It does have the advantage of guaranteeing representation for that area.andrewarkills wrote:It gets the conversation started. I have an issue with splitting the city in two, especially along what is essentially a racial line. If anything, the core should be bigger. I would say 7 total, with the city being one, and absorbing some of the nearby county.
- 1,868
^ I think this is probably the plan being pushed by Better Together behind the scenes. I like the plan. It looks like it will essentially be a unigov city/county called St. Louis supervising 9 autonomous boroughs. Keep in mind New York is a city of 5 boroughs, each with their own president, then you got a city wide mayor. It works well, because every borough (essentially a county) has their own independence, but there is a larger overarching city that keeps them all in check and makes the final decision.
- 249
Technically, yes. It is also represented in the current set up. I just look around at all of the thriving metro areas who we might consider peers, and they have something closer to UniGov (Indy, Nashville). This plan, while accomplishing the goal of consolidation, does so at the expense of a strong core.MarkHaversham wrote: It does have the advantage of guaranteeing representation for that area.
If I could change anything about this to make it palatable for myself, I would keep the city whole, and even have it absorb most of the inner ring suburbs. A strong urban, economically contiguous core is vital to our success.
I look at this as something very similar to a unigov, but with boroughs. If I'm not mistaken. The "City of St. Louis" as we know it would be dissolved and ultimate power would be given to 9 borough mayors and 1 regional mayor, who would preside over the totality of this new "St. Louis".andrewarkills wrote:Technically, yes. It is also represented in the current set up. I just look around at all of the thriving metro areas who we might consider peers, and they have something closer to UniGov (Indy, Nashville). This plan, while accomplishing the goal of consolidation, does so at the expense of a strong core.MarkHaversham wrote: It does have the advantage of guaranteeing representation for that area.
If I could change anything about this to make it palatable for myself, I would keep the city whole, and even have it absorb most of the inner ring suburbs. A strong urban, economically contiguous core is vital to our success.
- 8,155
Seems to me the borough system is just another way of saying its a ward system for a unigov.... and whichever way you cut it, present population figures would give the folks living in present day STLCIty approximately 320/1,320 of the population.
- 249
Here's the thing: they're proposing a 7 (or 9 if City is included) borough structure with a council of mayors. This council of mayors APPOINTS a CEO. Note the difference between this and having a region-wide elected super-mayor (as in NYC).
Furthermore, they proposed still having 7 PD's, 7 FD's, 7 trash departments, 7 highway department, etc. Coordination is all well and good, but if you're going to go to the trouble of something that closely approximates UniGov, why not just go ahead and do an actual UniGov, with one of everything?
This plan is a good place to start, and I'm all aboard on consolidation/merging, etc. But if we're going to do it, let's get it as right as possible the first time.
Furthermore, they proposed still having 7 PD's, 7 FD's, 7 trash departments, 7 highway department, etc. Coordination is all well and good, but if you're going to go to the trouble of something that closely approximates UniGov, why not just go ahead and do an actual UniGov, with one of everything?
This plan is a good place to start, and I'm all aboard on consolidation/merging, etc. But if we're going to do it, let's get it as right as possible the first time.
- 1,868
Nice thought, but If it's so consolidated that the public opposes it, we're not going to do it.andrewarkills wrote: if we're going to do it, let's get it as right as possible the first time.
HB1686 would make disincorporation possible for 3rd class and charter cities and easier to put on ballot (25% registered voter's signatures instead of 50%) and pass (majority instead of 60%). Let's see if it goes anywhere this year. Last year HB 741 passed out of committee, but didn't make it to the floor.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.asp ... 016&code=R
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.asp ... 016&code=R
- 2,056
How exactly does this happen - would it be a STL County/City vote? or would it be only a county vote and the city would vote to be annexed into the plan?
- 1,868
Assuming you're talking about the boroughs, it seems like it would be separate county and city votes, maybe contingent on state lawmakers paving the way.pattimagee wrote:How exactly does this happen - would it be a STL County/City vote? or would it be only a county vote and the city would vote to be annexed into the plan?
Under the Board of Freeholders it could be done under the 5th way. I suppose the state legislature could set up this type of city. Don't think legally we'd have to vote on it, but politically we definitely would.
Article VI Section 30(a)
(5) to formulate and adopt any other plan for the partial or complete government of all or any part of the city and the county
Article VI Section 30(a)
(5) to formulate and adopt any other plan for the partial or complete government of all or any part of the city and the county
- 1,792
If you were set on 9 then why divide the city in half North and South. Why Not Keep the core intact and nible at the city lines along the edges....
