urbanSTL

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Apr 28, 2025

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Apr 28, 2025

So to just put a bow on this one, there were some cars sitting in a garage for a really long time. Not a huge deal but something that has to be addressed eventually. City got around to addressing the relatively small lift of removing the cars (kind of what the towing department does).

Correct.

And there is also a red light out at I-44 and Vandaventer that could unironically get someone killed, yet it remains out and unfixed.

This is my actual point that none of you, including Matt, actually care to engage with. There's tons of actual problems that can easily be fixed that actually impact people, like a traffic light out, and problems that have been getting improved for years, like crime, but Matt spends his time thinking about cars parked in a parking garage because I guess they impact his parking experience.

My argument is that it's a total waste of the city's limited resources to move these cars. And no one has made the case for why it's not.

But spending a small amount of resources to tow cars doesn’t take away anything from the people responsible for fixing traffic lights, crime, or anything else. It’s not one or the other. I guess you could make the case to slash the relatively small towing budget and spend it elsewhere, but I haven’t seen enough to make the case that it’s wise to do so. There’s a good amount of abandoned cars throughout the city. So again, I ask: Who really cares either way? The cars are gone. Not a bad thing. This just isn’t an issue that matters enough to blowup the downtown thread about.

The cars aren't "gone" though. They didn't magically disappear. We used city resources to move abandoned cars that were out of the way and stored to the impound lot. The city's impound lot is already strained and nearing or at capacity. Adding however many cars that were already out of the way to that does absolutely nothing to help the situation.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 8635d.html

I would actually argue that it makes sense to use city-owned garages to store cars until a better long term solution can be found for the impound lot's issues. Then, the city could actually tow away abandoned cars that are in places where people actually live and work as opposed to removing them from a place built specifically to store cars at.

I will give credit where credit is due though, Debaliviere91 has been the only person willing to see the nuances to this "issue" Tim felt the need to post about 2 months ago and actually have a reasonable discussion. Unlike Tim, who literally said "I'm not gonna spell it out for you" after I asked him to explain what harm he believes these cars posed. And I greatly appreciate that and respect him or her for that, even though we disagree a lot.

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Apr 28, 2025

Auggie wrote: Correct.

And there is also a red light out at I-44 and Vandaventer that could unironically get someone killed, yet it remains out and unfixed.

This is my actual point that none of you, including Matt, actually care to engage with. There's tons of actual problems that can easily be fixed that actually impact people, like a traffic light out, and problems that have been getting improved for years, like crime, but Matt spends his time thinking about cars parked in a parking garage because I guess they impact his parking experience.

My argument is that it's a total waste of the city's limited resources to move these cars. And no one has made the case for why it's not.

But spending a small amount of resources to tow cars doesn’t take away anything from the people responsible for fixing traffic lights, crime, or anything else. It’s not one or the other. I guess you could make the case to slash the relatively small towing budget and spend it elsewhere, but I haven’t seen enough to make the case that it’s wise to do so. There’s a good amount of abandoned cars throughout the city. So again, I ask: Who really cares either way? The cars are gone. Not a bad thing. This just isn’t an issue that matters enough to blowup the downtown thread about.

The cars aren't "gone" though. They didn't magically disappear. We used city resources to move abandoned cars that were out of the way and stored to the impound lot. The city's impound lot is already strained and nearing or at capacity. Adding however many cars that were already out of the way to that does absolutely nothing to help the situation.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 8635d.html

I would actually argue that it makes sense to use city-owned garages to store cars until a better long term solution can be found for the impound lot's issues. Then, the city could actually tow away abandoned cars that are in places where people actually live and work as opposed to removing them from a place built specifically to store cars at.

You’ve been going on about how using resources to tow these cars affects fixing street lights, crime, and poverty. To be clear, it doesn’t.

That being said, if the city tow lot is still in this condition, I’m inclined to agree with you that cars on streets should be prioritized. I had heard there have been some improvements to the state of the lot, but I’m not sure.

