Tapatalk

City County Merger

City County Merger

3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostNov 06, 2009#1

I thought I'd start a new discussion on what it would really take to merge the city into St. Louis County. What are the benefits? What are the downsides? Who would it help and who would it hurt? How politically would it be done? State Legislature? A vote of the city and county? State referendum? Legislature only?



Let me start by suggesting that it should reduce duplication and save money. Suppose a referendum was put to St. Louis city and County to merge St. Louis into St. Louis County. Some services now run by the city would be handed over to County government and the associated city taxes for those services would be mailed to the county offices.



The county would have more people to service and would need, say a 10% increase in funds to do it. But some city tax dollars would now go to the county, giving them, say, a 15% increase in funds. 15% - 10% = 5% savings to county residents and city residents. Would the city and county residents agree to a referendum to merge the city back into the county, if it includes a 5% tax decrease in both the city and the county up front due to the efficiencies of the merger ?

PostNov 07, 2009#2

Another place where the city county merger might have voting appeal is law enforcement. In a merged city-county, a combined law enforcement organization could devote more resources to the areas of the city that have the highest crime which would appeal to city and county voters.



Its hard to say whether a merger would save significant amounts of money in law enforcement, and add additional tax cuts to a referendum.

752
Super MemberSuper Member
752

PostNov 07, 2009#3

Gary Kreie wrote: In a merged city-county, a combined law enforcement organization could devote more resources to the areas of the city that have the highest crime which would appeal to city and county voters.


You, like a lot of people on this forum, look at it from a regional view... but the regional view doesn't sell the myopic NIMBYs that we all know are everywhere. Can you imagine typical resident of Ladue, Clayton and T&C saying "please devote our tax dollars to pay for cops in high crime rate areas?" If this is EVER going to be gainfully discussed at any level... it needs to appeal to the rich, poor and logical all at the same time.

597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostNov 07, 2009#4

tbspqr wrote:
Gary Kreie wrote: In a merged city-county, a combined law enforcement organization could devote more resources to the areas of the city that have the highest crime which would appeal to city and county voters.


You, like a lot of people on this forum, look at it from a regional view... but the regional view doesn't sell the myopic NIMBYs that we all know are everywhere. Can you imagine typical resident of Ladue, Clayton and T&C saying "please devote our tax dollars to pay for cops in high crime rate areas?" If this is EVER going to be gainfully discussed at any level... it needs to appeal to the rich, poor and logical all at the same time.


The well-being of the region needs to be the appeal of these discussions. Veiling it in something that appeals to T&C isn't addressing the big problem. How can we expect people to think of the betterment of the region if we're enabling them to think myopically? It'll be a tough fight but if you win it, its a big win.

2,076
Life MemberLife Member
2,076

PostNov 07, 2009#5

tbspqr wrote:
Gary Kreie wrote: In a merged city-county, a combined law enforcement organization could devote more resources to the areas of the city that have the highest crime which would appeal to city and county voters.


You, like a lot of people on this forum, look at it from a regional view... but the regional view doesn't sell the myopic NIMBYs that we all know are everywhere. Can you imagine typical resident of Ladue, Clayton and T&C saying "please devote our tax dollars to pay for cops in high crime rate areas?" If this is EVER going to be gainfully discussed at any level... it needs to appeal to the rich, poor and logical all at the same time.


Something else that might be helpful. Don't immediately jump to the conclusion that someone who has certain doubts about a merger is a NIMBY. In this case, law enforcement is going to be a tough sell to a lot of residents and might be the toughest battle to face overall. It's not average Joe residents who support law enforcement fiefdoms for the sake of having fiefdoms; it's the politicians.



But still, I'd be hard-pressed to support a merger of law enforcement based on my own experience. I could hardly get City police to respond in person to a broken-into car, much less a more mundane issue. Getting a timely police report for an accident was impossible. Overall pretty bad experiences.



