^That's been on my mind. How can that be done? How does State control enter into it?
Is anyone familiar with how Pittsburgh has dealt with these issues? It has a similar situation, tiny land area, 58.3 sq mi, depopulation, 1950 676K to 311K, small percentage of its metro, 2.4M, an industrial past, median income ~$29,000.
- 284
Pittsburgh is the only MSA in the country with more local governments per capita than St. Louis, according research by East West Gateway. It does, however, have some level of sales tax sharing between the city and Alleghany County. They also got rid of some extraneous county elected offices a few years back. And they do some joint purchasing.quincunx wrote:Is anyone familiar with how Pittsburgh has dealt with these issues? It has a similar situation, tiny land area, 58.3 sq mi, depopulation, 1950 676K to 311K, small percentage of its metro, 2.4M, an industrial past, median income ~$29,000.
http://www.alleghenyconference.org/CityCounty.asp
- 11K
This isn't correct at all. If Slay and Dooley pooled crime numbers and reported one stat sheet, they would dictate what's reported. And you're right, St. Louis isn't an exception. NO ONE is stating that it is. What people (including me) are saying is that our central city is not the same as other central cities. The St. Louis central city happens to hold a disproportionate amount of impoverished and dangerous neighborhoods. So maybe the most dangerous neighborhood in Boston is just across the city line - what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. Crime could stay the same in our metro region, but move across the county line and "St. Louis" would appear safer. Again, meaningless. The ultimate problem isn't one of debating whether crime's a problem in St. Louis or Chicago or Tuscaloosa, it's that we're not able to compare St. Louis to other cities and regions because we're comparing apples and oranges. The ranking make St. Louis appear to be a dangerous region and it's not. Now why is that so hard to understand?jivecitystl wrote:Slay and Dooley cannot determine what boundaries the FBI is going to assess when it comes to crime. The controversial FBI numbers measure ONLY CENTRAL CITY boundaries-- whether it's St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Dallas or wherever else-- STL is not any exception, contrary to local belief. For example, when the FBI looks at Pittsburgh's crime, they are not looking at all of Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh resides), they are looking ONLY at the municipality of Pittsburgh. There are some 90+ other municipalities in Allegheny County that are not included in the rankings because they are suburbs. For the life of me I cannot figure out why so many people have this misunderstanding. St. Louis City re-entering the County as a municipality would NOT change ANY of the crime stats whatsoever as they are currently measured. According to current methodology, STL would still be #1. The FBI does not leave it up to local governments to submit numbers for crimes committed within arbitrary boundaries.quincunx wrote:Of course there are things we could do that would be helpful that don't require reentry. For example if Slay and Dooley agree to report crime stats as one or not at all.
Alex is right here. The stats are reported by <b>department</b>. If St Louis County Police and St Louis City reported as one department, CQ Press would have no choice but to publish the stats for the whole city and county as a single entity.
- 835
Marigolds-- To combine STL City and County crime numbers would be equal to lying, for the purposes of this particular ranking, since again-- they are ONLY measuring central cities.
Alex, believe me-- I am with you. I think the crime rankings are HORRIBLE for the city's image. However, if St. Louis and St. Louis County combined their figures just to dilute our crime rate, then every other city should combine their numbers with their suburbs as well. Only then would it be fair. NONE of the other city crime stats include numbers from suburbs, so why should we? Just because it may make us look a little better?
The real solution would be to follow Chicago's lead and not release our crime numbers at all. That's the only reason the Windy City is never on these lists.
And honestly, I have a hard time believing that Slay and Dooley would succeed in pulling one over on the FBI. I'm sure they have fact checkers looking to be sure the numbers are for central cities only.
Alex, believe me-- I am with you. I think the crime rankings are HORRIBLE for the city's image. However, if St. Louis and St. Louis County combined their figures just to dilute our crime rate, then every other city should combine their numbers with their suburbs as well. Only then would it be fair. NONE of the other city crime stats include numbers from suburbs, so why should we? Just because it may make us look a little better?
The real solution would be to follow Chicago's lead and not release our crime numbers at all. That's the only reason the Windy City is never on these lists.
