Home » Politics/Policy »Taxes » Currently Reading:

Readers Support 3 of 5 Propositions on Tuesday’s Ballot

March 30, 2016 Politics/Policy, Taxes 47 Comments

Here are the results from the Sunday Poll (see for full ballot language):

PROPOSITION E Shall the earnings tax of 1%, imposed by the City of St. Louis, be continued for a period of five (5) years commencing January 1…

  • YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 32 [78.05%]
  • NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 9 [21.95%]
  • Undecided 0 [0%]

PROPOSITION F $25 million dollar bond

  • YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 26 [72.22%]
  • NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 8 [22.22%]
  • Undecided 2 [5.56%]

PROPOSITION 1 School Tax Levy Increase

  • YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 25 [69.44%]
  • NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 10 [27.78%]
  • Undecided 1 [2.78%]

PROPOSITION Y MSD Bonds

  • YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 19 [43.18%]
  • NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 22 [50%]
  • Undecided 3 [6.82%]

PROPOSITION S MSD Property Tax for operations

  • YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION 12 [31.58%]
  • NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION 24 [63.16%]
  • Undecided 2 [5.26%]

The polls here are non-scientific, actual voting will vary.

Until there’s a vote on a tax to replace the earnings tax, I’ll vote to continue every five years.  I’m still uncertain on the other four, though I’m inclined to vote yes on all of them. Anyone want to argue the pro or con position on any of these?

— Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "47 comments" on this Article:

  1. JZ71 says:

    Chicken or egg – there will never be a voluntary vote on raising other taxes to replace the earnings tax, as long as the earnings tax continues to generate 1/3 of the city’s revenues! What the city and its residents need to realize is that this is an unsustainable position. With every other governmental entity in the region NOT imposing an earnings tax, workers who live outside the city are being double taxed, and much like the latest court ruling on limiting fine revenues in St. Louis County more than in other counties, inequitable taxation will be limited or eliminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, by the courts, the voters or by the state legislature. And with sales taxes already as high as they are in the city, the only other option is raising property taxes (and I’m not sure how the Hancock amemndment limits that option). The real solution lies on the growth side of the equation, where more businesses and more residents paying current tax rates will generate more revenues, unlike the current dynamic, where businesses and residents are leaving and revenues are declining. And as long as people in the city live in an echo chamber where workers “don’t mind paying the earnings tax”, workers and businesses will continue to seek lower tax options outside the city!

     
    • Justin says:

      I get that levying an income tax isn’t competitive when no one else in the area does it, but how is it being double taxed for those who live outside the city when they don’t pay an income tax to the city in which they live. Many of the municipalities probably have lower property taxes than the city and some don’t levy them at all because they rely heavily on sales tax. My parents live in the county (Des Peres) and work in the city and I believe they pay fewer taxes than when they worked and lived in the city back in the 90s.

       
      • JZ71 says:

        It’s double taxation both because non-residents pay the full cost wherever they live (plus paying the city 1%) AND because the city gets you whether you live OR work in the city. I have no problem with one or the other, but just because you have a pulse and are present doesn’t mean EVERYONE should be taxed. What’s next? Put up toll gates, so you pay every time you cross the city line or a ward boundary ?!

         
        • Justin says:

          Isn’t sales tax a similar sort of thing? should cities not levy those because they are often paid for by those who do not live in the city?

           
          • JZ71 says:

            Sales taxes are pervasive, across the region, but when it comes to purchases, most people do have options on where they complete their purchases – many Illinois residents come to Missouri to buy gas and tobacco, because of lower taxes, while many residents, on both sides of the river, buy online, to avoid paying sales taxes. The earnings tax is different, because most people have little choice in where their bosses choose to locate their businesses – few people are going to turn down a job offer because of the tax, but they get stuck paying it, even if their impact on the city is limited to driving in on a state funded freeway every morning and driving home, at night. And, like I said, my biggest beef is that the city gets you whether you work OR live in the city. Residents demand far more in services than most employees do. Pick one group or the other (resident or employee) and tax just that one group. (And I feel exactly the same way about taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms – sticking it to people passing through with a tax they didn’t have an opportunity to vote for, for services that don’t benefit them, is NOT how government is supposed to operate!) If residents want or demand better services, raise the taxes those people pay, not whomever you can snare by casting a wide net!

