Taxi Cabs Block Sidewalk at Convention Center, Exit Via Crosswalk

Today I was walking up and down Washington Avenue this morning checking out the parking situation and ran across another of those problems that I’d seen myself, and been reminded of by a reader, but never got around to documenting: Taxi cabs blocking the sidewalkl in front of our convention center.

Above is the Westbound view along Washington Avenue at 8th street. Other convention center entrances I’ve seen often have street vendors selling hot dogs and bottled water but not in St. Louis, we have cars!

Here is the same area seen from the opposite perspective, note the yellow taxi in the direct path of pedestrians. The wide area to the left is a circle driveway for dropping off people at the convention center, not a place we should expect pedestrians to be walking.

The taxis wait here as part of a designated taxi stand until called over by an attendant at the Renaissance Grand hotel show above, right. How do they get there? Yes, they exit via the pedestrian crossing shown above. Don’t believe me? Watch the video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRusfBYJ-_8[/youtube]

This is how visitors to our city are treated. No place to buy a snack or newspaper, US Bank’s ugly parking garage immediately across the street, taxi’s running you down in the crosswalk. And yet we wonder why this section of Washington Ave is not more lively.

The solution is rather simple actually. Set up the taxi stand on Washington Ave between 7th and 8th, moving the existing bus stop to the West of 8th but still in front of the convention center. Also allow parking on the opposite side of Washington next to the Renaissance Grand Hotel. A few spaces could be short-term spaces (15-30 minutes) for those running into Starbucks or Kinkos). The rest would serve the general area. At the end of that block An American Place restaurant could have 60ft or so for valet. Back at 7th and Washington I’d set up a single short-term space immediately adjacet to the visitor’s center.

As you might expect, I will be bringing this matter to the attention of the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, the Downtown St. Louis Partnership, 7th Ward Alderman Phyllis Young and the Slay administration.

Update 1/12/07 – 12:15pm — for those that don’t know, I’m a big country music fan.  This situation and the one from last week with city employees parking on the sidewalk along 14th (see post) reminds me of the recent hit song by Jason Aldean, “Hicktown”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4_hCdNwvO0[/youtube]

Welcome to St. Louis, a hicktown on the Mississippi.

Valet Zones Established on Washington Avenue

Finally! My first mention of valet parking was on December 6, 2005. Today, just over a year later, the problem was basically solved — the city’s Street Department installed signs marking valets zones in the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Washington Ave.

The West end of Lucas Park Grille’s valet zone (in the 1200 block) is basically at the end of their restaurant, as it should be.  [Update 1/12/07 10:45am – I measured their space from sign to sign this morning and it is a reasonable 88ft.]

The real confusing thing here has nothing to do with valet parking — from the signs to my back is no parking as this is both a bus stop and the intersection with 13th Street (although part does not have through traffic) yet a parking meter is attached to the post (mostly hidden in this view). So the signs say no parking from the sign back yet a parking meter exists as though it would be OK.  [Update 1/12/07 10:45am – I missed this last night but saw it this morning and a commenter also pointed it out — some of the meters in this area are located at the back of the spaces rather than the front.  That is the case here — the meter is for the space where the BMW is parked above.]

This sign is the opposite end of the Lucas Park Grille valet zone. Again, they’ve got the full space in front of their restaurant for people to drop off and pick up their cars. The remainder of the spaces they had been taking, roughly 7-10 are now available for the general public.

Moving to the East we get to the 1100 block of Washington Ave where Copia has been taking the entire block for a year. I took this picture during the no-parking on street time of 4pm-6pm, another subject I will get to later in this post. I returned later after 6pm and the valet company had covered this meter with one of their no-parking covers and saying the space where I am standing to take this picture was also for valet. As you can see, the restaurant is up ahead and they have the zone up to the white car in the background. The sign is clearly pointing that direction but I didn’t bother arguing with him. There will be an education and adjustment period and I have faith in the new acting Director of Streets to do what it takes keep the streets in order.

[Update 1/12/07 @ 10:45am — I went down there this morning and did some measuring.  From the sign shown below at the east end of their zone to the sign shown above it is a huge 129ft — too long.  Plus they were thinking they got the space that the sign is attached to — that total length is 151ft.  In reality they should have one less space for a total of 106ft, still a reasonable length in my view. ] 

This image is the eastern end of the Copia valet zone. Again, they have a reasonable amount of space to conduct their business while everyone else has public parking to be shared. This small change will have a significant impact on the visual appearance of the street, including the perception of how happening the street is. No longer will we see big dead zones due to valets co-opting all the available spaces. Good common sense has prevailed.

