^ I wouldn't bet on that last one haha.
- 2,419
I wouldn't, either.
But I think it comes down to a lot of county residents being stubborn and uneducated on the issue.
A healthier core means a healthier county.
But I think it comes down to a lot of county residents being stubborn and uneducated on the issue.
A healthier core means a healthier county.
I think the current BT plan is dead. I think something else will come up in its place but I think the BT plan is too tainted now to move forward. I got the notion that the thinking is out state people will think it is corrupt and would be against it at this point. Something new will take its place though and hopefully that is received better.
@goat314 @The Mayor I don't think that this will convince people outstate to blow up the system and start over. I imagine that even under the Better Together proposal that corruption will still happen. There were numerous cases under the Slay administration that were on par if not worse than Stenger's mistakes that went unnoticed. One involved Paul McKee another involved a Road Salt Company and then there were many others. Both paid to get their way (play). I understand corruption is hard to fight but at this point, I would let this take its course.
As for other ongoing issues, Kim Gardner is getting caught up in her own antics which will almost bring her down. You have Brandon Bosley's outrageous National Guard comment. A TV Report the other night had residents of the county concerned that their property taxes were going to go up due to a Countywide rise in home values, something Jake Zimmerman says is dandy. You have the ongoing close the workhouse campaign and a homeless problem that Elliot Davis keeps bring up. In the county, Wesley Bell is trying to reform his department in ways that are upsetting people while the City is passing on the "Boston Ceasefire" idea that Lewis Reed is trying to have done here to reduce homicides.
This circus is certainly not going to stop if we merge. In fact, I think it would cause more problems as the City-County divide will never fully go away. It will just be bickering and b*tching in the council chambers with little to no progress being made. Better Together, or whoever comes next if their plan is toast by now, needs to look at the current situation and then dive into the "what ifs".
It would be cool to have a City of over one million people but those thinking it's the promised land will be terribly let down. Our region will stay the same only there will be one less county. Crime will remain in area's where it's present, only the higher population will take the "per capita" amount down. A majority of the same leaders will remain. The dysfunction will remain. We have a lot of work to be done in both the City and County before we merge because if we were to at this point, it would be a big mess. County residents still feel like it's a bailout of the $2 Billion in debt that the city has accumulated over the years along with the pensions and school district. Some city residents would feel disenfranchised because a majority of the City Council members would reside in the current County and thus potentially calling the shots on what happens in the current City.
That's the end of my opinionated rant.
As for other ongoing issues, Kim Gardner is getting caught up in her own antics which will almost bring her down. You have Brandon Bosley's outrageous National Guard comment. A TV Report the other night had residents of the county concerned that their property taxes were going to go up due to a Countywide rise in home values, something Jake Zimmerman says is dandy. You have the ongoing close the workhouse campaign and a homeless problem that Elliot Davis keeps bring up. In the county, Wesley Bell is trying to reform his department in ways that are upsetting people while the City is passing on the "Boston Ceasefire" idea that Lewis Reed is trying to have done here to reduce homicides.
This circus is certainly not going to stop if we merge. In fact, I think it would cause more problems as the City-County divide will never fully go away. It will just be bickering and b*tching in the council chambers with little to no progress being made. Better Together, or whoever comes next if their plan is toast by now, needs to look at the current situation and then dive into the "what ifs".
It would be cool to have a City of over one million people but those thinking it's the promised land will be terribly let down. Our region will stay the same only there will be one less county. Crime will remain in area's where it's present, only the higher population will take the "per capita" amount down. A majority of the same leaders will remain. The dysfunction will remain. We have a lot of work to be done in both the City and County before we merge because if we were to at this point, it would be a big mess. County residents still feel like it's a bailout of the $2 Billion in debt that the city has accumulated over the years along with the pensions and school district. Some city residents would feel disenfranchised because a majority of the City Council members would reside in the current County and thus potentially calling the shots on what happens in the current City.
That's the end of my opinionated rant.
