^ Sam Moore says he was bribed but then laughs it off. President Reed says Slay engages in pay to play politics and accuses him of rewarding city contracts in exchange for campaign donations. Green specifically described what she considered a bribe and how it's considered legalized bribery under the system. Was it her finest hour? No. But apparently all she needs to do is learn what code words, etc. to properly use and all is well in the land of misfit toys.
- 8,912
If you guys only watched House of Cards you'd know all this stuff is completely legal and common place.
Just a few points/comments I wanted to put out there. Sorry, CC, that most quote you. Yours just stood out more to me! 
The advantage of a 28-ward aldermanic system in this City, with its abysmal average voter turnout, is that the barriers to entry are significantly lower for an independent (might as well call them "insurgent" in STL politics!) candidate. And we'd actually begun to see those candidates present themselves in recent aldermanic elections, even winning a few (with all of 1,000 or so total votes in their favor!).
- - - - - -
If not more educated than her fellow aldermen, then at least she took it upon herself to better educate herself on the matter. For the majority of the Board to close their ears and minds to that data -- whether because they'd already made their decisions or because it came from the big, bad world outside of St. Louis -- well yes, that does actually warrant talking down to them.
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
On the matter of bribery -- and keep in mind, these were allegedly directed at her loved one(s)/relative(s) in order to encourage her aldermanic vote -- I hope the hearings tomorrow bring to light the exact persons/entities involved on each side. And I do expect there to be some level of legitimacy to the claims. Whether it's deemed serious enough to warrant response, no idea, but you don't just make those accusations up!
I really think you will be sorely disappointed once the dust settles, the "smaller government" cheering subsides, the new fourteen wards are drawn, and the old democratic guard inevitably circles its wagons to not only solidify support for its establishment candidate(s), but gets to do so across a much larger swath of the City.CarexCurator wrote:^2020 census! bring it on!
The advantage of a 28-ward aldermanic system in this City, with its abysmal average voter turnout, is that the barriers to entry are significantly lower for an independent (might as well call them "insurgent" in STL politics!) candidate. And we'd actually begun to see those candidates present themselves in recent aldermanic elections, even winning a few (with all of 1,000 or so total votes in their favor!).
- - - - - -
At the BoA's Council meeting to discuss the stadium, Ald. Green had the gall to seek out and share contributory information on the matter -- from economic reports and opinions of experienced individuals and departments outside of the St. Louis metro region. For that, she was twice made to cede the floor by point of order, as the majority of aldermen didn't consider this information "germane" (Pres. Reed's go-to response when he wants to quiet dissenting opinion).CarexCurator wrote:The worst you could say about Green is that she is tone deaf and talks down to her fellow aldermen as if she is educated and they are not. That's annoying, but that doesn't make her wrong or completely ineffective at her job.
If not more educated than her fellow aldermen, then at least she took it upon herself to better educate herself on the matter. For the majority of the Board to close their ears and minds to that data -- whether because they'd already made their decisions or because it came from the big, bad world outside of St. Louis -- well yes, that does actually warrant talking down to them.
- - - - - -
Not hubris on her part, but instinctual reaction from others. Really, her public speaking is the only thing that is holding Ald. Green back, procedurally. Too often, she's consulting her notes, voice wavering heavily or shifting her gaze while speaking at BoA. A semester or two of public speaking classes (or private lessons) would do wonders with the way she -- and the content of her words and research -- are perceived by other aldermen. Again, not really her fault. But it's Psychology 101 that a confident voice and assured presence better holds listeners' attention and manipulates opinions.CarexCurator wrote:She seems far more serious about her Ph.D. than her job sometimes, and that can lead to obnoxious hubris in how she communicates. If her decisions are otherwise good ones though, there's nothing to hold anything against her. What has she done that's would disqualify her from the short list of aldermen we really need to keep in office?
- - - - - -
On the matter of bribery -- and keep in mind, these were allegedly directed at her loved one(s)/relative(s) in order to encourage her aldermanic vote -- I hope the hearings tomorrow bring to light the exact persons/entities involved on each side. And I do expect there to be some level of legitimacy to the claims. Whether it's deemed serious enough to warrant response, no idea, but you don't just make those accusations up!
Pres Reed wouldn't commit to returning the campaign contributions from Romanik on the Mark Reardon Show on KMOX this afternoon saying the contributions were to his mayoral campaign which is now closed.
- 472
Maybe, but I just want to see a few wards, like the 19th, disappear. A few old guard will have to be pushed out. It'd be like Russ Carnahan vs. Lacy Clay. I've seen it before.Kevin B wrote:I really think you will be sorely disappointed once the dust settles, the "smaller government" cheering subsides, the new fourteen wards are drawn, and the old democratic guard inevitably circles its wagons to not only solidify support for its establishment candidate(s), but gets to do so across a much larger swath of the City.CarexCurator wrote:^2020 census! bring it on!
