Political Insider Blocks Path of Sidewalk with SUV, Defense Caught on Video

Arriving at City Hall this morning I spotted an SUV parked smack dab in the middle of the sidewalk along Tucker Blvd — in such a way that someone in a wheelchair or mobility scooter could not pass by:

That is my scooter (aka motorized bicycle per state law) in the very far left. As you can see, it is parked way out of the line of travel along the sidewalk. The black Acura MDX, however, is directly in the path of pedestrians and anyone that might be using a mobility device to get around. Who would be so insensitive as to park in the pedestrian path?

Getting in closer we can see that it really would be a challenge for some to get around this vehicle.

From another angle we can see the challenge someone might face.

From the rear we can see how close the planers are on the right, forcing pedestrians to alter their direct course. So again, who would do this?

The placard on the dash indicates a member of the Metropolitan St. Louis Taxi Commission — on official business! I had my thoughts but I couldn’t confirm it because I have no way to track vehicles.

Once at the Board of Alderman meeting my suspicion was nearly confirmed. Taxi commissioner, political insider, political consultant, and lobbyist Lou Hamilton was coming in and out of the BoA chambers. Still, this was not proof that this vehicle was his.
However, I was downstairs on the phone in the rotunda of city hall when Hamilton was heading to the exit. I quickly ended my call and headed out the door. Hamilton stopped just outside, to light up a cig, and I continued to my scooter. I had my camera out and was ready. I think he spotted me but I wasn’t about to leave. I figured I could wait him out.

The video explains the rest pretty well:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld9MwhV4ZLU[/youtube]

Not blocking the sidewalk? The pictures and video seem to show otherwise!

Basically the aldermen were afraid to be seen getting into his SUV to head to lunch — can’t say that I blame them. Let’s see, it was back in 2006 that Ald. Florida, Gregali and Kirner were part of a motorcade that included Hamilton, this was first described by Dave Drebes on March 3, 2006 and later by the RFT on April 5, 2006:

The aldermanic trio weren’t the only local VIPs who received special treatment on February 24. Public relations executive and mayoral lobbyist Lou Hamilton and his wife, Mayor’s Ball chair Tricia Roland-Hamilton, departed city hall that evening in a dark SUV with a blue light flashing atop its dashboard.

Lou Hamilton could not be reached for comment.

I didn’t see any emergency lights on Hamilton’s Acura, maybe it is his wife’s vehicle?

Hamilton is chairman of the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission — the very commission that continues to have a taxi stand set up in front of our convention center. Despite repeated private requests & public blog posts to remove the taxi stand, it has not happened. It seems clear that chairman Hamilton doesn’t place much value on pedestrians but and is willing to use his ‘official business’ placard to justify parking directly in the path of pedestrians. This personal philosophy must be why the taxi commission, under his leadership, has refused to yank the taxi’s off the sidewalk.

For the purposes of disclosure, Hamilton’s former company, Vigilant Communications, was hired by Ald Dorothy Kirner when I challenged her for the 25th Ward seat in the Spring of 2005.

More Sprawl Planned Adjacent to Soulard Neighborhood in 7th Ward

A Walgreen’s and attached strip center next to Bohemian Hill and across from City Hospital is not enough. Nor is the under construction strip center at 7th and Russell. The latest in Phyllis Young’s plan to surround Soulard with all the beauty of O’Fallon (Missouri or Illinois — they look the same) is on the former parking lot of Nooter, at Broadway and Park (map). Mere blocks from The Lasalle Park neighborhood, the rebirth of the Chouteau’s Landing area, Soulard Farmers’ Market and other establishments between this site and downtown.

Site is located to the right in the above image. On another day I’ll have to deal with the bike lane suddenly ending at Park with the Bike St. Louis sign pointing you to the left — like somehow you are supposed to get into the left turn lane, across two lanes of traffic, from the bike lane at the intersection.

Closer up you see the nearly four and a half acre parking lot which is to become this:

Is this the future of St. Louis? Filling in every vacant area with generic strip malls fronted by a sea of asphalt parking lots? While I hope not I am afraid this is the best we can hope for given our politically crippled planning department and inept leadership at city hall. Of course the sketches are pretty honest, they never show an ADA-compliant access route for pedestrians from the main public sidewalk. Bike racks, who needs those? Plenty of “free” auto parking? You bet!!! While the above image is from the sign posted in front of the property it could be anywhere in the region. There is nothing about this that says it is blocks from the river in one of the oldest areas of town.