And honestly, I have a hard time believing that Slay and Dooley would succeed in pulling one over on the FBI. I'm sure they have fact checkers looking to be sure the numbers are for central cities only.
- 11K
That's not true. Many other "central cities" contain extensive suburbs. Every city and all their suburbs are ranked by CQ press - it just isn't reported with breathless abandon. The St. Louis metro area ranks 103rd most dangerous. Metro areas compare apples to apples because they use a standard measurement. "Central City" is not a standard measurement because each city defines itself.jivecitystl wrote:However, if St. Louis and St. Louis County combined their figures just to dilute our crime rate, then every other city should combine their numbers with their suburbs as well. Only then would it be fair. NONE of the other city crime stats include numbers from suburbs, so why should we?
- 835
I guess we're coming from two different angles here. Yes, a lot of cities contain suburban areas within their central city boundaries, which is what these rankings are measuring. But not all cities contain suburban areas-- San Francisco, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, DC, Boston, etc. etc. All those places are 100% urban within their city limits. At any rate, if STL is allowed to fudge its numbers by combining them with those of its suburbs, than every city should do the same-- even the sprawling cities like Dallas, KC, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, etc. If we're talking about metro area crime numbers, you are absolutely right, and I agree with you. But these rankings aren't measuring metro areas...they are measuring cities. And even though some city limits are physically much larger than others, there is really no way to make these measures equitable unless we draw a circle of the same radius around every single city and only count the number of crimes within that. SF, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc. all have smaller physical areas than STL City, yet they have fewer crimes per capita occurring within their limits than STL. If we were to combine the City and County's numbers, we'd be the only city in the study to do so, and that would not be accurate or fair to the other cities.
Trust me-- I HATE HATE HATE these rankings, and I DO NOT think STL is the "most dangerous city" in America because these misleading figures fail to tell the whole story, especially crime distribution within a given city. But we can't redraw our boundaries just because we don't like this study. It's only measuring city limits, as divergent as they are from place to place.
It's also important to note that just because some cities contain suburban areas within their boundaries, those areas are not considered suburbs.
Trust me-- I HATE HATE HATE these rankings, and I DO NOT think STL is the "most dangerous city" in America because these misleading figures fail to tell the whole story, especially crime distribution within a given city. But we can't redraw our boundaries just because we don't like this study. It's only measuring city limits, as divergent as they are from place to place.
It's also important to note that just because some cities contain suburban areas within their boundaries, those areas are not considered suburbs.
- 11K
With all due respect, I don't think you're looking at this from a crime perspective. Crime isn't about comparing X sq miles in one location to X sq miles in another, or one politically defined boundary with another. None of that tells us anything about crime. There are many variables, but just to highlight another, places like San Francisco and New York have seemed to become safer because they've become so expensive that affluent people (who statistically do not commit the type of crimes we're talking about here) dominate the central cities. I'd also argue that if St. Louis City combined crime numbers with U-City, Clayton, Maplewood, Webster Groves, Kirkwood, etc., we would still be talking about an urban, not surburban area.
I don't mean to nitpick and offer exceptions to every point. The real issue presented by the crime stats is that they don't tell us anything about crime.
I don't mean to nitpick and offer exceptions to every point. The real issue presented by the crime stats is that they don't tell us anything about crime.
- 835
Alex, I agree with you 110% that these numbers serve no purpose other than to make certain cities look much, much worse than they actually are. I also agree that the only meaningful measure of safety in any given place is to look at incidence of crime in the overall metro area. I wish the metro numbers were all that were publicized. I know this ranking fails to address some key factors in assessing how "dangerous" a place is:
-crime distribution - most violent crime occurs in a few select neighborhoods
-socioeconomic and demographic factors
-population density
-random vs. domestic vs. gang/drug-related crime
My only point is that as long as this flawed, misleading and damaging ranking is accounting for central cities only, St. Louis has to play by the same rules the other cities do. The other compact, purely urban, largely poor cities in this ranking are measured using the exact same metrics that were used to assess St. Louis-- cities only, no suburbs, not even inner-ring suburbs with urban characteristics. I'm not saying I agree with anything related to this sensationalized list of "dangerous" cities, but there is really no reason that St. Louis should be held to a different standard than the other cities. I am well aware that cities of 61 square miles cannot be credibly compared to cities that cover 400+ square miles, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. For this study's purposes, they are political boundaries.
-crime distribution - most violent crime occurs in a few select neighborhoods
-socioeconomic and demographic factors
-population density
-random vs. domestic vs. gang/drug-related crime
My only point is that as long as this flawed, misleading and damaging ranking is accounting for central cities only, St. Louis has to play by the same rules the other cities do. The other compact, purely urban, largely poor cities in this ranking are measured using the exact same metrics that were used to assess St. Louis-- cities only, no suburbs, not even inner-ring suburbs with urban characteristics. I'm not saying I agree with anything related to this sensationalized list of "dangerous" cities, but there is really no reason that St. Louis should be held to a different standard than the other cities. I am well aware that cities of 61 square miles cannot be credibly compared to cities that cover 400+ square miles, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. For this study's purposes, they are political boundaries.
- 11K
My point is the the "exact same metrics" do not measure the exact same thing. We might as well compare crime stats for a 100 sq mi area the shape of walrus with the left eye centered on City Hall in every major American city and then publicized a crime ranking that labels one city the "most dangerous". Hey, we'd be using the "exact same metrics".
I don't know why St. Louis must exhibit a slavish adherence to the metrics when a) they are grossly unfair and b) other cities (Chicago being example A) do not. I believe we're harming ourselves by following this line of thinking. As I understand it, the FBI doesn't dictate that we report the crime stats as we do. Not all municipalities do it. They simply compile what is reported and CQ Press declares St. Louis the most dangerous city in America. It's not cheating to decide not to subject our region to a distorted, inaccurate and damaging round of world-wide PR every year, it's commonsense.
(hey, kudos for joining the forum in 2004!)
I don't know why St. Louis must exhibit a slavish adherence to the metrics when a) they are grossly unfair and b) other cities (Chicago being example A) do not. I believe we're harming ourselves by following this line of thinking. As I understand it, the FBI doesn't dictate that we report the crime stats as we do. Not all municipalities do it. They simply compile what is reported and CQ Press declares St. Louis the most dangerous city in America. It's not cheating to decide not to subject our region to a distorted, inaccurate and damaging round of world-wide PR every year, it's commonsense.
(hey, kudos for joining the forum in 2004!)
- 835
Agreed! STL should opt out of reporting its crime to the FBI. I don't know why we didn't learn our lesson the first time we ranked #1 a few years ago. Oy, the stupidity!
It really makes me sick that we have this awful label. The stigma is damaging to our national image as well as among suburbanites. With the state of Missourah in charge of our police department, I doubt they'll ever stop reporting our crimes to the FBI.
It really makes me sick that we have this awful label. The stigma is damaging to our national image as well as among suburbanites. With the state of Missourah in charge of our police department, I doubt they'll ever stop reporting our crimes to the FBI.
^ This is a great point. If we stopped reporting/using the FBI standards, would our rankings in these stupid lists drop?
Although on principle I think we should be using the FBI standards if they are stricter, in the end if it is causing this PR nightmare then we should change our methodology.
Although on principle I think we should be using the FBI standards if they are stricter, in the end if it is causing this PR nightmare then we should change our methodology.
Chicago releases their crime numbers. They just compile numbers in a different manner that CQ Press does not approve of.jivecitystl wrote:The real solution would be to follow Chicago's lead and not release our crime numbers at all. That's the only reason the Windy City is never on these lists.
And honestly, I have a hard time believing that Slay and Dooley would succeed in pulling one over on the FBI. I'm sure they have fact checkers looking to be sure the numbers are for central cities only.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_08_il.html
(Line 19)
They do exactly what I just specified, combine statistics for all regions under their department's jurisdiction (though that is not why CQ Press does not include them). The FBI has no problem with this whatsoever, because the FBI only cares about numbers by department, not numbers by city, county, metro region, state, etc.
Just to add to this, the reason other cities do not combine numbers with their suburbs is that their suburbs refuse to give up their own police departments.jivecitystl wrote:Alex, believe me-- I am with you. I think the crime rankings are HORRIBLE for the city's image. However, if St. Louis and St. Louis County combined their figures just to dilute our crime rate, then every other city should combine their numbers with their suburbs as well. Only then would it be fair. NONE of the other city crime stats include numbers from suburbs, so why should we? Just because it may make us look a little better?
St Louis County is extremely rare in that is has 1 of only 34 full service county police departments in the country. Another example is New York City (which, incidentally, does combine stats for all five counties that it covers as well as New York City itself). When you look down the FBI UCR numbers and the CQ Press lists, every single full service county police department reports numbers for their entire county and rates are calculated for the entire county population; including St Louis County.
Just a quick point, Annapolis, MD, Arlington, VA, Athens, GA, Augusta, GA, Chesterfield, VA, Denver, CO, Fairfax, VA, Hilo, HI, Honolulu, HI, Las Vegas, NV, Lihue, HI, Nashville, TN, New Orleans, LA, New York, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Pittsburgh, PA, San Francisco, CA, and Williamsburg, VA all report their combined city and county numbers to the FBI currently.jivecitystl wrote:If we were to combine the City and County's numbers, we'd be the only city in the study to do so, and that would not be accurate or fair to the other cities.
The department would lose it accreditation (as well as a considerable amount of federal funding) if it stopped reporting statistics. That is not an option.jivecitystl wrote:Agreed! STL should opt out of reporting its crime to the FBI. I don't know why we didn't learn our lesson the first time we ranked #1 a few years ago. Oy, the stupidity!
- 453
It looks like from the sign up date he got a free subscription for Christmas!Alex Ihnen wrote: (hey, kudos for joining the forum in 2004!)
- 835
Marigolds-- just to address a few of your points:
1. I can't really figure out what Chicago is doing with its numbers. I see Chicago proper on the same list as East Peoria and a number of other cities that are nowhere near the Chicagoland area.
2. New York City comprises five counties: New York (Manhattan), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens (Queens), Bronx (Bronx) and Richmond (Staten Island). NYC only includes those counties, and every inch of those counties is considered NYC. These boroughs are coterminous with their county boundaries, so it makes sense that they would all be released together. The numbers cover only New York City and none of its suburbs.
3. San Francisco, Denver, New Orleans, Nashville and Philadelphia are all coterminous with their respective counties as well. There are no suburbs within those counties, only cities proper. This is a slightly different political designation than independent cities like STL and Baltimore, but for reporting purposes in this ranking it doesn't affect the outcome whatsoever. The cities and counties in those cases in are one in the same. I am pretty certain many cities in Virginia have similar designations. Not sure why Pittsburgh would merge its numbers with all of Allegheny County-- do you have a link to that source?
None of the evidence you provided (with the unusual exception of Pittsburgh (if in fact they report suburban numbers too), changes the fact that this ranking is looking only at central city population alone. It just so happens that several large cities are also one in the same with the counties that they are in, so that's why we see county numbers. Again, I'd love to see Pittsburgh's data.
1. I can't really figure out what Chicago is doing with its numbers. I see Chicago proper on the same list as East Peoria and a number of other cities that are nowhere near the Chicagoland area.
2. New York City comprises five counties: New York (Manhattan), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens (Queens), Bronx (Bronx) and Richmond (Staten Island). NYC only includes those counties, and every inch of those counties is considered NYC. These boroughs are coterminous with their county boundaries, so it makes sense that they would all be released together. The numbers cover only New York City and none of its suburbs.
3. San Francisco, Denver, New Orleans, Nashville and Philadelphia are all coterminous with their respective counties as well. There are no suburbs within those counties, only cities proper. This is a slightly different political designation than independent cities like STL and Baltimore, but for reporting purposes in this ranking it doesn't affect the outcome whatsoever. The cities and counties in those cases in are one in the same. I am pretty certain many cities in Virginia have similar designations. Not sure why Pittsburgh would merge its numbers with all of Allegheny County-- do you have a link to that source?
None of the evidence you provided (with the unusual exception of Pittsburgh (if in fact they report suburban numbers too), changes the fact that this ranking is looking only at central city population alone. It just so happens that several large cities are also one in the same with the counties that they are in, so that's why we see county numbers. Again, I'd love to see Pittsburgh's data.
