urbanSTL

In the face of all this, perhaps it's time to think out of the box and consider other options, professor?

HuffPo - This City Is Fining Black Residents For Having Weeds In Their Gardens

"There's a bigger underlying problem with where they are going to get money for their budget if not through these ways," said Clarissa Hayward, an associate professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis.

"Eventually it is going to come to a head. Who's going to pay for it?"

If the Pagedale lawsuit takes away the ticket revenue, the city could go bankrupt. This would be a lose-lose scenario for Pagedale and its residents: Either put up with the excessive ticketing or take the chance of bankrupting the municipality, and its effect on public services in doubt.

"Worst-case scenario is that they just can't provide basic public services," Hayward told Courthouse News. "If we don't address the problem, that's what we're faced with."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pag ... 3773482da0

quincunx wrote:It's not just fragmentation, being too spread out and lack of street grid/ hierarchical street/road system makes it more difficult and expensive to serve us with fire protection and EMS. And in the case of EMS contribute to the number and severity of car crashes and general poor health of individuals (heart disease, asthma, diabetes, etc) which leads to more calls.

Better Together recommends a single fire district for St. louis City and COunty

http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wp-con ... ummary.pdf

So even though fires are less frequent than, say, 50 years ago, we need 1100 more firefighters? More fire stations? At a cost of $192M?

Sorry if I can't get on board. They hint at all the supposed savings that could go on - with reduced positions, buying power, and so on, but then don't make any sort of commitment other than saying that it "could be" revenue neutral after five years (long enough for most people to forget the promises made).

Why do fire districts costs so much more than municipal fire departments? A resident in any number of municipalities surrounding, say, the Affton FPD pays anywhere from $0.25 (Crestwood) to $0.95 (Shrewsbury) to $0.75 (Maplewood) for all their city services - including fire protection. One house over, literally, someone in the Affton FPD pays $1.25 per $100 for fire protection alone.

And Affton isn't even near the top - not by a long shot. Lemay, Metro North, Valley Park, Maryland Heights, Mid County - are up to several times more expensive per unit assessment.

So those in municipalities, again, get screwed by this proposal. All of these advantages and cost savings, and everyone is going to have to wind up paying more....for what? Nothing. Just so they can justify sending out fire trucks with every ambulance and running their lights and sirens to change batteries in smoke detectors.

This is positively absurd.

bprop wrote: So even though fires are less frequent than, say, 50 years ago, we need 1100 more firefighters? More fire stations? At a cost of $192M?...

Why do fire districts costs so much more than municipal fire departments? A resident in any number of municipalities surrounding, say, the Affton FPD pays anywhere from $0.25 (Crestwood) to $0.95 (Shrewsbury) to $0.75 (Maplewood) for all their city services - including fire protection. One house over, literally, someone in the Affton FPD pays $1.25 per $100 for fire protection alone.

And Affton isn't even near the top - not by a long shot. Lemay, Metro North, Valley Park, Maryland Heights, Mid County - are up to several times more expensive per unit assessment.

So those in municipalities, again, get screwed by this proposal. All of these advantages and cost savings, and everyone is going to have to wind up paying more....for what?

where are you getting your data? how do you know that fires are less frequent than fifty years ago? how many firefighters were employed by the city and county 50 years ago versus today? how were fire stations distributed per capita versus today? how do you know that "everyone is going to have to wind up paying more"? how do you know that a single city-and-county-wide fire district won't actually equalize the per-citizen cost of fire protection across the region? you're making a ton of assumptions.

and, really, $192 million shared across the city AND county is nothing compared to say... oh, i don't know... the city alone footing $200 million for a football stadium. not to mention the benefits far outweigh those of a football stadium.

Here are the rates for the fire district. This is their only source of revenues, right? Munis have sales taxes too. Be interesting to see per capita/household/structure/land area spending.

