I don't know if the Webster Groves and Kirkwoods of the region are a great example here... I think the discussion is really based on the Champs, Bellerives, and Westwoods of the region.
^that's what I would have thought, but not by reading the last few pages.
- 2,430
^ I recall seeing some stats on how many munis we'd have if all the ones below a certain population -- maybe it was 10,000 but not for sure -- were eliminated..Anyone have that info?.
The ones left would be as follows. It includes census designated places that aren't municipalities.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018^ I recall seeing some stats on how many munis we'd have if all the ones below a certain population -- maybe it was 10,000 but not for sure -- were eliminated..Anyone have that info?.
Florissant
Chesterfield
University City
Oakville
Wildwood
Ballwin
Mehlville
Kirkwood
Hazelwood
Maryland Heights
Webster Groves
Ferguson
Spanish Lake
Affton
Manchester
Lemay
Overland
Concord
Creve Coeur
Clayton
Bridgeton
Jennings
St. Ann
Crestwood
Bellefontaine Neighbors
Town and Country
Berkeley
Seems silly to arbitrarily set a number at population, though. Some of the ones left out are Ladue, Maplewood, Brentwood, Olivette,Shrewsbury, Fenton, Eureka, Sunset Hills, Des Peres....
I would like to see the municipalities retained, but incorporated into some sort of burrough system. For example, Clayton, U-City, Vinita Park, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, and yes even Wellston and Pagedale would make up like a Mid-County burrough. Ideally, the burroughs would be economically and racially diverse enough to not promote segregation, but cohesive enough to promote representation. The municipalities would have a degree of autonomy in the burrough, the burrough would have a degree of autonomy from the city, but the city would have a few overarching powers like Police, Fire, Metro, Health, Roads, TIF, Airport, Regional Revenue Sharing. Maybe Major Planning/Zoning and Land Use, Schools, etc. would be done at the burrough level. Local Ordinances, Preservation Review, Architectural Review, Nitpicking, Neighborhood Association type stuff, could be handled at the municipal level.
- 985
I'm picturing some sort of structure along the lines of a New York City or London has in relation to this where there is the overarching city government but there is local divisions that has their own identities and issues that could be in their purview.goat314 wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018I would like to see the municipalities retained, but incorporated into some sort of burrough system. For example, Clayton, U-City, Vinita Park, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, and yes even Wellston and Pagedale would make up like a Mid-County burrough. Ideally, the burroughs would be economically and racially diverse enough to not promote segregation, but cohesive enough to promote representation. The municipalities would have a degree of autonomy in the burrough, the burrough would have a degree of autonomy from the city, but the city would have a few overarching powers like Police, Fire, Metro, Health, Roads, TIF, Airport, Regional Revenue Sharing. Maybe Major Planning/Zoning and Land Use, Schools, etc. would be done at the burrough level. Local Ordinances, Preservation Review, Architectural Review, Nitpicking, Neighborhood Association type stuff, could be handled at the municipal level.
Also maybe have some sort of mechanism in such an arrangement to allow areas next to such a political entity to join as additional boroughs or added to existing ones.
One issue with a borough one is it seems harder to figure out how to arrange and set up places at the edge of the County. would size in terms of area of possible boroughs be a concern or in some areas small population? Also some arrangements of such boroughs would make sense if you could at some point include parts of Jefferson and Franklin County as parts of one.
Personally, I don't think it's silly at all. Not in an area as dense as St. Louis County. Just because those municipalities (or otherwise designated locale) are largely made up of well to do people doesn't mean they really warrant being on their own.
It's one thing for a small municipality to exist in St. Charles County (those less so now than 15 years ago) where it's simply not built out as a dense place. But for St. Louis County to have so many arbitrary borders of small populations is silly, no matter what the makeup of that population is.
I might buy that a Eureka is far enough out to be okay, but for the most part, I really don't think a place like Brentwood needs to be separate from Clayton or Richmond Heights or Maplewood (or perhaps, even just St. Louis).
- 985
A place like Fenton would combine with a lot of unincorporated areas that exist next to it and include all of St. Louis County south of the Meremec River. That's more a special case based on geography. Also it could include nearby parts of Jefferson County that is near it like High Ridge and areas along 141 to 21.
Eureka could also be a part of of larger Borough that covers areas in Jefferson County (part immediately south of Eureka that is economically tied to it) and Franklin County (Pacific and possibly Gray Summit and Villa Ridge)
Those two plus a Wildwood one might also have some unique aspects of it due to large undeveloped and protected areas.