On the other hand, when my friend's wallet was stolen in Shrewsbury, FOUR officers including the investigator took the report, and within a day, had surveillance videos from around the County of the criminal purchasing things on her credit card and had a warrant for her arrest. When I call for even nuisance issues, it's never more than three or four minutes until a car (or two) rolls up the street.



I couldn't care less if I called the police in the County or City or freaking St. George, but you can't just cavalierly call me a NIMBY when I'm concerned that a high level of service is going to be turned into a pretty miserable one. It has nothing to do with my tax dollars paying for someone else's police service (although my earnings tax already does, right?). It has everything to do with what we get for our tax money.

2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostNov 07, 2009#6

The municipalities in the County are already bickering about tax pooling. Do you really think any of the more tax-lucky ones are ever going to want to include the City in the sharing?

2,327
Life MemberLife Member
2,327

PostNov 07, 2009#7

Is there a speeding ticket pool?

Rock Hill could give some of its revenues back to Chesterfield. :P

2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostNov 07, 2009#8

Just an fyi, at least in my police district 2, they now -have- to dispatch an officer for car break-ins to take the report. Last time they event sent a crime lab at my request and checked for fingerprints.

3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostNov 07, 2009#9

I'm saying, bypass the municipalities -- I assume you mean the officials running those municipalities -- and go straight to the people with a referendum. And make sure the referendum includes the tax decrease up front that should be justifiable from the merging of service management for things like property tax billing, for instance.



People will probably vote against a merger until they see their yes vote will put money directly into their pockets with a concurrent tax decrease. Politicians will never support a merger, just like they didn't support the smoking ban, so just bypass them by going straight to the people.

396
Full MemberFull Member
396

PostFeb 25, 2010#10

From Mayor Slay.com
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Making More Sense As A Region
Printer-Friendly Version | Forward to a Friend

Over last couple of decades, the St. Louis region has lost many of its manufacturing jobs and a hub airline. Some of the largest companies in the region now have headquarters in other states – or in other countries. St. Louis County, the largest political entity in the region, has a population that is essentially flat, with its potential growth heading west and south, and – lately — east back to the City.

Competing against the world for new employers is hindered by the fact that much of our energy is spent competing with each other – municipality against municipality, City versus County. Even explaining that St. Louis County does not actually contain a municipality named St. Louis or that the City of St. Louis is itself a county-not-named-St. Louis County takes up several minutes and pages of every new business pitch. If St. Louis is going to stay competitive both nationally and globally, we have to work together as a region, rather competing against each other as fiefdoms. And we have to make more sense to people from outside the region.

How? As an important early step, the City of St. Louis should re-enter St. Louis County and the two should work together to create partnerships in public safety, parks maintenance, sustainability, and economic development. (Operating the region’s airports and river ports under one roof would be an easy and quickly-formed part of a new, forward thinking St. Louis region.)

The change would be a good, dramatic story. St. Louis County’s population would grow by 360 thousand residents, making it one of the “fastest growing” counties in the country. It would be able to count within its boundaries dozens of vibrant neighborhoods, including most of the historic ones; a sizable percentage of the state’s jobs; the cathedrals of several religions; the venues for three major professional sports; the stage of a major symphony orchestra; double or triple the number art galleries it now has; a menu of great restaurants; almost a hundred new parks; several new universities and colleges; and the state’s largest and best equipped police and fire departments.

We can no longer afford to be wasteful, inefficient, parochial, or redundant. Our competitors already understand that. How long will it take us to figure it out?

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostFeb 26, 2010#11

^ I love it. I wish this topic would get more press.

104
Junior MemberJunior Member
104

PostFeb 27, 2010#12

If I were a county resident, which I'm not, but if I were, I'd be asking, "What's in it for me?". As a city resident, I'm not really sure what we have to offer. We are always cash strapped. A large chunk of the city is nothing short of a warzone, we have a big brewery...maybe, we don't run our own PD, our infrastructure, in general, is considerably older than the county's. Why would they welcome a reunion?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the merger would, in the long run, be beneficial to us all. However, the proposal must appeal to current county residents and hold some near-term benefit in order for it to be considered. Please correct me on what we have to offer.

