Still happened under her.
- 741
"Unforced errors" is a term I've heard bandied about quite a bit regarding Mayorv Jones first term.
This is from people who were strong supporters of her candidacy in 2017 and 2021.
This is from people who were strong supporters of her candidacy in 2017 and 2021.
Biggest one by far was leaving for DC in the middle of the (snow)storm of criticism the City was facing for the collapse of basic city services following the winter storm. She insisted on going even after she had gotten a lot of flak for all the (seemingly unnecessary) travel she has done the last four years. To me that was just her incredible arrogance speaking.Baltimore Jack wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025"Unforced errors" is a term I've heard bandued about quite a bit regarding Mayorv Jones first term.
This is from people who were strong supporters of her candidacy in 2017 and 2021.
Literally not under her. She doesn't control the county offices. At best it happened "adjacent" to her.whitherSTL wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Still happened under her.
- 1,614
Whiter and I have already disagreed about the pot taxation. My opinion hasn’t changed about him or the fact that it was stupid, just like him. Because he actually believes what MAGA is selling. Hats. He likes hats. I guess. Might be bald. Just an educated guess.
- 6,123
Auggie, you're not helping Jones. I voted for her. I like her. I support her. I will vote for her again. But you make it hard. Just . . . can it. Spencer isn't the devil incarnate. She's a perfectly reasonable person whose positions are, in reality, pretty damn close to Jones's own. She took money where she could get it and ran at a time when she saw an opening. I'm not voting for her, but if it had been her vs. Butler? . . . I absolutely would have. Last cycle I voted both Spencer and Jones in the primary. They're both fine. Let's be reasonable. It appears that the best two candidates are advancing to the general. Let's hope them both well and vote for the one we support without casting aspersions for the other ones supporters. There's no Trump in this race. It's Biden vs. Harris, not Harris vs. Trump or Biden vs. Trump. (Honestly, it's almost Sanders vs. Warren, really.)
Neither Sanders nor Warren would propose privatization to solve trash collection issues. They'd propose expanding worker benefits to better attract and retain workers.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Auggie, you're not helping Jones. I voted for her. I like her. I support her. I will vote for her again. But you make it hard. Just . . . can it. Spencer isn't the devil incarnate. She's a perfectly reasonable person whose positions are, in reality, pretty damn close to Jones's own. She took money where she could get it and ran at a time when she saw an opening. I'm not voting for her, but if it had been her vs. Butler? . . . I absolutely would have. Last cycle I voted both Spencer and Jones in the primary. They're both fine. Let's be reasonable. It appears that the best two candidates are advancing to the general. Let's hope them both well and vote for the one we support without casting aspersions for the other ones supporters. There's no Trump in this race. It's Biden vs. Harris, not Harris vs. Trump or Biden vs. Trump. (Honestly, it's almost Sanders vs. Warren, really.)
- 741
This. Also continuing to let her dad advise her..Ebsy wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Biggest one by far was leaving for DC in the middle of the (snow)storm of criticism the City was facing for the collapse of basic city services following the winter storm. She insisted on going even after she had gotten a lot of flak for all the (seemingly unnecessary) travel she has done the last four years. To me that was just her incredible arrogance speaking.Baltimore Jack wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025"Unforced errors" is a term I've heard bandued about quite a bit regarding Mayorv Jones first term.
This is from people who were strong supporters of her candidacy in 2017 and 2021.
If she sends him to Mexico for the next five weeks that'll show she actually still wants to win.
I have never personally attacked Cara Spencer. I have never characterized her as the "devil incarnate" or anything of the sort.
I have been the only person on here to provide a comprehensive, detailed argument in favor of my preferred candidate. I have provided a significant amount of actual data and facts that make Jones look really good. I went over Spencer's actual campaign website point by point. Next to no one engaged any of this. No arguments against, no arguments for the opposition, no discussion, nothing.
Things like Spencer thanking Bob Clark for his $111k donation and attending a fundraiser at Clayco's offices that raised $600k ($3k per attendee) are serious concerns about what that $711k will buy in terms of influence. Yet on here it's brushed off like it's nothing. This is the same Bob Clark who went out of his way to create bad news from the city to spite the mayor he didn't like.
