It's in the MO constitution.
Yeah, but BT isn't good either.cteclipse wrote: "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.
And I always the love the patented, urbanstl "hopefully..." qualifier
New County Executive Sam Page on BT:
(source: https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ne ... r#stream/0)
(source: https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ne ... r#stream/0)
Page also answered several questions on what could be the biggest issue of his tenure as county executive — the proposed merger between St. Louis and St. Louis County.
While emphasizing that he still needed to brush up on the specifics of the Better Together plan before taking a firm position, Page said he wasn’t enthused by how the proposal is going to statewide voters — as opposed to just city and county residents. Better Together’s organizers say the statewide vote is necessary to consolidate police departments and municipal courts.
“I guess my position on city-county merger, city-county working together is that it’s a missed opportunity and now’s the time to have this conversation. Right now,” Page said. “But I don’t believe that a process that does not leave this decision to St. Louis County voters and St. Louis City voters is the right process.”
If it passes, Page could make big decisions about how to follow through on the Better Together plan if he’s elected beyond 2020.
Also, the Municipal League of Metro St. Louis is trying to require Page and St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson to appoint what’s been historically known as the Board of Freeholders. That entity could potentially produce a merger plan that gets voted on by city and county residents. And while it was widely assumed that Stenger and Krewson would appoint people who wouldn't create a competing plan to Better Together, that’s not a sure thing with Page in office.
Ed Rhode, a spokesman for the campaign committee that was created to pass the Better Together plan, said in a statement Monday “while the reunification effort is unaffected by today’s development, we do believe that it underscores the need for change and the potential benefit of reforming and streamlining St. Louis government.”
Merger opponents like Councilman Ernie Trakas, though, said Stenger’s departure as county executive should make the public think twice about supporting the merger. The south St. Louis County Republican noted the plan had Stenger serving as the powerful metro mayor for four years — a plan that was changed after a county subpoena of the Stenger administration was publicly revealed.
“Like it or not, Better Together cannot escape its embracing of Steve Stenger as its designated and anointed mega mayor,” Trakas said. “That, at a minimum, screams poor judgment and ill-advised preparation.”
Dellwood Mayor Reggie Jones said Page needs to take a stronger and clearer stance on the merger. Along with other black municipal officials, Jones contends that the proposal will hurt African American political power — especially since the Better Together plan will create a majority white voting jurisdiction.
“We should have been made aware, as voters of St. Louis County, what Sam Page’s vision and what his stance on this Better Together proposal is,” Jones said. “That makes a big difference if he’s going to have my community supporting him — or Jennings or Normandy or whatever — we must know Sam Page’s stance. And right now, we just don’t know that.”
Councilwoman Lisa Clancy said she didn’t know how Page would end up affecting the merger debate, adding that she believes he takes a region-wide approach to problem-solving.
“I think a lot of us share some concerns about the Better Together recommendations,” said Clancy, D-Maplewood. “Time will tell how this shakes out in terms of the dynamics now with this conversation and how it moves forward now that we have a significant change in the cast of characters involved.”
- 3,760
I’m surprised it took them this long. I guess Steve Stenger’s corruption and indictment nailed the coffin shut on this proposal.
Seems that I was right:kipfilet wrote: Seems that Stenger is expected to resign today after his indictment, which I guess will bury this once and for all. I have been a staunch defender of "some small steps that are politically feasible are better than nothing", but have to now admit that nothing is better than something run by a bunch of crooks...
^^ I'd hardly say this is dead, though I'm sure many in the County would declare it as such. A regrouping is certainly in order, however and I see no issue with a delay considering all the recent changes in the County leadership. Now my real question is will the Municipal League and all those other folks saying only St. Louis residents should be in charge actually step up to the plate and attempt to enact their own change, because regardless of BT, change is sorely needed in St. Louis. If those that oppose BT just sit back and say "well we killed it, let's just keep on doing what we're doing" then we're going to have some serious problems.
Now is the time for those like the Municipal League and other opponents to step up to the plate and show us what they have. Let's see if they have the balls (my guess is they don't).
Now is the time for those like the Municipal League and other opponents to step up to the plate and show us what they have. Let's see if they have the balls (my guess is they don't).
I am totally for BT, but I also try to be a realist: my reading of the situation is that nothing like this would ever fly at the level of the County executive without the type of concessions that were made to Stenger (basically make him the unelected mayor of the metro city). After what happened this week, I doubt that giving this inordinate amount of unelected power to any member of the county executive will be out of question, which may also mean that such proposal will not have the full backing of the county. In all of this I am assuming throughout that BT is a EEC/EU-style political project: it has to be pushed "from the top down" as it will in no way survive a popular vote in the county.
Better Together fumbled badly and dropped the baton. I just hope someone with more skill picks it up and keeps going. This is no time to give up.