142
Junior MemberJunior Member
142

PostFeb 27, 2010#13

Moorlander wrote:^ I love it. I wish this topic would get more press.
This topic was featured tonight on Channel 5 News:

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.as ... 31&catid=3

3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostFeb 27, 2010#14

JasonBlack wrote:If I were a county resident, which I'm not, but if I were, I'd be asking, "What's in it for me?"
If there are duplicate agencies doing, say, property tax assessments, shouldn't there be tax savings for both city and county residents from reducing the duplicate organizations down to one organization? Big corporations always cite the administrative savings when they merge. They do away with one payroll organization or the other, for example. There are probably duplications like that in a lot of areas of the city and the county governments.

Another benefit for County residents is control. County residents would get some control over a big part of the metro area that affects our property values. When the city crime ranking is broadcast nationwide, it isn't good for any of us who own property in the metro area. We can start using County resources to help address that problem, for one.

104
Junior MemberJunior Member
104

PostFeb 27, 2010#15

bchao524 wrote:Another benefit for County residents is control. County residents would get some control over a big part of the metro area that affects our property values. When the city crime ranking is broadcast nationwide, it isn't good for any of us who own property in the metro area. We can start using County resources to help address that problem, for one.
This is a reasonable argument, though I don't think that the affect on crime stats would be so much from additional resources but rather due to the dilution of numbers when factoring in suburban county areas with less population density and generally higher income.
bchao524 wrote:If there are duplicate agencies doing, say, property tax assessments, shouldn't there be tax savings for both city and county residents from reducing the duplicate organizations down to one organization? Big corporations always cite the administrative savings when they merge. They do away with one payroll organization or the other, for example. There are probably duplications like that in a lot of areas of the city and the county governments.
This just doesn't hold water with me. First, neither the county nor the city currently have duplicative services. We have enough people to handle the services we need and so does the county. Only by glueing the two together do we get duplication. Here, we're actually creating a problem. The city's government and systems are highly fragmented due to political divisions and financial realities. The integration process will be ugly, drawn out and costly.

2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostFeb 27, 2010#16

JasonBlack wrote:
bchao524 wrote:Another benefit for County residents is control. County residents would get some control over a big part of the metro area that affects our property values. When the city crime ranking is broadcast nationwide, it isn't good for any of us who own property in the metro area. We can start using County resources to help address that problem, for one.
This is a reasonable argument, though I don't think that the affect on crime stats would be so much from additional resources but rather due to the dilution of numbers when factoring in suburban county areas with less population density and generally higher income.
bchao524 wrote:If there are duplicate agencies doing, say, property tax assessments, shouldn't there be tax savings for both city and county residents from reducing the duplicate organizations down to one organization? Big corporations always cite the administrative savings when they merge. They do away with one payroll organization or the other, for example. There are probably duplications like that in a lot of areas of the city and the county governments.
This just doesn't hold water with me. First, neither the county nor the city currently have duplicative services. We have enough people to handle the services we need and so does the county. Only by glueing the two together do we get duplication. Here, we're actually creating a problem. The city's government and systems are highly fragmented due to political divisions and financial realities. The integration process will be ugly, drawn out and costly.
^Really? I'd consider having two circuit courts, two jails, two health departments, two department of revenues...etc. to be duplicating services. Plus I don't consider St. Louis County to be the poster child of efficiency. How many countless fire districts, cities, police departments exist just because that's the way it's been. Just because the jurisdictions don't currently overlap doesn't mean it's a bad idea into looking into combining these things. Doesn't it make sense to save taxpayers money?

Seriously, people who live around here are the worst at thinking outside of the box. They want to fight any sort of change from the status quo. While the rest of the world races by us into the 21st century, we're stuck somewhere around 1950.

This goes both ways. I certainly think the City of St. Louis needs to restructure their government as well. Getting rid of the duplication in services would help. Merging the City into the County would force a revamp of the City Charter since it's basically written for a city that has both City and County services.

