urbanSTL

Coatar has always recused himself when a bill is in front of the board and the law firm he works at is represents a client involved or benefits directly from the bill. 

There is no alderman on the Board that hasn't gotten a donation from a interest, weather it be a developer, a union or a trade group and not voted for a bill directly impacting that group.   its just some that we let slide because we generally support that group, ie unions.  right or wrong, anyone can support a candidate that they think will benefit them. 

Yeah Dennis, obviously. I'm good with unions having influence because they're a positive force. I don't think developers tearing down our historic architecture should have influence on city politics because I think they're bad. 

Having a progressive Mayor and progressive BOA President would be disastrous for the city. There needs to be balance.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

Coatar has always recused himself when a bill is in front of the board and the law firm he works at is represents a client involved or benefits directly from the bill. 

There is no alderman on the Board that hasn't gotten a donation from a interest, weather it be a developer, a union or a trade group and not voted for a bill directly impacting that group.   its just some that we let slide because we generally support that group, ie unions.  right or wrong, anyone can support a candidate that they think will benefit them. 

That’s good to know and sure sometimes there is no connection between the donation and something that gets supported years later but there is still something shaky about an Alderman getting a donation from a private developer and then within weeks pushing hard to get their project approved?
I mean isn’t this the kind of thing that lead to recent indictment charges?

downtown2007 wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

Having a progressive Mayor and progressive BOA President would be disastrous for the city. There needs to be balance.

What’s progressive about Mayor Jones? Her entire political career going back to state house is mostly moderate democrat

Didn’t Green also make disparaging comments about North City and Northside Alderman in a text that came to the surface during her last run for President?

I'll be voting for Green even if I am not her biggest fan. Coatar is exactly what he appears to be:  a corporate lawyer with very close ties to developers.

^ wildly unpopular? City residents represent 5% of traffic at Lambert and we would have gotten $3billion. If it failed who cares, let the rest of the region fix it

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 13, 2022

Let me repeat- widely unpopular with City Residents (how’s that?).  I guess they saw through the short term payout incentive.
As an unnecessary reminder, president board of aldermen is a position that represents the values of City residents.

And I don’t understand your argument about the 3 percent. Do you think City asset ownership should be based on usage?

It wasn’t wildly unpopular with city residents.  It was unpopular with highly liberal Twitter city residents.  If you polled city residents on ownership of airport or $3b for improvements around the city it wouldn’t be a contest.   And it’s only an asset if you can sell it in time of need and we cannot outside a narrow FAA process that we had few years ago.   We hold a liability of a $2-4b replacement cost asset if we can’t get anything out of it? Expect up to $5m a year if everything is going well

Care to cite any polls Dennis?

Privatization isn't just unpopular with highly liberal twitter users, in fact there's been rebellions the world over against it. Anyway, I think this discussion is demonstrative of one thing, that if Coatar gets elected he will pursue a pro-privatization agenda, and for privatizers, there's nothing off the table. Water resources, parking meters, airport, city services, I guess Coatar just wants to sell it all off to investors. 

I’ll see if I can dig up poll emails, I worked for Parsons Corp at the time this was happening and it was going to be the construction manager for oaktree should they have won- their plan was building the greenest airport in the world


And based on how trash collection isn’t an issue in downtown (city ord says all buildings 4 or more units have to have private collection) and it’s a major issue where city collects- maybe a little trash privatization isn’t all that bad

imran wrote: ↑

Aug 13, 2022

Rex funded the effort to the tune of ~700k

The privatization consultants had a conflict of interest that they would get a payout if the deal went through.

St. Louis airport is one a dozen in the nation that still allows several million dollar yearly income to the City - a cash cow in perpetuity if you will.
An A2 rating with Moodys and a ‘declining debt profile’ per the comptroller.

Most airport privatization leases in the country have gone awry after a few years and private operators have left tax payers saddled with millions to recover management.

A ballot petition drive was started to do exactly what you mention - poll city residents - then (?mercifully) Covid hit and airport valuation tanked.

Never mind all that.though.  Easier to make it about those pesky fringe liberals on Twitter.

At a few million a year it just another 400-1200 years before we get to $2.5-3b!

Liberals on Twitter had nothing to do with it being pulled nobody every suggested anything like that, I met with Krewson 5-6 months after she left office to talk about some of the decision making during her admin.

And the deal was pulled before covid become a thing

Coatar receiving money from the Lux folks isn’t a good look but don’t think for one minute he is doing anything different than every alderman in the city, including Green. How many development bills did Green oppose in her ward? Very few, if any. And I willing to bet she accepted donations from them.

I will be voting for Coatar.

I have been following politics for awhile and Green comes off as a self centered opportunist. Most of the board doesn't even get along with her. She seems only concerned with the progressive corridor (TGS, TGE, Shaw) and out of touch with the rest of the city. She is anti development (unless it's her ward) and anti law enforcement. We need someone that will govern with all of the city in mind, while bridging gaps within different factions on the board. Coatar is better positioned. 

downtown2007 wrote: ↑

Aug 13, 2022

Coatar receiving money from the Lux folks isn’t a good look but don’t think for one minute he is doing anything different than every alderman in the city, including Green. How many development bills did Green oppose in her ward? Very few, if any. And I willing to bet she accepted donations from them.

Wow you Coatar supporters' message is so inspiring, "everyone is just as corrupt as him!"

I'm going to put the burden of proof on y'all to prove Megan is indeed as corrupt as Coatar, if this is what y'all think. 

^ It's remarkable what people throw out there, such as the suggestion that Green is anti-development and only supports projects in her ward. Her record is clear that she is pro subsidy reform but is not anti-development... on occasion she has voted no on controversial development subsidy bills but she has voted in favor of the large majority of them, including for projects in the Central Corridor. For example, she voted in favor of Coatar's most recent development bill  to have a vote (it was for a project located downtown).  In fact, she gets criticized by some who would like for her essentially to be a blanket NO vote on TIF and tax abatement bills.

As for her own ward, it doesn't appear she has filed a bill for a market-rate project since July 2017, and only one since then - earlier this year on behalf of the neighborhood CDC that is rehabbing a long vacant two-family in the TGS Wedge for rents that will be targeted at 60% AMI.  https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=14090 

EDIT: I'll add that I don't want to suggest Coatar or any other current alderperson is guilty of legal corruption, but I do think he has shown bad judgment  on the developer donor issue. And I think Saint Louis City should follow Cincy's lead by addressing developer donations after it, too, had a recent public corruption scandal involving developers that took down powerful council members.