What Should Lewis Reed’s Agenda Be?
Yesterday my post suggesting President of the Board of Aldermen – elect Lewis Reed address a simple city-wide issue of bike parking has people wondering if that is what we want him and his staff working on. For me and others, bike parking is not just about bike parking. Click here to see that post.
Lewis Reed has four “issues” on his website: Crime & Safety, Responsible Economic Development, Accountability & Leadership and Information Technology and Access to Government. I thought I’d take a look at each of these to see how that fits into the big picture.
CRIME AND SAFETY
The cornerstone of my campaign to become your next President of the Board of Alderman is to work hard to make our city safer and to lessen all types of violent and civil crime. I initiated and helped pass legislation to establish police substations that have expanded community policing to increase public safety citywide. I will lead our effort to ensure the allocation of sufficient resources to our prosecutor’s office so that repeat criminals no longer are on the streets. I worked for full funding of the MAP problem property initiative, which holds property owners financially and personally accountable to their tenants and the city. I concretely support city budgetary allocations that will put 40 new police officers on the street to ensure greater public safety. Another major goal of mine is to help find funding to hire more police officers. As recent history has shown, I will also work closely with our other city and state elected officials for more federal money so that our city is prepared for any type of disaster, natural or man-made.
All of the above is about police and focusing on problem properties, certainly valid approaches. But where is the discussion about increasing safety due to the sheer number of people out on the sidewalks? Active streets are safe streets.
RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT—NEW OPPORTUNITIES
I have been directly responsible for $1.7 billion dollars in new economic development initiatives along with various infrastructure improvement projects. I introduced, sponsored, and directed the passage of the first Neighborhood Tax Increment Financing legislation in St. Louis City and its largest Community Improvement District (CID), which redeveloped Lafayette Square. Where businesses such as Sqwires and 1111 Mississippi thrive now, once stood vacant, dilapidated factories and lots that were only good for burning tires.
Our neighborhoods are still the greatest nest eggs of opportunity. I will work hard to expand our tax base by offering more affordable housing opportunities in the still depressed areas of our city that have been overlooked for far too long. I want to establish a legislative agenda that meets the needs of our citizens to offer hope and opportunity to increase new businesses and expand existing ones. This is evident in the numerous economic development and derelict property redevelopment bills I have introduced in this session alone that will provide for new housing and business opportunities.
Furthermore, in my aldermanic tenure, my legislative initiatives have brought over 300 new jobs to our city. Thus, I have and will continue to be an advocate for strong, but responsible, development.
I concur that it is our neighborhoods that hold much opportunity. I always love how politicians tally up all the development in their jurisdiction and claim they are responsible. I guess that means that if they hadn’t given incentives it wouldn’t have happened otherwise yet seldom do we see any discussion about the quality of the developments.
I think TIF and CID districts are excellent tools but these are great opportunities to develop zoning overlays and other mechanisms to guide development, hopefully avoiding a project by project fight. Unfortunately, most of the politicos focus simply on giving away tax dollars without any design/policy criteria in the interest of the public.
And finally Reed mentions affordable housing but doesn’t really elaborate. I don’t know that we’ve seen any requirements n in the last eight years for new projects in the 6th ward to have an affordable component. What does affordable housing mean on a city-wide basis?
ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEADERSHIP
The Board of Alderman requires a full-time President and I intend to be exactly that. Board of Aldermen meetings must be administered with the utmost efficiency. Our city faces many unique challenges in the new millennium and consistent proactive leadership at the Board of Aldermen is crucial.
Our city has garnered much positive national and international news in recent years, but in 2001 it also drew negative, even infamous, attention due to lack of compassionate leadership and simple peer respect for all board colleagues and their families.
As Board President, I will work hard to set a tone to ensure that all actions and records of the Board of Alderman, its committees, and the Board of Estimate & Apportionment are accessible and we remain accountable to the citizenry.
