Did you know that talks of City-County merger/consolidation have been discussed and voted on rather recently?



"...[Democratic Alderman A.J.] Cervantes [of the 15th Ward] began to seek support for a board of freeholders from both St. Louis City and St. Louis County to address the separation that resulted from the 1876 divorce. Cervantes hoped the plan would create one metropolitan city or bring the city into the county again as another municipality. Another possible scenario would involve the creation of metropolitan districts to administer services in both the city and county (75)."



The end result of the board of freeholders was to create a multifunctional special district of governance presided by a board comprising members of the city and county, non partisan. The vote on this proposal took place in 1959. This plan was widely rejected, in part because it did not address governmental fragmentation in the area, and Mayor Tucker wanted to see the city rejoin the county. A second attempt emerged shortly after in November 1961:



"...a stalwart contingent of reformers recommended a 'Borough Plan to Revitalize St. Louis.' Proponents of this plan favored the most radical change possible: the creation of a single new political subdivision ecompassing both the city and county. All existing governmental bodies would be consolidated (83). The plan called for twenty-two boroughs to be created within the new combined jurisdiction, eight in the city and seven in the county, with an additional seven spanning the boundary between the two. After supporters collected thousands of signatures, this plan went before city and county voters in November 1962...On Election Day, the borough plan went down in ignominious defeat. In the city of St. Louis, 74 percent of those voting opposed it. In the county, the rejection figure was 79 percent..."



Today, this plan would create a "federation" government of a city of 1.3 million people, making it, I believe, the seventh largest city in the country. Something to think about, huh? The "Fourth City" (St. Louis was the fourth largest city in the U.S. in 1900, I believe) becoming the "Seventh City"? Interesting...



I ask you also, what would it take for you to vote yes on a consolidation/reform plan? Would you prefer some form of multifunctional district in the first plan which would call for reorganization of services and not of governments, or the more radical governmental reorganization of plan two? Would you favor consolidation at all? Discuss at will.



The above quotes, by the way, are from "St. Louis Politics: The Triumph of Tradition" by Lana Stein. The quotes come from pages 109-110. Very interesting book. Recommended for any St. Louis nut like I am. (Sorry if I misspelled anything retyping the quotes or if something doesn't make sense, I'm tired.)

it's actually been discussed as recently as this year. RFT had it in their "best of" list as this year's



Best Pipe Dream



Merging St. Louis city and county



We all know our city's sad story: From its population zenith of more than 850,000 in 1950, the postwar hemorrhage brought down St. Louis. Most recent census nadir: fewer than 350,000 inhabitants. Blame it on white flight, the drying-up of factory jobs or the highways that severed the city from its lifeblood, the Mississippi. But while the city has suffered, the county has prospered. So why not merge the two? The idea's not a new one. Not only would the move instantly pump up the city's population -- to a quite-respectable 1.3 million -- but it would also bring in critical tax dollars, put an end to redundant services and cut costs associated with small-town municipal governments. Look, the argument goes, we're kidding ourselves if we think the city's crime problems stop at the border -- just take a trip to Jennings, or Wellston. And what business does a rinky-dink town like Maryland Heights have keeping its lucrative casino taxes all to itself? Sure, some of the county's 91 municipalities will kick and scream. On the other hand, police chiefs Joe Mokwa and Jerry Lee have merged their helicopter services. But when Congressman William Lacy Clay Jr. sent up a trial balloon earlier this year, suggesting that instead of barreling ahead with charter reform, we "take the time to investigate the potential savings and service improvements that might be achieved through sharing responsibilities," the Post-Dispatch editorial board was on the notion like a hoosier on a possum, accusing Clay of trying to "derail" the city's effort. Of course, seeing as how it has taken 90 years to get this far, maybe the Post is right. We'd hate to be the ones to get in the way of progress.

ComandanteCero wrote:it's actually been discussed as recently as this year. RFT had it in their "best of" list as this year's



