urbanSTL

Alright, I stand corrected - he may not be paying the earnings tax himself. But the idea is still very, very bad - it would ruin the City of St. Louis - with the tax-abolition trial run in Kansas City standing right there in everybody's face to prove it. States and municipalities can't cut their way to growth, and the fact that he clings to that idea out of pure, blind ideology when facts present a contrary case makes him dangerous and not worth listening to about much of anything. I supported the Better Together plan, but the way they went about it - with direction from Rex - tanked the effort. The recent debacle with the airport proves the guy should really retire and stay retired, which includes not using our city as his hobbyhorse. People don't want his ideas or his direct involvement in policy, and they've proven that time and again, at the ballot box and elsewhere.

Rooster wrote: ↑

Jan 07, 2020

Just think of all the abandon buildings that could have been torn down, streets repaired, schools improved if Rex would have used the money on that instead of spending
 it trying to  eliminate the earnings tax.
As far as I know he has given no solution to replace the funds if the earnings tax is eliminated.

He's a Libertarian. His solution is that government is a waste.

This is not at play anymore, it’s dead and Bond and Pruitt are pounding on a dead horse, the thread title could probably be changed to Future Lambert Airport Improvements

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Jan 08, 2020

The STL Biz Journal has a solid interview with Clayco's Bob Clark on how he thinks the Airport Privatization deal fell apart. 

It's behind a paywall, so here are some takeaways from it: 

• The process/procedures of the privatization were off its foundation base. 
"I thought the process from the very beginning was questionable, if not toxic. There were a bunch of privatization consultants for the city that I didn't understand the value. Using New York investment bankers. As it turned out, they were afraid to make diversity a part of the equation because they were afraid it would scare off European investors.

"There were no requirements for minority participation in the thing. In the interviews with potential bidders, the city and its advisers didn't ask a question about diversity. You can't ignore issues that must be resolved as part of privatization."

• Lack of consensus among politicians. 
"Every week, it became less and less appetizing. The government of the city is very archaic and it's very difficult to actually accomplish almost anything because the mayor can only do so much. Aldermen, same thing. It got to the point where to get a consensus is difficult, and so you have to be even more sensitive about being transparent. The only successful government projects are totally transparent. Putting the request for proposals together has to be open."

• STL business leaders were turned off on the process. 
"Near the end I was nearly in the same place as the rest of the civic leaders. It was untenable for the process to move forward. I believe Andy Taylor made his decision based on the process, the same things that turned me off. And I don't think Andy Taylor would do anything that's not in the best interest of the St. Louis region. I don't think they rallied around Enterprise leasing at the airport. That's a ridiculous notion."

• Things remain busted at the airport and not addressed. 
"The parking revenue goes to outsiders. The parking garage at the airport itself is inefficient, broken down and doesn't work. The terminals are inefficient. They don't work. There's a lot of overcapacity they haven't figured out how to utilize. There's 1,100 acres of land to develop. Instead of developing with a plan, they took one of the most valuable pieces of land, on the northeast side of the airport, and stuck big tanks on it. Not only are we not making it a best-in-class airport, we're making it worse as we go."

• Where do we go from here? 
"We've learned that the city has no path to take money out of the value of the airport, except in the FAA process. There are people who don't want that to happen. Taking anything away from the airport, I don't think that benefits the airlines. They're better off with the status quo. 

"But now the community has to come together to think about the airport in a different way. We need to generate a wider set of ideas and build consensus around those ideas. Any process will have to be inclusive and take into account diversity, union issues, airlines. This has to be led by the business community. 

"I also don't think it does the community any good to fix the airport and not fix some of the other big ticket, critical issues. Make MetroLink safe and incentivize development around it. Fix the convention center. We have to have a nonpartisan, bilateral group of innovators, business people, politicians and religious leaders who are all on the same page. Atlanta did this."

Interesting he mentioned transit and convention center as things the region needs to get behind. When I look at places like Denver and it's Fastracks initiative it had big support from the business community. Civic Leaders and Big Business in St. Louis have not gotten behind Metrolink expansion and related development like they should have. To me it seems like a no brainer. Not only would Metrolink expansion create thousands of good paying jobs constructing it, but would also provide an opportunity to revitalize neighborhoods and connect the entire region with our institutions. The NAACP, unions, big business, civic, and political leadership have all dropped the ball on Metrolink big time. 