Eureka could also be a part of of larger Borough that covers areas in Jefferson County (part immediately south of Eureka that is economically tied to it) and Franklin County (Pacific and possibly Gray Summit and Villa Ridge)
Those two plus a Wildwood one might also have some unique aspects of it due to large undeveloped and protected areas.
If arbitrary borders is the issue, then a borough system is equally bad. Many (not all) of the municipal incorporations were done when it made sense; the centers of populations along the rail line paralleling present day I-44 in the case of Maplewood, Shrewsbury, Webster, and Kirkwood, for example. The demographics dictated it and they developed their own identities over time.jstriebel wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018It's one thing for a small municipality to exist in St. Charles County (those less so now than 15 years ago) where it's simply not built out as a dense place. But for St. Louis County to have so many arbitrary borders of small populations is silly, no matter what the makeup of that population is.
Imposing a borough system based on population patters of today will look just as arbitrary in the future.
Maybe so. I'll just point out that my comment wasn't made with support for a borough systembprop wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018If arbitrary borders is the issue, then a borough system is equally bad. Many (not all) of the municipal incorporations were done when it made sense; the centers of populations along the rail line paralleling present day I-44 in the case of Maplewood, Shrewsbury, Webster, and Kirkwood, for example. The demographics dictated it and they developed their own identities over time.jstriebel wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018It's one thing for a small municipality to exist in St. Charles County (those less so now than 15 years ago) where it's simply not built out as a dense place. But for St. Louis County to have so many arbitrary borders of small populations is silly, no matter what the makeup of that population is.
Imposing a borough system based on population patters of today will look just as arbitrary in the future.
. I just think we have too many municipalities, and I don't think the ones you pointed out should automatically be immune from it.You're absolutely right about the history of those places. They weren't necessarily created as fiefdoms. Nonetheless, there has to be a balance between history, present, and the future. I think a borough system or just a large consolidation of municipalities would better serve the present and the future than leaving the many small municipalities that history has given us.
- 597
A borough system based off county councils seems like the logical place to start if doing a borough system (my avi, Gene McNary's idea).
http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columni ... 252c6.html
http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columni ... 252c6.html
All opinions of course, but I reject the premise as fact.. I think a borough system is the worst possible manifestation of any St. Louis metro area government and not a logical first step at all. I think its proponents like to play it up as "unigov-lite" to soften its presentation to stakeholders, but it holds no advantages over unigov as a structure and is even more convoluted to implement.9ine Runner wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018A borough system based off county councils seems like the logical place to start if doing a borough system (my avi, Gene McNary's idea).
http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columni ... 252c6.html
- 2,430
^ I don't really have much personal thought in the borough system but I do wish that there would have been a vote on the so-called "McNary Plan"... that was the one in the 1980's that the upcoming election was invalidated b/c of improper freeholder composition, right?
^ I don't recall exactly. It was trotted out by the "St Louis Strong" (I think?) flash in the pan group that doesn't differentiate itself from Better Together but seemed to repeat a lot of BT'sideas.
- 6,123
I'd also add that just because something wasn't made as a fiefdom doesn't mean it isn't one now. The city wards weren't intended to be fiefdoms, but several of them have clearly become that.jstriebel wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018Maybe so. I'll just point out that my comment wasn't made with support for a borough system
You're absolutely right about the history of those places. They weren't necessarily created as fiefdoms. Nonetheless, there has to be a balance between history, present, and the future. I think a borough system or just a large consolidation of municipalities would better serve the present and the future than leaving the many small municipalities that history has given us.
In any case, while I can wholeheartedly agree that there are too many small municipalities in the county (having worked for a time for said county's DOH mostly in north) I don't see why we need to necessarily link reentry and consolidation. In fact, it would doubtless be easier to achieve either if they are separate issues, and there are real values to both. Even separately. I don't see any reason that it should be impossible to encourage Crestwood and Sunset Hills to consolidate, for instance. Or Webster and Shrewsburry County consolidations (especially north county, though I continue to list south since that's where I see the resistance) make sense even without reentry. And there are still savings to be gained in infrastructure maintenance and efficiencies of dispatching that might be appreciated with more regional cooperation, none of which necessarily require consolidation per se, or even loss of local control, but which benefit greatly from moving St. Louis back into the county.