That list was a list of all reporting departments in Illinois. I was pointing out that Chicago does report. CQ Press does not like the way that Illinois classifies reports, so they refuse to report any city in Illinois on their lists.jivecitystl wrote:Marigolds-- just to address a few of your points:
1. I can't really figure out what Chicago is doing with its numbers. I see Chicago proper on the same list as East Peoria and a number of other cities that are nowhere near the Chicagoland area.
2. New York City comprises five counties: New York (Manhattan), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens (Queens), Bronx (Bronx) and Richmond (Staten Island). NYC only includes those counties, and every inch of those counties is considered NYC. These boroughs are coterminous with their county boundaries, so it makes sense that they would all be released together. The numbers cover only New York City and none of its suburbs.
3. San Francisco, Denver, New Orleans, Nashville and Philadelphia are all coterminous with their respective counties as well. There are no suburbs within those counties, only cities proper. This is a slightly different political designation than independent cities like STL and Baltimore, but for reporting purposes in this ranking it doesn't affect the outcome whatsoever. The cities and counties in those cases in are one in the same. I am pretty certain many cities in Virginia have similar designations. Not sure why Pittsburgh would merge its numbers with all of Allegheny County-- do you have a link to that source?
None of the evidence you provided (with the unusual exception of Pittsburgh (if in fact they report suburban numbers too), changes the fact that this ranking is looking only at central city population alone. It just so happens that several large cities are also one in the same with the counties that they are in, so that's why we see county numbers. Again, I'd love to see Pittsburgh's data.
And I think you are missing something here.
No one reports to CQ Press. They report to the FBI. All those cities I mentioned (and you skipped a lot of them, like the Georgia cities) have multiple departments in their borders who combine statistics. It does affect the rankings. For example, San Francisco can remove any crimes that happened on the grounds of their airport from their numbers (because they are considered multijurisdictional even though the crimes happen in the city). St Louis City, meanwhile, must include any crimes that occur at Lambert (because Lambert's police force is considered part of SLMPD). Similarly for New York, any crime that is handled by multiple boroughs is considered a multijurisdictional crime and goes under a separate section of the UCR reports and is not counted in the CQ Press rankings.
Allegheny County has one police department, covering the entire county including Pittsburgh. Since the FBI takes reports from departments, not cities, that means that the Allegheny County police file a report and Pittsburgh does not. So Pittsburgh's numbers cover all of Allegheny County (minus crimes that would be considered multijurisdictional).
- 835
Thank you for clearing that up about Allegheny County. Now it makes sense. And I also understand what you're saying about SF vs. STL's data.
It really sucks that compact cities like STL get the $hit end of the stick when it comes to statistics like this. Everyone on this board seems to agree that it only makes sense to look at metro numbers as opposed to city.
Thanks again, Marigolds, for explaining the data I was unsure about.
It really sucks that compact cities like STL get the $hit end of the stick when it comes to statistics like this. Everyone on this board seems to agree that it only makes sense to look at metro numbers as opposed to city.
Thanks again, Marigolds, for explaining the data I was unsure about.
I couldn’t find concise summaries on the net so here is one. It all comes from Fragmented by Design, a must read for anyone concerned about this topic.
A Summary of Attempts at City-County Reorganization According to Fragmented by Design by E. Terrence Jones.
1875-76
To hell with you rubes
An amended constitution allowed for separation and charter
Proponentss: City business and land-owning elite tired of meddling by state and county. They wanted to get richer. They promoted lower taxes and enhanced checks and balances to voters.
Opponents: City and County elected officials. They wanted the status quo. Promoted fear of an all-powerful executive in the City and class warfare.
Separation: Fails 12,276 to 14,142
Recount: Passes 12,181 to 10,928
1925-26
Never mind, City takes over everything
Amended constitution via constitutional convention failed
A more narrow constitutional amendment via initiative passed
City 169,934 to 40,192
County 30,285 to 11,852
Statewide 477,766 to 385,516
Outlined Board of Freeholders for reorganization
Board of Freeholders was quite contentious. City members won, and a complete City takeover was the plan.
Proponents: Million Population Club, City elites. They didn't mount much of a campaign assuming County voters would jump at the privilege of being invited to join the City.
Opponents: County officeholders, municipal officials, and County Chamber of Commerce. They promoted fear of takeover and revenge for the City ramming through their plan.
City 54,558 to 8,067
County 10,955 to 22,148 Turnout 67%
Fail
1930
Metropolitan Federation
Academician wrote an amendment to create an overarching metropolitan government called “Greater St Louis” which would take on roles such as sewage, water, and major parks.
Put on ballot via voter initiative
Proponents: Chambers of Commerce of both City and County. “Make it a Greater St Louis in a Greater Missouri”
Opponents: Save St Louis County League, County elected officials, political party leaders. Promoted fear of City dominance.
Statewide 218,381 to 378,718
County 14,669 to 21,699
Fail
1958-59
Metropolitan Government layer
Lead by Alderman and academicians. Ignoring poll results, they formed a solution to a problem that the citizens didn’t see.
A new layer of government with a president and legislature with power over arterial roads, public transit regulation, land use planning, economic development, wastewater sewers, civil defense, and crime lab/police academy. The Board of Freeholders was more open, holding public hearings and broadcasting them on TV.
Proponents: City-County Partnership Committee, City and County Chambers of Commerce, good gov’t groups, media. Said small gov’t couldn’t cope with area-wide problems, overall planning was needed to prevent chaos, and economics competition with other metro required a unified approach.
Opponents: Citizens Committee against the district plan wanted full-blown merger. Citizens Committee for Self-Government lead by County muni elected officials, suburban newspaper publishers, and most Repub and Dem party leaders played upon doubts and fears. Mayor Tucker opposed.
City 21,343 to 43,479
County 27,633 to 82,738
Epic Fail
1962
Borough plan
Amendment to create a Municipal County with 22 boroughs each electing two representatives to a legislative council and an executive mayor
After getting the amendment on the ballot, very little effort was put into getting it passed. The voters would recognize a great plan and do the right thing.
Opponents: Citizens for Home Rule made of County businesses and elected officials. Promoted the sanctity of local autonomy and fear of a few dominating one-third of the state
Statewide 217,744 to 633,011
County 47,432 to 180,661 Turnout 68%
City 55,100 to 67,321
Epic Fail
1982-84
Civic Progress lead studies and wrote a plan for a charter municipal county. All but school districts, special districts, MSD and ZMD would be merged. The petition language for the Board of Freeholders would have limiting language. They opted not to seek petition signatures.
1987
Gene McNary led effort to combine County munis into 21 and add one or two City-County districts. The Board of Freeholders commenced drawing lines and settled on 37 munis and a joint Economic Development District Protection districts reduced to four. County earnings tax to replace property tax, zoning guided by a county-wide master plan.
Proponents: Good Gov’t groups led a soft-sell campaign via a community education effort.
Opponents: Mayors of Large Cities “any attempt to change municipal boundaries through forced consolidation or merger of existing cities would be divisive” Mayor of Velda Village “is there a secret, sinister plan in the works that would … dismantle all cities headed by black elected officials in St Louis County?” Court challenges over Freeholders. During the election campaign Countians Against High Taxes and Loss of Local Control led the fight. Supreme Court of US agreed to hear the case over whether Freeholder was unconstitutional under equal-protection, and the election date was postponed indefinitely.
A Board of Electors formed in 1990 and proposed a joint governance of Forest Park and a joint economic development district. On ballot in April 1992, City 47% yes, County 46% yes
Fail
Jones concludes all these failed because either side perceived itself as the stronger entity and didn’t want to marry down. In other regions where reform has been successful the city was already in the county and there wasn’t a dramatic difference in socioeconomic status. Instead of focusing on a prenuptial agreement, they focused on who does what.
My take
I see it as a failure of elites to understand the body politic. Whether business, political, or academic, they seemed to forget that the people would vote on it. Businessmen counted their potential riches, politicians played king by drawing lines on a map, academicians and good government advocates dreamed up a perfect government. “Vote yes because it’s good for you and we say so” or “we’re so awesome; how could anyone not like our plan?” are not effective campaign themes. If an attempt at reform is made in the near-term we must take the temperature of the public, answer their questions, assuage their concerns, and incorporate some of their ideas. We must rein in the elites. The petition language must bind the Board of Freeholders to an outline gleamed from the community discussion. And then when a plan is set to be voted on a well run and funded campaign must be waged.
