Tennessee has no state income tax. I am not sure what additional state taxes Tennessee has or if Nashville has additional employment taxes? That is hard for MO and St. Louis to compete against especially when Nashville also has strong Universities, hospitals and music industry.
- 8,155
^ I'm not terribly familiar with Nashville, but I suspect that it is mostly growing for reasons other than no income tax..... it seems to be an attraction for both young people and retirees; I can imagine if it were something of a mix between Saint Louis, Columbia and Branson. Missouri overall is a comparatively low tax state and we see growth in KC besting Memphis and Springfield surpassing Knoxville. I'd say our paltry growth is due more to the challenges from our regional fracture and transitioning from our Rust Belt past than on having an income tax.
- 5,433
That may not be the draw to Nashville, but it certainly doesn't hurt, and it is attractive to executives looking to expand to or relocate their companies' headquarters to Tennessee.tech840 wrote:Tennessee has no state income tax. I am not sure what additional state taxes Tennessee has or if Nashville has additional employment taxes? That is hard for MO and St. Louis to compete against especially when Nashville also has strong Universities, hospitals and music industry.
Furthermore, I could be wrong about this, but I believe the sales tax rate (state and local combined) is capped at a maximum of 9.75% in Tennessee. I don't remember what the base state sales tax rate is, but I believe there's no tax rate higher than 9.75%. That's a bit steep, but it's not much higher than St. Louis' tax rate, which goes even higher in districts with TIF or other special taxes, sometimes as high as 11% or even 12% in some parts of the city. Since St. Louis has more than a few financial concerns, I wonder when our leaders will acknowledge we have squeezed all of the blood out of the sales tax turnip. My guess is they'll approve many more TIFs and special taxing districts before we ever get to that point.
Could it be the difference between a "Right to Work" and a "Union" state?threeonefour wrote:...and while St. Louis' economy grew 0.1%, Nashville's grew 3.6% in 2013. They must be doing something right there!
The other difference between St. Louis and Nashville is they don't have a "white flight" safe haven like St. Charles county. Yes, there's Murfreesboro and they're growing at an astounding rate: but its not physically separated and it's more racially mixed.
- 8,155
^ Like income tax, it is doubtful that Right to Work is any real driver for overall growth. When you look at the state of Tennessee it has grown precisely at the same rate as the national average since 2010 and roughly on par with or below such union and income tax states such as California, Colorado, Minnesota and Massachusetts. Washington is outpacing Tennessee (and Seattle beats Nashville) and I believe is a hybrid state with no state income tax but is pro-union.
Nashville itself has a lot going for it with its ability to attract Millennials and with its strong health, government and university sectors and these likely are the primary reasons for why it is doing much stronger than slow-growth Memphis and perform on par with other growing cities throughout the country and in varying tax/union environments.
Nashville itself has a lot going for it with its ability to attract Millennials and with its strong health, government and university sectors and these likely are the primary reasons for why it is doing much stronger than slow-growth Memphis and perform on par with other growing cities throughout the country and in varying tax/union environments.
Sometimes I wonder if the people in our regional government put as much mental effort into comparative issues like this one as the contributors to this forum do.
- 8,155
Nice post. With our slow regional growth, a central question becomes how much growth in the city is it realistic to expect? I think we're doing a decent job of capturing young adult arrivals to the region (whether it is young people from within the region striking out on there own for the first time or from those coming from other regions) and while I think we can always do better on that front, I think the key is retention of these same people as they form families. The other potentially fertile ground is having people come back to the city who moved out to the suburbs, but I don't really think that is terribly realistic to expect great return migration... some older adults looking to downsize after kids are out of the roost, etc. (Perhaps a quality Northside Regeneration project could also appeal to black families fleeing the political malaise of the County.)danryan1 wrote: The truth is, as a region, we don't need any growth. How much did the region grow when St. Charles county added several hundred thousand residents over the last 3-4 decades? How much did the region really grow in the 50's and 60's when St. Louis county suburbs were booming? The city can grow jobs and population while the region is shrinking. It just has to take those jobs and people from other places within metro St. Louis. This area has the population and economy to support a vibrant city, we've just chosen not to.
This is why I'm not a big fan of the city-county merger or the pro-regionalism push. Realistically, St. Louis is going to continue to be a slow-growth region. I don't see a way to truly revitalize the city without some negative consequences for the suburbs. St. Louis and St. Charles county need to decline in jobs, tax base, and population. North county needs to continue to decay. There needs to be winners and losers. And St. Louis city needs to be able to look out for itself and make sure it's a winner.
