urbanSTL

I'm about to cash out of my very successful "gentrification" project in South City and rent a very, very small apartment in a very "dangerous" neighborhood in my favorite city San Francisco hahahaha

I’m genuinely surprised by how unprepared the Spencer administration appears to be for governing. By March, it was clear she would win, and I don’t understand why serious vetting for high-impact positions didn’t begin then. After campaigning on knowing exactly what’s broken and how to fix it, we’ve seen a wave of interim appointments filled by retirees, people who were last in city government years ago, in some cases decades.

The interim Director of Operations has no experience in city operations. The new Streets Director last held that position in 2006,
an entirely different era for city infrastructure, and the new SLDC Director retired in 2020 after what could be described as an unremarkable tenure. I understand the value of institutional knowledge , but many of the people being brought back were part of the systems that led to the dysfunction we’re still trying to undo. Giving them a second chance after years in retirement doesn’t exactly build confidence.

I’m also confused by the five or six committees being stood up to figure out what’s broken and how to fix it. Wasn’t that the core message of the campaign? That Spencer knew how to fix what’s broken and that’s why she asked for your vote. If this administration didn’t already have a grasp of what needs fixing, then what exactly was the plan?

I live here. I want this administration to succeed. But right now, the early moves feel underwhelming. I sincerely hope they find their footing soon, this city can’t afford a slow start.

It was clear Spencer was going to win by Valentine’s Day, maybe earlier.

Sorry this guy started in 1985, which is 40+ years ago, so that would make him at least 65? If not 70 years old?   That's on top of bringing back Otis Williams - who never really appeared to tackle our largest development issues. 

Im hopeful for new leadership but those arent encouraging hires.

He is 76

Director of operations is about the same and Otis is 78

mjbais1489 wrote: Im hopeful for new leadership but those arent encouraging hires.

All very transparently have been described as interim. It’s not a lack of strategy. Her strategy is interim leaders.

Here comes the Princess Cara can do no wrong crew….



For informational purposes: sometimes “interim” is used if the person doesn’t have all the qualifications that are required. Krewson had to make her health director interim after it was discovered that he didn’t have a valid medical license

I’m willing to say Cara is wrong, I just need to see something wrong. I’m personally fine with interim and think falling back on previous leaders at first is a strategy.

78 and 76 year olds being appointed to large important offices is very wrong. I could care less about the "interim" titles, I just wanted her to have her own people with new ideas and paths forward. Elderly people who worked in the city decades ago is not that whatsoever.

Not in my opinion. It’ll be wrong when they do something wrong. Until then, it’s ageist to assume they’ll do wrong because of their age.

Most of us were ready to vote for an 82 year old for President a year ago. Now I should be mad at a 76 year old interim pick in the City of St. Louis?

addxb2 wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

Not in my opinion. It’ll be wrong when they do something wrong. Until then, it’s ageist to assume they’ll do wrong because of their age.

Most of us were ready to vote for an 82 year old for President a year ago. Now I should be mad at a 76 year old interim pick in the City of St. Louis?

There a massive difference between voting for one of two choices and someone of that age being appointed.  

Theres no-one of normal working age who Cara thinks is ready to take over these departments?  Hasnt she been in local government for 15 years?

addxb2 wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

Not in my opinion. It’ll be wrong when they do something wrong. Until then, it’s ageist to assume they’ll do wrong because of their age.

Most of us were ready to vote for an 82 year old for President a year ago. Now I should be mad at a 76 year old interim pick in the City of St. Louis?

Some of us have principles that we hold ourselves to and were absolutely not gonna vote for Biden, in part because he was way too old. So, as someone who has principles, I am not happy about 76 and 78 year olds being appointed to run large city offices. They're objectively too old, just like Biden and Trump and a large % of Congress.

mjbais1489 wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

Not in my opinion. It’ll be wrong when they do something wrong. Until then, it’s ageist to assume they’ll do wrong because of their age.

