- 8,912
I wish they would tunnel the highway from Oakland to kingshighway
I wish they would tunnel 40 from the PSB thru downtown all the way to Lindbergh.... especially downtown it would not be such a barrier.... the Choteau’s pond could be and actual part of downtown....
And while we're at it, we might as well tunnel 40 in the Chesterfield valley. That way commuters can drive safely to and from St. Charles county unimpeded and through the tunnel when the next 500 year flood comes splashing over the levees.tbspqr wrote:I wish they would tunnel 40 from the PSB thru downtown all the way to Lindbergh.... especially downtown it would not be such a barrier.... the Choteau’s pond could be and actual part of downtown....
- 11K
From the P-D: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
And from the Mayor: http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=545
And from the Mayor: http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=545
Perhaps we could get the engineers and construction teams from Boston's Big Dig to come out and help with tunnelling Kinghighway and hwy 40.
Yes, very much joking.
After tolerating the endless delays and detours and general inconveniences of the Big Dig, I left Boston just in time to start seeing news reports of leaking tunnels and collapsing ceilings. That flippant comment I made really hides my general shock and horror, but not really surprise, that something with such potential could go so wrong.
After tolerating the endless delays and detours and general inconveniences of the Big Dig, I left Boston just in time to start seeing news reports of leaking tunnels and collapsing ceilings. That flippant comment I made really hides my general shock and horror, but not really surprise, that something with such potential could go so wrong.
- 1,610
^And every single future parks-related question also upto the voters?
All City Parks will be ridiculously affected by this proposed charter amendment. Sure, existing leases like the many institutions in Forest Park (and ironically BJC's existing lease of Hudlin Park) will be grandfathered (the City will face inverse condemnation and astronomical legal fees and lengthy battles if they're not), but realistically, all of these institutions will eventually have to amend their leases, as needs change over time.
And then there's all the plans without previous leases or sales. If Fairgrounds or Carondelet Parks are to ever see a rec center, it will have to go to city-wide vote. New Animal House in Ellendale (Jim Shrewsbury, are you listening)? City-wide vote. Build over the concrete-pit (City's least used park) by the Post-Dispatch? City-wide vote. Bring new life into the homeless parks about Soldiers Memorial? City-wide vote. Bring permanent kiosks into a redeveloped Kiener Plaza (like Portland's Pioneer Square)? City-wide vote.
In order to not have to vote on every single park modification to be faced in our future, I will definitely be voting against this proposed charter amendment, if it ever makes it to the ballot. And since BJC's lease of Hudlin Park would legally have to be grandfathered anyway (thankfully with all our other great attractions), the "Our Park is Not For Sale" folks would be wise to drop a charter amendment that would forever inhibit changes to any of our numerous City parks.
All City Parks will be ridiculously affected by this proposed charter amendment. Sure, existing leases like the many institutions in Forest Park (and ironically BJC's existing lease of Hudlin Park) will be grandfathered (the City will face inverse condemnation and astronomical legal fees and lengthy battles if they're not), but realistically, all of these institutions will eventually have to amend their leases, as needs change over time.
And then there's all the plans without previous leases or sales. If Fairgrounds or Carondelet Parks are to ever see a rec center, it will have to go to city-wide vote. New Animal House in Ellendale (Jim Shrewsbury, are you listening)? City-wide vote. Build over the concrete-pit (City's least used park) by the Post-Dispatch? City-wide vote. Bring new life into the homeless parks about Soldiers Memorial? City-wide vote. Bring permanent kiosks into a redeveloped Kiener Plaza (like Portland's Pioneer Square)? City-wide vote.
In order to not have to vote on every single park modification to be faced in our future, I will definitely be voting against this proposed charter amendment, if it ever makes it to the ballot. And since BJC's lease of Hudlin Park would legally have to be grandfathered anyway (thankfully with all our other great attractions), the "Our Park is Not For Sale" folks would be wise to drop a charter amendment that would forever inhibit changes to any of our numerous City parks.
- 1,768
We don't want to turn this into Califonia, where everything goes to referendum...We as well stop electing officials.
OK I agree, putting every issue to the voters can slow down deals and make important decisions subject to accountability.
