66
New MemberNew Member
66

Post2:56 PM - Apr 16#1701

gary kreie wrote:
11:46 PM - Apr 15
East and West Berlin merged.  I think we can figure out water.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously it can be done. I suppose infrastructure and services is a cart before the horse. A dissolution of St. Louis City County and entrance as a municipality into St. Louis County is one thing, annexation of incorporated areas is another.

Ultimately since I am assuming residents of unincorporated areas largely would like to keep it that way, an involuntary City led annexation would have to clear a court approval and then require a vote in both the City and the annexed area to pass a simple majority, and if the annexed area does not pass it would then have to pass a 2/3 supermajority in a second attempt. Even if all of that passed it would be a years long process for the city to gain areas of low-density, poorly planned land and all of its infrastructural issues and irregularities. For example, a city that has ambitions of being a walkable and equitable place would now have large swaths of area with no sidewalks and abysmal land use it would have to contend with. 

35
New MemberNew Member
35

Post4:09 PM - Apr 16#1702

^^Also would have to make it past the St. Louis County Boundary Commission which is written into state law. Good luck with that.

226
Junior MemberJunior Member
226

Post4:18 PM - Apr 16#1703

kg2024 wrote:
2:56 PM - Apr 16
gary kreie wrote:
11:46 PM - Apr 15
East and West Berlin merged.  I think we can figure out water.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously it can be done. I suppose infrastructure and services is a cart before the horse. A dissolution of St. Louis City County and entrance as a municipality into St. Louis County is one thing, annexation of incorporated areas is another.

Ultimately since I am assuming residents of unincorporated areas largely would like to keep it that way, an involuntary City led annexation would have to clear a court approval and then require a vote in both the City and the annexed area to pass a simple majority, and if the annexed area does not pass it would then have to pass a 2/3 supermajority in a second attempt. Even if all of that passed it would be a years long process for the city to gain areas of low-density, poorly planned land and all of its infrastructural issues and irregularities. For example, a city that has ambitions of being a walkable and equitable place would now have large swaths of area with no sidewalks and abysmal land use it would have to contend with. 
Just as a reminder, Kansas City is 315 square miles, stretches into four different counties, and has farms within city limits (see below). I think the City of St. Louis could manage having different land uses, including traditional suburban ones.

[A scene from the northern end of Kansas City, MO:

KansasCity.jpg (286.03KiB)
]

439
Full MemberFull Member
439

Post5:16 PM - Apr 16#1704

LocalGovSTL wrote:
4:09 PM - Apr 16
^^Also would have to make it past the St. Louis County Boundary Commission which is written into state law. Good luck with that.
Exactly. Getting the City back into the County as a standalone municipality would be the most significant event in the region's history, second only to the City's founding and the Great Divorce itself. City annexation of unincorporated parts of StL County sounds nice, and may be workable as step 20 in a multi-decade unification strategic plan, but its a complete non-starter in the current (or medium-term) political climate. Including it on day one would completely derail the whole initiative before it got off the ground. Nobody should even mentioned it outside of the confines of this forum.

3,822
Life MemberLife Member
3,822

Post6:39 PM - Apr 29#1705

Not sure if this video has been posted here before, but I came across it randomly, thought it told the story of our City well. 


12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

Post4:57 PM - Jun 12#1706

From St. Louis Magazine:

"Clayton, several other county municipalities explore regional fire authority: 

Leaders in Clayton want to know whether there’s a better way to deliver fire and EMS services. Clayton’s City Council on Tuesday approved an agreement to join six neighboring municipalities in a regional feasibility study that will examine the potential creation of a fire authority. The partnership includes Clayton, University City, Webster Groves, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, Shrewsbury, and Olivette. The neighboring cities of Ladue and Brentwood were asked to join the effort, but declined. Clayton City Manager David Gipson said municipal fire departments across the region are facing rising costs and increasingly fragmented services, and leaders in each of the partner cities want to know whether a regional approach might help to streamline administration, standardize equipment and training, improve firefighter recruitment and retention, and allow for seamless response across municipal boundaries. The seven cities will split the cost of the study evenly, with an initial cap of $40,000 per municipality. A steering committee of elected officials, city managers, fire chiefs, finance directors, and union representatives is expected to begin meeting as soon as this summer. The study will evaluate whether a regional body would be practical, how it might be governed, and what it ultimately would cost."