Most of us were ready to vote for an 82 year old for President a year ago. Now I should be mad at a 76 year old interim pick in the City of St. Louis?

There a massive difference between voting for one of two choices and someone of that age being appointed.  

Theres no-one of normal working age who Cara thinks is ready to take over these departments?  Hasnt she been in local government for 15 years?

Not sure. Unfortunately, I wasn’t invited to participate in selecting her appointments. These wouldn’t be my picks. I wanted Ogilvie for Streets Director.

Almost 20 years. Which is why I have more faith in her strategy than I do in the opinions of people UrbanSTL.

Scott wouldn’t be eligible since he isn’t a PE.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Scott wouldn’t be eligible since he isn’t a PE.

Then to your point above… he would’ve been a great interim pick?

Just what St. Louis needs, more people who do things the way they've always been done

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

Here comes the Princess Cara can do no wrong crew….

LOL coming from you. you've been sh*tting on her since she announced running (actually probably longer). and unsurprisingly, like thirty seconds into her admin, you're trying to spin non-issues into scandals and prematurely trying to frame every decision as blunder. (weird how your efforts went the other way when your choice of princess was in office.) shame because i used to enjoy your contributions here. now it's just incessant spinning and shilling. fortunately it's all really transparent.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

Here comes the Princess Cara can do no wrong crew….

LOL coming from you. you've been sh*tting on her since she announced running (actually probably longer). and unsurprisingly, like thirty seconds into her admin, you're trying to spin non-issues into scandals and prematurely trying to frame every decision as blunder. (weird how your efforts went the other way when your choice of princess was in office.) shame because i used to enjoy your contributions here. now it's just incessant spinning and shilling. fortunately it's all really transparent.

You’re adorable

jtlq53 wrote:Just what St. Louis needs, more people who do things the way they've always been done

i mean, picking up trash and plowing snow the way that it was done when trash got pickup up and snow got plowed maybe isn't a bad thing. so maybe these seasoned, interim folks can actually help to get back to that before transitioning to new blood, as is likely the intention.

Breaking:

-The people running SLDC is now suddenly a "non-issue" after it was a very big issue like 2 minutes ago.
-The people running the Streets Department is now a "non-issue" after it was a very big issue like 2 minutes ago.
-MetroLink expansion is now a "non-issue" even though it's been a pretty big issue for the last 20 years.
-Ending the building stabilization program that has saved multiple historic structures is now a "non-issue" even though one of the city's biggest issues has been the demolition of historic structures w/o replacement for decades.

As it turns out, literally all of the actions of the new administration are now "non-issues".

Crazy how that works.

Auggie wrote:Breaking:

-The people running SLDC is now suddenly a "non-issue" after it was a very big issue like 2 minutes ago.
-The people running the Streets Department is now a "non-issue" after it was a very big issue like 2 minutes ago.
-MetroLink expansion is now a "non-issue" even though it's been a pretty big issue for the last 20 years.
-Ending the building stabilization program that has saved multiple historic structures is now a "non-issue" even though one of the city's biggest issues has been the demolition of historic structures w/o replacement for decades.

As it turns out, literally all of the actions of the new administration are now "non-issues".

Crazy how that works.

I don’t think that it’s a non issue. It’s just that we don’t have anything to criticize yet in terms of their performance in role. It’s also really dependent on what “interim” ends up meaning and who the long term replacement is. Fair?

I don't know why you expect for those of us who supported Spencer to get upset that she is getting rid of the people you specifically like. That's why we voted for her!

Ebsy wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

I don't know why you expect for those of us who supported Spencer to get upset that she is getting rid of the people you specifically like. That's why we voted for her!

If you look at my criticisms, they have nothing to do with the people being removed. I dont have some ideological loyalty to them or Jones like you have to Spencer. It has everything do do with her picking elderly retired people to replace them for some unknown amount of time.