Actual data showing strong economic growth and actual crime declines. Actual data showing increases in development in North City despite overall decreases gets brushed off. Massive movement on downtown's largest vacancies gets brushed off. Concerns about Spencer's objective inexperience gets brushed off.
I've *never* said that Jones is perfect and I've never said that I have no issues with her administration. In fact, I actually listed a series of issues I've had with her administration back in January. No one engaged it.
All I've asked for is others to stop gaslighting, stop lying, and provide arguments to support their positions. Yet I don't get that. And then I'm the one who's ostracized.
I've gone to extreme measures to be reasonable. I've spent lots of time collecting data and evidence to support myself. And I very well may support Spencer in 2029, it entirely depends on what the facts and data say.
I look forward to when this election season is over as I really don't enjoy this whatsoever. We, in all liklihood, agree on far more than we disagree on. At least most of us.
I have been the only person on here to provide a comprehensive, detailed argument in favor of my preferred candidate. I have provided a significant amount of actual data and facts that make Jones look really good. I went over Spencer's actual campaign website point by point. Next to no one engaged any of this. No arguments against, no arguments for the opposition, no discussion, nothing.
Things like Spencer thanking Bob Clark for his $111k donation and attending a fundraiser at Clayco's offices that raised $600k ($3k per attendee) are serious concerns about what that $711k will buy in terms of influence. Yet on here it's brushed off like it's nothing. This is the same Bob Clark who went out of his way to create bad news from the city to spite the mayor he didn't like.
Actual data showing strong economic growth and actual crime declines. Actual data showing increases in development in North City despite overall decreases gets brushed off. Massive movement on downtown's largest vacancies gets brushed off. Concerns about Spencer's objective inexperience gets brushed off.
I've *never* said that Jones is perfect and I've never said that I have no issues with her administration. In fact, I actually listed a series of issues I've had with her administration back in January. No one engaged it.
All I've asked for is others to stop gaslighting, stop lying, and provide arguments to support their positions. Yet I don't get that. And then I'm the one who's ostracized.
I've gone to extreme measures to be reasonable. I've spent lots of time collecting data and evidence to support myself. And I very well may support Spencer in 2029, it entirely depends on what the facts and data say.
I look forward to when this election season is over as I really don't enjoy this whatsoever. We, in all liklihood, agree on far more than we disagree on. At least most of us.
- 977
She’s not really proposing privatization though.Auggie wrote:Neither Sanders nor Warren would propose privatization to solve trash collection issues. They'd propose expanding worker benefits to better attract and retain workers.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Auggie, you're not helping Jones. I voted for her. I like her. I support her. I will vote for her again. But you make it hard. Just . . . can it. Spencer isn't the devil incarnate. She's a perfectly reasonable person whose positions are, in reality, pretty damn close to Jones's own. She took money where she could get it and ran at a time when she saw an opening. I'm not voting for her, but if it had been her vs. Butler? . . . I absolutely would have. Last cycle I voted both Spencer and Jones in the primary. They're both fine. Let's be reasonable. It appears that the best two candidates are advancing to the general. Let's hope them both well and vote for the one we support without casting aspersions for the other ones supporters. There's no Trump in this race. It's Biden vs. Harris, not Harris vs. Trump or Biden vs. Trump. (Honestly, it's almost Sanders vs. Warren, really.)Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Literally not under her. She doesn't control the county offices. At best it happened "adjacent" to her.
- 2,430
My thoughts in general are that I like the non-partisan election part over the old system and having the top two candidates advance, which allows the voters to get a closer look in a head to head match-up. But I'm not a fan of the approval voting part where you can vote for any or all. I'd change it to voters only get one choice, and the top two advance even if the leader was above 50%.Baltimore Jack wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Regardless of who you support anyone else kinda wish we just had a non partisan initial primary with runoff only being held if no candidate received a majority?
- 1,797
YaAuggie wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025What's embarrassing is being on the same side as Jane Deuker and Bob Clark.Ebsy wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025These results can only be interpreted in one way and it is that Spencer is going to stroll to victory in the runoff. Butler and Jones are battling it out for also ran which is extremely embarrassing for the Mayor.addxb2 wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025We are in a very feasible reality where Michael Butler is the next Mayor of St. Louis.