             
    • Mark-AL says:

      Everything you’ve written here makes perfect business sense. But in the meantime, where would a sudden loss of a major source of revenue leave the city? Your chicken-egg analogy is unfortunately the stark reality. Maybe the initiative should have been written to state that the Earnings Tax will definitely end in “X” years, and the following changes will be introduced over the next “X” years to offset the e-tax losses. Higher RE taxes are inevitable. Paid admissions to the zoo and other city-supported attractions might be in the cards. But maybe they should be, anyway. ST Louis RE taxes are ridiculously low, compared to other cities that offer comparable services. In Lower Alabama (but I am not suggesting that any city in Lower Alabama is at par with STL, except in the area of lower crime rates), I can purchase a $200,000.00 home and pay only around $450.00 primary homesteader annual taxes, but I won’t find a zoo there, any museums of any significance; a science center, a turtle park, a city garden. Even storm water management in lower Alabama isn’t at par with even late 20th C. standards. But I have to say that the high schools there appear to be better managed than those in STL City, at least. Maybe this e-tax issue will excite residents to get behind the Home Rule initiative that will streamline city government by eliminating all the redundant offices filled by fat cats favored by local politicians, and it will generate a greater interest in AT LEAST LOOKING AT the real possibility that maybe a mayor of a different political persuasion JUST MIGHT have a more informed and less-biased plan (fewer entangling alliances!!) for moving the city along.

       
      • JZ71 says:

        The fundamental problem the city is facing is that it’s the proud owner of an aging, failing, 75-100+ year-old infrastructure, built for an industrial city with a population of 850,000, is paying the deferred pension costs of retired city workers who were hired when the city had 450,000 residents (1980), and the population is now down to less than 318,000 (just google “St. Louis population”). It’s no different than many empty nesters, with a big, aging home that they’re trying to keep patched together on a fixed income. The earnings tax is a classic example of “sticking it” to people who can’t vote (non-resident workers) to avoid “sticking it” to residents who do vote (through higher property taxes, that would reflect the true cost of delivering city services).

        These days, there are no real negative consequences, perceived or actual, for choosing Clayton over the CBD, Ladue over the CWE, Pine Lawn over Baden or St. Charles over St. Louis Hills. If you’re making a good salary, that 1% can add up to some serious discretionary spending – $2,500 on a $250,000 salary, for instance. And I get it, the city “needs” every dime it can get. But in the (admitedly small) universe of small business owners that I know (and primarily non-city residents), the earnings tax plays a significant role in their decision making process on where they want to (re)locate, and it’s “not in the city!” You all can make all the arguments you want about the earnings tax being a small price to pay, and the city’s “need” to continue it, but the numbers speak for themselves.

        People, both employers and residents ARE voting with their feet, and continue to do so. And, as Justin notes, moving to the ‘burbs combines lower taxes with better schools and lower crime rates. We can either figure out, soon, how to phase out the earnings tax, and hopefully move to positive growth, or the decline will continue (and the city can end up looking like a bigger version of East St. Louis . . . or a smaller version of Detroit). Heck, even Steve is singing the praises of the urban-scale improvements being made in St. Charles!

        But if we want to find some middle ground on this issue, how about restructuring the earnings tax so that only city residents (are forced to) pay it? Sure, that would be wildly unpopular, at least initially, but it would generate a very interesting discussion on income taxes versus property taxes (pick your poison!). Doing so would also remove one big argument for not putting a business, of any size, in the city. So what if the owner still wants to commute out to the ‘burbs – more jobs in the city would mean fewer reverse commutes out to the ‘burbs for the much larger number of workers who CHOOSE to live in the city!