I want to thank Ald. Lyda Krewson (D-28th Ward) for her many hours of working on this issue. I know it has been hours because she and I have literally spent hours talking and emailing over this subject for a good six months or more. Plus I gather she has had numerous conversations with valet company owners, other aldermen and so on. In the past I’ve said 8 years was plenty for an alderman, that after that many years they nothing else to give and it was time to move on. Well, I think I was wrong — despite the 9 years Ald. Krewson has been on the Board of Aldermen it is clear to me now Ald. Krewson has plenty of drive to tackle issues and can be open to suggestions and alternate views. Click here to send an email to Ald. Krewson thanking her for taking the time to pursue this issue.
Also deserving attention is the new acting Director of Streets, Todd Waeltermann. Having just started the job in December he has rolled up his sleeves and got down to work with Ald. Krewson on this issue. Like Krewson, he has gotten very involved and applied some very sensible common sense to the issue. I also hear the folks in the Slay administration were very supportive so thank you Room 200!

The other people that deserve credit are the many of you that sent emails and made phone calls regarding this issue. I have a big mouth but I think it took the efforts of more voices to get things rolling. Citizens standing up on an issue can be heard, persistence will eventually pay off. Of course the work is not complete. The city apparently had about 16 valet permits/areas so it will take some time for the zones to be established throughout the city to the other 14. The good thing is once that is done the companies that supposedly operate reguarly without a permit will become far more obvious. Short-term permits (1 or 2 days) will still be issued without any signs being installed.

So despite being quite pleased with the action taken today I want to point out a few issues that need to be looked at in the near future. The main one is the obnoxious 4pm-6pm no parking rule on Washington Ave from Tucker East. It really only applies to two blocks (1000 & 1100) because the remainder of the blocks to the river are no-parking 24/7. As I said a year ago, I think we should allow parking along Washington all the way to the river — with the possible exception of the spaces immediately in front of American’s Center. Those spaces, in front of the convention center, should be reserved for cabs.

The concern, of course, is how do we allow for workers to quickly flee the city at 5pm. By allowing parking on-street in the morning & evening rush it will take them a bit longer. Well, I say time the lights better along Washington so some is not having to stop at every signal. Also, encourage East-West traffic to use the much wider Cole Ave to the North of the convention center. We’ve literally invested millions of dollars in Washington Ave and visitors coming and going between the convention center and the hotel across the street currently get the impression the street is dead. All they can see from 8th street is an empty street with little to no activity. The only real activity they see are four lanes of traffic going by but not stopping.

Back in the 1000 and 1100 blocks of Washington Ave I am concerned the lack of on-street parking between 5pm and 6pm is negatively affecting the happy hour business at Kitchen K, Dubliner and even Copia. I’d like to see the city do a test of allowing on-street parking from at least 9th street to Tucker throughout the day at it is to the West. At the same time push back the start time for Copia’s valet to 5pm or 5:30pm from 6pm so they can capture that after work crowd. To make this work it would be good to perhaps put up some signs on Tucker and other places where traffic is originating to direct them to alternate routes such as Cole along with reworking the timing on the traffic lights. Tonight I go to bed feeling better about St. Louis. I leave you with a well known quote:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

– Margaret Mead

Price To Be In The Know at SLDC: $17/month!

For only $17/month you too can know what is happening with seven different public boards operated by the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC). Yes, the SLDC operates seven different boards but the only way to know what they are talking about it is look for the agendas posted at 1015 Locust or pay $17/month to have them sent to you via U.S. Mail. Yes, in 2007 a major entity of city government is incapable of posting agendas online or even having an email list where they are sent out electronically.

From the SLDC website:

St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) is an umbrella, not-for-profit corporation organized under Chapter 355 of the Missouri State Code with the mission of fostering economic development and growth in the City through increased job and business opportunities and expansion of the City’s tax base.

