john says:

Leadership is unarguably needed here. Being under the control of the Democratic Party for over fifty years, the City has been virtually destroyed. More of the same will not lead to change.

Sprawl is the result of poor leadership as voters have found it easier to vote with their feet instead of staying around to deal with a one-party town. As they create other communities, politicians reward them with new highways, at others’ expense, and with mixed results. Inevitably important infrastructure issues are being overlooked, especially in a strategic sense.

Arguments over such issues as sprawl misses the point when local leaders refuse to address the root problems. A corrupt political system, burdensome taxes, too much crime, and a school system that has a long and ongoing history of failure will not attract residents, no matter how many rail lines are built.

It is a shame that residents in the City continue to ignore the core issues. Until they do, the critical infrastructures will continue to deteriorate undermining all hope not only in the City but in the surrounding suburbs too.

HMM says:

“Now if only we had someone in congress as dynamic and committed to good urbanism as Blumenauer.”

Well what can you say. This year we have a senate choice between Talent and McCaskill and neither care about urban issues, particuarly Mccaskill. After doing all of her campagining in STL and KC in 2004, Claire is learning how to win in missouri, spending most of her time talking to rural voters.

Now why should we urban minded folks be voting for her again?

15thWardSTL says:

Jim, planning by definition has to occur at a geographic level above that which is being planned. Otherwise it’s nothing more than individual goal-setting.

Hypothetically, if I want to create a plan for the South Grand commercial district, yes it is local issue. I would involve neighborhood organizations, local politicians, and the surrounding property owners. On the other hand, if I want to deal with sprawl, density, or transportation planning, it is a regional issue. As such, it must be incentivized and/or initiated by a regional or state entity.

Individual mayors, aldermen, and planning staff have neither the authority nor political ability to plan for regional development. There are simply too many municipalities with competing agendas in a zero-sum game. All it would take would be one Chesterfield or Wentzville to opt out, and any sort of city or county-level sprawl solution would tumble down like a house of cards.

Congress has plenty of ability to control the budgeting, taxation, economic, and energy policies that incentivize sprawl development. State government has the ability to set growth ring policy, allocate transportation funding, and incentivize regional planning. THIS is where regional planning takes place, not in the Board of Aldermen or County Executive office.

Douglas Duckworth says:

It is clear that we need comprehensive regional planning, meaning planning inside individual regions, like the within City, but also across the Metro Area, which includes St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, and across the river into Illinois. We also need consolidation of the municipal governments within St. Louis County.

The obstacle to regional planning both within the City and the entire region is fractionalized politics. There is no continuity in the City, our outside the City, as grand plans are overlooked by the replacements of those who formed it. Often the plan is not even enforced by the politicians who actually took part in its formulation. In the City, we need zoning regulation which enforces these plans. In the County, we need a strong regional government which can enact legally binding plans upon the region. Political fighting and fractured government has gotten us little growth and much sprawl. There is a clear need for a regional body which can enforce comprehensive plans. Fighting among municipalities is a zero sum game as it is clearly producing little overall progress.

It is time for a change. This region is expanding farther west while the inner core is decaying. This growth is merely sprawl and we must get control of this cancer. This can be done, yet it will require a concerted effort at the local level, but also at the state level. Consolidation and regional planning must be done. With citizen pressure it will be achieved. The time to take action is now, because we are only repeating our mistakes. For the St. Louis Metro Region to be a respected Metro Area, we have to get our act together. The time for departure from the status quo is now.

john says:

Whether a Democrat or a Republican-type administration manages the City is unimportant to me. The issue is leadership.
The Democrats have proven that they don’t have what it takes to turn the City around. Perhaps they should hoist the white flag and vote/beg to become part of the county.

The last Republican mayor was elected in 1943. Mayor Kaufman pleaded with voters to approve boundary expansion. He wrote a 36 page plea for the enlargement of St. Louis boundaries, to the Missouri Constitutional Convention of 1943-1944.