        Actual city population trends:

        1950 –
        1955 –
        1960 –
        1965 –
        1970 –
        1975 –
        1980 –

         
        • Mark-AL says:

          The city pension benefit is funded, managed and distributed by the city, and it uses funds that have been contributed by the city on behalf of each city employee. So the pension is a benefit offered each city employee from day 1, promised in partial exchange for receiving a salary often lower than those offered in the private sector. Pension funds are entirely separate from the city’s operating budget, just as social security funds are supposed to be separate from federal operating budgets. To robin-hood pension funds to supplement an otherwise underfunded/undermanaged city and city budget is unfair to retirees, ESPECIALLY in light of all the waste and inefficiencies so obvious on Market Street. Until ST Louis residents recognize the redundancies and subsequent inefficiencies that render ST Louis City government obsolete, and then demand Home Rule, or a form thereof, in an effort to move the city’s management into the 21st Century, until residents at least attempt to recognize that membership in a particular political party does not necessarily pre-qualify a candidate for political office–until these measures and others like them are taken, then St Louis residents have to realize they will wake up each morning living in a city that is weaker than it was the day before. I think retired city employees shouldn’t have to keep the city afloat until the ship sinks entirely……especially in light of the inevitable fact that, unless draconian changes are implemented, the cancer in every bone, every major artery and every organ of the city’s body will exist even long after the city has raped and robbed all the retired employees’ pension fund and begins searching frantically for another account or department to rape and rob in order to continue its self-serving patronage mission.

           
          • JZ71 says:

            And I don’t think that current taxpayers should be responsible for assumptions made 20 years ago (about ever-increasing revenues) and the decision to forego fully funding pension obligations (a decade ago) before the recession. ALL of us made assumptions about the continued strength of the economy during the first decade of this century, and many of us were hit, hard, by changes in both the local and national economies. Most City employees had the luxury of a steady paycheck during the recession, nothing (and nobody) should be “off the table” when it comes to addressing the city’s economic challenges! As we’ve seen elsewhere, we can either make the hard choices, now, and minimize the sacrifices, or we can continue to spend, spend, spend until the city is truly broke and pensions get cut by a half or more . . .

             
          • Mark-AL says:

            I think your logic is valid, but maybe it isn’t sound. I think there’s a premise in your argument that is misunderstood. That premise suggests that you understand the city-funded pension plan to be city money. In fact, that money was placed in the pension plan on behalf of city employees by plan administrators and identified as an employee benefit (like health insurance, sometimes in lieu of a pay raise during lean years,etc), and it has grown sizably over the years as a result of good investments strategy. To now utilize those funds for other city services would be as unfair to city employees as it would be to you if your social security evaporates over the next five or so years due to redistribution, just as you are planning to possibly draw it, especially in light of the waste that occurs daily in our federal system. (Consider a recent report issued by the US Air Force that Obama’s Christmas trip to Hawaii cost the American taxpayer $3,590,313 in flight expenses alone, having used both Air Force 1 AND a Boeing C 32A for the trip. The First “LADY” flew separately on the C 32 A!!!!!!!!!!!) If STL city government operated a lean program and if all the nepotism and patronage subsidies suddenly ended, there wouldn’t be a need for city employees to give up their pensions. But as long as the fat city cats spread their arms wide and engulf all the benefits, in my opinion it just isn’t fair for the little guy to downsize just to allow the fat cats to prowl indiscriminately.
            Why fix the problem at the expense of a former city employee who draws maybe a lousy $500.00 a month pension? Take the Sharon Carpenters, all the executive mayoral assistants, the L. Reeds and a list of several others out of the mix, add to that most of the illiterate alderpeople who pontificate at the drop of a hat over things they haven’t clue about, the scores of city employees who occupy desks just because they’re related to or sleep with (or both) alderpeople and/or county office holders, and then your city will begin to operate lean, Then fill the various departments with people who have real life business experience, employees who can attract businesses to the area, create opportunities for commerce………and then you’ll have a ST Louis much like what it was before its initial decline. Please don’t ask the little guy to subsidize the inefficiencies of a mayor and staff that are in their positions only because they might attend St Raymond’s Maronite Church!