Skepticism of elites is very high; after all they’ve done such a great job running our economy and governments lately. Federal elections of 2006, ’08, and ’10 have all been “throw the bums” out elections. When was the last time we reelected a governor? How many times has the junior senator's seat changed hands recently?
From the group meetings I've attended, I think we all get it. Previous attempts went too far and often came from positions of arrogance. We must be vigilant to avoid the temptation to play king. People's right to self-determination must be maintained. Reentry preserves this. It is not marriage. It sets the table for further reform that many of us desire.
Some of the people in the groups working on this effort would be considered elites. They are necessary for their connections, money, and power. And of course they care greatly for the region too. But reform cannot be seen as written by elites behind closed doors and handed down to the plebs.
We cannot keep failing at this. The County is almost filled-out and is losing population. The City may have turned the corner, but its median income is 60% of the County's. Will the City stall out? Will the County loose 100,000 people per decade like the City did? Staying separate is not working, and I think Joe Citizen is realizing it. For successful reform we cannot ignore the average citizen, the young, the poor; they all get to vote on this.
A Summary of Attempts at City-County Reorganization According to Fragmented by Design by E. Terrence Jones.
1875-76
To hell with you rubes
An amended constitution allowed for separation and charter
Proponentss: City business and land-owning elite tired of meddling by state and county. They wanted to get richer. They promoted lower taxes and enhanced checks and balances to voters.
Opponents: City and County elected officials. They wanted the status quo. Promoted fear of an all-powerful executive in the City and class warfare.
Separation: Fails 12,276 to 14,142
Recount: Passes 12,181 to 10,928
1925-26
Never mind, City takes over everything
Amended constitution via constitutional convention failed
A more narrow constitutional amendment via initiative passed
City 169,934 to 40,192
County 30,285 to 11,852
Statewide 477,766 to 385,516
Outlined Board of Freeholders for reorganization
Board of Freeholders was quite contentious. City members won, and a complete City takeover was the plan.
Proponents: Million Population Club, City elites. They didn't mount much of a campaign assuming County voters would jump at the privilege of being invited to join the City.
Opponents: County officeholders, municipal officials, and County Chamber of Commerce. They promoted fear of takeover and revenge for the City ramming through their plan.
City 54,558 to 8,067
County 10,955 to 22,148 Turnout 67%
Fail
1930
Metropolitan Federation
Academician wrote an amendment to create an overarching metropolitan government called “Greater St Louis” which would take on roles such as sewage, water, and major parks.
Put on ballot via voter initiative
Proponents: Chambers of Commerce of both City and County. “Make it a Greater St Louis in a Greater Missouri”
Opponents: Save St Louis County League, County elected officials, political party leaders. Promoted fear of City dominance.
Statewide 218,381 to 378,718
County 14,669 to 21,699
Fail
1958-59
Metropolitan Government layer
Lead by Alderman and academicians. Ignoring poll results, they formed a solution to a problem that the citizens didn’t see.
A new layer of government with a president and legislature with power over arterial roads, public transit regulation, land use planning, economic development, wastewater sewers, civil defense, and crime lab/police academy. The Board of Freeholders was more open, holding public hearings and broadcasting them on TV.
Proponents: City-County Partnership Committee, City and County Chambers of Commerce, good gov’t groups, media. Said small gov’t couldn’t cope with area-wide problems, overall planning was needed to prevent chaos, and economics competition with other metro required a unified approach.
Opponents: Citizens Committee against the district plan wanted full-blown merger. Citizens Committee for Self-Government lead by County muni elected officials, suburban newspaper publishers, and most Repub and Dem party leaders played upon doubts and fears. Mayor Tucker opposed.
City 21,343 to 43,479
County 27,633 to 82,738
Epic Fail
1962
Borough plan
Amendment to create a Municipal County with 22 boroughs each electing two representatives to a legislative council and an executive mayor
After getting the amendment on the ballot, very little effort was put into getting it passed. The voters would recognize a great plan and do the right thing.
