City reentry into the County

A catch-all forum for urban discussion. If it doesn't fit elsewhere, post here.
First unread post754 posts
STLEnginerd wrote:
My thinking is that a compromise involving some kind of protections for the minority party in county government might dampen the opposition. Not sure how it could be structured. Maybe a strong separation of powers where geographic bailiages control certain aspect of county governance (like a strong burroughs system). Economic tax incentives need to be controlled at the county level, but some significant things could be administered by bailiages.

Maybe the county could be governed by a council elected by some kind of geographical districts.
STLEnginerd wrote:
The one thing that troubles me is the undercurrent among city resident posters who seem ready to pass on re-entry because the see the city as being generally improving. That seems incredibly short sighted to me. SO many county decisions have significant impact on the city.

That's frustrating because it's basically the same wrong argument the county residents are making against re-entry (that re-entry is about the county subsidizing municipalities). Re-entry is needed to provide a more unified government structure for regional issues.
Interesting is bringing up the partisian divide issues. Could one way to address this is make county government non partisan in elections? Since in many local governments party labels don't exist.

And something like a boroughs system that is employed elsewhere would seem to be a good model for adoption here. Where there is some local control, but it would be more consolidated and organized than most municipalities as they exist now and part of the structure of a larger city government. It could also be a way to long-term as a mechanism for admitting new boroughs from neighboring counties are part of the structure.

But that is more of a next phase and beyond the part of readmittance of city into county. It just seems like a lot of the debate is talking about different things in the political discussion.
MarkHaversham wrote:
Maybe the county could be governed by a council elected by some kind of geographical districts.
STLEnginerd wrote:
The one thing that troubles me is the undercurrent among city resident posters who seem ready to pass on re-entry because the see the city as being generally improving. That seems incredibly short sighted to me. SO many county decisions have significant impact on the city.

That's frustrating because it's basically the same wrong argument the county residents are making against re-entry (that re-entry is about the county subsidizing municipalities). Re-entry is needed to provide a more unified government structure for regional issues.


Regarding the first comment, I believe that is what is done now but not sure if the districts always keep incorporated municipalities intact or not. Regarding the second comment, I'm for re-entry (absent some landmine that may be out there like not being able to assess earnings tax or the like) but I think the bottom line benefits will be rather limited. Hopefully we get to find out and I'm wrong.
StlToday - Chesterfield residents criticize council vote against St. Louis city rejoining the county

A pair of residents took issue Wednesday with their City Council’s vote last month to officially oppose unification of the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County.

Jake Hollander, a Chesterfield resident is executive director of St. Louis Strong, a non-profit group advocating unification of St. Louis city with St. Louis County. He told Council members and Mayor Bob Nation on Wednesday night: “Your shortsighted political resolution fails to recognize that your interests are intertwined with those of your neighbors.”


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... b085f.html
Mayor Bob Nation contended that the resolution the Council approved “reflected insight and knowledge beyond what you (Hollander and Greenbaum) may imagine — this was not an empty political statement, and the council had good reasons to vote the way they did.”


Oh please it was for partisan reasons nothing more, nothing less. I can't stand that guy
The Real Reason Your City Has No Money
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017 ... s-no-money
joelo wrote:
Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:42 am
Mayor Bob Nation contended that the resolution the Council approved “reflected insight and knowledge beyond what you (Hollander and Greenbaum) may imagine — this was not an empty political statement, and the council had good reasons to vote the way they did.”
Oh please it was for partisan reasons nothing more, nothing less. I can't stand that guy
Exactly. Complete BS. it's just a matter of time before the antiquated voice of the Bob Nation's of our region is replaced by the more progressive voice of the next generation.
Look, you're just not privy to all the findings of the Chesterfield intelligence agencies.
Mayor Bob Nation contended that the resolution the Council approved “reflected insight and knowledge beyond what you (Hollander and Greenbaum) may imagine — this was not an empty political statement, and the council had good reasons to vote the way they did.”
so, logically, the PD is going to ask him to elaborate on "insight and knowledge"... right? isn't that what newspapers do?
^ Yes, and I have heard the argument of similar concerns in the city regarding minority votes. The city is 45/45 white/black. The city being part of the county would drop the black voter percentage to maybe 25.
Nice interview with Jake Hollander, founder of STLStrong.

http://insidestl.com/head-of-st-louis-n ... on/1984951
Alex Ihnen wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:07 am
^ Yes, and I have heard the argument of similar concerns in the city regarding minority votes. The city is 45/45 white/black. The city being part of the county would drop the black voter percentage to maybe 25.
Actually it would be closer to one-third.
Aren't we just talking about the county executive, that the city currently has no say in at all?
goat314 wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:42 pm
Alex Ihnen wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:07 am
^ Yes, and I have heard the argument of similar concerns in the city regarding minority votes. The city is 45/45 white/black. The city being part of the county would drop the black voter percentage to maybe 25.
Actually it would be closer to one-third.
County = 241,000 black residents of 1M
City = 148,000 black residents of 316K

