Follow-up to the 6th Ward Democrats Meeting

As previously posted, Patrick Cacchione received the endorsement last night from the 6th Ward Democrats. With (115) votes to Kacie Starr Triplett’s (51) and Christian Saller’s (5) it was not even close.  Update 1/19/07 10am — 1/19 – 10am — I’m told Seller’s total might have been 20 rather than 5. Some people I talked to were expecting an even bigger turn out but it is clear it is probably easier to get people to sign up than it is to get them to sit through a political meeting.

Still, this was an impressive show to have that many people and I can say that a good 95% of them stayed through the entire meeting rather than voting and leaving early. These are the kind of numbers I’d like to see from all the wards — just goes to show what a good contested race will do for participation levels.

Here are some basic observations that I have:

• Everone was very civil to each other although anyone not eligible to vote was asked to leave once the candidates finished speaking. Mary Entrup, aka Mrs. Lews Reed, ran off a list of people that needed to leave such as campaign workers, press and bloggers. It felt nice to be included.
• Cacchione’s wife, Pam, made it a point to come over and introduce herself to me before the meeting. We spoke again afterwards briefly. At one point Cacchione said in his opening comments that she was the better candidate but could not convince her to run. I think he might be right, still he was a very good speaker.
• I think like most of these events, the people arriving at the meeting already had they minds made up. Still, I talked to a couple of people that changed their minds after listing to all three candidates.
• One friend that I talked with was supporting Cacchione because he earned the job. Indeed, Cacchione used this phrase in his comments. I’m not going to tell anyone that can’t hold that belief but I personally don’t think that we should elect representatives simply based on how long they’ve been loyal to those that went before them. Still, when it comes to an organization such as the 6th Ward Democrats Cacchione clearly was the person who had given the most service to the organization. So perhaps it is a reason for them to endorse someone that has been so loyal but that is not a reason to elect him into office for four years.
• All three candidates did a great job actually addressing the questions posed to them. They gave clear and direct answers unlike some of the political side-stepping I saw with Reed & Shrewsbury in the race for President of the Board of Aldermen.
• It seemed all three, on issues, were pretty much in step with each other. We didn’t get any polar opposite positions. The distinctions came down to experience with all three saying they have the experience that counts.
• The issue of the BJC lease came up but it was phrased a bit weird, having to do with building private buildings on public land. Triplett was pretty opposed to the idea, Saller was his usual seeing both sides (a very good trait by the way) and Cacchione gave a less than satisfactory answer for me. He spoke about how it should be based on the views of those immediately around the park, generally a good thing to involve those. However, park land is enjoyed by more than those who simply live adjacent to a park. Our parks belong to all of us and I don’t know that any single group should be allowed to have too much sway over something held by the city for all of us to enjoy.

The issue of eminent domain came up relative to a proposed project in the adjacent 7th Ward but immediately abutting the 6th Ward. Apparently the area across Lafayette from City Hospital has a proposed Walgreen’s and possibly a big box grocery store. Jim Roos of the Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition, and a resident of the 6th or 7th ward (I’m not certain), was among the audience. In the video you’ll hear all three candidates making reference to him. The candidates spoke in the order they appear on the ballot: Triplett, Cacchione and Saller:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h9tP3IXK-M[/youtube]

Cacchione gave a really passionate response. He seemed to draw a clear line in the sand regarding taking people’s homes away. Such a stand would have made him clearly opposed to Loughborough Commons where residents’ homes were taken away from them with the threat of eminent domain. Cacchione also seemed to make it clear he’d rally against the project even though it is not in his ward — going against aldermanic courtesy and long-time alderman Phyllis Young. My question is would he be so against the project if it did not abut the ward where he is seeking office? That is, if the situation were to come up in another part of the city several wards removed would he still feel strongly against eminent domain. To be fair, I wonder this about many of our elected officials — do they suffer the same thoughts on proximity that so many voters do? Our of sight out of mind.

Triplet and Saller both gave good answers as well. Triplet talked about eminent domain as a tool of last resort while Saller pointed out the old Foodland store on Jefferson & Lafayette is already in condemnation (aka eminent domain) so the city can redevelop the site. However, I don’t know that any adjacent properties outside the existing commercial site are threatened.

