urbanSTL

Sprawl or no, the issues of regional cooperation and coordination won't go away just because the city is ascendant.

True. But the city shouldn't hold back on fixing its own problems at the sake of fighting for regionalism

MarkHaversham wrote:Sprawl or no, the issues of regional cooperation and coordination won't go away just because the city is ascendant.

I agree. There are lots of things that cry out for a unified regional level decision authority. Such as attracting businesses, supporting regional assets like stadia, greenways, symphony, zoo. And transportation. Look at how the City /county split authority has crippled light rail expansion here compared to Denver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im all for reunification but as some have stated at what cost? My main fear is that the city would give up way too much to be apart of the county system i believe in what form of unification that may be proposed that both are as equal as possible that way none don't have an advantage over each other.. The city has already suffered a lot..

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Mar 11, 2017

MarkHaversham wrote:Sprawl or no, the issues of regional cooperation and coordination won't go away just because the city is ascendant.

I agree. There are lots of things that cry out for a unified regional level decision authority. Such as attracting businesses, supporting regional assets like stadia, greenways, symphony, zoo. And transportation. Look at how the City /county split authority has crippled light rail expansion here compared to Denver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are, potentially, ways to foster cooperation across county, and even state lines. I fully agree that we need to work on ending the pointless competition and to think more regionally. I'm not opposed to reentering the county, or even potentially uniting with neighbors. (If we ever get to a point where anyone would agree to that.) But I would hope we don't simply trade the problems of the past and present for future problems. Just . . . feeling more cautious than in the past. And more worried about the nation and the world and more optimistic about the city. Oddly.

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Mar 11, 2017

MarkHaversham wrote:Sprawl or no, the issues of regional cooperation and coordination won't go away just because the city is ascendant.

I agree. There are lots of things that cry out for a unified regional level decision authority. Such as attracting businesses, supporting regional assets like stadia, greenways, symphony, zoo. And transportation. Look at how the City /county split authority has crippled light rail expansion here compared to Denver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say Metro's reach of only being in the City/County instead of the exburbs as well as the fact that Metro East is losing ground is the biggest reason why you don't see a system as aggressive as Denver has been.

As far as regional cooperation. A lot of the things you noted are actually regional from the Greenways (which actually got a tax increase from both County and City), Museum District (Yes, it does not include St. Charles or Franklin counties but it would be a shell of itself without the city and county wide tax) to shared economic development office between county and city which was a huge stop.

As far as transportation, I think the that Slay/City really missed an opportunity to remove the elevated freeway between downtown & Laclede's Landing as part of the Arch Grounds deal. But that doesn't tackle the bigger issue of MoDOT in charge of way to many lane miles. Talking specifically highways in the Metro area's that would be a lot better off designated as county roads/arterial roads if funding would be realigned accordingly. The other transportation issue IMO is Lambert is not under a shard port authority with County.

St.Louis1764 wrote: ↑

Mar 11, 2017

Im all for reunification but as some have stated at what cost? My main fear is that the city would give up way too much to be apart of the county system i believe in what form of unification that may be proposed that both are as equal as possible that way none don't have an advantage over each other.. The city has already suffered a lot..

I haven't seen anyone make a concrete case for the merger being bad for the city, just that the city is in a good position and doesn't "need" the county to bail it out. But 1) I don't think the point of reentry or merger is primarily regional bailouts, and 2) in a hypothetical situation where the city or county is in serious trouble/goes bankrupt, is the other party's response going to be "whew, I'm glad that we're separate and therefore this situation has no effect on my whatsoever!"

There's the dilution of minority voting thing, but I really don't understand that. The city will still exist and still have a significant minority vote. The county's involvement with the city would remain primarily regional issues, which the urban African-American population currently has zero say in due to not voting in the county. I could see this being an issue in a hypothetical mega-city merger proposal, but that's a thousand miles away from the milquetoast reentry proposals that are themselves unlikely to happen.

I think in the near term that probably one of the more pressing issues is the County has way too many muni's The fractured politics and wasted resources or the lack of professionalism due to lack of scale is a burdent to the county IMO. Adding the city doesn't help or resolve that situation. Just gives a big elephant in the room that will make the current muni's local politics more fractious

Where as, the city probably biggest issue is finding ways to continue improvement of school district and law enforcement. Neither the school issue (separate entity from city and county altogether) and law enforcement issues go away under merger. The city does get a plus side in the consolidate for being able to drop some of the necessary county services such as health.

So my thought is you can easily argue that a few more ducks need to get in a row on both sides of the city limits even before the city re-enters the county.

I agree that there are issues not directly resolved by a merger, but I don't see how a merger makes those issues worse. We have too many counties, too many munis, and too many PDs and FDs, but why do we have to address them all at the same time or in any particular order?

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2017

I agree that there are issues not directly resolved by a merger, but I don't see how a merger makes those issues worse. We have too many counties, too many munis, and too many PDs and FDs, but why do we have to address them all at the same time or in any particular order?

I guess my argument is pragmatic in that tackling some issues first will make it politically easier to make the case for city to reenter into the county. Just the fact alone that you got 90 some odd political fiefdoms in the county wanting a say on whether city should re enter the county makes it almost politically infeasible. At same time, rebuilding what would be the largest school system in the county if city re enters and getting a handle on violent drug crime dispels some fears. That is the path I see forward for it to happen

I for one would like to see city re enter the county now. The idea that county and city are still both providing traditional services at the county level is mind boggling to me. Their is no reason why it can't but you still have to deal with perceptions and the political realities that it creates. Going further and talking merger is a political pipe dream at this point.