SLDC is directed by its own Board of Directors, and its employees serve as staff support for the City’s seven economic development authorities:

Industrial Development Authority (IDA)
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA)
Land Reutilization Authority (LRA)
Local Development Company (LDC)
Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA)
Port Authority
Tax Increment Financing Commission (TIF)

The Executive Director of SLDC is also Executive Director for each authority. The agency’s department directors make policy recommendations to the authorities, the Mayor, Board of Aldermen, and the business community.

I had sent an email request under Missouri’s Sunshine Law to SLDC Director Rodney Crim asking to receive the agendas at the same time as the board members. It was my assumption, at the time, that this information was sent out via email. Monday I received a phone call from SLDC Legal Director Leslye Mitchell Yancey responding to my request, informing me of the price to know about public information.

I do understand that preparing and mailing out information doesn’t come free, I’m not asking to get something for nothing. Still, I’d kinda like to know the various issues they are addressing without having to make numerous trips to 1015 Locust each and every month. I enquired about receiving just three (3) agendas a month and I was quoted a price of $7.25. Basically it is pro-rated. The more you know, the more it costs.

As an example, the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) is meeting this afternoon at 1:30pm at 1015 Locust. Do I want to attend? I’m not sure, I have no idea what they are reviewing. I’m sure those seeking approval certainly know what is on the agenda. Those who have managed to make it to 1015 Locust to see the official posting know. For the rest of us we are left in the dark.

I should point out that the SLDC is perfectly compliant with Missouri’s Sunshine Law regarding meeting notices, they are posting meetings as required. Of course, there is a big difference between minimal compliance and open & responsive government. SLDC has a long way to go toward the latter.

I had to make sure it was indeed 2007. One would think such a large agency would be able to post these agendas online. Of course, I couldn’t find their annual report online to actually demonstrate how large of an agency they really are. I went to their press release section and noticed the most recent was from April 2005 — the only press release that year. Clearly the management issues for SLDC extend far beyond the posting of meeting notices.

Candidates for Aldermanic President Speak at 15th Ward Forum

Last night I attended the candidates forum sponsored by the 15th Ward Democrats, not to be confused with Democrats of the 15th Ward. They are not one in the same, but I will cover that later. The format was Mr. Shrewsbury had the first half hour and Mr. Reed the second half hour. They were asked the same questions. Below are videos for each opening statement, I included Mr. Reed’s closing statement as well to give him roughly equal time at Mr. Shrewsbury. Both vidoes are raw — I have not edited any content.
Jim Shrewsbury — current President of the Board of Aldermen (opening statement):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuayjEYA7CM[/youtube]

Lewis Reed — current 6th Ward Alderman (opening & closing statement):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KbjPchJAQQ[/youtube]

The nine questions asked of both candidates related to the following:

• TIF for St. Louis Centre
• Example of Impact You’d have on City
• School Board appointment in case of state takeover
• BJC/Forest Park lease
• Charter Reform
• Aldermanic Courtesy
• Air Quality
• Gentrification
• Large-Scale Development

For more detail of each question and each response see the summary prepared by 15th ward resident Steve Wilke-Shapiro.One question related to pollution/air quality. Mr. Shrewsbury spoke of legislation he passed related to prohibiting the burning of medical waste. Mr. Reed indicated he would support future legislation similar to the bill passed by Ald. Flowers prohibiting the burning of medical waste. So who sponsored the bill on medical waste? Well, quite a few aldermen did. In fact, the bill (now Ordinance #65701) had 23 sponsors out of a possible 29. It would appear both Pres. Shrewsbury and Ald. Flowers were the primary sponsors. Aldermen Carter, Bauer, Florida, Long, Roddy, Villa, Clay, Ryan, McMillan, Smith, Ortmann, Reed, Sondermann, Gregali, Krewson, Schmid, Conway, Ozier, Kirner, Kennedy and Heitert all joined in. So Shrewsbury was a sponsor and Reed was a co-sponsor. That didn’t help me in distinquishing between the two candidates.

In fact, not much was helpful. Overall I’d say Shrewsbury gave more direct answers with some specific examples whereas Reed stayed more general. Still, neither seemed to offer a radically different perspective on the questions. It was not like Democrats vs. Republicans debating gay marriage.

Immediately following the presentations the eligible members of the 15th Ward Democrats voted to endorse Mr. Reed in the race. I have inquired directly and on several sites as to the voting process. The reason I was curious is it seemed to me that half the room was people from the press or workers/volunteers for each of the two candidates. I estimate that roughly only 10 or so were from the 15th ward and a couple of those were not eligible to vote in the endorsement.

