bonwich wrote:1) Who is current "civic leadership"?
2) How has that changed since when Union Station was renovated?
Answer both of those questions, and you'll have a good idea why things are as they are in this town.
What we speak of is a certain amount of insularity that decreases the likelihood for optimal solutions. Bonwich is likely to attest to that.ttricamo wrote:innov8ion wrote:But we likely could use more creativity and openness in addressing them. That involves facilitation by secure and wise leadership to capture the collective genius.
Sounds a little too dreamy for me. Use the KISS principle and then execute the plan. St. Louis isn't the first city to attempt a renaissance - the boiler plate is out there.
bonwich wrote:P.S. Wikipedia isn't a valid historical reference.
P-D editorial, 2004 wrote:ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
THE REGIONAL CHAMBER & GROWTH ASSOCIATION hopes to raise $20 million from its member companies and organizations for economic development programs here in the next five years. It's a worthy goal for the region's largest business organization but one complicated by the fallout from the recent flap over RCGA's dealings with self-professed "clairvoyant" business consultant David Z. Levin. Mr. Levin, who runs five businesses out of his home in Boulder, Colo., was paid $1.4 million over the past seven years for his work for RCGA and its president, Richard C.D. Fleming. Mr. Fleming vouched for Mr. Levin's bona fides as he ushered him into board-rooms and executive suites to do interviews and offer guidance on various projects.
RCGA also "loaned" (for $220,000) Mr. Levin to Civic Progress in 1998. Mr. Levin helped reorganize Civic Progress, the group of chief executives from the largest area firms.
In late August, a British magazine reported on Mr. Levin's claims of clairvoyant powers and his relationship with the RCGA. RCGA insiders, including board members and staffers, were surprised -- not so much about Mr. Levin's claims of psychic powers but that he had been paid an average of $200,000 a year since 1997.
Some members of RCGA's board now are wondering whether Mr. Levin wasn't symptomatic of a larger problem: lack of oversight by the group's unwieldy 113-member board of the way Mr. Fleming has run the day-to-day operation. The board already had decided to exercise more diligence over the $4 million-a-year economic development program. Now some board members are pushing for more accountability over the rest of RCGA's management.
RCGA's nearly $9 million annual budget is largely paid by the dues of its 4,000 member organizations, which include businesses, nonprofit groups, labor, educational institutions and government agencies. St. Louis County gave $250,000 in fiscal 2004; St. Charles County kicked in $50,000. About $500,000 of the $4 million yearly economic development budget is slated to come from public sector sources.
The tax money gives the public a stake in RCGA's governance, as does RCGA's critical role in attracting new jobs and businesses. The chamber also promotes networking opportunities for member firms and lobbies public bodies on business-related issues.
Business leaders and public officials contacted by the Post-Dispatch generally -- but not unanimously -- agreed that RCGA does a fairly good job of selling St. Louis and lobbying for business interests. Most of them praised Mr. Fleming's abilities as a salesman. There is less agreement on his abilities as a manager.
Since being hired in 1994, Mr. Fleming has put his personal stamp on everything RCGA does. In RCGA's first economic development drive in the late 1990s, Mr. Fleming got a substantial bonus when the goal of 100,000 new jobs was met. How many of those jobs were his doing and how many were the result of a booming economy is nearly impossible to quantify.
RCGA sources say that the organization's goals and budgets are loosely defined. Thus, when Mr. Fleming wanted Mr. Levin to work on a project here, he could shift funds easily from one project to another. Mr. Levin's "deliverables" -- business jargon for what he was supposed to produce -- were vague, too, making it less likely that anyone would question his concrete accomplishments.
Mr. Fleming insisted that his own performance is subjected to "rigorous evaluation against measurables," but that the board of directors gives him wide latitude for hiring, firing and choosing vendors. "I have operated within the framework that the board has presented to me," he said.
Mr. Fleming's contract was renewed quietly this summer, rolling over for another five years. He would not disclose the terms of the agreement, but said much of his compensation is incentive-based. One top business leader said the contract was worth in excess of $500,000 a year. In 2002, the last year for which figures were disclosed, Mr. Fleming was paid about $380,000 in salary and bonuses, not including $25,000 in contributions to his employee benefits plan and assorted perks.
Mr. Fleming keeps his compensation deals close to his vest. At least one member of the RCGA's executive committee and two of its vice presidents were unaware that his contract had been renewed at all.
He also has wide discretion in the hiring of consultants, for which RCGA paid $700,000 in 2003. "Dick is consultant-happy," said one St. Louis CEO, noting that consulting fees were not disclosed as budget-line items, either. Among the consultants hired recently were: Joel Kotkin of Pepperdine University, paid $75,000 this year to study St. Louis' appeal (or lack thereof) to young people; Patrick Davis Associates, a public relations firm hired to develop a "brand" for St. Louis but which quickly shifted over to damage control in the "psychic flap"; and KMK Consulting Inc. of Cincinnati, hired to help in the five-year, $20 million economic-developing fund-raising drive.
Maybe it's all legit. Maybe Mr. Fleming and his consultant-of-the-month are a bargain. Maybe St. Louis is creating new businesses at a breathtaking pace. Or maybe not. Mr. Fleming said he would have no objection to new financial controls, measurable goals and transparency. The board should oblige him.
innov8ion wrote:^ bonwich has been around the block a few times. he lived amidst the history. you're comparing a biographical summary with reality? are you serious?
ttricamo wrote:bonwich wrote:P.S. Wikipedia isn't a valid historical reference.
Don't you love using the "P.S." as a quick sarcastic rebuttal?
P.S. - You're wrong. Here is the link to Wiki's reference - which is from the St. Louis Public Library.
Suck it, Trebec.
Please take futher discussion to PM.
Back to Union Station happenings, currents, etc... on this thread.
Honestly, I am at loss for words on what I considered the ultimate mis-carriage of justice against the food merchants. But maybe next week they will give away free t-shirts and the following week will be free ghetto jewelry. One way or another they will get the merchants to leave and then they will have the place all to themselves.lamiaposta wrote:Union Station sends negative message to food court merchants today. As the food court prepared to serve the lunch rush, a table was set up in the food court and outside on the patio at the south entrance with a promotion by Fresh Express giving away free prepacked salads ....
jlblues wrote:^The more important question is: are they trying to "right the ship", or sink it?
Again, you are assuming that they are trying to stay afloat.lamiaposta wrote:...but the closing of t shirt shops in itself speaks to the serious problem St Louis Union Station is having staying afloat.
All of those things cost money, and they obviously aren't interested in committing one more dime of capital into retaining the enclosed mall retail tenants. In that respect, it is identical to the demise of St. Louis Centre. Unlike St. Louis Centre however, there is no discernable financial incentive for Union Station's owner to let the mall empty out, so I can only surmise that they have plans that don't include those tenants.lamiaposta wrote:Currently IMO they are not making an intelligent effort to right the ship. When a merchant decides to move out, they virtually make no effort to work it out, ie, rent negotiation is out of the question as are other adjustments. It is either Union Stations way or the highway. The management at Union Station has totally failed to make adjustments in their unsuccessful business performa to meet the times. Don't you think some merchants would have stayed if they could have worked out a profitable future.
