urbanSTL

south compton wrote:

Mark Groth wrote:I wish I could attend these things, but responsibilities exist. What is the vibe from the public. Is it county skepticism, city skepticism, neutral or optimism? Are the haters/status quo seekers going to be louder than the proponents?

Here's my take:
1. The engaged people in the City see the pluses.
2. City "County" office holders (i.e., Treasurer, License Collector, etc. - not necessarily current elected officials, but whomever holds the office at the time that there is an actual concrete proposal), who will likely see their offices eliminated under merger or re-entry will fight for survival and could, potentially, turn things nasty (race-baiting, etc.)
3. Most people in the county still need a concrete reason to be in favor. Marketing advantages (i.e., jumping to the 10th biggest city by population, 140th City by crime) aren't enough.
4. The older, fox news demographic in the County will always see it as some sort of bailout of the City. Not sure what could get them to change their minds. Reason, reality and logic will likely be of little use.
5. Consolidating/disincorporating some of the 90+ cities in the county should be more of a county priority than city-county merger.

I agree that the county residents need concrete reasons to be in favor of reentry. I think it has to be financial advantages. Would it be possible for the ballot initiative to define exactly how much money the county residents would be able to keep in their pockets in reduced taxes due to savings from consolidation of services?

The city would pay county property taxes and since incorporated areas are less of a burden tot he county than the unincorporated areas the overall county property tax levy is likely to go down. Perhaps the ballot measure could say the levy will be at worst X for Y years.

http://showmeinstitute.org/publication/ ... detail.asp

And remember the vote doesn't have to be unanimous. The polling done in 2012 looked optimistic.

gary kreie wrote:
Also, I don't think the County has that much of the older, fox news demographic anymore. They all moved to St. Charles Co.

You should meet the Concord Republican Club (some of whom attended the event).

3. Most people in the county still need a concrete reason to be in favor.

I think there are a lot of City residents that will need to be convinced this is a good thing for them as well, I count myself among them.

I'm 99% in favor of re-entering the county as an independent city, (not so sure how I feel about a full merger) but I'm still not sure how I, as a city resident (aside from the marketing benefits mentioned above), will benefit.

There seems to be a lot of focus about getting county buy-in, what about city buy-in?

How does the Airport fit in here as an incentive/bargaining chip? The City owns it, but it is in the County. What if the City "sells" the airport to the new larger County?

I don't think it's a good idea to sell the airport. Not sure what revenue the city gets from it, but I'm sure it's a lot. What is the benefit of selling a potential huge money maker for us just to enter the county?

olvidarte wrote:

3. Most people in the county still need a concrete reason to be in favor.

I think there are a lot of City residents that will need to be convinced this is a good thing for them as well, I count myself among them.

I'm 99% in favor of re-entering the county as an independent city, (not so sure how I feel about a full merger) but I'm still not sure how I, as a city resident (aside from the marketing benefits mentioned above), will benefit.

There seems to be a lot of focus about getting county buy-in, what about city buy-in?

Question: If this goes the method of a local vote, does it just need to pass by majority in the city and by majority in the county, or by majority in the city+county?

Because I'd suggest most people in the city would ultimately vote for this. Not everyone. Maybe not even a huge majority. But I still think it'd be a majority. And if that's all that's need, then that may be why there's less of an impression of needing to convince city residents.

For what it's worth, I'd urge you to just worry less about how you benefit from this unless you think you may substantially suffer from it. We all benefit from a stronger region with a stronger urban core. And that's why this needs to get done.

I don't have any idea how this will benefit me on a personal level. I don't even care. I want this done because I know it will benefit the region.

In this potential merger what are we gaining and what are we losing??? It's all about give and take. I think we all want whats best for us but we have to realize we're just not competing against other U.S. cities but we're competing against the world now...Every city once a slice of everything.. Individuals and business tend to not want anything to do with fragmented regions thats why St.Louis struggles so much to attract and attain business's ...

jstriebel wrote:Question: If this goes the method of a local vote, does it just need to pass by majority in the city and by majority in the county, or by majority in the city+county?

If we go the Board of Freeholders route, it takes a majority in the city and a majority in the county (concurrent majorities). If we go the constitutional amendment route, it takes a majority of the state.

olvidarte wrote:

3. Most people in the county still need a concrete reason to be in favor.

I think there are a lot of City residents that will need to be convinced this is a good thing for them as well, I count myself among them.

I'm 99% in favor of re-entering the county as an independent city, (not so sure how I feel about a full merger) but I'm still not sure how I, as a city resident (aside from the marketing benefits mentioned above), will benefit.

There seems to be a lot of focus about getting county buy-in, what about city buy-in?

I'm also in favor of City re-entry. However, the City and the County could achieve similar benefits by:

1. Meaningful charter reform in the City to create a more efficient and responsive local gov't structure
2. Consolidation/disincorporation of underperforming cities in the County
3. Increased sales tax sharing/regional TIF policy for retail projects to dissuade irresponsible sales tax chasing
4. Continue and expand cooperative activities when it makes sense to do so (economic development and cross deputization for police are good starts and my guess is that other departments, such as the city and county health departments, could benefit by greater cooperation)

I am trying to think of ways this would appeal to people living in South County.

Maybe merger could be sold in that area as "Ending the Waste in St. Louis City."

After reading many posts here and news articles elsewhere, I'm a bit confused on exactly what is being asked or offered here. Would this latest round simply reentry as a city within the county or would it be more than that? I read that Richard Lugar came to speak about how 'consolidation' helped Indianapolis. So is this latest round reentry or are they looking for some sort of consolidation or some other?

My understanding is that reentry as a city within the county would mostly mean that the duplicate city offices that behave as county offices would cease to exist and the county would assume responsibility for those. Would it mean more revenue sharing and the dreaded 'county assuming the city's debt'?

Going all out here, do you think that a full blown consolidation could have a potential negative side in that it would dilute the power of the current city to pursue urban policy and development. If the entire county functioned as a consolidated city, wouldn't the administration be much less urban oriented in such a situation, with so many people, voters and perhaps officials coming from more suburban areas of the county? Is it possible that the city would be in a better position soon (I do think the city is on the cusp of turning things around) to go it alone so to speak as it does now, and pursue a more urbane set of policies?

That's not to say that the current city leaders have any great urban vision when it comes to policy and development. Or do they? Perhaps it might be positive to dilute the power of the current city leaders? I'm very interested to hear what others think.

Eastward wrote:Going all out here, do you think that a full blown consolidation could have a potential negative side in that it would dilute the power of the current city to pursue urban policy and development?

Yes.

I've lurked on this issue long enough. My 2 cents are why not just re-enter the county to be like most other major cities? I have a hard time seeing residents of the city and rural wildwood coming to terms on even half of the issues under a full merger. Would Frontenac technically just be a neighborhood of the city?

As far as a full merger, I think any intelligent person looking at demographics or relocating can see right through the issue of population padding. I can't take Houston seriously when it's "city" borders never end . Who knows, maybe it's what St. Louis needs, but I think that's a cheap way of doing it and not getting at the real issues, crime etc.

My somewhat educated guess would be to re-enter the county and clean up some of the way the county is organized. Share some services like other county / cities do but keep the individual governments separate.

realclear wrote:I am trying to think of ways this would appeal to people living in South County.

Maybe merger could be sold in that area as "Ending the Waste in St. Louis City."

They could be annexed into the city and end the scourge of the oppressive trash contracts

^ Thanks for the link. That was a great summary and certainly clears things up a bit. I very much doubt the voters of St. Louis County would vote for any sort of merger. It seems any such vote should specifically be reentry alone, as I think that's as far as the County would go at this point.

I have to admit, the idea that St. Louis would not be the county seat of St. Louis County bothers me a bit...

I don't think Clayton would be willing to give up that title. That would be a deal breaker for them.

Maybe in the future, U-City and Clayton could be absorbed into the City, thus making the City the new seat. But that's a long shot.

Gateway City wrote:I don't think Clayton would be willing to give up that title. That would be a deal breaker for them.

Maybe in the future, U-City and Clayton could be absorbed into the City, thus making the City the new seat. But that's a long shot.

Any proposal would have to stipulate that Clayton would remain the county seat-no way around that. Nor do I see any municipalities agreeing to be absorbed into the city. Again, the best chance is reentry with St. Louis being the 91st municipality. Anything more radical than that and too many would balk.

Are there other examples of major cities not being the seat of their counties?