Best Pipe Dream



Merging St. Louis city and county



We all know our city's sad story: From its population zenith of more than 850,000 in 1950, the postwar hemorrhage brought down St. Louis. Most recent census nadir: fewer than 350,000 inhabitants. Blame it on white flight, the drying-up of factory jobs or the highways that severed the city from its lifeblood, the Mississippi. But while the city has suffered, the county has prospered. So why not merge the two? The idea's not a new one. Not only would the move instantly pump up the city's population -- to a quite-respectable 1.3 million -- but it would also bring in critical tax dollars, put an end to redundant services and cut costs associated with small-town municipal governments. Look, the argument goes, we're kidding ourselves if we think the city's crime problems stop at the border -- just take a trip to Jennings, or Wellston. And what business does a rinky-dink town like Maryland Heights have keeping its lucrative casino taxes all to itself? Sure, some of the county's 91 municipalities will kick and scream. On the other hand, police chiefs Joe Mokwa and Jerry Lee have merged their helicopter services. But when Congressman William Lacy Clay Jr. sent up a trial balloon earlier this year, suggesting that instead of barreling ahead with charter reform, we "take the time to investigate the potential savings and service improvements that might be achieved through sharing responsibilities," the Post-Dispatch editorial board was on the notion like a hoosier on a possum, accusing Clay of trying to "derail" the city's effort. Of course, seeing as how it has taken 90 years to get this far, maybe the Post is right. We'd hate to be the ones to get in the way of progress.

I was actually very surprised when I read that in the Best of RFT issue. I had thought the issue was totally dead now.



Personally, I think they key to St. Louis's future as a region is acting as a region. If there were any way possible for St. Louis City and County to agree on a merger of services (which is quite possible in the future--just look at the police departments' helicopter services) or for the City to join the County, I'd probably be for it.



I know this happens everywhere, even between municipalities at times, but to me it seems a stark reminder of the useless division: driving west on Gravois out of the city, one can see, from as far back as where the McDonalds is and where the Schnucks is, the blacker pavement of the County's portion of Gravois and the grayer, older pavement of the City's portion. I just think to myself...why did the pavers of the County road have to stop at this invisible line?



I know, as I said, that this doesn't really mean anything. It's just symbolic to me.

I totally agree - a merger is long overdue. I hope that the Clayton-Richmond Heights merger becomes a reality as well - the consolidation of municpalities can only be a good thing.



With regards to Gravois - I think MODOT maintained the county part, and the city maintained the city stretch, but now MODOT is responsible for the whole thing. One less thing to worry about!

^Rich, I couldn't disagree with you more. In fact, that wounded, fractious attitude is one of the largest roadblocks to St. Louis' recovery that we face.



It's true, the county often has turned its back on us while at the same time profiting from us and enjoying our amenities. And it is truer still that the county is experiencing the same growing pains that the city did in the sixties-eighties; i.e., declining property values, loss of revenue, increase in crime, loss of population due to urban--ha--sprawl. And the most true statement I will make is that I get a twisted kind of pleasure out of all this. Genuine schadenfreude.



But I entertain that sentiment only in private, because I think we as a region need to get over our little "well the city/shrewsbury/crestwood/blackjack needs its independence," because we are all so interdependant.



The best solution is to eliminate all municipalities in the County, and have the City come under St. Louis County again. That way, there would be only one political entity in St. Louis County, and that would be the City. We need to share the burdens as well as the rewards regionally. I think that the county gets a lot of revenue that flows from the fact that the city exists.



As much as Chesterfieldians may hate to admit it, their property values are inextricably linked to those of the city, and in particular downtown.



I would love to see the St. Louis region (at least on the Missouri side) come together under one government. And I think it will happen, I just have no clue on a time table.

The county is not as republican as you think. In the last election, the county went for Kerry, however not by as significant a margin as the city. Further, the county elected a democrat to their top post, and he's an African-American to boot. Who'd a thunk that the city would have a white mayor and the county a black executive? Anyway, as was mentioned above, the demographics of the county are changing, and the typical "white suburban republican" is moving farther out to St. Chaz, etc. The city and the county are growing increasingly alike in outlook, in my opinion.

IMO, I would rather have a mix of democrats and republicans, not one party in control, like in the city, or in St. Charles county. Different opinions, even though you may not agree with all, are good.



The city Democrats probably would not want to give up power, but we already almost have two different parties within the democratic party in the city anyway.



When it comes to a city-county merger, I am all for it, as long as it really benefits everyone. There would be a lot of things to work out if it actually happens.

MattnSTL wrote:IMO, I would rather have a mix of democrats and republicans, not one party in control, like in the city, or in St. Charles county. Different opinions, even though you may not agree with all, are good.



The city Democrats probably would not want to give up power, but we already almost have two different parties within the democratic party in the city anyway.



When it comes to a city-county merger, I am all for it, as long as it really benefits everyone. There would be a lot of things to work out if it actually happens.

Yes, I realize a lot of factors would need to be taken into consideration.



To the user who posted the tirade against St. Louis County: I don't know if that was a joke or not, but it's that same attitude that destroys regionalism. I do not wish ill of the County, even if it hasn't always been behind the City. That's not the point. I think, in order to have a truly successful metropolitan area, both the City and the County need to be prosperous.



