St. Aloysius, You Will Be Missed

Silhouette of steeple as seen on Wednesday April, 12, 2006.

Charter Reform: Term Limits and Non-Partisan Elections

I’ve written before about the types of change I’d like to see in local elections. I’ve talked about trying to limit contributions to the amount of the job’s annual salary and some other things that have less of a chance of getting passed than me driving a Hummer. And that ain’t gonna happen.

In 2004 we also saw a series of sweeping Charter reform measures that would have significantly altered the structure of the city’s government. It was too much all at once, and frankly, not necessary. Some say we have a weak mayor system while at the same time saying the aldermen have lost any power they had. Huh? We can’t have a weak mayor and a weak legislative body at the same time. Which is it? I think they have a give and take roll that might actually be acceptable.

What is not acceptable is the idea that once you are elected you can stay in the job until you decide not to run and then you hand the baton off to your hand-picked successor. This discourages citizen participation in the process either as voters, involved citizens or even as potential candidates.

Two fairly common changes to the City’s Charter should be brought to the voters: term limits (2 terms/8 years) and non-partisan elections. We should apply these across the board to everyone from the aldermen to city-wide offices such as License Collector & Mayor.

St. Louis is not the Democratic town people seem to believe it is. Sure, nearly every candidate files as a Democrat but that has little to do with which party they align with nationally. Listen to a number of our “Democrat” candidates — they are conservative right-wing Republicans. We are simply fooling ourselves to thinking we are a strong democratic base here. The truth is voters tend to vote for a Democrat in city elections so therefore candidates file as Democrats. If we take away party affiliation then voters will have to do more than vote for the candidate endorsed by the ward’s committee people.

Non-Partisan Elections

From the National League of Cities:

According to a 2001 survey, 77% of the responding cities have nonpartisan elections, and 23% have partisan elections.

Not that we have to do what other cities have done but I think the topic is worth considering. I reviewed the NLC chart listing the top 30 cities by population and found the following:

The cities with partisan elections are:

New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Charlotte and Tucson.

Cities with a Mayor-Council form and non-partisan elections are:

Los Angeles, Houston, Detroit, Jacksonville, Columbus, Memphis, Milwaukee, Boston, Nashville, El Paso, Seattle, Denver, and Portland.

Cities with a Council-Manager form and non-partisan elections are:

Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, San Antonio, San Jose, Austin, Fort Worth, and Oklahoma City.

In researching this topic I found some reports that indicate that San Francisco’s elections are now non-partisan but I have not been able to confirm that. Efforts are underway in NYC to make their elections non-partian as well. Given that we have no real competition in our local elections this would open the system to more people.

Term Limits

The National Civic League website includes a page on Term Limits. From the “pro” argument:

A seat open every couple of terms will create more competition, since challengers will not be discouraged from taking on a long-time, seemingly invincible opponent. PACS and other campaign contributors will not automatically assume that giving to an incumbent is the only safe investment.

The site does a good job of listing both pros and cons. One of the arguments against term limits say on the national level is that you can just vote for the other guy if you don’t want someone in office too long. Well, in our city elections that often consist of only a single candidate, that argument doesn’t work. A main argument is to have citizen-legislators, not career politicians, running our city. We need to limit all local office holders to two terms in office. After 8 years in office an Alderman can run for another office such as License Collector and hold that job for two terms before becoming Mayor for another 8 years. Term limits allow for an upgrade path but not a stay in place and rule 1/28 of the city like a dictator.

Like non-partisan elections, I think this is a good discussion topic for reforming city government.

Another Idea – Mixed Districts

The National League of Cities has an interesting page on having at-large vs. district elections for a city council. To my surprise, 38.2% of large cities use a mixed at-large & district system while 45.5% use a district system as we do with our wards. I think having some at-large seats in addition to ward seats is an interesting concept.

I think we need to put term limits and non-partian elections on a future ballot for city voters to decide if that would be a way to reform our city government. What do you think?

– Steve

Forest Park SE Dev. Corp. To Hold Meeting on Forest Park Land Run

Not surprising, an organization that relies on both the area Alderman and BJC has backed the plan to let BJC build on part of Forest Park. Now they are holding a public meeting to give the appearance of seeking public input:

On Thursday, April 13th at 6:00 pm at Adams Park Community Center, 4317 Vista, residents/concerned citizens will have an opportunity to hear and discuss the proposed relocation of the Hudlin Park, portion of Forest Park, east of Kingshighway. The park is located at Clayton Road and Euclid Avenue. The proposed reuse involves expansion of the BJC/Barnes-Jewish Hospital to this site. In turn, Forest Park will receive an annual gift from BJC/Barnes- Jewish Hospital.

Forest Park Southeast Development Corporation submitted a support letter for this proposal – acknowledging that the proposed development would in turn be good for Forest Park, the City of St. Louis, and BJC/Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

Attending this meeting will be Alderman Joseph Roddy and other concerned residents/business owners of Forest Park Southeast. Your input is welcomed. Again, the meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 13th at 6:00 pm.

Please forward to others.

Irving M. Blue, Executive Director
Forest Park Southeast Development Corporation

I just love how all this works:

1) Hatch evil plan around self interests but tied concerns about higher taxes if not accepted.
2) Get politicos on board with plan. After all, that is why we give them contributions!
3) Get local group on board now that they are used to our annual grants.
4) Oh yeah, almost forgot, hold some sort of public meeting now that all the decisions are made. Solicit “input” without laughing.
5) Wrap up song & dance and return to doing whatever we feel like secure in the knowledge the alderman and neighborhood are eating out of our hands.

