Wow. Did not expect that out of the STLBJ. Strong editorial.
Just a little time looking into the plot handed out by Terry Jones Tuesday night "proving" that fragmentation is great in yet another aspect revealed its hollowness.
NextSTL - Shallow Analysis from the Public Policy Research Center
https://nextstl.com/2017/10/shallow-ana ... -the-pprc/
NextSTL - Shallow Analysis from the Public Policy Research Center
https://nextstl.com/2017/10/shallow-ana ... -the-pprc/
I guess 2020 is the target date for a (statewide) vote since the BT taskforce will make recommendations next summer, too late to get something on the 2018 ballot.LordOfLindenwoodPark wrote: ↑Oct 05, 2017I've always wondered, what is the end game here for merger proponents? A vote in the '18 or '20 general election? A vote in the general assembly in '18? Years of endless studies to win over the hearts and minds of city and countians? Please feel free to speculate as I'd like to hear other's opinions on the topic.
OTOH a vote coming out of a Board of Freeholders process could be at a time before 2020.
Pacific Standard - WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A SUBURB BEGINS TO DIE?
https://psmag.com/news/when-a-suburb-begins-to-dieLet's be clear: There are genuine trade-offs to be made with merger. City Lab's Brentin Mock recently passionately argued against merger for one of the suburbs I flag, the Pittsburgh suburb of Wilkinsburg, arguing that its status as an independent majority black city should be preserved. That's a legitimate value to consider. But the flip side can't be ignored. By not merging, those black residents are cut off from the tax base being created by the technology and medical industry booms happening in the city of Pittsburgh next door. Black control in many of these suburbs has meant inheriting a community where previous generations of residents did the equivalent of running up 250,000 miles on the odometer, then handed over the keys to what's now used-up jalopy and walked away.
Should regions be able to wall off minorities in jurisdictions with limited tax bases? What solutions are there for inner-ring suburbs facing serious structural challenges? Ultimately these are questions these communities, regions, and states need to wrestle with. Merger may not be the best answer in every case—but it needs to be on the table as a serious option.
- 403
I see why St.Louis will never advance with this kind of mindset things will just get worse.
I wonder if these very same people are this way when it comes to any type of relationships?
I wonder if these very same people are this way when it comes to any type of relationships?
- 1,218
From a recent PD article: "Municipal League says more than 3 dozen cities united against statewide vote on city-county merger"
I don't think I'll ever come to understand the strange relationship and viewpoints the suburbs have with/on St. Louis. So backward."The league supports local autonomy and opposes legislation authorizing statewide votes on local issues pertaining to individual or limited political subdivisions which would threaten neighborhood autonomy," the league said in its 2018 legislative priorities list, which was unanimously approved. About 20 member cities sent residents to the session, held at the new Beyond Housing office in Northwoods.
The league's executive board will seek St. Louis County Council support, and perhaps that of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, as it tries to present a strong case to the Missouri Legislature, executive director Pat Kelly says. Outstate residents do not understand issues here and have no stake in the outcome, just as St. Louis County residents do not seek to vote on issues in Kansas City, Springfield or elsewhere in Missouri, he said.
Mark Groth wrote: ↑Oct 29, 2017From a recent PD article: "Municipal League says more than 3 dozen cities united against statewide vote on city-county merger"
I don't think I'll ever come to understand the strange relationship and viewpoints the suburbs have with/on St. Louis. So backward."The league supports local autonomy and opposes legislation authorizing statewide votes on local issues pertaining to individual or limited political subdivisions which would threaten neighborhood autonomy," the league said in its 2018 legislative priorities list, which was unanimously approved. About 20 member cities sent residents to the session, held at the new Beyond Housing office in Northwoods.
The league's executive board will seek St. Louis County Council support, and perhaps that of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, as it tries to present a strong case to the Missouri Legislature, executive director Pat Kelly says. Outstate residents do not understand issues here and have no stake in the outcome, just as St. Louis County residents do not seek to vote on issues in Kansas City, Springfield or elsewhere in Missouri, he said.
Disregarding a merger for a moment, do you support modifying voting rules to allow outstate residents to make decisions that are wholly (or almost wholly) pertinent to the St. Louis-area? Did you support the amendment in the early 2000s that granted the City of St. Louis home-rule power?