I do think, however, that the County should know that its older areas are very susceptible to decline and that, should this trend of urbanism we're all touting fail to see its true potential, many of its inner-ring suburbs, even in Mid-County and South County, will start to experience decline.



And, thinking from a City perspective, if Lemay becomes totally declined, what does that mean for the neighboring Carondelet and Boulevard Heights neighborhood? We're all connected. We all use the amenities that St. Louis provides.



Why do we have to have this distinction between City and County? For a piece of 1876 legislation that would be illegal today? I wish someone could dig up the law, find a loophole and have the divorce ruled as illegal.



...



And about Gravois...I know that, for instance, you can see the boundary between U City and Clayton on smaller streets. It just seemed to me more symbolic when it's between the City and County. But MODOT is taking control of maintenance of the entire stretch now?

^All the way toChouteau, I believe. They alreay repaved from Grand to I-55, which is a nice improvement.



The ironic part of what you were saying earlier is that the city stretch is better that the county stretch on Gravois, but I understand the symbolism you were trying to convey.

MattnSTL wrote:^All the way toChouteau, I believe. They alreay repaved from Grand to I-55, which is a nice improvement.



The ironic part of what you were saying earlier is that the city stretch is better that the county stretch on Gravois, but I understand the symbolism you were trying to convey.

Yeah, I know. I guess a better example would have been on Wydown, where the city's cracked, blue-gray pavement ends starkly and turns into deep black pavement with a white bike trail. That's Clayton for you.



And now that you mention it, I remember Gravois looking a lot better right before downtown. I thought it might have been the City's doing though. I do remember hearing that MODOT took control of the city portion of Manchester. (Did that ever happen? <thinks>) Kudos to them for taking Gravois too.

The state took over the maintenance of all state highways that run through the city limits. These would be Hwy 30 (Gravois), Hwy 66 (Chippewa), and whatever highway Manchester is. They are suppossed to improve these roads, but we all know how reliable MODOT is.

steve wrote:The state took over the maintenance of all state highways that run through the city limits. These would be Hwy 30 (Gravois), Hwy 66 (Chippewa), and whatever highway Manchester is. They are suppossed to improve these roads, but we all know how reliable MODOT is.

Manchester is 100 and Chippewa/Watson in 366, I believe.



But anyway, back on topic, that federation idea is pretty wild. Could anyone under any circumstances see well-established suburbs, such as U City and especially Clayton, losing status as an official entity?



One thing that makes me wary of the County is how well they've addressed their decling or declined inner ring suburbs to the north. Wellston is arguably rougher than the City in parts and certainly has the look of a shanty town in parts (no offense to anyone who might be from there). It seems to me the County could take over the jurisdiction and try to improve it. I have heard of the Empowerment Zone plan, but I don't think that's through the County, is it?

MattnSTL, you wrote: The city Democrats probably would not want to give up power, but we already almost have two different parties within the democratic party in the city anyway.



As a prospective St. Louisan (and lifelong Democrat), I'd like to know more about the issues or approaches that separate the two camps. Could you clarify?



Many thanks.

When we talk about a merger, what exactly are we talking about? I've always thought it meant that St. Louis would become part of St. Louis County - alleviating the need for duplicate "county" offices - as opposed to having the city of St. Louis annex neighboring municipalities to expand its geographic boundaries and add to its population.

DeBaliviere wrote:When we talk about a merger, what exactly are we talking about? I've always thought it meant that St. Louis would become part of St. Louis County - alleviating the need for duplicate "county" offices - as opposed to having the city of St. Louis annex neighboring municipalities to expand its geographic boundaries and add to its population.

Well, when we speak of a merger in any sort of realistic terms, it is spoken of as St. Louis City joining the County, or, in a more likely event, the two entities merging services (i.e. forming metropolitan districts).



However, if you read my first post, you will note that a radical plan in the 60s was discussed which would have combined the two entities into one city of a million people, with 20 or so boroughs. It obviously failed by a wide margin, but I think the idea is interesting even if impossible in our area.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Could anyone under any circumstances see well-established suburbs, such as U City and especially Clayton, losing status as an official entity?

Might an alternative be regional revenue (tax) sharing? I read a book back in school called 'Metropolotics' about the system in place in Min/St Paul area. It trys to keep local autonomy by not merging the individual municipalities. Basically all the municipalities pay part of their revenues into a pot, which then gets divided up. Maybe our friend on this forum from Minn can tell us more.

par wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:Could anyone under any circumstances see well-established suburbs, such as U City and especially Clayton, losing status as an official entity?

