While I am sympathetic to SP's statement, I do think that fiscal competition between City and County is a real problem for the region (a negative sum game).
- 6,119
^I don't want to imply that it was "fiscal competition," precisely, so much as a system engineered to fail. I strongly suspect from my reading of it that it was quite specifically written to wipe the government of St. Louis off the map. Not by St. Louis County, which probably couldn't care less, but by interests decidedly hostile to city government. Very persuasive interests that can make municipal euthanasia seem like a good idea. Well . . . I don't buy it. So, yes, I think I have an idea where the thing came from, and that's not a source I like. But it's also not an end I support. And no matter where it came from, the end appears the same: the ultimate collapse and erasure of the "municipal corporation" and its coterminal public school district. And along the way I suspect a few "undesirable socialist institutions" could probably also be removed with the rest of the "refuse."
What does solid economic data look like? Get the Fed to do it?symphonicpoet wrote: 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.
The analyses that consuultants do for muni's TIF pro formas isn't any better.
That's right, the forces influencing our metro formt he state, national, international will still exist. Fragmentation exacerbates some of them. Detroit isn't consolidated, nor is Cleveland. They are fragmentation too.symphonicpoet wrote: 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.)
Is this actually true? Everything I read and saw about BT said that the city and all of the county municipalities would be dissolved into "municipal districts." The County muni's wouldn't have retained any real independence outside of zoning, trash pick up and a few other low level services, many of them would have likely have folded anyway since many can't really support themselves as it is. They may have kept their mayor's and their council/aldermen but they would be significantly hampered from really doing anything. I believe the city was supposed to operate in a similar way, not that it really matters anymore.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.
100% agree with the concerns regarding the E-tax and how this would have affected the city overall, but I was never under the impression that county cities retained their local governments and the city was just dissolved into nothing.
I just hope something new is presented soon...one thing that really makes no economic sense is the way we do things now.
Detroit and Cleveland are not consolidated either...not even remotely. They do reside in a larger county (Wayne for Detroit, Cuyahoga for Cleveland, each of those counties are also full of dozens of little towns and cities), but they are not consolidated. Denver and San Francisco are two examples of consolidated city/counties. While Nashville and Louisville are more representative of what BT was interested in doing. At the very least St. Louis City needs to re-enter the county.
- 6,119
^I'm sorry. I rather thought this argument was about municipal fragmentation and consolidation, not whether or not a city is coterminal with the county or counties it occupies. As it happens, St. Louis is already coterminal with its county level entity. This whole coterminality thing seems utterly irrelevant to me. Some cities are. Others are not. And even those cities which are have neighbors that they cannot or have not absorbed. San Francisco is absolutely not in splendid isolation in its metropolitan area. Oakland comes to mind. Alameda. Berkley, Palo Alto, Fremont. San Fransplitsco has suburbs so famous they're household names virtually nationwide. It is absolutely not consolidated in any sense that has any importance at all. In fact, it's an even smaller portion of its metro area than we are. (9% to our 11.) It's land area is less even than that of St. Louis. (By nearly a third.) If you look at a map it's dead obvious that its borders were set artificially a very long time ago: like our own they're incredibly tidy. No odd bumpouts for annexations, just beaches and a line across the peninsula. A tiny bit of digging determines that they were split away from San Mateo County in 1856 in a process not terribly different from our own divorce. The big difference is that they changed the name of the county that no longer included San Francisco. As if we had renamed St. Louis Florissant County, or Clayton County. (Which might actually have saved a lot of trouble.) So far as I was aware, what was really meant was the ability to combine with neighbors. Detroit has clearly done so. Kansas City has done so so much they're spread into four counties.
