It's pretty amazing how rent free I live in some of your heads. Pretty sad for you.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
- 1,793
Why should the city open its pockets for the County?
What is the County offering in return?
What is the County offering in return?
Getting rid of the St Louis Sheriff department wouldn’t be the worst thing.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑1:10 AM - Mar 15Why should the city open its pockets for the County?
What is the County offering in return?
- 2,051
I kind of think of this in a different way... where once the city is a part of the county "we the city" probably become a much larger bearer of power in the region and join the inner core (Clayton/Maplewood/Ucity/etc) that already votes like the city does and it changes the "look" of the region and where and how we use our money.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑1:10 AM - Mar 15Why should the city open its pockets for the County?
What is the County offering in return?
- 2,925
Interesting consideration is that the "new" County government, according to Page, would likely be based in the City.
- County government offices have to be gutted or closed down as-is.
- City has pretty City Hall and a whole lot of excess capacity at nearby office buildings.
- Talk of the Wainwright Building being a candidate new "County" office building.
I worry that prospect would scare county voters to death. Or at least they'd bristle at having to drive all that extra to reach county offices.
- 1,793
This is wishful thinking. Clayton may be blue but its priorities are directly oppositional to the City’s. City shouldn’t give its budget surplus to the county on the basis of wishful thinking.pattimagee wrote: ↑2:52 PM - Mar 16I kind of think of this in a different way... where once the city is a part of the county "we the city" probably become a much larger bearer of power in the region and join the inner core (Clayton/Maplewood/Ucity/etc) that already votes like the city does and it changes the "look" of the region and where and how we use our money.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑1:10 AM - Mar 15Why should the city open its pockets for the County?
What is the County offering in return?
- 2,051
We'll be on the same team in that future though... I just think our "goals" as a region change dramatically for the city AND the county when we are together... so much of what we do today hinders on competing with each other... Just think about this forum - we talk about incentives all the time, and a lot of that energy is based on losing development to the county, Illinois, or further.. and in the future let's hope we talk instead about where we want to incentivize different types of development and why... instead of hedging our tax incentives against a neighboring municipality...JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑7:34 PM - Mar 16This is wishful thinking. Clayton may be blue but its priorities are directly oppositional to the City’s. City shouldn’t give its budget surplus to the county on the basis of wishful thinkingpattimagee wrote: ↑2:52 PM - Mar 16I kind of think of this in a different way... where once the city is a part of the county "we the city" probably become a much larger bearer of power in the region and join the inner core (Clayton/Maplewood/Ucity/etc) that already votes like the city does and it changes the "look" of the region and where and how we use our money.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑1:10 AM - Mar 15Why should the city open its pockets for the County?
What is the County offering in return?
- 1,793
We would still be neighboring municipalities though. County munis constantly wage tax/spending wars against one another and that wouldn’t change with the City re entering the county
Can you say more about "Clayton may be blue but its priorities are directly oppositional to the City’s". Not trying to antagonize - just curiousJaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑7:34 PM - Mar 16This is wishful thinking. Clayton may be blue but its priorities are directly oppositional to the City’s. City shouldn’t give its budget surplus to the county on the basis of wishful thinking.pattimagee wrote: ↑2:52 PM - Mar 16I kind of think of this in a different way... where once the city is a part of the county "we the city" probably become a much larger bearer of power in the region and join the inner core (Clayton/Maplewood/Ucity/etc) that already votes like the city does and it changes the "look" of the region and where and how we use our money.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑1:10 AM - Mar 15Why should the city open its pockets for the County?
What is the County offering in return?
- 1,793
Clayton’s economic development model is luring white collar jobs from the city of St. Louis. It’s not interested in diluting its tax base for benefit of the city it’s trying to poach businesses from.
Sounds like conversations are already being had and he is just the messenger. It's obvious that a lot of powerful people want some sort of consolidation in St. Louis they're just trying to figure out how to package it.gone corporate wrote: ↑6:07 PM - Mar 16Interesting consideration is that the "new" County government, according to Page, would likely be based in the City.
- County government offices have to be gutted or closed down as-is.
- City has pretty City Hall and a whole lot of excess capacity at nearby office buildings.
- Talk of the Wainwright Building being a candidate new "County" office building.
Not really seeing the point here. Clayton allows high-density zoning with offices. Many other places in the region have office zoning. Should all places in the county ban offices? Are people sitting in a back room in Clayton, scheming about how to lure people out of St. Louis? Population centers naturally evolve into a multi-nuclei model as they mature. Is there something in Clayton's comprehensive plan that seems like a red flag?JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑2:18 AM - Mar 17Clayton’s economic development model is luring white collar jobs from the city of St. Louis. It’s not interested in diluting its tax base for benefit of the city it’s trying to poach businesses from.