Now we'll find out who was really serious about a BoF. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the Muni League starts leading since they've punted for the last 100 years. It's impotency exemplifies how fragmentation fails.
I still would like to see on the short term the city brought back into the county and then the county start merging these tiny municipalities until they get to a reasonable number.
The big one time change to make it all one city sounds great but I don't know anyone I would trust with the power to run it or lead the charge to set up a new government at this point. Maybe the new county commish is okay but I don't know enough about him yet. I don't have much faith in anyone in the city at this point either.
The big one time change to make it all one city sounds great but I don't know anyone I would trust with the power to run it or lead the charge to set up a new government at this point. Maybe the new county commish is okay but I don't know enough about him yet. I don't have much faith in anyone in the city at this point either.
I would actually be perfectly fine with a large "mega-merger" or whatever one wants to call it. But I think what you've said here is probably the right way, but I would still maintain a lot of what BT was aiming to do. I'd also start with re-entry of the city into the county and then as far as the city goes, that would pretty much be it. The City keeps its charter, the Earnings Tax, and it's current leadership and structure in addition to all of it's debt and other obligations; ward reduction continues as planned etc. This next part would probably get some pretty significant push-back however and that would be merging all County municipalities into 4 large cities. Basically what we know as West, North, South, and Mid (Central?) County would all become their own cities. Kind of like a reverse NYC, instead of 5 counties within one city, you'd have 5 cities within one county. Right off the bat, I think this eliminates most concerns of city residents and also eliminates the need for a state wide vote. It doesn't blow up the current County government either, members would have to be added to the County Council however. County residents would likely push back pretty hard at the dissolution of the cities, but this would maintain some autonomy for each region of the county. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that most places in West County are on the same page as are those in North County and so forth. In a way this still maintains some of that inherent parochialism that STLers seem to adore so much, but at the same time really streamlining the way things are done.jshank83 wrote: I still would like to see on the short term the city brought back into the county and then the county start merging these tiny municipalities until they get to a reasonable number.
Where I would maintain some of BTs plan is the consolidation of services. Police, courts, economic development, transportation and infrastructure, would all be carried out at the County level (but instead of the County Police it would simply be the St. Louis Police Department, etc). I would take it a step further and add libraries, fire departments/districts, and school districts as well. The 5 cities would continue to carry out parks and recreation, snow removal, refuse, zoning, housing and urban development, preservation and other lower level services.
In some ways this reels in some of the more controversial aspects of BT, but in many ways it also goes a bit further. It sounds like UniteSTL (BT's public face) is planning on working with the Muni League and others on a BoF plan. Should be interesting to see what they come up with.
Better Together announced they are pulling the ballot initiative, though I don't believe they had even started collecting signatures.
I don't think it can be understated just how horrifically this flopped, after years of build up and deliberate preparation. The most charitable interpretation of the scheme Better Together was running was a plot by the wealthy in the region to cut taxes and shrink the public sector in St. Louis City/County. As I see it, Better Together operated as an opaque organization and acted in extremely bad faith towards the rest of St. Louis with its suspect funding and unknown motives. Any sort of real merger proposal is going to need actual buy in from the people of St. Louis and this clearly wasn't it.
I don't think it can be understated just how horrifically this flopped, after years of build up and deliberate preparation. The most charitable interpretation of the scheme Better Together was running was a plot by the wealthy in the region to cut taxes and shrink the public sector in St. Louis City/County. As I see it, Better Together operated as an opaque organization and acted in extremely bad faith towards the rest of St. Louis with its suspect funding and unknown motives. Any sort of real merger proposal is going to need actual buy in from the people of St. Louis and this clearly wasn't it.
There's a 6 month period after amendment language is submitted to SoS before signature gathering can start.Ebsy wrote: though I don't believe they had even started collecting signatures.
Another nail in the coffin:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... user-share
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... user-share
- 3,428
I fear the St. Louis area merge cicada has gone back underground and will wait there another 60 years before re-emerging. But before we let the chirping end, I thought I'd try to make a list of what I think could work for getting to something designated as a metro city. This is much less ambitious and a much smaller step than Better Together's proposal, and concentrates on merging and funding police as the primary glue that would form the basis for a new entity chartered by the state as a metro city. Hopefully, the fear of City residents losing what they have, and the fear of County residents losing what they have, would be so minimal with these steps, that voters could see it pales compared to what we could gain from setting up a weak but critical regional government.
-
[ol]
- St. Louis City joins the County and the combined city/county gets chartered by the state as a metro city with the name of "Saint Louis". The old St. Louis City is officially designated "St. Louis" with the abbreviation. Points below will use these designations to distinguish the new combined Saint Louis metro city from current St. Louis or St. Louis County.
- St. Louis County police will merge with St. Louis City police under a single Police Chief -- the plan proposed by current police chief of St. Louis County Jon M. Belmar a few months ago.