He was endorsed by the Unions, and the County Executive primary coincided with the Right To Work petition. So, a huge union turnout gave him his slim victory over Mantovani.KansasCitian wrote:
Not sure how Stenger ever got the gig. I am yet to meet a St. Louisan that actually likes him.
we need to blow everything up and start fresh and the BT plan is the only way to make that happen. Dont underestimate the silent support.
I get really frustrated by the "X, Y, Z need to get substantially better before considering merger" argument. Well if X, Y, and X, which are exacerbated by fragmentation, could get significantly better without merger, then what's the point of merger? The current system demonstrates it can't make X,Y, and Z substantially better. The argument is just another way of saying "I don't want merger to happen" without actually saying it.
- 2,630
I'm certainly not a huge fan of the BT proposal but despite some serious reservations, just getting on the same team will be huge for our cities future. Sure the crime stats will be diluted which is great, but we as a region need to be able to pull the rope in the same direction. Everything else is minor and can be addressed in the future IMO
I agree with BT in principle, I am just more and more wary of the group of people who are running it, and highly doubt that they have the best interests of the region in mind. As The Mayor put it up there, it just comes across as a bunch of sleazeballs trying to buy themselves a massive tax cut.
How so? Other than eliminating the 1% earnings tax, what are the massive tax cuts that would benefit them? I keep hearing that (and I'm not accountant and clueless on fiscal/taxation matters) but I don't see where that's hidden in the plan. Not being confrontational nor snarky, curious where the alleged money grab is.
No tax cuts are on the table, but this could potentially be a way to implement the political infrastructure that would allow them to implement those. Hence a trojan horse for these cuts.
Potentially? In addition to not being an accountant, I'm not a lawyer. But that sounds like 'speculation.'
"Perfect is the enemy of good" Man there is a lot of complaining from every side. I see the potential for regional benefits, which everyone will hopefully gain.
- 2,419
With a unified government and unified vision for the region, I think you'd see positive changes. With combined offices downtown, I would hope that you'd see some regional cooperation, with the realization that a healthy downtown and core means a healthy region.
Somebody needs to wake the county up and let them know they don't have a hot hand. They're broke, corrupt, and stagnant, too. This "bailout" nonsense that you hear from county residents is outlandish, foolish, and ignorant.
Somebody needs to wake the county up and let them know they don't have a hot hand. They're broke, corrupt, and stagnant, too. This "bailout" nonsense that you hear from county residents is outlandish, foolish, and ignorant.
Eliminating the Earnings Tax, which is part of the plan would be a pretty massive tax cut as it makes up close to $180 million of the current City's general fund. That is not speculation. Regarding other potential tax cuts, you're not wrong in that there is some speculation there but if you're familiar with Rex and his cronies at the Show Me Institute it's not really that much of a stretch to make that connection. BT has already stated they want to cut property taxes in half.shadrach wrote: Potentially? In addition to not being an accountant, I'm not a lawyer. But that sounds like 'speculation.'
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... deaa6.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... 2672c.html
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis ... d=31064043
I know about that and understand the concerns about the viability of St. Louis Metro City with lowered taxes across the board.
I questioned because kipfilet's statement "trying to buy themselves a massive tax cut" insinuates it only benefits them (the 1%) but not the rest. Or burdens the rest, hence sleazeballs. But the tax cuts you're referring to effect most of the general population—e.i., property owners, City residents, those who work in the City. In over words, it effects (or benefits depending on your POV) a lot of people.
I've read those articles. I thought the RFT one was the best. I read it a couple weeks ago and it has very valid points but in the end still struck me as a lot of assumptions regarding the potential for abuse, exclusion and nefarious activities.
To quote one of the STLtoday articles—
“Ultimately, I fear that the proposal is little more than a Trojan horse designed to advance a libertarian billionaire’s quest to cut taxes on the wealthy and defund government,” wrote Nahuel Fefer.
Again, speculation and personal opinion.
I asked because of the old adage "Where there's smoke there's fire." But all I come across is "there's gonna be smoke because this thing could catch fire." Ahh, maybe it will and we'll all get burned....
