City/County Merger, Reentry, Board of Freeholders

stlhistory · PostNov 09, 2013#5512013-11-09T15:27+00:00

1. The earnings tax doesn't impede reentry nearly as much as local politics impedes reentry.
2. Regarding the skyline envy situation: Clayton's economic success originated partly from tax benefits, but to suggest that Clayton developed solely or even in large part because it didn't have the earnings tax ignores the other factors contributing to its growth. It is nearer to the economic elite of the region, it's the center of political elites in the region, and its status as a separate municipality afforded it the ability to invest in its own infrastructure (parks and recreation and school district) more so than St. Louis. The earnings tax plays some role in this, but certainly not to the degree suggested above.

framer · PostNov 10, 2013#5522013-11-10T02:29+00:00

Clayton was jump-started by being the County Seat, and then took off with white-flight in the 60s and 70s.

stlhistory · PostNov 10, 2013#5532013-11-10T14:15+00:00

^On a related note, I used to live in Nashville, and I always thought that Clayton's political power was a major impediment to a Nashville-type consolidation scheme here in STL. Before Nashville Davidson Metro was created, the other municipalities were not politically powerful in Davidson County; they also saw significant benefits to a consolidation scheme. It was as if the county had nothing but a dozen or so Uplands Parks, and a handful of Maplewoods. So I wonder if a consolidation scheme could ever work here.

goat314 · PostNov 10, 2013#5542013-11-10T14:56+00:00

^ It's sad because a UniGov St. Louis would instantly become the 2nd most powerful municipality in the Midwest (after Chicago) and a top 10 city national. Perceptions would likely change in a decade and St. Louis could effectively through its weight around in the legislature.

throatybeard · PostNov 11, 2013#5552013-11-11T00:37+00:00

^ Is this true? I would hope, but I'm not sure.

Saint Louis in 2013 reminds me of a child. The sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons. It is possible to radically change your SES in this country, but very very are able to do it., given structural obstacles.

If your great-great-great grandfather screws up in 1876, 137 years later you might have a deep hole to climb out of.

stlhistory · PostNov 11, 2013#5562013-11-11T01:17+00:00

Yes, St. Louis would be the 9th largest city in the United States and the 2nd largest in the Midwest if it had a Unigov structure a la Indianapolis or Nashville.

JuanHamez · PostNov 11, 2013#5572013-11-11T01:23+00:00

Here are the cities of the US
New York: 8.3 million
Los Angeles: 3.8 million
Chicago: 2.7 million
Houston 2.1 million
Philly: 1.5 Million
Phoenix: 1.4 Million
San Antonio: 1.3 Million
San Diego: 1.3 Million
Dallas: 1.2 Million
San Jose: 900k

Note that Houston, Los Angeles, and Pheonix are kind of cheating in that they are more than 500 square miles in size. Thats almost 10 times the land area of St. Louis city. All of these cities are at least 130 square miles in size.

In one fell swoop, St. Louis could rocket to be the 8th, or 9th largest city in the country and the second largest city in the midwest and get the respect we're due. With decent population growth in the city with this combination (gaining another 200k eventually isn't impossible), we can reasonably achieve up to 5th largest city status. The city has a lot of space for population growth too, which is something some of these other cities lack.

realclear · PostNov 11, 2013#5582013-11-11T03:07+00:00

stlhistory wrote:1. The earnings tax doesn't impede reentry nearly as much as local politics impedes reentry.
2. Regarding the skyline envy situation: Clayton's economic success originated partly from tax benefits, but to suggest that Clayton developed solely or even in large part because it didn't have the earnings tax ignores the other factors contributing to its growth. It is nearer to the economic elite of the region, it's the center of political elites in the region, and its status as a separate municipality afforded it the ability to invest in its own infrastructure (parks and recreation and school district) more so than St. Louis. The earnings tax plays some role in this, but certainly not to the degree suggested above.