Remember that I said at the opening not to confuse the 15th Ward Democrats with the Democrats of the 15th Ward, let me elaborate. The Democrats of the 15th Ward is the old guard if you will, and that ward group is a closed ward. That is, the membership is not allowed to vote. I’m not even sure they have any actual members. However, the two leaders of that group, Greg Thomas & Jo Ann Perkins, were both elected in 2000 & 2004 to represent the Democrats of the 15th ward (in 2004 Thomas received over 1,600 votes while Perkins received over 1,700 votes). Neither were opposed in 2000 or 2004, just as Ald. Jennifer Florida was not opposed in 2005.

So this other group, the 15th Ward Democrats, is not elected by anyone. They are a political action committee (PAC) that was formed because they were unhappy with the closed ward group. Their website indicates they are an “open” ward where members are allowed to vote in endorsements. Yet, when I inquired about their membership numbers, how many voted last night and such I was told they don’t disclose such information. Doesn’t sound very open does it?

I can understand not wanting to indicate the outcome of the ward vote — they are indicating they as a group back the person they selected, in this case Ald. Reed. I have to respect that as they want to be a united group to support their selected candidate. Still, they can disclose the number of eligible voting members as well as the number of those that participated in the ward vote without damaging that united front. Again, I believe it to have been around 10 people that comprised the vote. Frankly I don’t care if it was 6-4, 9-1 or 10-0 for Reed, I want to know how representative these groups are relative to the number of residents and registered voters. In 2004 the 15th ward had 5,759 registered voters so personally I don’t see much difference between a “closed” ward where the two duly-elected democratic representatives endorse candidates and a small group of 10 people in an “open” ward endorse candidates.

UPDATE 1/11/2007 @ 8:45am — I totally forgot to mention, in order to comment on the “open” 15th Ward Democrats blog you must be a registered user of blogspot yourself.  This, of course, dramatically limits feedback they might receive.  The software offers other options for feedback while still controlling for spam but then just anyone could comment.

Questionaires for Local Candidates

At the end of last week filing closed for candidates in local elections in the City of St. Louis for the Board of Aldermen and for the city-wide election of the President of the Board of Aldermen. Independent candidates can still file a petition (signatures required) by February 12th to run in the April general election, although I don’t see that happening.

Eight of the 14 even-numbered aldermanic seats are contested: the 4th, 6th, 12th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th and 26th. I would have liked to have seen more of the seats be contested but this is better than in years past. I’m not going to focus on the remaining wards that are not contested as a questionaire to them it rather pointless I think, simply by paying a $328 filing fee they are guaranteed the seat for another four years.

So the idea is to send out a list of questions to all 20 candidates and then post their responses for everyone to review. I belive there are questions general enough for all the contested aldermanic seats as well as for the President of the Board of Aldermen. Of course, machine politicians traditionally avoid real issues and instead focus on individual constituent service (stop signs, dumpsters, etc) but we’ll see how it goes.

While I have not developed specific questions, here are some general topics for all candidates, in no particular order:

• Charter Reform
• Non-partisan elections
• City rejoining St. Louis County
• Regional planning agency
• Mississippi River Bridge
• Mass Transit (funding of, expansion of, types)
• Education (St. Louis Public Schools, Charter Schools, Vouchers)
• State Control of St. Louis Police
• Aldermanic Courtesy
• Use of eminent domain
• Tax credits, TIFs and tax abatement
• City’s zoning code
• Patronage jobs, machine politics
• Environment, U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement
• Campaign contribution limits
• Constituent communication
• Valet parking/Parking Management
• Role of the Planning & Urban Design Agency
• Preservation/Demolition Policy
• Parking for two-wheel vehicles (bikes, scooters, motorcycles)
• 22nd Street Interchange (located in 6th Ward)

My thought is to use a 1-5 format with say #1 representing “strongly agree” and 5 representing “strongly disagree.” I’d form statements slanted one way or another soliciting a 1-5 response from each. I’d also allow candidates to submit additional explainations for each topic — I have no space limitations.

I’d like to open this up to your feedback on general topic areas or if you have specific questions/statements you’d like to see posed to all the candidates. I want to keep this issued-focused and not personality focused. Still, questions relating to record are valid as these speak to policy perspectives.