             
          • JZ71 says:

            Typically, in theory, local government pensions are funded by both the employee making contributions out of each of their paychecks AND by the government contributing directly into the pension fund. In reality, over the past couple of decades, the first part has held true (and, absolutely, those funds should be protected), while the second part failed to fully happen (and that needs to be both discussed and resolved): https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/comptroller/investor-relations/credit-specific-information/leasehold-revenue-bonds/Pension-Funding-Project.cfm . . and: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2013/pewcitypensionsbriefpdf.pdf . . and: http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/study-says-missouri-s-public-pensions-are-worse-than-they/article_550c0b90-91bb-56ec-b215-c5f36c5e600a.html . . http://showmeinstitute.org/sites/default/files/20151207%20-%20The%20Funding%20Health%20of%20Local%20Government%20Pensions%20in%20Missouri%20-%20Biggs.pdf . . and: http://www.pensiontsunami.com/regions.php?type=state&id=39 . . Personally, I feel very little responsibility for the underfunding that happened between 1990 and 2005. I wasn’t here and I received no services from either the employees or the elected leaders. I don’t see why I shoud now be saddled with higher taxes and/or fewer services to “make up” for those past mistakes (any more than I should pay “reparations” to decendants of slaves). And we probably agree more than we disagree about the current inefficiencies, I’m just not willing to say that pensions and health care costs are “untouchable”, especially when groups like the firefighters refuse to consider changes that mirror what’s happening in the private sector: http://labortribune.com/st-louis-unilateral-changes-to-fire-fighters-local-73-pension-plan-now-before-the-court-of-appeals/

             
          • Mark-AL says:

            Based on discussions I’ve had over the years with city employees (usually owner-reps on building projects) in various cities across the country where I’ve been involved, it seems that firefighters’ pensions and especially police pensions are upgraded/embellished versions of an average city employee’s pension and overall employment package and are considered sacrosanct. Both police and firefighters are typically represented by strong unions that refuse to yield to public pressure to reduce pension and other employee benefits. Maintenance workers, city office employees and even administrator types (owner reps) aren’t offered employment packages and benefits that favorably compare with employment packages and pensions offered to city emergency-responder employees. So it’s the little guy who typically works for $9 to $15.00 an hour (parking lot attendants, ticket takers, parking enforcement officers, clerks), and even those owner-rep types who typically earn between 50-60 K annually, working in an average metropolitan area (KC, STL, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Topeka, etc) and who are not represented powerful groups that safeguard their interests, whose pension, in my opinion, should be especially protected. When people work for a benefit all their lives and then it’s taken away because of gross mismanagement, nepotism and patronage relationships, I find myself with little inclination to punish the innocent.

             
          • JZ71 says:

            Which, in my mind, includes the taxpayers!

             
    • It is possible to pass a proposition that would become effective only if ending the earnings tax were to be approved at some future date. This would give voters the opportunity to weigh the options — to see what an alternative source of revenue would look like.

      Approving new revenue source(s) before permanently cutting existing revenue is smart. Without doing this, we should continue the earnings tax.

       
      • gmichaud says:

        The replacement of the earnings tax is the key. I have seen estimates that the property tax a 100,000 dollar home will increase by 1000 a year. This falls disproportionately hard on elderly, working poor who own homes and renters. Sales tax would be hardly any better. The idea that if the earnings tax is eliminated you have 10 years to phase it out is false. It is far better to understand how it is replaced before it is removed.
        Notice it is too hard of a question for Sinquefield and his cronies to deal with. They just want to finish the destruction of St. Louis to benefit their real estate buddies encouraging urban sprawl.
        Of course pretty soon we won’t have to hold democratic elections. Sinquefield already owns the Republican legislator. He is the dictator of Missouri, and like any dictator he thinks he knows what’s best for everyone else.

         
    • Imran says:

      ” Businesses and residents are leaving “. I don’t know if you have been paying attention lately but a lot of businesses have moved into the City despite the earnings tax (the whole CORTEX gig for example). And the decreasing numbers of residents that are leaving the city are, in most cases being back-filled with new residents moving in who have higher incomes ( read higher earnings tax revenues). The out-dated City-County narrative is slowly shifting.