A related question -- and one I was trying to get at earlier -- is how much growth do we need to really begin to revitalize a good section of the city? I don't necessarily think we need the 1-3% annual growth that some of the hot cities are seeing to boost the speed of redevelopment in the areas that are already seeing growth while also expanding out a bit to some neighborhoods in North and South City. I believe .5% annual growth (or 5% over the course of a decade) seems reasonable within a few years and that would result in a bit more than 1,500 net new residents a year.... would that be sufficient to really get things going? (Again the assumption is that there would be many more people than this moving into the growing nabes while other areas would continue to lose.)
- 1,792
Depends on how broadly the new influx is spread across the city. 1% is 3000 people. 3000 people added in Downtown would be HUGE. I'm guessing that would consume most if not all the remaining historic capacity and drive a few new building to boot. Across the city at large it would be notable (any positive growth would be notable) but have a small discernible impact.
I think the city needs a 50k decade to really feel the impact. 50k outsiders, too, that have lived in other functional cities, ideally. That is not likely to happen, but that would be the kind of impetus needed to kick things in gear. But there's a relatively straightforward way to do it: research U.
- 8,155
I don't see 3.000 people added every year to downtown anytime soon, but that number might be within reach for the Central Corridor as a whole with a bit of luck... last decade the corridor added just a bit over 5,000 so anything close to 30,000 for the next ten would be huge.STLEnginerd wrote:Depends on how broadly the new influx is spread across the city. 1% is 3000 people. 3000 people added in Downtown would be HUGE. I'm guessing that would consume most if not all the remaining historic capacity and drive a few new building to boot. Across the city at large it would be notable (any positive growth would be notable) but have a small discernible impact.
- 3,235
I don't think they do. In my experiences they know very little what is going on with the rest if the country.blzhrpmd2 wrote:Sometimes I wonder if the people in our regional government put as much mental effort into comparative issues like this one as the contributors to this forum do.
- 5,433
I agree. I suspect many of them are St. Louis area lifers who cannot see beyond the boundaries of the political jurisdictions of the municipalities (or the wards within them) that they serve.downtown2007 wrote:I don't think they do. In my experiences they know very little what is going on with the rest if the country.blzhrpmd2 wrote:Sometimes I wonder if the people in our regional government put as much mental effort into comparative issues like this one as the contributors to this forum do.
That is really a shame. I think that healthy competition between cities whether tangible or not is a big motivator. How can leadership not use similar cities as barometers of success? To barrow from last night's Cards' broadcast, it's hard to believe that local government doesn't "scoreboard watch."
- 3,235
I was once speaking with a downtown alderman and she said all downtowns were declining except for the superstars like SF, NY, and CHI. I them provided literature about the recent developments in Pittsburgh, Minny, and LA. She acted like she never knew.
It would be nice if someone gave a presentation at a BOA meeting I what's going in in other cities and what STL needs to do. We need to educate them otherwise they are oblivious.
It would be nice if someone gave a presentation at a BOA meeting I what's going in in other cities and what STL needs to do. We need to educate them otherwise they are oblivious.
- 5,433
Good question.blzhrpmd2 wrote:That is really a shame. I think that healthy competition between cities whether tangible or not is a big motivator. How can leadership not use similar cities as barometers of success? To barrow from last night's Cards' broadcast, it's hard to believe that local government doesn't "scoreboard watch."
In the city, it's every ward for itself. There has been fantastic progress in downtown and many city neighborhoods over the last 15 years, but there's still no broader vision, no plan for how the puzzle pieces should fit together and form a better, cohesive whole. Meanwhile, some neighborhoods declined further. Others have nowhere to go but up, but not anytime soon.
On a regional scale, it's every suburb for itself. Crestwood Plaza failed partly due to a lack of major highway access, but I'd argue its decline accelerated when West County Center tripled in size and Gravois Bluffs opened, all made possible with TIF.
Apparently, that's how we roll, and we're content with that, and there are so many other examples besides Crestwood. The Chesterfield Valley drained businesses from Manchester Road, Hazelwood helped empty out St. Ann with the St. Louis Mills development, only for it to falter as residents and dollars moved across the Missouri River, and the State of Missouri gave Citibank and Mastercard millions to leave St. Louis County for O'Fallon just over a decade ago. It's tough for St. Louis to compete with Nashville, Memphis, Kansas City, and Indianapolis when we're so eager to compete amongst ourselves. Are our leaders paying attention to the progress made in other Rust Belt cities like Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Milwaukee? Somehow I doubt it, especially when they routinely make it clear that they cannot see past their own fiefdoms.
