Where's my tiny violin?
With Spencer’s cancellation of the program, the city has already begun lifting liens filed against properties that had repair work performed by the city. At least one plaintiff, Titsworth Properties, owned by Aloysius Titsworth, had a city lien against its real estate lifted Monday. The city had filed the lien for work on the roof and doors of the structure at 4831 Fountain Avenue. Schock wrote in the lawsuit that even if the liens are lifted “prior slanders of title” still entitle his clients to damages.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QLPZMJQNwoMnbEV48?g_st=ac
4831 Fountain Ave btw. These are the types of property-owners we are talking about.
4831 Fountain Ave btw. These are the types of property-owners we are talking about.
^ Sure, I hate that attorney as much as Kronke.
But there’s probably a reason we don’t see a lot of municipalities renovating private property, placing liens, then demanding reimbursement for their building division which contracted the work to an ex-wife.
A really sloppy or poorly conceived program which will now cost the city millions more than it would’ve cost to buy the buildings outright and stabilize them similar to Prop NS.
But there’s probably a reason we don’t see a lot of municipalities renovating private property, placing liens, then demanding reimbursement for their building division which contracted the work to an ex-wife.
A really sloppy or poorly conceived program which will now cost the city millions more than it would’ve cost to buy the buildings outright and stabilize them similar to Prop NS.
We have a whole thread about it. The owner has sat on it for almost 20 years.Auggie wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025https://maps.app.goo.gl/QLPZMJQNwoMnbEV48?g_st=ac
4831 Fountain Ave btw. These are the types of property-owners we are talking about.
iconic-building-in-fountain-park-t10898.html
Only a matter of time until Bevis Schock got ahold of this and I'm only surprised it took so long. As I said yesterday, fining delinquent properties and eventually seizing them for non-payment is one thing, performing the work and then billing the owners is something else entirely. This was always going to blow up in the City's face, the reports of self-dealing and overall poor administration only expedited the reckoning.addxb2 wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025^ Sure, I hate that attorney as much as Kronke.
But there’s probably a reason we don’t see a lot of municipalities renovating private property, placing liens, then demanding reimbursement for their building division which contracted the work to an ex-wife.
A really sloppy or poorly conceived program which will now cost the city millions more than it would’ve cost to buy the buildings outright and stabilize them similar to Prop NS.
If we want to get rid of slumlords and speculators (and owners of surface-only parking lots), the solution is a Land Value Tax. Make it prohibitively expensive to own these properties without improvement and you'll speed up and expand their acquisition by the LRA.
They waited so they could get the benefits of free repairs. It's like blatantly obvious. These are evil people.SB in BH wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025Only a matter of time until Bevis Schock got ahold of this and I'm only surprised it took so long. As I said yesterday, fining delinquent properties and eventually seizing them for non-payment is one thing, performing the work and then billing the owners is something else entirely. This was always going to blow up in the City's face, the reports of self-dealing and overall poor administration only expedited the reckoning.addxb2 wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025^ Sure, I hate that attorney as much as Kronke.
But there’s probably a reason we don’t see a lot of municipalities renovating private property, placing liens, then demanding reimbursement for their building division which contracted the work to an ex-wife.
A really sloppy or poorly conceived program which will now cost the city millions more than it would’ve cost to buy the buildings outright and stabilize them similar to Prop NS.
I have no doubt some of them are that calculating, but I suspect they probably just needed to be fined (or subjected to a lien) first before they could sue.
- 9,529
City gov has authority to go in and fix failing buildings. City just has never had the money before arpa cash cameSB in BH wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025Only a matter of time until Bevis Schock got ahold of this and I'm only surprised it took so long. As I said yesterday, fining delinquent properties and eventually seizing them for non-payment is one thing, performing the work and then billing the owners is something else entirely. This was always going to blow up in the City's face, the reports of self-dealing and overall poor administration only expedited the reckoning.addxb2 wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025^ Sure, I hate that attorney as much as Kronke.
But there’s probably a reason we don’t see a lot of municipalities renovating private property, placing liens, then demanding reimbursement for their building division which contracted the work to an ex-wife.
A really sloppy or poorly conceived program which will now cost the city millions more than it would’ve cost to buy the buildings outright and stabilize them similar to Prop NS.
Just because someone is evil doesn't mean the law won't even up on their side.
We'll see. Bevis Schock is one of the all-time most obnoxious people I've ever met in my entire life (I interned at the Show-Me Institute 20 years ago), but he's highly competent and has a very solid track record of sticking it to the City.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑May 01, 2025City gov has authority to go in and fix failing buildings. City just has never had the money before arpa cash cameSB in BH wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025Only a matter of time until Bevis Schock got ahold of this and I'm only surprised it took so long. As I said yesterday, fining delinquent properties and eventually seizing them for non-payment is one thing, performing the work and then billing the owners is something else entirely. This was always going to blow up in the City's face, the reports of self-dealing and overall poor administration only expedited the reckoning.addxb2 wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025^ Sure, I hate that attorney as much as Kronke.