Might an alternative be regional revenue (tax) sharing? I read a book back in school called 'Metropolotics' about the system in place in Min/St Paul area. It trys to keep local autonomy by not merging the individual municipalities. Basically all the municipalities pay part of their revenues into a pot, which then gets divided up. Maybe our friend on this forum from Minn can tell us more.

Yes, good point, but of course the mentality of the average Countian would be to say that the City would be taking a disproportionate amount of the money to fix its problems. St. Louis County would bring in more revenue, and the City would seem to be living off the County then.

Matt Drops The H wrote:

par wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:Could anyone under any circumstances see well-established suburbs, such as U City and especially Clayton, losing status as an official entity?

Might an alternative be regional revenue (tax) sharing? I read a book back in school called 'Metropolotics' about the system in place in Min/St Paul area. It trys to keep local autonomy by not merging the individual municipalities. Basically all the municipalities pay part of their revenues into a pot, which then gets divided up. Maybe our friend on this forum from Minn can tell us more.

Yes, good point, but of course the mentality of the average Countian would be to say that the City would be taking a disproportionate amount of the money to fix its problems. St. Louis County would bring in more revenue, and the City would seem to be living off the County then.

As I recall from the book, and I failed to mention it earlier, it that's kind of the whole point. It would be the city plus wellston plus pine lawn etc, etc, which would add up to a majority of the regions municipalities. Additionally, everyone pays something into the pot- it's just the haves (Clayton to use your example) would not get back as much as they put in.

par wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:

par wrote:

Might an alternative be regional revenue (tax) sharing? I read a book back in school called 'Metropolotics' about the system in place in Min/St Paul area. It trys to keep local autonomy by not merging the individual municipalities. Basically all the municipalities pay part of their revenues into a pot, which then gets divided up. Maybe our friend on this forum from Minn can tell us more.

Yes, good point, but of course the mentality of the average Countian would be to say that the City would be taking a disproportionate amount of the money to fix its problems. St. Louis County would bring in more revenue, and the City would seem to be living off the County then.

As I recall from the book, and I failed to mention it earlier, it that's kind of the whole point. It would be the city plus wellston plus pine lawn etc, etc, which would add up to a majority of the regions municipalities. Additionally, everyone pays something into the pot- it's just the haves (Clayton to use your example) would not get back as much as they put in.

Yeah...I don't think anyone in Clayton would be for that. We have a sad state of "It's Not My Problem"ism among a lot of Countians and a sad state of "We Don't Need Their Help"ism among many people in the City.

The ST. LOUIS Magazine current issue (March 2005) was just in my mailbox. I always look forward to this magazine - good pro-city articles usually. This issue had (on the cover too) an article section called "Saving St. Louis" by a freelance writer Kevin Mitchell. The article title first off rubbed me wrong - "Saving" seemed so doomed already in some way... anyway, the article had a first couple paragraphs (that were pretty damn doom-city slanted - which is unusual for featured writers in STL Mag) that told a little bit about what the next 3 pages of "interviews" (if you will) of 19 (or so) "prominant" St. Louisans would like to see the city do if they would become "Queen or King" of the city for one day.

Now there were some pretty dumb choices of people to question (I am sure they were added to give it some "fun" if you will) like Smash (who cares), Karen Foss (who cares), and many others. Moving on; some of these "incredible" minds thought that "saving" (if you will) STL would be the law of "speading on Hwy 40 day" or "Ted Drews Day", or Spend the day with the least likely person you want to spend the day with - Day" or even "St. Louis Music Appreciation Day" === yeah right... these great ideas are going to "save" the day and city.

What a waste of time and trees, however there were a FEW GOOD thoughtful ideas burried in the article among some of the more "intelligent" people (in my opinion - oh yeah, I forgot the great and mighty Frank O'Pinion was one too - another idiotic response) anyway,,, if you are still with me, This opinion was one expressed many times. It was by DICK FLEMING - President of the STL RCGA. It was the most insightful and I wanted to get anyone elses opinion on this topic again. AND , do you think it will ever happen - and HOW?











In April, I will be having a personal lunch with Mayor Slay, and I plan to ask him his opinion too... stay tuned!



Sorry this post is so sloppy and messy - typing & posting fast this evening!

Thanks all!

Interesting. I wonder if these people have ever heard of live silently and be thought of as a fool, but open your mouth and remove all doubt. (Or something like that, I think I screwed it up) O'h well, at least some people had some intelligent ideas.



So how did you get a personal lunch with the Mayor? Use it well. Let him know about the forum too.