The problem is we don't have any leaders; just got a bunch of small-time politicians and old-school businessmen.threeonefour wrote: Are our leaders paying attention to the progress made in other Rust Belt cities like Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Milwaukee?
- 5,433
Amen. They're rather lousy at being small-time politicians and old-school businessmen too, for that matter.framer wrote:
The problem is we don't have any leaders; just got a bunch of small-time politicians and old-school businessmen.
Back to Nashville again, the hits just keep on coming. Here's an article about the rapid increase in millennials:
Nashville's millennial growth among nation's fastest
One interesting takeaway from this article is found in the bullet points you click through above the article: One factor that attracts millennials to Nashville is the long-term outlook for the area. Millennials see Nashville as a place where they can put down roots as well as a place with desirable suburban communities in which to raise their children as they 'settle down' and start families.
To bring this issue back to St. Louis, that's still a challenge for our community in my opinion. As young people who live in downtown and other city neighborhoods look to settle down and start families, do they choose to stay in the city and consider the various public, private, charter, and parochial school options, or do they look to the suburbs to find an ideal environment in which to raise their children?
I think this is another relevant reality check for St. Louis. This is only my opinion, but I think the suburbs of Nashville are much more appealing than those here in St. Louis. With the exception of the Antioch area in southeastern Nashville-Davidson, I struggle to think of a suburban area with significant amounts of decline in Greater Nashville. Williamson (Franklin, Brentwood), Rutherford (Murfreesboro), Montgomery (Clarksville), Wilson (Mt. Juliet), and Sumner (Hendersonville) counties are growing by leaps and bounds even as Nashville-Davidson County has over 600,000 residents and expects to welcome 200,000 more in the next 25 years.
Even though I thought DanRyan made good points in his previous post, I don't think we can try to grow the city at the expense of the surrounding suburbs. No matter how much people like us sing the praises of city living, there are always going to be people who prefer a more suburban environment, especially those who want to raise their children in a smaller community with better public education options. That's part of Nashville's strong appeal in my opinion- the diversity of great choices. Downtown and surrounding areas like The Gulch, 12 South, Germantown, Midtown, and the West End have so many new condos and apartments from which to choose, and they add to the density and vibrancy of Nashville's core. There are also more suburban-like areas not far from these increasingly urban neighborhoods, and then there are growing suburbs like Franklin and Murfreesboro that feature mostly typical suburban development but also have a strong sense of place with vibrant downtowns and their own array of cultural options and excellent schools.
We have some nicer suburban communities as well, but we also have more suburban areas that are either in decline or at risk in my opinion. I don't think we can expect to sustain the quality of life in our area if we don't try to improve the urban core as well as the communities that surround it. As it is now, there are communities throughout the area that are winners and losers. Too much time is spent with intraregional competition and there's not enough of a focus on how to connect the dots. There are some signs of regional progress and cooperation like the Great Rivers Greenway and the Great Streets Initiative that may tie our communities together better and make both urban and suburban living options more appealing, but recent issues in our area as well as the reaction to Better Together's efforts show that we have a long way to go in my opinion.
- 8,155
^ Interesting post on the possible role of suburban areas in comparative regional growth. I really don't know Nashville so I really can't say for sure but you indicate Nashville burbs have a greater number that appear to have a sense of place compared to us... the lack of any real soul in our suburbs is a great source of blah for me; with a few exceptions our suburbs - especially on the Missouri side - are one huge pile of stinking poo when it comes to having any sense of individual identity and character.
However, aside from the blandness I would probably venture to say that school quality is probably better here than there in areas where transplants are likely to settle. As for poverty levels, overall it is slightly lower here than there and I suspect more concentrated here as well. We have some high quality suburbs in terms of those performance measures.
However, aside from the blandness I would probably venture to say that school quality is probably better here than there in areas where transplants are likely to settle. As for poverty levels, overall it is slightly lower here than there and I suspect more concentrated here as well. We have some high quality suburbs in terms of those performance measures.
One thing to remember about Nashville, though, is that its metro population is just over half that of greater St. Louis. Nashville may be attracting more millenials, but we have more living here by a large margin and need to do a better job of attracting them to the city. Think of it like college football. Sure great programs draw from a national talent pool, but they also have a stranglehold on recruiting players in their own backyard. St. Louis City should focus first on getting the in-state/in-metro "talent" to live in the city. I'd like to see a local marketing campaign explicitly touting the advantages of city living over the suburbs. I'm still surprised by the ignorance of what the city has to offer displayed by many of the people I grew up with in the county. People move from Ballwin to the north side of Chicago and think they have a valid understanding of how St. Louis compares to "real cities", when in fact they know next to nothing about the actual city of St. Louis.