Her solution is contracting the jobs out to......who exactly? Other public entities? Or private companies?Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025She’s not really proposing privatization though.Auggie wrote:Neither Sanders nor Warren would propose privatization to solve trash collection issues. They'd propose expanding worker benefits to better attract and retain workers.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Auggie, you're not helping Jones. I voted for her. I like her. I support her. I will vote for her again. But you make it hard. Just . . . can it. Spencer isn't the devil incarnate. She's a perfectly reasonable person whose positions are, in reality, pretty damn close to Jones's own. She took money where she could get it and ran at a time when she saw an opening. I'm not voting for her, but if it had been her vs. Butler? . . . I absolutely would have. Last cycle I voted both Spencer and Jones in the primary. They're both fine. Let's be reasonable. It appears that the best two candidates are advancing to the general. Let's hope them both well and vote for the one we support without casting aspersions for the other ones supporters. There's no Trump in this race. It's Biden vs. Harris, not Harris vs. Trump or Biden vs. Trump. (Honestly, it's almost Sanders vs. Warren, really.)
- 977
Her solution first is to fill the open city roles that are already budgeted for. It says so right on her website.Auggie wrote:Her solution is contracting the jobs out to......who exactly? Other public entities? Or private companies?Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025She’s not really proposing privatization though.Auggie wrote:
Neither Sanders nor Warren would propose privatization to solve trash collection issues. They'd propose expanding worker benefits to better attract and retain workers.
Her secondary solution after that is to temporarily contract out basic city services where we have to, to prevent disruptions in service. Not unlike what the Jones administration did eventually during the snow storm.
You’re framing this up as if Spencer differs from Warren and Sanders ideologically in terms of privatization of government services and that’s not true.
I’m supportive of privatized trash. City should have four to six trash districts. Each district is competitively bid out with no supplier receiving more than three districts. Set consumer price restrictions and lock them to annual CPI. Add performance standards in the contract with clawback for failure to deliver. For example, below 90% on-time would result in a 10% invoice penalty. Each district is awarded a second supplier for emergency services in the event their primary supplier faces operationally critical failures (broken down trucks, labor shortages). Require each supplier to designate an operations manager who reports to director of streets.
How does she expect to "fill city roles"? That's the question. She proposes no pay or benefit increase, it's simply not on there. Obviously she wants to fill roles, no doubt, the question is how.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Her solution first is to fill the open city roles that are already budgeted for. It says so right on her website.Auggie wrote:Her solution is contracting the jobs out to......who exactly? Other public entities? Or private companies?
Her secondary solution after that is to temporarily contract out basic city services where we have to, to prevent disruptions in service. Not unlike what the Jones administration did eventually during the snow storm.
You’re framing this up as if Spencer differs from Warren and Sanders ideologically in terms of privatization of government services and that’s not true.
Snow removal and trash collection are not comparable whatsoever. Snow removal happens a few days out of the year while trash takes place literally every business day. Private contracting in a limited role is one thing, it's an entirely different thing for entire city services.
As for temporary, you can't "temporarily" give tax dollars to companies taking away workers while you're also not improving your own pay and benefits to better compete and retain those workers. It doesn't make any sense at face value and ultimately results in "temporary" lasting a seemingly permanent amount of time since we will never be "staffed up" because we are giving the money we should be using to improve pay and benefits to the exact companies luring away the workers we say we want to hire.
If you support it then you support it. It has valid arguments for certain aspects like better collection. But worse for cost, corruption, and accountability.addxb2 wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025I’m supportive of privatized trash. City should have four to six trash districts. Each district is competitively bid out with no supplier receiving more than three districts. Set consumer price restrictions and lock them to annual CPI. Add performance standards in the contract with clawback for failure to deliver. For example, below 90% on-time would result in a 10% invoice penalty. Each district is awarded a second supplier for emergency services in the event their primary supplier faces operationally critical failures (broken down trucks, labor shortages). Require each supplier to designate an operations manager who reports to director of streets.
I just don't think we should be putting "basic city services" in the hands of for-profit private companies.
