'gasm - I see no reason to rant against a full political merger. No one's working to make it happen, basically no one wants to see it happen, and as you point out, it ain't going to happen. So let's focus on the issue: combining some duplicate services, highlighting regional cooperation that works: MSD/Zoo-Museum/Metro/hotel tax/etc., and exploring new opportunities: China hub/TIF reform/crime reporting/etc. As has been pointed out by a number of people, a lot of cooperation can take place while retaining school districts and municipal control over many things. No need to scare people with the "merger" tag.
- 835
I do think we need to clear up a major misconception. According to the current methodology, the crime statistics for central cities would not be affected one way or the other if the City were to rejoin the County as another municipality. This is something that a lot of people really don't understand. These numbers are for city proper ONLY, not adjacent suburbs. Cleveland's crime stats only account for the City of Cleveland, even though Cleveland happens to be part of Cuyahoga County, and so on and so forth. So it is equally misleading to suggest that the crime stats would somehow be more "fair" if the City and County were to become one entity. Sure, we'd look a lot safer on paper if that happened, but the folks in other compact central cities would be crying foul about how STL had to annex a bunch of suburbs to get its numbers down. And they'd be right. As long as the crime stats measure total number of crimes committed in a politically designated central city, they are what they are.
Of course those rankings are misleading; they don't address the issue of crime distribution or a whole host of other noteworthy data that would more accurately reflect a city's true "safety."
The city limits of San Francisco, Washington, DC and Boston are all smaller in area than St. Louis City, and their crime rates are measured using exactly the same methodology. Annexation would dilute the numbers, but it wouldn't change the fact that the City of St. Louis has some of the highest crime neighborhoods in the country. We should work to fix that before we talk about any merger because the County doesn't want that kind of baggage.
That said, the crime rankings are pure bunk as far as I'm concerned, but we shouldn't have to talk about all these "what if" scenarios as a defense. Sorry for the schizophrenic post.
Of course those rankings are misleading; they don't address the issue of crime distribution or a whole host of other noteworthy data that would more accurately reflect a city's true "safety."
The city limits of San Francisco, Washington, DC and Boston are all smaller in area than St. Louis City, and their crime rates are measured using exactly the same methodology. Annexation would dilute the numbers, but it wouldn't change the fact that the City of St. Louis has some of the highest crime neighborhoods in the country. We should work to fix that before we talk about any merger because the County doesn't want that kind of baggage.
That said, the crime rankings are pure bunk as far as I'm concerned, but we shouldn't have to talk about all these "what if" scenarios as a defense. Sorry for the schizophrenic post.
^ I'm so confused.
So you readily acknowledge the sham of skewing our crime statics yet you think the numbers are crap? Could you explain that better? I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this.
So you readily acknowledge the sham of skewing our crime statics yet you think the numbers are crap? Could you explain that better? I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this.
- 835
Exactly. I agree with the FBI's disclaimer: that the crime rankings only measure the number of crimes committed divided by total population, and should not be considered reliable in assessing how safe or dangerous a city is. The same methodology applies to central cities of all sizes, regardless of demographic makeup, physical, historic or economic characteristics. The FBI stresses not to take the numbers at face value. This is because 85% of the violent crimes committed in every city takes place in a few select neighborhoods. Looking at the numbers in black and white would indicate that crime in St. Louis is widespread, that everyone who visits or lives in the city is at higher risk of becoming a victim. That's bull***t. Most violent crime is not random, but rather it's domestic, gang or drug-related. The rankings don't tell that story either. They only summarize the total number of crimes committed in the city, and we can't and shouldn't hide from that. But we should take solace in knowing that those numbers have a very deep context that is never exposed, let alone understood.
Cities with huge city limits are naturally going to have lower crime rates because the numbers are diluted by vast areas of suburban and sometimes even rural land that is included within the assessment area. Yeah, when you compare STL to these places it appears very unfair because we're only 61 square miles of pure urban land and demographics. But it is totally fair to compare our stats against those of other compact cities like SF, DC, Boston, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc. We have more crimes occurring in our city limits than those cities have in their city limits, and none of them are using expanded city limits to look better. They are all about the same physical size as STL if not smaller. That's why there is no such thing as a consistent measure of crime statistics.