I don't disagree with point 1, but in regards to point 2 I would argue a strong reason the economic elite of the region live near Clayton is to avoid the earnings tax. People do the city a real disservice when they downplay the effect several extra hundreds or thousands of dollars per year has on someone's decision to live and work on the other side of the city-county line. The worst part of the earnings tax is that people who make the most money - the same people who tend to have greater influence over their organizations - have an increased incentive to leave to work and live elsewhere.

In order to bridge the gap, I wonder if a tax on abandoned or underutilized property, vacant land, and surface parking could help.

quincunx · PostNov 11, 2013#5592013-11-11T03:43+00:00

realclear wrote:In order to bridge the gap, I wonder if a tax on abandoned or underutilized property, vacant land, and surface parking could help.

They won't pay in most cases I'd wager. It'll just fast track them to the LRA.

gone corporate · PostNov 11, 2013#5602013-11-11T22:56+00:00

Didn't want to spur an earnings tax tangent... Still, I believe it to be the most significant thing that keeps many people from entering the City as residents; that encourages families with some money to move from the City to the County; and very much that encourages companies to set up operations in the County over the City.

Mindset - The head of a company has the choice to set up operations in Downtown STL, with views of the Gateway freaking Arch out his window and out the conference room, but at the cost of 1% of the corporate bottom line. Or, he could set up shop in Clayton where there is no 1% tax. When answering to the shareholders, what can this corporate leader say that makes this loss of 1% of revenues a viable business strategy?

Think about it. You're a new resident to STL, maybe a research scientist or a lawyer. Would you prefer to move to the CWE, the east side of Forest Park, and lose an additional 1% of your annual income to taxes, or would you prefer to live in Clayton, the west side of Forest Park, and keep that money? That 1% could easily become $15,000 that's just gone.

Quincunx: I agree with your understanding of redistricting for the County Council. My thoughts remain, however, that perception from many in the County will be that political affiliations will be a major factor that must be overcome, with deference towards continuing the current balance of powers if that can alleviate these concerns and guide us towards unification. A major goal of any and all efforts towards fostering unification must be to retain relative balance of power, or else it will face very stiff political opposition in a public election.

onecity · PostNov 11, 2013#5612013-11-11T23:43+00:00

^ But you'll easily spend that 1% many times over on the price premium for Clayton housing. $500k seems to be the floor for SFH in Clayton, versus about $200k floor in the CWE. Unless you're making $300k a year and paying $3k, in which case it would still take 20 years to achieve parity, it's hard to say someone gets any kind of deal by moving to Clayton to avoid the earnings tax. That's as silly as some idiot buying a new (insert frivolous expensive purchase) "for the tax writeoff."

quincunx · PostNov 12, 2013#5622013-11-12T01:41+00:00

gone corporate wrote:Didn't want to spur an earnings tax tangent... Still, I believe it to be the most significant thing that keeps many people from entering the City as residents; that encourages families with some money to move from the City to the County

Most people cite crime, schools, and desire for more space as their primary reasons.

How do property taxes compare? One should look at the whole picture.

What does Peabody tell its shareholders?

Quincunx: I agree with your understanding of redistricting for the County Council. My thoughts remain, however, that perception from many in the County will be that political affiliations will be a major factor that must be overcome, with deference towards continuing the current balance of powers if that can alleviate these concerns and guide us towards unification. A major goal of any and all efforts towards fostering unification must be to retain relative balance of power, or else it will face very stiff political opposition in a public election.

I agree this should be a big concern for proponents. What can be done about it?

realclear · PostNov 12, 2013#5632013-11-12T03:42+00:00

onecity wrote:^ But you'll easily spend that 1% many times over on the price premium for Clayton housing. $500k seems to be the floor for SFH in Clayton, versus about $200k floor in the CWE. Unless you're making $300k a year and paying $3k, in which case it would still take 20 years to achieve parity, it's hard to say someone gets any kind of deal by moving to Clayton to avoid the earnings tax. That's as silly as some idiot buying a new (insert frivolous expensive purchase) "for the tax writeoff."