The thing I want everyone to remember is the ward endorsement does not necessarily reflect the final vote on election day. In other words, don’t count out either Triplet or Saller from this race simply because the committeeman received the endorsement of his own organization. If you missed this event don’t worry, all three candidates will appear at a debate sponsored by the Downtown Residents Association and the League of Women Voters to be held at the main library on February 5th. The event will start at 6pm with the debate getting underway at 7pm. Everyone needs to make sure you are registered to vote, the deadline is February 7th. If you are not registered, be sure to do so right away (learn how) or attend the above event on February 5th to get registered that night.

I count among my friends people supporting all three candidates. They all have their respective reasons, some of which I agree and others I do not. What is exciting for me is to see so many people engaged in this race and actually having real discussions about real issues. Hopefully the ward and city will come out stronger and remain engaged following this election on March 6th. I also hope all three work on fleshing out what may end up being some suburban sprawl at Lafayette & Truman Parkway.

Cacchione Gets Endorsement of 6th Ward Democrats

Tonight the 6th Ward Democrats, in a packed meeting, voted to endorse current committeeman Patrick Cacchione. The votes were as follows:

• Cacchione, 115
• Triplett, 51
• Saller, 5 (1/19 – 10am — I’m told this might have been 20 rather than 5)

I’ll have some commentary and hopefully some video in a separate post at some point tomorrow.

Board Bills Related to BJC Deal Posted, Then Pulled

Today Three Board Bills relating to the controversial proposal to grant a long-term lease to BJC Healthcare for a section of Forest Park were posted on the Board of Aldermen’s site. However, seven hours later these three were replaced with three non-related bills.

The above image is from my RSS reader, showing three bills posted between 10:24am and 10:32am this morning (the lower three). The numbers in question are 371, 372 and 373. Later in the day the same numbers were used again. Clicking on the links for the three earlier bills takes you to a blank board bill page — the three bills had been pulled.

At first glance you might not think the lower one, BB371, is related to Forest Park as it has to do with rezoning. But, if you look up city block 2022 it is the parcel in question. Was the decision made by Ald. Roddy to pull the bills from consideration this week?
Opponents of the plan have gathered the required signatures to require a city-wide vote in order to lease or sell park land. It is possible we may see some not-so-good old fashioned machine politics at work this week to shove this through the pipeline before we as citizens get a chance to vote on the ballot measure.

Based on my understanding of the rules, the board cannot introduce and pass the measure all in the same day. However, it could be introduced Friday for its “first reading” and then come out of committee in a coming week and get its second and third readings all at once (requires suspending the rules which is done although usually not for something so contentious.

Jake Wagman of the Post-Dispatch had more to say on this subject today on Political Fix. For more information on the grassroots citizens group fighting the proposal visit ProtectForestPark.org.

UPDATE 1/18/07 – 7am

I received an early morning return phone from President Shrewsbury with answers to questions I had reqarding this situation. Here is the story. The bills were submitted to the clerk yesterday but apparently someone wanted to make some changes so they were pulled from the agenda. Mr. Shrewsbury indicated the deadline for the printed agenda is 10am today so we will see in the next few hours if they are resubmitted.

Mr. Shrewsbury indicated two will be sent to the Parks committee, chaired by the bills’ sponsor Ald. Roddy. The third bill, relating to zoning, will be sent to the HUDZ (Housing, Urban Development & Zoning) committee chaired by Ald. Wessels. Apparently the two bills going to Parks do not require a public hearing, but the zoning bill will.

So despite a successful cititzen group getting the question of the sale or lease of parks on the ballot for all of us to vote on, Ald. Roddy is going to attempt to shove this through prior to that vote. While the zoning change may come in the next session they are trying to get the two bills related to the lease structure approved ahead of a citizen vote on the issue. As has been the case all along with the BJC deal, the process stinks. Something is wrong in the way the entire issue has been handled from day one. It is not getting any better.

I’ve not seen a report from the aldermen the mayor selected to be on a committee reviewing the lease terms. I’ve not been invited to a public forum to talk through and educate the public on the exact terms of the deal.

Please contact your alderman immediately! I would also ask that you contact President Shrewsbury as well as 6th Ward Alderman and candidate for the President’s seat, Lewis Reed. Let both of them know how you feel about them voting on this issue prior to a citizen driven ballot initiative. Time is of the essence folks, if you are concerned as I am about how deals get done in this city you will speak up now.

8am — let BJC know what you think too (contact form);

Urban Street Trees Help Protect Pedestrians

Urban street trees, those planted between the curb and sidewalk in the public right of way, serve a number of purposes. These tend to help give the street a visually narrower feeling, a form of traffic calming. The help separate the pedestrian from passing traffic which makes the sidewalk more pleasant. And, as you shall see, the row of street trees can help keep a pedestrian from getting hit by a car.

