Share
3,547
Life MemberLife Member
3,547

PostDec 30, 2018#901

I think people are really underestimating how much the "most violent" and "top 5 poorest" rankings hurt our region. National reputation is VERY VERY important. Especially in the information age. Don't fool yourself into thinking that St. Louis hasn't lost a lot of economic development opportunities to places like Nashville, Columbus, Indy, Louisville, etc.

Hypothetical Scenario: A logistics firm based on the East Coast is looking to set up a "Heartland" operation and moving 500 people with families to this new hub. It's now between Nashville and St. Louis, everything is relatively equal (in fact St. Louis would be a slightly cheaper option), unfortunately the day before the board meeting the CEO googles both and the first thing that pops up is St. Louis rank #1 dangerous city in America. The next day, Nashville newspapers headline "Music City beats Murder City for 500 jobs: with plans too double local employment in next 5 years".

PostDec 30, 2018#902

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑
Dec 30, 2018
 ^^ not arguing for or against this, but would it make sense to consolidate government in Clayton rather than downtown given that Clayton is more central to the merged region?

People in West County now think downtown is all of the sudden safe, if they currently don't think it is?

People in Denver now think of STL differently and are going to start visiting here all of the sudden?
re Denver and other outsiders: yes. they'll see St. Louis as healthier and less Podunk because of the larger population, and less dangerous because of the diluted crime stats. most people don't dig into the details like the people reading this forum. Just the news cycle about a new cooperative St. Louis region will generate great publicity. St. Louis' reputation will improve quickly, and that improved reputation will rub off on the locals. but locals will really come around once the merger starts bearing fruit in terms of improved performance.
What's crazy is that St. Louis is not much different than most large urban areas, the socioeconomic system we have in creates rich and poor areas, the problem we have in St. Louis is that our local government exacerbates the underlying issues and makes social mobility akin to a 3rd world country. I was just in Houston and they have their own version of the Northside (In fact, it is a much larger geographic area). Only difference is that because Houston is so geographically large, there are areas that are essentially Clayton, Chesterfield, and Wildwood sharing a tax base with areas like Wellston, Walnut Park, and Lemay. The benefit is that even in the worst areas of Houston there is a basic level of public and private service that are non-existent in many areas of St. Louis. Areas like Richmond Heights would no longer be able to foolishly use TIFs to steal a Walmart from Maplewood, because it doesn't matter where it's located when revenues are shared. TIFs would then be used to actually attract new jobs and reinvest in neighborhoods that actually need meaningful reinvestment. Under the proposed plan, affordable housing actually works better, because now you have a city of 1.3 million saying, "hey why don't we use our affordable housing grant to build around Rock Road and Wellston Metrolink stations", something a municipality of 2,000 people can't leverage. Also, "county" transit funds would now be used to invest in areas that actually use transit. Like Denis said, Northside-Southside build out is actually feasible if we are a city of 1.3 million. Currently, Stenger can play political games with transit funds, because neither the people on Cherokee Street or Natural Bridge or his constituents. There is also no alliance with people in North County with the city of St. Louis, because you would need the combination of both to push a meaningful transit agenda forward.
6,123
Life MemberLife Member
6,123

PostDec 30, 2018#903

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Dec 29, 2018
 Someone else mentioned that perception doesn’t fix anything. It fixes a lot. It’s half the work. And the other half can be done by having more resources that this will give us

Things do like NS metrolink become more viable because the 1% sales tax for metro that the city and county currently collects is controlled by one entity and its spent in one entity.
'Bout that sales tax . . . I really want to see the financial details on this. They're going to make it or break it, but I doubt they ever even make it into the news cycle outstate. The bullet points seemed to suggest municipalities would no longer be allowed to collect sales tax. Would that not include the newly chartered "Super St. Louis"? And would not that new charter also mean that we could no longer enact an earnings tax? (Since no municipality can presently create a new one. And St. Louis as we know it would be gone, along with its entire government and tax structure.) Where does what was St. Louis get money to pave roads and buy fire trucks? We won't get any of that Chesterfield property tax, since that'll still go to Chesterfield. (Unless the city can now levy property taxes against these semi-independent entities. Which seems remarkably unlikely.)