I am not saying every action should be up to the voters, I am saying that the sale of public goods should be subject to voter approval. I might be for the sale of this section of Forest Park yet the voters should approve the sale.
I am not saying every action should be up to the voters, I am saying that the sale of public goods should be subject to voter approval. I might be for the sale of this section of Forest Park yet the voters should approve the sale.
Lease? This is not a "lease." The City will never end the lease as BJC is the largest employer in the City. Its a 99 year sale.
Did you ever believe that the US only leased the Panama Canal from Panama? Did Panama have the power to end the lease?
This is a de facto sale and de jure lease.
Did you ever believe that the US only leased the Panama Canal from Panama? Did Panama have the power to end the lease?
This is a de facto sale and de jure lease.
- 11K
Re: Panama Canal http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_am ... 12-14.html
The lease of Hudlin Park is a good idea because the plot of land is not easily accessible by any city residents. Those residents and the city will be better served by relocated amenities. This would be true if BJC wanted to use the land or not. As a bonus, the maintenance of Forest Park is nearly guaranteed for future. The lease comes with a number of terms (just like the current lease has). The current lease has effectively kept the park maintained and generally looking nice. If this area had been 'sold' to BJC to this point, instead of leased, it would probably have been a surface parking lot for the better part of three decades.
I would like to end my post (and irritate others) by thanking BJC for their investment in the city, my neighborhood and the park I love. I wholeheartedly endorsed BJC's continued expansion and prosperity. They're not saints, but I'm glad they're here.
The lease of Hudlin Park is a good idea because the plot of land is not easily accessible by any city residents. Those residents and the city will be better served by relocated amenities. This would be true if BJC wanted to use the land or not. As a bonus, the maintenance of Forest Park is nearly guaranteed for future. The lease comes with a number of terms (just like the current lease has). The current lease has effectively kept the park maintained and generally looking nice. If this area had been 'sold' to BJC to this point, instead of leased, it would probably have been a surface parking lot for the better part of three decades.
I would like to end my post (and irritate others) by thanking BJC for their investment in the city, my neighborhood and the park I love. I wholeheartedly endorsed BJC's continued expansion and prosperity. They're not saints, but I'm glad they're here.
- 1,610
DeB asked:
It's a useless park on the southwest corner of MLK and Tucker beside the Post-Distpatch. But since technically a park, the proposed charter amendment would protect the "concrete pit" from ever being sold or leased for development.
What is the concrete-pit?
It's a useless park on the southwest corner of MLK and Tucker beside the Post-Distpatch. But since technically a park, the proposed charter amendment would protect the "concrete pit" from ever being sold or leased for development.
- 11K
Opponents of Forest Park land lease push for public vote
By Jake Wagman
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
12/09/2006
Opponents of a plan to build a hospital expansion on Forest Park land came a step closer Friday to forcing a public vote on the issue.
Wearing shirts that read "Our park is not for sale," organizers of a petition drive submitted to the St. Louis Elections Board what they hope are enough valid signatures to get on the ballot this spring.
The proposed ballot question would require voter approval before any structure "not customarily associated with park use or outdoor recreation" can be built in a city park.
If the question passes, it has the potential to thwart Barnes-Jewish Hospital's controversial bid to expand onto an isolated stretch of Forest Park east of Kingshighway Boulevard.
Citizens to Protect Forest Park submitted just fewer than 28,000 signatures. To qualify for the ballot, at least 21,800 of the signatures must be verified as belonging to a registered city voter.
Election workers will be going through the signatures this weekend. To guarantee that the question is on the April 3 ballot, the petition must be certified before Friday.
But that could be just the beginning of obstacles for the measure's supporters. The ballot question, because it seeks to change the city's charter, would need a 60 percent majority to pass.
City officials worry that the ballot language is too restrictive. It could, they caution, jeopardize even mundane lease arrangements in Forest Park and elsewhere.
"We lease golf courses, we lease boat houses, we lease a variety of facilities," said Gary Bess, the parks director. "We just want to make sure the ballot language does not prevent us from maintaining and operating the park."