For years cities had massive change forced upon them in the way of urban renewal — interstate highways ripped through established neighborhoods and high-rise public housing projects wiped out more neighborhoods. These areas really stood no chance of survival with such a large scale approach. Today we cannot afford to come in and reconnect areas on such an equally large scale — nor would we want to. The bigger the scale the more watered down the solution. What we need is to methodically and incrementally piece our city back together again.

While this incremental construction would take place over many years, on many parcels and via many different builders/developers the planning must be done upfront and on the bigger scale. This does not mean we design every building. No, what is means is that we set out a community vision — what will we expect of the building types once built. Will they be multi-story and built up to the street with any parking below or behind the structure? Cities such as Seattle, Portland and Denver are seeing great success through the use of districts-scaled plans with the power of zoning. The goal is not to control uses but forms of new buildings, relationships to the street and the disposition of parking. Slowly but surly the vision will come together — getting increasingly urban and dense with each passing project. Biking and walking from place to place will become better and friendlier over time. This approach takes the long view on rebuilding a walkable city that also happens to accommodate motorists along the way.

I have no problems with generic chain stores in this location. What I do have a problem with is the form in which they are proposed. Even smart suburban areas in the US aren’t allowing this sort of lowest common denominator of development anymore. Yes, this is probably better than a vacant parking lot but when we have no standards at all we get development that is a reflection of that lack of vision.

If you share my perspective on this the people you need to talk to are long-time 7th Ward Alderman Phyllis Young, “Planning” and [Sub]Urban Design Director Rollin Stanley and Deputy Mayor Barb Geisman via Mayor Slay.

Homeless-Staffed Renewable Energy Center Seeks Approval for 38-Car Surface Parking Lot

Missouri Renewable Energy (MORE), operated by Larry Rice’s New Life Evangelistic Center, is seeking a zoning change to allow them to create a 38-car asphalt parking lot in the middle of a residential block. Yes, the group that “believes in caring for creation by learning, teaching, and implementing clean energy (solar, wind, and water power, biodiesel), environmentally friendly housing structures, going organic, and consuming less” wants to put down a big chunk of paving among a residential neighborhood (see map).

From where I stand it would seem that creating large paved parking in the midst of residential areas is not exactly “caring for creation.” Before getting into the zoning specifics of the proposed parking area, we need to look at how we got to this point.
For decades the area in question was part of Held Florist and Nursery. The commercial building was built in the 1950s and had been used continuously as a florist since that time. However, a few years ago it stopped being used commercially and sat vacant. For decades this business had been grandfathered in — what is more technically known as a “non-conforming use.” That is, the use (commercial) doesn’t fit in with the zoning for the area (residential). But you can’t just tell a business they must close up shop when you change zoning so existing places became grandfathered in. And to permit someone to sell their property as a commercial entity the city allows that such non-conforming use can continue provided the property doesn’t go vacant for a period of greater than 12 months. But once the non-conforming use lapses for a period of 12 months the grandfather provision goes away and the zoning reverts to whatever it is for the area. Someone purchasing real estate anywhere needs to understand this very basic concept and exercise due diligence before assuming they can do as they please. Perhaps Mr. Rice got bad legal advice on this purchase?

All over the city we do have commercial properties that are in the midst of residential areas. We can’t very well expect these all to be converted to residential or razed to build residential. This small commercial building with greenhouse does have value which should be permitted to be used. But this doesn’t mean that someone can buy the building and do as they please. A nightclub, for an extreme example, in an old greenhouse could be pretty cool but not the most ideal in the middle of a residential street. The florist shop brought virtually no traffic to the area — most business was deliveries. Any enterprise that can potentially overload a residential block, as opposed to a commercial block, with too many cars at a very specific time is something which should only be permitted in extremely rare cases. I don’t think this is one.

Let’s take a look at what is proposed. The following plan was distributed by Larry Rice at City Hall a couple of weeks ago when he was to have a hearing on his request for rezoning. That decision has been delayed until October 18th which allows for a public meeting on the issue — to be held tonight (more info at the end).

The buildings shown on the plan are all existing. The area marked “demonstration area” is a greenhouse from the many decades as a neighborhood florist and nursery. The asphalt parking lot, however, is new. In fact, the only structures ever built on this land were some makeshift greenhouses. To the left is this site is the two-family building I owned from 1994-2006. Residential properties surround this in all directions.