I think there are two different things going on here. First, St. Louis's city government is unusually complex because it is old and possibly because it it incorporates county functions. I would even be willing to describe it as Byzantine. There are those that wish to simplify that, thinking that less government is better. They hold that the city's government is inefficient and wasteful. I am not in that camp. Second, the county is so very fragmented as to be reasonably called Balkanized. A partially overlapping set of people hold that this leads to inefficiency through redundant services. I can at least partially agree with that. But I think it's also exaggerated, as the number of service providers is really much smaller than the number of municipal governments, and there have been a lot of arguments posted that make me think cost per resident of local government is pretty much in line with similar metros providing similar services already. There were never remotely so many school districts, police departments, or fire departments. If there's a problem, it's in how municipalities fund themselves, but consolidation isn't necessary to change that. State law will suffice. State law is already beginning to have an impact, since it's set an upper limit on the portion of your funding that can come from fines and court costs. As enforcement went up under Koster a fair few small munis began to feel the pinch. Changing TIF law, or setting limits on sales taxes could also play into that. No real need to force consolidation for that. Though I see no harm in encouraging it.
Now, San Francisco's suburbs have combined quite a lot more often than ours. They have half as many, even though the area is twice as large. But again, there is absolutely nothing on earth that is presently preventing our suburbs from combining with one another. The city's reentry into the county is not at all necessary for that. There's tremendous fragmentation here, but it's not because the city isn't in the county. And there's no need to wipe the city out to fix it. If anything, San Francisco is a nice demonstration that the city being artificially separated from the county by a long ago divorce isn't necessarily important. And that other factors, like sexy beaches and nice weather are probably much more important. And still other factors, like a booming economy, are even more important still. In the end . . . geography is quite probably destiny, and searching for solutions by redrawing lines on maps is quite probably futile.
On the other hand, if you want to talk about a regional approach to education, health, and welfare then you might be on to something. That might actually help. But the BT plan did not address the latter two and made the former even more difficult by artificially enshrining the current system into a new city charter imposed from outside. So now that the thing is dead and we want to talk about improving things, let's talk about a regional approach to homelessness, unemployment, and underemployment. Let's talk about a regional approach to educational inequality. Let's talk about a regional approach to healthcare. We can do that.
I think there are two different things going on here. First, St. Louis's city government is unusually complex because it is old and possibly because it it incorporates county functions. I would even be willing to describe it as Byzantine. There are those that wish to simplify that, thinking that less government is better. They hold that the city's government is inefficient and wasteful. I am not in that camp. Second, the county is so very fragmented as to be reasonably called Balkanized. A partially overlapping set of people hold that this leads to inefficiency through redundant services. I can at least partially agree with that. But I think it's also exaggerated, as the number of service providers is really much smaller than the number of municipal governments, and there have been a lot of arguments posted that make me think cost per resident of local government is pretty much in line with similar metros providing similar services already. There were never remotely so many school districts, police departments, or fire departments. If there's a problem, it's in how municipalities fund themselves, but consolidation isn't necessary to change that. State law will suffice. State law is already beginning to have an impact, since it's set an upper limit on the portion of your funding that can come from fines and court costs. As enforcement went up under Koster a fair few small munis began to feel the pinch. Changing TIF law, or setting limits on sales taxes could also play into that. No real need to force consolidation for that. Though I see no harm in encouraging it.
Now, San Francisco's suburbs have combined quite a lot more often than ours. They have half as many, even though the area is twice as large. But again, there is absolutely nothing on earth that is presently preventing our suburbs from combining with one another. The city's reentry into the county is not at all necessary for that. There's tremendous fragmentation here, but it's not because the city isn't in the county. And there's no need to wipe the city out to fix it. If anything, San Francisco is a nice demonstration that the city being artificially separated from the county by a long ago divorce isn't necessarily important. And that other factors, like sexy beaches and nice weather are probably much more important. And still other factors, like a booming economy, are even more important still. In the end . . . geography is quite probably destiny, and searching for solutions by redrawing lines on maps is quite probably futile.
On the other hand, if you want to talk about a regional approach to education, health, and welfare then you might be on to something. That might actually help. But the BT plan did not address the latter two and made the former even more difficult by artificially enshrining the current system into a new city charter imposed from outside. So now that the thing is dead and we want to talk about improving things, let's talk about a regional approach to homelessness, unemployment, and underemployment. Let's talk about a regional approach to educational inequality. Let's talk about a regional approach to healthcare. We can do that.
