much less any real action.

The City of Clayton has an ‘Ecology and Environmental Awareness Committee’ (see April 2006 Minutes). Looks like Clayton is talking with Centene about LEED certification for their project — a start. It also looks like Clayton is making room in their budget for hybrid vehicles for city use. Nothing major but clearly open progress.
In August of 2006 Kirkwood announced an award:

The City of Kirkwood has received an award from the U.S. EPA Blue Skyways Collaborative for efforts to reduce air pollution and decrease U.S. consumption of foreign oil. The city’s efforts have included the city fleet’s Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Bio-diesel program; the city’s commitment to the Mayors’ Climate Protection Plan known as “Cool Cities”; Kirkwood Electric’s “Plug in Partnership” and energy savings program with LED street lights; and the Sanitation Division’s recycling program.

I found nothing on the websites for Maplewood, Florissant or Sunset Hills. On University City’s website I found a newsletter announcing the signing but nothing beyond that. Looks like Clayton and Kirkwood are leading the region in this area.

Did the idea of Leed certification come up in the talks between the city over Ballpark Village? If not, why? And where is the new zoning to make the 2005 adoption of the Strategic Land Use plan meaningful? Otherwise, the land use plan becomes yet another long-series of plans trumpeted and then added to the pile in city hall to collect dust.

It is certainly hard to acheive a goal without putting forth any effort to get there. Budgets are always tight and time is limited, you must have the political will to make it happen — otherwise don’t sign the agreement. Mayor Slay: do something or ask that your name be removed from the list!

Speaking of political will, I wonder if our aldermen even know about this agreement… I’m also curious to ask Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury and his challenger Ald. Lewis Reed how they feel about the agreement and what they think the city should be doing (or not doing) in this area.

One Year Later: Mississippi Bluffs Project Going Nowhere Fast

A year ago today I did a post about the problems with the proposed design for the Mississippi Bluffs condos, including the razing of the stately Doering Mansion. This was a follow-up post to the November 28, 2005 Preservation Board meeting where the project was given approval by a vote of 6-2. At that meeting Ald. Matt Villa (yes, of Loughborough Commons fame) spoke about how he selected this developer over others. Once again, we have Aldermen medling in development issues for which they are not qualified.

On February 22, 2006 I lamented about the Doering Mansion:

The once stately Doering Mansion is nearly gone. Today only a few walls remain standing as the machinery tears away at the structure.

It its place will be some vaguely interesting condos on an artificial bluff sited much closer to Broadway than people realize. Sadly this will be one of those projects where after it is completed people will be remorseful for the old lady that was razed.

This is how the building looked just over a year ago:

The experts and not-so experts said it was too chopped up and beyond saving. I disagreed. Turns out the so-called experts were wrong about what could be built on the site. If you recall the developer, Michael Curran, argued he had to have 56 condos on the site to make the project feasible. Without the mansion’s site, he’d have to build 120 units on the balance. By April 2006 something was up with the real estate agent returning deposits to buyers. In early September Curren went back to the city to amend his project from 56 units down to only 34. Ooops!

Well, it is December and the mansion is long gone and so are any construction crews. The site has been vacant for months. The development’s website has yet to be updated — it still shows the original 56 units to be constructed.

Who do we hold accountable? We can start with developer Michael Curran, the man that picked him for the project Ald. Matt Villa and the four members of the St. Louis Preservation Board that voted in favor of allowing the Doering Mansion to be razed: Richard Callow (now Chairman) Mary Johnson (vice-chair), Luis Porrello and Melanie Fathman (no longer on the board). Two architects on the board voted against demoltion: John Burse and Anthony Robinson.

Here is what Ald. Matt Villa had to say yesterday:

“I don’t know when the project will start, but I do know that Mike Curran plans to proceed.”

Developer Mike Curran did not respond to my request for a comment. And so one full year later we wait…

St. Louis’ Schools Need Middle-Class Students

A couple of days ago I did a post about government’s role in shaping the suburbs through federal lending policies, including an excerpt from the excellent book, Cities Without Suburbs, by David Rusk. Today I bring you more from Rusk, this time on education:

In 1966, sociologist James Coleman released his path-breaking study, Equality of Educational Opportunity. Sponsored by the then-U.S. Office of Education, the Coleman Report concluded that the socioeconomic characteristics of a child and of the child’s classmates (measured principally by family income and parental education) were the overwhelming factors that accounted for academic success. Nothing else – expenditures per pupil, pupil-teacher ratios, teacher experience, instructional materials, age of school buildings, etc. – came close.

“The educational resources provided by a child’s fellow students,” Coleman summarized, “are more important for his achievement than are the resources provided by the school board.” So important are fellow students, the report found, that “the social composition of the student body is more highly related to achievement, independent of the student’s own social background, than is any school factor.”