In short, do you specifically support a statewide merger vote as a means to an end, or do you think self-determination of the City and County is best determined by state voters in general?
- 1,218
^the only way we compete is a merged, unified city. We need one tax base not 90. We need one library system, park system, police/fire, political structure, etc. Not 2 or more. As the PD article points out, regional disdain for a merger is intense. I'm okay with a state vote. Some things are better addressed locally, for sure, but this one is too important and urgent, and the cities in STL county will fight this with everything they've got against the betterment of the region.
It's a tough call.Mark Groth wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2017^the only way we compete is a merged, unified city. We need one tax base not 90. We need one library system, park system, police/fire, political structure, etc. Not 2 or more. As the PD article points out, regional disdain for a merger is intense. I'm okay with a state vote. Some things are better addressed locally, for sure, but this one is too important and urgent, and the cities in STL county will fight this with everything they've got against the betterment of the region.
In my opinion, the only way it's going to happen is through a state-led vote. There is a lot of ignorant opposition to it locally. But I also don't believe Jefferson City should be deciding on any of the logistics or actualities if a merger happened.
I think it's hypocritical to support a statewide vote when you think it will go "your" way, but fight outstate interests against local self-determination in every other situation.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2017It's a tough call.Mark Groth wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2017^the only way we compete is a merged, unified city. We need one tax base not 90. We need one library system, park system, police/fire, political structure, etc. Not 2 or more. As the PD article points out, regional disdain for a merger is intense. I'm okay with a state vote. Some things are better addressed locally, for sure, but this one is too important and urgent, and the cities in STL county will fight this with everything they've got against the betterment of the region.
In my opinion, the only way it's going to happen is through a state-led vote. There is a lot of ignorant opposition to it locally. But I also don't believe Jefferson City should be deciding on any of the logistics or actualities if a merger happened.
- 20
So what kind of unification do people actually want? For St Louis to just become another city in the county (as a county seat or otherwise) which is the structure of most metros in this country, or for the city and county to become one municipality? If one municipality is the answer, then St Louis would be going from one extreme to another.
- 1,864
I personally want to see some consolidation of smaller towns in the county to reduce the insanity that is the current system. Bring the city back into the county and let Clayton remain the seat... then the city could always expand and pick up more land / absorb some towns that want to join as well. The whole duality of having the city and county always working against each other and fighting for businesses is just asinine. It shouldn't be a city vs. county region.
- 9,565
I want all of this to be called City of St.Louis, one PD, one FD, one school district ect
City Manager/Council system- 20 councilman districts + 3 at large councilman
![]()
City Manager/Council system- 20 councilman districts + 3 at large councilman
I strongly support a City/County merger, but it should be decided only by City and County residents. Outstate and KC have no business deciding how we achieve it.
As I laid out i another thread, I'd like to see the City become a municipality. At the same time, I'd like to see TIF controlled regionally rather than as it is today, which is capable of being overridden at the municipal level.
I'd also like to see the bar simultaneously set high for police protection (with international accreditation), financial transparency, governance, percentage of income derived from fines (as today), and pension obligations, and with population-based contributions to regional responsibilities like homeless shelters.
I'd also like to see the County spearhead a methodology for bulk purchasing equipment such as vehicles; quite frankly, this is the only major financial savings I can see happening from ANY consolidation, and that's backed up by Better Together's numbers. There are few to no savings to be had by consolidating "positions." A fire chief overseeing 30 firefighters today will still be overseeing 30 firefighters under a unified government. S/he might have a different title, but the salary would not be lower (and will almost certain be higher with the salary parity being sought by a unified government). Same with mayors. A mayor of a small municipality today, making an $8000 stipend, would be replaced by an elected official making as much or more. The financial savings from merging are complete vaporware, a smokescreen to mask a much larger, just-as-inefficient government, worse than St. Louis County today.
If a municipality (no matter how small) can meet the criteria, great. Why would we want to break that? If a municpality (no matter how large) can not meet the criteria, it would have to perform its own merger activities (consolidating parts of its operations, as many municipalities have done), merge entirely, or be disincorporated. Those details would be a mess but I don't think any messier than forced consolidation of everything.