This section was largely a dig at Shrewsbury over how he managed the Board of Aldermen, including not allowing an alderwoman to use the restroom while holding a filibuster over redistricting. The last paragraph gets into the next topic of access to government.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR BETTER ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Having earned a degree in computer science and working for many years as an IT professional, as an alderman I successfully passed legislation that restructured the city’s arcane computer networking and information system to make St. Louis City government more transparent, accessible, and user-friendly for our constituents. I want to expand on this initiative to have more information readily accessible — including voting records of aldermen and the Board of E&A, campaign finance records, and committee actions.
I strongly advocate more openness government and I want to utilize the continuing advances in technology to streamline government processes and services for its citizens.
While this does not address things out in the streets I do think a more accessible government will help get more people involved in the community. Reed indicates he passed legislation that restructered the city’s system. Really? When will that actually take affect? The city’s “CIN” website is about as arcane as they come and so many departments even fail to tell you who is in charge. Inconsistencies are rampant throughout the website. But is this a matter for the head of the legislative body or should the mayor’s office finally step up to the plate and deal with our city’s website?
In 2005 Shrewsbury and his staff improved the Board of Aldermen website by including more information. There is certainly room for more improvement such as votes by individual aldermen. Another big step would actually be able to include the attachments for board bills — nothing is more frustrating than trying to understand proposed legislation only to find “Attachment A” not attached.
Here are the city-wide issues I see missing from Reed’s website, in no particular order:
- Zoning: Our 1940’s era zoning code encourages suburban development and sends the wrong message to developers about the type of city we want. Reed & Slay need to work with the public, as Kansas City has been doing for the last 18 months, to develop a new zoning code reflecting the communities current wishes for the future. We need zoning which is based on building form, not our current use-based zoning. Furthermore, in 2005 the Board of Aldermen passed the new Land Use plan but by not adoping new zoning the land use plan has no teeth.Furthermore, new zoning can be pro-development. Currently developers are at the whim of individual aldermen if they want to do anything different than what the old zoning allows. With physical development being a big part of what St. Louis will be doing over the next 20 years it only makes sense to give us a good foundation upon which to literally build. With consistent form-based zoning deliniating what it is we are seeking throughout the city it will help developers by knowing what is expected of them. Rewards such as allowing more floors if a developer does other things (underground parking over a blocky base, payments to an affordable housing fund) can improve the quality of new construction without punishing anyone.
- Transportation: Discussion in the city about transportation has focused on how to create more lanes across the Mississippi River into Illinois. What about mass transit? Metro (aka Bi-State) needs a tax increase from the city and county to continue basic operations but I’ve heard nothing out of Reed or Slay on this issue. Furthermore, East-West Gateway has been planning new rail transit for northside and southside, requiring additional funding. Again, leaders in the city have been quite on trying to get the necessary funding. We need some city-wide discussion of transportation issues and solutions.
- Regionalism: Lewis Reed needs to reach out to the rest of the region to build a coalition around issues bigger than the city limits such as transportation. Collectively, our city leaders could be a strong force in the region. One area to address is how municipalities continue to steal sales tax revenue from each other. St. Louis needs to step up our profile in the region.
- Charter Reform: Shrewsbury was a supporter of charter reform until it came to eliminating the post he held. Will Lewis Reed take a similar view of charter reform — change other positions but not mine? I have little confidence that anyone in office currently can really take on the issue of improving city government through charter reform.Of course, my favorite form of charter reform would be to shift our elections to non-partisan, effectively eliminating one election every two years. This would also reduce the stranglehold the local democrats have over the system to further their own personal interests.We have a couple of choices in going non-partisan in our local elections. Under our current system, in a 3-way or more race it is likely the winner would be chosen even without 50% of the vote. It happened that our one 3-way race this week (6th ward) the winner received over 50% of the vote. But had she only received 49% she still would have been declared the winner. If we want the winner to receive 50% or more of the vote we could hold a second vote between the two highest candidates. The better solution is Instant Run-Off elections where voters rank the candidates and:
“if no candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on) and all votes retallied, until one candidate achieves a majority.”
Again, I don’t see Reed and the majority of aldermen backing him looking seriously at various proposals to refine our government structure.