- Current towns in St. Louis County will keep their own police chiefs who will cooperate with the Saint Louis police chief as they do now with the Major Case Squad or as town Parks director work now with Great Rivers Greenway.
- Saint Louis (metro city) will fund a minimum level of police for each town wanting their own police chief, but any town may add more police to that minimum using local funds if they desire.
- The Saint Louis (metro city) Police Chief can shift personnel to towns or request temporary voluntary police deployments from towns as needed to address regional crime. The St. Louis City/County police chief will also be responsible for basic training to bring all police up to a constant high level of conduct and skill.
- All towns keep their town designations -- Kirkwood remains the Town of Kirkwood, not "municipal district Kirkwood".
- Town boundaries remain as they are now unless towns choose to voluntarily merge with each other as now, or merge with the City of St. Louis. Unincorporated portions of St. Louis County can choose to merge with St. Louis City, other towns, or remain part of the broader Saint Louis metro city if they choose.
- Planning and Zoning will be done by individual towns as now.
- The St. Louis County board will be replaced with the Saint Louis (metro city) board elected by districts of the metro city similar to current St. Louis County board members. (~10) This board will have the same powers and responsibilities as the current St. Louis County board, but will also approve the Saint Louis (metro city) police chief.
- A Saint Louis Mayor will be voted by all residents of Saint Louis (metro city) and will possess all powers and responsibilities of the current St. Louis County Executive, but will also propose the Saint Louis Police Chief to the Saint Louis board for approval.
- Current agencies that are already working as merged, such as Great Rivers Greenway, MSD, Regional Transportation and Port authorities, Fire District cooperation, etc, would continue as they are now, but would work through Saint Louis (metro city) council as required as regional issues, opportunities, or smart planning ideas emerge. New taxing authority can be approved by the Saint Louis (metro city) council as required to address region-wide advancement.
The problem with BT was not so much the content of the merger proposal itself, as its association with groups that made it politically infeasible. I am for any type of merger, as limited as it might be, as long as it is not run by crooks.
- 3,428
No. I think there was huge opposition to the plan from county mayors who did not want to lead a "municipal district". And huge opposition from city leaders who saw it as a way to reduce the influence of their particular constituency group.kipfilet wrote: The problem with BT was not so much the content of the merger proposal itself, as its association with groups that made it politically infeasible. I am for any type of merger, as limited as it might be, as long as it is not run by crooks.
Opponents couldn't explain that much wrong with the actual plan, but they got bailed out by BT's unlucky picking of the wrong top leaders for plan support. 60 years from now, folks will ask what was wrong with the plan, and the answer will be we screwed ourselves and our own region because we were briefly mad at some crooked guy named Stenger.
It turns out the BT plan was too ambitious for all but two local politicians to stomach. We need a less ambitions plan that clearly will offer a little bit of local hurt in exchange for attractions of a little bit of regional government that can levy laws and taxes on the majority of the region -- namely St. Louis City and County merged. Once that is in place, folks can gradually vote to give the new metro city additional authority for planning as they see success on regional issues and opportunities from small sunsetted tax initiatives with very specific goals tied to them. See MAPS for Oklahoma City which turned that place around like you wouldn't believe.
I believe that if none of the Stenger stuff had happened, the plan would still be on the table.
David Rusk Regionalism Presentation
http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/r ... 6sbc0a1c35
http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/r ... 6sbc0a1c35
- 8,907
I’ll be therequincunx wrote:David Rusk Regionalism Presentation
http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/r ... 6sbc0a1c35
I was surprised by the amount of angry opposition that came from my "progressive" friends (long before the Stenger issue). Seems like this kind of governmental consolidation would have been right up their alley. Turns out, the bottom line was their absolute hatred of "All Things Rex".
- 6,119
I don't think it was that it was from Rex so much as that it embodied his pet projects, eliminating the local earnings tax, without creating any good mechanism to replace it. Further, I myself was deeply troubled by the fact that county municipalities were treated one way but the city was treated a different way. County municipalities retained a real degree of independence and taxing authority that was denied to the "municipal corporation" replacing St. Louis. They retained their local governments, while St. Louis's was dissolved. All in all the plan was bad, not just the man behind it. It never made economic sense to me. It looked very much like it was specifically designed to bankrupt the city so that someone else could step in and take over even what little power was left. If this thing is going to fly they really need to have solid economic data rather than the smoke and mirrors special effects they were using. In short: they need a real plan. This was a ten page high school paper with a lot of appendices added in to make it look nice. There was so much "TBD" in it it was frightening.
And no, for the record, I don't have a better plan. But I'm not really sure one is needed. I'm not convinced our government is really responsible for that many of our problems. They mostly look to be effects of larger economic and demographic trends. (Which is why they so closely mirror other cities in similar situations, no matter their government. Detroit, say, which is entirely consolidated. Or Cleveland.)