THE DEMOGRAPHIC ST. LOUIS SHOULD BE PITCHING

Guest editorial from Dan Icolari
We’re not the only people in places like Boston or New York or D.C. or maybe even Chicago who’ve stopped being wage slaves, or would like to, and need a cheaper place to live that’s still a real city, warts ‘n all.

I think St. Louis boosters need to broaden their target audience to include people like us. I don’t mean just well-heeled empty nesters who can afford lofts downtown. I’m talking about middle-class people like the ones my wife and I know–financially secure but not rich, educated, involved in the arts and in civic life and politics. People who want an urban way of life in a dynamic, diverse community. A community that’s affordable now and, in relative terms, is likely to stay that way.

With child-rearing behind them, such people have the disposable income to help preserve cultural institutions, patronize local specialty businesses, and support local artists in a variety of media. They have the time to devote to civic activism that most full-time working people don’t. They’re big on university-level continuing education. They’re exactly the kinds of people, in short, that St. Louis boosters are already pitching, only older.

And nobody except marketers of retirement communities–which are the last places the people I’m talking about would want to go–are reaching out to this particular segment of older adults. They are, after all, sophisticated people with many of the same interests and tastes as the 20- and 30-somethings that every city is working overtime to attract.

I think going after a segment of sophisticated people 50+ could be a very productive strategy for St. Louis. But it won’t be an easy sell. I can hear the naysayers already:

“Oh, great: Blue-Hair Central.”

“St. Louis’s reputation for crime will scare them off.”

“We’ll become The Nursing Home on the Mississippi.”

I’m not proposing that St. Louis boosters target older potential relocaters exclusively. Rather, I’m suggesting this over-50 segment has potential that should be recognized and developed.

The fact is, for people of any age who want an urban way of life they can afford, St. Louis has a pretty compelling story to tell. It’s not a story that will interest all or even most older people considering relocating. But I think it’s a story that will interest enough older people–the kinds of community-oriented urbanites St. Louis needs–to make telling that story to this segment worth a try.

[Dan Icolari is a native of NYC and lives with his lovely wife in a stunning home on Staten Island.   Dan is retired and writes Walking is Transportation.]

Up & Eating

Afew days ago I shared A horrible picture of myself when I was in ICU (view post).  Well below is a much better time.

Saturday night my good friend Marcia and I shared a pizza from Piazza della Pizzeria – in the lounge on my floor at St. Mary’s.  Unlike when I first arrived at rehab, I was able to sit upright and maintain my own balance- not an easy task. the excellent staff assisted me into the chair, but I can now stand on my own rather than having to be lifted to get vertical.

I know that in time people will again see me walking around taking pictures of bad development practices.

Thinking of Marti

As you all know by now, I had a stroke last month. I thought i’d answer some questions I know many of you have. this all started on the 1st of Feb. i was at home and got a headache. i started to lay down but then got up to take some aspirin. when doing so i realized I could not remain standing. I lowered mself to the floor so I would not fall.

I pulled myself around on the floor hoping to get to mr cell. i began some serious projectile vomitting. the next morning a good friend let herself into my place and she called 911. i ended up in ICU @SLU (image above).When this struck, my thoughts turned to Marti frumoff whodied last year.

i am so grateful to be alive and doing well in the rehab therapy. – steve

please excuse typos above as I am typing this myself using only my right hand.

Big Picture versus Little Picture

A Guest Editorial by Jim Zavist

I’ve been thinking – is investing in public infrastructure a better long-term investment than partnering directly with developers on individual projects? It seems like recently, especially in St. Louis, that more resources are being directed to the latter, with more public funds being dedicated to directly supporting private development, through various funding mechanisms, using everything from tax-increment financing to special improvement districts, with questionable results. In other cities, many more past (and current) efforts have been focused on larger, more “macro” solutions, creating attractive public places that attract private investment to “blighted” areas and/or areas targeted for (re)development.

The two cities I’m most familiar with are Louisville and Denver. Louisville has spent the last twenty-some years successfully recreating their waterfront (http://www.louisvillewaterfront.com/index.shtml), replacing scrap metal yards and other industrial uses with a massive public park along their Riverfront. In doing so, they’ve attracted a major employer (Humana), a minor-league baseball team and have seen new high-density housing being built around the perimeter of the park. Cincinnati has done something similar (http://www.crpark.org/), as has Memphis (http://www.mudisland.com/ and Denver (http://www.riverfrontpark.com/

Other cities have, and are, working to relocate rail yards away from their downtown areas, reclaiming the land for higher-density, mixed-use developments. Salt Lake City is currently developing their master plan. In New York City an abandoned elevated railway is being converted to a linear urban park (http://www.thehighline.org/). Oakland is moving forward with their project (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/13/MN655.DTL). Denver has completed one in the Central Platte Valley, and is moving forward on a second (http://www.denverinfill.com/, http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/theoryia/compdenver.htm

St. Louis has potential examples of all of the above – industrial properties along the river, urban rail yards and an abandoned elevated rail line. We also have a significant amount of underutilized or vacant industrial land that doesn’t fit any of those descriptions. Luckily, Trailnet is already working on the Iron Horse Trestle north of downtown (http://www.trailnet.org/p_stlriverfront.php). On the flipside, we have many potential “brownfield” sites that seem to have no plans in place. Between Tucker and 21 St., on the south side of Highway 40, is one rail yard. Between Victor and Rutger, along our waterfront and near Soulard, is another, along with another between Jefferson Barracks and the River Des Peres. At Arsenal & I-44 is yet another yard that sees a lot of traffic in containers. Between Calvary and Belfontaine Cemeteries and the river lies another one. Are any of these potential redevelopment sites, combining desirable locations with a parcel of land under single ownership, being pushed for redevlopment? Or is there simply “too much” “brownfield” land available to make it worth the railroad’s effort to relocate their investments?