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostFeb 28, 2010#17

covered in the pd's building blocks


http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/b ... tion-idea/

2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostFeb 28, 2010#18

The fable writer Aesop is credited in his story The Four Oxen and the Lion with the phrase, “United we stand, and divided we fall.” That maxim has been a staple for organization of dissident groups for hundreds of years and is at the cornerstone of the foundation of the United States. After all, the Great American Experiment is about self-determination of government and progress through unity of separate states that choose to band together.

Today for Saint Louis and our economy, perhaps we should also look to Benjamin Franklin, who upon learning of King George’s decree to hang the Continental Congress as separatists: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

What is Saint Louis today? We are a metro area divided into well over a hundred quasi-independent political organizations. Over the last sixty years, our importance to the national and international economies has dwindled, and our once proud city has lost key industries and prominence. This is especially true in how geography has made our strategic location at the center of the US less important, or at least less utilized by fractioned leadership. We have lost major companies, our prominent airline hub status, and our draw in attracting new jobs to the region.

Still, we retain our self-identity. When a person from Chesterfield is out of town and asked by a New Yorker where he’s from, he says Saint Louis. People who live in Richmond Heights put Saint Louis as their home address for their letters. More than just identifying ourselves through the Cardinals, Rams, and Blues, we identify ourselves through our charming individualism best seen in our collective love of the food on the Hill, summers in Forest Park, and our proud history of the Olympics and World’s Fair in 1904. And most identifiably, we all share affinity towards the Gateway Arch, the single largest piece of pure sculpture in the world and our international symbol of accomplishment through discovery and self-determination.

When I was in college (Miami University), I had a class on Political Geography. The majority of the class focused on international boundary issues, the origination of wars for seaports and oil lines, and how natural geography can define a nation’s evolution. Imagine my surprise one day when the Professor began the first hour of the class on Saint Louis. My Professor was a big fan of Saint Louis, especially the Museum of Transportation and our former streetcars. However, his class was anything but complimentary as he went head-on into the City/County Divide. Opening our regional fragmentation to the class, people were amazed to learn of the 90+ individual fiefdoms in Saint Louis County that consider themselves independent cities, and even more so when we discussed how Saint Louis City was not in Saint Louis County. People were dumbfounded at this separation. After calling out Saint Louis’ downturn over the last sixty years, we spent the next hour on Indianapolis, how that city unified with its county, and how their metro area has thrived ever since, including new jobs, population growth, public services, and the intangible identity they now have as citizens of Indianapolis. Fair to say: lesson learned.

Today, we are on the threshold of new innovations that can truly bring us all into the new future. The redevelopment of Downtown, the potential to be the primary trade hub of China in the central US, and investment in new companies & technologies (as well as our universities) mean great things for us. These are part of incredible opportunities that can mean significant changes in the quality of all of our lives through opportunities we often do not recognize and more yet unrealizable.

However, people still are stubborn in their ways. This includes all of us:
- The City resident who loathes suburbanism and looks in scorn and disdain at people west of 170.
- The South County family who only comes to the City for Cardinal games and quickly leaves for the unfounded fear of being carjacked.
- The Urban Poor who have been ignored by our collective wealth but still look in disdain at any forward-looking progress out of distrust.
- The near hundred mayors, city attorneys, and other small city public officials, let alone the near-thousand councilmen, who are scared of joining with other cities for fear of losing their part-time job titles.
- The suburban young who only want to come to the City to party before running back to live in anonymity in an apartment surrounded by redundancy without social entertainment options, save TGI Fridays.
- All of us as separate citizens who grab for whatever extra share of tax revenue we can get, whether from fighting with our neighbors over a strip mall development with a big box retailer or from bickering over which other city’s residents steal from us and demanding change in the non-unified police forces.
- TWO SEPARATE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS

And these are just the softest issues. When considering education, crime, and employment, we must all work together to find cohesive, competent, and pragmatic solutions to these issues if we are to ever see real change. By unifying, we would first eliminate redundancies and provide for more proper allocations of capital to the biggest issues we face. Moreso, by identifying ourselves for what we all truly are, Saint Louisains, we can only then continue to progress, and to do so with the strength of numbers and collective identity.