The advantage of a 28-ward aldermanic system in this City, with its abysmal average voter turnout, is that the barriers to entry are significantly lower for an independent (might as well call them "insurgent" in STL politics!) candidate. And we'd actually begun to see those candidates present themselves in recent aldermanic elections, even winning a few (with all of 1,000 or so total votes in their favor!).
Bosley or Moore against French, I would volunteer for.
Ogilivie against Vollmer would be a fight I'd put money and time into.
Ingrassia against Davis, I'd gonna go door to door for that.
Conway against Davis would be a win for the city as we'd lose one of them.
Conway against Vollmer would be the same sort of win.
Hubbard would be the victim of Coater or some other slay wanna be.
Krewson would take midtown.
Maybe I might be a little disappointed, but the city may be a different place in five years.
No man, I watched that exchange. Her delivery was painfully insulting. Maybe she was nervous, but she puffed herself up with the fact that she was an academic and knew better while they were ignorant and corrupt simpletons. Conway looked justifiably angry interrupting her about abstract letters not being germane to the bill in question. She was right and he was wrong, but that delivery undermined her message. Her response to Conway and Reed was like "How are experts not germane? You are ignorant and I am teaching you. What could be more germane than that?"Kevin B wrote:At the BoA's Council meeting to discuss the stadium, Ald. Green had the gall to seek out and share contributory information on the matter -- from economic reports and opinions of experienced individuals and departments outside of the St. Louis metro region. For that, she was twice made to cede the floor by point of order, as the majority of aldermen didn't consider this information "germane" (Pres. Reed's go-to response when he wants to quiet dissenting opinion).CarexCurator wrote:The worst you could say about Green is that she is tone deaf and talks down to her fellow aldermen as if she is educated and they are not. That's annoying, but that doesn't make her wrong or completely ineffective at her job.
If not more educated than her fellow aldermen, then at least she took it upon herself to better educate herself on the matter. For the majority of the Board to close their ears and minds to that data -- whether because they'd already made their decisions or because it came from the big, bad world outside of St. Louis -- well yes, that does actually warrant talking down to them.
- 3,762
the thing is, such information is so obviously germane—and Conway and Reed both knew it—that it's difficult to say it in a way that doesn't sound exasperated, and that doesn't pay tribute to their willful ignorance.CarexCurator wrote:Her response to Conway and Reed was like "How are experts not germane? You are ignorant and I am teaching you. What could be more germane than that?"
- 8,155
^ Way late and way weak. At least I got to learn from this disgusting ordeal that Reed is a small, small man.
- 8,155
Neither was Shane Cohn.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 7368d.html
Really is a sewer over there.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 7368d.html
Really is a sewer over there.
Man this is getting nasty. As bad as University City. And we wonder why more people don't want to get involved in politics.
- 3,762
^ yikes, Sharon Tyus. could have done without the quintessential KMOX commentary though.
^ holy sh*t. i though Shane Cohn and Michael Powers were friends...roger wyoming II wrote:Neither was Shane Cohn.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 7368d.html
Really is a sewer over there.
- 8,155
^ So disappointing. And after remembering these corruption charges slung against Slay, I have utter contempt for Reed:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 58b49.html
Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed held a press conference on Thursday afternoon accusing Mayor Francis Slay of engaging in “pay-to-play politics,” using city resources to raise campaign cash. Reed, who is running against Slay in the March 5 Democratic primary, alleged that the city's Board of Public Service awarded contracts to companies making campaign donations to the Mayor's re-election effort—sometimes on the same day the donation was received.
Reed said that he has talked to companies that say they were asked for contributions in order to get contracts, but he couldn't identify them by name.
Allegations of corruption are made rather regularly in this city, and here Reed himself is making serious but unsubstantiated charges of illegal activity. Were there hearings? Did he recant? Is he a nutjob?
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 58b49.html
Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed held a press conference on Thursday afternoon accusing Mayor Francis Slay of engaging in “pay-to-play politics,” using city resources to raise campaign cash. Reed, who is running against Slay in the March 5 Democratic primary, alleged that the city's Board of Public Service awarded contracts to companies making campaign donations to the Mayor's re-election effort—sometimes on the same day the donation was received.
Reed said that he has talked to companies that say they were asked for contributions in order to get contracts, but he couldn't identify them by name.
Allegations of corruption are made rather regularly in this city, and here Reed himself is making serious but unsubstantiated charges of illegal activity. Were there hearings? Did he recant? Is he a nutjob?
- 472
Thumbs down for KMOX for misquoting, offering stupid commentary, claiming to be the voice of St. Louis, and not providing any context to the situation. I'm sure Sharon Tyus is not the irrational person the commentator makes her out to be and that there was a build up to that exchange.
On the altercation, I have trouble imagining those two individuals in a serious fight. I have always found Michael Powers to be a gentle and thoughtful person that lends legitimacy to Reed's office, and I would be very surprised to learn that he's some sort of whip cracking thug patrolling city hall. A whip in the political sense maybe but not a threatening one. Smashed wine glass!