That example misses the point. Many of these people may work in Clayton and live in Rock Hill or Webster or Maplewood or Shrewsbury or Olivette instead of the City. In those scenarios, they don't pay a housing premium and they keep their 1%. Also, a family living in the County making $50k is able to take home an extra $500. That's real money - enough to cover most of a weekend at the Lake of the Ozarks or tickets for the family to multiple Cardinals games.

I live in KC now, which also has an earnings tax, and people are always touting the lack of an earnings tax as a built in bonus for living outside of the city limits. The tax may not be the sole reason people and companies choose to live elsewhere, but it is certainly one very good reason.

Even if property taxes are higher in some parts of the County, you can always buy a smaller house if you don't like your tax burden. The reason the earnings tax is bad policy is that all you can do to avoid it is to move out of the City.

Tying this into the topic of City reentry - the merger of services between the City and the County should help soften the blow of losing the earnings tax. Also, as a baby step towards elimination, maybe the City could allow City-County property taxes to offset the earnings taxes, thereby providing at least some incentive for people who work in the City to also decide to live there.

gone corporate · PostNov 12, 2013#5642013-11-12T19:56+00:00

Quincunx: Regarding the political balance, I think that any and all efforts towards unification must be handled with the imput and active support of both political parties. Prominent party officials / elected officials from each party must be cooperativley pursuing this. Best hope would be to have Governor Nixon and Lieutenant Governor Kinder standing in full agreement and dedicated cooperation towards unification as the end goal. Of course, that's easier said than done.

For individuals, especially nervous conservatives in STL County, they need to be shown an economic reason to support unification. Make it impact an individual's wallet, and you get that individual to vote. Here, if there could be some way to show that their wallet will be a little bigger with unification, then they'll be much more apt to support it. After all, all politics is personal.

Can we find ways to show that unification could be both a short-term and long-term economic benefit to City and County residents alike? Can we do something similar for the broad subject of "Quality of Life" bullet points, City and County alike?

quincunx · PostNov 12, 2013#5652013-11-12T20:23+00:00

Sure, the city doesn't have to bother with being also a county and can focus more on its other issues. Also more partnerships could be forged to better serve both city and county hopefully for cheaper. The city will be paying county property taxes so the levy could potentially be lowered for the new bigger county. Now that will bug city property owners, but they can vote to lower their taxes when the earnings tax comes up again if they feel over taxes. I suspect the county delivers its county services at a lower per capita cost than the city does. So even assuming no economies of scale there will be money saved. Maybe some of the tiny towns will be welcomed into the city and receive better services, at least it would be an option. Maybe the county maintains some of the roads in the city making them better for city and county users alike. Maybe health depts consolidate. Maybe we avoid a Metrolink to Westport. Maybe SLMPD and STL Co PD consolidate and the crimes stats issue goes away. Maybe city influence gets the county highway dept to be concerned about bicyclists and pedestrians.

I would hope we could get a study done on the for sure outcomes to give people numbers. And talk about some of the possibilities.

gone corporate · PostNov 12, 2013#5662013-11-12T20:50+00:00

^Are there any rough estimates out there for any of these numbers?

Best one for County eyes would be to see if there would be any savings in property taxes. This could be the one that really gets County support for unification, what probably would be the most significant real money positive difference for County property owners. (Meanwhile, as City residents pay more in such taxes, they'll get the other benefits impossible without unification, most notably educational)

Get it in the mind of the County voters that they'll likely have $XXX more money per year, and they'll broadly start to reconsider their opinions on City/County unification. Then add recognized shared public services, the elimination of redundancies, and the amount of money that'll further save residents.

The other ideas are great and will impact. But, these two above (property taxes and municipal services) are the fastest to produce economic benefit to a skeptical STL County voter.