       
      • JZ71 says:

        Just google “St. Louis population” and you’ll see the real numbers” – here are the actual city population trends:
        1950 – 857,000 …. 1975 – 514,000 …. 1990 – 396,000 …. 2005 – 353,000
        1960 – 750,000 …. 1980 – 453,000 …. 1995 – 369,000 …. 2010 – 319,000
        1970 – 618,000 …. 1985 – 427,000 …. 2000 – 345,000 …. 2013 – 318,000

        Yes, the decline is slowing, and yes, there are some pockets of actual growth in the city, but the NET direction is still negative, both in the city and regionally: http://lakeexpo.com/news/top_stories/it-s-slow-growing-for-st-louis-as-region-slips/article_bc06b762-f1f4-11e5-9d80-dffc581925d6.html

         
        • Hate to break it to you, but nobody thinks about the earning tax when deciding whether to move here. The factors go (1) crime, (2) schools, end of list. And realistically, for anyone over 50 or under 25, (2) isn’t a factor at all.

           
          • JZ71 says:

            I always love it when people speak in absolutes. “Nobody”? Really? But, yes, high crime and low schools generally do play a much bigger role in most people’s thought processes.

             
        • Imran says:

          Since we are playing the numbers game, Here is the low down on Ladue, MO population(you know, one of the places people are choosing over the CWE)

          1970 10306
          1980 9369
          1990 8847
          2000 8645
          2010 8521

          The earnings tax probably has very little to do with this . Our region is dealing with the effects of uncontrolled sprawl and decades of subsidization of disposable communities.

           
          • JZ71 says:

            Ladue doesn’t have the infrastructure issues or the unfunded pension liabilities that St. Louis has. I’d bet that the entire amount collected in earnings taxes goes to cover these nagging legacy costs. (And Ladue’s 18% decline since 1970 is far less severe than the city’s 45% decline over the same time period.)

             
          • Imran says:

            I don’t get your point here. Every place has its own set of challenges. I was simply pointing out that absence of an earnings tax does not guaranty growth in population. And using your words ” the NET direction if still negative” for Ladue.

             
          • JZ71 says:

            You’re right, eliminating the earnings tax does not “guarantee” anything. And you’re also right, every place does have its own set of challenges. I’m just growing increasingly frustrated with the mindset, especially among both politicians and some residents, that “we can’t raise taxes” imposed on the people who a) vote for us, and b) directly benefit from said taxes, so, heck, we’ll just tax the people who can’t vote, through an earnings tax on non-residents (the city), predatory policing (most of north county), a 22%(!) lodging tax (in the city, one of the highest in the country) and/or “fees” for occupancy inspections (again, north county): http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/black-st-louis-suburbs-hit-ticket-blitz-n185061 . . If you want government and services, figure out how to pay for it within your own community!

             
  2. rgbose says:

    Vote no on Prop S
    It taxes the wrong thing. The value of a property has little to do with how much stormwater runoff it creates. Imagine if you electric bill worked that way.
    It’ll be a subsidy for parking lots, big boxes, and other low productivity land uses that create a lot of stormwater runoff.
    Exempt, abated, and TIF’d properties won’t pay it to MSD.

    Vote No on Prop Y
    The sewer projects happen whether the bonds pass or not. I’d rather pay for the work than pay for the work plus interest and fees. The $100Ms in interest and fees could stay in your pocket or go to other needs in the region.
    Inflation is low, wage growth is low, the population and wealth of the district are falling. Does spreading out the cost of the work over 20-30 years make sense?
    The interest and fees are a wealth transfer up the income ladder and depending on who buys the bonds, out of the region.