Reputation is real, but it's not entirely built by cheap headlines. And even if this passes and works I don't see it changing our reputation overnight. If it works the rewards will come slowly. If it collapses the pain will come fast. We cannot recreate the entire region in fifteen months with a half-assed plan. It's a really dang big project that will require a really solid plan, especially if you want to built it out that fast. Even building a piddling little corporate campus takes more planning than I've seen so far. And this is a whole shipload bigger than any other project the region has ever seen. Man, but there's a lot of moving parts. Organic moving parts. This is brain surgery of the most critical sort on a brain none of us have ever properly mapped out or fully measured.
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostDec 30, 2018#904

St. Louis county levies a property tax on Chesterfield. I don't see why this new St. Louis wouldn't.
My guess with the sales tax is that it'll be like everyone is in the sales tax pool and all the add on sales taxes that munis have been piling on go away.
709
Senior MemberSenior Member
709

PostDec 30, 2018#905

goat314 wrote: ↑
Dec 30, 2018
 I think people are really underestimating how much the "most violent" and "top 5 poorest" rankings hurt our region. National reputation is VERY VERY important. Especially in the information age. Don't fool yourself into thinking that St. Louis hasn't lost a lot of economic development opportunities to places like Nashville, Columbus, Indy, Louisville, etc.
I couldn't agree more. Perception is reality and the national narrative on STL is that it's a crime-ridden city.

I travel frequently to a tourist destination in FL and when I ask people about their impressions of STL the responses are typically something about the Cardinals, AB and crime. I can't tell you the number of times I have told the story about the skewed stats and the city/county divorce to tourists from around the country, even Europeans.

Getting STL off those lists will go a long way towards changing that perception and with that, IMO, we will see more transplants.
3,968
Life MemberLife Member
3,968

PostDec 30, 2018#906

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑
Dec 30, 2018
 ^^ not arguing for or against this, but would it make sense to consolidate government in Clayton rather than downtown given that Clayton is more central to the merged region?

People in West County now think downtown is all of the sudden safe, if they currently don't think it is?

People in Denver now think of STL differently and are going to start visiting here all of the sudden?
re Denver and other outsiders: yes. they'll see St. Louis as healthier and less Podunk because of the larger population, and less dangerous because of the diluted crime stats. most people don't dig into the details like the people reading this forum. Just the news cycle about a new cooperative St. Louis region will generate great publicity. St. Louis' reputation will improve quickly, and that improved reputation will rub off on the locals. but locals will really come around once the merger starts bearing fruit in terms of improved performance.
I think Clayton location wise makes a lot more sense, but I don't want to take away from downtown so that is why I thought more of just putting the police headquarters in Clayton (for logistical reasons) and not the city hall.

Just merging isn't going to change it overnight and now things are magically better. They actually have to get better (especially for west county people to feel better about the city). I don't think most people look at the dangerous city lists unless you are in a city that is frequently on that list and it is brought up in social or local media. For me, I know Detroit is on the list but I never have thought, oh I won't go visit Detroit because of it. Maybe some people do, but I can't imagine it is that big a percentage.

I also still am in the camp of being the 50th biggest city or 8th doesn't matter. I don't think most people would still put us where our metro rank is (and still would be) in the 20s. If you aren't New York, Chicago, LA then you are just another city to most. I would doubt anyone knows San Antonio is the 7th biggest city, or even have it close to that. I would have said somewhere in the 30s if you asked me (they are actually the 24th largest MSA). It might be great to have a headline for a few days that says STL merges into the 8th largest city, but a month later most people won't remember or care.