Point 1 – I agree, with the proviso that cops on the street beat cops in an office any day, even if it’s a new substation. Let’s hope that some of the good ideas out of NYC (“broken windows” theory, statistical analysis) get applied and work here.
Point 2 – 300 “new jobs” sounds great until you question how many “old” jobs were lost – what is the actual net loss/gain? And are these service/minimum-wage jobs or “middle class” ones?
Point 3 – Only time will tell.
Point 4 – Managing IT and websites, especially at the municipal level, requires both dedication and leadership. It’s one thing to create a website and a whole ‘nuther thing to keep it updated and current. Hopefully Reed’s efforts will be fruitful.
ZONING – I basically agree, but the one’s gonna be a huge challenge. Zoning carries the baggage of “takings”, where every property owner assumes that any change diminishes their “right” to use their property as they see fit. It’s like health care – we all agree that something needs to be done, but “don’t limit MY access to every potential cure, no matter what the cost . . . ” Keep pushing!
TRANSPORTATION – Agree, with the added need to look at Metro as an integrated system, not a kit of parts. Paying for transfers and studying one corridior at a time does nothing to encourage a perception that it’s a SYSTEM that can “meet MY needs . . . ”
REGIONALISM – If Reed can crack this one, he’ll be a hero.
CHARTER REFORM – I agree in concept, but this is one of those “insider”/”wonk”ish issues that should be a lower priority than everything else. I’d rather see our part-time legislators devote their time and efforts to solving “real” problems, and not to waste it on “reinventing the wheel”. The reality is that it’s a people problem, not a structure problem. Good people working in a flawed system produce much better results than flawed people working in a good system. You can’t legislate away aldermanic courtesy and you can’t legislate in competency in every area.
You see Steve when you attempt to address “big issues” there are definitely fewer responses. Macro issues are difficult to discuss in a few sentences and the important ones have already been listed by you and Jim. Anyway, banter about everyday issues is more fun and requires less thought.
WOW the list is long, deep and complex. The City should begin with what is most doable (ie. bike racks!) but every issue is critical and desperately needs addressing. IMO the big issue is REGIONALISM as it defines how the other issues should be addressed. However, given the low chances of that occuring, then improved law enforcement (noticed no comments on judges) could provide immediate returns. Making government more efficient and less burdensome is needed and thus charter reform (definitely the third rail) is needed to make the other issues easier to address.
I think I understand the meaning of regionalism here, but I find it strange that the region should look to the least successful portion of our region (at least on this side of the River) for leadership on this issue. If there is going to be a new regional consensus, it would be better driven by those political subdivisions which have shown an ability to attract/keep residents and businesses. You urbanists know where I’m going, too: St. Louis County and St. Charles County. You may (rightly or wrongly) disagree with the choices that individuals, families, and businesses have made to live and work there, maybe (maybe) these choices were enabled by certain public policies or biases; but at the end of the day, those areas are where the people and the dollars are. You can’t change those facts on the ground. Those two counties especially are doing something that seems to work, so why should we all look to a jurisdiction that has failed for advice?
thoughts – I’m not sure I get it. Louie and Charlie are growing because that’s where the “empty†farmland is/was, along with Jefferson County and the counties across the river in Illinois. I guess you define “success†as “an ability to attract/keep residents and businessesâ€. By that definition, they HAVE succeeded, in paving over farmland and sprawling to the horizon. Where they have not succeeded, especially in St, Louis County, is on the governmental side (unless you like yours small and inefficient).
The St. Louis region is marked by way too many small governmental entities, each with a chief/mayor/manager drawing a salary and benefits, and each with a fleet of vehicles and a headquarters. Good for the ego of those involved, not so good for the taxpayer who has to pay for it. And as the P-D highlighted a year ago, there’s an incestuous relationship between too many fire district boards and their union employees.
You can’t escape reality – each entity takes taxes to operate. More overhead = higher taxes. Less scrutiny = higher taxes. And a huge, unintended consequence of all this is the relentless focus on building retail centers in hopes of capturing more sales tax revenues from non-residents (God forbid we should just raise property taxes and expose the true cost of providing all these “local†services!)
