urbanSTL

^ that’s if you assume that the bidders from last year stopped working on their bids. Some did. Others didnt

People involved matters and I think this will ultimately fail because of people involved- Travis brown/first rule/Rex. And the fact that they’re trying to hide it will make people even more suspicious.

This thread covers some of the issues and amateur mistakes trying to cover up who is involved

I can't wait to see where the "Southside Progressives" stand on this one. They're huge supporters of unions and the NAACP, but hate All Things Rex. 

What I would like to hear about
How will the money be used to mitigate the factors that put  the city in is current financial hardships? Debt service, pensions, low productivity auto-oriented development patterns, fragmentation, spreading out, high maintenance buildings and equipment, criminality, inequity, etc. In other words how will the spending result in the city being less house poor or more?

This entire privatization ploy gets crazier every day.

First it’s back after it was dead. Then it turns out Rex can still get paid back if they rush out the next proposal. Spencer wants it written out of the next deal and Reed says this:
Reed said the consultants deserved to be repaid if a lease deal is worked out.

What a load of bull. This entire thing is being rushed so that Rex can be paid back for his failed attempt. I don’t think there is anyway it gets past the voters but for Reed to even say that is crazy. Why would you WANT to pay out money from the cities coffers if you didn’t need to.

Just absolutely blows my mind.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... ssion=true

This is so sad to see that I actually find it hilarious. Someone will have to make a movie out of the privatization saga. 

^ I'm thinking a NPR Reveal story on how much got wasted and doled out to the politically connected .

In the meantime, I truly think a wasted opportunity to get one City & County Port Authority established and make land rich Lambert a centerpiece for regional development while investing in some major curbside/gate side improvements to take the airport into the next several decades

I'm open to the idea of having Lambert privately managed. Aren't some of the big airports in Europe run that way? 

I am open to the idea in theory. Certainly the city could use a cash infusion, and if used wisely could address some long-standing needs and set us up for future growth. While the airport has been well-managed recently, and seems to be steadily improving, I get the argument for taking a boatload of money now.

My problem is that I have no confidence in the current process--the conflicts of interest, the haphazard way the process has been rolled out, the lack of transparency, etc. It it is hard for me to trust the process, and I think given how complex the process is, how vague the details are, the variety of competing motives, and the importance of the airport as one of the city's main assets, a lot of trust is required. We are trading a valuable asset away for a long time, people need to feel that it is being thoroughly and dispassionately considered but neutral, objective number-crunchers who do not personally benefit one way or the other, and that is not the case. Public asset leases are not off the table for me, but bad deals abound (e.g., Chicago parking meter lease), and St. Louis's history of short-term thinking resulting in long-term strategic weaknesses is not a secret (e.g., Ram's lease).

The airport is a valuable asset, and could play a potential role/leverage/bargaining chip in other strategically important decisions, like re-entry into the county or a merger, and I think that the process we have been using so far is too single-minded and driven by a particular model/perspective of the airport (source of short-term money) rather than thinking about the airport strategically (long-term regional view).

framer wrote: ↑

Jun 26, 2020

I'm open to the idea of having Lambert privately managed. Aren't some of the big airports in Europe run that way? 

Good point.   You could also make the argument that the airport is already fairly well managed for the most part considering the debt load of major runway/capacity investment while losing hub status after TWA imploded & AA slowly dropped its presence and Lambert's management ability to find a willing partner in Southwest to help bring back flights & reducing landing fees.  In meantime, could argue that Lambert managing Covid just as well as any other airport in the country.

I think the real story is if a privately managed airport can take the next step forward in terms of development whether it be curbside amenities like more on site parking/hotel/consolidated rental facility to more air cargo to just capitalizing on all the extra property let alone an asset in the old MD facility??   Who knows, maybe private management would have landed Amazon cargo planes because it can as one voice instead the regional fragmentation.

To me local leadership has pretty much failed on the second part so exploring privatization is a legit path to take.  Unfortunately, the whole process on privatization seems convoluted and driven by political connections.  Thus my NPR Reveal comment. 

I am also not against the idea overall. But this iteration doesn't make sense to me on many levels. 

1. The downturn has to be about the worse time to try to get the best price.
2. Rushing it with one the reasons being that Rex can still get his money back.
3. The way the persons getting signatures are trying to twist everything to make it sound like you are signing for something that has nothing to do with the airport

I also am not even sure it can be done by the April deadline on these because I think the city would have to re apply to the FAA and I can't see that being  quick process. 

This might finally be the end of this chapter of airport privatization in STL.

TLDR: Charter amendments by petition require two public votes. In this case, the petition language as submitted and signed is illegal by state and local laws and therefore can’t be put on the ballot.

I dont think this does anything really-  Board of Elections certified it already and its going to be on the ballot 

Part of me hopes it is on the ballot so when it get gets voted down we can finally move on. I am not against privatization in theory but neither one of the current proposals does much for me without at minimum a delay past the Rex deadline. 

StlToday - Aldermen put airport privatization aside, pass workhouse closure measure

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 291b8.html

StlToday- Messenger: St. Louis city counselor goes biblical in missive that might have killed airport privatization — for now

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... e5035.html

Did anyone happen to see Bob Clark on Donnybrook tonight? He mentioned that Amazon told him that St. Louis's effort land an Amazon distribution center was the worst they had received from any city. Cincinnati won the gig, and they are getting tens of thousands of new jobs out of it. He said he didn't even think that the mayor of STL knew we were trying for it. Meanwhile, thousands of acres of empty land still sit undeveloped around the airport. 

He also expects a great many airports around the country will be at least partially privately run in twenty years. We could have been one of the first to cash in on the trend; instead we continue to wallow in dysfunction. 

Why can't we ever seem to get something right? Are we really that incompetent around here? 

So airport privatization shows we're a successful metro and non-privatization is dysfunction and incompetence? 

Is the "gig" Cincinnati won different from the one Nashville won?