He wrote “St. Louis had outgrown its established boundaries and had expanded far out into the County of St. Louis. The urbanized area contiguous to St. Louis of right ought to be reorganized as a part of the City. The Constitutional Convention is urged to extend the boundaries of St. Louis to coincide with its normal growth and expansion as was heretofore done on four different occasions.”

Unfortunately, conditions have soured to such a point that a hail Mary pass play is unlikely to succeed. Democrats would have to give up control and they show no willingness to do so. Add to this the poor attittude and willingness of local voters to accept mediocrity and the results will be more of the same.

No comprehensive plan will be effective nor adhered to as long as these conditions remain dominate. Let’s see if the City’s voters really want change when we read the election results in the Post Disgrace tomorrow morning.

Jim Zavist says:

15th ward – Even if we can get the state to touch (and fund) planning on a regional level, until we get the locals on board, they will (continue to?) short-circuit any efforts at implementation. Fortunately or unfortunately, it takes leadership, both political and economic, that looks beyond one’s defined boundaries and short-term interests to make this happen. And while consolidation in the county might be one way to do this, this will likely take years, if not decades, to accomplish. In theory, we have a Board of Aldermen inside the city that has the authority, but apparently not the will, to look at the needs of the city as a whole and to spend the money to make it happen. That would take vision, compromise, deference to professional staff and a sharing (but not an abdication) of power. The first step is to tone down aldermanic “courtesy” and to turn up the leadership . . .

Douglas Duckworth says:

I disagree with the idea that people believe the urban lifestyle is not for them. People in the City want a urban lifestyle, which is why they live here, as opposed to one of the many County municipalities. Why would someone live here and pay the earnings tax if this City didn’t have some holding power. Our City has huge problems but it also has huge advantages. If we can lessen the problems while maximizing the draws, then we will see a big change. This is already occurring in many areas of the City with rehabilitation, yet much demolition is occurring as well. This is a contradictory policy.

The way to increase our population is to create even more draws, whether cultural, entertainment, educational, or transit oriented, these will great a large boom. I will bet my left eye that if we had a more viable education system, we would see a huge boom in population, as those who live directly outside the City would move here en mass. The combination of our culture and entertainment with a good educational system would be irresistible.

We also need control of our Police Department as the Governor appointed Board, along with Mokwa, have not addressed the crime problem which plagues the North Side of our City. Regardless of your views concerning the “Worst City” ranking, it is clear we have both a crime problem and a need for local control. We must make the Mayor accountable for crime as he is an elected official. Crime control and prevention is a local issue not one the State should be administering, especially when they are not accountable for the crime rate.

I am definitely in favor of public-private partnerships, however when the public sector does not contain leaders, who work together with the private sector for an agreed upon vision, then their partnership falls flat. I cannot say who has failed with Grand Center, yet there is a clear failure. Foot traffic does not exist past event hours and business is quite lacking. Grandel Square contains many vacant lots and derelict buildings. The Sun still has not opened. Is there any talk of a trolley or street car traveling from Grand South Grand, up to the Grand Metro, and ending north of the Fox? This is one of the most underutilized areas of the City. With all of the propaganda, and leaders committed to the vision, I would have expected more by now.

Regarding private land owners in the City. While many of them are good and maintain their property, others are out of town slumlords who rent to whomever and allow their property to fall into disrepair. This affects property values as well as crime in the surrounding neighborhood. We have not gone far enough addressing this problem. If there is multiple complaints with no redress of the problem, then occupancy permits should be revoked. Some drastic action should be done because these irresponsible property owners ruin our neighborhoods through the damaging of property values and promotion of criminal activity.

The good property owners should be given even more incentive to stay in the City. We need to redirect some of our subsidy away from large developers to our own residents. Increase the 5K forgivable loans to 20, assuming they reside in the City for a given amount of time. Our historical neighborhoods which are not in historical districts need to receive this classification and historical tax credits must be issued. Along with bureaucratic reforms regarding the waiver process, this could be a great change. Aldermen who govern these historical districts must actively safeguard the historical housing stock as it is one of our most unique draws. We have the most historical housing in the entire State.

