urbanSTL

^ I wouldn't doubt if it is just as much or more movement within the county than the city. Before we moved ourselves out of the state we developed a friendship with a couple who moved from north county down to south county for this very reason, he works at Sigma Aldrich and the choice became pretty obvious once their boy hit 3 years old even though he had liked living in his north county neighborhood, school choice if you can afford it trumps everything else for most families including my own.

But what are their feelings on re-entry? I wonder if Ballwin and Ellisville believe the only option on the table is to annex the entirety of St. Louis County into St. Louis City proper?

-RBB

I don't support going for the Super Mega Merger, so my strategy would be when it comes time to put out a specific proposal, I say "We heard you, we are going for reentry. Your town will endure." If they cry again, they'll look more petty, extreme, unreasonable.

quincunx wrote:I don't support going for the Super Mega Merger, so my strategy would be when it comes time to put out a specific proposal, I say "We heard you, we are going for reentry. Your town will endure." If they cry again, they'll look more petty, extreme, unreasonable.

The only problem is that re-entry doesn't accomplish much, unless its viewed as a stepping stone to unigov. Which means, the Ballwins and Ellisvilles of the world will have some justification when they argue re-entry is a slippery slope to unigov.

Here's my two cents of advice for Better Together: Due to the contested County Executive race, the best case scenario is for talk of City re-entry/merger talk to temporarily go away until after the election, the worst case is that it becomes a losing campaign issue and gets deemed politically untouchable for another 30-40 years. Why not let the re-entry/merger talk go away and focus the conversation on how best to handle the County's failing/unsustainable municipalities (disincorporation, consolidation, emergency manager, etc.)?

roger wyoming II wrote:

stlhistory wrote:Parkway is seeing significant declines in enrollment in Parkway South High and other zones are stagnant. Rockwood is stagnant in the eastern part of its district, too. I don't think Ballwin is going to "rebound" from the aging process.

But, maybe in 50 years, people will think to rehab charming ranch style homes. I know a lot of folks already pine for the MCM lifestyle, so maybe that Carter/Reagan era vibe will be big in the 2040s and 2050s?

An article in the P-D about a renewed boom in Lindbergh schools as the olds are beginning to move out and the youngs in:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/educ ... f69bf.html

It would be interesting to know patterns of where they are coming from... some from the city of course and I would imagine quite a few from other parts of the County with not as good schools.

We're experiencing something similar in the Webster district. Houses are selling quickly, and several of the schools have added modular buildings to accommodate the influx of kids. Some may be new to the area, but I think many are from families who in the past may have chosen private schools.

south compton wrote:The only problem is that re-entry doesn't accomplish much, unless its viewed as a stepping stone to unigov. Which means, the Ballwins and Ellisvilles of the world will have some justification when they argue re-entry is a slippery slope to unigov.

Here's my two cents of advice for Better Together: Due to the contested County Executive race, the best case scenario is for talk of City re-entry/merger talk to temporarily go away until after the election, the worst case is that it becomes a losing campaign issue and gets deemed politically untouchable for another 30-40 years. Why not let the re-entry/merger talk go away and focus the conversation on how best to handle the County's failing/unsustainable municipalities (disincorporation, consolidation, emergency manager, etc.)?

There's a lot between reentry and the Super Mega Merger a la UNIGOV. Reentry is more likely to pass than any other plan, and it makes more incremental changes more possible, combining health depts for instance.

The issue came up in the 2010 Co Exec race, Dooley's opponent tried to exploit it, and he still won handily.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I think Webster will always do okay as it has its own character and decent mobility and proximity to Central Corridor-- we can always bring back the commuter train! -- but I worry more for the Ballwins and Crestwoods of the world. Not much propping them up except for the schools.

I can see Crestwood doing just fine. The location is good, the homes are a good value, and even with the mall closed, there's still decent retail amenities. Lots of one-owner homes there will be going up for sale in the years ahead, offering low prices and the opportunity to customize. Crestwood could probably stand to market itself a little better to young families.

quincunx wrote:

south compton wrote:The only problem is that re-entry doesn't accomplish much, unless its viewed as a stepping stone to unigov. Which means, the Ballwins and Ellisvilles of the world will have some justification when they argue re-entry is a slippery slope to unigov.

Here's my two cents of advice for Better Together: Due to the contested County Executive race, the best case scenario is for talk of City re-entry/merger talk to temporarily go away until after the election, the worst case is that it becomes a losing campaign issue and gets deemed politically untouchable for another 30-40 years. Why not let the re-entry/merger talk go away and focus the conversation on how best to handle the County's failing/unsustainable municipalities (disincorporation, consolidation, emergency manager, etc.)?