(Just let's make sure that Missouri American county water nonsense gets nowhere near my city water.)
- 733
New editorial in Biz Journal:
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... ing-a.html
By Benjamin Ola. Akande – an economist and consultant to Fortune 500 corporations
St. Louis is at a crossroads. We are a region seeking to bridge racial divides and injustice, the subject of persistent protests in 2017. We seem to pride ourselves on maintaining a fragmented governmental system that defies fiscal logic. We are also a place struggling to attract businesses that would help reignite an economic revival, create jobs and help to rebuild an economy that increasingly appears stagnant and living on past laurels. Some would claim that our best days are in our past, and the present and future look uncertain.
The statement “finding a needle in a haystack” conveys the difficulty of finding solutions in an overwhelming environment. It is tedious work to say the least, but not impossible.
Benjamin Akande
Enlarge
Benjamin Akande
So, this begs the question — how can we find that ever-so-elusive needle in our haystack? Our haystack is unstable, divided and distrustful. St. Louis has become a place where a significant group in the population feel disenfranchised, like second-class citizens when it comes to justice and fairness. How can we hope to attract others and achieve real growth and progress when we can’t seem to agree on a common purpose?
The reason our haystack is a mess is a lack of alignment across the greater St. Louis community. We are not competing with larger cities in the Midwest; we are competing with our own neighbors. This is evidenced with 90 plus cities replicating services, acting in isolation and lacking subsequent levels of urgency to collaborate in ways that will eliminate redundancy and waste of vital resources. St. Louis continues to elude its own potential. Our haystack is not sustainable as it is currently composed and constituted.
Yet, within our haystack are structurally strong needles, remarkable assets too often overlooked — a world class health care system, a first class public and private K-12 education infrastructure, highly regarded institutions of higher learning, a leading human health sector in genomics, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, health care management, wellness, plant science; agtech, alternative energy food production and safety; fintech, IT, GEOINT, logistics, cybersecurity management processes and digitally native brands. For a region of our size, we have an impressive array of strengths and expertise.
The fact remains, however, that if we don’t actively engage in a collective strategy that harnesses the needles that are helping to hold together this haystack we call St. Louis, our future is not sustainable. Sooner or later, the winds of discontent and disruption will topple our haystack. In the end, those very important needles will begin to desert our haystack and seek stability and prosperity in places far and near.
My advice to those who embrace the status quo is to recognize that unsustainability of our current situation. And, to those who have sought to challenge the status quo through protestation, please know that burning the haystack in an effort to expose injustice is not a good strategy. May I suggest that they consider a different strategy of constructive impatience as the most judicious tool, and commit to helping find lasting solutions for our community.
The turning of the calendar to a new year should inspire all of us to come together in a focused pursuit of that elusive needle. I, for one, am excited about the possibilities.
My comment: Lots of prose being written and lots of talk being spoken about regionalism, unity, etc...But no one has the balls to step forward with a plan.
Here's my plan:
Have 16 suburbs in the County with ~65K in each suburb:
Florissant/Jennings
Hazelwood
Bridgeton/Earth City
University City/Ladue
Maryland Heights
Creve Coeur
Chesterfield
Town and Country
Clayton/Ladue
Ellisville/Ballwin
Brentwood/Richmond Heights
Webster/Shrewsbury Rock Hill
Kirkwood/DesPeres/Warson Woods
Sunset Hills/Crestwood others
Oakville and others
Wildwood
Then have STL city join county.
Put all this up for one vote in city and county with a rider that this gets voted on one more time 3 years from first vote.. If it gets defeated, fine, you have a vote on record.
But in talking to people in the county, I think you'd be surprised.
Just go for it. Enough of the talking and writing.....
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... ing-a.html
By Benjamin Ola. Akande – an economist and consultant to Fortune 500 corporations
St. Louis is at a crossroads. We are a region seeking to bridge racial divides and injustice, the subject of persistent protests in 2017. We seem to pride ourselves on maintaining a fragmented governmental system that defies fiscal logic. We are also a place struggling to attract businesses that would help reignite an economic revival, create jobs and help to rebuild an economy that increasingly appears stagnant and living on past laurels. Some would claim that our best days are in our past, and the present and future look uncertain.
The statement “finding a needle in a haystack” conveys the difficulty of finding solutions in an overwhelming environment. It is tedious work to say the least, but not impossible.