There are only two governmental units in the region that have a large-enough constituency to have the credibility to take the lead on pushing for regionalism, St. Louis City and St. Louis County. Personally, I don’t care who it is, as long as it starts. And, as the new kid on the block, it’s an opportunity for Reed to work with Slay and Dooley to define a new direction and vision for the region, one that’s not based on “stealing†tax revenues from “across the line†and one that doesn’t assume that the city is the place where poor people need to go.
It’s a cliche, but we need a big tent. We need to address the fears suburbanites have about “city†crime and schools, and we need to address the perceptions city folks have that the “suburbs†are the root cause of our traffic and economic challenges. Regionalism can work. Two places I’m familiar with are greater Denver, Colorado and greater Louisville, Kentucky. In both places, it took a strong leader to make it happen, but it’s happening now and both areas are outpacing St. Louis because of it. While all politics is, ultimately, “localâ€, there’s nothing that says it needs to be inefficient. Just because what worked here 100 years ago is still in place, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing . . .
Jim, the proliferation of small municipalities within St. Louis County is bizarre, and perhaps inefficient, but I don’t see a lot of clamor from those living there for change. I would wager that most people like the notion of living in a small, reasonably well-defined community, and are willing to pay slightly higher taxes for it. Until the voters in those areas ask for change, I don’t think you have a lot of ground to stand on.
(And as far as alleged corruption in the County’s fire boards–that is a pretty shitty deal, but you can’t honestly tell me that pund-for-pound, the City isn’t an order of magnitude more politically corrupt than the County.)
There’s varying degrees of “corruption” and inefficiencies on both sides of the line, as there are in most levels of government. My point is that with so many entities in the county “jockeying for position” to “enhance” their sales tax collections, it’s counter-productive to both the individual communities and to the larger region. Sunset Hill’s debacle is one recent example, as is Rock Hill’s current “betting the farm” on their future existence on one major project. To use a well-worn analogy, no one wins in an arms race.
As with MSD, if we could combine redundant functions, look at providing fire, police and public works services regionally instead of locally and “flatten the pyramid†on the management side, we can maintain services without raising taxes. For example, the county doesn’t need 30-40 police chiefs and their higher salaries – the county needs quality delivery of police services, not multiple fiefdoms.
The corollary is that there can only be so many “desirableâ€, “upper-end†shopping and living areas. While they change over time, as new centers and subdivisions are constructed, the percentages remain fairly constant over time across the region. Where governments and communities “lose†is when they’re no longer “in fashion†and as “desirable†as they once were. Their residents’ expectations remain high while their tax collections fall (as sales taxes migrate elsewhere). The typical “solution†seems to be to just “build new retailâ€! If it takes eminent domain, TIF’s, loss of residential neighborhoods, even parks, so be it – we gotta feed the beast.
St. Louis (city), Kirkwood, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, Rock Hill Maplewood and Clayton are all pursuing or have recently built major new projects using one or more of the tools listed. Is there any more money being spent, in total, because of these? I doubt it. I’m spending more at the new Lowe’s off I-55, but it just means I’m spending less at the Lowe’s in Maplewood or the Home Depots on Kingshighway or Hanley Road. There’s no net gain to the region, just one city “gains†while another city “losesâ€.
I don’t have a problem with the BOA tackling small issues, as long as the small issues affect a lot of people.
For instance, I would start by making a serious effort to fix the traffic signals in the city starting with those downtown. Nearly everyone who drives through the city recognizes the problem with the timing of the traffic lights. The city constantly says that it is in the process of fixing this. Nothing is ever done. Hire a contractor and get the job done.
I would make it a point to Mokwa that all ordinances must be enforced so as to put major pressure on the Larry Rice operation and the bums in Lucas Park. I would work to introduce and pass ordinances to put Larry Rice’s shelter out of commission. Finally, I would work for another set of ordinances to create a comprehensive program for the homeless which would, essentially, give them city-owned apartments in exchange for them attending classes or doing rehab work. Arrest or commit the rest of them.