For a moment let’s focus on the parking lot. Given the few “energy fairs” already conducted by Rice at this site it is clear they are a big draw — the street gets packed with cars of people visiting the site. But do we really want a 90ft x 113ft section of asphalt to handle cars once a month? This is certainly not very environmentally friendly.

And what about those dimensions? Rice shows 38 spaces, certainly a lot of cars. But does this work? Well, no it does not. City ordinances and common sense require certain sizes for parking spaces (view zoning code). For 90-degree spaces they need to be eight and a half feet wide and eighteen feet deep. In terms of width the idea works so far — 10 spaces across the back only requires 85 feet. But it is the other direction where we run into issues. The plan shows four rows of cars — four times eighteen is 72ft. OK, good so far but in order to do this he needs two drive lanes to actually access the parking. The city says drive lanes must be 22ft wide — each. So you add another 44ft onto our 72ft and now you are at 116ft. This doesn’t even account for required landscaping or accessible parking spaces.

The depth of the lots in this block are 142ft-6inches. Let’s say 143ft just to make it easier to discuss. So we’ve got 143ft from the sidewalk to the alley — the depth of the lot. To get his parking in there you need 116ft — leaving only 27ft. Well, the old frame house the Preservation Board (thankfully) says cannot be torn down is set a good 10ft or so back already and is likely close to 20ft deep itself. Basically, Rice’s plan doesn’t work — he is showing a paved area set at the back of the lot far from the street but the reality is to accommodate 38 cars he’d need to pave pretty much the entire section of open land — including where the frame house is located.

To complicate matters even further, a new parking lot in a residential area requires setbacks from the property lines — you cannot just pave up to neighboring property or the alley. Rice is showing 3ft at the back but nothing on the north side (to the left). Also not show is how he plans to address water run off issues — how will the parking lot be drained. Will this cause more water runoff to the neighboring property to the left? Will this cause more water to run down the alley? What is the anticipated flow of water in a storm and can existing sewers/drains handle this increased volume? These are all normal considerations when considering such a massive parking area.

In July a developer was seeking to build three houses on the land where Rice seeks his asphalt parking lot. The Preservation Board told them the old house could not be razed. They quickly sold the property to Rice. So what was his plan for his center if the new houses had been built?

For an organization that purports to be supportive of the environment to propose an asphalt parking lot is certainly a bit questionable. Water run off, as opposed to ground absorption, is an issue as is the heat island affect. Truly environmentally friendly places have pervious parking such as paving blocks or the block grid that allows you to grow grass through the paving — both allow rainwater to be absorbed into the ground. The latter doesn’t contribute to heat island issues. Impervious surfaces like asphalt and concrete are part of our environmental problem.

Some people I’ve talked to are concerned about the homeless or formerly homeless that will staff the place. I’m not concerned so much as I am puzzled. The concept is to train these individuals for jobs in the growing energy field but that seems far fetched. From a Post-Dispatch editorial from the 2nd:

We also question the wisdom of training the homeless for these sorts of jobs. “We are an agency that places 1,000 [homeless] people a year, and I’ve never heard of a placement in renewable fuels,” says Dan Buck, chief executive at the St. Patrick Center, which operates a wide range of training programs for homeless people. They are much more likely to find work, Mr. Buck notes, in restaurants, call centers, building maintenance and the like.

So while the idea of training the homeless for a career in alternative energy is appealing, I’m just not sure how practical it really is. While there certainly are exceptions, many of the homeless are not the best educated. I wonder what the extent of the training program really is? Will these persons receive any pay? How does this fit with labor laws?

And what about the production of biodiesel at the site? Rice mentions the use of waste vegetable oil being converted to use as fuel in diesel cars like his Volkswagen Jetta TDI, shown above, on the residential block where he seeks zoning approval. So my question would be what quantities of fuel might they be making at this site? Just a few drops here and there during his fairs? Or will he have free homeless labor churning out the fuel to keep his ride going? Is there a point where the making of fuel for personal use differs from the the manufacturing of fuel for the market — involving state regulation and conditions conducive to the production of motor fuels? We already have meth labs blowing up, do we need experimental biodiesel manufacturing facilities doing the same?

Rice has intimated that if he doesn’t get his zoning he will want to use the area to house the homeless. Nice. Of course as part of the “B” two family zoning district there are numerous guidelines that, if actually followed, would make it difficult to run a shelter on the order of the one he has downtown. Even transitional housing, something the city does need, would have to conform with the zoning code.