Benjamin Akande
Enlarge
Benjamin Akande
So, this begs the question — how can we find that ever-so-elusive needle in our haystack? Our haystack is unstable, divided and distrustful. St. Louis has become a place where a significant group in the population feel disenfranchised, like second-class citizens when it comes to justice and fairness. How can we hope to attract others and achieve real growth and progress when we can’t seem to agree on a common purpose?
The reason our haystack is a mess is a lack of alignment across the greater St. Louis community. We are not competing with larger cities in the Midwest; we are competing with our own neighbors. This is evidenced with 90 plus cities replicating services, acting in isolation and lacking subsequent levels of urgency to collaborate in ways that will eliminate redundancy and waste of vital resources. St. Louis continues to elude its own potential. Our haystack is not sustainable as it is currently composed and constituted.
Yet, within our haystack are structurally strong needles, remarkable assets too often overlooked — a world class health care system, a first class public and private K-12 education infrastructure, highly regarded institutions of higher learning, a leading human health sector in genomics, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, health care management, wellness, plant science; agtech, alternative energy food production and safety; fintech, IT, GEOINT, logistics, cybersecurity management processes and digitally native brands. For a region of our size, we have an impressive array of strengths and expertise.
The fact remains, however, that if we don’t actively engage in a collective strategy that harnesses the needles that are helping to hold together this haystack we call St. Louis, our future is not sustainable. Sooner or later, the winds of discontent and disruption will topple our haystack. In the end, those very important needles will begin to desert our haystack and seek stability and prosperity in places far and near.
My advice to those who embrace the status quo is to recognize that unsustainability of our current situation. And, to those who have sought to challenge the status quo through protestation, please know that burning the haystack in an effort to expose injustice is not a good strategy. May I suggest that they consider a different strategy of constructive impatience as the most judicious tool, and commit to helping find lasting solutions for our community.
The turning of the calendar to a new year should inspire all of us to come together in a focused pursuit of that elusive needle. I, for one, am excited about the possibilities.
My comment: Lots of prose being written and lots of talk being spoken about regionalism, unity, etc...But no one has the balls to step forward with a plan.
Here's my plan:
Have 16 suburbs in the County with ~65K in each suburb:
Florissant/Jennings
Hazelwood
Bridgeton/Earth City
University City/Ladue
Maryland Heights
Creve Coeur
Chesterfield
Town and Country
Clayton/Ladue
Ellisville/Ballwin
Brentwood/Richmond Heights
Webster/Shrewsbury Rock Hill
Kirkwood/DesPeres/Warson Woods
Sunset Hills/Crestwood others
Oakville and others
Wildwood
Then have STL city join county.
Put all this up for one vote in city and county with a rider that this gets voted on one more time 3 years from first vote.. If it gets defeated, fine, you have a vote on record.
But in talking to people in the county, I think you'd be surprised.
Just go for it. Enough of the talking and writing.....
- 597
^^
I agree with the sentiment proceeding the plan, but I don't get the plan itself. Florissant/Jennings? They're not adjacent suburbs, they're 7 miles apart with 8-10 other munis between them. Wildwood's population is 35,000 not ~65,000. Kirkwood/DesPeres/WarsonWoods is ~33,000 combined.
Or are these just the names used for the suburbs? Oakville and others?
I really don't understand the pushback against using the county councils as boroughs, and passing on responsibilities to those offices, while retaining their munis as neighborhoods. They're all roughly the same size in population and footprint. Is there a problem with how they were drawn up?
Blah. I don't doubt it'll be another generation before a vote is even taken up on anything.
*shrugs*
I agree with the sentiment proceeding the plan, but I don't get the plan itself. Florissant/Jennings? They're not adjacent suburbs, they're 7 miles apart with 8-10 other munis between them. Wildwood's population is 35,000 not ~65,000. Kirkwood/DesPeres/WarsonWoods is ~33,000 combined.
Or are these just the names used for the suburbs? Oakville and others?
I really don't understand the pushback against using the county councils as boroughs, and passing on responsibilities to those offices, while retaining their munis as neighborhoods. They're all roughly the same size in population and footprint. Is there a problem with how they were drawn up?
Blah. I don't doubt it'll be another generation before a vote is even taken up on anything.
