Really!?! with Steve and Steve
Really Marlene Davis? You had no idea the developer wants to raze the existing 1960s flying saucer building? Really?
Really, you told me on the phone Wednesday nobody has mentioned demolition to you? Really!?!
Really, you introduce a board bill last week with the sentence “Demolition of the existing building in the Area is necessary and desirable to allow for redevelopment of the Area in accordance with the Plan” and then email me saying “the bill I presented today was for tax abatement”? Really!?!
Really, haven’t you heard of this thing called the internet? Â You didn’t know people can easily fact check and compare notes? Really!?!
Wow! Really!?!
My apologies to Seth  & Amy.
Further reading:
- Del Taco to Close Tomorrow; But Board Bill May Actually Save Building
- Aldermen advance blighting, and tax abatement, of Del Taco
- That Googie on Grand and the fabric of a city
– Steve Patterson
Aldermanic “Courtesy”. Really. (Heard another alderman say so, on the TV.)
Representative democracy relies on checks and balances to be effective. St. Louis’s culture of 28 individual fiefdoms short-circuits all this, and the results speak for themselves. Really.
Cutting the number of wards by half or two-thirds, down to 14 or 9, might help, but much like the county, it all boils down to attitude. Until there are more common goals and a willingness to work together, in an open process, we’re going to be stuck with disjointed, smaller projects. Really.
Finally, no alderman can be an expert on every issue in their ward – planning, finance, law, labor negotiations, parks, botany, medical care, trash, potholes, traffic enginerring, etc, etc. – and one either relies on other people with the right skills for good advice or one needs to be prepared to look the fool. Really.
Aldermanic “Courtesy”. Really. (Heard another alderman say so, on the TV.)
Representative democracy relies on checks and balances to be effective. St. Louis’s culture of 28 individual fiefdoms short-circuits all this, and the results speak for themselves. Really.
Cutting the number of wards by half or two-thirds, down to 14 or 9, might help, but much like the county, it all boils down to attitude. Until there are more common goals and a willingness to work together, in an open process, we’re going to be stuck with disjointed, smaller projects. Really.
Finally, no alderman can be an expert on every issue in their ward – planning, finance, law, labor negotiations, parks, botany, medical care, trash, potholes, traffic enginerring, etc, etc. – and one either relies on other people with the right skills for good advice or one needs to be prepared to look the fool. Really.
So, the next district redraw is ten years away. In that time, each aldermanic seat is up for election. Gather a like-minded coalition to semi-simultaneously oppose 20 or more of these seats and the backing to actually win. Run an open and honest and visible campaign on the platform of that, in 2021, this coalition will write a bill to decrease te amount of aldermen to, say 15.
After that comes a redistricting that better represents the region as opposed to aldermanic interests and securities.
Pipe dream?
We all need our dreams. Really.
The core issue/problem remains the “my ward” perspective, instead of a “my city” attitude. Until other aldermen are willing to challenge what another alderman wants to do in “their/his/her” ward, we’re going to continue to get projects that reflect the opinions of a developer and a single elected official. The number of wards is the secondary issue; the lack of checks and balances is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. And since it’s not written into law, and it’s the way “things have always been done”, change is going to be very difficult to achieve. Most voters simply don’t know better and/or fear change.
Legislators frequently do not read their own legislation. Davis has never met Paul McKee, either.
Legislators frequently do not read their own legislation. Davis has never met Paul McKee, either.
So, the next district redraw is ten years away. In that time, each aldermanic seat is up for election. Gather a like-minded coalition to semi-simultaneously oppose 20 or more of these seats and the backing to actually win. Run an open and honest and visible campaign on the platform of that, in 2021, this coalition will write a bill to decrease te amount of aldermen to, say 15.
After that comes a redistricting that better represents the region as opposed to aldermanic interests and securities.
Pipe dream?
Ald. Davis focusing of the attention on Board Bill 118 is a smokescreen, despite the inflammatory language concerning demolition. The real devil is Board Bill 105, which creates both a Community Improvement District (CID) and a Transportation Development District (TDD) consisting of just a single building – 212 S. Grand – and both district boards will be controlled by the owner of the building. Ald. Olgilvie did manage to amend BB 105 to prevent taxes raised by either district from being used to pay for demolition of the building, but there’s enough left in there to do an end run around the City’s historic preservation statutes.
Ald. Davis focusing of the attention on Board Bill 118 is a smokescreen, despite the inflammatory language concerning demolition. The real devil is Board Bill 105, which creates both a Community Improvement District (CID) and a Transportation Development District (TDD) consisting of just a single building – 212 S. Grand – and both district boards will be controlled by the owner of the building. Ald. Olgilvie did manage to amend BB 105 to prevent taxes raised by either district from being used to pay for demolition of the building, but there’s enough left in there to do an end run around the City’s historic preservation statutes.
Ald. Davis focusing of the attention on Board Bill 118 is a smokescreen, despite the inflammatory language concerning demolition. The real devil is Board Bill 105, which creates both a Community Improvement District (CID) and a Transportation Development District (TDD) consisting of just a single building – 212 S. Grand – and both district boards will be controlled by the owner of the building. Ald. Olgilvie did manage to amend BB 105 to prevent taxes raised by either district from being used to pay for demolition of the building, but there’s enough left in there to do an end run around the City’s historic preservation statutes.
Ald. Davis focusing of the attention on Board Bill 118 is a smokescreen, despite the inflammatory language concerning demolition. The real devil is Board Bill 105, which creates both a Community Improvement District (CID) and a Transportation Development District (TDD) consisting of just a single building – 212 S. Grand – and both district boards will be controlled by the owner of the building. Ald. Olgilvie did manage to amend BB 105 to prevent taxes raised by either district from being used to pay for demolition of the building, but there’s enough left in there to do an end run around the City’s historic preservation statutes.
We all need our dreams. Really.
The core issue/problem remains the “my ward” perspective, instead of a “my city” attitude. Until other aldermen are willing to challenge what another alderman wants to do in “their/his/her” ward, we’re going to continue to get projects that reflect the opinions of a developer and a single elected official. The number of wards is the secondary issue; the lack of checks and balances is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. And since it’s not written into law, and it’s the way “things have always been done”, change is going to be very difficult to achieve. Most voters simply don’t know better and/or fear change.