Publicly there seems to be very little opposition to the energy center, the zoning changes and even the parking lot. The most visible opposition comes from the gas station a block away at Grand & Delor (see photo at right). The 25th Ward Alderman (whom I lost to in March 2005 by 117 votes), Dorothy Kirner, has reportedly written a letter of support for the project. This is interesting as she earlier opposed a parking lot for the exact same site when a Muslim church on Grand owned the land. Did Kirner apply a double standard?

Local neighborhood groups are taking a Swedish like position — publicly neutral. Privately many in the immediate area as well as throughout south city are more than a bit upset.
An informational meeting with a chance for public questions/comments is scheduled for this evening. Given all the issues and personalities at play this is a must see in my view. The meeting will be held at 7pm at Gretchen’s Inn — the one-story place behind the Feasting Fox on the corner of Grand & Meramec (see map).

I’m not in favor of large surface parking lots anywhere. I’m certainly not a fan of them on otherwise residential blocks. The parking lot should not be allowed regardless of any issues around the homeless, Larry Rice or the intended use of the property. This is just not a wise move to allow a parking lot in such an area.

Prior posts:

• June 24, 2007: Preservation Board to Hear Appeal to Raze 19th Century House
• August 30, 2007: Larry Rice’s New Life Evangelistic Center Opens Renewable Energy Center in 25th Ward

Note: Headline changed at 10:25am from “Homeless-Run…” to “Homeless-Staffed” to more correctly reflect the stated intent.

Scooter-Focused Economics Plan to Reduce Use of Foreign Oil, Traffic Congestion, Etc…

The Piaggio Group, maker of the well-known Vespa scooter, is promoting a new economic platform — Vespanomics:

In order to meet the President’s goal of reducing America’s addiction to oil, consumers will need to change their attitudes and behaviors regarding personal transportation in ways that offer the potential to significantly reduce energy consumption and environmental impact. There is no single approach that can solve the problem; rather, a broad set of initiatives may be able to provide a meaningful solution.

Piaggio Group Americas, manufacturer of the Vespa scooter, is at the forefront of this issue. Along with other scooter and motorcycle manufacturers, Piaggio believes that motor scooters and other street-legal two-wheel vehicles offer an important and viable means of transportation in many situations, and could bring a lasting, positive impact on domestic energy stability and America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Piaggio Group Americas advocates making U.S. cities more scooter friendly so that scooters will become a vital component toward stemming the U.S.’s “oil addiction”.

While this is clever marketing, it is also quite logical. Fuel cells, biodiesel, ethanol, hybrids and even electric cars are not the only answer to issues concerning use of oil and pollution. As is indicated, the two wheel vehicle (scooter, motorcycle and bicycle) can play a key role in our transportation systems. Here is some selected items from their materials:

Currently, the United States consumes more than 25% of the world’s total supply of oil3. As a result, the U.S. produces a significant amount of the world’s carbon emissions. Oil consumption in the U.S. is increasing at a rate of approximately 2% annually.

According to a May 2006 survey conducted by ICR on behalf of Piaggio Group Americas, 30% of U.S. consumers indicated they would be extremely or somewhat likely to consider using a scooter for 35% of the mileage currently traveled by car, truck or SUV – yielding a 10% reduction in daily fuel usage. If Americans switch 10% of their mileage to scooters, they will consume 14 million gallons less per day, thereby keeping demand under control.

Clearly the impact could be significant. I know I have found that I ride my scooter far less total miles than I drove my prior cars — I think more locally about shopping and that errand 8 miles away for one little thing may get combined with other errands in the same direction. So really, the impact is even greater in my estimation. Just like bicycling, the key is having a place to park at your destination(s):

Government agencies should consider removing the two-wheeler from the four-wheeler parking space and placing it in its own, scaled down zone. This is a simple concept that can be embraced by city councils, urban planners, local merchants, contractors, shopping center management and private businesses whenever parking for motor vehicles is provided.

Toronto, Canada – The City Council recently amended the parking by-laws to allow motorcycles and scooters to park for free on city streets with on-street parking meters. In addition, Toronto is pursuing allocating certain spaces in city lots for two-wheel vehicle parking as well as examining if two-wheel vehicles can park on city sidewalks.