FIRE DISTRICTS RES COMM AGRI PP
F-1 AFFTON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.2447 1.3509 1.2500 1.3166
F-2 KINLOCH FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 0.8810 0.8480 0.0000 0.8700
F-3 LEMAY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.3070 1.3650 0.2340 1.3430
F-4 METRO NORTH FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2.6340 2.6295 0.0000 2.6390
F-5 RIVERVIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2.4740 2.4740 1.9389 2.4577
F-6 NORTHEAST AMBL AND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.9478 1.9458 1.9478 1.9300
F-9 FLORISSANT VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.4900 1.4920 1.4930 1.4930
F-10 ROBERTSON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2.5120 2.5470 2.5490 2.5490
F-11 MID-COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2.9307 3.0104 0.0000 3.0300
F-12 PATTONVILLE-BRIDGETON FIRE PROTECTION DIST. 2.1330 2.1330 2.1330 2.1330
F-13 MARYLAND HEIGHTS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.3430 1.3420 1.3120 1.3480
F-14 COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2.0500 2.0500 0.0000 2.0500
F-15 SPANISH LAKE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2.3640 2.3640 2.3640 2.3640
F-16 BLACK JACK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.8090 1.8180 1.8180 1.8180
F-17 MEHLVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 0.6540 0.7850 1.0680 0.8610
F-18 WEST OVERLAND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2.0170 2.0220 0.0000 2.0420
F-19 METRO WEST FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.0570 1.1310 1.1820 1.1490
F-20 MONARCH FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 0.8290 0.9830 0.7700 1.0080
F-21 CREVE COEUR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.1875 1.1925 1.1775 1.1925
F-22 FENTON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.0510 0.9900 1.1000 0.9580
F-23 WEST COUNTY EMS & FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 0.9620 0.9900 1.0090 1.0000
F-24 VALLEY PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.2780 1.2680 1.1940 1.3100
F-25 EUREKA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1.2423 1.2423 1.2423 1.2423
F-26 PACIFIC FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 0.8582 0.8582 0.8582 0.8582

urban_dilettante wrote:
where are you getting your data? how do you know that fires are less frequent than fifty years ago? how many firefighters were employed by the city and county 50 years ago versus today? how were fire stations distributed per capita versus today? how do you know that "everyone is going to have to wind up paying more"? how do you know that a single city-and-county-wide fire district won't actually equalize the per-citizen cost of fire protection across the region? you're making a ton of assumptions.

and, really, $192 million shared across the city AND county is nothing compared to say... oh, i don't know... the city alone footing $200 million for a football stadium. not to mention the benefits far outweigh those of a football stadium.

You've got your numbers. Everyone is going to pay more because the new plan needs $192M that didn't exist before. And that's the teaser. We haven't seen the details...and I'm betting it doesn't get cheaper.

Don't know who you're talking to about a football stadium. I don't think taxpayers should subsidize that either.

McClellan had a great column about this very issue. It's behind the paywall though, so I can't link it.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... 78c22.html

• In the Creve Coeur Fire District, the average wage for a veteran firefighter with 15 years or more experience is $123,634. Along with that comes a benefit package worth $47,478 and 16 to 18 weeks of paid vacation and sick leave each year.

• In the Pattonville Fire District, 15-year veterans earn $108,403 in salary, $41,946 in benefits and 12 to 14 week of vacation and sick leave.

• In the Metro West district, the average salary for 15-year vets is $99,623. Benefits are worth another $37,374, and firefighters get 10 to 12 weeks of vacation and sick leave.

And this doesn't even get into the corruption in the STLFD pension board.

Well, I think the idea is that everyone is making a capital investment because some parts of the county don't meet response standards? I would like to see more specifics on how they reach the conclusion that cost savings from a merger can offset the investment.

It seems like it's somewhat turning into a stealthy argument for subsidizing fire protection in poor areas, which I don't think is a good argument to make. A big part of the reason we have so many municipalities is people afraid of spending money on the poor parts of the region, so this tactic isn't going to win many people over. But maybe I'm just not understanding the proposal.

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, I think the idea is that everyone is making a capital investment because some parts of the county don't meet response standards? I would like to see more specifics on how they reach the conclusion that cost savings from a merger can offset the investment.

It seems like it's somewhat turning into a stealthy argument for subsidizing fire protection in poor areas, which I don't think is a good argument to make. A big part of the reason we have so many municipalities is people afraid of spending money on the poor parts of the region, so this tactic isn't going to win many people over. But maybe I'm just not understanding the proposal.

I think you're understanding it correctly.

Re: the bold, there's no plan other than what I noted above: "suggests the unification could be cost-neutral by year five"

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, I think the idea is that everyone is making a capital investment because some parts of the county don't meet response standards? I would like to see more specifics on how they reach the conclusion that cost savings from a merger can offset the investment.