So... 389K of 1.316M = 29.6

But then considering registered voters, it's going to be lower than that.
Like hearing this

Stenger - "I think we're going to do some things to really transform our region"

phpBB [media]


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtCm3jubTNI&t=7m5s[/youtube]
That link seems to be a bit broken...
Stenger's presence at Krewson's victory party gives me hope that moving towards a merger is not well and truly dead.
pattimagee wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:36 pm
That link seems to be a bit broken...
Works now
"Certainly I think the city and county have to get back together"

KMOV - Despite heavy Dem. advantage in city, Krewson says she's focused on general election

http://www.kmov.com/story/34702839/lyda ... -next-move
^ You left off the best part of the quote after that: talk about the divorce and how it's time to "remarry" but not first before "an engagement and prenup". I'm afraid that prenup is gonna be a b*tch... And to extend the analogy, I take it the city is "proposing" to the county? That is gonna take some kind of engagement ring. I wish the city had rich parents...
^Well, the City does have most of the area's Crown Jewels. Not such a bad dowry, really.
How would this eventually effect the city's ability to have a higher minimum wage?

Also, I expect the county to demand equal control of the Airport as part of any deal. Both parties put it in writing that the city can't benefit from the sales tax revenue redistribution pool, city isn't able to disincorporate any pre-existing areas, the city sherrif falls under the county police in some way, and the Cardinals are forced to be renamed the "Cardinals of greater St. Louis County".
chaifetz10 wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:57 pm
How would this eventually effect the city's ability to have a higher minimum wage?

Also, I expect the county to demand equal control of the Airport as part of any deal. Both parties put it in writing that the city can't benefit from the sales tax revenue redistribution pool, city isn't able to disincorporate any pre-existing areas, the city sherrif falls under the county police in some way, and the Cardinals are forced to be renamed the "Cardinals of greater St. Louis County".
A little hyperbolic but in some ways it a fair list... here is how i would have phrased them.
-The Airport should be put under a consolidated Port Authority. Any cost or profits would be distributed proportionally by said authority. Note they will be mostly costs.
-City would and should enter the sales tax pool. I could imagine a floor put on the amount they can take from it but it should be low enough that the current city financial state would not really be impacted by it.
-City should not be able to arbitrarily dump the problematic bits of the city through disincorporation. Then again neither should Bridgeton. If Bridgeton still maintains their incorporation of the west lake landfill, i don't foresee the city easily parting with even their most difficult neighborhoods. IMHO this is kind of a non-issue.
-City police and fire should enter the county as any other county municipality. Any merger between them and the county police should be thouroughly studied to maintain level of service. Long term i could imagine them merging under one authority but there would be a lot of issues to work out. Not least is does it make sense for unincorporated creve coure to have a say in how law enforcement is administered in downtown...?
-City stops complaining that only city dwellers are St. Louisians. The Cardinal's understand that already anyway.
I don't think the city's ability to enact a higher min wage depends on it being its own county.

Had the same thought on Port Authority.

Sure the city would be a taker in the sales tax pool? Ikea may put it in the maker column. Also it would take MOLeg action to include it.

I doubt the BoA would support partial disincorp. Imagine the firestorm. Wonder if the County boundary commission would have a say in an attempt to partial disincorp. Memphis is doing to drop some areas (different state, different rules of course) Interesting it's not because they are poor areas or polluted or etc, but rather too expensive to serve spread out auto oriented places. That's one worry I have about the super mega merger as there are vast areas that are insolvent long term. They already take wealth via utility rates, road infrastructure.

I'd like to thoroughly consider one PD for 1.3M people. I think it's ineffective to over-allocate policing resources to very safe areas, and allocate police resources to generating revenue for munis. I'd like public safety professionals deciding how best to allocate those resources with appropriate input from electeds and the public of course.
The whole long term issue of infrastructure actually causes me to wonder if reentering the county is, in fact, exactly the wrong thing to do. It looks good on paper right now, but will it stay that way? As it stands, the city is compact, fairly logical, and much more dense than the metro area as a whole. I think the population will begin to grow again very soon, if it hasn't already. (Mind you, I've been saying that for nigh on twenty years now. But the declines have at least gotten smaller over that period, and there has been quite a bit of infill. This isn't Xeno's Paradox. Sooner or later there won't be another half step and someone will win the race.) If the city can be made sustainable as is, and I think the answer to that is yes, what's really to be gained from reentry into the county? And what's potentially to be lost? I have absolutely no desire to subsidize the sprawl that's been so rampant. I don't want my property taxes going to roads out to Wildwood for people that have vastly more money than I'll ever see. To be fair, the worst sprawl is now well past the county, but it still seems a relevant question.

Who is online

In total there are 10 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 10 guests (based on users active over the past 30 minutes)
Most users ever online was 969 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:56 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests