ABOVE: Sign on Natural Btidge marks the city limits of Uplands Park, population 460
In February I ran a poll asking about the number of municipalities in St. Louis County – a massive 91. With nearly 94% of the votes readers overwhelmingly agreed St. Louis County has too many municipalities. Â OK, so now what? Â With the exception of 6% of readers and the St. Louis County Municipal League, we all agree there are too many but the next question is how do we reduce the number? And to what? 88? 45? 20?
The question of how to reduce the number is the topic of the poll this week, see the upper right of the site to cast your vote. Â The results will be published Wednesday April 13th.
– Steve Patterson
Currently there are "47 comments" on this Article:
Citizens of those communities must push for change. There’s an effort among 24 or so small municipalities in the Normandy School District to consolidate public services. That may be the first step towards actual municipal consolidations. People could rally behind that effort. Above all, there needs to be a leader (or leaders) with vision and a solid plan.
Citizens of those communities must push for change. There’s an effort among 24 or so small municipalities in the Normandy School District to consolidate public services. That may be the first step towards actual municipal consolidations. People could rally behind that effort. Above all, there needs to be a leader (or leaders) with vision and a solid plan.
Steve, when I was an Alderman in Ballwin I once asked about this issue. There is a serious tax issue preventing most mergers. If a community has Point Of Sale sales taxes, instead of only a share in the pool, it would lose those in a merger as the County consider the merged community a new entity. So for example, if Ballwin and Ellisville merged, each city might lose something on the order of $1 million per year, or a combined $2 million. Talk about a disincentive to merge!
Steve, when I was an Alderman in Ballwin I once asked about this issue. There is a serious tax issue preventing most mergers. If a community has Point Of Sale sales taxes, instead of only a share in the pool, it would lose those in a merger as the County consider the merged community a new entity. So for example, if Ballwin and Ellisville merged, each city might lose something on the order of $1 million per year, or a combined $2 million. Talk about a disincentive to merge!
Ballwin and Ellisville are not the ones we are talking about; it is the tiny entities like Wilbur Park, St. George, etc., etc. Some don’t even have a business earning the municipality sales tax revenue. In previous attempts they always tried a threshold of population, I believe one past attempt was those under 2,500 residents would need to consolidate, another one was something on the order of UNDER 1,000 residents.
While it makes sense, logicaly, there are a host of emotional and financial issues that stand in the way, plus most people resist being told what they “should” do. What it boils down to is strong leadership, at some level. Otherwise, it’s easier to just keep doing things the way they’ve “always” been done – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The biggest incentive may actually come from the tea party side of the equation, where reduced taxes will force a detailed look at service delivery.
While it makes sense, logicaly, there are a host of emotional and financial issues that stand in the way, plus most people resist being told what they “should” do. What it boils down to is strong leadership, at some level. Otherwise, it’s easier to just keep doing things the way they’ve “always” been done – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The biggest incentive may actually come from the tea party side of the equation, where reduced taxes will force a detailed look at service delivery.
Ballwin and Ellisville are not the ones we are talking about; it is the tiny entities like Wilbur Park, St. George, etc., etc. Some don’t even have a business earning the municipality sales tax revenue. In previous attempts they always tried a threshold of population, I believe one past attempt was those under 2,500 residents would need to consolidate, another one was something on the order of UNDER 1,000 residents.
But seriously, why? I assume that existing property taxes, fees and fines generate enough revenue to provide what little level of public service that the residents expect and/or demand. Why should the rest of us even care? Even if it’s inefficient or stupid, the residents / voters have the power to change things IF they want to. The only reason I can think of is if it’s a speed trap . . . .
I’ll tell you this JZ. It just so happens that I had the occasion to drive down some of the neighborhood streets in St. George this weekend. They suck. Patched over repeatedly and rough.
Yes, they are NOT getting adequate services’. Wilbur Park doesn’t even offer any services. The other issue which we have seen in mid-county along I-170 and in St. George, Bella Villa, Beverly Hills etc, are the tiny police forces which run amok and abuse their positions of power; so besides consolidating services making it cheaper for all in the long term, the dismantling of abusive entities should get equal attention.
They suck because the city chooses not to spend the money needed to fix them, likely because they don’t have the money, likely because their tax rate is too low. If the residents don’t or can’t pay for them, the ONLY way to get them repaved is to get non-residents to pay for them, and that is one huge hurdle to consolidation. No two, three or ten cities are equal in how they have invested in infrastructure and employees, and there will always be “winners” and “losers” if and when when they combine.
For example, if St. George merged with Grantwood Village, the good people of GV would end up, initially, subsidizing the poor choices made by the good people of SG. We can argue that residents of GV are in a better position financially than the residents of SG (and it shows), and that wealth should be redistributed for the greater good – good luck! The flip side is that residents of SG would likely see higher property taxes and residents of GV would see poorer services, neither of which is an easy sell.
That’s why it’s going to take a STRONG leader, someone who can negotiate and defuse all these hot button issues. Folks in SG want better streets; what do folks in GV want? Better cross-county highways? Free leaf pickup? Lower property taxes? It all boils down to “what’s in it for me?” Plus few voters want to give up (the illusion of?) local control. We can argue the logic of consolidation all we want, but like they say, the devil is in the details . . .
