quincunx wrote:What if we say to petition signers tha the BoF will just go for reentry and then they come up with a plan for full merger or something else? The process has been done so few times I think it'll be an easy target for litigation, which could be used as a strategy by opponents.
The lawsuit filed by Loop Trolley opponents is the kind of thing I'm talking about here.
Be sure to tell your friends in Uplands Park to get out and vote on disincorporation tomorrow!
StlToday.com - Uplands Park could cease to exist as a city
This four-block blip along Natural Bridge Road could soon follow the Dodo bird, St. Louis Browns and another St. Louis County community, St. George, into oblivion.
Heard a novel idea recently. Someone suggested the city re-enter the county as an unincorporated area, rather than as its umpteenth municipality. Sort of like Spanish Lake or Lemay/Affton exist in the county as unincorporated areas.
The person was thinking this approach would be a good way to lessen the feifdom mentality so prevalent in city politics.
Northside Neighbor wrote:Heard a novel idea recently. Someone suggested the city re-enter the county as an unincorporated area, rather than as its umpteenth municipality. Sort of like Spanish Lake or Lemay/Affton exist in the county as unincorporated areas.
The person was thinking this approach would be a good way to lessen the feifdom mentality so prevalent in city politics.
Interesting suggestion, don't you think?
Novel?
Isn't that effectively a city/county merger, with the county executive offices assuming control of the (area that comprises the) city?
That idea is out there. It would help the bad stats problem without taking away anyone's town, besides the city itself of course. I doubt it'd be popular in the city (no more mayor, aldermen, SLMPD, what happens at city hall? ) nor in the county where they'll feel even more that they're taking on the city's liabilities.
This idea was mentioned int he PD article from August.
It's novel if you consider that most people are talking about the city entering the county as either another municipality, or a consolidation into one new expanded St. Louis city of some sort. The idea that the city would be no more is not something widely discussed. It sounds like a Civic Progress idea, something best for the region, dreamt up in Ladue, without talking to anyone in the City.
Imagine there being no more St. Louis city. That would be a first. It wouldn't be that different than a massive municipal bankruptcy filing. You'd be turning over the entire operation to new management under some sort of court designed supervision. The cops would probably like it, because, for the most part, they hate city government anyway, and they especially hate local control. Disincorporating the city is the express route to ending local control.
(P.S.: Unless I missed it, nothing in the PD editorial talks about disincorporating St. Louis. They just talk about combining it at the County level with St. Louis County, eliminating the city's county offices. Everything else describes varying forms of mergers into an expanded STL city. I think the idea of disincorporating the city is probably little more than some reformer's ultimate fantasy.)
Others think that merely having the city rejoin the county as its 91st municipality doesn't go far enough. They think a sort of mega-nuclear option might be better. That one would ask Missouri voters if St. Louis and St. Louis County could fully merge, creating a single government entity.
I suppose it could be any number of options. My hunch is that such a plan put forth would be an entity more like how St Louis County serves its unincorporated areas now rather than St Louis City taking over St Louis County's unincorporated areas as that would be politically impossible and a huge task for the city to double its size and the bigger city would be noncontiguous.
Either way (City disincorporates or City annexes the unincorporated areas) and all points in between I think it's too much to go for.
I'd rather focus on reentry because I think it can pass.
I read the quoted passage from the article as more of a reference to what Indianapolis has done where indeed the whole county becomes city, rather than the city just becoming unincorporated county.
I suppose there are similarities to both, it's just a matter of who takes over the governing.
Hard to say with so little detail. An Indy structure may fall into that bin. Nashville or Jacksonville would be the super-mega-merger wherein County+City+90munis consolidate. I'm not sure where to put Louisville.
We need a reform proposal that is almost assured to work better than the status quo and likely to pass!
The biggest issue for the voter is political balance. Should STL City become the 91st Muni, it would be a major disruption to STL County's political balance, namely the County Council. For years, the County Council has swayed mostly between Dem and GOP majority control, usually ending with a 3/4 or 4/3 balance. Meanwhile, the County Executive's office which hasn't been GOP since Gene McNary left office to head up the INS under Bush 41. The County Council remains the most viable government offices for STL County's right-leaning demographic to have their say in County government.
The City, meanwhile, consists of only two political parties: North City Dems and South City Dems. The last gasp of the GOP having any political say in the City was when Vince Schoemehl defeated Jerry Wamser (R.I.P.) in 1981. Ever since, it's the bluest of blue.