All: Any rough guesstimates on what these figures could be would be great, if at all possible.
Cite sources if you could, assuming they exist.

As for trying to calculate the total implementation costs... That sure would be a great project for the guys at UMSL supporting unification to have in their classes, perhaps as an independent research report for their graduating students.

moorlander · PostNov 12, 2013#5672013-11-12T21:08+00:00

I posted this in the crime thread but it has some relevance here as it mentions combined police departments and other cities with combined city/county.

quincunx · PostNov 12, 2013#5682013-11-12T21:15+00:00

I was hoping the Joint Interim Committee on StL MSA Governance and Taxation would do just that, look into what reentry might save and what transition might entail. But they just wanted to discuss the sales tax pool. I think they broadened their scope since then in response to what the public wanted to talk about and as well as a few of the committee members. Not sure where all that stands.

My back of the envelope calculation for the Board of Elections showed an annual savings of ~$1M if the county could deliver those services at the same rate per capita to the city as it does currently. I averaged a few years budgets to determine the per cap cost. I assumed the munis of the county don't contribute to the cost of running elections. Am I wrong a bout that?

throatybeard · PostNov 13, 2013#5692013-11-13T03:16+00:00

I think a lot of people get their panties in a wad about the word "taxes," while ignoring all sorts of other costs that they pay. The main one is maintenance of automobiles. People will spend thousands of extra dollars on gasoline and car maintenance living somewhere sprawly without thinking about it; the same people will never consider living somewhere walkable that happens to have a piddling 1% tax.

You see similar things about transit issues. People complain to high heaven about "subsidizing" transit. The same people won't even blink when you pour millions or billions of dollars into wider freeways.

quincunx · PostNov 18, 2013#5702013-11-18T19:23+00:00

Here we go!

StlToday.com - Group to begin St. Louis city-county governance discussion on Tuesday

A 1 p.m. press conference is scheduled for Tuesday at the Cheshire Inn, a property that straddles the city-county line. The event will feature Mayor Francis Slay, County Executive Charlie Dooley and former Ambassador Bert Walker.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... afa5c.html

stlhistory · PostNov 19, 2013#5712013-11-19T00:00+00:00

The comments are already living up to their STLtoday standards. Lots of "no way no matter what the data says" types, lots of Slay haters, lots of Dooley haters.

quincunx · PostNov 19, 2013#5722013-11-19T00:22+00:00

Here's the website for Better Together STL. One complaint, I don't think anyone on the board of directors is less than 40.

http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/

stlhistory · PostNov 19, 2013#5732013-11-19T02:53+00:00

I hate to be nitpicky, but every time I see a photo of a fountain in STL with red water, I am reminded of blood spewing from the earth. I get that we're pro-Cardinals, but it's a bit much.

gone corporate · PostNov 19, 2013#5742013-11-19T17:34+00:00

The Better Together website states that, combined, $2 Billion (with a "B") is spent on governing STL City and County per year, for a combined populace of 1.3 Million citizens. This consists of 116 local governments: STL City, STL County, the 91 municipalities in the County, and the 23 fire districts in the County.
Source: http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/about

Who's going today?

shadrach · PostNov 19, 2013#5752013-11-19T17:58+00:00

stlhistory wrote:I hate to be nitpicky, but every time I see a photo of a fountain in STL with red water, I am reminded of blood spewing from the earth. I get that we're pro-Cardinals, but it's a bit much.

I know the feeling. But I think you're right about pro-Carndials. I assume they chose it as the Cardinals are a unifying/common/shared experience for the entire region. And they probably shied away from an image of a pep rally due to issues of model release. (As well as insinuating a stance from the Cardinals.)

Still, I think an inclusive, mosaic of images/collage of Clayton/Downtown/Wildwood/etc would have been better. This cant be viewed as the City looking for control or a bailout.

City/County Merger, Reentry, Board of Freeholders

Choose Display Mode