It seems like it's somewhat turning into a stealthy argument for subsidizing fire protection in poor areas, which I don't think is a good argument to make. A big part of the reason we have so many municipalities is people afraid of spending money on the poor parts of the region, so this tactic isn't going to win many people over. But maybe I'm just not understanding the proposal.

Looking at the map it seems most of the area not within 4 mins are wealthier sprawled areas. Should more productive areas take them on? In other words another sprawl subsidy?

http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/fire-study-gis

quincunx wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, I think the idea is that everyone is making a capital investment because some parts of the county don't meet response standards? I would like to see more specifics on how they reach the conclusion that cost savings from a merger can offset the investment.

It seems like it's somewhat turning into a stealthy argument for subsidizing fire protection in poor areas, which I don't think is a good argument to make. A big part of the reason we have so many municipalities is people afraid of spending money on the poor parts of the region, so this tactic isn't going to win many people over. But maybe I'm just not understanding the proposal.

Looking at the map it seems most of the area not within 4 mins are wealthier sprawled areas. Should more productive areas take them on? In other words another sprawl subsidy?

http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/fire-study-gis

I wouldn't go so far as to say "most", if you exclude the lightly-populated far-western areas. But there are patches everywhere, and the parts of North County not covered mostly aren't the poor parts, so maybe there's hope yet. I still expect it to play as "we need to subsidize other people in the county", and just reinforce opposition to unified government.

The fact is, they're saying everyone had to be in exactly the same bucket with a four minute response time, whether it's a dense suburb with lots of connectivity, or an estate at the end of a road high on a hill in Wildwood. That's completely unrealistic. It's 50% more firefighters than today and a lot of capital expense to cover lightly populated areas.

I can't believe we need 50% more firefighters to cover Wildwood, and the other patches of poor response time are no less densely populated than the rest of the county. I just don't understand. We currently have 30 firehouses, and we need 24 more to meet standards? None of this math makes any sense to me. If we have only a little more than half the fire fighting resources we need, that seems like a problem well beyond factionalism.

The city has 30 firehouses and the county has 88.

quincunx wrote:The city has 30 firehouses and the county has 88.

Oh, I see. That's what I get for trying to read a story in the newspaper.

So about 20% more fire stations, and 50% more firefighters to staff them all.

Note there's no splitting the difference here - that is, taking advantage of the so-called savings, using some to shore up where it's needed, eliminating ridiculous standards like sending fire trucks on EMS calls, and returning the rest to citizens as an efficiency.

No, rather, they propose to take all the savings and then some, hire over 1100 new county workers, build new fire stations that will forever require upkeep, maintenance, and staffing costs, all in the name of meeting an arbitrary standard. And put it all on the back of a shrinking population.

Word is 15 munis are filing a lawsuit over SB5 tomorrow.

Stl Public Radio - Politically Speaking: North County mayors speak out against municipal court overhaul

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/pol ... t-overhaul

While I don't know much about most of those cities, I absolutely agree with this:

One of the key issues in the lawsuit is a provision in the law barring St. Louis County cities from incorporating more than 12.5 percent of traffic-fine revenue into their budgets. Cities in the rest of the state have a 20 percent ceiling. The lawsuit contends that amounts to an unconstitutional “special law.”

^Absolutely. There's no way it's fair to single out one municipality, while letting others continue the practice.

framer wrote:^Absolutely. There's no way it's fair to single out one municipality, while letting others continue the practice.

They're singling out 90 municipalities, but yeah.

It's not fair, but I'm not convinced it's illegal. Seems like there is some precedent for it.

Sen Schmitt prefiled a bill to limit the amount a muni can keep from all ordinance violations.

^ I think all of these bills are precursors to what will ultimately be a greater municipal consolidation in St. Louis. I personally prefer a unigov system like Indy, Nashville, Louisville, and Jacksonville, but would settle for reentry of the city into the county and maybe 10-15 large municipalities ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

quincunx wrote:Sen Schmitt prefiled a bill to limit the amount a muni can keep from all ordinance violations.

Any city? Or just ones in a single county in Missouri? (The screenshot of the bill I saw on the P-D said something like "any city, town, village...." etc. but I didn't see if it was limited.

St. Louis County Council passed the policing standards bill. Let the suing commence!