The movement in St. George is for disincorporation not merger with another municipality. Look at a map of South County and you will see that much of the area south of the city limits of St. Louis and east of Tesson Ferry is unincorporated. The mousefart municipalities of Bella Villa and St. George stand out as rare exceptions to this rule.
Yes they will. And their taxes will be going into the county pot. The thinking is that the county can better afford to provide the services because they deliver them at a much greater economy of scale.
Roads don’t do well with deferred maintenance. Keep the cracks sealed and the water out and they’ll last a long time. Ignore the cracks, let water get in, then watch freeze/thaw happen, and their life is limited. I’m pretty sure that the County has minimum standards that must be met before the County will accept responsibility for any street maintenance. The good citizens of SG may be sadly deluded if they expect to just hand their problems over to the county. More likely, they’ll have to create a special district, taxing themselves, to bring their streets up to par before the County will accept them.
It enables planning and thinking on a regional scale. As this site has detailed before, too often each municipality chases sales tax revenue promised by developers and steals it from a neighbor instead of encouraging the redevelopment of existing shopping or industrial sites. Besides, the borders of these municipalities are artificial. We aren’t small towns with farms between any longer. What’s the point of the redundancy?
I think there was an attempt in the early ’60s to change the city/county into a borough system like NYC. It failed but the need is still here for regional government for regional issues.
But seriously, why? I assume that existing property taxes, fees and fines generate enough revenue to provide what little level of public service that the residents expect and/or demand. Why should the rest of us even care? Even if it’s inefficient or stupid, the residents / voters have the power to change things IF they want to. The only reason I can think of is if it’s a speed trap . . . .
Aligning the municipalities with all of their services I think is a better way to start the process. Having seperate municipalities that are unaligned with school, sewer, water, fire, trash, and tax districts confuses out-of-towners, and appears to be a replication of unnecessary overhead.
Once the districts start aligning themselves, I think the number of muni’s will start to reduce slowly to whatever its natural number should be – probably something closer to 40-50.
But lets be honest – if done right, this process will take a few decades.
Aligning the municipalities with all of their services I think is a better way to start the process. Having seperate municipalities that are unaligned with school, sewer, water, fire, trash, and tax districts confuses out-of-towners, and appears to be a replication of unnecessary overhead.
Once the districts start aligning themselves, I think the number of muni’s will start to reduce slowly to whatever its natural number should be – probably something closer to 40-50.
But lets be honest – if done right, this process will take a few decades.
mid-county, north county, south county, west county, St. Louisans use these words when describing St. Louis all the time, they’re distinctly different parts of St. Louis County. I don’t know what’s so scary about being a 5 city county (assuming st louis city would join st louis county). Soulard is a neighborhood why can’t Rock Hill, U-City, Jennings, be a neighborhood just the same?
Unfortunately it’ll be awhile before people realize this, it’ll take consolidating services as others have pointed out and it’ll require municipalities encountering hardships.
mid-county, north county, south county, west county, St. Louisans use these words when describing St. Louis all the time, they’re distinctly different parts of St. Louis County. I don’t know what’s so scary about being a 5 city county (assuming st louis city would join st louis county). Soulard is a neighborhood why can’t Rock Hill, U-City, Jennings, be a neighborhood just the same?
Unfortunately it’ll be awhile before people realize this, it’ll take consolidating services as others have pointed out and it’ll require municipalities encountering hardships.
Using the city’s ward model as an example of efficient service delivery is probably NOT the best idea in the county – most county residents don’t think much of how the city does things!
I’ll tell you this JZ. It just so happens that I had the occasion to drive down some of the neighborhood streets in St. George this weekend. They suck. Patched over repeatedly and rough.
Yes, they are NOT getting adequate services’. Wilbur Park doesn’t even offer any services. The other issue which we have seen in mid-county along I-170 and in St. George, Bella Villa, Beverly Hills etc, are the tiny police forces which run amok and abuse their positions of power; so besides consolidating services making it cheaper for all in the long term, the dismantling of abusive entities should get equal attention.
They suck because the city chooses not to spend the money needed to fix them, likely because they don’t have the money, likely because their tax rate is too low. If the residents don’t or can’t pay for them, the ONLY way to get them repaved is to get non-residents to pay for them, and that is one huge hurdle to consolidation. No two, three or ten cities are equal in how they have invested in infrastructure and employees, and there will always be “winners” and “losers” if and when when they combine.
For example, if St. George merged with Grantwood Village, the good people of GV would end up, initially, subsidizing the poor choices made by the good people of SG. We can argue that residents of GV are in a better position financially than the residents of SG (and it shows), and that wealth should be redistributed for the greater good – good luck! The flip side is that residents of SG would likely see higher property taxes and residents of GV would see poorer services, neither of which is an easy sell.
That’s why it’s going to take a STRONG leader, someone who can negotiate and defuse all these hot button issues. Folks in SG want better streets; what do folks in GV want? Better cross-county highways? Free leaf pickup? Lower property taxes? It all boils down to “what’s in it for me?” Plus few voters want to give up (the illusion of?) local control. We can argue the logic of consolidation all we want, but like they say, the devil is in the details . . .
Using the city’s ward model as an example of efficient service delivery is probably NOT the best idea in the county – most county residents don’t think much of how the city does things!
The movement in St. George is for disincorporation not merger with another municipality. Look at a map of South County and you will see that much of the area south of the city limits of St. Louis and east of Tesson Ferry is unincorporated. The mousefart municipalities of Bella Villa and St. George stand out as rare exceptions to this rule.
Yes they will. And their taxes will be going into the county pot. The thinking is that the county can better afford to provide the services because they deliver them at a much greater economy of scale.
Roads don’t do well with deferred maintenance. Keep the cracks sealed and the water out and they’ll last a long time. Ignore the cracks, let water get in, then watch freeze/thaw happen, and their life is limited. I’m pretty sure that the County has minimum standards that must be met before the County will accept responsibility for any street maintenance. The good citizens of SG may be sadly deluded if they expect to just hand their problems over to the county. More likely, they’ll have to create a special district, taxing themselves, to bring their streets up to par before the County will accept them.
Somehow I don’t understand this focus. Muni’s would be more efficient if they were consolidated, but on the plus side they are (at least hopefully) more responsive to the citizens they serve than a larger government can provide. The real problem appears with transit and various regional services which do not fit in with fractured muni politics.
It just seems like there is many more serious issues that need to be addressed before the representation of munis is questioned. I know transit is not in their considerations except in a minor way.
My experience with these muni’s is that in fact they do know what their citizens are thinking. The speed traps are a problem, but the various muni’s are not really holding up progress in St. Louis. The people of St. Louis are holding up progress.
Of course everything would be really easy if there was a dictator and no one had to mess around with pesky, small scale, democratic entities.
Somehow I don’t understand this focus. Muni’s would be more efficient if they were consolidated, but on the plus side they are (at least hopefully) more responsive to the citizens they serve than a larger government can provide. The real problem appears with transit and various regional services which do not fit in with fractured muni politics.
It just seems like there is many more serious issues that need to be addressed before the representation of munis is questioned. I know transit is not in their considerations except in a minor way.
My experience with these muni’s is that in fact they do know what their citizens are thinking. The speed traps are a problem, but the various muni’s are not really holding up progress in St. Louis. The people of St. Louis are holding up progress.
Of course everything would be really easy if there was a dictator and no one had to mess around with pesky, small scale, democratic entities.
Agree, definitely not in China. However, I’m confused, how would you expect regional services to fit into muni politics if their multiple munis on the scale of St. Louis county? and how are the regional institutions a hindrance to the muni’s as they stand now or even a real problem? Nor does it state anywhere that a local politician has to know what a citizen who didn’t vote wants. They are simply responding to those constituents who did vote.
If anything, I think the region has some solid institutions/regional districts that make up for the multiple small muni’s, perceptions, sales tax issues and indifference of many when it comes to ballot box. Actually I think you can use your current regional institutions to continue to improve infrastructure and quality of life issues that won’t happen with a lot of smaller muni’s. Yes, regional institutions might not fix a pothole on a specific street or improve the quality of a local police office but it goes a long ways in providing things that make cities and urban areas work well.
Having transit through the regional Metro with the Prop A support is a plus as even though many might think it is woefully underfunded, the zoom museum district is a plus that could be expanded to be inclusive of more of the city/counties main parks or expanded to be a means of setting aside open preserve space in outlying counties, Greenway District is a huge plus for the region and even a small increase in the tax base would be beneficial across the board, MSD does consolidate sewer/storm water across many local entities and a green initiative inconjunction with the Greenway District could provide even more benefits. These institutions/districts with a willing leadership could also offer some unique way to push common zoning/development across muni lines by focusing on corridors – either it infrastructer, transit and greenways.
Check out Ray Hartmann’s latest article in St. Louis magazine. Even our regional institutions seem incapable of looking at the true big picture. Two competing China Hub groups? Having both the Greenway District and Museum Zoo district? We seem to want to slice and dice and to either be in charge or to have direct access to whomever is in charge. We’re more comfortable with a bunch of marginally-empowered quasi-leaders, but we’re very leery of any one strong leader. Call it design by committee, call it checks and balances, call it parochialism, call it racism, but the result is the fragmentation that marks our region.
Yes, both consolidation and larger entities should result in both greater efficiencies and greater equity in the delivery of services. The “problem” is that it’s “socialistic”, you don’t get nearly as many “winners”. You can’t point with pride to “your” new piece of playground equipment or fire truck when it’s just a line item in a massive budget. You can’t perpetuate patronage and make-work jobs. Logic loses out to emotion . . .
There are regional entities that cut across muni lines, although as JZ points out even they can be fragmented. You mention infrastructure, transit and greenways and pushing zoning/development across muni lines.
Those are the efforts that should come first. Trying to change muni poltical lines, to me is not only an uphill battle, but a tremendous waste of resources.
If the people of St. Louis County are shown they could have a better life through regional approaches in certain areas, such as you mentioned, then changes would naturally be considered because people saw a need for change to achieve reasonable goals.