Cities with huge city limits are naturally going to have lower crime rates because the numbers are diluted by vast areas of suburban and sometimes even rural land that is included within the assessment area. Yeah, when you compare STL to these places it appears very unfair because we're only 61 square miles of pure urban land and demographics. But it is totally fair to compare our stats against those of other compact cities like SF, DC, Boston, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc. We have more crimes occurring in our city limits than those cities have in their city limits, and none of them are using expanded city limits to look better. They are all about the same physical size as STL if not smaller. That's why there is no such thing as a consistent measure of crime statistics.
While I respect your point here, I totally disagree. Namely, I think transit and urban design guidelines would be positively impacted by a total merge (which I wholly support). There are progressive, urban municipalities.STLgasm wrote:you don't think that joining the City and the County as one would have far-reaching consequences? Think about these issues: transit, gay rights legislation, 3:00am liquor licenses, historic rehab incentives, urban design guidelines and a whole host of other issues. The exurban populace would not be our friend on these issues.
Furthermore, regarding the other issues you discussed, why would an overall merge somehow be a detriment to these agendas? Would not the majority rule? Wouldn't we still vote? Wouldn't the city and inner-ring burbs (read: progressive) not have a higher concentration of people, ergo more representation in the legislature? If anything, I see "re-entry" as a greater risk as our representation would be relegated to "per municipality" as opposed to "per capita".
I understand your fear but the whole of the county isn't necessarily indicative of the Hannity-loving, racist people from St. Charles that post on Stl Today. Just sayin.
^^much more clear. Thank you.
- 835
Representation at the state level is determined by population, and the majority of county population resides in less than progressive suburbs. This would shift our political representation to those areas, and would almost certainly marginalize the urban populace. I also think a merger would galvanize the conservative voters even more, as their wholesome ideals would be threatened by the big bad urban core. We would go from being totally urban city to a mostly suburban one. I don't see how that would be a good thing for St. Louis.ttricamo wrote:While I respect your point here, I totally disagree. Namely, I think transit and urban design guidelines would be positively impacted by a total merge (which I wholly support). There are progressive, urban municipalities.STLgasm wrote:you don't think that joining the City and the County as one would have far-reaching consequences? Think about these issues: transit, gay rights legislation, 3:00am liquor licenses, historic rehab incentives, urban design guidelines and a whole host of other issues. The exurban populace would not be our friend on these issues.
Furthermore, regarding the other issues you discussed, why would an overall merge somehow be a detriment to these agendas? Would not the majority rule? Wouldn't we still vote? Wouldn't the city and inner-ring burbs (read: progressive) not have a higher concentration of people, ergo more representation in the legislature? If anything, I see "re-entry" as a greater risk as our representation would be relegated to "per municipality" as opposed to "per capita".
I understand your fear but the whole of the county isn't necessarily indicative of the Hannity-loving, racist people from St. Charles that post on Stl Today. Just sayin.
- 2,928
I feel compelled to throw this in: ENOUGH WITH THE EXCLUSIONARY SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS!
We're having a hard-enough time asking the County to look towards accepting the City as the 92nd municipality, which we all want. And, let's acknowledge as well that this website (and this conversation) is being read by the powers-that-be in the City, County, and Jeff City. Their interpretation of this info is important in how they formulate their opinions.
Now, how do you all think they take in these rants of "eff Ballwin" and "County Fascists" on this site? POORLY. Such talk is detrimental to the whole of what we are seeking and furthers any County-based reluctance to consider the 92nd Muni Option. If you're going to view the County as being nothing but the worst of what you see in right-aisle politics, then why the hell are you wanting merger? Is it just for the County's money? How can you demand cooperation with one voice, then eschew their opinions as wholly wrong with your next breath? Be as new-age progressivist if you like, but don't start vomiting exclusion immediately afterwards.
Side note: One of my best friends was until recently living in Ballwin, moving then to another place in the County for a larger house & larger yard. He works in the City in a converted-use rehab: owns his own law firm focused on Civil Rights litigation. Shares your political mindset. But he has kids, so he lives in the County for the schools. You want to call him names now?
The hypocrisy is sometimes rampant.
Note: Meant at no one individual.
We're having a hard-enough time asking the County to look towards accepting the City as the 92nd municipality, which we all want. And, let's acknowledge as well that this website (and this conversation) is being read by the powers-that-be in the City, County, and Jeff City. Their interpretation of this info is important in how they formulate their opinions.
Now, how do you all think they take in these rants of "eff Ballwin" and "County Fascists" on this site? POORLY. Such talk is detrimental to the whole of what we are seeking and furthers any County-based reluctance to consider the 92nd Muni Option. If you're going to view the County as being nothing but the worst of what you see in right-aisle politics, then why the hell are you wanting merger? Is it just for the County's money? How can you demand cooperation with one voice, then eschew their opinions as wholly wrong with your next breath? Be as new-age progressivist if you like, but don't start vomiting exclusion immediately afterwards.
Side note: One of my best friends was until recently living in Ballwin, moving then to another place in the County for a larger house & larger yard. He works in the City in a converted-use rehab: owns his own law firm focused on Civil Rights litigation. Shares your political mindset. But he has kids, so he lives in the County for the schools. You want to call him names now?
The hypocrisy is sometimes rampant.
Note: Meant at no one individual.
Obama won the county by 20 points, Dooley won by 4 and Metro Prop A won by 26. The city goes 80-20 Dem. 5 of 7 County Councilmen are Dem. I think convincing right-leaning voters in the County that reentry is not some Democratic plot to secure power in perpetuity is the bigger worry. I realize Dem doesn't necessarily equal progressive in your eyes, but I don't think you have much to worry about. I don't see how the county could/would meddle much in our affairs. At least according to one citizen in the county there's nothing to worry about here:
Having lived in 3 St Louis County municipalities over the last 45 years, I never thought of St Louis County as a layer of government . . . I've never felt isolated from the Mayor of my community because of being in St Louis County. I've been on Planning Commissions, Boards of Adjustment, etc. and never saw County influence being imposed at all.
- 835
Gone Corporate, your point is noted, although I don't think anyone is preaching "self-righteousness" just because we are analyzing the pros and cons of a City/County merger. I personally don't care how people reading this exchange interpret the discussion. These are very, very important issues and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to whitewash the debate. I really haven't seen anyone condemn the entire County or the entire City in any of these posts.
All great points, and such an important discussion. I think we really, really have to look at rolling the city into the county AT THE SAME TIME we do away with the vast number of municipalities. I think their are ~50 with populations under 10,000. Per capita, that is less efficient that the City of St. Louis. I think we then take a serious look at redistricting the City council of St. Louis. Highly unlikely that it would happen at once but would be nice.
I wonder what the distribution of wealth looks like for the County?
I wonder what the distribution of wealth looks like for the County?
"At the same time" is a problem because then some small group decides who joins with whom, mine-field. Rather I think it's important to maintain their right to self-determination. Hopefully we can create a framework/environment/attitude that encourages cooperation and consolidation unlike how things are now. And even if compelled like how Mayor Lowery promotes it should still be up to the munis to decide what to do, who to join with, etc.
Try 69. There are only 22 municipalities (as of the 2000 census) with populations greater than 10,000.ttricamo wrote:I think their are ~50 with populations under 10,000.
Let the City join the county when first Clayton and Richmond Heights (and others) merge.
How would St. Louis entering the County improve public service delivery? Democratic representation?
How would St. Louis entering the County improve public service delivery? Democratic representation?
- 3,428
Eliminate duplication of services and the management overhead? That's why corporations merge with other corporations. The first thing the do is merge payroll, IT, etc. because you don't need double sets of management anymore for many of these common functions. For the city and county, they could merge law enforcement, tax collection, licensing, etc. and become more efficient. Return the savings to the public, or use it to expand services. More importantly, merger would instill a sense of investment in the whole region, not just your local neighborhood.
More interesting tidbits, if the city re-entered the county:
*All county-level government functions are centered in Clayton, the county seat. So the decision-making process in the city of St Louis would suddenly change. For the first time in 134 years (as of 2010), the city would have to abide by county ordinances. Sometimes, STL would have to answer to Clayton; I ask you, would this be awkward at first or what?
*How would it affect personal property tax assessments? Your guess is as good as mine.
*The population of the county would jump to about 1.35 million, solidifying it's status as the largest source of voters (by far) in the state. And the county would move up from 42nd to 28th most populous county in America. It's not a eye-popping leap, but noteworthy nonetheless.
*All county-level government functions are centered in Clayton, the county seat. So the decision-making process in the city of St Louis would suddenly change. For the first time in 134 years (as of 2010), the city would have to abide by county ordinances. Sometimes, STL would have to answer to Clayton; I ask you, would this be awkward at first or what?
*How would it affect personal property tax assessments? Your guess is as good as mine.
*The population of the county would jump to about 1.35 million, solidifying it's status as the largest source of voters (by far) in the state. And the county would move up from 42nd to 28th most populous county in America. It's not a eye-popping leap, but noteworthy nonetheless.
- 835
Even without St. Louis City, the County is BY FAR the largest source of voters in the state.gary kreie wrote: *The population of the county would jump to about 1.35 million, solidifying it's status as the largest source of voters (by far) in the state.
The St. Louis metro area will still rank as the country's 18th-largest with or without a merger.And the county would move up from 42nd to 28th most populous county in America. It's not a eye-popping leap, but noteworthy nonetheless.
- 284
Unless re-entry comes paired with some significant structural changes to the county's system of municipalities, or at least 1)a truly aggressive effort at TIF reform, 2)merger of SLDC with the St. Louis County Economic Council and 3)some sort of enforcable intramural cease-fire on local business/development incentives, it's hard to see what practical difference it would make.
Yes, re-entry would save a little money by eliminating the Larry Williams and Gregory FX Daly's of the world. But the services they administer still have to be provided to residents of the city, so actual cost savings would be low. You still don't have a true city of 1.4 million (and, like STLGasm said, that scenario's not all sunshine and roses for the city), and you still have 92 municipalities in a zero-sum fight for tax revenue, with a weak county executive to referee it all. And, frankly, you still have the same fundamentals of a scattered, mid-sized, slow-growth region with an industrial hangover and no clear path to an economic future.
So, maybe - just maybe - there are other things to work on first. Like collaborations that don't involve merging our primary seats of government, but that might get more people pulling in the same direction. I don't know. But it seems like the big re-entry might be more trouble than it's worth.
Yes, re-entry would save a little money by eliminating the Larry Williams and Gregory FX Daly's of the world. But the services they administer still have to be provided to residents of the city, so actual cost savings would be low. You still don't have a true city of 1.4 million (and, like STLGasm said, that scenario's not all sunshine and roses for the city), and you still have 92 municipalities in a zero-sum fight for tax revenue, with a weak county executive to referee it all. And, frankly, you still have the same fundamentals of a scattered, mid-sized, slow-growth region with an industrial hangover and no clear path to an economic future.
So, maybe - just maybe - there are other things to work on first. Like collaborations that don't involve merging our primary seats of government, but that might get more people pulling in the same direction. I don't know. But it seems like the big re-entry might be more trouble than it's worth.
Reentry would set the table for the reforms you (and I) would like to see, I believe. The worry is that anything bigger is not politically viable, because they have all failed in the past. As it is 4 County Councilmen and 15 Aldermen can block any move for City-County reorg under MO Constitution Article VI section 30.
Of course there are things we could do that would be helpful that don't require reentry. For example if Slay and Dooley agree to report crime stats as one or not at all.
At what level is TIF policy set?
What else could happen while maintaining separate counties?
Of course there are things we could do that would be helpful that don't require reentry. For example if Slay and Dooley agree to report crime stats as one or not at all.
At what level is TIF policy set?
What else could happen while maintaining separate counties?
- 835
Slay and Dooley cannot determine what boundaries the FBI is going to assess when it comes to crime. The controversial FBI numbers measure ONLY CENTRAL CITY boundaries-- whether it's St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Dallas or wherever else-- STL is not any exception, contrary to local belief. For example, when the FBI looks at Pittsburgh's crime, they are not looking at all of Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh resides), they are looking ONLY at the municipality of Pittsburgh. There are some 90+ other municipalities in Allegheny County that are not included in the rankings because they are suburbs. For the life of me I cannot figure out why so many people have this misunderstanding. St. Louis City re-entering the County as a municipality would NOT change ANY of the crime stats whatsoever as they are currently measured. According to current methodology, STL would still be #1. The FBI does not leave it up to local governments to submit numbers for crimes committed within arbitrary boundaries.quincunx wrote:Of course there are things we could do that would be helpful that don't require reentry. For example if Slay and Dooley agree to report crime stats as one or not at all.
How does Chicago avoid this altogether? If the territory covered by the SLMPD were extended, but muni lines weren't that would have no effect? The FBI checks every address of every incident?
- 453
Detroit has/still has a scandal of classifying homicides as suicides. Maybe we should call car thefts "valet services". On a more serious note, I would emphasize trying to build on the great results we get as a result of the few areas we do have regional cooperation on, such as the Great Rivers Greenway and ZMD.quincunx wrote:How does Chicago avoid this altogether? If the territory covered by the SLMPD were extended, but muni lines weren't that would have no effect? The FBI checks every address of every incident?
What do you think is the next ZMD or Great Rivers Greenway? We've been adding something like that about once per five years and many feel the pace isn't fast enough compared to the pace of the rest of the world and thus the push to tackle reentry and get the ball rolling faster for other needed reforms.