urbanSTL

DogtownBnR wrote:I was of the understanding that there are really only 2 contenders in this sweepstakes, Scott AFB area and Northside. I read in the South County Times, that federal officials were in Crestwood, holding a public meeting about the Fenton site. Of course, the Mayor was touting Fenton as the place for NGA. Seems as if Fenton were still a serious contender, Stenger would not have endorsed the City site. Is this meeting just a formality or is Fenton still in the running?

I don't know. But putting my tinfoil hat on, maybe someone higher up pulled Stenger's leash back and told him not to really work on any County sites?

I finally made it home for the first time in over a year and made a few observations. Of primary concern is this project, and I left even more certain that moving the agency to Scott is the right move.

For starters, as argued it clearly just makes the most sense from a government perspective. Free land, plenty of room to build and to make exactly what they want, and adjacent to an Air Force base with a plethora of high commands and increased security capabilities. That argument has been made before.

However, after visiting Scott for the first time in years (and in actually paying attention to it outside of the annual air show), I think that moving the NGA to Scott is in the best interest of the entire region because it is in the best interest of Scott. The reason that is important is because I was not impressed with Scott. I've been to a number of military installations, to include Langley AFB here in Virginia and McGuire AFB in New Jersey (both of which are now Joint Bases, Langley with Ft. Eustis and McGuire with Ft. Dix) and both of those have seen substantially more investment than Scott has. I'm talking beautiful new gyms and rec centers, brand new modern and big base hotels, and green new housing with high-speed solar panels. Scott hasn't seen any of that investment and I was surprised at how old and antiquated everything was.

Yes, Scott is an important base. It's home to TRANSCOM, Air Mobility Command, and the Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (4-star, 3-star, and 2-star command levels, respectively). But those are all easily moved. Bases like Langley have an advantage because it's a fighter base and therefore has a lot more junior personnel and infrastructure there to support those operations.

My concern is that when the next round of base closures come around Scott will be on the chopping block. New government investment into one of the area's top employers can help strengthen Scott's argument. I'm not saying it's bullet-proof, as obviously the government, and especially the DOD, has no problem wasting money, but it's certainly something worth fighting for. Hosting (or practically hosting) a brand new, multi-million dollar headquarters for a government agency is a nice bullet point to have when handing a base resume to a senator.

^ I'm torn on this... at some point, the subsidy for these jobs becomes too high.... whether we will have reached that point is up for debate.

It helps the base because some of NGA's top customers, to include TRANSCOM and DISA are at Scott. As I mentioned before, commands are subject to relocation. I think consolidating all of these inter-dependent agencies and commands strengthens Scott's roots and perhaps makes it more attractive to future agencies/units looking to relocate from elsewhere. I'm not saying that the NGA relocating to Scott will convince the Air Force to make upgrades to the support elements of base life (gym, PX, housing, etc.). I'm saying that Scott is lacking its competitors in those areas, so government investment to the tune of $1.6 billion in a new headquarters makes it harder for the government to abandon down the road. Whether they are actually inside the wire or just outside it is irrelevant when the primary reason for them moving there is to be close to their customers at Scott.

The only argument for locating the agency in St. Louis is tax revenue. There is not an urban argument to be made. Yes, I'm sure some of their employees will move to St. Clair County to be closer to the new headquarters. Some of them might be moving from a subdivision in Chesterfield to a subdivision in O'Fallon. Others may be moving from their urban Soulard townhome to a similarly urban Belleville townhome. Some sprawl may happen. However, blocking off 100 acres in the middle of the city to build an inclusive, secure deadzone is difficult to praise for strong urban development.

From the the NGA's perspective, I think moving to St. Clair County is a no-brainer. Four times the land, adjacent to its biggest customers, at no cost. We'll see what kind of backroom politics are played, but I really don't think this is much of a contest.

It already happens but it doesn't mean that it's happening in the most efficient way. I'd also argue that when it comes to the city sacrificing for what's good for the region that Scott is not the place to stop. It employs 13,000 people, many of whom are service members and bring with them their families. Also, this is a rare situation where the Metro East is the one pulling from the city. We're speaking broadly here since one agency moving across the river won't have a huge effect on population trends in the region, but re-centering the city in the metropolitan area is going to require growth on the Illinois side. Otherwise, firms and companies will keep locating to Clayton and the county because that's where the population is.

I'm not going to argue that some employees would not want to commute every day through North St. Louis. I'm sure there is a race card on some level. However, I'd also hope that the government doesn't make decisions for the purpose of being politically correct. St. Clair makes more sense on a business level.