I don’t think greater efficiency in providing police and fire protection etc (if that is even true) is a winning argument.
I put elimination of munis in the same category as uniting the city and county, a nice idea, but it is against a backdrop is other serious problems and concerns. These would probably better the focus of debate and energy.
For example I think that the City gets the short end with regional transit planning right now. Transit planning does not utilize the city strengths nor work to develop the physical assets necessary to support transit.
Regionalism is no doubt helpful in many ways, but also can fail on a small scale. Even if it was a cakewalk to change the munis, larger government entities alone cannot solve problems if those problems are not correctly framed and identified.
The City and transit is the case in point. What should transit look like in the city proper? Why is it different than regional solutions? (and so on).
The shoe fit Cinderella and no one else. Problems are unique to their environment.
Agree, definitely not in China. However, I’m confused, how would you expect regional services to fit into muni politics if their multiple munis on the scale of St. Louis county? and how are the regional institutions a hindrance to the muni’s as they stand now or even a real problem? Nor does it state anywhere that a local politician has to know what a citizen who didn’t vote wants. They are simply responding to those constituents who did vote.
If anything, I think the region has some solid institutions/regional districts that make up for the multiple small muni’s, perceptions, sales tax issues and indifference of many when it comes to ballot box. Actually I think you can use your current regional institutions to continue to improve infrastructure and quality of life issues that won’t happen with a lot of smaller muni’s. Yes, regional institutions might not fix a pothole on a specific street or improve the quality of a local police office but it goes a long ways in providing things that make cities and urban areas work well.
Having transit through the regional Metro with the Prop A support is a plus as even though many might think it is woefully underfunded, the zoom museum district is a plus that could be expanded to be inclusive of more of the city/counties main parks or expanded to be a means of setting aside open preserve space in outlying counties, Greenway District is a huge plus for the region and even a small increase in the tax base would be beneficial across the board, MSD does consolidate sewer/storm water across many local entities and a green initiative inconjunction with the Greenway District could provide even more benefits. These institutions/districts with a willing leadership could also offer some unique way to push common zoning/development across muni lines by focusing on corridors – either it infrastructer, transit and greenways.
Check out Ray Hartmann’s latest article in St. Louis magazine. Even our regional institutions seem incapable of looking at the true big picture. Two competing China Hub groups? Having both the Greenway District and Museum Zoo district? We seem to want to slice and dice and to either be in charge or to have direct access to whomever is in charge. We’re more comfortable with a bunch of marginally-empowered quasi-leaders, but we’re very leery of any one strong leader. Call it design by committee, call it checks and balances, call it parochialism, call it racism, but the result is the fragmentation that marks our region.
Yes, both consolidation and larger entities should result in both greater efficiencies and greater equity in the delivery of services. The “problem” is that it’s “socialistic”, you don’t get nearly as many “winners”. You can’t point with pride to “your” new piece of playground equipment or fire truck when it’s just a line item in a massive budget. You can’t perpetuate patronage and make-work jobs. Logic loses out to emotion . . .
There are regional entities that cut across muni lines, although as JZ points out even they can be fragmented. You mention infrastructure, transit and greenways and pushing zoning/development across muni lines.
Those are the efforts that should come first. Trying to change muni poltical lines, to me is not only an uphill battle, but a tremendous waste of resources.
If the people of St. Louis County are shown they could have a better life through regional approaches in certain areas, such as you mentioned, then changes would naturally be considered because people saw a need for change to achieve reasonable goals.
I don’t think greater efficiency in providing police and fire protection etc (if that is even true) is a winning argument.
I put elimination of munis in the same category as uniting the city and county, a nice idea, but it is against a backdrop is other serious problems and concerns. These would probably better the focus of debate and energy.
For example I think that the City gets the short end with regional transit planning right now. Transit planning does not utilize the city strengths nor work to develop the physical assets necessary to support transit.
Regionalism is no doubt helpful in many ways, but also can fail on a small scale. Even if it was a cakewalk to change the munis, larger government entities alone cannot solve problems if those problems are not correctly framed and identified.
The City and transit is the case in point. What should transit look like in the city proper? Why is it different than regional solutions? (and so on).
The shoe fit Cinderella and no one else. Problems are unique to their environment.
It enables planning and thinking on a regional scale. As this site has detailed before, too often each municipality chases sales tax revenue promised by developers and steals it from a neighbor instead of encouraging the redevelopment of existing shopping or industrial sites. Besides, the borders of these municipalities are artificial. We aren’t small towns with farms between any longer. What’s the point of the redundancy?
I think there was an attempt in the early ’60s to change the city/county into a borough system like NYC. It failed but the need is still here for regional government for regional issues.
The county council needs to pass a law that municipalities must be a certain size population to be a city within the county. Say 15k at least. This will force smaller ones to join larger ones or join together and make a consolidated new one. This is what our county council and dooley need to do. I actually wouldn’t be surprised to see it on a county ballot soon saying, “should a municipality within the county be required to have at least 15K by 2025?” estimated costs saved =millions. Also by giving them a future time it allows for this planning to be done correctly.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
love the 30% but even HUD housing requires 40%
love the 30% but even HUD housing requires 40%
Citizens of those communities must push for change. There’s an effort among 24 or so small municipalities in the Normandy School District to consolidate public services. That may be the first step towards actual municipal consolidations. People could rally behind that effort. Above all, there needs to be a leader (or leaders) with vision and a solid plan.