The issue of City/County Merger is all about Cooperation. We have become stagnant in our separatism, and unless we choose to unite and engage the world economy together in the new reality of the 21st Century, we shall fall behind. We must invest in our unity and band together, or else certainly we will fall into obsolescence.

I vote Yes for merger.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostFeb 28, 2010#19

Yeah. You are going to need to run for mayor sometime soon.

104
Junior MemberJunior Member
104

PostMar 01, 2010#20

Gone Corporate wrote: What is Saint Louis today? We are a metro area divided into well over a hundred quasi-independent political organizations. Over the last sixty years, our importance to the national and international economies has dwindled, and our once proud city has lost key industries and prominence. This is especially true in how geography has made our strategic location at the center of the US less important, or at least less utilized by fractioned leadership. We have lost major companies, our prominent airline hub status, and our draw in attracting new jobs to the region.
Whichever side of this debate one is on, I think they would have to admit that this is a superb missive which does a fine job of framing the issue. This level of discourse is sorely missing elsewhere (and perhaps I'm part of the problem in that respect). If nothing else, thank you very much for injecting your thoughts.

Among the most (seemingly) insurmountable issues that you've raised are those of mass dissolution/annexation of the mini-muni's and the dueling business districts. State backing would help the annexation problems along and, perhaps the problems there are more logistical than political. Besides, most citizens of those municipalities whom I've had the fortune to meet are less than glowing in their assessment of life under micro-government. The many stories I've heard directly and read about through news sources paint a picture of the type of pettiness and malafflicted acumen that I commonly link with condo associations.

Teasing out ammenable roles for competing business districts will be a greater challenge. Government for instance, should be geographically central (score 1 Clayton) but should be highly accessible (score 1 City). It is going to have to grow to accommodate combined volume. Clayton's facilities are newer (well except PD but that's changing) and easier to reconfigure (score 1 Clayton). The City's facilities are less flexible and more costly to run but the buildings are magnificent and constitute a major part of our collective municipal heritage.

To dismantle, in whole or in part, either of the government centers will reverberate through all of the small businesses that have sprung up to service them (score 1 Clayton: there really aren't any retail shops left around the City's government buildings - Subway Sub Shop, maybe?). I can divine no path forward which would appease a majority of residents on either side when it comes to this particular matter.

492
Full MemberFull Member
492

PostMar 01, 2010#21

Some great background....

Replay: An Examination of City-County Consolidation

http://www.urbanophile.com/2010/02/19/r ... olidation/


Downsides of Consolidation #1: Neighborhood Redevelopment

http://www.urbanophile.com/2010/02/28/d ... velopment/

104
Junior MemberJunior Member
104

PostMar 02, 2010#22

Wow, if anyone is reading this far down in the thread and hasn't yet read the two articles linked by SoulardX, smack yourself and then go back and read them. There's a lot more to the city-county proposition than you might think.

Thanks for the links!

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMar 02, 2010#23

I would add that there's a lot more to a city-county merger than the two linked stories as well, but they should be read.

492
Full MemberFull Member
492

PostMar 02, 2010#24

I encourage anyone interested in this topic to really mine down into the existing commentary/analysis/research on cities in which consolidation has already happened. (Louisville, Indy, etc.) (In fact, if anyone has other links, PLEASE share.)

While I do think consolidation would be a smart decision for the STL region, I don't think it's the panacea many do. It's a step in the right direction, but just a step.

Over centuries, this region has been fragmented by calculated design. Undoing that will take a momemental effort.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMar 02, 2010#25

^ And if we can act like a region on specific issues it may be enough - taxes, mass transit, etc. We already basically do this on the zoo/museum tax. Perhaps a merger discussion can lead to progress without an actual merger.

Read more posts (105 remaining)