I'd also like to see the bar simultaneously set high for police protection (with international accreditation), financial transparency, governance, percentage of income derived from fines (as today), and pension obligations, and with population-based contributions to regional responsibilities like homeless shelters.
I'd also like to see the County spearhead a methodology for bulk purchasing equipment such as vehicles; quite frankly, this is the only major financial savings I can see happening from ANY consolidation, and that's backed up by Better Together's numbers. There are few to no savings to be had by consolidating "positions." A fire chief overseeing 30 firefighters today will still be overseeing 30 firefighters under a unified government. S/he might have a different title, but the salary would not be lower (and will almost certain be higher with the salary parity being sought by a unified government). Same with mayors. A mayor of a small municipality today, making an $8000 stipend, would be replaced by an elected official making as much or more. The financial savings from merging are complete vaporware, a smokescreen to mask a much larger, just-as-inefficient government, worse than St. Louis County today.
If a municipality (no matter how small) can meet the criteria, great. Why would we want to break that? If a municpality (no matter how large) can not meet the criteria, it would have to perform its own merger activities (consolidating parts of its operations, as many municipalities have done), merge entirely, or be disincorporated. Those details would be a mess but I don't think any messier than forced consolidation of everything.
- 1,792
Re entry is the bare minimum. The fact that the two most powerful political entities in the region are insentivised to compete rather than to pool resources is ridiculous. The fact that the political bodies have in several instances built a political framework to mitigate the self destructive behavior is further proof that when considered critically it become s obvious how nonsensical it is.
Beyond that I would favor a loose confederation of perhaps 9 baliages (a French term roughly equivalent to borough or ward, but hopefully unique and distinct to Saint Louis). governed by a locally elected boards and administered by a chief bailiff. The city for instance would adopt new borders at roughly the centerline of forest park. Clayton, Florissant, Creve Coure, Chesterfield, Webster, Lindbergh, Lemay, and Ferguson would make up the other 8.
The baliages would oversee the nuts a bolts of local governance. Regional issues would be elevated to the level of county governance which would oversee a logical distribution of revenues based on population and regional infrastructure needs, as well as things like the port authority, ZMD, regional parks, and sports and convention venues, bid submissions like amazon and financial incentives like TIFs.
Sales and property taxes would be split with set portions going to county governance, a portion pooled and redistributed based on population, and some respectable portion retained by the originating baliages.
Beyond that I would favor a loose confederation of perhaps 9 baliages (a French term roughly equivalent to borough or ward, but hopefully unique and distinct to Saint Louis). governed by a locally elected boards and administered by a chief bailiff. The city for instance would adopt new borders at roughly the centerline of forest park. Clayton, Florissant, Creve Coure, Chesterfield, Webster, Lindbergh, Lemay, and Ferguson would make up the other 8.
The baliages would oversee the nuts a bolts of local governance. Regional issues would be elevated to the level of county governance which would oversee a logical distribution of revenues based on population and regional infrastructure needs, as well as things like the port authority, ZMD, regional parks, and sports and convention venues, bid submissions like amazon and financial incentives like TIFs.
Sales and property taxes would be split with set portions going to county governance, a portion pooled and redistributed based on population, and some respectable portion retained by the originating baliages.
I think re-entry is the most likely to pass and that we go with it. As someone above said it's how most cities in the US function and really not too much to ask of our area. A merger on the other hand is a whole different animal. While beneficial to all in the long run presents a lot of short term challenges to getting it passed and actually in place. I'm afraid it's easier for people just to say no.
- 1,792
Definitely favor incremental progress (re-entry) to over reaching (consolidation) at this time. A decade after reentry maybe consolidation will be a less charged issue a certainly the barriers would be lower.
Agree, re-entry is the only realistic option as local politicians of the ninety some muni's are not going to roll over and give up on the engrained mini fiefdoms for a merger.. Certainly not going to see that with any of the fire districts.. The problem on the other hand is I don't see county elected officials taking on political suicide by telling the local mayors and council members to go pound sand and invite city back into the county. Nor do I see city alderman willing to give Lambert for city county port authority as a means to convince county residents to buy in. Maybe I'm missing something there.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2017Definitely favor incremental progress (re-entry) to over reaching (consolidation) at this time. A decade after reentry maybe consolidation will be a less charged issue a certainly the barriers would be lower.
Framer might not be happy but I simply don't see re-entry happening without MO State house forcing the issue by dissolving city entity as a county & thus basically forcing re-entry. Ironically, I can see the MO state house doing it for some idiotic perverse political reason only they can think of like the City is endangered of being overrun by the Taliban or worse yet, Illinois, and thus needs to re enter the county to shore up the defenses.
So given that some fire districts are paying outrageous salaries and vacation - and have attitudes to match - and given that any consolidation will bring the salary to the highest level, isn't this^ a good thing? This is why merging the fire districts is a hugely expensive proposition, according to BT (both a one-time cost and recurring): the resultant salaries and benefits will always settle on the highest of any merged entity, probably with generous annual increases to boot, if they want union backing.dredger wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2017... Certainly not going to see that with any of the fire districts.. .STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2017Definitely favor incremental progress (re-entry) to over reaching (consolidation) at this time. A decade after reentry maybe consolidation will be a less charged issue a certainly the barriers would be lower.
http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editori ... 78c22.html
• In the Creve Coeur Fire District, the average wage for a veteran firefighter with 15 years or more experience is $123,634. Along with that comes a benefit package worth $47,478 and 16 to 18 weeks of paid vacation and sick leave each year.
• In the Pattonville Fire District, 15-year veterans earn $108,403 in salary, $41,946 in benefits and 12 to 14 week of vacation and sick leave.
• In the Metro West district, the average salary for 15-year vets is $99,623. Benefits are worth another $37,374, and firefighters get 10 to 12 weeks of vacation and sick leave.
“There is no way you can overpay a firefighter, paramedic or policeman,” Ron Olshwanger, a member of the Creve Coeur fire board, told Ms. Weich last week.
Remember the BT fire reorg scenario included achieving 4 min response time everywhere requiring more fire houses and firefighters. An example of how spreading-out costs a lot, the other force bankrupting us.
I do too, but "ends justify the means" is a phrase for a reason. And in this case, it applies. It's not about it going "our" way, it's about it going the right way for the region. And if we as a region can't figure that out, then I'll compromise my principles in order to get it done.bprop wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2017I think it's hypocritical to support a statewide vote when you think it will go "your" way, but fight outstate interests against local self-determination in every other situation.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2017It's a tough call.Mark Groth wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2017^the only way we compete is a merged, unified city. We need one tax base not 90. We need one library system, park system, police/fire, political structure, etc. Not 2 or more. As the PD article points out, regional disdain for a merger is intense. I'm okay with a state vote. Some things are better addressed locally, for sure, but this one is too important and urgent, and the cities in STL county will fight this with everything they've got against the betterment of the region.
In my opinion, the only way it's going to happen is through a state-led vote. There is a lot of ignorant opposition to it locally. But I also don't believe Jefferson City should be deciding on any of the logistics or actualities if a merger happened.
- 2,430
While not necessarily opposed to either, my 2c is neither merger nor re-entry is going to change facts on the ground for people in terms of overall quality of life. And merger in particular is overblown, imo.
I'd much rather have STL City be like compact cities like Minneapolis & Pittsburgh (that are one city of many in Hennepin County & Allegheny County, respectively) that have relatively strong cores and pretty solid regional cooperation than say an Indianapolis, which outside of a growing downtown has little going for it in the core.
I'd much rather have STL City be like compact cities like Minneapolis & Pittsburgh (that are one city of many in Hennepin County & Allegheny County, respectively) that have relatively strong cores and pretty solid regional cooperation than say an Indianapolis, which outside of a growing downtown has little going for it in the core.
- 985
The question could be do you trust the voters in the area to think big picture or go further down the provincial path.jstriebel wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2017I do too, but "ends justify the means" is a phrase for a reason. And in this case, it applies. It's not about it going "our" way, it's about it going the right way for the region. And if we as a region can't figure that out, then I'll compromise my principles in order to get it done.