There's a lot between reentry and the Super Mega Merger a la UNIGOV. Reentry is more likely to pass than any other plan, and it makes more incremental changes more possible, combining health depts for instance.

The issue came up in the 2010 Co Exec race, Dooley's opponent tried to exploit it, and he still won handily.

I'm in favor of re-entry because (1) the independent city status is just dumb and (2) hopefully it will lead some sort of unigov. However, most of the limited fiscal benefits that people equate with re-entry only could probably be achieved without re-entry actually occurring. State law already provides for political subdivisions to cooperate to provide services so I don't think re-entry is necessary for the health departments to effectively merge or for the police departments to better cooperate. A little bit of charter reform can get rid of some of the duplicative or unnecessary elective offices in the City.

The merger issue did come up in 2010, but the difference this time is that it is a much more visible issue and Dooley is likely to lose either in the primary or the general election to a candidate opposed to merger. If (and more likely, when) Dooley goes down, many of the issues connected to Dooley will be deemed losers too.

It would become a part of unincorporated St. Louis County, if Article VI Section 30 doesn't get in the way. This is a question I have which no one may know the answer. If reentry is achieved via the Board of Freeholders, post reentry does the BoF become *a* way to get things done locally or is it still *the* way. For instance if Wellston wanted to merge with St Louis currently that takes a BoF process in which the whole County would vote on it. The usual boundary commission process that reigns in the county doesn't apply. Post reentry does the boundary commission process become a way or does the BoF still reign?

So to your question about disincorporation of the city, I think that before reentry it takes a BoF process where the county would vote on it. After rentry it may take that to. If not the County Council puts it on the ballot and I'd figure it would be difficult to get a majority of the County Council even if citizens of the city were clamoring for disincorporation.

I was just reading about various borough arrangements in New York and other places. In NY, each borough is a also a county. London for a while had boroughs without a strong central authority over them. So definitions vary. There are other borough systems in Canada.

If the state created some kind of borough definition, I think each current town could, in theory, become separately governed boroughs under the umbrella of a higher body called St. Louis. It seems as if this arrangement would be almost like bringing St. Louis City into the county, except that St. Louis County would now be considered a "city", like New York City, and other towns from bordering counties in Missouri could also become boroughs of St. Louis, I suppose.

Like New York, St. Louis would have a mayor and probably more power at the top to tax, etc. and work on problems that are truly regional, but let current towns deal with their usual tasks best handled locally as they do now.

To be attractive to towns like Balwin, someone would have to show how a central authority could solve problems of Balwin residents that they cannot solve within Balwin's borders alone. Like improving the airport. Or traffic. Or Jobs.

Under the BoF process we can create such a thing ("The 5th way").

A Borough plan failed in the 60s. Today I believe it would be too alien to voters and fail again.

quincunx wrote:It would become a part of unincorporated St. Louis County, if Article VI Section 30 doesn't get in the way. This is a question I have which no one may know the answer. If reentry is achieved via the Board of Freeholders, post reentry does the BoF become *a* way to get things done locally or is it still *the* way. For instance if Wellston wanted to merge with St Louis currently that takes a BoF process in which the whole County would vote on it. The usual boundary commission process that reigns in the county doesn't apply. Post reentry does the boundary commission process become a way or does the BoF still reign?

Answered my own question. Article Vi Section 30(a) I guess I overlooked or forgot that the option for reentry covers this:

(2) to extend the territorial boundaries of the county so as to embrace the territory within the city and to reorganize and consolidate the county governments of the city and county, and adjust their relations as thus united, and thereafter the city may extend its limits in the manner provided by law for other cities

^people say City government and politics are weird (which they are), but yikes...

Stories like this are a part of the reason why I do NOT support a full-on mega merger between the City and County (were hell to freeze over and this was seriously proposed by anyone). I honestly don't want the Jane Cunningham's of the world having anything to do with the governing of this City.

The beauty is that you can keep your neighbors' problems at arm's length while leveraging their assets.

You can only name 5 if you're not interested in looking closer.

I would have expected "I got mine" from other areas.

Stl Public Radio - Is Smaller Better? Multitude Of Municipalities Plays Into City-County Merger Debate

“It really has nothing to do with the fact that we have many municipalities. That’s the beauty of the St. Louis County area — to have the individuality of all these municipalities,” Huddleston said.

But Huddleston said, “You can only name maybe less than five that are having any difficulties at all,” adding “those are not difficulties that are insurmountable.”

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/sma ... ger-debate