*shrugs*
Meanwhile, Hanley Hills considers dis-incorporation:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... c7bda.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... c7bda.html
- 7
Hi all,
I've written quite a bit about the consolidation issue (from both sides of the argument) on my blog, https://inmostcity.com. I thought you might be interested in reading:
Effective Consolidation
Our inefficient and fragmented government
Is fractured government bringing down the economy in StL
County people may be right, consolidation won't help St. Louis
Feel free to share or leave a comment. I'm trying to build up a base of readers and appreciate any feedback.
I've written quite a bit about the consolidation issue (from both sides of the argument) on my blog, https://inmostcity.com. I thought you might be interested in reading:
Effective Consolidation
Our inefficient and fragmented government
Is fractured government bringing down the economy in StL
County people may be right, consolidation won't help St. Louis
Feel free to share or leave a comment. I'm trying to build up a base of readers and appreciate any feedback.
Curious on people's thoughts on towns dissolving into unincorporated Stl county.
I would assume we would rather them merge into another township? Or is going unincorporated better?
I'm most concerned with cutting wasted money and getting rid of any small town does that.
Which option would help the merger move along faster? This is if either option makes a difference.
I would assume we would rather them merge into another township? Or is going unincorporated better?
I'm most concerned with cutting wasted money and getting rid of any small town does that.
Which option would help the merger move along faster? This is if either option makes a difference.
- 1,292
I doubt it makes a whole lot of difference (time wise), but it'd probably depend on the town, I think. Some clearly shouldn't exist anymore (looking at you, Velda City) while others I think should be allowed to operate somewhat independently.
I think there needs to be some sort of compromise. I'm of the opinion that any town under 1000 people (or some similar threshold) shouldn't exist and should be unincorporated and all city functions taken over by the County (with the exception of fire departments, perhaps). The same applies to municipalities that literally can't exist without abuse of traffic tickets and things of similar ilk. That said, if any municipality would rather allow themselves to be absorbed by another (and both vote to allow it), then that option should take precedent. Kind of a "pick your poison" type scenario.
Any municipality that is sufficiently large enough (say, 10,000+ or something like that) and is capable of adequately functioning independently should probably be allowed to continue to exist, at least at first, if only just to help the merger process go a bit more painlessly. You can work on disincorporating them at a later time at your leisure once some of the other issues of merging are dealt with in some way.
I think there needs to be some sort of compromise. I'm of the opinion that any town under 1000 people (or some similar threshold) shouldn't exist and should be unincorporated and all city functions taken over by the County (with the exception of fire departments, perhaps). The same applies to municipalities that literally can't exist without abuse of traffic tickets and things of similar ilk. That said, if any municipality would rather allow themselves to be absorbed by another (and both vote to allow it), then that option should take precedent. Kind of a "pick your poison" type scenario.
Any municipality that is sufficiently large enough (say, 10,000+ or something like that) and is capable of adequately functioning independently should probably be allowed to continue to exist, at least at first, if only just to help the merger process go a bit more painlessly. You can work on disincorporating them at a later time at your leisure once some of the other issues of merging are dealt with in some way.
So if a town under 10,000 can meet requirements (no abuse of traffic tickets, professional services, accredited police or contract with accredited agency) and its citizens don't want to disincorporate, that's not good enough? Why the arbitrary population cutoff?Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2018Any municipality that is sufficiently large enough (say, 10,000+ or something like that) and is capable of adequately functioning independently should probably be allowed to continue to exist,
I'm all for standards-based measures. Raise the bar for everyone - and really that should include Missourah as well.
Part of a video presentation on regionalism, by urban analyst David Rusk. More to come.
http://www.constructforstl.org/video-de ... sentation/
http://www.constructforstl.org/video-de ... sentation/
- 1,868
Well, there's two issues. One is municipalities that basically function as organized crime, which is where standards would be a solution.bprop wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2018So if a town under 10,000 can meet requirements (no abuse of traffic tickets, professional services, accredited police or contract with accredited agency) and its citizens don't want to disincorporate, that's not good enough? Why the arbitrary population cutoff?Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2018Any municipality that is sufficiently large enough (say, 10,000+ or something like that) and is capable of adequately functioning independently should probably be allowed to continue to exist,
I'm all for standards-based measures. Raise the bar for everyone - and really that should include Missourah as well.
The other issue is the quantity of local governments, which inevitably work against each other. That's where you need something like a population cutoff to force integration regardless of quality. Having 100 high-quality municipalities in the county would still be a problem.