Barnes-Jewish is seeking to lease 9.4 acres of Forest Park that currently hosts tennis courts and a playground. The hospital already operates an underground parking garage at the site.
spacer
- 1,610
I love how agendas can always be reduced to catchy, albeit misleading, slogans, such as "Our park is NOT for sale!" Although I'd like to argue in favor of amending BJC's lease on Hudlin Park on many levels, I'm still envious of the park-purists for their catchy slogan. Maybe the pro-jobs, pro-density, and even pro-parks (for their continued, diverse use and fiscal solvency, if not maintaining the status quo) opponents to this far-reaching referendum can come up with a catchy slogan of their own. Any suggestions?
No matter what you think, the petition people are right, our park isn't for sale, it's for lease.
- 11K
I'm a bit surprised (though maybe I should be) that Forest Park Forever hasn't taken a bigger role in this. I mean, who else can better claim to have the best interest of the park in mind? They have the good will to win many people over and they are supporting this deal, right? There's nothing on the website, but if they were opposed this would have been dead long ago.
- 10K
Their support would go a long way in helping change public perception. Maybe they don't want to rock the boat so that donations will keep rolling in.
I wish people would face it...this little piece of land really hasn't been a part of Forest Park since Kingshighway severed it from the main part back in 1920-something. How on earth do they ever propose that this parcel will ever function as part of FP again? Even if BJC were to take out the underground parking, then what wonderful and great miracle would occur at this spot?
The idea that this little plot is vital to FP is as sensless as to suggest that empty lot at Lindell and Kingshighway become part of FP, IMO.
The idea that this little plot is vital to FP is as sensless as to suggest that empty lot at Lindell and Kingshighway become part of FP, IMO.
- 1,054
The 12 severed acres that are well used by those closest to it and knowledgeable of its existance are more than beneficial to its users. Forest Park as our valuable asset should continue to be enhanced. Therein lies the issue, the 12 severed acres have already been compromised and the City of St. Louis has lost more than 500,000 residents and its supportive tax base in order to maintain parks. Forest Park may be heavily invested in, but what about Fairgrounds, O'Fallon, Bellerive, Marquette, and the many others with aged playgrounds and few updates since the 1960s?
First
This 12 severed acres needs to be replaced closer to residents with six for the CWE north of Forest Park Parkway, six for FPSE, and some remainder greenspace at BJC for its own employees, patients, and customers. These conditions need to be required in order to locate much needed decent park space in the two actual neighborhoods. I believe few could disagree with that proposal.
Second, the money from BJC to maintain Forest Park should not entirely replace current funding, and BJC should add some money to creating and maintaining the two smaller parks in the residential CWE and FPSE.
Third, the current parking garage park is one very short block from the Metrolink station. This potential for transient oriented development proves a great unmet need for maximizing tax revenue to the City for the benefit of its citizens. You stand to benefit as City taxpayers by the efficient use of this land in close proximity to the future of transportation. Why waste it? This land is worth far more than the parking garage under the park and transformation into offices, businesses, and hospital space would greatly benefit the City and its citizens.
Fourth, the future of economies relies heavily on education and health care. WashU Med and BJC contribute greatly to the business climate and economy for the City and nare the region! The conversion of the land to use for education and health is needed for the continued rebirth of the St. Louis economy especially since it is nearly adjacent to a Metrolink station making for a sustainable city!
First
This 12 severed acres needs to be replaced closer to residents with six for the CWE north of Forest Park Parkway, six for FPSE, and some remainder greenspace at BJC for its own employees, patients, and customers. These conditions need to be required in order to locate much needed decent park space in the two actual neighborhoods. I believe few could disagree with that proposal.
Second, the money from BJC to maintain Forest Park should not entirely replace current funding, and BJC should add some money to creating and maintaining the two smaller parks in the residential CWE and FPSE.
Third, the current parking garage park is one very short block from the Metrolink station. This potential for transient oriented development proves a great unmet need for maximizing tax revenue to the City for the benefit of its citizens. You stand to benefit as City taxpayers by the efficient use of this land in close proximity to the future of transportation. Why waste it? This land is worth far more than the parking garage under the park and transformation into offices, businesses, and hospital space would greatly benefit the City and its citizens.
Fourth, the future of economies relies heavily on education and health care. WashU Med and BJC contribute greatly to the business climate and economy for the City and nare the region! The conversion of the land to use for education and health is needed for the continued rebirth of the St. Louis economy especially since it is nearly adjacent to a Metrolink station making for a sustainable city!