Next, I would make it a priority to bring businesses to the north side. Try to change white people’s mindset on what is up north.
I would go hard on petty crime like stolen license plate stickers and car break-ins — the bane of every middle-class city resident. More money for more cops.
Invest in more corner parks throughout downtown. Use D.C. as a model. Keep them maintained.
And most importantly — staff city offices with people who are now running the most successful cities in the U.S. Raid the staffs of other cities.
Jim, you fail to realize that forcing entities to compete with one another, whether muncipalities or corporations, is a good thing. We are forcing them to provide value to their residents or suffer. That’s America, that’s the market, and that’s what works. You seem like a knowledgeable guy, but then you go straying off into some socialist Utopian deep end I would more expect from Doug Duckworth or one of his internet friends. Or Patterson.
I always go back to the Federalist Papers. Number 36, Alexander Hamilton says, “As to the first point, there are two cases in which there can be no room for double sets of officers: one, where the right of imposing the tax is exclusively vested in the Union, which applies to the duties on imports; the other, where the object has not fallen under any State regulation or provision, which may be applicable to a variety of objects. In other cases, the probability is that the United States will either wholly abstain from the objects preoccupied for local purposes, or will make use of the State officers and State regulations for collecting the additional imposition. This will best answer the views of revenue, because it will save expense in the collection, and will best avoid any occasion of disgust to the State governments and to the people. At all events, here is a practicable expedient for avoiding such an inconvenience; and nothing more can be required than to show that evils predicted to not necessarily result from the plan.”
What he is saying is far from how the United States operates today. We have double sets of officers all over the place doing the same tasks, and this is the same with the many Muni’s and aldermen around and in St. Louis.
However there is a balance in that representation is much better with the many Municipal entities. Perhaps an overhauled tax collection system with the individual Muni’s providing a democratic voice is the answer.
The task of Lewis Reed is to find efficiency, as expressed by Alexander Hamilton. His task is also to find a way to avoid becoming an exclusive tool of the wealthy. The hope is he will truly represent a new beginning.
Tell me something Steve, how is it that you know more than all of the folks running municipalities in our region and other regions? Is it that fine education you got at where, in what?
just one example: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-03-09&-token.story=66960.113117&-token.subpub=
I agree, competition is a good thing, IF the end result is better. And, yes, there are some St. Louis County cities that have enough critical mass that they deliver quality services in an effective manner (Clayton, U City, Fenton?) There are others that are so tied (for tax revenues) to a dying mall (Crestwood, Sunset Hills) or a no mall (Rock Hill), that their priorities get skewed. And there are many other cities, lacking retail, who end up using their police departments as a major revenue generator.
Realistically, will most suburban cities willingly merge? No, and especially not with “the city”. But things could be improved significantly IF there was some consensus on more-comprehensive revenue sharing, especially of sales tax revenues and/or “calling a truce” when it comes to “poaching” another city’s retail base.
I have a hard time accepting that the leaders of Sunset Hills, to use the most-recent and worst-case example, were acting in the best interests of their citizens when they agreed to wipe out an entire neighborhood just to build another shopping center. By the time all the tax credits would’ve been expended, the “new” center would be “old” and generating far fewer sales taxes than when it opened.
Bottom line, the total tax pie in the region is finite. Try to take too much, and the voters will rebel (see Florida for one current example). Developers aren’t stupid, and they’re more than willing to play cities against each other to maximize their subsidies. But as a citizen and a resident, I’d much rather see my taxes going to something that benefits me directly (better city services) than seeing them go to subsidize the latest retail project and into the pocket of a developer who has no intention doing more than the bare minimum it takes to get his “free money”!
Cooperation also does not always mean merger and/or loss of a city’s identity – sometimes it just means “playing nice” together: http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=3194
Florida is struggling with increasing inequities in its property tax system (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/state/epaper/2007/03/04/m1a_TAX_REVOLT_0304.html?imw=Y). This is a direct result of trying to “play favorites” with certain classes of taxpayers. While not directly applicable to our discussion, it is an example of all taxes being finite. Another example is: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/15/160334.shtml