urbanSTL

Sounds fantastic. How do we get the ball rolling?

Seriously, does anybody know what steps would/are required for any of these potential plans?

1. Re-entry
2. Full merger
3. A multi-borough city

I've read about the city having to approve and the county having to approve and the charter having to change and the state having to change the constitution and all kinds of stuff. But I don't know if it's all accurate, if it ALL has to be done or if it's interchangeable, or if it all applies to each of those options.

Professor Terry Jones, Political Scientist at UMSL, has outlined the steps and what will need to be considered for re-entry. http://pprc.umsl.edu/pprc.umsl.edu/data ... eentry.pdf

He covers the Board of Freeholders route. I disagree that the circuit courts have to combine if reentry happens. Might be a good idea, might not, it's a separate discussion. Civic Progress' analysis in the 80s concluded that the court circuits are a state concern and the state legislature can change the circuits or leave them alone.

Another uncertainty is whether the petition language that creates the BoF can bind them to something specific. Jones says no. The petition language that ultimately lead to MSD in the 50s did. It would be nice to bind the BoF so that they stick with reentry and aren't tempted to go for full merger or some other scheme that won't pass.

The point hasn't been litigated like a lot of the BoF process since it's been done so few times. This is one of its problems. Opponents have ample opportunity to tie things up in court, whereas the amendment process has been done many many times.

^Yes, a borough plan was put to a vote in the early 60s, and it failed.

Yes, after reentry annexation of unincorporated areas and merging in a neighboring town could happen via the same process as any other muni annexing or consolidating (not to say that that's easy). Now it takes a BoF process to add one acre of land to the City of St. Louis.

I suspect it would be easier if munis disincorporated then were annexed rather than consolidating.

I could see some neighboring munis contracting services from the city. Is that something that can only happen if the city is in the county?

Would anyone want to be annexed? Would city pols want to annex?

The city of Jennings contracts with the SLPD, so I imagine contracting other services can happen now as well.

EDIT: ^ That's wrong. It's the county as noted below.

I think it's the St Louis County PD that they contract from. The link to "Police Department" on the Jennings website goes to the St Louis County PD.

You're right. I misread Wikipedia it looks like. Nevermind.

And here's the opposition!

http://www.dontmergeus.com/
https://www.facebook.com/stopthecitycountymerger

I would settle for reentry, but the ultimate goal should be merger.

goat314 wrote:I would settle for reentry, but the ultimate goal should be merger.

I know this may sound provincial, controversial, and please feel free to argue with me about it, but I honestly don't want greater influence from suburban-minded thinkers and voters having say on development and budgetary matters in the city. Catering to surburbanites already dominates downtown development policy without suburban voters having any public authority to make decisions. I'm for re-entry, as it would be more efficient and effective for everyone while retaining City autonomy in many issues, but I'm not necessarily supportive of merger.

DannyJ wrote:

goat314 wrote:I would settle for reentry, but the ultimate goal should be merger.

I know this may sound provincial, controversial, and please feel free to argue with me about it, but I honestly don't want greater influence from suburban-minded thinkers and voters having say on development and budgetary matters in the city. Catering to surburbanites already dominates downtown development policy without suburban voters having any public authority to make decisions. I'm for re-entry, as it would be more efficient and effective for everyone while retaining City autonomy in many issues, but I'm not necessarily supportive of merger.

Well I think you already answered yourself, the suburban areas already have a great influence over what happens in the city. What is unfortunate is that the urban core has no forum to make a rebuttal. Let's also not forget that inner belt cities like Clayton, University City, Maplewood, Normandy etc. share more in common with the core than say Chesterfield or Fenton. Reunification would actually give urban issues more leverage on a regional and statewide level.

I support merger over reentry, because that would truly streamline service, reduce costs, force St. Louis to think big, and put an end to the retail wars (which reentry doesn't). Also large cities like Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego wipe the floor up with cities like St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland when it comes to competing for federal funds, media attention, corporate relocation, securing big events, growing their economies, redevelopment projects etc. and a big part of that is economies of scale. Currently, Chesterfield and Richmond Heights see no benefit in urban redevelopment and are not obligated to contribute. In a merged city/count, people in West County may not see the advantages of a strong core, but will have no choice but to participate because their tax dollars would go towards it. With merger, more suburbanites would support fixing the streets downtown, because the argument would be made that St. Louis is the 8th largest city in America, our downtown looks like a sewer, we have to fix that etc.

Better go for a statewide vote, because locally, black leaders won't support this. It will go down the way the Charter Reform A,B,C and D measures did: In flames, fanned by black political opposition.

That's my thought, although I don't know who will vote for what. But I'm pretty sure a local vote won't do it.

And I know it's a super lame compromising of principles, but yeah, if going over the head of the people involved is what it takes to get the smart thing done, then let's do it.

Local polling looked OK. I prefer a statewide Const Amendment vote mainly because it gets ride of the Board of Freeholders language. While it appears to offer us great flexibility on what we can do here in reality iyt's cumbersome process that has only gotten two things done, the separation and MSD. Also it's been gone through so few times I feel it it wide open for litigation. This happened the last time. It went all the way to SCOTUS which said that the Board had to be opened up to non land owners (Freeholders) which is why it would probably be called a Board of Electors (simply someone eligible to vote in the jurisdiction)

For what reasons would black leaders not support it? Is it that many of the county-type office staff and office holders are black? Or that the bigger county won't do any better than the city? I'd pose the same question to them as to opposition in the county, how is the status quo working for us?

Currently the AA population in the County is 25% and in the City 50%. After reentry it would be 33% in the county and 50% in the city. Seems like a plus to me.

FWIW Rep Lacy Clay endorsed reentry in 2011:

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/columni ... 03286.html

For what reasons would black leaders not support it? Is it that many of the county-type office staff and office holders are black? Or that the bigger county won't do any better than the city? I'd pose the same question to them as to opposition in the county, how is the status quo working for us?

Ask Antonio French, Alderman 21st Ward or Lizz Brown, local radio talk show host and you might get a lot of reasons. I suspect chief among them would be both telling you that regardless of merger or re-entry, the result is a reduction in black political power. As Exhibit A, they might bring up the proposed elimination of the License Collector's office.

jstriebel wrote:That's my thought, although I don't know who will vote for what. But I'm pretty sure a local vote won't do it.

And I know it's a super lame compromising of principles, but yeah, if going over the head of the people involved is what it takes to get the smart thing done, then let's do it.

This might be one of those strange situations where the state may have to save St. Louis from itself. There are definitely too many political factions, fiefdoms, and old guard types that would kill any progress on a local level. Rex will probably get this on the ballot in the next few years and sell it to the out state by saying "we could get rid of the income tax if St. Louis got its act together and eliminated big government".

The conspiracy in the county is that Rex, Slay, and Dooley are conspiring to consolidate power while in the city it's conspiracy to get rid of the earnings tax. I don't think reentry results in losing the earnings tax since the city endures. Under other grander merger schemes it probably would since the city would be taken over in whole by the county.

My message out-state would be "Help fix St. Louis"

Virvus Jones @VirvusJ 1h

City/county merger is emerging as just a ruse to help Rex Sinquefield and his democratic mopes use camouflage getting rid of earnings tax.

I found these numbers interesting in the Top Employers article from the Post Dispatch:

St Louis City 6,683
St Louis County 4,188

What about the Assessor?