But there’s probably a reason we don’t see a lot of municipalities renovating private property, placing liens, then demanding reimbursement for their building division which contracted the work to an ex-wife.
A really sloppy or poorly conceived program which will now cost the city millions more than it would’ve cost to buy the buildings outright and stabilize them similar to Prop NS.
Peter Hoffman - Legal Services of Eastern Missouri
A century of case law holds that owners do not have a protected interest in nuisance conditions. All of these properties were dangerous/condemned and the city government has the power and duty to intervene to protect the public welfare. God forbid negligent property owners face any consequences.
A century of case law holds that owners do not have a protected interest in nuisance conditions. All of these properties were dangerous/condemned and the city government has the power and duty to intervene to protect the public welfare. God forbid negligent property owners face any consequences.
- 70
I've pulled some photos from another building that was saved under this program. It's one currently involved in a LSEM lawsuit with a neighborhood association seeking possession.
The media would never go in depth and to look at success stories, only want to pay attention to alleged corruption.flipflopju wrote: ↑May 01, 2025I've pulled some photos from another building that was saved under this program. It's one currently involved in a LSEM lawsuit with a neighborhood association seeking possession.
This is why I said reality is somewhere in the middle.
- 1,793
This an enormous L for Spencer
But again it’s all about Muh Trash!
But again it’s all about Muh Trash!
- 6,118
I want to give Spencer the benefit of the doubt; some time to develop her administration, to get work done. But her first steps have not been encouraging. If she pauses the work on Ry Exchange I'm going to scream.
If the court finds in favor of Bevis and the buttheads and the City has to pay restitution, then stopping the program before it causes more trouble will be a massive W for Spencer.
I don't like slumlords and idle speculators any more than the rest of us, but it's too early to call on this particular policy and there are other tools in the toolbox. Mayor Jones and the BOA threw a whole pot of ARPA spaghetti at the wall so we shouldn't be surprises if a few noodles do not stick. It will be Spencer's duty to pick them up off the floor and either toss them in the trash bin or back in the pot to cook.
I don't like slumlords and idle speculators any more than the rest of us, but it's too early to call on this particular policy and there are other tools in the toolbox. Mayor Jones and the BOA threw a whole pot of ARPA spaghetti at the wall so we shouldn't be surprises if a few noodles do not stick. It will be Spencer's duty to pick them up off the floor and either toss them in the trash bin or back in the pot to cook.
Every time a building fell due to demolition by neglect we said "Do something!" They did, and I'm glad for it. I'd like to know what buildings has repairs made thanks to the threat of this program.
All the incentives, historic tax credits, tax abatement, neighborhood preservation tax credits, low income housing tax credits, sales tax exemption, etc weren't getting it done. Nor were the tiny fines the city could levy. We passed the ability for bigger fines last fall. We'll see if it helps.
All the incentives, historic tax credits, tax abatement, neighborhood preservation tax credits, low income housing tax credits, sales tax exemption, etc weren't getting it done. Nor were the tiny fines the city could levy. We passed the ability for bigger fines last fall. We'll see if it helps.
Saving buildings, giving money to extremely impoverished people, and funding new businesses in North City is just "spaghetti [thrown] at a wall".quincunx wrote: ↑May 02, 2025Every time a building fell due to demolition by neglect we said "Do something!" They did, and I'm glad for it. I'd like to know what buildings has repairs made thanks to the threat of this program.
All the incentives, historic tax credits, tax abatement, neighborhood preservation tax credits, low income housing tax credits, sales tax exemption, etc weren't getting it done. Nor were the tiny fines the city could levy. We passed the ability for bigger fines last fall. We'll see if it helps.
You're confusing ends with means, a tactic you deploy frequently to derail actual debate. You probably don't even realize you're doing it, but it's absolutely poisoning this site, and I say this as someone who generally agrees with you.Auggie wrote: ↑May 02, 2025Saving buildings, giving money to extremely impoverished people, and funding new businesses in North City is just "spaghetti [thrown] at a wall".quincunx wrote: ↑May 02, 2025Every time a building fell due to demolition by neglect we said "Do something!" They did, and I'm glad for it. I'd like to know what buildings has repairs made thanks to the threat of this program.
All the incentives, historic tax credits, tax abatement, neighborhood preservation tax credits, low income housing tax credits, sales tax exemption, etc weren't getting it done. Nor were the tiny fines the city could levy. We passed the ability for bigger fines last fall. We'll see if it helps.
Everyone one on this forum (even the small handful of conservatives) wants to save buildings, comfort the poor and promote North City just as much as you. It's okay to disagree about the actual solutions. This particular one was obviously half-baked, and may not survive court challenge. If it does, great, I hope the Spencer administration restarts it. If not, we move on and find other ways to support North City and the rest of our struggling neighbors and neighborhoods.