    More here:
    https://nextstl.com/2016/03/vote-no-on-prop-s-and-y-april-5/

     
  3. gmichaud says:

    I have decided to vote for the earnings tax only, I will vote against the rest.
    For the bond issue and school issue I want to point out all of the giveaways by city government
    I have a friend who along with others have been investigating the tax abatement program that was originally designed to help undeserved areas attract new buyers, but instead has become a huge tax giveaway program to the wealthy and to insiders.
    It is estimated it has cost around 260 million in taxes over ten years. I did a few rough calculations on the back of a napkin a few months back. It is already costing property owners around 100 to 200 dollars a year extra in taxes to support this giveaway.
    The tax abatement program should be abolished.
    Then there is the TIF, yet another giveaway. That program also needs to be either stopped or seriously modified, and again it has been run for wealthy individuals rather than helping disadvantaged communities as originally intended. The money from these two programs will more than cover the new taxes proposed. I am not interested in raising my taxes so wealthy insiders can live in greater comfort.
    Now on to MSD, commenter rgbose did an excellent analysis over at Nextstl which I recommend. I want to add a few additional thoughts. I have been looking over the EPA and MSD docs related to this issue.
    Here is an EPA doc. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/st-louis-clean-water-act-settlement
    I think what is most troubling is that the organization, MSD that created the mess is still in charge. On the MSD website they say most of the overflow drains that drop raw sewage into streams and neighborhoods were built in the 50s and 60s as if that absolves them from blame.
    So either they decided to not correct the problem in the intervening years or didn’t recognize the problem, either way the incompetence of MSD is on full display. And now we, the public are supposed to give them almost 5 billion dollars to fix the problems they created and never dealt with.
    Who these people answer to? It appears to be no one. MSD needs to audited and completely rebuilt from the bottom up, heads, many heads need to roll, including a new board of directors. (the usual insiders sit on all of these boards)
    The fact is it took a lawsuit and a consent decree only a few years ago to get them off their ass to protect the health of the region.
    I suspect too, although I don’t know for sure, that they probably have the same pension, salary and retirement giveaways for their employees as the City of St. Louis.
    As it stands now MSD is a completely irresponsible organization, not worthy of managing anything having to do with watersheds, sewers and water quality.
    When this is all said and done St. Louis will have one of the highest, if not the highest sewer rates in the nation.
    There has to be some serious changes. One problem blocking change is that the MSM have become nothing more than cheerleaders for established policies. The MSM no longer represent the interests of the people. (for example, note above it is citizens doing the investigation of the tax abatement program and not investigative reporters, I guess giveaways of 260 million don’t rate a mention in the Post Dispatch or TV news).
    If it were not for the corruption and incompetence I might consider voting for these issues, but not now, not the way things stand.

     
    • Fozzie says:

      You are the only one who is cavalierly suggesting that MSD has been mismanaged. No other reputable source has suggested this. Clean water standards have changed and must be addressed.

      Thanks again for underscoring your unwavering contempt for anything in this city. What a miserable existence.

       
      • Mark-AL says:

        I don’t agree with your opinion. I think gmichaud looks at issues fairly and honestly, and while I often don’t agree with his perspective, I do respect his honesty and sincerity and his informed opinions. Gmichaud’s problem is that he’s TOO DAMN LIBERAL!!! This conservative republican can look beyond his liberal vision, and maybe others should be so inclined….. (and take them with a grain of salt when they’re just oo syrupy liberal!!!)

        RE: MSD’s alleged mismanagement? Actually, I agree with gmichaud, in that MSD’s one and only mission is to operate the city’s sewer system. That’s their only mission and has been for YEARS! You’d think that even 10 years ago, plans and budgets would have been prepared so that, 10 years later, STL wouldn’t find itself in a blitz clean-up program. You’d think that, prior to moving out of that adequate building on Kingshighway and moving into the fancy digs with fancy interiors on Market, they would have stopped in their tracks and admitted that it’s hard to justify an unnecessary relocation when in 10 years we’re going to ask people to make a choice between sewer and replacing the HVAC system.

         
        • gmichaud says:

          Mark actually I have a strong Libertarian streak, I definitely believe in smaller government. The flip side is I think universal health care and affordable education should be generally available to the public. I believe it protects the welfare of the people and makes the nation stronger in the future for your children and mine. The federal government should do the things that make sense and are a national priority.
          I try to avoid categories, although it is easy to slip into them, left, right and so on.
          The poet Gary Snyder said in his book Earth Household, to paraphrase “most of philosophy is trying to trick you into entering the cage they were tricked into entering”

           
          • Mark-AL says:

            Yes, and wasn’t it Gary Snyder who admitted that he held some of the most archaic values in the universe?