I also don't think if it is an us vs Nashville thing that crime is going to factor that big into it. Nashville (like every city) has its share of crime. If Nashville gets the win because Nashville just is doing better now than us. If they decision makers visit both cities (which I assume they would), all Nashville has to do is take them downtown and show how busy it is and talk about their current growth. No income tax helps them also. The leaders here have to do their job and show the company that those headlines are misleading and that there are plenty of great areas. I think tax breaks are what will bring a company here, bottom line means more than crime to them. If they base a new office location on some press clippings then they aren't very good at their job.

I really want to see more details before I make a decision on this plan, especially financial changes. We do need some kind of merger. I just want to make sure if we are going to finally do it that we do it right and don't jump into something just to do it. I also don't want people thinking we will wake up one day, if this goes into effect, and half the battle is over. It will have just started. I am hopeful something can be worked out sooner than later.

EDIT: Not saying perception isn't an issue, it is. I just think that it isn't something that will just be fixed once it is larger city entity. I also don't think it will be fixed overnight because all of the sudden we are bigger and it dilutes crime stats. The actual new entity will have to make things safer and work to make the perception better by improving the city. It needs show it can be run effectively or all the perception things won't matter. The new entity will have to do a better job of attracting people and businesses here. It isn't a quick fix. It will take time.
1,680
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,680

PostDec 31, 2018#907

pdm_ad wrote: ↑
Dec 30, 2018
goat314 wrote: ↑
Dec 30, 2018
 I think people are really underestimating how much the "most violent" and "top 5 poorest" rankings hurt our region. National reputation is VERY VERY important. Especially in the information age. Don't fool yourself into thinking that St. Louis hasn't lost a lot of economic development opportunities to places like Nashville, Columbus, Indy, Louisville, etc.
I couldn't agree more. Perception is reality and the national narrative on STL is that it's a crime-ridden city.

I travel frequently to a tourist destination in FL and when I ask people about their impressions of STL the responses are typically something about the Cardinals, AB and crime. I can't tell you the number of times I have told the story about the skewed stats and the city/county divorce to tourists from around the country, even Europeans.

Getting STL off those lists will go a long way towards changing that perception and with that, IMO, we will see more transplants.
You are forgetting that high crime has been a mar on the region for decades now. Even if we don't land on those lists, the perception is still going to stick for a long time. I do agree perception is huge, though. I just don't think a couple years off of those lists changes anything though unless there is a revolutionary breakthrough in policing strategy. But that breakthrough also involves a loaded gun of changes that need to happen; socioeconomic mobility, poverty, schools, jobs.

I'm all for consolidation, but I'd prefer all municipality lines and jurisdictions removed. I still favor the borough plan that allows for localized representation, and break those down into smaller wards that more evenly represent all spectrums of the socioeconomic constituency in St. Louis.
3,432
Life MemberLife Member
3,432

PostJan 01, 2019#908

While crime perception is important, leadership is even more important. I believe a merger will encourage better leaders from the region to step forward and make better decisions based on regional advancement, not fractions of the region.

But with regard to crime:
When your city isn't in the news for Disney World, or Country Music, or Mountains, or an Ocean Front, but primarily for crime ranking, then it is important to get off those lists if we want anyone to want to move here. Ironically, when you look at the last FBI Table that included KC -- 2015--, then among the three big Missouri metros of Springfield, KC, and St. Louis, St. Louis ranks best of the three in violent crime rate and best in property crime rate. St. Louis metro also ranks far better in violent crime than Nashville, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Houston & Memphis metros, about the same as Detroit, only a little worse than Dallas and Denver, and not nearly as good as Minneapolis.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... es/table-6

But that is not the national perception because publications like Post Dispatch and Riverfront Times among others focus on the "city" list, where city limit boundaries keep pitting our small high crime city against near-metro-wide-area cities that include their lowest crime regions. Those rankings convince most St. Louisans we are the worst and we tell that to others. And nobody beyond Ballwin knows the difference between St. Louis and St. Louis metro.
1,292
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,292

PostJan 01, 2019#909

Aesir wrote: ↑
Dec 29, 2018
 Gotta love this thread.

Before plan released: "We've got to end the City-County split, a.s.a.p.!", "We have to think as a region!", "These rankings are royally screwing us!".