Ok let's have actual debateSB in BH wrote: ↑May 05, 2025You're confusing ends with means, a tactic you deploy frequently to derail actual debate. You probably don't even realize you're doing it, but it's absolutely poisoning this site, and I say this as someone who generally agrees with you.Auggie wrote: ↑May 02, 2025Saving buildings, giving money to extremely impoverished people, and funding new businesses in North City is just "spaghetti [thrown] at a wall".quincunx wrote: ↑May 02, 2025Every time a building fell due to demolition by neglect we said "Do something!" They did, and I'm glad for it. I'd like to know what buildings has repairs made thanks to the threat of this program.
All the incentives, historic tax credits, tax abatement, neighborhood preservation tax credits, low income housing tax credits, sales tax exemption, etc weren't getting it done. Nor were the tiny fines the city could levy. We passed the ability for bigger fines last fall. We'll see if it helps.
Everyone one on this forum (even the small handful of conservatives) wants to save buildings, comfort the poor and promote North City just as much as you. It's okay to disagree about the actual solutions. This particular one was obviously half-baked, and may not survive court challenge. If it does, great, I hope the Spencer administration restarts it. If not, we move on and find other ways to support North City and the rest of our struggling neighbors and neighborhoods.
So it's a good tactic because you don't offer any other means. The point of pointing out these ends is to make your offer some counter-plan that would be "better" than what we currently have. You haven't done that, nor has Spencer.
I know everyone ostensibly agrees that preserving buildings is good, but now we have an actual program that has put actual effort towards saving buildings, and it's been described as "cronyist" and "spaghetti against a wall". So what is the better solution? You say fines and imminent domain (I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong), but that's been the standard for decades and clearly doesn't work. It also misses the point. The city doesn't want to gain control of these properties. It wants the owners to upkeep their properties at least to the extent that they don't fall apart and have to be torn down. We should also want them to remain property tax paying properties. I believe you also proposed a Land Value Tax, but that is rarely used in the US and I strongly question how well you think it would work outside of a CBD or high density neighborhood, such as the hollowed out remains of some of these North City neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure no major city even uses an LVT ever since Pittsburgh stopped using it years ago. So you have not done a very good job at proposing a workable solution to the problem at hand, you've just been quick to bat down the attempt at a solution.
You claim this solution is half baked, and to an extent it is, as is every other ARPA funded plan since ARPA was a one time infusion of funds. The idea behind many of these programs was to see how well they worked and then later see if the city should actually commit tax dollars to it. However, I don't think the idea itself is half baked at all. Going ahead and paying for the repairs itself is actually a very aggressive and effective way to achieve positive outcomes. It's not an ideologically liberal idea though as it directly attacks property owners in its attempt to stop them from continuing the destruction of the city.
As for it "may[be] not" surviving a court challenge, I don't really see how that matters. The city achieved the goal of saving at least a few buildings that would have otherwise deteriorated further. Additionally, any plan that attacks property owners is going to be challenged in court, including imminent domain, excessive fees, and Land Value Taxes. The fact that it was challenged in court doesn't mean it's a bad idea. If we held this standard, then you would have to agree that the Affordable Care Act also shouldn't have been enacted because it faced and still does face legitimate court challenges.
I also doubt she is going to re-start it, even if given a bright green light by a court. The headline on the city's website about the action was "Mayor Spencer Shuts Down Problematic Building Stabilization Program" and she shut it down before a court had even weighed in.
An actual plan would be to allow a federal investigation, which Jones had requested, to be carried out, fix the issues that she believes exists, and adhere to court orders. Shutting down the program in the way that she did shows that she doesn't believe in it and doesn't plan to restart it, despite the success. And, as normal, she hasn't announced a plan to replace it nor has she said that they're coming up with a plan to replace it.
So how is this "better"? Better for the bad property owners, that's for sure. Back to status quo for the city though.
It’s almost like there’s a starter kit for STL political favors: minor sweetheart deal, insider hire, and eventually a million-dollar policy shift with no accountability. Gotta love itSB in BH wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2025Reality is that every administration will do favors for the constituencies that helped get them elected. Could be through big-ticket policy decisions as seems to be the case here (and maybe with the Green Line decision announced today), or by just letting insiders stick their hand in the public cookie jar while their elected official friend looks the other way, as seems to have been the case with the building inspector and Virvus's girlfriend.
Personally I find the latter less objectionable--the long-term consequences are much less severe--but both are corruption and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
No one on this forum is obligated to provide you an alternative. It’s perfectly OK to critique an existing idea without offering an alternative. Failure to do so doesn’t make one stupid, evil, lazy, or acting in bad faith. Most people on here have career, family, and community obligations that prevent them from arguing all day on a message board, which you seem intent on ruining with your obdurate pedantry.Auggie wrote: ↑May 06, 2025Ok let's have actual debateSB in BH wrote: ↑May 05, 2025You're confusing ends with means, a tactic you deploy frequently to derail actual debate. You probably don't even realize you're doing it, but it's absolutely poisoning this site, and I say this as someone who generally agrees with you.Auggie wrote: ↑May 02, 2025
Saving buildings, giving money to extremely impoverished people, and funding new businesses in North City is just "spaghetti [thrown] at a wall".
Everyone one on this forum (even the small handful of conservatives) wants to save buildings, comfort the poor and promote North City just as much as you. It's okay to disagree about the actual solutions. This particular one was obviously half-baked, and may not survive court challenge. If it does, great, I hope the Spencer administration restarts it. If not, we move on and find other ways to support North City and the rest of our struggling neighbors and neighborhoods.
So it's a good tactic because you don't offer any other means. The point of pointing out these ends is to make your offer some counter-plan that would be "better" than what we currently have. You haven't done that, nor has Spencer.
I know everyone ostensibly agrees that preserving buildings is good, but now we have an actual program that has put actual effort towards saving buildings, and it's been described as "cronyist" and "spaghetti against a wall". So what is the better solution? You say fines and imminent domain (I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong), but that's been the standard for decades and clearly doesn't work. It also misses the point. The city doesn't want to gain control of these properties. It wants the owners to upkeep their properties at least to the extent that they don't fall apart and have to be torn down. We should also want them to remain property tax paying properties. I believe you also proposed a Land Value Tax, but that is rarely used in the US and I strongly question how well you think it would work outside of a CBD or high density neighborhood, such as the hollowed out remains of some of these North City neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure no major city even uses an LVT ever since Pittsburgh stopped using it years ago. So you have not done a very good job at proposing a workable solution to the problem at hand, you've just been quick to bat down the attempt at a solution.
You claim this solution is half baked, and to an extent it is, as is every other ARPA funded plan since ARPA was a one time infusion of funds. The idea behind many of these programs was to see how well they worked and then later see if the city should actually commit tax dollars to it. However, I don't think the idea itself is half baked at all. Going ahead and paying for the repairs itself is actually a very aggressive and effective way to achieve positive outcomes. It's not an ideologically liberal idea though as it directly attacks property owners in its attempt to stop them from continuing the destruction of the city.
As for it "may[be] not" surviving a court challenge, I don't really see how that matters. The city achieved the goal of saving at least a few buildings that would have otherwise deteriorated further. Additionally, any plan that attacks property owners is going to be challenged in court, including imminent domain, excessive fees, and Land Value Taxes. The fact that it was challenged in court doesn't mean it's a bad idea. If we held this standard, then you would have to agree that the Affordable Care Act also shouldn't have been enacted because it faced and still does face legitimate court challenges.
I also doubt she is going to re-start it, even if given a bright green light by a court. The headline on the city's website about the action was "Mayor Spencer Shuts Down Problematic Building Stabilization Program" and she shut it down before a court had even weighed in.
An actual plan would be to allow a federal investigation, which Jones had requested, to be carried out, fix the issues that she believes exists, and adhere to court orders. Shutting down the program in the way that she did shows that she doesn't believe in it and doesn't plan to restart it, despite the success. And, as normal, she hasn't announced a plan to replace it nor has she said that they're coming up with a plan to replace it.
So how is this "better"? Better for the bad property owners, that's for sure. Back to status quo for the city though.
I think it's generally a good thing that Jones/BOA used the ARPA money to test a bunch of small programs rather than dump it all into a handful of major projects.
I support this particular program if it proves workable, which means surviving court challenge and fixing how it's administered to prevent the cronyism. If the court overturns it, the city will have to pay restitution and the slumlords will keep their (newly improved) slums. That will be a net loss for the City.
There are no silver-bullet solutions to decades of chronic poverty driven by capitalist disinvestment. Any solution will create winners and losers, and the losers may sue to stop it. Some solutions are more vulnerable to this than others. I suspect this program is very vulnerable. I hope I’m wrong.
I’ve long advocated for an LVT, the one anti-slum policy the City has not tried. St. Louis is an ideal candidate because its boundaries are fixed by virtue of the Great Divorce. The obstacles to its adoption and success are mainly political, as with any policy that would substantially disrupt the prevailing order.
I won’t speculate on what the Spencer admin will or won’t do on any given issue. I don’t know her or anyone in her camp. I did not voter for her, but she won nonetheless, and I hope she succeeds, even if that success comes via means I would not otherwise advocate.
NextSTL - The Private Building Stabilization Program did some good
https://nextstl.com/2025/05/the-private ... some-good/
https://nextstl.com/2025/05/the-private ... some-good/