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jan 08, 2020

This is not at play anymore, it’s dead and Bond and Pruitt are pounding on a dead horse, the thread title could probably be changed to Future Lambert Airport Improvements

Or maybe we change thread to "Airport Regionalism" or "Regionalizing Lambert Airport"

To Bob Clark interview highlights that Gone Corporate posted (thanks Gone Corporate).   One of my first thoughts, Bi-State as an idea already expressed and certiainly an avenue to incorporate a regional board, combine major transportation/transit infrastructure under one roof and has the funding/tax mechanism to fund future improvements 

^Airport governance? The regional bid now in the early stages of discussion seems quite clearly related. And this seems like a good place to put it.

dredger wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jan 08, 2020

This is not at play anymore, it’s dead and Bond and Pruitt are pounding on a dead horse, the thread title could probably be changed to Future Lambert Airport Improvements

Or maybe we change thread to "Airport Regionalism" or "Regionalizing Lambert Airport"

To Bob Clark interview highlights that Gone Corporate posted (thanks Gone Corporate).   One of my first thoughts, Bi-State as an idea already expressed and certiainly an avenue to incorporate a regional board, combine major transportation/transit infrastructure under one roof and has the funding/tax mechanism to fund future improvements 

Would the port authority be another option? Or a new entity such as MSD or GRG? Should the East side be included? Should it include Mid America?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JacksonPolyp wrote: ↑

Jan 07, 2020

I don't know his business dealings so I could be wrong but assume that he doesn't have much to gain personally from removing the earnings tax. 
You should learn more about how much he's worth and how capital gains are taxed as income. Because he's a city resident, 1% of whatever he's reporting as income from his investments to the IRS is payable to the city. That's why he hates the tax and wants it repealed.

Capital gains are NOT subject to the city earnings tax.  Only earned income is.  Capital gains are not considered earned income.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jan 09, 2020

^Airport governance? The regional bid now in the early stages of discussion seems quite clearly related. And this seems like a good place to put it.

Winner winner Chicken Dinner.   I think "Airport Governance" would be a great change to topic thread.  These discussions really do come down to how Lambert might be governed in the future, whether failed attempt at privatization and or future institution/change to how city runs it.

Following SP's suggestion, I changed the thread title to Airport Governance

Really? What is the sales tax rate at Lambert? And the annual taxable sales?

New privatization push. 

It is hard for me to figure out how the math and timeline works, especially in this travel environment.

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... s_headline

highlights:

The St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council and St. Louis city NAACP said they will work to gather some 22,000 signatures, forcing a Nov. 3 vote

The new plan would require the city accept no less than $1.7 billion from an operator. That amount could include defeasance of the airport's roughly $600 million in debt, which would be the responsibility of the firm.

Instead of allowing the city's aldermen to decide how to spend lease proceeds, it dictates that trusts be set up for various purposes. The "Police, Fire, and Safe Neighborhood Trust Fund," for example, would get 30% of proceeds, but not less than $300 million. Neighborhood development would get at least $200 million, plus $200 million for job training, $100 million for streets, $100 million for environmental cleanup, and the remainder for transit or other infrastructure.

It also envisions an operator making major capital improvements at Lambert, which a city-commissioned report has said could cost $141 million to $2 billion. The amendment says the "lessee alone" should use "commercially reasonable efforts" to upgrade Lambert's facilities so that they're in the top 10% of all large or medium hub U.S. airports, as graded by J.D. Power or a similar entity. And it addresses Lambert's airlines, putting caps on fees they can be charged and saying they should save $100 million under privatization, with 75% of that amount received in the first two years.

Payments from an operator would have to come no later than April 10, 2021.

How does one collect 22,000 signatures by August with social distancing in place and in a city that was overwhelmingly against privatization?

That’s an enormous task.

the whole thing is planned by Rex group, First Rule...NAACP and Carpenters Union are just a front 

Well I agree with keeping the money from the Aldermen. 

gone corporate wrote: ↑

May 27, 2020

Very interested in learning more. STL - and all governments, local up to Federal - are going to be in massive, crippling debt as a result of the coronavirus, from both more money out the door financing emergency procedures and lost taxation revenues from everything being cancelled. This really, really could be a salvation that prevents STL from falling down a giant debt hole. 

• Keep it away from the Board of Aldermen. 
• Focus on monies covering debts, both for the Airport and the City. 
• Trusts for specific funding allocations are a great idea; let's hope they won't become fiefdoms in themselves. 
• $1.7BB cash, minimum. I can dig that. 
• Best: Clause that says STL has to be within top 10 airports. 

Want to get this elected? 
Simple: State how much everyone's per capita taxes in the City are going to have to go up without it. 

I think the idea is decent but my issue is I think they will have trouble getting bids with the requirements when air travel is so uncertain now. 
Besides the 1.7B and top 10 airports. 
And it addresses Lambert's airlines, putting caps on fees they can be charged and saying they should save $100 million under privatization, with 75% of that amount received in the first two years.
The math just doesn't add up for me. 

And this timeline seems impossible. 
Payments from an operator would have to come no later than April 10, 2021.

I can't see any way they go from a ballot pass in November - deciding who is on the board - putting it out for bid - getting bids back- choosing an operator - then getting paid in 5 months.