In the four decades since, nothing has changed. There has been no more consistent finding of educational researchers – and no research finding more consistently ignored by most politicians and many educators. They will not challenge the underlying racial and class structure of American society.

I have conducted a dozen such studies myself, charting the dominant impact of socioeconomic status on school results. The most recent is my study of all elementary schools in Madison-Dane County, Wisconsin. The study finds that

• Pupil socioeconomic status accounts for 64 percent to 77 percent of the school-by-school variation in standardized test results and that
  
• Poor children’s test results improve dramatically when surrounded by middle-class classmates. Move a poor child from a neighborhood school where 80 percent of classmates are also poor to a neighborhood school where 80 percent of classmates are middle class would raise the chance of that child’s scoring at a proficient or advanced levels by 30 to 48 percentage points – an enormous improvement.

In other words, where a child lives largely shapes the child’s educational opportunities – not in terms of how much money is being spent per pupil but who the child’s classmates are. Housing policy is school policy.

This is not really earth shattering news but among all the discussions about the St. Louis Public Schools — the performance of the long list of recent Superintendents, divisions on the school board, low test scores, and calls by Mayor Fracis Slay and others for state takeover of the system the idea of the home-life envinronment for the bulk of the school kids has been lost. This is not to say the kids have a bad or abusive home life but one in which perhaps their parents are poorly educated themselves and are working many hours to provide for their family.

The basic argument is this — the St. Louis Public Schools will continue to under-perform regardless of who is in charge as long as the social issues of concentrated poverty, lack of nearby jobs and poor housing remain unchanged. Ballpark Village is not going to change this situation in the neighborhoods. In the past I’ve said something to the effect of we don’t need school age kids — they are a financial drain anyway. Well, I was wrong. We do need kids — lots of middle-class kids.

But how is that possible? Parents are not going to move to the city until the schools improve and the schools are not going to improve until we get more kids. A costly busing system is one avenue but I don’t think that is a good long-term solution. The answer? Consolidation! No, not a city-county merger of municipalities but of school districts.

Between the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County we have 25 school districts. In many less fractured regions of the country, that same area would have 1-3 districts. Of course, large districts can have their issues as well but that is more about leadership. So what to do? Well, I’d probably combine all the small districts that are fully within the I-270 loop (see map of districts) — this includes St. Louis, Riverview Gardens, Jennings, Normandy, Ritenour, University City, Clayton, Ladue, Brentwood, Maplewood-Richmond Heights, Webster Groves, Affton, Bayless, and Hancock Place. A number of districts are mostly within the I-270 loop and could be included as well — Ferguson-Florissant, Pattonville, Kirkwood, Lindbergh and perhaps Mehlville.
Could this happen voluntarily? Probably not, state action would be needed. But, I would argue this is necessary to help the region — the St. Louis Public Schools are acting as a drain on the regions growth but the solution, more middle-class students, is outside the grasp of the St. Louis School Board and the administration. And yes, as long as poor folks are concentrated in the city and older inner-ring suburbs like Wellston we will need some busing to move people around. But as a single district this would be easier to accomplish — less of the “us” vs. “them.”

Another factor is if we had a single school district for the city and most of the county we could eliminate the “I won’t live in the city because of the schools” claims. Of course, some might argue this would drive folks to Illinois, St. Charles County or Jefferson County even faster but I’m not so sure. After the initial shock of it all I think it might go pretty well and then parents would not see the city limits sign as a big barrier. A strong city is good for the region and especially good for St. Louis County, which continues to lose population to surrounding areas. Such a school system consolidation could help both the city and county. Discuss.

St. Louis Magazine’s “50 Power Players” Online

A couple of weeks ago I did a post about St. Louis Magazine’s ’50 Most Powerful in 2006′ list in their December 2006 issue, with me rounding out the list at #50. If you’ve still not picked up a copy you can conveniently read the entire list online, just click here. However, if you want to see the nice pic of me on my scooter on a closed Washington Ave (thank you McGowan’s & St. Louis Cardinals) you will need to purchase the print edition.  From the intro to the piece:

“You think it’s easy to rank this city’s heavy hitters? Try it. Everyone knew who carried the biggest stick back during the reign of Civic Progress, but in these days of fragmented power, it’s a bit harder to separate influence peddlers from petty insiders”

Some of us were also asked to name five people we thought were powerful and influential in St. Louis. See who Jeff Smith, Joe Edwards, The Gills, Peter Raven, myself and others listed as powerful in St. Louis, here.

So, check out the full list and use the comments section below to add people that you think are missing but should be included, perhaps to name those that you don’t think belong on the list or even suggest a different order.