12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostMay 07, 2015#376

How can they impose such drastically different percentages on St. Louis County vs the rest of the state? That seems completely arbitrary and punitive. The lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one.

9,561
Life MemberLife Member
9,561

PostMay 07, 2015#377

this is like saying St.Louis County residents will pay 10% state income tax and rest of the state 5....this will never fly in courts.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostMay 07, 2015#378

StL County has the sales tax pool and no other counties have it.

The legislation for the Metro Taxi Commish was specific for STL City and County.

Seems like this sort of thing happens all the time.

PostMay 07, 2015#379

SB5 passed the house 134-25

9,561
Life MemberLife Member
9,561

PostMay 07, 2015#380

quincunx wrote:StL County has the sales tax pool and no other counties have it.

The legislation for the Metro Taxi Commish was specific for STL City and County.

Seems like this sort of thing happens all the time.
thats really apples and oranges to what is happening here...

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostMay 07, 2015#381

How so?

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostMay 07, 2015#382

^ I know many states have city or county specific laws, especially if the issue mainly pertains to a specific area. For example, guns are illegal in New York City but legal upstate. It will be interesting to see how far the special interest groups go to protect their fiefdoms. If the state legislature receives too much push back, I could see them passing a bill that would dissolve cities by fiat, which would make this bill seem mild. Remember, Indianapolis unigov was created by state law not local vote.

9,561
Life MemberLife Member
9,561

PostMay 07, 2015#383

quincunx wrote:How so?
Tax pool is an option for all other counties if they want it, as is the Taxi Commission....there is nothing from stopping Greene County from working with their Reps in House/Senate to establish a tax pool for cities within greene county...
there is now something stopping St.Louis County from being treated equally as others.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostMay 07, 2015#384

No, they write the laws like "Counties of population greater than 900,000" or "more than 500,00 and less than 700,000"

1,868
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,868

PostMay 07, 2015#385

It's unfair, but I don't see how it's illegal.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostMay 07, 2015#386

dbInSouthCity wrote:
quincunx wrote:How so?
there is now something stopping St.Louis County from being treated equally as others.
that may be true but there is no such thing as equal protection for local governmental bodies.... they are creatures of the state of missouri and I doubt the bill would be in serious legal jeopardy. But you never know!

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostMay 07, 2015#387

^ Everybody knew this day of reckoning would come and we all knew that these little fiefdoms would go dragging, kicking, and screaming. I think I read somewhere that at least a third of the municipalities will be toast when we cap traffic revenue at 12.5%. Add on the municipal standards piece and we could easily see half of these little fiefdoms disappear, if not a clear majority.

1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostMay 07, 2015#388

maybe someone should have march madness type brackets or rankings for the dissolution of munies in st. louis county. Honestly i doubt we'll see a blood bath but some incremental dis incorporation is probably inevitable.

1,868
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,868

PostMay 07, 2015#389

goat314 wrote:^ Everybody knew this day of reckoning would come and we all knew that these little fiefdoms would go dragging, kicking, and screaming. I think I read somewhere that at least a third of the municipalities will be toast when we cap traffic revenue at 12.5%. Add on the municipal standards piece and we could easily see half of these little fiefdoms disappear, if not a clear majority.
There's another dimension to this, with municipalities being revenue-constrained due to the Hancock Amendment and their historically bad land usage. Traffic revenue might be a bad solution to revenue shortfalls, but I'm not convinced disincorporation/merger is an adequate replacement solution. Maybe someone has convincing numbers to the contrary.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostMay 07, 2015#390

^ That's a great question and I do think the benefits of disincorporation and consolidation can be overstated. Are things that much better in say Spanish Lake than say Dellwood?

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostMay 07, 2015#391

Fragmentation plus auto-oriented development patterns are a recipe for failure. Fragmentation can't confront low-productivity land uses beaches it's so burdened by propping itself up. Example: a town of 40k could hire a planner, an econ devel person, or pay for a form-based code development whereas 40 little towns have to scrape to pay 40 police chiefs, etc.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostMay 07, 2015#392

^ I don't think we'll see a rush to form-based codes and sound planning with or without fewer NoCo municipalities. I do think there will be benefits but I just think we need to temper our expectations of what will be achieved.

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostMay 07, 2015#393

^ I dont know....NoCo is way more progessive than SoCo when it comes to urban redevelopment visions. The work Beyond Housing is doing in Pagedale is amazing, not to mention great streets on Natural Bridge with possible TOD to follow, and plans for TOD at Wellston and Rockroad stations.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostMay 07, 2015#394

^^ Definitely agree. It's no panacea. I'm sure some munis will try to raise taxes and fees on other things to avoid calling it quits. All the other challenges remain. Fragmentation just makes them worse or very difficult to confront.

1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostMay 08, 2015#395

I don't think disincorporation solves THAT much, but I think consolidation does. IMO it's important that this doesn't result in a bunch of unincorporated "neighborhoods" or whatever. Their needs to be mergers and annexing.

And hopefully that momentum will lead to a re-joining of the city and the county, though that seems unlikely under Stenger.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostMay 08, 2015#396

^ right.... that is what I was getting at. Having more unincorporated Spanish Lakes isn't going to do much for the region. Unfortunately, I think that would be more likely than a wave or mergers of under-resourced munis.

But if say the 24 municipalities of the Normandy District and some nearby merged you could have a city of 50,000+ and potentially put the struggling area on a better footing. I wouldn't be surprised if those communities become a focus of merger efforts at the end of the day.

EDIT... as for City re-entry into the County, I suppose that could be attempted by ballot initiative if County electeds weren't supportive.. anyone know?

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostMay 08, 2015#397

I think disincorporation then annexation is the way to go because negotiations between two of more munis to merge is tougher. It's "Do you want to join our town" vs "How do we satisfy the entrenched power structures"

PostMay 08, 2015#398

When I here these mayors, I'm reminded of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Stltoday - Legislature sends municipal court reforms to Gov. Nixon
Diehl defended treating St. Louis County differently.

“In one county in this state, there are over 475,000 outstanding traffic warrants because cities are funding their very existence on the basis of that,” he said.

Diehl questioned whether the bill’s opponents “represent the entrenched power structure up there or ... the people who get arrested and fined” for petty offenses.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 5a456.html

337
Full MemberFull Member
337

PostMay 08, 2015#399

My man John Diehl ... four words I never thought I'd say or type. He's Nixon's ally in getting the new Rams' stadium built, and now he's sticking it to the people defending the north county debtors' prison fiefdoms.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostMay 08, 2015#400

quincunx wrote:I think disincorporation then annexation is the way to go because negotiations between two of more munis to merge is tougher. It's "Do you want to join our town" vs "How do we satisfy the entrenched power structures"
The difficulty though will be getting a healthier community to take you -- the disincorporated muni that can't function on your own -- on. It is hard to say, but it might be easier for similarly situated communities to join together... I could see Better Together and Beyond Housing to lead an effort with resources behind it to cobble something together for mutual benefit of Normandy communities that might see the writing on the wall.

Read more posts (438 remaining)