- 1,291
Byzantine. That's... a surprisingly accurate way to describe the City government, no matter if you're coming from a purely linguistic angle or from a historical perspective. The Byzantine Empire was the remnant of a once immense empire, and carried over many of the same aspects and traditions of that old empire through the Middle Ages even as the rest of the world changed and evolved around them. They stagnated by clinging to their old ways, and the world passed them by and eventually relegated them to the history books. The late empire was also a hodgepodge of administration - centralized power, but also very strong independence in how each thema operated as part of the whole. Eerie are the similarities - at least in some regards.symphonicpoet wrote:I think there are two different things going on here. First, St. Louis's city government is unusually complex because it is old and possibly because it it incorporates county functions. I would even be willing to describe it as Byzantine.
- 985
^ Yes, Byzantine would describe city government. And i would compare the County to the Holy Roman Empire while at at with its patchwork of municipalities.
Only question is how much appetite is there in the electorate to change anything? The internet and social media are not representative of the populace as a whole so its sometimes hard to tell. If i had a hunch not really and heavily age=based. There was in my guess a chance to pull it off but after 2014 the region got more divided.
Only question is how much appetite is there in the electorate to change anything? The internet and social media are not representative of the populace as a whole so its sometimes hard to tell. If i had a hunch not really and heavily age=based. There was in my guess a chance to pull it off but after 2014 the region got more divided.
This thread is about fragmentation and consolidation, I don't think we've really gotten off topic here. You said that Detroit and Cleveland were "entirely consolidated." That's simply not true, they are within a larger county however, they are not conterminous either, as they don't share common boundaries with their counties, they exist as municipalities within those counties, something I think could and should be done in St. Louis (reentry). Philadelphia would be a good example of a city that is conterminous with its county while still technically having a separate county from the city (even if it's really in name only as the City of Philadelphia administers most county functions there).symphonicpoet wrote: ^I'm sorry. I rather thought this argument was about municipal fragmentation and consolidation, not whether or not a city is coterminal with the county or counties it occupies. As it happens, St. Louis is already coterminal with its county level entity.
San Francisco is a consolidated city-county. I'm not talking about entire regions being consolidated, obviously there are still suburbs in the San Francisco area. San Francisco consolidated in 1856. Denver in 1902.
Other good examples that delineate the difference between types of corporation between counties and cities can be read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_city-county
Regarding your last point, I'm in full agreement. School districts should be consolidated. The health department should be consolidated (something Sam Page and Lyda Krewson apparently discussed in a meeting a few days ago). And while "welfare" is a bit of a broad stroke, those types of programs and initiatives should be administered together as well. As should courts, policing and a multitude of other things. Smaller County municipalities should merge with their larger neighbors, etc. Unfortunately our current structure makes even those things difficult (save the last point as we've seen a few small mergers and disincorporations in the last couple years). Just having the city renter the county would go a long way towards making it easier for the city and county to work together without blowing the whole thing up and forming some massive consolidated city. Simply leaving things the way they are and hoping the people that have been in charge for decades change their minds and start working together just doesn't seem like the most prudent course of action at this point.
I sincerely hope none of this came off as mean or aggressive as others have accused, I really wish there was a way to convey tone on these boards haha. I think for the most part we're all on the same team and want St. Louis to be the best it can be. We may disagree on how to get there, but I think the discussion is important and worth having. If we all just sat around affirming what others said I don't think the discussion on UrbanSTL would be near as robust and interesting as it is today.
Respectfully,
J
- 6,119
^No worries. It's an animated discussion, but I hope we can respectfully disagree. Rather than saying San Francisco "consolidated" in 1856 I'd say they broke away (or were forcefully split away) from their county. San Francisco County used to be San Francisco and all of what is now San Mateo County. So . . . it's really a pretty close parallel to our own divorce.