In an ideal world
9 Bailanges of St. Louis (btw a Bailange is equivalent to a bourough but French so IMHO more appropriate for St. Louis)
Old City - the city gets squeezed a bit Clayton Carondolet, Ferguson and Webster absorb some of the perpherial parts. The core stays intact.
Clayton - Rough boundaries, Linbergh, Manchester, I70, and Hampton Downtown Maple wood would not be separated by a city line so that would involve some horse trading.
Ferguson - Mostly Bounded By I170, I 70, and I 270.
Webster - Rough Boundaries include from Manchester South and Watson West.
Carondolet - Afton, Mehlville, Oakville, and south side of the city Dividing line would probably be close to Holly Hills Ave.
Kirkwood - Includes Most of Sunset Hills, Fenton.
Florrissant - Most of what is north of I 270 include North side of Earth City.
Creve Couer - Mostly Creve Coure, Maryland Heights and Bridgeton.
Chesterfield - Roughly included, Chesterfield, Wildwood, and Eureka.
Some additional thoughts...
-Clayton, Creve Couer, Florrissant, and Ferguson would intersect and roughly divide Lambert Airport evenly.
-Old City would retain most of its geographical identity but would be spliting Forest Park with Clayton and Giving Carondolet Park to Carondolet
-New park authority similar to the ZMD would take responsibility for most of the regions parks. SO despite bailange boundaries Forest Park and other remain a shared burden.
-New highrise city hall would be commissioned and built at the terminus of the Gateway Mall.
-School districts would stay untouched. It wouldn't make it completely uncontroversial but it would give it a fighting chance.
A target of ~150K people per bailange would be the targeted with some preference given to current community boundaries and economic drivers.
Not a huge fan of Old City as a name for a bailange.The main thing is the city should give the St. Louis name to the combined entity so the City needs a new moniker.
In an ideal world
9 Bailanges of St. Louis (btw a Bailange is equivalent to a bourough but French so IMHO more appropriate for St. Louis)
Old City - the city gets squeezed a bit Clayton Carondolet, Ferguson and Webster absorb some of the perpherial parts. The core stays intact.
Clayton - Rough boundaries, Linbergh, Manchester, I70, and Hampton Downtown Maple wood would not be separated by a city line so that would involve some horse trading.
Ferguson - Mostly Bounded By I170, I 70, and I 270.
Webster - Rough Boundaries include from Manchester South and Watson West.
Carondolet - Afton, Mehlville, Oakville, and south side of the city Dividing line would probably be close to Holly Hills Ave.
Kirkwood - Includes Most of Sunset Hills, Fenton.
Florrissant - Most of what is north of I 270 include North side of Earth City.
Creve Couer - Mostly Creve Coure, Maryland Heights and Bridgeton.
Chesterfield - Roughly included, Chesterfield, Wildwood, and Eureka.
Some additional thoughts...
-Clayton, Creve Couer, Florrissant, and Ferguson would intersect and roughly divide Lambert Airport evenly.
-Old City would retain most of its geographical identity but would be spliting Forest Park with Clayton and Giving Carondolet Park to Carondolet
-New park authority similar to the ZMD would take responsibility for most of the regions parks. SO despite bailange boundaries Forest Park and other remain a shared burden.
-New highrise city hall would be commissioned and built at the terminus of the Gateway Mall.
-School districts would stay untouched. It wouldn't make it completely uncontroversial but it would give it a fighting chance.
A target of ~150K people per bailange would be the targeted with some preference given to current community boundaries and economic drivers.
Not a huge fan of Old City as a name for a bailange.The main thing is the city should give the St. Louis name to the combined entity so the City needs a new moniker.
- 1,868
Keeping the city as one borough results in a lopsidedly high-population borough compared to the others.
My biggest problem with this plan is that I don't think the 90 municipalities are that big a deal. It's inefficient for sure, but the primary existential problem is the lack of a regional authority to address regional issues. Including St. Louis City as a county municipality solves that issue much more simply. I'm not against the borough plan, but I'm not terribly excited about it.
My biggest problem with this plan is that I don't think the 90 municipalities are that big a deal. It's inefficient for sure, but the primary existential problem is the lack of a regional authority to address regional issues. Including St. Louis City as a county municipality solves that issue much more simply. I'm not against the borough plan, but I'm not terribly excited about it.