Citizens of those communities must push for change. There’s an effort among 24 or so small municipalities in the Normandy School District to consolidate public services. That may be the first step towards actual municipal consolidations. People could rally behind that effort. Above all, there needs to be a leader (or leaders) with vision and a solid plan.
Steve, when I was an Alderman in Ballwin I once asked about this issue. There is a serious tax issue preventing most mergers. If a community has Point Of Sale sales taxes, instead of only a share in the pool, it would lose those in a merger as the County consider the merged community a new entity. So for example, if Ballwin and Ellisville merged, each city might lose something on the order of $1 million per year, or a combined $2 million. Talk about a disincentive to merge!
Steve, when I was an Alderman in Ballwin I once asked about this issue. There is a serious tax issue preventing most mergers. If a community has Point Of Sale sales taxes, instead of only a share in the pool, it would lose those in a merger as the County consider the merged community a new entity. So for example, if Ballwin and Ellisville merged, each city might lose something on the order of $1 million per year, or a combined $2 million. Talk about a disincentive to merge!
Ballwin and Ellisville are not the ones we are talking about; it is the tiny entities like Wilbur Park, St. George, etc., etc. Some don’t even have a business earning the municipality sales tax revenue. In previous attempts they always tried a threshold of population, I believe one past attempt was those under 2,500 residents would need to consolidate, another one was something on the order of UNDER 1,000 residents.
While it makes sense, logicaly, there are a host of emotional and financial issues that stand in the way, plus most people resist being told what they “should” do. What it boils down to is strong leadership, at some level. Otherwise, it’s easier to just keep doing things the way they’ve “always” been done – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The biggest incentive may actually come from the tea party side of the equation, where reduced taxes will force a detailed look at service delivery.
While it makes sense, logicaly, there are a host of emotional and financial issues that stand in the way, plus most people resist being told what they “should” do. What it boils down to is strong leadership, at some level. Otherwise, it’s easier to just keep doing things the way they’ve “always” been done – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The biggest incentive may actually come from the tea party side of the equation, where reduced taxes will force a detailed look at service delivery.
Ballwin and Ellisville are not the ones we are talking about; it is the tiny entities like Wilbur Park, St. George, etc., etc. Some don’t even have a business earning the municipality sales tax revenue. In previous attempts they always tried a threshold of population, I believe one past attempt was those under 2,500 residents would need to consolidate, another one was something on the order of UNDER 1,000 residents.
Let’s try starting with those UNDER 1000 residents and no businesses. Then move up to consolidating those under 2,500 residents…….
Let’s try starting with those UNDER 1000 residents and no businesses. Then move up to consolidating those under 2,500 residents…….
I believe 21 of the 91 municipalities have less than 1,000 residents!
But seriously, why? I assume that existing property taxes, fees and fines generate enough revenue to provide what little level of public service that the residents expect and/or demand. Why should the rest of us even care? Even if it’s inefficient or stupid, the residents / voters have the power to change things IF they want to. The only reason I can think of is if it’s a speed trap . . . .
I’ll tell you this JZ. It just so happens that I had the occasion to drive down some of the neighborhood streets in St. George this weekend. They suck. Patched over repeatedly and rough.
Yes, they are NOT getting adequate services’. Wilbur Park doesn’t even offer any services. The other issue which we have seen in mid-county along I-170 and in St. George, Bella Villa, Beverly Hills etc, are the tiny police forces which run amok and abuse their positions of power; so besides consolidating services making it cheaper for all in the long term, the dismantling of abusive entities should get equal attention.
They suck because the city chooses not to spend the money needed to fix them, likely because they don’t have the money, likely because their tax rate is too low. If the residents don’t or can’t pay for them, the ONLY way to get them repaved is to get non-residents to pay for them, and that is one huge hurdle to consolidation. No two, three or ten cities are equal in how they have invested in infrastructure and employees, and there will always be “winners” and “losers” if and when when they combine.
For example, if St. George merged with Grantwood Village, the good people of GV would end up, initially, subsidizing the poor choices made by the good people of SG. We can argue that residents of GV are in a better position financially than the residents of SG (and it shows), and that wealth should be redistributed for the greater good – good luck! The flip side is that residents of SG would likely see higher property taxes and residents of GV would see poorer services, neither of which is an easy sell.
That’s why it’s going to take a STRONG leader, someone who can negotiate and defuse all these hot button issues. Folks in SG want better streets; what do folks in GV want? Better cross-county highways? Free leaf pickup? Lower property taxes? It all boils down to “what’s in it for me?” Plus few voters want to give up (the illusion of?) local control. We can argue the logic of consolidation all we want, but like they say, the devil is in the details . . .
