urbanSTL

The 20th Ward is the most important ward to the future of South City. It will either lead the decline of the area or be the savior of it. Lots of work to do there. These will be an interesting four years.

If you are familiar with the area, you know there is a large number of vacant, unsecured buildings, both privately and LRA owned. Getting these buildings secured is a huge, never ending, job. Schmid couldn't do it; it's hard for any one person to do it. It will take a community effort. If that happens, that would be a huge positive step for the community.

If the new leaders of the 20th Ward create a property stabilization fund to board and secure vacant buildings, I'd donate to it even though it's not my ward.

Carpenter needs to be tossed out ASAP.

We had our chance last November. I remember she had misspelled efficient on her mailer.

Here's the thread for the bond issue

http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=75

Does anybody know much about Joe Vollmer, Ward 10?

His ward includes the Hill, parts of SW Gardens, parts of TGS, and I think a little more.

Assuming nothing falls through, I'm set to move from the the center of TGS to the western side of TGS, and I was a little disappointed to find out that meant leaving Ward 15.

I assume Vollmer's influence is largely Hill driven, and that may be something of a machine effect, but I don't really know, and that also doesn't mean he's not a good alderman. So just curious if anyone has any thoughts on where he falls on things.

He doesn't seem have much of a social media presence which is a bit disappointing.

His priority is definitely protecting The Hill.

Ebsy wrote:His priority is definitely protecting The Hill.

I don't even hate that as the Hill is one of our great and long-maintained neighborhoods. (Plus, I've got dual-Italian citizenship!) Actually, we made an offer on a place there that didn't work out too. So all for protecting the Hill.

But I'm curious to find out if that means I'll feel neglected in west TGS and just what exactly protecting the Hill means when it comes to the rest of city politics.

It's more important that you know your neighbors than your alderman.

He's a bit of a mixed bag. Definitely not an Olgilvie

Think that Nick Pistor with PD had a better good article on upcoming Board of Aldermen, either a big fireworks show or fizzle before the summer break as both minimum wage rate increase as well as NGA property buy out to be discussed. Of course, I know my feelings. A big min wage increase too soon while losing focus on retaining NGA will result in a short gain for some while continued long term jobs and business loss for the city and its residents as a whole.

I also wonder, will Board of Aldermen approve the Cargo Facility build out/lease or will the $77 million investment be on hold until Mexico approve its end of the dual customs facility agreement? Not sure where that sits. My understanding was that facility lease/terms from Airport/Cargo Carrier was forwarded to City Board of Aldermen for final approval

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 1734d.html

Pretty sure the minimum wage increase is going to die, painfully.

Board of Aldermen move forward on loan deal to finance NGA land acquisition. While give McKee cash sounds bad, I still think it is better for city to have control over property/site when it comes to trying to keep NGA.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... llion.html

Not sure on the status of a couple of other topics including Slay's revised minimum wage law as well as if they voted on Lambert Cargo lease deal?

There must be safeguards in place preventing developers from speculating on LRA property, only to resell LRA properties for higher prices without developing them? Especially incorrigible develoeprs like Paul McKee, who never bother to pay taxes, maintain buildings, or even cut the grass?

Or is this one of those "too big to fail" cases? Those pesky rules that apply to little people don't apply to powerful people like Paul McKee? Is that it?

^ A little of both no doubt, but as a city with a ton of unproductive, non tax producing property as some point some one with a plan and some cash to buy out some properties is a chance to take. Some of the biggest privately financed single resident housing developments on the horizon from respectable house builders are in St. Charles county, believe near Eureka, and another developer taking a run on the flats in Maryland Heights (why Chesterfield wants to gate River Rd).

The reality is that any cash back to McKee will most likely go back to the bank. So the "to big too fail" is a good way to put it.

Really? A lot of social media stuff against the stadium has been coming out, but it has been from a relatively small number of alderman and only two of them were on the committee.

I think you can expect same from the full board.

What large projects has the BOA backed recently that requires taking on a large amount of debt or raising taxes?

-This stadium (likely)
-Arch grounds
-the latest bond for city upgrades (that didn't pass correct?

What else?

I see a lot of the anti-stadium funding crowd, such as Ogilvie, say that we have many other needs as a city. I agree with that. We've got issues with crime, school quality, transportation/transit, etc. Why don't we ever see large scale bills with new taxes or bonds for those types of projects. Any thoughts?

The city doesn't fund schools. There was a $100M bond issue for SLPS on th ballot a few years ago that passed (I think it was a stimulus bill program)

An additional sales tax for transit kicked in when the county passed Prop M in 2010.

State voters defeated Amendment 7 a sales tax for transportation last Aug.

A sales tax for police and police pensions passed ~2006? It's gone mostly to pensions.

As you pointed out we had a bond issue on the ballot that was defeated. I wouldn't expect them to put another on so soon.

The BOA may not control school funding. But our property taxes and sales taxes go to SLPS. Approximately 2/3 of the budget is local taxes, not fed or state.

That bond failed because they tried to put in money for Mckee. I think it would've passed if it was a more straight forward bill

I meant the municipal gov't doesn't. Its citizens and property owners certainly do.
About 4/7 of property taxes and a 2/3% sales tax go to the SLPS.

The Comptroller recently proposed a no-tax bond issue that would pay for upgrades and maintenance for the Fire Dept. So that might be an example of what Pat was talking about if that proposal moves forward.

In terms of transit/transportation, it doesn't make sense to pass anything more that what we've done for Metro until its clear what the plan is.... having said that, I think the City needs to push the County to say whether it is in or out on pushing for a N/S line. If the county is out, then I think it makes sense to look at developing city funded projects. But that takes a process and isn't ideal.

As for schools, what would be the city-initiated funding proposal that otherwise wouldn't come from SLPS?

In regards to transit, I think the City needs to dictate what its plan is. I think most agree on NS Metrolink or some version of it. Why can't the city propose bonds backed by increases in property taxes, sales taxes, etc. for transit and require that those funds only go towards a NS transit project in a certain area? Metro can use those funds to build an additional line. OR some other entity like STL Streetcar can take those funds and build a transit line. OR the city can do something on its own. But I don't think its hard for the city to 1. pass something like that and 2. its the only way it'll get done. You could also require that those funds can't get used unless there is matching from the feds. Nothing goes into affect until an entity like Metro steps up and commits to a project. But its an incentive from the city. There's a pile of cash ready to use for transit if you put something together.

In regards to schools, they are strapped for cash. So there is no money for updating building infrastructure, adding technology, maintenance etc. I could city the city issuing a bond to upgrade all school technology, HVAC, lighting, etc. That would bring about a huge savings on operations for the SLPS. They could redirect that savings towards teacher pay, programming, preschool or after school care, etc.

And maybe you tie all this stuff together. You raise property taxes city wide slightly to pay for school upgrades, transit, and police. Raise property taxes slightly higher in the area immediately in the transit "zone". Put a sunset on the taxes so that they get reduced or go away after so long. I think if you can figure out the math and its palatable, this could work. People in the city are reasonable and know certain areas need help.