urbanSTL

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Dec 11, 2024

Taking care of city workers is an excellent use of this money. Everyone complains about a lack of services and then moans about city workers getting a hand. You can’t have it both ways.

I would disagree considering this is one time payout. Instead, I would argue that you would essentially increase a long term liability on city taxpayers that will pay even more anytime a pay raise, a benefit increase, or anytime an union agreement gets renewed.   Not disagreeing with offering a more competitive package for city workers but really should go through the transparency of a general fund and annual tax revenues.  

The beauty of the infrastructure investment is you get an immediate benefit that last several decades.  Or say replacing old outdated lead service lines that also offer long term health benefit to community (case can be made for more trees as well). Or say a fleet replacement where you replace a vehicle with something new that spends more time in use, costs less to maintain, and more fuel efficient, etc..  

Childcare and city worker buckets aren’t one time
Payout. They’d be used as endowments with 5-10% annual distribution

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Are they really though? StL County isn’t building a convention center or any sports stadiums in the next 4 years. It’s not building a train station or bus terminal. 4 major interstates won’t be converging in the county in the next 4 years. 5 class 1 railroads won’t converge in the county in the next 4 years.

The next 4 years are no more critical for Downtown than the previous 4 were. Nor are they any more critical than any other 4 year period in the last 70 years.

The county doesn’t need to build a convention center cause it’s not dependent on that industry also when you have a non shrinking population I would say the stakes in the city are far more critical than anywhere else on the Missouri side of the region so yeah the next 4 years are pivotal specially when you have specific projects in the pipeline & you’re running for re election


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Things have been bad in StL for 70 years but only became critical when we elected a black woman mayor. What a coincidence.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Things have been bad in StL for 70 years but only became critical when we elected a black woman mayor. What a coincidence.

Who said anything about race? Only ignorant people use race as an argument & excuse. this city has been ran by democrats for the past 70 or so years & every year the city suffered the same crap so spare me the race bull crap. Race has nothing to with the lackluster performance of this city it all has to do with the incompetence of the leaders to move the city forward in a positive direction & putting downtown first. I’m not going to argue over petty crap like race so I’ll move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑

Dec 11, 2024

PlatinumBlues wrote:

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Are they really though? StL County isn’t building a convention center or any sports stadiums in the next 4 years. It’s not building a train station or bus terminal. 4 major interstates won’t be converging in the county in the next 4 years. 5 class 1 railroads won’t converge in the county in the next 4 years.

The next 4 years are no more critical for Downtown than the previous 4 were. Nor are they any more critical than any other 4 year period in the last 70 years.

The county doesn’t need to build a convention center cause it’s not dependent on that industry also when you have a non shrinking population I would say the stakes in the city are far more critical than anywhere else on the Missouri side of the region so yeah the next 4 years are pivotal specially when you have specific projects in the pipeline & you’re running for re election


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also 70 years of losing population if I were running for mayor or re election I would treat every 4 years as critical cause that’s called progress 70 years of status quo hasn’t gotten us anywhere but further in the trenches of almost being non existent. People don’t want to move to failing cities they want to move to successful cities & your downtown should be your crown jewel/front door


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn’t there some nuance to that 70 years of losing population statement?  For most part our post WWII migration pattern is same as elsewhere but elsewhere people just moved to empty plots within that city.  For exampe, if you lived in downtown KC in 1940 and moved 8 miles east by arrowhead, you still lived in city of KC, and if you lived in downtown STL and moved 8 miles west you now live at the corner of 170 and 64

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Dec 12, 2024

dredger wrote: ↑

Dec 11, 2024

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Dec 11, 2024

Taking care of city workers is an excellent use of this money. Everyone complains about a lack of services and then moans about city workers getting a hand. You can’t have it both ways.

Not disagreeing with offering a more competitive package for city workers but  

But you disagree with it

I stated that I disagree with using one time pay outs to increase city worker benefits because you will only increase liabilities that much more to tax payers on future pay raises/benefits..   Yes, everyone is happy now until the budget has to maintain those increases year after year.   Kinda like winning a small lottery and or getting a family inheritance only to go for a bigger house and another and nicer car in a nicer neighborhood when your day job can't afford the extra property tax, insurance costs, and or competing with your new neighbor 

But if you want to twist my statement go for it....or better yet if your city resident & taxpayer go for it.  Say a 20% bump up now on every $100 in compensation means $120 and then say the next negotiated contract in a couple of years down the road adds 6% so in short order $127.20 in compensation that now is year after year impact on your budget.   In a very order your'e pretty much telling residents/tax payers that the city budget year over year has to cover a +27% increase in labor & benefits when your one time payout only covered one year of it.  

To me, as taxpayer, it seems a lot smarter for one time cash infusions to go replace those outdated lamp posts with LED and therefore reduce annual city electric bill and or a fleet replacement to get another 20 some odd years on a new plow truck that run will get more utilization (because it is not breaking down all the time), cost less to maintain and probably burn less fuel, or say catch up on capital expenditures to get your streets & sidewalks in a state of good repair for another 10 years .  
  

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

Dec 12, 2024

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 12, 2024

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 11, 2024

The Beganovic Compromise: Bill 153 is good, lets make it better. Alders should show their support for DT, citys economic engine, by establishing a Downtown Drawdown Fund & still spend the majority of $ improving everything from infrastructure to housing &employee retention/hiring

Getting some traction.

You pitching this to Alders?

Yes. I fully expect a lot of changes to the existing bill. Final passage won’t happen until next year

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Dec 12, 2024

Things have been bad in StL for 70 years but only became critical when we elected a black woman mayor. What a coincidence.

It's actually remarkable how it magically became a major issue when a black woman who identifies as a progressive became mayor. Even though the city's real GDP Growth is the best it's been in the 21st century under her tenure.

This is complete non-sensical, dumbed-down, emotional BS. I couldn’t stand Krewson and thought Slay was a complete pushover.

Be smarter with your conclusions.

As an aside, I like what DB is doing, maybe do a little more for DT??

I think the final version will have a narrower focus on water, infrastructure and city employee (which may still include childcare but geared towards just city employees since that group is getting older and getting younger people into city job with kids might be a easier path if child care is provided). I told a few alders to go over to the federal building on tucker and spruce and see how they’re operating an onsite day care

I have a child at that program. Would be an excellent template for them to follow.

That was kind of my curiosity in investing in child care.  I 'feel' like we should be investing in a place that would not have the start up costs, OR the dependance to generate revenue to then offer lower cost child care.  A not for profit business backed with these dollars.

If the childcare fund is structured as an endowment with annual distribution limits. Starting with $40 million, a 5% annual return (a very reasonable expectation), and an annual distribution of $3.5 million, the fund would sustain itself for 18 years. 

dweebe wrote:

Likely the worse stadium deal in sports history & that same owner owns the Sabres & that team might miss the playoffs for a 14th consecutive year how sad at least here in St.Louis we’ve been fortunate with our sports franchises


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is the Tennessee Titans deal not worse? 

The state of New York is giving the Buffalo Bills $600 million. Erie County is giving them another $250 million. That's a total of $850 million and roughly 40.5% of the project cost. 

The Titans will be receiving $1.2 billion in public funds for their new $2.1 billion stadium, around 57.1% of the project cost.