The movement in St. George is for disincorporation not merger with another municipality. Look at a map of South County and you will see that much of the area south of the city limits of St. Louis and east of Tesson Ferry is unincorporated. The mousefart municipalities of Bella Villa and St. George stand out as rare exceptions to this rule.
Still the same issue – if they disincorporate, they’re gonna be expecting the county to take over their street maintenance.
Yes they will. And their taxes will be going into the county pot. The thinking is that the county can better afford to provide the services because they deliver them at a much greater economy of scale.
Roads don’t do well with deferred maintenance. Keep the cracks sealed and the water out and they’ll last a long time. Ignore the cracks, let water get in, then watch freeze/thaw happen, and their life is limited. I’m pretty sure that the County has minimum standards that must be met before the County will accept responsibility for any street maintenance. The good citizens of SG may be sadly deluded if they expect to just hand their problems over to the county. More likely, they’ll have to create a special district, taxing themselves, to bring their streets up to par before the County will accept them.
It enables planning and thinking on a regional scale. As this site has detailed before, too often each municipality chases sales tax revenue promised by developers and steals it from a neighbor instead of encouraging the redevelopment of existing shopping or industrial sites. Besides, the borders of these municipalities are artificial. We aren’t small towns with farms between any longer. What’s the point of the redundancy?
I think there was an attempt in the early ’60s to change the city/county into a borough system like NYC. It failed but the need is still here for regional government for regional issues.
I believe 21 of the 91 municipalities have less than 1,000 residents!
But seriously, why? I assume that existing property taxes, fees and fines generate enough revenue to provide what little level of public service that the residents expect and/or demand. Why should the rest of us even care? Even if it’s inefficient or stupid, the residents / voters have the power to change things IF they want to. The only reason I can think of is if it’s a speed trap . . . .
Aligning the municipalities with all of their services I think is a better way to start the process. Having seperate municipalities that are unaligned with school, sewer, water, fire, trash, and tax districts confuses out-of-towners, and appears to be a replication of unnecessary overhead.
Once the districts start aligning themselves, I think the number of muni’s will start to reduce slowly to whatever its natural number should be – probably something closer to 40-50.
But lets be honest – if done right, this process will take a few decades.
Aligning the municipalities with all of their services I think is a better way to start the process. Having seperate municipalities that are unaligned with school, sewer, water, fire, trash, and tax districts confuses out-of-towners, and appears to be a replication of unnecessary overhead.
Once the districts start aligning themselves, I think the number of muni’s will start to reduce slowly to whatever its natural number should be – probably something closer to 40-50.
But lets be honest – if done right, this process will take a few decades.
mid-county, north county, south county, west county, St. Louisans use these words when describing St. Louis all the time, they’re distinctly different parts of St. Louis County. I don’t know what’s so scary about being a 5 city county (assuming st louis city would join st louis county). Soulard is a neighborhood why can’t Rock Hill, U-City, Jennings, be a neighborhood just the same?
Unfortunately it’ll be awhile before people realize this, it’ll take consolidating services as others have pointed out and it’ll require municipalities encountering hardships.
mid-county, north county, south county, west county, St. Louisans use these words when describing St. Louis all the time, they’re distinctly different parts of St. Louis County. I don’t know what’s so scary about being a 5 city county (assuming st louis city would join st louis county). Soulard is a neighborhood why can’t Rock Hill, U-City, Jennings, be a neighborhood just the same?
Unfortunately it’ll be awhile before people realize this, it’ll take consolidating services as others have pointed out and it’ll require municipalities encountering hardships.
Using the city’s ward model as an example of efficient service delivery is probably NOT the best idea in the county – most county residents don’t think much of how the city does things!
I’ll tell you this JZ. It just so happens that I had the occasion to drive down some of the neighborhood streets in St. George this weekend. They suck. Patched over repeatedly and rough.
Yes, they are NOT getting adequate services’. Wilbur Park doesn’t even offer any services. The other issue which we have seen in mid-county along I-170 and in St. George, Bella Villa, Beverly Hills etc, are the tiny police forces which run amok and abuse their positions of power; so besides consolidating services making it cheaper for all in the long term, the dismantling of abusive entities should get equal attention.
They suck because the city chooses not to spend the money needed to fix them, likely because they don’t have the money, likely because their tax rate is too low. If the residents don’t or can’t pay for them, the ONLY way to get them repaved is to get non-residents to pay for them, and that is one huge hurdle to consolidation. No two, three or ten cities are equal in how they have invested in infrastructure and employees, and there will always be “winners” and “losers” if and when when they combine.
For example, if St. George merged with Grantwood Village, the good people of GV would end up, initially, subsidizing the poor choices made by the good people of SG. We can argue that residents of GV are in a better position financially than the residents of SG (and it shows), and that wealth should be redistributed for the greater good – good luck! The flip side is that residents of SG would likely see higher property taxes and residents of GV would see poorer services, neither of which is an easy sell.
That’s why it’s going to take a STRONG leader, someone who can negotiate and defuse all these hot button issues. Folks in SG want better streets; what do folks in GV want? Better cross-county highways? Free leaf pickup? Lower property taxes? It all boils down to “what’s in it for me?” Plus few voters want to give up (the illusion of?) local control. We can argue the logic of consolidation all we want, but like they say, the devil is in the details . . .