Further, I don't really mean to imply that Detroit (and certainly not Cleveland) completely overlaps with their county government. I simply wanted to say they had consolidated more with their neighbors. I was under a false impression regarding Detroit encompassed all of Wayne County, I confess, but the important thing was that they'd combined with their neighbors more freely and more often than we. They represent quite different political situations and comprise larger percentages of their metro areas, yet the economic outcomes are similar. Where San Francisco has a very similar political situation and represents an even smaller part of its metro area, yet the economic outcome couldn't be more different.
Note: per the definition Wiki uses
Further, I don't really mean to imply that Detroit (and certainly not Cleveland) completely overlaps with their county government. I simply wanted to say they had consolidated more with their neighbors. I was under a false impression regarding Detroit encompassed all of Wayne County, I confess, but the important thing was that they'd combined with their neighbors more freely and more often than we. They represent quite different political situations and comprise larger percentages of their metro areas, yet the economic outcomes are similar. Where San Francisco has a very similar political situation and represents an even smaller part of its metro area, yet the economic outcome couldn't be more different.
Note: per the definition Wiki uses
That perfectly describes the city of St. Louis. We are both a municipal government and an administrative division of the state of Missouri and the city has the powers and responsibilities of both entities. Which basically is another way of saying that the difference between an "independent city" and a "consolidated city/county" is more than a touch academic. So far as I can tell there's no actual administrative or functional difference, merely a difference of the terminology used in the enabling legislation. That part makes no real difference. The important question is whether consolidation of or with our myriad OTHER local governments would help anything. So using San Francisco or Denver as examples is . . . not particularly illustrative. We're already that. We just have a different name. Nashville and Indianapolis might well be better examples, but their demographic, economic, and geographic situations are different enough from our own that I'm not remotely convinced it would produce a particularly similar result here.In United States local government, a consolidated city-county is a city and county that have been merged into one unified jurisdiction. As such it is simultaneously a city, which is a municipal corporation, and a county, which is an administrative division of a state. It has the powers and responsibilities of both types of entities.
Byzantine. Holy Roman Empire. So true!!
So was BT trying to mimic Otto Von Bismarck’s heavy-handed unification of the old ‘Confederation of the Rhine?’
So was BT trying to mimic Otto Von Bismarck’s heavy-handed unification of the old ‘Confederation of the Rhine?’
- 6,119
^I thought it was more like Tito in the Balkans, really. And to be fair, much of the Balkans was once a part of the Byzantine Empire, so . . . there's even a connection there. As Byzantium fell apart it left the Balkans in its wake. So Balkanized. I'm sticking with that. You got your Serbs in Des Peres, your Croats in Kirkwood, your Bosnians in . . . well, they actually are in south county, but to draw a parallel lets put the not-Bosnian Bosnians in, oh, Ferguson, maybe. Honestly, small enclaves all over the county. There really are some parallels. Waves of invasion and conquest, differences of culture and religion, but somewhat related languages. Periodic friction. And the sheer and utter impossibility of putting it all together, even if people periodically dream.
Some thoughts on governmental fragmentation and St. Louis County's "Doomed Cities":
https://www.constructforstl.org/white-p ... ed-cities/
https://www.constructforstl.org/white-p ... ed-cities/
StlToday - Now that Better Together's plan is dead, let's create something that's truly better
https://www.stltoday.com/business/colum ... ed807.html
https://www.stltoday.com/business/colum ... ed807.html
- 39
The Mayor wrote: San Francisco is a consolidated city-county. I'm not talking about entire regions being consolidated, obviously there are still suburbs in the San Francisco area. San Francisco consolidated in 1856. Denver in 1902.
Other good examples that delineate the difference between types of corporation between counties and cities can be read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_city-county
Another distinction is the physical area of these consolidated city-counties. San Francisco and Boston (consolidated city-county until 1999) are only 47 and 48 sq mi by land area respectively, and are urbanized to some extent in their entire city limits, while Louisville and Nashville are 380 and 504 sq mi, with a lot of suburban and rural land, which has major consequences for how services are distributed geographically and how development may occur. A consolidated St. Louis would be 570 sq mi, with a lot of suburban/rural land similar to Louisville and Nashville.symphonicpoet:
That perfectly describes the city of St. Louis. We are both a municipal government and an administrative division of the state of Missouri and the city has the powers and responsibilities of both entities. Which basically is another way of saying that the difference between an "independent city" and a "consolidated city/county" is more than a touch academic. So far as I can tell there's no actual administrative or functional difference, merely a difference of the terminology used in the enabling legislation. That part makes no real difference. The important question is whether consolidation of or with our myriad OTHER local governments would help anything. So using San Francisco or Denver as examples is . . . not particularly illustrative. We're already that. We just have a different name. Nashville and Indianapolis might well be better examples, but their demographic, economic, and geographic situations are different enough from our own that I'm not remotely convinced it would produce a particularly similar result here.
The Muni League turned in sigs in the city. An application to be on the Board of Freeholders is on the city website
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/mayor/freeholders.cfm
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/mayor/freeholders.cfm
- 71
Am really interested to hear what others think the outcome of this will be. I am surprised the Muni League continued gathering signatures, as their vote to begin doing so appeared purely reactionary in response to BT. With BT out of the way, what could possibly result from going through with this? If we can at the very least consolidate municipal courts and have the city rejoin the county, I think that would be a positive step - but I'm not optimistic.quincunx wrote: The Muni League turned in sigs in the city. An application to be on the Board of Freeholders is on the city website
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/mayor/freeholders.cfm
- 6,119
^If you think something is rotten and want to prevent that happening the most permanent way to do that might be to see that something better happens instead. If nothing else, BT seems to have inspired some frank discussion of what we as a region really want and need. We may not agree, but at least we're talking about it now. Maybe something worthwhile will come from this.
As more dirt keeps coming out from the Stenger affair, we start realizing the true dimension of the black hole that BT was:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... b97d6.html
I am surprised that the Mayor is allowed to still push for airport privatization given all of this.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... b97d6.html
I am surprised that the Mayor is allowed to still push for airport privatization given all of this.
- 592
If the Board of Freeholders presents a plan, does it have to come to a public vote?Am really interested to hear what others think the outcome of this will be. I am surprised the Muni League continued gathering signatures, as their vote to begin doing so appeared purely reactionary in response to BT. With BT out of the way, what could possibly result from going through with this? If we can at the very least consolidate municipal courts and have the city rejoin the county, I think that would be a positive step - but I'm not optimistic.
Yes, they have up to a year to formulate a plan. Not sure if there are any official checks on the plan. Like a fiscal note or like how the SoS verifies a ballot initiative is go to go.
It can be the only thing on the ballot and not within 10 weeks of a primary or general election. By my math that puts it in June of 2021.
It can be the only thing on the ballot and not within 10 weeks of a primary or general election. By my math that puts it in June of 2021.
- 71
Did anybody else go to the City/County divide forum at the library last night? I thought it was pretty disappointing. Mike Jones and Jo Mannies were clearly the most intelligent and informed people on stage, but they're both retirees (as were three others on that stage). I think the best thing Krewson and Page could do is stack their BoF nominees with young people - i.e. people who haven't been trying and failing for the last 40 years to come up with a solution.
Stl Public Radio - Municipal League of Metro St. Louis About To Launch Board of Freeholders Process
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/mu ... rs-process
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/mu ... rs-process
Little background from the PD on the Freeholder process and the separate, but still important County Charter Commission.
The final signatures have been turned in and should be validated by Friday. After that, Krewson and Page have 10 days to each appoint 9 members to the board (can't have more than 5 from one political party). Governor Parson then appoints the final member. Pat Kelly, Director of the Municipal League, hopes the Freeholder process will make the City's reentry into the County a top priority.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... op-story-2
The final signatures have been turned in and should be validated by Friday. After that, Krewson and Page have 10 days to each appoint 9 members to the board (can't have more than 5 from one political party). Governor Parson then appoints the final member. Pat Kelly, Director of the Municipal League, hopes the Freeholder process will make the City's reentry into the County a top priority.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... op-story-2