And finally, Scott isn't the worst place for the city to lose business to. The Metrolink runs right to it. If someone currently lives in the city and works at NGA, then it's an easy commute over there if they want to continue to live in the city. If someone is going to want to live in a sprawly neighborhood then chances are they already do so and commute into the city every day.

It also opens up the idea that it makes the city more attractive for some families. I have a buddy who lives downtown, loves it, but works out in the county. He is recently engaged and his fiance works a couple places on both sides of the river. She says she sees openings all the time in her field at Scott, and while there are of course a number of factors for her to consider, part of what she likes about it is that it would be an easy commute from downtown to Scott because of Metro. Perhaps they'd never tire of living in the city and commuting out to the county. But, with one commuting to the county and one to the Metro East, it would make staying downtown an easy decision for them.

^ It isn't a 100 acres of ghetto... anyway, the price tag is amazingly high and I have to wonder if the numbers make sense for the city.

south compton wrote:
If I'm the NGA, I'm concerned about recruiting and maintaining a highly-educated, highly-skilled workforce. Shiloh would rank dead last in this category. The North St. Louis location will provide easy commutes for young tech workers that want to live in the central corridor and allow for lunches out in Midtown and downtown west (my friends at the NGA now currently take lunches in Soulard). After last week's flooding, I'd also be concerned about having most of my workforce having to cross a river to get to work. If I'm a local government official or regional planner, I'm concerned about the costs of infrastructure improvements that will undoubtedly be necessary if we relocate 3100+ across the region.

Objection to all of this, except for maybe the proximity of restaurants being nice. An easier commute for an urban-minded person would be jumping on the light rail if they live in the central corridor. Being scared to cross rivers is exactly the kind of mindset that leads to the fragmentation of this region, which is a reason why the population center (and along with it the jobs) have shifted to the county. In terms of local leaders, both state senators (a Republican and a Democrat) all the way down to the county leadership of both St. Clair and Madison counties have loudly expressed their support for the project. Any infrastructure cost that comes from building it from scratch in a cornfield (as opposed to demolishing already existing infrastructure and then building it from scratch?) is sweetened by four times the land at absolutely no cost whatsoever, whereas the St. Louis site looks to cost $130 million. If I was a local politician, I'd be more concerned about the residents who have garnered 100,000 signatures worldwide on a petition in opposition to the project in North St. Louis (I realize the worldwide part is meaningless, but the fact that they bothered to create such a petition is something).

Plus, in terms of collaboration, according to this article and Sen. Kirk, apparently there's a 20-mile fiber optic cable that needs to be run from NGA to DISA. As has been mentioned, apparently this is already being done, but that doesn't mean that it's the most efficient or secure method. http://www.bnd.com/news/local/article45065769.html

That could be irrelevant, though military leaders didn't seem to think so 10 years ago when they wanted to move NGA to Scott. But, more important than that, especially in the military, isn't what is reality but what briefs well. Which is my original point. Being able to brief that Scott Air Force Base (and its immediate vicinity) is home to U.S. Transportation Command, Air Mobility Command, Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, the DISA, and the NGA and that all of these agencies rely on each other and are customers of each other is a hell of an argument to make when arguing for the importance of Scott and makes it harder for the Pentagon to move those commands elsewhere. Especially when $1.6 billion was just invested to make that happen. And as said, it might even attract new commands, units, or agencies.

south compton wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:Everything makes sense to build out in the far suburbs, individually, that's why companies keep doing it. Sprawl is the collective mess caused by individually-sound decisions.

Agreed. Externalities are not adequately built into the cost of sprawl development.

^Another argument for Land Value Capture Taxation which would stop this sort of fake arbitrage through pricing of building new development with a lower(and many times negative) ROI than what already exists .

^ The problem I have with NGA in STL is that while it will retain jobs in the core, the price of land acquisition/site development is huge and will severely erode the fiscal benefits of those jobs; in addition, the opportunity costs for that land just outside of downtown needs to be considered; these are relatively low density jobs that might be better suited for something along the lines of an old, large industrial site.... if we were a consolidated region, something like Fenton or the cleaned up Green Street coke site would be better suited, imo.

^ Whether those 2K jobs materialize certainly is something to keep in mind, but when a city has to mortgage property for land purchases it's big stakes... the overall price isn't full known, but 50% of earnings tax I believe will be put back into paying for site development and city land acquisition costs may be $60M or so, iirc. This is in addition to state subsidies.

Awesome effort underway.

Visit the website.

Sign the White House petition.

http://letsstaytogether-nga.com/