I also know that studies, probably multiple ones and including a few current ones, have been done in an effort to reconnect the city with the river with new public investments, primarily parks and “parklike” ones. Do we have any serious, dedicated “champions” who can see a benefit in making this happen? Or are all of our efforts focused on our existing “gems”, places like Forest, Tower Grove and Carondolet Parks? Do we have any sort of vision of how to put underutilized and vacant industrial properties to “better” uses? Or are we on a perpetual quest simply to build new retail to generate sales tax revenues?

As I’ve said many times before, the unfortunate reality is that without a market, there will be little demand for any product. St. Louis once was a strong industrial cit. We still have industries that depend on the river – we shouldn’t needlessly “chase them away”. We, however, seem to have fallen into a rut of just “throwing money” at pretty much any potential business that promises to increase tax revenues without any sort of overall concepts or goals. Just look at the last 50 bills introduced at the Board of Aldermen – 14* of them narrowly deal with granting tax breaks or creating special districts to “benefit” specific developments! On the “micro” level, yes, these small investments probably help these individual projects. But on a “macro” level, what are we really “gaining”? Or are we really just “robbing Peter to pay Paul”?

To grow and thrive, we need to see net gains. We need to rely more on positive, successful, private investment, not ever-increasing publicly-funded investments in private projects. We need to create an environment that is more attractive to people both outside and inside the city. And while our built environment is a part of this environment, so are our schools, our business climate, our transportation systems and our tax structure. We need to reduce, if not remove, the objections people have to moving or remaining here. Once we do, and only then, will we slowly turn into a more “attractive” and economically-sustainable city, one more like the ones envy and/or puzzle over their successes.

And if it is “Broke”, Fix It!

A Guest Editorial by Jim Zavist

SLPS has a budget in excess of $350,000,000 (http://www.slps.org/budget/SummaryofFY07BUDG.htm). The school system is considering closing four more schools because “enrollment has dropped from about 44,000 to about 28,000 in six years.” (3-6-08 P-D, “SLPS board to consider closing four schools”) Let’s do the math – we’re now spending $12,500 per student per year to provide an inferior education! St. Louis is also home to ±64,200 children between the ages of 5 and 18 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29510.html). Let’s do the math again – we have ±36,000 children, or 56%, who are not utilizing the St. Louis Public School System.

School vouchers are the darling of many free-market conservatives. They believe that the public schools aren’t accountable, that they’re bloated bureaucracies, and that the only way to “right the ship” is to make them compete in a free-market environment. School vouchers are also a goal of many parochial school parents, as they face ever-increasing tuition costs. Until recently, I’ve believed that the public’s tax dollars should be used exclusively to fund public schools. I’ve also supported the concept of charter schools, where parents potentially have (the ability to have) more control over the education their children receive. But with the combination of a rapidly-shrinking enrollment, continuing upheaval in the governing structure, a loss of accreditation, no improvement in test scores and a continuing movement out of the city by families with school-age children, I’ve come to the conclusion that vouchers may be the only solution for public education in the city.

I know all the arguments about why many (but not all) SLPS students do not succeed – poverty, a lack of parental involvement, a lack of preschool, frequent moves, teen pregnancy, “school ain’t cool”, a lack of respect toward teachers/an inability to maintain order in the classroom, the impacts of main-streaming special-needs students, the impacts of busing, the closure of neighborhood schools, etc., etc., etc. . . . The reality is that many “solutions” have been tried, yet the results continue to speak for themselves. Yes, a minority of students are successful in this environment (graduating and going onto college and/or meaningful careers), but, on average, SLPS simply continues to “not meet expectations”. Combine all this with no reduction in spending, and we voters need to think seriously about some other options.

Bottom line, our spending, per student, has increased by 8%-10% per year, on average, for the last six years. At the same time, the number of students in the SLPS system is dropping by roughly 10% per year. At this rate, in ten years, SLPS will have fewer than 1,000 students! Assuming that, for better or worse, ¼ of the current budget is committed, more or less in perpetuity, to funding existing obligations (long-term debt, pensions, etc.), that still leaves in excess of $260,000,000 in annual revenues that, in theory, could be devoted to a 100% voucher program. If true, that could mean an annual payment of slightly more than $4,000 per student to every school-age child in the city.

Milwaukee has been on the forefront of pushing the use of vouchers. Much like St. Louis, they’re a rust belt city that wants to reinvent themselves. They also struggle with many of the same “challenges” SLPS struggles with. Their results appear to be mixed (see resources cited below), and, as with everything political and statistical, published results can and do get “spun” to reinforce one’s preconceptions. Personally, I fall into the camp of the non-parental taxpayer. I don’t have kids in the SLPS, never had and never will. My concerns fall into two distinct, fairly unemotional, areas – what am I paying and what am I receiving? Taxes are a necessary evil – they’re always more than I want to pay, but I realize that government can’t function without them, that they need revenues to deliver the services I use. Performance can, is, and has been measured. The results appear to be unacceptable, and as a result, the SLPS has become an increasing disincentive for any “resurgence” the city may attempt. I would prefer that we had a viable public educational system. We apparently don’t. So if vouchers can improve things, if for no other reason they enable families to migrate to the existing parochial schools and stay in the city, I say let’s give ’em a try – it can’t be much worse than what’s happening now and it would be a much more fair distribution of resources, especially when compared to the results delivered . . .

• http://www2.jsonline.com/news/choice/
• http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=721737
• http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0523/p01s03-usgn.html
• http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/vouchers.htm
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58082-2004Sep28.html
• http://www.weac.org/Resource/vouchpg.htm