Some, such as MoDot (Missouri Department of Transportation) and entities such as QuikTrip will argue that street trees endanger motorists — if they drive off the road they might get killed by hitting a tree. They don’t want that kind of liability. Little concern is paid to the liability of hitting a pedestrian.

Today this truck, most likely speeding, slammed directly into a street tree on 18th street across from Union Station and a very short distance from the MetroLink station. I almost always see pedestrians on this sidewalk, as I did later in the day.

Look at how the front of this massive truck wrapped around the tree, what if had been a person(s) instead? Of course street trees do not form a solid barrier of protection, but they do help. Parked cars along a street help provide another barrier from cars hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk. Plus, parked cars are more forgiving than this tree.

Back in August I got picture of this car shortly after it hit a tree in front of Ted Drewes on Grand. Here the car did made it onto the sidewalk but luckly it did not hit the many people who were hanging out enjoying frozen custard.

About 8 years ago I witnessed a guy, showing off his new 5.0 (aka Mustang) to his girl, completely lose control from the same spot as this car — barely missing the tree and ending up in the middle of Ted Drewes’ parking lot. Luckily, that time of the year the business was closed and the place was empty.

Earlier this month this van hit the corner of a building I have listed for sale at 5411 Virginia (shameless plug, see listing). In this case the street has both street trees and on-street parking but they managed to miss those than hit the corner of the structure. This section of Virginia is heavily traveled by pedestrians, a bus stop is located in front of this property. The building only suffered superficial damage.

On-street parking and street trees have a very important role in the city where we do have pedestrians at risk from getting hit by out of control cars. Next time someone argues against allowing onstreet parking or street trees in the interest of safety just picture the above cases.

Valet Parking Makes the Post-Dispatch

Downtown resident and Post-Dispatch reporter Doug Moore had a nice piece in yesterday’s paper about valet parking in his everyday column called “Downtown Diary.” I’d link to it but the P-D still has this nasty habit of pulling their stories after a couple weeks, not good for a long-term post such as this. From the story:

…there are no hard and fast rules about how much area can be set aside for valet service — and that’s a bad thing. The cones block lanes of traffic and sometimes stretch an entire block. As more meters are blocked, those who seek free, on-street parking over valet get steamed. There’s been shouting. Cones have been moved or run over. Police have been called.

It’s an issue that caught city leaders off guard.

“Clearly, we need some rules,” said Alderwoman Lyda Krewson, who represents the Central West End, where valet parking also is common. “The self-policing thing hasn’t worked.”

For the record I have never run over a cone, although I know someone who has. Moore continues;

Restaurant managers say they want to be good sports and work with the city.

“I have no problem with the city chiming in,” said Copia owner Eyad Tammas.

Lucas Park Grille manager Katie Herald said the restricted space could present a problem on busy weekends with cars blocking traffic as they wait for valet service.

Eyad Tammas sounds so willing to work with others doesn’t he? Back in October he wasn’t so cooperative, see video of owner (see full post). And for those of you that preferred Antonio French’s edited version of the video, click here.

Last Thursday when the new valet signs went up at Copia & Lucas Park Grille I wanted to get a few quick pictures. Turns out I arrived at Copia while a P-D photographer was there.

This caption is a bit misleading. I parked in a space to the right of the valet zone sign which was pointing left. The valet himself is pointing the opposite direction of where I parked.

Above is the sign in question the following morning. As you can see the arrow points left toward Copia (in background). The space to the right of the sign is not part of the valet zone, which is where I parked the night before when the picture was taken. This confusion on the part of the valets seems to have been cleared up as they were not trying to take this space over the weekend.

I still believe them having the space to the left of the sign is too much space. That gives them a total of 129 feet! The zone, in my view, needs to be moved one space to the left for a total of 106 feet — still a good amount of space (equal to roughly five parking spaces). As the above storefront is vacant and therefore not part of Copia it will be good to keep that space public to help encourage a new tenant as well as serve potential tenants in the adjacent Meridian Loft building (formerly the AD Brown building).

Overall I am pleased with the progress recently being made on this issue. We still have numerous other valet areas which have yet to be tamed by the zone signage but I believe the Streets Department is finally on top of the issue. Once they have created the necessary valet zones throughout the city it will be clear to everyone which businesses are operating without proper permits as well as which companies are trying to reserve an excessive amount of the public street for their private business.