On the altercation, I have trouble imagining those two individuals in a serious fight. I have always found Michael Powers to be a gentle and thoughtful person that lends legitimacy to Reed's office, and I would be very surprised to learn that he's some sort of whip cracking thug patrolling city hall. A whip in the political sense maybe but not a threatening one. Smashed wine glass!
- 8,155
^^ CarexCurator,
I'm surprised to hear about Powers too, but I've also seen on twitter several women, including some who are not on Team Megan, allege him call them bitches, etc. and be very hostile. So it's not a good look. And I was also really disappointed to see Reed sic Tom Shepard on Megan as his first response to the Romanik mess. Not good at all.
^ As I understand it, earnings tax accounts for an even higher percentage of the city's revenues now than it did when the threat began.... and a partial reason for why the credit rating agency lowered ours last summer. I don't think as of yet there is any real plan to lower that reliance although I'm not even sure there is a reasonable revenue replacement if the earnings tax was taken away.
I'm surprised to hear about Powers too, but I've also seen on twitter several women, including some who are not on Team Megan, allege him call them bitches, etc. and be very hostile. So it's not a good look. And I was also really disappointed to see Reed sic Tom Shepard on Megan as his first response to the Romanik mess. Not good at all.
^ As I understand it, earnings tax accounts for an even higher percentage of the city's revenues now than it did when the threat began.... and a partial reason for why the credit rating agency lowered ours last summer. I don't think as of yet there is any real plan to lower that reliance although I'm not even sure there is a reasonable revenue replacement if the earnings tax was taken away.
In reply to question above about E tax: I think what isn't very well appreciated about the Earning tax is that it really can't be replaced with other revenue. State govt has to authorize all local taxes that Cities and Counties can levy. And we're already using almost all of those taxes. We don't have the ability, for example, to double the portion of the property tax that the City gets, or add 2% to the sales tax. Kansas City is in the same place.
The main local sources of revenue we have are the Earnings tax, sales taxes, property tax, payroll tax, and then various fees. If we lose earnings tax, at 31.5% of general revenue, we could probably raise fees and claw back 3 or 4%, but nowhere near what the earnings tax brings in.
I think we ought to be clear, really clear, that losing the earnings tax will result in immediate very severe service cuts, and municipal bankruptcy for StL & KC in a few years.
STL & KC aren't special though - if you take away 30% to 40% of any city's revenue across the country over a very short period, they'd also go bankrupt. Bankrupt cities mean enormous cuts to police and fire departments - and cuts literally everywhere else too.
The irony is that the Earnings tax is the best, most stable, fairest revenue source we have. Doesn't hit retired people or folks not working, unlike other taxes. And if you earn more, you pay more.
But takeaway should be this: There's no "plan" to replace E tax because there's no legal means to do it. State would have to give us a new tax, which is unlikely. E tax loss would truly be catastrophic for St. Louis residents and people who work here.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
The main local sources of revenue we have are the Earnings tax, sales taxes, property tax, payroll tax, and then various fees. If we lose earnings tax, at 31.5% of general revenue, we could probably raise fees and claw back 3 or 4%, but nowhere near what the earnings tax brings in.
I think we ought to be clear, really clear, that losing the earnings tax will result in immediate very severe service cuts, and municipal bankruptcy for StL & KC in a few years.
STL & KC aren't special though - if you take away 30% to 40% of any city's revenue across the country over a very short period, they'd also go bankrupt. Bankrupt cities mean enormous cuts to police and fire departments - and cuts literally everywhere else too.
The irony is that the Earnings tax is the best, most stable, fairest revenue source we have. Doesn't hit retired people or folks not working, unlike other taxes. And if you earn more, you pay more.
But takeaway should be this: There's no "plan" to replace E tax because there's no legal means to do it. State would have to give us a new tax, which is unlikely. E tax loss would truly be catastrophic for St. Louis residents and people who work here.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Do state legislatures understand or even care about the devastating effect losing this tax would be to the City? Is there a real chance the state could git rid of the earnings tax?
I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of us not having that income is more than a little scary to me, esp. as a property owner in the City. I think city residents realize the importance of this tax and i'm pretty angry that someone from outside our City is trying to basically run us into the ground.
I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of us not having that income is more than a little scary to me, esp. as a property owner in the City. I think city residents realize the importance of this tax and i'm pretty angry that someone from outside our City is trying to basically run us into the ground.
- 1,868
Well you see cutting the earnings tax would destroy the city government, which would be a great boon to the citizens because of reasons.
They don't care one bit. The state legislature would have one of the B2 bombers from Whitman AFB drop a nuclear bomb on St. Louis if they could.olvidarte wrote:Do state legislatures understand or even care about the devastating effect losing this tax would be to the City? Is there a real chance the state could git rid of the earnings tax?
I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of us not having that income is more than a little scary to me, esp. as a property owner in the City. I think city residents realize the importance of this tax and i'm pretty angry that someone from outside our City is trying to basically run us into the ground.
Does anyone have any idea on the services that will be cut first, by how much?