What a system we’ve got.

The show begins at 6pm on 4/13/06 at 4317 Vista.

– Steve

Why Did Blairmont Associates Contribute to the 25th Ward?

So who is Blairmont you ask? Michael and Claire over at Ecology of Absence certainly know. They first commented on Blairmont as the owners of the historic but crumbling Clemmens Mansion in July 2005:

It’s distressing to know that Blairmont Associates LC is causing yet another annoyance to a rehabber; Blairmont owns many properties on the Near North Side of St. Louis and is notoriously hard to reach. No one can find out anything about Blairmont except that a man named Harry Noble supposedly owns the company — but even that isn’t verified. A search through the Missouri Secretary of State’s corporation registry reveals that the “CT Corporation System” registered the name “Blairmont Associates LC” on behalf of an anonymous party or parties.

Many of Blairmont’s properties seem to be vacant lots in Old North St. Louis, St. Louis Place and other neighborhoods, although the company recently purchased a vacant St. Louis Public Schools property at 2333 Benton.

Other people report needing to make agreements with Blairmont to repair shared utilities or utilities that run through Blairmonnt properties, and having difficulty finding a phone number.

Nice folks huh? Interestingly enough, it turns out Blairmont Associates gave $750 to the 25th Ward Democratic Club during the aldermanic race last year in which I was a candidate. You see, contributions directly to candidate campaigns were limited to $300 per election but contributions to ward committees don’t seem to have limits.

The really funny thing is the timing of the contribution — the day after the 25th Ward committee endorsed my opponent, the former committeewoman of 20 years, by a vote of 26-4. Wow, how convenient was that. Also the day after the committee vote they also received $1,800 from a Clayton law firm called Stone, Leyton, Gershman which has ties to Blairmont and other front companies buying up St. Louis. Add another $2,500 from Anheuser-Busch and you’ve got a nice sum of money to get around the $300 campaign contribution limit. 25th Ward reports show thousands of dollars were used for printing and phone calls during primary election above and beyond the over $13K+ spent by the Kirner campaign. Of course, it is perfectly legal. Just not necessarily above board.

I just can’t help but wonder why this mysterious Blairmont Associates, who is buying up North St. Louis under many various names, is so interested in the 25th Ward. Could it be they wanted to make sure someone didn’t get elected to the Board of Aldermen that wouldn’t look the other way when they decide to unveil whatever devious plot they have for North St. Louis? However, I seriously doubt these lawyers and investors even had a clue about our race. More than likely Kirner’s hired gun Lou Hamilton knew his client was weak & vulnerable and told the monied folks I would be trouble to them if elected. That kind of threat to their way of life got the money rolling in.

– Steve

BJC Hospital, Forest Park & ‘Aldermanic Courtesy’

The Post-Dispatch has a front page story about the city considering giving BJC Hospital a 90-year lease on a 12-acre parcel of Forest Park that is located East of Kingshighway.

If signed, the deal would give the hospital rights to the land for the next 90 years for an annual payment of more than $2 million, money the city says would go into a park trust. The hospital would have to pay to replace the courts, but not necessarily in Forest Park – it could put them anywhere in the city.

$180 million over 90 years. Certainly nothing to sneeze at.

Handing over a such a large piece of land to the hospital would be an unprecedented step in the 130-year history of Forest Park, a regional gem that is among the nation’s largest urban parks.

Well, not exactly. Lest we forget that thing called Highway 40/I-64 that took a massive chuck of Forest Park on at least two occasions. Our velodrome, located in a hard to reach corner of Penrose Park, was previously located in Forest Park but was relocated for highway expansion. But concerns are still valid that if BJC can build on Forest Park land what is to stop other ares from the same.

The bigger picture is the Parks Department is seeking funds to help their budget. Might they consider getting rid of some smaller parks altogether? Once they get a taste of money from this lease will they seek additional leases? Or perhaps they’ll sell sponsorships. They could rename Carondelet Park to something like Lowe’s Park at Carondelet after the new Lowe’s being constructed across the street. We’ve got some great little parks throughout the city but I have strong concerns we may see additional efforts to take these as well.

What I really want to see is how the BJC/Forest Park debate plays out in the Board of Aldermen. You see, we have this archaic practice called “Aldermanic Courtesy” whereby all the other aldermen forget they are elected as legislators and “defer” to the alderman in the ward where development is to take place. This is how Matt Villa got away with the horrible Loughborough Commons, Joe Vollmer is getting away with razing St. Aloysius and how Jennifer Florida thinks she will get away with a drive-thru restaurant where city ordinance says one cannot exist. You’ll recall that Ald. Craig Schmid got in trouble for speaking out against Florida’s drive-thru even though his ward is a literal two blocks away and he was representing the interest of his constituents.

By their own twisted logic on legislating the city the only alderman that should have any say in the matter is Joe Roddy. The parcel in question is in his ward, barely. But hey, that is the process. The other aldermen will say it is best they defer to the aldermen of the area but they know what is best. We all know this is BS but they continue to espouse it like it is gospel.

The balance of Forest Park falls within Lyda Krewson’s 28th Ward. Will Roddy become Florida in this case, advocating against public outcry, and will Krewson become Schmid, bucking the unwritten code of aldermen and actually representing the best interests of the city at large? Only time will tell.

BJC should have to make due with the land they’ve got.

– Steve