You also have to wonder how much of Nashville's growth is coming at Memphis' expense?danryan1 wrote:One thing to remember about Nashville, though, is that its metro population is just over half that of greater St. Louis. Nashville may be attracting more millenials, but we have more living here by a large margin and need to do a better job of attracting them to the city. Think of it like college football. Sure great programs draw from a national talent pool, but they also have a stranglehold on recruiting players in their own backyard. St. Louis City should focus first on getting the in-state/in-metro "talent" to live in the city. I'd like to see a local marketing campaign explicitly touting the advantages of city living over the suburbs. I'm still surprised by the ignorance of what the city has to offer displayed by many of the people I grew up with in the county. People move from Ballwin to the north side of Chicago and think they have a valid understanding of how St. Louis compares to "real cities", when in fact they know next to nothing about the actual city of St. Louis.
- 8,155
onecity wrote:I think the city needs a 50k decade to really feel the impact. quote]
Sounds about right.... adding 5,000 or so a year would be huge and likely have an pretty profound physical change with the Central Corridor seeing rehab of just about every major historic building as well as significant infill that includes a decent number of towers. Just playing around, I think it would be awesome to see something like this:
20,000 more residents downtown
15,000 more residents elsewhere in the Central Corridor
7,500 more residents in Near North neighborhoods (including a semblance of success in Northside Regeneration)
7,500 more residents in South City neighborhoods east of Kingshighway
relative stability elsewhere
I always felt like memphis and Nashville were what you'd get if you took St. Louis and divided it up into two; old and new. Memphis is the old parts of town, and lots of the decrepit. Nashville is like Clayton, the county, and maybe cwe. Is that an apt analogy?
- 271
I think I'd compare it more to the difference between KC and St. Louis, with KC being Nashville and STL being Memphis.RuskiSTL wrote:I always felt like memphis and Nashville were what you'd get if you took St. Louis and divided it up into two; old and new. Memphis is the old parts of town, and lots of the decrepit. Nashville is like Clayton, the county, and maybe cwe. Is that an apt analogy?
- 3,757
Right this second, we have a huge problem, that goes well beyond the problems we've had in the past. In the past, County dwellers would continually say how unsafe the City is. Now, that perception is at an all - time high IMO. (At least since I've been old enough to care). I think the Ferguson fiasco significantly hurt our image on a national level. The images, the riots, the looting, the thugs and the burning buildings. Those images played out all over the country. We are not LA. We cannot overcome that as easy. We are not a metro of 18-20 million, with beaches and Hollywood. Then, we had a year with 159 murders in a city of 320K. That is not acceptable. Then we start out January 2015 with 14 murders already. We still have 10 days left in the month. CRIME is a MAJOR factor keeping people out of the City. Not to mention, I've seen numerous people on this forum say they are done with the City. I just don't recall seeing this level of crime in South St. Louis, which IMO is the epicenter of St. Louis, it's heart and soul. While Downtown and the Central Corridor are important, the Southside is where its at. This is where the unique hoods are. I've seen a scary spike in criminal activity from murders, to carjackings, smash & grabs, etc.. etc. The City 'might' be seeing crime stats going down (with the exception of murders), but the crimes we are seeing are bold, relentless and devoid of any consideration for life. Not to get to far off subject, CRIME is a major issue that is bringing us down, with regards to image. How can you attract young people, when out-of-towners come in for a weekend and hear about 6 murders in one night or see a shooting Downtown, in broad daylight, during the NLCS. While I do not usually panic or make rash decisions, based upon things like this, I will say this. Crime and the general lawlessness that has overtaken the City, is disturbing and must be stopped or people will continue to flee to burbs outside the City limits and even outside the metro area. If I was not a loyal lifer, I may consider a move, after all of this unrest and the major spike in violence here. If you want to fix our image nationally, fix our crime problem, the racial divide, the regional divide, continue with the efforts in the central corridor, continue building Downtown, rehabbing all empty buildings and continue with other efforts like the Arch grounds. These all help immensely, but if crime is in the news everyday, people will stay away. That simple. 6 murders in one night, COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE! How you fix that, I don't know. I do know, there is no overnight fix.