A year ago Participatory Budgeting in St. Louis was just an idea advanced by 6th Ward aldermanic candidate Michelle Witthaus. In a poll in March 2013, readers supported the concept of Participatory Budgeting. The idea could’ve ended with the March primary election, when Christine Ingrassia won the 3-way race. Ingrassia liked the idea, asking Witthaus to spearhead the effort. They’ve worked together on this for a year now, along with many others. I’ve had the privilege of being able to sit in on meetings, events. After months of planning & strategy meetings the 6th ward assemblies took place in October 2013, gathering ideas from residents.
I should back up and explain what Participatory Budgeting is, for those who haven’t heard of it before:
In St. Louis, each ward is allocated a yearly budget for ward improvements. The budget is spent to improve things like sidewalks, streets, lighting, parks, etc. Usually the alderperson decides what projects get funded throughout the ward each year. Through participatory budgeting residents come together to share ideas on how they think the money should be spent, they create projects, then the entire ward gets to vote on which projects get funded for the year. It is a much more inclusive way of doing democracy. Essentially it gives more power back to people and allows the community to take more control of the decision-making process than ever before. (pbstl.org)
Since ideas were gathered in October, volunteer “delegates” have been busy working with city staff to turn the ideas into real projects, with real budgets. From 3pm-5pm on Saturday March 29, 2014 a “project expo” will be held. Here residents can come see all the projects and begin to decide how they plan to vote, helping decide how their ward funds are spent. The expo will be held at the Moulin event space, 2017 Chouteau.
Hopefully 6th ward residents will come out in large numbers to vote. I look forward to seeing the projects and them seeing which were selected by residents. Hopefully other aldermen will adopt this process for at least a few of the other 27 wards. Half are up for reelection next year…
ST. LOUIS (AP) – The debate over legalization of marijuana will be the subject of an open forum in St. Louis later this month.Three members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen are hosting the forum the evening of March 24 at Harris-Stowe State University. The panel discussion will address the disproportionate number of marijuana arrests for African-Americans, the safety of the drug, and whether a marijuana tax would benefit government revenues. (KSDK)
With the legalization of marijuana being such a hot topic these days, Sixth Ward Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia will address various issues surrounding the debate during an open forum at Harris-Stowe State University, Monday, March 24, 2014, 6-8 p.m. in the Emerson Performance Center’s Bank of America Theatre.Held in collaboration with Alderman Chris Carter, 27th Ward, and Alderman Shane Cohn of the 25th Ward, the panel discussion will address how marijuana arrests disproportionally affect people of color; whether marijuana is safer than alcohol; how legalization would affect black market drug sales and whether a marijuana tax would benefit declining government revenues. (St. Louis American)
The history of the drug and how it became illegal is interesting, and a reflection of our racial fears:
The political upheaval in Mexico that culminated in the Revolution of 1910 led to a wave of Mexican immigration to states throughout the American Southwest. The prejudices and fears that greeted these peasant immigrants also extended to their traditional means of intoxication: smoking marijuana. Police officers in Texas claimed that marijuana incited violent crimes, aroused a “lust for blood,” and gave its users “superhuman strength.” Rumors spread that Mexicans were distributing this “killer weed” to unsuspecting American schoolchildren. Sailors and West Indian immigrants brought the practice of smoking marijuana to port cities along the Gulf of Mexico. In New Orleans newspaper articles associated the drug with African-Americans, jazz musicians, prostitutes, and underworld whites. “The Marijuana Menace,” as sketched by anti-drug campaigners, was personified by inferior races and social deviants. In 1914 El Paso, Texas, enacted perhaps the first U.S. ordinance banning the sale or possession of marijuana; by 1931 twenty-nine states had outlawed marijuana, usually with little fanfare or debate. Amid the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment fueled by the Great Depression, public officials from the Southwest and from Louisiana petitioned the Treasury Department to outlaw marijuana. Their efforts were aided by a lurid propaganda campaign. “Murder Weed Found Up and Down Coast,” one headline warned; “Deadly Marijuana Dope Plant Ready For Harvest That Means Enslavement of California Children.” Harry J. Anslinger, the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, at first doubted the seriousness of the problem and the need for federal legislation, but soon he pursued the goal of a nationwide marijuana prohibition with enormous gusto. In public appearances and radio broadcasts Anslinger asserted that the use of this “evil weed” led to killings, sex crimes, and insanity. He wrote sensational magazine articles with titles like “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth.” (NPR – Reefer Madness)
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively banned marijuana & industrial hemp in the US, even though the drug had been used by doctors until then. In 1969 the US Supreme Court said the act was unconstitutional, see Leary v. United States. In 1970 congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which listed marijuana among the most dangerous drugs. From the US DEA:
Schedule ISchedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyoteSchedule IISchedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and RitalinSchedule IIISchedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are: Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosteroneSchedule IVSchedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are: Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, AmbienSchedule VSchedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are: cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin
Yes, since 1970 marijuana has been listed as more dangerous than cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. For many marijuana does indeed have medical uses:
Pain is the main reason people ask for a prescription, says Barth Wilsey, MD, a pain medicine specialist at the University of California Davis Medical Center. It could be from headaches, a disease like cancer, or a long-term condition, like glaucoma or nerve pain. (webMD)
Sixty percent of those who voted in the poll last week picked the two answers indicating we have too many stop signs, with twenty-three percent saying “about right” and just over eight percent saying we don’t have enough. Here are the numbers:
Q: The number of stop signs in St…
Excessive 38 [44.19%]
About right 20 [23.26%]
A little too many 14 [16.28%]
Unsure/No Answer 7 [8.14%]
Not enough 5 [5.81%]
A little too few 2 [2.33%]
Clearly most feel we have too many, with not quite half saying the number of stop signs is excessive. I think this depends on where you live and the route you take. Some parts of the city have so many 4-way stops that drivers mostly ignore the stop signs block after block. This has happened because our aldermen like to say yes to constituent requests for more stop signs.