             
          • gmichaud says:

            I think Snyder studies ancient cultures and primal forests among other aspects of man and nature. Not sure what he meant without seeing the quote in context, but I would guess it is related to elemental thinking, of being at the point of seeing the world before words are formed.

             
          • Mark-AL says:

            Found it:

            “As a poet,” Snyder tells us, “I hold the most archaic values on earth. They go back to the late Paleolithic; the fertility of the soil, the magic of animals, the power-vision in solitude, the terrifying … Google Books

             
          • JZ71 says:

            Cool! . . . and as far as proof reading goes, there’s a big difference between “the terrifying . . . Google Books” and “the terrifying” . . . Google Books” 😉

             
          • Mark-AL says:

            Failure to use quotation marks, correctly, makes all the difference, doesn’t it? Sometimes, a simple comma, used either as “restrictive” or “non-restrictive” can get you into trouble, too–especially when writing specifications.

             
          • gmichaud says:

            Great quote, impressive your son is studying Gary Snyder in that kind of detail at such a young age. Pretty amazing actually, it is a college level topic he took on. I have been impressed by youth in general. My daughter will be 18 next week and the students I have come in contact with exhibit the same maturity your son exhibits. I’m not sure if it is the computers or what, but it gives me hope for the future.
            I do a fair amount of reading, although it has been years since I read these books. Snyder is Japhy Rider in the novel Desolation Angels by Jack Kerouac (or maybe it was the Dharma Bums). He was a fire lookout in the novel, which of course echoed real life.
            A superb novel about loggers is Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey, (he also wrote One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, another great novel, both books were made into movies).

             
          • Mark-AL says:

            One of our challenges before I agreed to the temporary transfer to Frankfurt was to find a high school for the 3 boys comparable to (SLUH-Jesuit) and, since they spoke no German, one that offered instruction in English. We found an excellent school in Cologne that follows the National Curriculum for England and qualifies for the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program. The Gary Snyder research was assigned (each student was assigned a different poet); Declan didn’t volunteer for it. Had he selected his own compare/contrast assignment, he probably would have chosen Frost, Elliot, Ginsberg or Cummings because their poetry is more easily understood. My wife and I like the school because it demands excellence from the students (they still teach the kids parts of speech , diagramming, composition–even handwriting (!!!); pre-algebra in 8th grade, then Algebra, geom. Alg II/pre-calculus, trig/calculus; 4 yrs of science, civics/history; comparative religions, etc, and they offer an incredible music education/performance program with mandatory private tutoring; no study halls, no nonsense), and all the teachers have earned at least one master’s degree minimally. Classroom disruptions and general discipline issues are dealt with immediately. The instruction is so structured, the kids really don’t have time to act out in the classroom (which may be a partial solution to the problems plaguing the STL school system). And despite the occasional juvenile bitching and complaining, the kids really love the school and take pride in having completed each semester.

             
          • gmichaud says:

            It sounds like your sons are getting an excellent education. I know what you mean about how instruction is structured, my daughter attended high school in Oulu Finland her sophomore year and she found that they didn’t wait on anyone, they would help on the side, but they are firm about getting the lesson for the day complete.
            On the other hand the school treated the students like adults, allowing them to make choices about leaving the campus when they didn’t have class for instance.
            It was a Finnish speaking school, there were other foreign students in this school so they did accommodate other students, Iinterestingly the city of Oulu also has a English only high school too (pop around 200,000)
            My daughter stayed with her late mothers parents and also her Uncle’s family, who has a daughter one year older than mine.
            Coming from Grand Center Arts Academy here in St Louis I don’t think she felt disadvantaged at all in Finland, so I’m not sure how to rate educational differences. In the end making connections with her Nordic family was most important.
            (She is a senior now, ready to graduate)

             
      • gmichaud says:

        I am not a big fan of mediocre performance by government officials, are you? I have worked fairly extensively with MSD in the past including their location on Hampton on various projects. How about you?
        The fact is they have known about these problems for decades, including a time frame when the feds were help paying for projects like this, MSD did nothing. Do some research, these are the facts.
        If you are okay with that type of mediocre management, its on you. I’m sorry if asking for improved performance by public officials offends you.
        I just suggested privatization of MSD.