Using the city’s ward model as an example of efficient service delivery is probably NOT the best idea in the county – most county residents don’t think much of how the city does things!
The movement in St. George is for disincorporation not merger with another municipality. Look at a map of South County and you will see that much of the area south of the city limits of St. Louis and east of Tesson Ferry is unincorporated. The mousefart municipalities of Bella Villa and St. George stand out as rare exceptions to this rule.
Still the same issue – if they disincorporate, they’re gonna be expecting the county to take over their street maintenance.
Yes they will. And their taxes will be going into the county pot. The thinking is that the county can better afford to provide the services because they deliver them at a much greater economy of scale.
Roads don’t do well with deferred maintenance. Keep the cracks sealed and the water out and they’ll last a long time. Ignore the cracks, let water get in, then watch freeze/thaw happen, and their life is limited. I’m pretty sure that the County has minimum standards that must be met before the County will accept responsibility for any street maintenance. The good citizens of SG may be sadly deluded if they expect to just hand their problems over to the county. More likely, they’ll have to create a special district, taxing themselves, to bring their streets up to par before the County will accept them.
Somehow I don’t understand this focus. Muni’s would be more efficient if they were consolidated, but on the plus side they are (at least hopefully) more responsive to the citizens they serve than a larger government can provide. The real problem appears with transit and various regional services which do not fit in with fractured muni politics.
It just seems like there is many more serious issues that need to be addressed before the representation of munis is questioned. I know transit is not in their considerations except in a minor way.
My experience with these muni’s is that in fact they do know what their citizens are thinking. The speed traps are a problem, but the various muni’s are not really holding up progress in St. Louis. The people of St. Louis are holding up progress.
Of course everything would be really easy if there was a dictator and no one had to mess around with pesky, small scale, democratic entities.
Somehow I don’t understand this focus. Muni’s would be more efficient if they were consolidated, but on the plus side they are (at least hopefully) more responsive to the citizens they serve than a larger government can provide. The real problem appears with transit and various regional services which do not fit in with fractured muni politics.
It just seems like there is many more serious issues that need to be addressed before the representation of munis is questioned. I know transit is not in their considerations except in a minor way.
My experience with these muni’s is that in fact they do know what their citizens are thinking. The speed traps are a problem, but the various muni’s are not really holding up progress in St. Louis. The people of St. Louis are holding up progress.
Of course everything would be really easy if there was a dictator and no one had to mess around with pesky, small scale, democratic entities.
Agree, definitely not in China. However, I’m confused, how would you expect regional services to fit into muni politics if their multiple munis on the scale of St. Louis county? and how are the regional institutions a hindrance to the muni’s as they stand now or even a real problem? Nor does it state anywhere that a local politician has to know what a citizen who didn’t vote wants. They are simply responding to those constituents who did vote.
If anything, I think the region has some solid institutions/regional districts that make up for the multiple small muni’s, perceptions, sales tax issues and indifference of many when it comes to ballot box. Actually I think you can use your current regional institutions to continue to improve infrastructure and quality of life issues that won’t happen with a lot of smaller muni’s. Yes, regional institutions might not fix a pothole on a specific street or improve the quality of a local police office but it goes a long ways in providing things that make cities and urban areas work well.
Having transit through the regional Metro with the Prop A support is a plus as even though many might think it is woefully underfunded, the zoom museum district is a plus that could be expanded to be inclusive of more of the city/counties main parks or expanded to be a means of setting aside open preserve space in outlying counties, Greenway District is a huge plus for the region and even a small increase in the tax base would be beneficial across the board, MSD does consolidate sewer/storm water across many local entities and a green initiative inconjunction with the Greenway District could provide even more benefits. These institutions/districts with a willing leadership could also offer some unique way to push common zoning/development across muni lines by focusing on corridors – either it infrastructer, transit and greenways.
Check out Ray Hartmann’s latest article in St. Louis magazine. Even our regional institutions seem incapable of looking at the true big picture. Two competing China Hub groups? Having both the Greenway District and Museum Zoo district? We seem to want to slice and dice and to either be in charge or to have direct access to whomever is in charge. We’re more comfortable with a bunch of marginally-empowered quasi-leaders, but we’re very leery of any one strong leader. Call it design by committee, call it checks and balances, call it parochialism, call it racism, but the result is the fragmentation that marks our region.
Yes, both consolidation and larger entities should result in both greater efficiencies and greater equity in the delivery of services. The “problem” is that it’s “socialistic”, you don’t get nearly as many “winners”. You can’t point with pride to “your” new piece of playground equipment or fire truck when it’s just a line item in a massive budget. You can’t perpetuate patronage and make-work jobs. Logic loses out to emotion . . .
There are regional entities that cut across muni lines, although as JZ points out even they can be fragmented. You mention infrastructure, transit and greenways and pushing zoning/development across muni lines.
Those are the efforts that should come first. Trying to change muni poltical lines, to me is not only an uphill battle, but a tremendous waste of resources.
If the people of St. Louis County are shown they could have a better life through regional approaches in certain areas, such as you mentioned, then changes would naturally be considered because people saw a need for change to achieve reasonable goals.