The Federal Highway Administration addresses stop signs in a FAQ:
A stop sign is an inconvenience to motorists. Because of this, stop signs should only be placed if they meet a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrant. Stop signs are frequently violated if unwarranted. Before warrants are even considered, however, less restrictive measures (such as a yield sign) are usually considered. In certain cases, the use of less restrictive measure or no control at all will accommodate traffic demands safely and effectively.
Warrants for a stop sign
Because a stop sign is an inconvenience to through traffic, it should be used only where needed. A stop sign may be warranted at an intersection where one or more of the following conditions exist:
intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the regular right-of- way rule is hazardous;
street entering a through highway or street;
unsignalized intersection in a signalized area;
other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and serious accident record indicates a need for control by the stop sign.
A yield sign can also be considered where a full stop is not necessary. Existing sign installations should be reviewed to determine whether the use of a less restrictive control or no control at all could accommodate the existing and projected traffic flow safely and more effectively.
WHERE SHOULD A STOP SIGN BE INSTALLED?
Stop signs should be installed/located where the vehicles are to stop or as near to that point as possible. The sign may also be supplemented with a stop line and/or the word STOP on the pavement. A yield sign is erected in the same manner. Where there is a marked crosswalk, the stop or yield sign should be erected approximately four feet in advance of the crosswalk line.
When only one stop or yield sign is used on an intersection approach it should be on the right side of the roadway. At wide intersections, however, violations of the yield or stop sign may be reduced by the erection of an additional sign on the left side of the approach. If two lanes of traffic exist on an approach, at least one stop sign should be visible to each lane of traffic.
Ok, so we have a lot of stop signs. No harm, right? Wrong! Back to the FHWA FAQ:
Many studies have shown that stop signs are not an effective measure for controlling or reducing midblock speeds. In fact, the overuse of stop signs may cause drivers to carelessly stop at the stop signs that are installed. In stop sign observance studies approximately half of all motorists came to a rolling stop and 25 percent did not stop at all. Stop signs can give pedestrians a false sense of safety if it is assumed that all vehicles will come to a complete stop at the proper location. A study conducted by Beaubien also showed that placing stop signs along a street may actually increase the peak speed of vehicles, because motorists tend to increase their speed between stop signs to regain the time spent at the stop signs.
It’s possible our excessive use may be having negative consequences, still speeding cars plus increased pollution. Any alternatives?
Traffic circles are commonly used in intersections in some other cities, I’m most familiar with the ones in Seattle. However, some say these are dangerous to cyclists. I think we need to look at our stop signs and determine if changes need to be made to reduce their use in some areas.
In December I showed a blatant ADA-violation at Fields Foods, no ramps where the pedestrian route crosses a driveway. Once we got a break in the weather they began busting out concrete to build it how they should’ve in the first place. A friend and I took the bus there on February 22nd, I was pleased:
I’ve suggested ways to connect to the East once the last part of the site is developed, and I’ve suggested the route, above, be connected to 14th — assuming the 14th St entrance remains open. The other topic I raised was that of conducting multiple buildings within the same development.
The other day we needed to get something from Walgreen’s & Fields Foods, I was able to see how easy it would be to connect these two. Of course, it would’ve been much easier if planned in advance.
Some might say this would result in the loss of two spaces. I’d argue if planned right from the start no spaces would have been placed in the way. The drive aisles are wide, asphalt is everywhere. Poor site planning isn’t an excuse for violating the ADA. Given the proximity and lack of obstacles, it can’t be argued as not readily achievable.
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