How good does the SLPS need to be and how low does crime have to get to in order to make reentry feasible in your estimation?

quincunx wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2017

How good does the SLPS need to be and how low does crime have to get to in order to make reentry feasible in your estimation?

Good questions, I believe SLPS is still under a state appointed superintendent and so I would say that is one benchmark. Crime might tougher but would be hard to argue that city is unsafe relative to county if violent and or murder rate per 100,000 were the same. Socioeconomic conditions make that tougher and will always make it tougher for one area to be on par with another area. Understand that but arguing that schools and crime don't matter for re-entry isn't getting anywhere politically.

"I think ideally we would have a Unigov situation" - Mayor-Elect Krewson

Fox2 - Hancocka nd Kelley: Syria missile strike & future of St. Louis City/County

http://fox2now.com/2017/04/09/hancock-k ... itycounty/

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2017

quincunx wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2017

How good does the SLPS need to be and how low does crime have to get to in order to make reentry feasible in your estimation?

Good questions, I believe SLPS is still under a state appointed superintendent and so I would say that is one benchmark. Crime might tougher but would be hard to argue that city is unsafe relative to county if violent and or murder rate per 100,000 were the same. Socioeconomic conditions make that tougher and will always make it tougher for one area to be on par with another area. Understand that but arguing that schools and crime don't matter for re-entry isn't getting anywhere politically.

SLPS will probably be back under control of the elected board in the next couple of years.

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2017

quincunx wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2017

How good does the SLPS need to be and how low does crime have to get to in order to make reentry feasible in your estimation?

Good questions, I believe SLPS is still under a state appointed superintendent and so I would say that is one benchmark. Crime might tougher but would be hard to argue that city is unsafe relative to county if violent and or murder rate per 100,000 were the same. Socioeconomic conditions make that tougher and will always make it tougher for one area to be on par with another area. Understand that but arguing that schools and crime don't matter for re-entry isn't getting anywhere politically.

I know this may be a crazy take to some people, but if the crime rate is falling in the city, its rising in the county (Which is what would have to happen for crime numbers to be the same), and SLPS is considered "good enough" by county folk to rejoin the county - why would the city be interested at that point in re-entry? We would have great trending signs on crime/schools, while the county would have the opposite. Presumably our demographics in terms of median income/poverty rate would be improving as well.

Just saying its a thought. Id still prefer reentry at any point, but if the county pushes it off for 20-30-40 years it wouldn't blow my mind for the above to happen and city people starting rejecting the county in terms of reentry.

The city annexing anything, even one parcel, would take a Board of Freeholders proposal and approval by voters of the city and county. Maybe MoLeg could do it too.

If the city were in the county annexing unincorporated areas or merging with another muni would take the same process as for any other muni.

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2017

Crime might tougher but would be hard to argue that city is unsafe relative to county if violent and or murder rate per 100,000 were the same.

Urban areas have more crime, it would be ridiculous to set equal crime rates as a benchmark and would basically be a longer way of saying "no".

mjbais1489 wrote: ↑

Apr 10, 2017

I know this may be a crazy take to some people, but if the crime rate is falling in the city, its rising in the county (Which is what would have to happen for crime numbers to be the same), and SLPS is considered "good enough" by county folk to rejoin the county - why would the city be interested at that point in re-entry?

That makes sense if you assume the city doesn't suffer at all from the lack of coherent regional government.

What effect will the City's Earnings Tax have on any form of merger?

I think under reentry where the city still exists, the earnings tax remains.
Under a more ambitious plan, I'm not sure. The plan from the 80s that Civic Progress studied where the county took over the munis and the city, it had a 1% earnings tax. But that was before the statute banning new earnings taxes and holding the vote every five years in STL and KC.
The language in the MO constitution gives us great latitude over the form of the structure of gov't. I don't know whether that carries over to taxation.

If whatever is done with a constitutional amendment and there's a follow on statute, I think what happens to the earnings tax is whatever we want to happen to it.

Extending the earnings tax to the whole county is probably a non-starter, because so many have been convinced it's the worst thing ever (meanwhile sales and property taxes go up and up and are less stable than the earnings tax).

Need to consult lawyers and constitutional experts on this and other aspects of any plan under consideration

Attended an outstanding luncheon today at the Chase with the Mayor of Louisville speaking for over an hour on how he helped accomplish a city/county merger in his city. Lots of challenges but he had some great answers and suggestions. Would love to see some movement over the next year towards this (or in my lifetime). They faced nearly identical problems and opposition as us.

Pres Pro Tem Richard says Mo Leg is going to look into merger next year.

quincunx wrote: ↑

May 15, 2017

Pres Pro Tem Richard says Mo Leg is going to look into merger next year.

I'll believe it when I see it. Republicans in Jeff City are a bunch of crooks, and they never miss an opportunity to kick some dirt in the City's face.

First off, he ripped the County just as much as the City. And have you ever realized that maybe this region needs to hear this criticism so it changes its ways. Do you realize the status quo is not working? Do you realize the communities can not tax their way out of declining revenues?

As Nick Pistor continually says on TWTR, the city WILL have to file BK in the next 5 years if everything stays the same.