urbanSTL

StlAlex wrote: ↑

12:10 AM - Feb 26

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... warns.html

Spencer says city services will be "decimated" and other city employees will have to be cut under the police board's proposed budget, which gives the police department more than a $57 million increase.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

This is so unfair, the state should foot the bill

Trololzilla wrote:Does the city itself own the vehicles, equipment, and buildings they use? If so, just charge them $58 million in rent.

No. When the takeover happened, the ownership of all the property related to the PD shifted over to the PD instead of the city. Part of why they're asking for so much money they say is to afford maintenance of all the property.

I believe the city is already planning to charge for the use of the city garage and whatever other city amenities the PD will use.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I suspect bankruptcy for the city is the point, especially when the police budget is going to compare to Denver and Portland, cities 3x the size of St. Louis population wise. I think we might be hard pressed to find a city where the police budget is this large among cities that are 300,000 or similar in size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The report last week about the cost of deferred maintenance on other city properties surely must also apply to the SLMPD causing some increased of funding. The perception with a lack of public safety is the number one issue for the majority of citizens both in the city and region and holds us back in so many ways. It's good there is a focus on this that the progressives in political power refuse to do.  For most its hard to take the city government seriously when they cry poor because of all the wasted spending they do. Free checks to families for income equity, bloated bureaucracies, and awarding grants to fake companies don't help the city's cause. 

So burn a bunch of money on toys for police? A big source of waste has been settlements and judgments for police misbehavior. There are over 70 active lawsuits right now. They need to work on that.
It's hard to take the police board seriously when it acts this recklessly with public dollars and public trust. 

southcitykid wrote:The report last week about the cost of deferred maintenance on other city properties surely must also apply to the SLMPD causing some increased of funding. The perception with a lack of public safety is the number one issue for the majority of citizens both in the city and region and holds us back in so many ways. It's good there is a focus on this that the progressives in political power refuse to do.  For most its hard to take the city government seriously when they cry poor because of all the wasted spending they do. Free checks to families for income equity, bloated bureaucracies, and awarding grants to fake companies don't help the city's cause. 

Meanwhile you voted for a rapist and a pedophile

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

IIRC, in the end those checks didn't come from the city, Jack Dorsey paid for them.

quincunx wrote:IIRC, in the end those checks didn't come from the city, Jack Dorsey paid for them.

Yea because the Missouri Constitution bans direct payment of tax dollars to people. Kinda like how the Missouri Constitution bans unfunded mandates from the state legislature.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Stl Mag - Police Board budget demand goes from ‘crippling’ to ‘catastrophic,’ mayor says

Last week, Mayor Cara Spencer had a disagreement with the rest of the Board of Police Commissioners, to the tune of as much as $72 million. But since then, the parties have only gotten further apart. In a letter to other city leaders sent Friday, Spencer says the Police Board is now demanding a 60 percent increase over this year.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/police-board-budget-letter/

Hard to see how this doesn't end up in court with the police board being so unreasonable.

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... -hike.html

Spencer finally is doing what should have been done last year and is suing the state based on the Hancock Amendment, which the city says the police board law violates.

Of course, her standing is hurt because she is implying that somehow the "budget impass" makes any sort of difference when in reality the law would be just as illegal even if there was no impass. So wouldn't be shocked if the city gets grilled on that and fails because of it. Make them explain why the Hancock Amendment only applies when it best fits the mayor's office's interest.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Just depends which judge gets this but in 2024 viewer approved a constitutional amendment that makes Hancock not applicable to police boards. The City will argue that it didn’t apply to it since the board didn’t exist, only the KC one did. Tough

Spencer suing the state is leading story on most local news.

Thought there would be a little more discussion of it on here.

At the end it will go to MO SC, which is more moderate than SCOTUS. If there are enough textualist on it, City may have a shot

The City of St. Louis’ lawsuit argues that the state’s control of the police department, and the funding mandate tied to it, is unconstitutional under the Hancock Amendment, which prohibits the state from imposing unfunded mandates on local governments.

The city’s argument hinges on how the police department is legally defined. Historically, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department was created in 1861 and operated under a state-controlled board of commissioners until 2013. However, in 2012, Missouri voters passed Proposition A, which explicitly used the word “establishing” to authorize the city to create a new, locally controlled municipal police force — in not merely transfer authority over the existing one. The City did exactly that in 2013, creating a legally distinct department under its own governance.

When the state reasserted control through House Bill 495, it did not create a new department. Instead, the law expressly states that the state board would “assume control” of the existing department — language that stands in direct contrast to the Kansas City statute, which authorizes the KC board to appoint, organize, equip, and arm a force from scratch. The city argues this distinction is decisive: the current SLMPD traces its legal origin to the city’s 2013 actions, not the 1861 state-created entity.
This becomes critical under Amendment 4, passed in 2024, which exempts police funding mandates from the Hancock Amendment — but only for departments established by a state board of commissioners. The city’s position is that its current department does not meet that definition, since it was established by the city in 2013, not by a state board. Critically, Missouri’s own official ballot language told voters when they approved Amendment 4 that the carve-out applied to Kansas City only, because at the time of the vote, no St. Louis state board yet existed.
As a result, the city argues that the state-imposed requirement to allocate a minimum percentage of general revenue to policing still qualifies as an unfunded mandate and remains fully subject to the Hancock Amendment.

^ thank you for the analysis DB

But won't the Missouri legislature just pass a new law that updates the language? It really feels the best actual win here is clarification of what is/isn't general revenue.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

3:57 PM - 12 days ago

But won't the Missouri legislature just pass a new law that updates the language? It really feels the best actual win here is clarification of what is/isn't general revenue.

Well, they would need to put on a ballot another constitutional amendment to change amendment 4 from 2024.    I think this ends up a win for the city if it just gets a judge to say that it’s general revenue is what the city thinks it is ($832m in fy2027) vs what the board says ($1.38b), even if the board stays

Baltimore Jack wrote:Spencer suing the state is leading story on most local news.

Thought there would be a little more discussion of it on here.

There was lots of discussion back when they should have filed a lawsuit almost a year ago. If I were the judge in this case, I'd ask the city's lawyer why they chose to sue now as opposed to last year. Why does the law only apply when they want it it?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I’m in Kansas City this week at our company’s headquarters, just south of downtown in Crown Center, for meetings. With the earnings tax vote happening last week here and in St. Louis, I asked our CFO how the earnings tax factors into their thinking on location. He looked at me blankly and said they don’t even consider it.

StlAlex wrote: ↑

5:41 PM - 12 days ago

Baltimore Jack wrote:Spencer suing the state is leading story on most local news.

Thought there would be a little more discussion of it on here.

There was lots of discussion back when they should have filed a lawsuit almost a year ago. If I were the judge in this case, I'd ask the city's lawyer why they chose to sue now as opposed to last year. Why does the law only apply when they want it it?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

They could have been waiting until their cause of action had, without question, accrued so that the state couldn’t make any good argument against the plaintiff’s standing. Just a guess. I haven’t been following.

Could also be incompetence or just hoping for the best.

Why wouldn't all alders (especially Pres. Greens fraction) want to reach a veto proof bill before sending to Spencer? Anything truly controversial would just get vetoed and sent back until it either is more aligned to Spencer's vision or veto proof. It seems like an even bigger opportunity to waste time. 

Possible a political move to corner Spencer into "rejecting funding for North St. Louis" once Green changes the agreement last minute to cut out Downtown.  

St. Louis aldermen reject supermajority rule for Rams settlement spending
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... ce=twitter 

A veto proof majority would make it significantly harder to spend parts of the money on tornado recovery, like what was done last year. It says in the article.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk