Blairmont Became NorthSide Regeneration, Received Blessing of Mayor Slay and a Majority of Aldermen

On Monday I took you back through years of looking into various shell companies involving hundreds of properties, many acres, and lots of secrecy — up to the public reveal in late May 2009. If you missed it, see Before It Was Officially Named NorthSide Regeneration, We Knew It As ‘Blairmont’.

That Fall, during the Board of Aldermen’s 2009-2010 session, two bills (BB218 & BB219) were introduced by then 5th ward alderman April Ford-Griffin and 4 co-sponsors: Freeman M Bosley Sr.(2nd), Kacie Starr Triplett (6th), Phyllis Young (7th), and Marlene E Davis (19th).  Of these 5 aldermen,  only Marlene Davis is still in office.

These two bills, despite significant public opposition, moved quickly through the Board:

• 10/16/2009 First Reading
• 10/23/2009 Second Reading
• 10/30/2009 Perfection, Third Reading

Online voting records only go back to 2015, so I can’t tell you who, if anyone, voted against these bills.

In November 2009 Mayor Francis Slay signed the two bills at an event held in front of the Clemens Mansion, which was going to be rehabbed by state tax credits (low income and/or historic) didn’t come through. The still-vacant property burned on July 12, 2017.

I was there whenPaul McKee  & Mayor Slay kicked off NorthSide Regeneration, here’s there comments that day.

The two bills became  two ordinances:

• Ordinance 68484
• Ordinance 68485

After the two bills became ordinances, lawsuits were filed, more legislation passed with more tax credits and so on. In the meantime, the National Geospacial-Itellegence Agency (NGA) picked a sparsely populated area North of the old Pruitt-Igoe site for their new West headquarters, relocating from South St. Louis. See New NGA West Location Will Gut St. Louis Place Neighborhood, Not Revitalize What Remains. As mentioned on Monday, the 5th Ward master plan, adopted in 2002, designed the area for new development.

Wednesdays is when I share the results of the non-scientific Sunday Poll, so here they are:

Q: Agree or disagree: Paul McKee’s Northside Regeneration project was the only hope for reviving much of North St. Louis

• Strongly agree 4 [11.11%]
• Agree 0 [0%]
• Somewhat agree 16 [16.67%]
• Neither agree or disagree 1 [2.78%]
• Somewhat disagree 1  [2.78%]
• Disagree 5 [13.89%]
• Strongly disagree 19 [52.78%]
• Unsure/No Answer 0 [0%]

I’d planned to share my thoughts on what St. Louis should do next now that McKee’s project has collapsed, but that’ll need a separate post. So Monday won’t be about all the issues frim the past 15 years…it’ll be about the next 15 years as I think they should go.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should St. Louis Privatize The Airport?

Last month outgoing St. Louis mayor, Francis Slay, suggested a change in management of the city-owned airport:

Mayor Slay says he started eyeing the idea of a public-private partnership for Lambert last year.

He says one positive is a potential influx of hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used for things like public safety or MetroLink.

Right now, most revenue generated at Lambert must stay there.

Wednesday, Mayor Slay signed a preliminary application with the federal government to start the process.  Legal and financial firms will study whether privatizing is best for St. Louis. (KMOV)

So this is the subject of today’s poll:

The poll will remain open until 8pm.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Next Mayor Should Not Continue Slay’s Policies Unchanged

In the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll more than 60% felt our next mayor should not continue the policies of 4-term mayor, Francis Slay. Agreed!

Q: This year St. Louis will have their first new mayor in 16 years. Agree or disagree: the new mayor should continue, largely unchanged, the policies of Mayor Slay.

• Strongly agree 1 [3.03%]
• Agree 3 [9.09%]
• Somewhat agree 6 [18.18%]
• Neither agree or disagreeii 2 [6.06%]
• Somewhat disagree 5 [15.15%]
• Disagree 6 [18.18%]
• Strongly disagree 9 [27.27%]
• Unsure/No Answer 1 [3.03%]

Currently there are seven candidates for mayor in the Democratic primary in March, one Libertarian has also filed.

A debate will be held Sunday January 29th from 3pm-5pm at the Busch Student Center on the campus of Saint Louis University.

St. Louis Mayoral Debate: Questions from the People, is sponsored by more than 10 community organizations including St. Louis Action Council, ArchCity Defenders and Deaconess Foundation. We feel it is important to convene a collective space for candidates to respond to real questions by community-focused organizations.

For more information see the event details here.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should The Next Mayor Continue Slay’s Policies?

In April Francis Slay will end his 4th term as mayor — the longest serving in St. Louis’ history. Slay had previously indicated his intentions to seek a 5th term, but in April 2016 announced he wouldn’t run again. Those seeking to replace him have until January 6th to file to be in the March 7, 2017 primary. Independent candidates have more time to file for the April general election.

For many, Slay is the only mayor they’ve known since they began voting. Today’s non-scientific question is seeking to find out if readers want Slay’s policies to continue.

The poll closes at 8pm.

— Steve Patterson

Forget A Football Stadium, North Riverfront Neighborhood Needs A Plan For Redevelopment

The Rams are retuning to Los Angeles. I think many forgot how we got them here in the first place. Without an NFL team since 1988 we attempted to get an expansion team, but that effort ended in December 1993 when Jacksonville FL got the 2nd expansion team. With a new dome underway political leaders had to find a way to pay for what was going to be a career-ending white elephant.

In January 1995 the Los Angeles Rams were negotiating a relocation to St. Louis, but NFL owners rejected the relocation in March ’95. Following legal threats against the NFL, the owners approved the relocation the following month:

St. Louis has has been without an NFL team since 1988, when Cardinal owner Bill Bidwill, tired of being a secondary tenant to the baseball Cardinals in outdated Busch Stadium, moved his team to Phoenix.

St. Louis was considered a lock for an NFL expansion team in 1993, but conflicting ownership groups and financial problems doomed that bid, and Charlotte, N.C., and Jacksonville, Fla., were awarded franchises.

Fans thought New England Patriots owner James Orthwein, a St. Louis native, would move his team to St. Louis in early 1994, but New England businessman Robert Kraft purchased the team at the last minute and kept it in the Boston area.

And St. Louis city and county officials nearly blew their chance at luring the Rams last summer because, until September, they couldn’t wrest control of the new stadium lease from a stubborn beer distributor who had the desire, but not the money, to buy an NFL team.

But the city finally cleaned up its act when, after Shaw broke off talks with St. Louis in August, former U.S. Sen. Thomas Eagleton stepped in and convinced aspiring owner Jerry Clinton to turn over his 30% share of the stadium lease for $8 million and the use of a luxury suite for 20 years.

The new stadium, under construction downtown, is scheduled to be completed in late October, meaning Ram home games for the first half of their first season in St. Louis might be played in Busch Stadium.

The Rams weren’t here permanently —  they were just on loan. Our desperation to fill the Dome we were building resulted in a too good to pass up deal for the Rams. We borrowed them for 21 seasons and one Super Bowl. Hell, they would’ve left a decade earlier if Georgia Frontiere wouldn’t have waived the right to go year to year after the Dome failed to be in the top tier after the first check in 2005.

Despite his claims otherwise, Kroenke likely planned to move the Rams when he purchased a majority stake. To think otherwise is foolish, he owned sports teams all over the country — it’s no big deal to fly to Los Angeles in your private jet. The writing on the wall was obvious to everyone but football nuts and elected officials worried about getting reelected if they didn’t show an effort to keep the Rams from doing the inevitable.

So $16+ million public dollars were spent so elected officials could say “see, we tried.” In doing so, a large swath of the Near North Riverfront was targeted for demolition. This left property owners uncertain about the future. The William A. Kerr Foundation posted the following on Facebook:

Perhaps enough dust has settled that we can breathe a sigh of relief that our little green building no longer faces immanent demolition. During this past year’s great folly to build an NFL worthy stadium in this area, we received many words of support and admiration for what the WAKF has accomplished here and hopes that it would continue to exist. We are very touched and grateful for this outpouring of support and are pleased that many people and organizations will continue to be able to use and enjoy this space. Now we hope that you and the powers that be will put some focused energy and money into revitalizing this whole north riverfront area. Thank you for all your good wishes and support!!

Agreed — we should keep focusing on the North Riverfront — revitalizing — not razing the area.  Unlike in the early 90s, it doesn’t appear targeted properties were bought out. Nothing was razed.  But owners are likely leery about investing out of fear of being targeted again.

As a region we need to:

1. Accept we will not have another NFL team.
2. Be content with existing sports: MLB, NHL, MASL, USL, NCAA.
3. Consider attracting other sports, but not with a publicly-owned facility.
4. Build on the investment in planning a stadium by planning how to be life, investment, jobs, etc to the North Riverfront.

Schlafly Beer is looking for a location for a third brewery, perhaps the North Riverfront? Let’s put together a plan for the area, find a way to begin updating streets, sidewalks, lighting, etc. Market the hell out of the area to tun vacant properties into occupied buildings.

In the non-scientific Sunday Poll just over 20% said we should continue with the stadium plan — really folks!?!  Thankfully more than 3/4 don’t think we should.

Q: Agree or disagree? We should continue the North Riverfront stadium plan

• Strongly agree 3 [5.08%]
• Agree 5 [8.47%]
• Somewhat agree 4 [6.78%]
• Neither agree or disagree 1 [1.69%]
• Somewhat disagree 1 [1.69%]
• Disagree 6 [10.17%]
• Strongly disagree 38 [64.41%]
• Unsure/No Answer 1 [1.69%]

The first step is to remove the target from the North Riverfront.

— Steve Patterson