San Francisco, CA – The city designated 1,696 parking spaces specifically for motorcycles and scooters, both metered and un-metered. In addition the city has begun replacing single-spaced meters with multi-space meters to better accommodate motorcycles. Metered parking is prorated for motorcycles ranging from $.10 – $.25 per hour depending on location. (San Francisco Dept. of Parking & Traffic)

Indeed, the idea is not necessarily to have free parking but to have appropriately priced parking. Why should I pay the same rate as a Hummer to park in a garage? We have so much unused space on our streets that accommodating two wheel vehicles is more about mindset than money. Given the cost of unsightly parking garages (tens of millions of dollars) and the buzz killing surface parking lots we need more attention paid to such simple measures to make more room for people, not cars.

And their conclusion:

Local and national government leaders are charged with establishing transportation policies that address both short-term and long-term problems, are environmentally responsible and truly benefit the American consumer. With the support of federal, state and local governments, new options like scootering can bring immediate and substantial economic and environmental benefits to Americans and the communities in which they live.

To facilitate the adoption of scootering, U.S. Mayors and other elected officials should consider providing dedicated parking for scooters and motorcycles.

Now is the time to broaden the dialogue about America’s addiction to oil and its dependency on foreign imports in a way that includes technological as well as behavioral solutions.

You can read much more at vespanomics.com.

Truck Uses Curb Ramp as Entrance To Downtown Surface Parking Lot

So I’m at a red light the other day and I scramble to get my camera out of my pocket because I can’t believe what I am witnessing — a massive pickup using the corner curb ramp as an entrance to the large surface parking lot.

Geez, is that really necessary? Maybe it is not a big deal? Would the driver have seen someone in a wheelchair coming out from behind the traffic signal box seen behind the truck’s bed?

With this lot, and so many others, no parking is allowed around them because all the curbs are open for easy access. So despite having virtually unlimited access on the sides this guy has to use the ADA ramp on the corner to access the parking space he wants.

After using the corner as the entrance he pulls up a bit further within the lot so he can back into the space. Why he couldn’t have just pulled in using the wide driveway near the front of his truck in the above photo is beyond me. Maybe he felt more like he was driving a truck by driving over something he shouldn’t?

He finally manages to back the gargantuan vehicle into a space and a half. I think if people are going to drive these things as personal vehicles they need to learn how to maneuver them better.

The parking attendant comes over to collect the money from the guys in the truck — I hope they got extra given the amount of room they took up on the lot. In case you are having trouble seeing it, that would be Missouri plate 843 TX7.

Once the two were nearly out of the truck I went by and made a quick smart-ass comment about using the ramp as an entrance and then I sped away on my scooter. I figured it would take them too long to unpark that big truck to chase me down by that point, plus they had already paid to park. In reality, in this situation, the truck using the corner wasn’t a big deal. It was over in seconds and this time nobody happened to be there on the corner. Had someone been on the corner he probably would have waited or simply used the drives instead.

The real problem is that at 11th and Locust we have a large surface parking lot which is paved right up to the sidewalk — to the point the parking and sidewalk contrast only in that one is concrete (sidewalk) and one is asphalt (parking). At the very least we need some bollards or something around these lots so that the sidewalk is protected from vehicles except where permitted to enter/exit. Just to the North of Washington Avenue we have two small city blocks that are nothing but surface parking right up to the sidewalks. Another there is not even paved — it is gravel. Yes, a gravel lot in a downtown!

We must find a way to change the economic model — this cannot and should not be the highest and best use for this land. Among the options, once explored, is the idea of taxing land and not improvements. Thus, the person with a city block occupied by surface parking pays the same taxes as a person with a building(s) on the same size land. I’m sure this is fraught with all sorts of legal issues — my point is we need to look at alternative models employed in other cities for these vast wastelands where buildings once stood. As bad as all the parking garages are — and we have tons of those — these surface lots are worse.

So where do these fit into downtown planning?  Do we simply wait until the property owner decides to sell or build something?  Do we find some incentives to get the owner to upgrade the surface lot with some bollards, a low brick wall or something to separate the pedestrian from pickup? Do we punish the owner with increasing taxes to the point he breaks and sells the land to a developer?  Can we set minimum parking pricing within the CBD so that the owner can make as much money with fewer cars — leaving room around the edges for an improved buffer?  What about simply suggesting the owner lease the corner to someone for a temporary newsstand like the type you see in NY?

I’m not content just waiting and I doubt our downtown leaders are working on creative solutions.  What are your ideas?