To me it seems pretty clear what we need: tax incentives for residents, more draws like the ones listed above, with the protection of our historical housing and urban walkable environment. It will take a while, but if individuals who keep these priorities in mind reach office, then I believe these true leaders could institute real change.

Regarding the County, there must be consolidation as small municipalities, with their decreasing tax base, are past their capacity to deal with blight and crime. This decreasing tax base is a product of white flight, but also the uncontrolled subsidy competition between municipalities. Government must be expanded and resources pooled, as this will reduce cost and duplicate services; this will also enable control over subsidy, assuming State Representatives grant such regulatory power.

Moreover, we need a regional body to institute regional comprehensive planning. Our Region is far too fragmented and this creates the zero sum competition game thus a lack of cohesion. These small municipalities cannot compete with the western ones, therefore they are loosing business, residents, and their tax base. If regional planning was created, then these areas could receive attention and a new urban built environment which would draw residents back. I also would not be against the City annexing some of the bordering municipalities.

This could either be a pipe dream or a future. It really depends on what we do with the time we are given.

Jim Zavist says:

The earnings tax may be as big an impediment to to revitalization of the city as the schools are. The more one makes, the more one pays for the “privilege” of living in the city. If our vision is to attract and/or retain wealthier people with more disposable income (or just younger people seeing their incomes growing) who will spend more in trendy shops and restaurants and invest in higher-quality residences, we don’t need to give them another reason to pick Clayton, Webster, Kirkwood, Chesterfield, New Town St. Charles, etc., etc. over St. Louis. We can’t really pick where our employers choose to locate, but we can certainly pick where we choose to live. I have fewer problems with an earnings tax on employees and employers (although this is also a disincentive), but I think that finding a better way to fund residential services needs to be found. On a per capita basis, well-paid people create no more (and probably create fewer) demands for service (trash pickup, police calls, fire calls, requests for street repairs, etc., etc.) than minimum-wage earners, so there’s little reason, after a point, to keep “sticking it to ’em”. Perhaps the answer would be to just cap the city earnings tax at the same threshold that Social Security taxes are capped . . . hmmm?

Jim Zavist says:

Ahh, the wonderful world of semantics. A fair tax in one man’s eyes is a regressive one in another’s. In our regional economy, a straightline tax of any sort (as opposed to a graduated one) is rightfully perceived to be regressive by people in higher tax brackets, people I assume we’re trying to both attract to and to retain inside the city. The point I was raising is that if we want to “improve” the city, we can’t just assume that the status quo can’t be touched. A 1% hit on a $200,000 salary is $2,000. If I was making that kind of money, I’d be questioning why I’m giving the city that kind of money every year on top of my property and sales taxes. Does the city need the money? Yes. Can the rich pay it more easily? Yes, again. But the rich also have a lot more choices on where they can live, so if we make it too pricey taxwise, they will (and have) vote with their feet, taking their homes, salaries and businesses to more wealth-friendly suburban areas, leaving the city with what we have now, a lot of poor folks who are net tax receivers and a lot of middle class who pay taxes for a school system they don’t use!

joe b says:

mayor Slay has done a fine job of building up Downtown to the point where it needs to be. Market needs to take over from here.

He now needs to concentrate on the hoods that can be saved–or at least the hoods that are worth saving.

Tough to write about b/c this consumes a multitude of issues. Slay needs to streamline the process of small biz development. Way too much red tape involved.

With downtown moving along nicely, he needs to start refocusing on the hoods. Every single one of them is in bad shape.

He’s a great politician and if he wants his name in the books, he would start on the hoods now.

There isn’t a hood in Stl, other than downtown, which anybody can say is thriving.

Most have gone downhill under his regime.

Mayor Slay, keep a watchful eye on downtown and start looking towards the hoods.