City reentry into the County

A catch-all forum for urban discussion. If it doesn't fit elsewhere, post here.
First unread post860 posts
MarkHaversham wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:27 pm

The other issue is the quantity of local governments, which inevitably work against each other. That's where you need something like a population cutoff to force integration regardless of quality.
Other than regional TIF control and sales tax policy (which is needed), I call nonsense. And high standards would reduce the 90-something municipalities of today, not increase them to 100.
bprop wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:16 pm
And high standards would reduce the 90-something municipalities of today, not increase them to 100.
I just threw a round number out due to laziness, I didn't intend to imply that the municipalities would propagate due to standards.
Tom Minogue is on board for the merger....I think it's very important to see local business leaders on board.
Thompson Coburn’s Tom Minogue on his chairmanship, the future and downtown St. Louis

What is St. Louis’ greatest asset? It may be a cliche, but it’s true: the advantages of a larger metro area without the disadvantages.

What is the biggest change it needs to make? Fewer governmental entities. Merge the city and county. There is no No. 2.

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... nship.html
bprop wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:33 am
So if a town under 10,000 can meet requirements (no abuse of traffic tickets, professional services, accredited police or contract with accredited agency) and its citizens don't want to disincorporate, that's not good enough? Why the arbitrary population cutoff?

I'm all for standards-based measures. Raise the bar for everyone - and really that should include Missourah as well.
The arbitrary numbers exist simply because I believe that no matter how the whole merger process goes down (if it does), then someone is going to find any justification for consolidation to be arbitrary. The numbers themselves are a bit irrelevant - they were just there as an example to make a point. I don't necessarily even think that population is the best way to go about consolidation, but it was a start. Ideally, there'd be much better ways to quantify forcing a merger, using a mixture of different things (including population). I'm sure there's some 'magical' combination of statistics analyzed by people far more qualified than I am that can be better employed for such a task.

At some point, however, there's going to have to be some push turning to shove in order to reduce the number of municipalities and the pointless duplication of many services. Some (many) likely won't like it, but it's gotta happen someday.
Trololzilla wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:47 am
At some point, however, there's going to have to be some push turning to shove in order to reduce the number of municipalities and the pointless duplication of many services. Some (many) likely won't like it, but it's gotta happen someday.
I think we might be surprised at how many sh*thole (pardon the term) towns and villages would have to 'voluntarily' cease to exist if they had to attain police department accreditation, meet open records disclosure SLAs, comply with GASB (governmental financial reporting) standards, and more.

I'm suggesting Missouri raise that bar and enjoy the benefits of the fallout - including such 'voluntary' consolidation - which would be much easier than approving and implementing a grand consolidation scheme.
bprop wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:32 am
Trololzilla wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:47 am
At some point, however, there's going to have to be some push turning to shove in order to reduce the number of municipalities and the pointless duplication of many services. Some (many) likely won't like it, but it's gotta happen someday.
I think we might be surprised at how many sh*thole (pardon the term) towns and villages would have to 'voluntarily' cease to exist if they had to attain police department accreditation, meet open records disclosure SLAs, comply with GASB (governmental financial reporting) standards, and more.

I'm suggesting Missouri raise that bar and enjoy the benefits of the fallout - including such 'voluntary' consolidation - which would be much easier than approving and implementing a grand consolidation scheme.
This seems to be not that difficult to envision. I keep picturing St. Louis metro area is a small scale Holy Roman Empire in how Germany was set up politically then. It caused them to punch well below its weight as a result of fragmentation and got fixed by unification. Also in that example there was an intermediate stage that occured in the 19th century of consolidation into a smaller number of nations.
This article from a Better Together staffer in eq seems so unconvincing...

Why Do We Let Political Fragmentation Hold Back Our Entrepreneurs?
http://eqstl.com/political-fragmentation-saint-louis/

Greater intergovernmental cooperation is needed in our region and I am not necessarily opposed to city reentry or a full merger; but I am becoming increasingly firm in my conviction that we do not need either of those unlikely changes to move our region ahead, In fact, I think it's getting to the point where all this talk of WE NEED MERGER TO MOVE AHEAD is starting to be a bit counterproductive as we are overly using it as an excuse for all our shortcomings. It's somewhat reflective of our seemingly inherent need here to pursue Silver Bullet strategies instead of emphasizing the daily work that moves our region ahead.

Anyway, I hope this whole Better Together effort moves on to its recommendations phase soon so we can get on with things.
Great to hear a candidate for County Exec,Mark Mantovani, talking about big picture strategy and making reentry a focus of his campaign.

KOMX- Mark Reardon Show
https://kmox.radio.com/media/audio-chan ... 2018-3-4pm
quincunx wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:14 am
Great to hear a candidate for County Exec,Mark Mantovani, talking about big picture strategy and making reentry a focus of his campaign.

KOMX- Mark Reardon Show
https://kmox.radio.com/media/audio-chan ... 2018-3-4pm
At what time did he say it? (so I can avoid 33 minutes of talk)
I recommend listening to the whole thing. They start talking reentry around 23:45