- 2,925
@goat314 That is exactly my understanding here. Certain people I know, connected into the local power structures, have told me that they're aware that quiet conversations have been going on for some time on City/County reunification. Local business leaders on board with this. Page very much could be the best messenger, noting he's not seeking reelection and is effectively a lame duck with nothing to lose here.goat314 wrote: ↑2:33 AM - Mar 17Sounds like conversations are already being had and he is just the messenger. It's obvious that a lot of powerful people want some sort of consolidation in St. Louis they're just trying to figure out how to package it.gone corporate wrote: ↑6:07 PM - Mar 16Interesting consideration is that the "new" County government, according to Page, would likely be based in the City.
- County government offices have to be gutted or closed down as-is.
- City has pretty City Hall and a whole lot of excess capacity at nearby office buildings.
- Talk of the Wainwright Building being a candidate new "County" office building.
I think the point is that Clayton has a vested interest in the decline of the city since much of the city's office decline has been to the benefit of Clayton. Most cities of St. Louis' size do not have a secondary office market that can compete with the primary market anywhere close to Clayton's extent.Echo_216 wrote:Not really seeing the point here. Clayton allows high-density zoning with offices. Many other places in the region have office zoning. Should all places in the county ban offices? Are people sitting in a back room in Clayton, scheming about how to lure people out of St. Louis? Population centers naturally evolve into a multi-nuclei model as they mature. Is there something in Clayton's comprehensive plan that seems like a red flag?JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑2:18 AM - Mar 17Clayton’s economic development model is luring white collar jobs from the city of St. Louis. It’s not interested in diluting its tax base for benefit of the city it’s trying to poach businesses from.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Minneapolis has to compete with St. Paul. Not apples to apples but not that dissimilar. Not to mention the vast suburban head quarters of many large companies such as Best Buy, United Health Care, and Cargill to name a few.StlAlex wrote: ↑4:59 PM - Mar 17I think the point is that Clayton has a vested interest in the decline of the city since much of the city's office decline has been to the benefit of Clayton. Most cities of St. Louis' size do not have a secondary office market that can compete with the primary market anywhere close to Clayton's extent.Echo_216 wrote:Not really seeing the point here. Clayton allows high-density zoning with offices. Many other places in the region have office zoning. Should all places in the county ban offices? Are people sitting in a back room in Clayton, scheming about how to lure people out of St. Louis? Population centers naturally evolve into a multi-nuclei model as they mature. Is there something in Clayton's comprehensive plan that seems like a red flag?JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑2:18 AM - Mar 17Clayton’s economic development model is luring white collar jobs from the city of St. Louis. It’s not interested in diluting its tax base for benefit of the city it’s trying to poach businesses from.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Minneapolis has about a million more people than St. Louis and it's the only large city in the state. Not only is it not apples to apples, it's not even fruit to fruit.STLAPTS wrote:Minneapolis has to compete with St. Paul. Not apples to apples but not that dissimilar. Not to mention the vast suburban head quarters of many large companies such as Best Buy, United Health Care, and Cargill to name a few.StlAlex wrote: ↑4:59 PM - Mar 17I think the point is that Clayton has a vested interest in the decline of the city since much of the city's office decline has been to the benefit of Clayton. Most cities of St. Louis' size do not have a secondary office market that can compete with the primary market anywhere close to Clayton's extent.Echo_216 wrote: Not really seeing the point here. Clayton allows high-density zoning with offices. Many other places in the region have office zoning. Should all places in the county ban offices? Are people sitting in a back room in Clayton, scheming about how to lure people out of St. Louis? Population centers naturally evolve into a multi-nuclei model as they mature. Is there something in Clayton's comprehensive plan that seems like a red flag?
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
This would be like comparing STL to Providence, Norfolk, or Jacksonville.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
- 1,793
Clayton (and most of StL County) has a vested interest in seeing the City decline. That’s their economic model.
It is closer to 690k not a million. That is pretty comparable in size. 16th largest metro compared to the 22nd or 23rd. If MPLS is excluded you are utilizing far to small of a sample size.StlAlex wrote: ↑5:32 PM - Mar 17Minneapolis has about a million more people than St. Louis and it's the only large city in the state. Not only is it not apples to apples, it's not even fruit to fruit.STLAPTS wrote:Minneapolis has to compete with St. Paul. Not apples to apples but not that dissimilar. Not to mention the vast suburban head quarters of many large companies such as Best Buy, United Health Care, and Cargill to name a few.StlAlex wrote: ↑4:59 PM - Mar 17I think the point is that Clayton has a vested interest in the decline of the city since much of the city's office decline has been to the benefit of Clayton. Most cities of St. Louis' size do not have a secondary office market that can compete with the primary market anywhere close to Clayton's extent.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
This would be like comparing STL to Providence, Norfolk, or Jacksonville.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Let's pretend there is some future date when STL City and Clayton are part of the same jurisdiction (a complete merger if you will).
Assuming the one square mile of the current downtown Clayton isn't bulldozed to make a park, and assuming the high-income neighborhoods of Ladue, Webster, Kirkwood, Frontenac etc (which may be part of this bigger theoretical jurisdiction) are still in existence, isn't the region still faced with more or the less the same fundamental problem that exists today? There will still be a second high-density office environment closer to more affluent neighborhoods where the building owners are trying to fill their spaces with any comers? I mean, doesn't Midtown Manhattan compete against Downtown Manhattan even though they are in the same city?
If the goal is to revitalize the core of the current old city east of Jefferson, I just don't see where this changes very much except at the margins with a few firms that need to be near the official county seat. I write this even though I am in full support of a merger anyway.
Assuming the one square mile of the current downtown Clayton isn't bulldozed to make a park, and assuming the high-income neighborhoods of Ladue, Webster, Kirkwood, Frontenac etc (which may be part of this bigger theoretical jurisdiction) are still in existence, isn't the region still faced with more or the less the same fundamental problem that exists today? There will still be a second high-density office environment closer to more affluent neighborhoods where the building owners are trying to fill their spaces with any comers? I mean, doesn't Midtown Manhattan compete against Downtown Manhattan even though they are in the same city?
If the goal is to revitalize the core of the current old city east of Jefferson, I just don't see where this changes very much except at the margins with a few firms that need to be near the official county seat. I write this even though I am in full support of a merger anyway.
Yes. Midtown would be like Clayton and Downtown Manhattan would be like Downtown St. Louis. Priemer office space in midtown vs affordable office space in downtown Manhattan.stlokc wrote: ↑5:58 PM - Mar 17Let's pretend there is some future date when STL City and Clayton are part of the same jurisdiction (a complete merger if you will).
Assuming the one square mile of the current downtown Clayton isn't bulldozed to make a park, and assuming the high-income neighborhoods of Ladue, Webster, Kirkwood, Frontenac etc (which may be part of this bigger theoretical jurisdiction) are still in existence, isn't the region still faced with more or the less the same fundamental problem that exists today? There will still be a second high-density office environment closer to more affluent neighborhoods where the building owners are trying to fill their spaces with any comers? I mean, doesn't Midtown Manhattan compete against Downtown Manhattan even though they are in the same city?
If the goal is to revitalize the core of the current old city east of Jefferson, I just don't see where this changes very much except at the margins with a few firms that need to be near the official county seat. I write this even though I am in full support of a merger anyway.
STL: 2.81 millionSTLAPTS wrote:It is closer to 690k not a million. That is pretty comparable in size. 16th largest metro compared to the 22nd or 23rd. If MPLS is excluded you are utilizing far to small of a sample size.StlAlex wrote: ↑5:32 PM - Mar 17Minneapolis has about a million more people than St. Louis and it's the only large city in the state. Not only is it not apples to apples, it's not even fruit to fruit.STLAPTS wrote: Minneapolis has to compete with St. Paul. Not apples to apples but not that dissimilar. Not to mention the vast suburban head quarters of many large companies such as Best Buy, United Health Care, and Cargill to name a few.
This would be like comparing STL to Providence, Norfolk, or Jacksonville.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
MPLS: 3.76 million
Difference = 0.95 million
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
2020 census numbers are 690k difference. A more accurate count.StlAlex wrote: ↑6:08 PM - Mar 17STL: 2.81 millionSTLAPTS wrote:It is closer to 690k not a million. That is pretty comparable in size. 16th largest metro compared to the 22nd or 23rd. If MPLS is excluded you are utilizing far to small of a sample size.StlAlex wrote: ↑5:32 PM - Mar 17Minneapolis has about a million more people than St. Louis and it's the only large city in the state. Not only is it not apples to apples, it's not even fruit to fruit.
This would be like comparing STL to Providence, Norfolk, or Jacksonville.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
MPLS: 3.76 million
Difference = 0.95 million
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Yes! So I support a merger for a bunch of reasons. But when I read that it is Clayton's strategy to lure companies away from Downtown St. Louis, I just think "OK, but if the political jurisdiction of Clayton went away tomorrow the same fundamental reason that that area is attractive would still be there."STLAPTS wrote: ↑6:02 PM - Mar 17Yes. Midtown would be like Clayton and Downtown Manhattan would be like Downtown St. Louis. Priemer office space in midtown vs affordable office space in downtown Manhattan.stlokc wrote: ↑5:58 PM - Mar 17Let's pretend there is some future date when STL City and Clayton are part of the same jurisdiction (a complete merger if you will).
Assuming the one square mile of the current downtown Clayton isn't bulldozed to make a park, and assuming the high-income neighborhoods of Ladue, Webster, Kirkwood, Frontenac etc (which may be part of this bigger theoretical jurisdiction) are still in existence, isn't the region still faced with more or the less the same fundamental problem that exists today? There will still be a second high-density office environment closer to more affluent neighborhoods where the building owners are trying to fill their spaces with any comers? I mean, doesn't Midtown Manhattan compete against Downtown Manhattan even though they are in the same city?
If the goal is to revitalize the core of the current old city east of Jefferson, I just don't see where this changes very much except at the margins with a few firms that need to be near the official county seat. I write this even though I am in full support of a merger anyway.