urbanSTL

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

Nov 15, 2023

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Nov 15, 2023

My analogy is this money is paper that can be burned to keep people warm.  You could lay it all on the ground and burn it up right away or you can put it taking out one piece at a time to burn but overtime much of it will get eaten by moths, or you can use it as kindling to light a bigger fire.

This is not how money and investment work, hahahaha

Spent money can be an investment with a substantial return, or it can be frittered away in a frivolous way that is essentially wasted.  If you hold money back not spending it then value over time will fall relative to what it can buy due to inflation.  Its an ANALOGY to illustrate a point but whatever.  

To your surplus GFOA assessment I'm not sure we can call the 44mil unspent a true surplus

The point is we already exceed GFOAs recommended threshold.  (actually not sure if that fund includes the Rams dollars or if that is accounted separately. which would certainly impact how much money is available to address real problems but doesn't change the principle i am speaking to.

I could go point by point but I'm not sure it matters.  Fundamentally I am saying we should not arbitrarily limit the spending based on holding the money for decades we should spend it on projects that will have positive returns and build momentum faster.  If there are no good projects worth spending money on then yeah, don't spend it.  Keep it.  Wait for a better investment vehicle.  I would like to think you could agree with that.  Beyond that its just a debate about what projects present a good value proposition.  On that your mileage may vary.  (I did specifically express skepticism on additional crime prevention spending.  I just said i was open to considering something if it was presented, but you interpret it how you like i guess.)

One place i think you may have a point.  It worth considering limiting the spend rate to a pace that gives voters the opportunity to change course with their vote if they don't feel like the money is being spent well, before it IS all gone.  SO yeah open to that limitation, although not sure how you do it statutorily.

I think the difference here is that I would like to see a scaled improvement of our public built environment while I when i read your list they are soft issues that require decades long programs and initiatives.  I favor the tangible investment, though as before I agree your list are issues that sorely need to be addressed.  And yes we can agree that finding the best possible investment vehicle is ideal, and that the money for policing is there in the budget already, and does not require the Rams money in any capacity. 

[Edit] I think immediately investing in an immigration program and paying substantially more for trash drivers is a no brainer.  Free public transport within the city only is likely impossible. [/end Edit]
Either way, we fritter it away is the general takeaway?

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2023

I think the difference here is that I would like to see a scaled improvement of our public built environment while I when i read your list they are soft issues that require decades long programs and initiatives.  I favor the tangible investment, though as before I agree your list are issues that sorely need to be addressed.  And yes we can agree that finding the best possible investment vehicle is ideal, and that the money for policing is there in the budget already, and does not require the Rams money in any capacity. 

[Edit] I think immediately investing in an immigration program and paying substantially more for trash drivers is a no brainer.  Free public transport within the city only is likely impossible. [/end Edit]
Either way, we fritter it away is the general takeaway?

I would think free transit would be way easier than an immigration program.  Its just writing a check for the difference to Metro.  Now there are politics there so maybe that's what you are referring to but implementation is easy.  Of course they should take some time to figure out what the plan is to fund it when the seed money runs out, though FWIW i think at that point they should put it to a vote at that point.  If it was successful a funding mechanism passes easily.

The fact that so many frequent riders are covered by orgs like WashU gives me some pause.

One of the ideas I submitted was that they should feed the housing supply with LRA lots and LRA-properties (in neighborhoods that have purchase interest) that is dramatically in demand right now. Just start hiring local building crews to build/renovate these new/old brick homes and sell them at some small profit. Then work with a local bank for a reasonable mortgage rate backed by either of the +$100M... and then sell the loans to banks in a few years when rates come back down. Or you could buy down the rates for the future home owner/citizens as a part of the program. Put the sale revenue back into the bank and repeat.

^by 'hiring' I mean enlist a construction crew via contract to build it, I'm talking about local construction companies, not have the city employ them... 

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2023

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2023

I think the difference here is that I would like to see a scaled improvement of our public built environment while I when i read your list they are soft issues that require decades long programs and initiatives.  I favor the tangible investment, though as before I agree your list are issues that sorely need to be addressed.  And yes we can agree that finding the best possible investment vehicle is ideal, and that the money for policing is there in the budget already, and does not require the Rams money in any capacity. 

[Edit] I think immediately investing in an immigration program and paying substantially more for trash drivers is a no brainer.  Free public transport within the city only is likely impossible. [/end Edit]
Either way, we fritter it away is the general takeaway?

I would think free transit would be way easier than an immigration program.  Its just writing a check for the difference to Metro.  Now there are politics there so maybe that's what you are referring to but implementation is easy.  Of course they should take some time to figure out what the plan is to fund it when the seed money runs out, though FWIW i think at that point they should put it to a vote at that point.  If it was successful a funding mechanism passes easily.

The fact that so many frequent riders are covered by orgs like WashU gives me some pause.

I was thinking about both the political and logistical aspects.  How do you differentiate between city and county and east side?  is the free fare based on point of origin?  Do you still need to get tickets from the kiosk?  how does fare enforcement work? 

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Nov 17, 2023

7 Ideas under consideration:

• Upgrading Water Infrastructure
• Improving City Services by Attracting and Retaining Workers
• Increasing Public Safety
• Increasing Access to Affordable Childcare
• Improving City Finances
• Improving Community Mobility
• Catalyzing Downtown Reinvestment

its a good list, if a little vague

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Nov 17, 2023

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Nov 17, 2023

7 Ideas under consideration:

• Upgrading Water Infrastructure
• Improving City Services by Attracting and Retaining Workers
• Increasing Public Safety
• Increasing Access to Affordable Childcare
• Improving City Finances
• Improving Community Mobility
• Catalyzing Downtown Reinvestment

its a good list, if a little vague

There are the ideas that were submitted that make up the more broad idea within each of them. I'd type them in but they are many, lol

It looks like there's an upvoting mechanism so if you haven't setup a log in yet, make sure you go cast a vote for your favs. 

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 17, 2023

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Nov 17, 2023

However they spend the money, it needs to be physical. No more dropping millions into non-profits who promise to do something they cant while streets, sidewalks, and buildings go untouched.

Have to agree, I think capital investment being a big part of it/chunk of the money is a no brainer.   Of course, Using a good chunk of the funds to demo of raised freeway and replace with blvd between Wash Ave &  Cass Ave along with a street/sidewalk for near northside is a no brainer in my mind.   Especially when you onsider the dome created a super bock to begin with so why not return some of the mobility and by putting some of funds to the area around the dome.  

I would say capital investment for high quality projects (not novelty stuff like loop trolley) where we also receive federal or state block grants does make alot of sense.  If there is no federal/state matching funds i am less enthused.

I also think there are worthy efforts that could make more difference in the average St. Louisans life (reducing homelessness, addressing services shortfall) , or in the general momentum of the city (increasing immigration) than fixing sidewalks and painting crosswalks.