After plan released: "What!! Someone living in Wildwood will have as much of a voice in how the region is run as me???? Are you kidding? Terrible plan!", "Rankings don't ACTUALLY matter!".

Never change, StL, never change. This is part of the reason I'm glad the state is going to ram this down your throats, you people will never pull off a massive improvement like this on your own.
I don't think anyone here has a legitimate beef with a merger in principle (I certainly don't), but it's perfectly legitimate to have concerns with the plan that was presented. A merger is likely the single most important thing that will ever happen in St. Louis' history, and we only get one shot at it, so it has to be done correctly from the outset. That is my primary concern - the plan presented seems a bit more haphazard and vague than I would have expected for such an important issue. A merger in and of itself doesn't benefit anyone unless it is done correctly.
9,565
Life MemberLife Member
9,565

PostJan 01, 2019#910

^ youre going off 4 bullet points, there is no plan out there yet. the plan is far more complex then just those 4 broad points from the Biz Journal.
592
Senior MemberSenior Member
592

PostJan 01, 2019#911

^100% this. In addition, I've seen lots of hemming and hawing on Twitter from city politicos upset at the mere notion of consolidation. Naturally there will be lots of folks opposed out of very real fear their fiefdoms will be eliminated. One thought I had: those who would have us believe it's the "only shot" for reform and thus we ought reject this plan for XYZ reasons are comparing a real, live proposal with another alternative in which XYZ are not problematic aspects of the plan. However, we should be comparing the reform proposal with the status quo. Personally, I'd have a hard time coming up with any plan that is worse than the status quo. That's not to say we should accept the proposal without encouraging tweaks and asking questions, but that shouldn't lead us down the road to rejecting the plan outright.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJan 01, 2019#912

^ I hear what your saying but on the other hand I see people saying this is a great plan! But there is no final plan!

I think what is unfortunate is Better Together apparently has leaked what it did yet hasn't taken the care to release an official statement on what is going on with timeline & process.. i.e. when the plan is expected to be released and then what happens after that with feedback, etc. What we have instead is the impression from the rather vague reporting that something is coming down the pike soon that will be put on the ballot without care for the public's reaction. That isn't exactly healthy. Hopefully I'm wrong and this is more of a truly open process that will be responsive to reasonable feedback.
459
Full MemberFull Member
459

PostJan 02, 2019#913

For what it's worth, the business journal is running a survey on this subject. "Would you support combining the city and county under a new government entity"? With 997 votes cast thus far, the results are 65% for, 23% against and 12% undecided. Considering the conservative bent of the journal readers, that's a bit of a shocker to me. Maybe folks in STL are believing it's time for this!
I certainly hope so.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJan 03, 2019#914

^ I noticed that too. I grew up in West County and still have lots of family and others I know out there and many of them have said it's time. One simply put it "I don't like it, but we have to do something." And they may not like it, but let's be honest a lot of business owners and high level corporate people live out there and I think they're starting to see the writing on the wall. If St. Louis doesn't do something, it's *****. And for all the hand wringing about losing businesses from STL folks there are still 10 Fortune 500's in STL and lots of other huge private and public businesses with either a HQ here or a sizable presence here. I wouldn't say St. Louis is circling the drain, but treading water isn't much better, and certainly not from a corporate perspective. I think some of them are starting to realize that.

I'm not sure I'd say there is some huge silent majority for a merger out there...but maybe a small one...
1,680
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,680

PostJan 03, 2019#915

courtland wrote: ↑
Jan 02, 2019
 For what it's worth, the business journal is running a survey on this subject. "Would you support combining the city and county under a new government entity"? With 997 votes cast thus far, the results are 65% for, 23% against and 12% undecided. Considering the conservative bent of the journal readers, that's a bit of a shocker to me. Maybe folks in STL are believing it's time for this!
I certainly hope so.
I had no idea it leaned conservative. If anything, I lumped it in with the PD which falls liberal in my opinion.
597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostJan 05, 2019#916

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... -top-story

• Superimpose a new governmental entity, a “metro city,” over St. Louis city and county, with one mayor, one prosecuting attorney, one assessor and 33 council members.
The proposal would allow local mayors and council members to remain in place. New “municipal districts” that would replace cities like Webster Groves and Bel-Nor could continue to raise utility and property taxes, operate parks and recreation, collect trash and recycling and directing building and zoning. But they would lose their authority over roads, courts, police and economic development.
This doesn't seem too bad to me but I am hung up on 33 council members - I'm imagining 33 "municipal districts" and wondering how those lines will be drawn.