- 249
I'm not so sure the goal of the borough plan, or anything that happens, should be equal districts. I think the goal should be consolidation on a large scale. There is a case to be made that the urban core can and should be the largest municipality (see Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis). Having a strong centrally located governmental body that is able to drive the region forward is good. If anything, the case should be made to leave the city intact, and fold some of the near suburbs into the city proper (i.e.-the Mississippi to 270). It works extremely well in all of the cities I named above.
- 1,868
I'm not questioning the efficacy of a strong city-led government, I'm questioning the political feasibility. I think pushing for a regional government for regional issues is likelier to garner agreement than kicking over people's locally-run sandcastles. If we could eschew democracy in favor of technocratic authoritarianism, I'd talk about unigov.
- 249
What makes this plan palatable to many in the region is that it preserves some semblance of the local sandcastles. That's the problem. UniGov can and should be just as democratic as 90 different municipal governments.MarkHaversham wrote:I think pushing for a regional government for regional issues is likelier to garner agreement than kicking over people's locally-run sandcastles. If we could eschew democracy in favor of technocratic authoritarianism, I'd talk about unigov.
I think making a strong fiscal case to people on the true cost involved with duplicating services would change a lot of minds. It's not cheap for everyone to have their mayor on speed dial.
Arguably, every issue is regional. Very little in metro STL happens in a vacuum and only affects one municipality. Nearly all regional assets that draw people to STL are within 270; having strong central planning and control and funding of those assets should be a minimum requirement for any successful "regional unity" plan.
- 1,868
I'm not saying unigov is an undemocratic structure, I'm saying you probably can't get a majority of St. Louisans to agree to implement it. I'm personally on board with Outerbelt City.
- 249
Agreed, there will need to be some horse-trading involved in getting the majority of the county on board.
I've suggested in other places that this be something the state implements with the option for municipalities to stay independent (if their voters approve that move), provided they meet strict revenue gathering guidelines, and demonstrate an ability to provide services at a high standard. If they can't maintain those levels for 3 straight years, they get absorbed into whatever consolidated body is formed. The voters in those municipalities would need to reapprove remaining separate bodies every 8 years, coinciding with Presidential elections to ensure a high turnout.
This would allow voters a say in the initial decision to consolidate or remain separate, as well as a say in if they want to remain so. The minimum revenue and service standards ensure we don't replicate the situation we have with taxation by citation, etc.
I've suggested in other places that this be something the state implements with the option for municipalities to stay independent (if their voters approve that move), provided they meet strict revenue gathering guidelines, and demonstrate an ability to provide services at a high standard. If they can't maintain those levels for 3 straight years, they get absorbed into whatever consolidated body is formed. The voters in those municipalities would need to reapprove remaining separate bodies every 8 years, coinciding with Presidential elections to ensure a high turnout.
This would allow voters a say in the initial decision to consolidate or remain separate, as well as a say in if they want to remain so. The minimum revenue and service standards ensure we don't replicate the situation we have with taxation by citation, etc.
Ferguson could have the second highest property taxes of the 90 munis in the county. If only there was another option besides tickets or higher taxes.
KMOX - Ferguson to Consider “Economic Development” Sales Tax, Property Tax Hike
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/18/ ... -tax-hike/
KMOX - Ferguson to Consider “Economic Development” Sales Tax, Property Tax Hike
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/01/18/ ... -tax-hike/
- 182
You mean the 1970s/1980s way of doing things where residents subsidize parking and roads for commuters with debt and property taxes, while getting a negative return from the state government on income and sales taxes to subsidize Rural Missouri is a loser in the long run? Inconceivable!
http://nextstl.com/2015/02/do-the-math-west-florissant/
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014 ... ation.html
http://nextstl.com/2015/02/do-the-math-west-florissant/
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014 ... ation.html
Fragmentation is synergizing with the growth Ponzi scheme for sure!
- 182
"My God...they've shifted into a new paradigm of destruction!"quincunx wrote:Fragmentation is synergizing with the growth Ponzi scheme for sure!
#SuburbanSprawlTheHorrorMovie
Stltoday - To succeed, St. Louis has to shed its baggage of the past
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... 6f224.htmlAt that forum in 2011, an audience member joked that this was this generation’s opportunity to fail at this issue. Is that the legacy we want to pass to future generations of St. Louisans, failure? We don’t tell the entrepreneurs creating start-ups to give up in the face of defeat. Future success requires shedding the baggage of the past. The world isn’t waiting around for us.
Caller Steve from Webster Groves was on a roll last night on KMOX Sports Open Line
- 249
Caller Steve! Leaving it all on the floor! May your number increase, Caller Steve. [CLAPPING HANDS SIGN]