I questioned because kipfilet's statement "trying to buy themselves a massive tax cut" insinuates it only benefits them (the 1%) but not the rest. Or burdens the rest, hence sleazeballs. But the tax cuts you're referring to effect most of the general population—e.i., property owners, City residents, those who work in the City. In over words, it effects (or benefits depending on your POV) a lot of people.
I've read those articles. I thought the RFT one was the best. I read it a couple weeks ago and it has very valid points but in the end still struck me as a lot of assumptions regarding the potential for abuse, exclusion and nefarious activities.
To quote one of the STLtoday articles—
“Ultimately, I fear that the proposal is little more than a Trojan horse designed to advance a libertarian billionaire’s quest to cut taxes on the wealthy and defund government,” wrote Nahuel Fefer.
Again, speculation and personal opinion.
I asked because of the old adage "Where there's smoke there's fire." But all I come across is "there's gonna be smoke because this thing could catch fire." Ahh, maybe it will and we'll all get burned....
This must be where our disconnect is. I've never taken it as a tax cut just for the wealthy folks, but cutting taxes and eventually slashing government spending which will end up severely affecting the ability for the city to provide services. Yes, we'd all like a lower property tax bill, but at what cost? I saw this experiment in Kansas, Rex was actually behind some of that as well, it didn't work. Most everybody got a little bit of a tax cut under that plan too, well until they raised sales taxes, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, etc to cover the shortfalls which eventually amounted to over a billion dollars. That's more my concern. You're absolutely correct in that some of this is speculation and opinion (all three of those articles I linked are opinion pieces), but there is enough in Rex's past to give me pause here.shadrach wrote:
I questioned because kipfilet's statement "trying to buy themselves a massive tax cut" insinuates it only benefits them (the 1%) but not the rest. Or burdens the rest, hence sleazeballs. But the tax cuts you're referring to effect most of the general population—e.i., property owners, City residents, those who work in the City. In over words, it effects (or benefits depending on your POV) a lot of people.
Either way, you are correct in that there is no real way to know how exactly this will shake out. Like I mentioned above, Rex and others in the Kansas Experiment had a very willing electorate (in the beginning) and politicians ready to buy right in. St. Louis is quite a bit different politically and I'd like to think the residents could stamp some of his bigger impulses out. Time will tell.
At what costs? Agreed. I'm not intimately familiar with Kansas' tax slash although I've heard it was a 'flaming trainwreck on wheels' (yeah, I just made that up.) A lot of people are painting this as a power-grab by wealthy elites. I just don't see evidence for that.
And seriously, look at this metro. What's there to grab? If you can take these two nickels we call Metro St. Louis and make fifty cents out of it, then go ahead, take it.... Joking aside.
Personally, I don't like the speculation and fear. They're obfuscation tactics co-opted by the 'status-quo/do-nothing' crowd. For decades we've been awkwardly straddling a bad situation. As horrible as the merger could be, the status quo is horrible too. I just wish the ballot was written such that a NO vote against the merger is also a binding NO vote against the status quo.
and the frogs keep boiling.....
And seriously, look at this metro. What's there to grab? If you can take these two nickels we call Metro St. Louis and make fifty cents out of it, then go ahead, take it.... Joking aside.
Personally, I don't like the speculation and fear. They're obfuscation tactics co-opted by the 'status-quo/do-nothing' crowd. For decades we've been awkwardly straddling a bad situation. As horrible as the merger could be, the status quo is horrible too. I just wish the ballot was written such that a NO vote against the merger is also a binding NO vote against the status quo.
and the frogs keep boiling.....
Remember our current structure and approach has lead to rising property taxes and very high sales taxes. Even without the opportunity cost of running fragmentation mitigated to some degree by merger, there is still the weight of pension commitments and, even bigger I suspect, the infrastructure liabilities unmet by our auto-oriented development pattern experiment.
A merger plan that extends the geographic area to which the earnings tax is applied wouldn't have bery little chance of passing.
It's fascinating how to Rs merger is a scheme for dems to consolidate power and raise taxes while to Ds it's a Rex scheme to cut taxes.
A merger plan that extends the geographic area to which the earnings tax is applied wouldn't have bery little chance of passing.