I'm still in favor of McNary's 9 borough plan (obviously).
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJan 06, 2019#917

I'm finding quite a few of the so-called Southside Progressives are firmly and vocally opposed to any merger. I'm really shocked by this; it's rather the opposite of what I had expected.
3,767
Life MemberLife Member
3,767

PostJan 06, 2019#918

Regarding previous comments about the perception related to city proper size, I do feel it is relevant. How many articles written from out of town journalists have mentioned St. Louis as the “58th largest city in the country“?? Then they mention how we used to be 4th largest. Then they go into the whole conversation about population loss over the last several decades. It would be great to put that to rest.

Now, regarding the “southside progressives” I would have to guess that they perceive the merger as taking the voices away from the people in lower income areas because other areas (Chesterfield, Kirkwood etc) are more valuable financially to the politicians involved in this new government. They fear reps from lower income areas will be less influential. Considering many run on the inclusion/equality narrative, I’d guess they’d oppose any merger that is perceived to take away their voice in this new government.
99
New MemberNew Member
99

PostJan 06, 2019#919

On the topic of "Southside Progressives", the few "progressive" city residents that I've spoken with regarding the merger won't trust anything that Sinquefield has touched. In their defense, some of the legislation that Sinquefield has supported in the past and his other endeavours (privatizing Lambert) do not come across as particularly beneficial for the city.

Given the perception of Sinquefield having ulterior motives and based on the vague details of the plan that have been published thus far in the news, I foresee a sizeable portion of city residents being opposed. If the final plan even hints at the county having authority over the city residents (imagined or otherwise), I think the civic pride of most city residents and resentment towards the county would cause many to vote no. There seems to be no love lost between city and county residents, based on what I've experienced over the last 25 years, and coming to a beneficial compromise that both parties agree to seems unlikely.

I guess it doesn't really matter if the majority of city and county voters don't support the plan if it is on the state ballot and Missouri gets a similar voter turnout to 2018.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJan 06, 2019#920

A friend of mine thought that a merger would somehow allow the City to be taken over by Republicans. I had to remind him that the office of St. Louis County Executive has been held by Democrats since 1991.
2,037
Life MemberLife Member
2,037

PostJan 06, 2019#921

The fact that Rex is trying to ram this down our throats by taking this to a statewide vote is almost everything we will need to know to be suspicious of this "plan".

PostJan 06, 2019#922

Well, if this is really how they plan for things to go down, at least the next 2 years are going to be a glorious conflagration of white hot incandescent rage from the usual quarters. This really has the potential to deliver extremely high quality content at an alarming pace, if you find suburban housewives ranting in the Post-Dispatch comment section diverting.
3
New MemberNew Member
3

PostJan 06, 2019#923

I saw this on channel 2 and did a search. This site came up and I'm interested in it but have never heard of it. I do not think the county and the city should merge it would be pretty bad for the county and I se no reason why it would be helpful to most people in the county. Only the people in the city would benefit.
99
New MemberNew Member
99

PostJan 06, 2019#924

Welcome, Delores!

I am curious about what you said. What benefit does the city get out of this plan, at least as it is known now? I'm going to guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you're referring to taxes.