         
  4. gmichaud says:

    Privatization of MSD is likely the best solution. At a minimum bids should be taken from corporations to perform the needed work in the consent decree. Proposals to replace MSD with a private company should also be requested.
    Normally I would not advocate replacement of a public utility with private ownership, but MSD as it sits is unaccountable and has allowed these problems to fester for decades, including in the past decades when the federal government was contributing money to pay for these type of problems.
    A private firm owning a public utility would have to be subject to regulatory oversight and transparency making sure the public is treated fairly. Also a public process should be guaranteed (not one and done public hearings) to insure decision making is in the public interest. MSD does neither one now, so this would be a step up.
    In any case, I’m not sure how anyone can have any confidence in MSD, first because they have created this multi billion dollar problem and now the same people are being asked to fix it, but also how can the public even know their current estimates and planning aren’t just as messed up.
    Competitive bidding a good way to air out the best, most efficient solutions.

    To further illustrate how MSD is unresponsive, just tonight, on Channel 9 Donnybrook a caller complained about street closures in Rock Hill by MSD for 2 months without any workers showing up. He said he could not get a response from MSD, even the Mayor of Rock Hill couldn’t get a response. And how long did MSD close Southwest ave near Manchester, was it a year?
    I’m not sure how anyone can have confidence in this organization.
    Privatization is a clean slate, that is what is needed.

     
    • JZ71 says:

      I disagree. MSD sucks because they can’t raise rates to cover their real costs. Privatizing would just result in even higher fees than MSD is proposing, because of one word, profit!

       
      • gmichaud says:

        We should find out if it is more expensive by a bidding process, now shouldn’t we?

         
        • Mark-AL says:

          Perhaps another word, “waste” explains why MSD doesn’t operate as efficiently as they should. On competitively-bid commercial projects around the country, I’m used to seeing nothing but elbows and assholes during normal working hours. Iron workers and concrete finishers, who regularly work for well-qualified firms and who compete with other well-qualified erection firms to deliver the winning bid, earn every cent they’re paid. When I see MSD, KC Water Works or Des Moines Water Services/Sewage Treatment or Sacramento Wastewater employees at work during the day, I typically don’t get the impression that there’s any real rush to get things done. I too wonder if open competitive bidding might improve the MSD work process. It’s worth a try. But good luck trying.

           
          • gmichaud says:

            I wish it were just field workers that weren’t performing, unfortunately it has to permeate the whole organization of MSD when there is are 5 billion dollar mistakes
            I think you are right, competitive bidding would likely improve the organization. What is really amazing is how the establishment and established order accepts this magnitude of the malfeasance by MSD and pretends MSD can now arrive at an decent, efficient solution that is in the interest of the public.
            The amount of self delusion in St. Louis is astounding and is to a large extent is the reason the city and region cannot advance while it loses population.
            The amount of self dealing is probably beyond imagination, I’m sure that is driving the decision making.

             
  5. gmichaud says:

    The design of the watersheds is an important factor no matter to consider. The first thing that comes to mind are canals. There are other possibilities, a few years back an architect and some other designers proposed the rebuilding of historic Chouteau’s Pond.

    The design use of storm water runoff is likely to end up as smaller scale water features such as fountains and ponds. With the amount of open land available, agriculture uses including fish farming could be possible. In other words there are potentially greater benefits than simply engineer water through concrete tubes. There is an excellent short paper on the subject, it is a pdf file that includes a few drawings http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/training/media/resources/Eight-Step%20Approach%20to%20Stormwater%20Retrofitting.pdf

    The design of the environment should reflect this concern for watersheds There should be debate on what is possible. The amounts of money to be spent make it imperative that changes also improve the daily living environment of the public.

    These are the type of discussions that should be already in place, but are not. This is worrisome and an indication MSD is only going to continue the organizational fiasco that has brought St. Louis to this expensive crisis point.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe