urbanSTL

The latest population estimate I could find was 356,587 for 2009. Divided by 28 equals 1:12,735. Add the BOA president and you get 1:12,296.

I have been advised that Missouri Constitution Article VI Section 30 is the relevant legal framework.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A06030a.HTM
http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A06030b.HTM

"They have a meeting tomorrow at Metro Lighting in the Brentwood Promenade at 2 pm. I plan to attend."

Could you suggest to them to start a facebook page?

quincunx wrote:356,000 people/28 aldermen = 12,714

Hmmmmm. Although I understand the math involved, are the Alderpeople peanut butter spread across the population? I thought they were delineated by ward?

ttricamo wrote:

quincunx wrote:356,000 people/28 aldermen = 12,714

Hmmmmm. Although I understand the math involved, are the Alderpeople peanut butter spread across the population? I thought they were delineated by ward?

They are. But the wards are divvied up every ten(?) years to represent a roughly equal share of the population. It's been nearly ten, so there's probably been some shifting. But that 12,700 per alderman wouldn't be far off.

Imran wrote:"They have a meeting tomorrow at Metro Lighting in the Brentwood Promenade at 2 pm. I plan to attend."

Could you suggest to them to start a facebook page?

They say they're on the way.

Facebook page up tonight

http://www.facebook.com/pages/St-Louis- ... 551?v=wall

quincunx wrote:Looks like there's already a group working on this:

World Class City Initiative
http://www.stlworldclasscity.com/Welcome.html

They had an Op-Ed in the paper a few months ago that you may have seen. They have a meeting tomorrow at Metro Lighting in the Brentwood Promenade at 2 pm. I plan to attend.

Where did you hear about this meeting? Is it open to the public?

stlsteve87 wrote: Where did you hear about this meeting? Is it open to the public?

I emailed the addresses on the website and asked when the next meeting was. They replied, "We would love for you to come to our meeting which is tomorrow at 2 PM at Metro Lighting in Brentwood’s Promenade." So I'd figure anyone is welcome.

2pm....right in the middle of the work day???

Consider this: about 650,000 County residents live in a muni. 650,000/91= 7142

quincunx wrote:Consider this: about 650,000 County residents live in a muni. 650,000/91= 7142

Did you go to the meeting? If so, how was it?

I would definitely like to get involved with this type of movement in the future. I'm in my first semester of SLU's Masters of Arts in Urban Planning and Real Estate Development program, and I plan on writing my thesis on the feasibility of St. Louis City and County consolidation.

The meeting was great and pretty much what I'm looking for. Charles Schmitz, the UMSL prof, wrote the Op-Ed a few months back about St Louis as a world class city after he took a trip to Indy and saw what they've done. He got a lot of feedback as a result. One person was William Frisella, of Metro Lighting/ Electric Company, who decided it was time to do something, and they've been getting other folks involved and have had about 5 meetings starting in the summer. There was about a dozen people at the meeting. They've already been talking to people in Slay's, and Dooley's camp and are going to the Danforth Foundation, Rex Sinquefield's people, and others for money and support. Bill said they've got some celebs lined up for promotion, names we all know. We discussed what could be done about the "Most Dangerous" ranking, either reporting stats together or not at all. They had a lawyer go over the language in the MO Constitution regarding the process concerning our situation. We discussed the possible paths to achieve reentry:

1. Work under the current MO Constitutional language Article VI Sec 30
2. Get an amendment on the ballot via voter initiative to make it easier for city reentry
3. Get the state legislature to put an amendment on the ballot.

We seemed to lean toward path 1, mainly because it'd be cheaper. Although each has steps that could go a fowl. One thing I'm wondering is if we achieve reentry under unchanged constitutional framework would any annexation by the City later on have to go through this long weird process again?

Of top order is hammering out a specific plan and get talking points, FAQs answered, etc.

Also a lady from an as-yet-to-b-named group born out of a break-out group from some meeting (Urban Focus, or UrbanCore, something like that). They seem to have the same goal. She felt it was OK to have multiple groups. Sounded like the age demo of her group was younger. She had worked on the Metro Prop A campaign.

It was all very good. I'm inclined to join them as I see no reason to duplicate efforts. I plan to go to the next meeting of the other group (I'll pass along when/where that is when I know) and see what they're like.

This group's next meeting is Jan 13 2 pm, at Metro Lighting again.

You are correct. Just about everyone concedes the big merger is way to scary for voters and politically impossible. I think we need to come up with the most minimally invasive change we can come up with and that's reentry. Just dealing with the county-type depts will be a complicated mine-field. Achieving that I think will lead to more cooperation and consolidation that many of us desire, but at the same time leaves everyone with the right to self-determination. We need to set up a situation that fosters cooperation and consolidation not forces it.
One idea being bounced around is a "statistical reclassification" wherein we attempt to somehow call City+County St Louis and when anyone examines St Louis they're looking at that. I guess that means reporting stats as one, lobbying the Census Bureau to go along and/or some other things too.
One step beyond reentry would be to include the unincorporated areas of the County into the City. I think that's a mine-field too, however would add about 300k to the City's pop, putting St Louis City around #20 which is near par with our metro pop size.

quincunx wrote:One step beyond reentry would be to include the unincorporated areas of the County into the City. I think that's a mine-field too, however would add about 300k to the City's pop, putting St Louis City around #20 which is near par with our metro pop size.

All of the unincorporated areas or just the ones located adjacent to the City? That sounds like very tough sell.

map
http://maps.stlouisco.com/propertyview/

Moorlander wrote:
All of the unincorporated areas or just the ones located adjacent to the City? That sounds like very tough sell.

Very helpful map, thanks. You're right about the hard sell. I was a little confused about that point when brought up at the meeting. Perhaps they meant a possible variant on the statistical reclassification idea would be to call "The City of St Louis" when reporting stats as the present city and the unincorporated areas, not that Mayor Slay's territory would be added to (but at least more possible if reentry is achieved and if the cumbersome process in the constitutional no longer applies).

STLgasm wrote:While I support the City re-entering the County as the 92nd municipality, I am completely 100% AGAINST merging the City and County into one giant city. The day that Ballwin and Wildwood are considered "St. Louis" is the day I move out. Not that it will happen in a million years, it won't. If that ever did happen, though, it would be a major blow to a progressive urban agenda, because the suburban and exurban population will deeply influence the politics and development of the city, and I think it would greatly compromise the character and urbanity of our relatively small but amazing central city.

Not to mention, just as it's not fair to call St. Louis "the most dangerous city", it's f***ing stupid to "cheat" our way to the top by encompassing huge suburban and exurban communities to make us seem "world class" on paper. The cities that do that annoy me, and I think if we're looking at Indianapolis as a model for ANYTHING, then we're barking up the wrong tree. Not to offend anyone, but that city sucks. So Indy can keep its impressive ranking, but it doesn't make it cool by default.

Post of the month.

You're right STLgasm, the big merger isn't politically viable, not necessary, and probably not desirable for anyone at this time anyways. In fact can we change the thread topic to City-County Reorganization or something like that?

Three reforms would go a long way: City Reentry, TIF reform, and compel tiny munis to combine or dissolve. The last two require the first as it wouldn't make sense to have two different TIF policies and also the City would then be able to throw its weight behind it. Same with the third plus if the third happens then some of them would have the option of being annexed into the City.