Maybe I'm being overly naive, but I don't see the city suddenly leaching all the tax revenue from the county if the two were combined. WIth the county out-populating the city 3 to 1, I don't see the elected council representatives funneling any more tax dollars towards the city than currently being collected.
If I was really being pessimistic, I would say that the city might end up getting even less than what it is working with now.
39
New MemberNew Member
39

PostJan 06, 2019#925

Trololzilla wrote: ↑
Dec 28, 2018
 Biz Journal released the details of Better Together's plan:
The city of St. Louis and St. Louis County would be combined under a new entity via a sweeping plan to remake government in the region.

The Better Together task force, backed by Mayor Lyda Krewson and County Executive Steve Stenger, is set to reveal the proposed changes next month.

But several people briefed on the plan, which could change, outlined its contents to the Business Journal.

They said:
  • Better Together would fund an operation to get signatures for a Constitutional amendment with the goal of placing it on a statewide ballot in November 2020. It would be promoted by a multimillion-dollar “yes” campaign, directed by Democratic operative Nancy Rice and financed by index-fund pioneer Rex Sinquefield and others, and all Missouri residents would get a say. If a majority of voters approve the amendment, within five or six weeks all current government offices in the city and county would be suspended and a transitional government would take over for about 15 months, pending elections.
  • A new governmental entity — with a new charter — would be created in place of the current city of St. Louis and St. Louis County structures. It would encompass the current city and county land mass. The government would be based in downtown St. Louis.
  • Elected officials would include: one mayor, one prosecuting attorney, one assessor and 33 council members.
  • The county’s 88 municipalities would lose the ability to collect most sales taxes, have their own police departments and courts. What’s currently the city and county would have one police department and one court system. The municipalities, their officials and legislative bodies would still exist.
  • Fire and school districts would be untouched.
It wasn’t immediately clear how municipal debt and the city’s earnings tax would be handled, but Better Together has said previously that no government will get a “bailout.”

Rice, executive director of Better Together, said in a statement Friday:

“The Better Together Task Force has not yet finalized its report. We expect completion and public release in January 2019 and look forward to sharing the details of their proposal at that time. Over the past 18 months the task force has hosted seven public forums, held hundreds of stakeholder meetings and received more than 1,200 online surveys in an effort to gather community input.”
A spokesman for Krewson declined to comment. A spokesman for Stenger did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plan is likely to face opposition from groups of voters in the city and county worried about local control of services and government jobs. The Municipal League, which represents many municipalities, and North County police departments figure to be part of that “no” coalition.

Proponents are poised to take a message to outstate voters that slow-growth St. Louis, the biggest driver of Missouri's economy, needs a boost. Sinquefield has funded other initiatives to change government, such as the successful 2010 state ballot initiative to force a vote every five years on the earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City.

The Better Together task force launched in June, led by Suzanne Sitherwood, president and CEO of St. Louis-based energy company Spire; Will Ross, associate dean of diversity and professor of medicine at Washington University; and Arindam Kar, partner at law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. At that launch, Better Together, which is backed by the Sinquefield-bankrolled Missouri Council for a Better Economy, said overall spending for St. Louis’ municipal services grew 5 percent, or $119 million, in the past three years, to $2.5 billion annually. That includes the city, county, municipalities in the county and 23 fire districts.

The initiative comes as the St. Louis region was surpassed by Baltimore this year as the 20th largest metro area in the U.S.
It's a pretty big "meh" from me.
dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Dec 29, 2018
 I would say munis would effectively become CIDs after losing police, courts and sales tax. I’d imagine most would fold by end of decade.
(Emphasis mine.) One of the biggest things is that municipalities will not be able to levy sales taxes on their own. County municipalities are very dependent on those for revenue (hence the endless sales tax and TIF wars) and I suspect this is one of the most important provisions of this merger. Like dbInSouthCity mentioned, I can't imagine a lot of them surviving for more than a decade if this is true.

Also, there doesn't seem to be anything in this plan that suggests that the population of St. Louis City and St. Louis County will be combined into one for statistical purposes. Where are people concluding that we'll suddenly have a St. Louis of over 1 million people if this goes through? This seems more like the City and County becoming the same county and consolidating services.
Read more posts (780 remaining)
Share