2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

Post7:28 PM - Jun 19#1707

framer wrote:
4:57 PM - Jun 12
From St. Louis Magazine:

"Clayton, several other county municipalities explore regional fire authority: 

Leaders in Clayton want to know whether there’s a better way to deliver fire and EMS services. Clayton’s City Council on Tuesday approved an agreement to join six neighboring municipalities in a regional feasibility study that will examine the potential creation of a fire authority. The partnership includes Clayton, University City, Webster Groves, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, Shrewsbury, and Olivette. The neighboring cities of Ladue and Brentwood were asked to join the effort, but declined. Clayton City Manager David Gipson said municipal fire departments across the region are facing rising costs and increasingly fragmented services, and leaders in each of the partner cities want to know whether a regional approach might help to streamline administration, standardize equipment and training, improve firefighter recruitment and retention, and allow for seamless response across municipal boundaries. The seven cities will split the cost of the study evenly, with an initial cap of $40,000 per municipality. A steering committee of elected officials, city managers, fire chiefs, finance directors, and union representatives is expected to begin meeting as soon as this summer. The study will evaluate whether a regional body would be practical, how it might be governed, and what it ultimately would cost."
Of course the union loves this. The idea is not to save money, really. It's to free up some more scraps in order to raise firefighter salaries into the stratosphere to compete with the districts.

Unless the restriction on the supply of firefighters is lifted which means (a) removing the County Fire Academy training requirement, and (b) allowing EMS to operate separately, fire service in this metro area will become an albatross that bankrupt cities. It has already started (Hazelwood and Crestwood). This is ironic given that there are 90% or more fewer fires to fight than there was 50 years ago.

598
Senior MemberSenior Member
598

Post2:34 PM - Jun 26#1708

Disappointing, but not surprising, to hear none of the Democratic candidates for County Executive are in favor of a merger or re-entry. 

Particularly disappointed in Brian Williams after hearing him tell how if he were County Executive at the time the May 16th tornadoes, he would have been down at City Hall with the Mayor standing shoulder to shoulder. 

I get it, you're trying to win the highest office in the County but I want to be excited about something. The Knicks can end a 53-year championship drought and I'm still waiting, 150 years now, for the City and County to play ball.

3,822
Life MemberLife Member
3,822

Post8:34 PM - Jun 30#1709

Well this is a move in the right direction:  From the STLBJ 

Mayor Spencer says city-county merger deserves serious consideration

St. Louis Mayor Cara Spencer has opened the door to a city-county merger or major government restructuring. Spencer cites ongoing fiscal pressures, population loss, and fragmented public services as the primary drivers for exploring consolidation efforts between the city and St. Louis County. 

City-County Collaboration
While a full-scale reunification has historically struggled to find community support, Spencer has actively backed coordinated approaches to governance. Recently, she indicated support for consolidating emergency management agencies to better share resources during severe weather events.
St. Louis County Executive Sam Page has also expressed an openness to discussions regarding service integration and the city potentially becoming a municipality within the county. Local officials and residents have begun sharing input through public engagements hosted on platforms like St. Louis Public Radio. 

3,462
Life MemberLife Member
3,462

Post12:32 AM - Jul 01#1710

When can we start calling the combined city, plus unincorporated county, St. Louis? We should do what Berliners did when it was announced that the Berlin Wall would no longer be guarded. The people merged the city themselves and forced politicians to catch up and finish merging the governments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read more posts (-15 remaining)