Curious if the new system has resulted in lower voter engagement and participation. At least in the past the primary was rightly seen as the decisive election. Now you have this approval primary which is neither straight forward or decisive. And then general election is a) just a few weeks later, b) had the same names on the ballot, c) seen by many as pre-determined based on the primary results.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025My thoughts in general are that I like the non-partisan election part over the old system and having the top two candidates advance, which allows the voters to get a closer look in a head to head match-up. But I'm not a fan of the approval voting part where you can vote for any or all. I'd change it to voters only get one choice, and the top two advance even if the leader was above 50%.Baltimore Jack wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Regardless of who you support anyone else kinda wish we just had a non partisan initial primary with runoff only being held if no candidate received a majority?
Also curious, has anyone (mayor, alderman, etc.) that came in first in the approval primary lost the general?
- 2,430
^ I think the new system may result in lower primary turnout in cases like this year where it seemed to be kind of a foregone conclusion of who the top two candidates will be. But looking at past results under the new system, turnout will be higher in the general election. If so, 2025 will be the polar opposite of 2013. In that year, 22% voted in the primary but just 12.6% in the general. 17.8% turned out yesterday, and hopefully we can at least beat 22% in the general. That would be less than 2017 & 2021 turnout of approximately 30%, but not entirely horrible for off year local elections.
Off the top of my head I want to say that there were one or two aldermanic races where the canddate who came in second under the new system wound up winning in the general but I'd have to double check.
Off the top of my head I want to say that there were one or two aldermanic races where the canddate who came in second under the new system wound up winning in the general but I'd have to double check.
I thought contractor trash pickup was problematic due to the dumpster pickup method.
I guess a contractor could do the rollouts.
I guess a contractor could do the rollouts.
Yes, I believe any contracting of trash pickup would require switching to all roll-carts, or just contracting out the current roll-cart portion and switching those drivers to the dumpster routes. Irony on that would be those are the routes that are covered on the scheduled day consistently since the carts need to be emptied when they are out.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025I thought contractor trash pickup was problematic due to the dumpster pickup method.
I guess a contractor could do the rollouts.
The truck and alley dumpster style that the City uses is primarily a municipal type. It is not at all unique to the City of St. Louis like some people acting in bad faith tried to claim a couple years ago, but it's not as common. Private companies, at least around here, don't have the trucks with the emptying system to match. I like having dumpsters in the alleys. No carts to deal with bringing in and out and storing, and when needed, I have the room to dispose of big things. I try to keep my trash production to a minimum as we all should, but sometimes you need some volume. I can deal with the alley dumpsters not being emptied on a consistent day, but it sure would be nice to not have them overflowing for the first time in years. My alley is usually fine, but the dumpsters in the alleys across the street from me are always quickly filled. Again, people need to produce less trash, but short of that. we still need more reliable service.
I would strongly prefer this and other work to be done by City employees. Which as we all know is going to require more improvements to compensation to attract more applicants. But I have been watching Megan Green acting as a surrogate for Jones tell us all for weeks that there is just absolutely nothing that the Mayor nor BOA can do to fix this problem, so the current people in charge should get no blame for poor service delivery (I simplified that just barely). Which is just a bizarre argument to offer.
The 14th Ward general election from 2023 featured this scenario, in which Rasheen Aldridge won the seat after coming in second position in the 4 candidate primary.TalkinDev wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Also curious, has anyone (mayor, alderman, etc.) that came in first in the approval primary lost the general?
- 3,766
Regarding trash collection & the arguments for private vs. City-run PU, I’d like to know how much the City spends on property damage, workers comp & liability claims. How much does the City spend on truck repair & replacement & many other expenses that a 3rd party PU company would be taking on, vs. the City. There are MANY factors that would go into that cost-benefit analysis.
All those factors + a profit margin would be part of the contract.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Mar 05, 2025Regarding trash collection & the arguments for private vs. City-run PU, I’d like to know how much the City spends on property damage, workers comp & liability claims. How much does the City spend on truck repair & replacement & many other expenses that a 3rd party PU company would be taking on, vs. the City. There are MANY factors that would go into that cost-benefit analysis.