It's fascinating how to Rs merger is a scheme for dems to consolidate power and raise taxes while to Ds it's a Rex scheme to cut taxes.
@shadrach @quincunx
Agreed with both of your comments and for the record I think we're mostly on the same page here. I'm still a yes on BT even with my concerns because nothing is as bad as the status quo currently is. If the BoF process was more than just a stalling tactic on the part of the municipalities I'd be fine with seeing two competing proposals on the 2020 ballot. BT and a potential reorganization through the BoF process. Whichever receives the most local votes goes into effect. The status quo needs to be eliminated no matter what. This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I'd be fine with reducing the E-Tax to a 1/2% and extending it over the entire Metro City with a corresponding drop in the sales and property tax.
By the way, a flaming train wreck is an apt comparison. Eventually people got so fed up over 20 Conservatives were voted out of the statehouse and replaced with center leaning Republicans and Democrats who immediately ended the tax policy, raised taxes, and then sustained those higher taxes over the governors veto. That's one thing that leaves me more hopeful with St. Louis...the residents there are not nearly as conservative as Kansans and likely won't put up with near as much bullsh*t as we did over here.
Agreed with both of your comments and for the record I think we're mostly on the same page here. I'm still a yes on BT even with my concerns because nothing is as bad as the status quo currently is. If the BoF process was more than just a stalling tactic on the part of the municipalities I'd be fine with seeing two competing proposals on the 2020 ballot. BT and a potential reorganization through the BoF process. Whichever receives the most local votes goes into effect. The status quo needs to be eliminated no matter what. This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I'd be fine with reducing the E-Tax to a 1/2% and extending it over the entire Metro City with a corresponding drop in the sales and property tax.
By the way, a flaming train wreck is an apt comparison. Eventually people got so fed up over 20 Conservatives were voted out of the statehouse and replaced with center leaning Republicans and Democrats who immediately ended the tax policy, raised taxes, and then sustained those higher taxes over the governors veto. That's one thing that leaves me more hopeful with St. Louis...the residents there are not nearly as conservative as Kansans and likely won't put up with near as much bullsh*t as we did over here.
It is not even obvious that earnings taxes need to be cut: one of the main issues right now with the region is City-County tax competition, and much of the tax base moving from City to County due to this arbitrage opportunity. Once consolidation and tax harmonization are achieved, this loophole is closed (unless firms choose to relocate from Clayton and Chesterfield to St Charles or Jefferson County, which I don't really see happening).
In any case, I would be hopeful that income and property tax revenues would be sufficient to potentially phase out the regressive sales tax.
If a consolidated City-County tax base allows for better public service provision at the cost of lower taxes, I am all for lowering them (any type of tax is distortionary after all, unless the aim is to correct some type of externality). I am just afraid that taxes will be lowered with no significant improvement in public service provision or long-term fiscal outlook for the consolidated entity. And given the political shenanigans that the BT people have been involved in, it would not totally surprise me at this stage that this would happen.
In any case, I would be hopeful that income and property tax revenues would be sufficient to potentially phase out the regressive sales tax.
If a consolidated City-County tax base allows for better public service provision at the cost of lower taxes, I am all for lowering them (any type of tax is distortionary after all, unless the aim is to correct some type of externality). I am just afraid that taxes will be lowered with no significant improvement in public service provision or long-term fiscal outlook for the consolidated entity. And given the political shenanigans that the BT people have been involved in, it would not totally surprise me at this stage that this would happen.
Today's Messenger column is a good account of all those shenanigans I refer to: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... user-share
I am a strong supporter of the proposal on paper (see my previous posts on this thread), but am really wary of the current leadership.
I am a strong supporter of the proposal on paper (see my previous posts on this thread), but am really wary of the current leadership.
That's not possible. A vote on a BoF plan can be the only thing on the ballot and must be 70 days from any primary or general election.The Mayor wrote: @shadrach @quincunx
If the BoF process was more than just a stalling tactic on the part of the municipalities I'd be fine with seeing two competing proposals on the 2020 ballot. BT and a potential reorganization through the BoF process. Whichever receives the most local votes goes into effect.