Any proposal for STL City to re-enter STL County will be DOA unless it recognizes this political balance and brings the City into the County in a way that doesn't discount the GOP vote. If City re-entry means the City gets 2 County Council votes, and with that the Dems get full control of the County Council, then the re-entry vote won't pass.
Figure out how to make the politicians comfortable with re-entry, and that's half the problem solved.
How can it end up any other way? City residents will have to have representation on the County Council. Gerrymandered districts? More than 9 members?
A competitive political environment is a good thing. The downside of any of the ideas floating around is that they reduce political competitiveness. The city vote 4-1 Dem. For voters whose chief concern about adding them to the county is party politics, I can't come up with a response, other than it's probably going that way with or without the city or what David Stokes said- we should put community before party. Probably not nearly enough to change their mind.
I suspect we'll have to appeal to other voters on other aspects and write off those who think this is just a Dem power grab.
I agree this should be a big concern for proponents because if reentry gets framed that way first it won't get past voters in St Louis County if going the BoF route, or the Repub controlled leg to put it on state-wide ballot, or statewide voters.
It's very important to get Repub leaders on board. Bert Walker is its biggest Repub proponent. Hopefully we could add a Danforth, Bond, Blunt, Deihl, etc so that at least state-wide the message is "Help us fix St Louis" which outshines opposing messages.
The mindset is not that merger is a Dem power grab per se, but that the majority goes Dem strongly, solidly, and in such majority that the STL County GOP could never recover any reasonable influence in it. This alone could get the MO GOP voters in STL County to go against this, about 33%+ of the registered voters. Get the out-state GOP to see this as "losing" STL County forever, and the opposition monies would flow in.
This is the risk in perception. Any merger plans must take this into consideration or risk 33%+ of STL County voters being encouraged to oppose it in the ballots no matter if in a fall majority election or a spring primary one.
Best way to do this: Get Rex involved. He can lead the MO GOP leaders towards this, and he can keep outstate opposition muffled. What he'll want, however, is the elimination of the City's Earnings Tax. Quid pro quo.
Know that I'm very much in favor of merger, probably most possible as 91st Muni. I'm just trying to see the most viable path towards merger, which will have to be done by election. Can merger be done without creating two immediate new County Councilman positions, one for North City and one for South City? Could the County Districts be redrawn in a way that keeps some semblance of parity strong enough to ensure passage of a reincorporation vote?
I'm admittedly ignorant; is removal of the earnings tax a price worth paying? Could the city raise other taxes/cut spending and secure funds in other ways?
The earnings tax generates more revenue than it costs the city to perform county functions.
There is a conspiracy theory, especially when Rex is brought up, out there that this is just a means to get rid of the earnings tax.
I don't think reentry gets rid of the earnings tax (someone on Twitter disagrees, I just don't see it), other merger ideas probably would unless the amendment language edited the Prop A earnings tax language, or if the city took over the county (not going to happen).
gone corporate wrote:Know that I'm very much in favor of merger, probably most possible as 91st Muni. I'm just trying to see the most viable path towards merger, which will have to be done by election. Can merger be done without creating two immediate new County Councilman positions, one for North City and one for South City? Could the County Districts be redrawn in a way that keeps some semblance of parity strong enough to ensure passage of a reincorporation vote?
The County Council doesn't necessarily have to grow, it just works out nicely that by adding two the population of the districts ends up being very close to the size they are now, 150k. Sticking with 7 or going to something else besides 9 would then add a redistricting process on top of it all. That could be a can of worms in and of itself.
I'd rather add two, the BoA draws the districts in the city, Mayor appoints the two, BoA approves the two, the usual redistricting process occurs after the next census. And the two new members should be in place in time to have a voice in the transition process or I think there would be a very compelling lawsuit.
The City should be doing everything it can to get rid of the earnings tax. Just think, if it didn't exist, do you think the Clayton skyline would look like it currently does?
So I think everyone would rather the city be able to function without the earnings tax, but how do you get rid of it without a massive funding shortfall. The only way I can imagine is by some kind of bridge funds from the state and or county to ween the city off the earnings tax. Or a gradual reduction in the earnings tax with a corresponding andd massive influx of cash to boost the local economy and tax base.
The main motivation for its elimination shouldn't be skyline envy though. The City just needs to be competitive and the earnings tax drives out alot of high earners.