Opponents: Citizens for Home Rule made of County businesses and elected officials. Promoted the sanctity of local autonomy and fear of a few dominating one-third of the state
Statewide 217,744 to 633,011
County 47,432 to 180,661 Turnout 68%
City 55,100 to 67,321
Epic Fail
1982-84
Civic Progress lead studies and wrote a plan for a charter municipal county. All but school districts, special districts, MSD and ZMD would be merged. The petition language for the Board of Freeholders would have limiting language. They opted not to seek petition signatures.
1987
Gene McNary led effort to combine County munis into 21 and add one or two City-County districts. The Board of Freeholders commenced drawing lines and settled on 37 munis and a joint Economic Development District Protection districts reduced to four. County earnings tax to replace property tax, zoning guided by a county-wide master plan.
Proponents: Good Gov’t groups led a soft-sell campaign via a community education effort.
Opponents: Mayors of Large Cities “any attempt to change municipal boundaries through forced consolidation or merger of existing cities would be divisive” Mayor of Velda Village “is there a secret, sinister plan in the works that would … dismantle all cities headed by black elected officials in St Louis County?” Court challenges over Freeholders. During the election campaign Countians Against High Taxes and Loss of Local Control led the fight. Supreme Court of US agreed to hear the case over whether Freeholder was unconstitutional under equal-protection, and the election date was postponed indefinitely.
A Board of Electors formed in 1990 and proposed a joint governance of Forest Park and a joint economic development district. On ballot in April 1992, City 47% yes, County 46% yes
Fail
Jones concludes all these failed because either side perceived itself as the stronger entity and didn’t want to marry down. In other regions where reform has been successful the city was already in the county and there wasn’t a dramatic difference in socioeconomic status. Instead of focusing on a prenuptial agreement, they focused on who does what.
My take
I see it as a failure of elites to understand the body politic. Whether business, political, or academic, they seemed to forget that the people would vote on it. Businessmen counted their potential riches, politicians played king by drawing lines on a map, academicians and good government advocates dreamed up a perfect government. “Vote yes because it’s good for you and we say so” or “we’re so awesome; how could anyone not like our plan?” are not effective campaign themes. If an attempt at reform is made in the near-term we must take the temperature of the public, answer their questions, assuage their concerns, and incorporate some of their ideas. We must rein in the elites. The petition language must bind the Board of Freeholders to an outline gleamed from the community discussion. And then when a plan is set to be voted on a well run and funded campaign must be waged.
Skepticism of elites is very high; after all they’ve done such a great job running our economy and governments lately. Federal elections of 2006, ’08, and ’10 have all been “throw the bums” out elections. When was the last time we reelected a governor? How many times has the junior senator's seat changed hands recently?
From the group meetings I've attended, I think we all get it. Previous attempts went too far and often came from positions of arrogance. We must be vigilant to avoid the temptation to play king. People's right to self-determination must be maintained. Reentry preserves this. It is not marriage. It sets the table for further reform that many of us desire.
Some of the people in the groups working on this effort would be considered elites. They are necessary for their connections, money, and power. And of course they care greatly for the region too. But reform cannot be seen as written by elites behind closed doors and handed down to the plebs.
We cannot keep failing at this. The County is almost filled-out and is losing population. The City may have turned the corner, but its median income is 60% of the County's. Will the City stall out? Will the County loose 100,000 people per decade like the City did? Staying separate is not working, and I think Joe Citizen is realizing it. For successful reform we cannot ignore the average citizen, the young, the poor; they all get to vote on this.
Can we please never use the word "elite" in the context ever again?
- 11K
^ That might be a fair point, but there's a lot of substance here. What does everyone think of past efforts and why they didn't result in a politically unified St. Louis region?
I think you guys are over-analyzing this.
In a nutshell: For most of the past 50 years, the County was thriving, while the City was in decline. The Suburban Majority simply didn't want to risk their comfortable, secure, trouble-free way of life. And the City was powerless to do anything about it.
But times, they are a-changing.
In a nutshell: For most of the past 50 years, the County was thriving, while the City was in decline. The Suburban Majority simply didn't want to risk their comfortable, secure, trouble-free way of life. And the City was powerless to do anything about it.
But times, they are a-changing.