I don’t think greater efficiency in providing police and fire protection etc (if that is even true) is a winning argument.
I put elimination of munis in the same category as uniting the city and county, a nice idea, but it is against a backdrop is other serious problems and concerns. These would probably better the focus of debate and energy.
For example I think that the City gets the short end with regional transit planning right now. Transit planning does not utilize the city strengths nor work to develop the physical assets necessary to support transit.
Regionalism is no doubt helpful in many ways, but also can fail on a small scale. Even if it was a cakewalk to change the munis, larger government entities alone cannot solve problems if those problems are not correctly framed and identified.
The City and transit is the case in point. What should transit look like in the city proper? Why is it different than regional solutions? (and so on).
The shoe fit Cinderella and no one else. Problems are unique to their environment.
Agree, definitely not in China. However, I’m confused, how would you expect regional services to fit into muni politics if their multiple munis on the scale of St. Louis county? and how are the regional institutions a hindrance to the muni’s as they stand now or even a real problem? Nor does it state anywhere that a local politician has to know what a citizen who didn’t vote wants. They are simply responding to those constituents who did vote.
If anything, I think the region has some solid institutions/regional districts that make up for the multiple small muni’s, perceptions, sales tax issues and indifference of many when it comes to ballot box. Actually I think you can use your current regional institutions to continue to improve infrastructure and quality of life issues that won’t happen with a lot of smaller muni’s. Yes, regional institutions might not fix a pothole on a specific street or improve the quality of a local police office but it goes a long ways in providing things that make cities and urban areas work well.
Having transit through the regional Metro with the Prop A support is a plus as even though many might think it is woefully underfunded, the zoom museum district is a plus that could be expanded to be inclusive of more of the city/counties main parks or expanded to be a means of setting aside open preserve space in outlying counties, Greenway District is a huge plus for the region and even a small increase in the tax base would be beneficial across the board, MSD does consolidate sewer/storm water across many local entities and a green initiative inconjunction with the Greenway District could provide even more benefits. These institutions/districts with a willing leadership could also offer some unique way to push common zoning/development across muni lines by focusing on corridors – either it infrastructer, transit and greenways.
Check out Ray Hartmann’s latest article in St. Louis magazine. Even our regional institutions seem incapable of looking at the true big picture. Two competing China Hub groups? Having both the Greenway District and Museum Zoo district? We seem to want to slice and dice and to either be in charge or to have direct access to whomever is in charge. We’re more comfortable with a bunch of marginally-empowered quasi-leaders, but we’re very leery of any one strong leader. Call it design by committee, call it checks and balances, call it parochialism, call it racism, but the result is the fragmentation that marks our region.
Yes, both consolidation and larger entities should result in both greater efficiencies and greater equity in the delivery of services. The “problem” is that it’s “socialistic”, you don’t get nearly as many “winners”. You can’t point with pride to “your” new piece of playground equipment or fire truck when it’s just a line item in a massive budget. You can’t perpetuate patronage and make-work jobs. Logic loses out to emotion . . .
There are regional entities that cut across muni lines, although as JZ points out even they can be fragmented. You mention infrastructure, transit and greenways and pushing zoning/development across muni lines.
Those are the efforts that should come first. Trying to change muni poltical lines, to me is not only an uphill battle, but a tremendous waste of resources.
If the people of St. Louis County are shown they could have a better life through regional approaches in certain areas, such as you mentioned, then changes would naturally be considered because people saw a need for change to achieve reasonable goals.
I don’t think greater efficiency in providing police and fire protection etc (if that is even true) is a winning argument.
I put elimination of munis in the same category as uniting the city and county, a nice idea, but it is against a backdrop is other serious problems and concerns. These would probably better the focus of debate and energy.
For example I think that the City gets the short end with regional transit planning right now. Transit planning does not utilize the city strengths nor work to develop the physical assets necessary to support transit.
Regionalism is no doubt helpful in many ways, but also can fail on a small scale. Even if it was a cakewalk to change the munis, larger government entities alone cannot solve problems if those problems are not correctly framed and identified.
The City and transit is the case in point. What should transit look like in the city proper? Why is it different than regional solutions? (and so on).
The shoe fit Cinderella and no one else. Problems are unique to their environment.
It enables planning and thinking on a regional scale. As this site has detailed before, too often each municipality chases sales tax revenue promised by developers and steals it from a neighbor instead of encouraging the redevelopment of existing shopping or industrial sites. Besides, the borders of these municipalities are artificial. We aren’t small towns with farms between any longer. What’s the point of the redundancy?
I think there was an attempt in the early ’60s to change the city/county into a borough system like NYC. It failed but the need is still here for regional government for regional issues.
The county council needs to pass a law that municipalities must be a certain size population to be a city within the county. Say 15k at least. This will force smaller ones to join larger ones or join together and make a consolidated new one. This is what our county council and dooley need to do. I actually wouldn’t be surprised to see it on a county ballot soon saying, “should a municipality within the county be required to have at least 15K by 2025?” estimated costs saved =millions. Also by giving them a future time it allows for this planning to be done correctly.