Wouldn’t it be easier for you to just politely point out to the guy who originally posted this that it probably makes more sense to prioritize street cars if our towing resources are strained, rather than getting blocked because you went on some rant attacking the guy personally? I just don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Apr 28, 2025

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Apr 28, 2025

But spending a small amount of resources to tow cars doesn’t take away anything from the people responsible for fixing traffic lights, crime, or anything else. It’s not one or the other. I guess you could make the case to slash the relatively small towing budget and spend it elsewhere, but I haven’t seen enough to make the case that it’s wise to do so. There’s a good amount of abandoned cars throughout the city. So again, I ask: Who really cares either way? The cars are gone. Not a bad thing. This just isn’t an issue that matters enough to blowup the downtown thread about.

The cars aren't "gone" though. They didn't magically disappear. We used city resources to move abandoned cars that were out of the way and stored to the impound lot. The city's impound lot is already strained and nearing or at capacity. Adding however many cars that were already out of the way to that does absolutely nothing to help the situation.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 8635d.html

I would actually argue that it makes sense to use city-owned garages to store cars until a better long term solution can be found for the impound lot's issues. Then, the city could actually tow away abandoned cars that are in places where people actually live and work as opposed to removing them from a place built specifically to store cars at.

You’ve been going on about how using resources to tow these cars affects fixing street lights, crime, and poverty. To be clear, it doesn’t.

That being said, if the city tow lot is still in this condition, I’m inclined to agree with you that cars on streets should be prioritized. I had heard there have been some improvements to the state of the lot, but I’m not sure.

Wouldn’t it be easier for you to just politely point out to the guy who originally posted this that it probably makes more sense to prioritize street cars if our towing resources are strained, rather than getting blocked because you went on some rant attacking the guy personally? I just don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I reference this in my edit on the last post, but I literally did. I asked him to explain why he thinks it's a harm and pointed out the issues with the city's impound lot. He unambiguously declined to answer.

In my  world, the city even though it owns the parking garage would outsource the service from revenue collections, parking fees to private tow away service.    To me the city priority would and should be the streets.  As someone who once upon a time had our car stolen from Galleria mall, the person who had stolen the car caused a crash in the middle of a city intersection in the middle of the night, and such my car was promptly towed by the city and into a city lot to clear the intersection makes a lot of sense for the community.   Yes, I can see where the city would own infrastructure such as a parking garage but to me it comes down to a better way of doing things and a private tow service agreement makes a lot more sense.  

Which, begs questions which I'm not sure of.   Does Lambert  since its public but separate entity manage its parking in house or do they do it differently from the city itself?  Should this be the model if different?  Just curious if someone left a car at the airport how it would be delt with?

Q1 2025 Downtown office vacancy rates

Pittsburgh: 21.4%
St.Louis: 21.7%
Louisville: 22%
Kansas City: 22.6%
Detroit: 22.9%
Indianapolis 23%
Nashville: 24.4%
Cincinnati 24.5%
St.Paul 31.2%
Denver 33.6%
Minneapolis 33.8%

Data from Cushman Wakefield Q1 Market Beat Reports

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Apr 29, 2025

How long do cars have to stay in impound before they can be auctioned off?

I wondered the same thing.  Or scrap 'em.

30 days

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Apr 28, 2025

Q1 2025 Downtown office vacancy rates

Pittsburgh: 21.4%
St.Louis: 21.7%
Louisville: 22%
Kansas City: 22.6%
Detroit: 22.9%
Indianapolis 23%
Nashville: 24.4%
Cincinnati 24.5%
St.Paul 31.2%
Denver 33.6%
Minneapolis 33.8%

Data from Cushman Wakefield Q1 Market Beat Reports

We track the CBD as a separate district at CBRE whereas Cushman includes Cortex/Midtown in their numbers.
 
CBD:
Q1 Class A Vacancy: 32.9%
Q1 Class A Availability: 34.7%

Unfortunately, availability (listed but not yet vacant), is a forward looking indicator for future vacancy.

Would love to see the Bob Clark plan of taking down a tower happen soon...

"Would love to see Bob Clark plan on taking down a tower happen soon..."

What do you mean by this?

Jallen26 wrote: ↑

May 01, 2025

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Apr 28, 2025

Q1 2025 Downtown office vacancy rates

Pittsburgh: 21.4%
St.Louis: 21.7%
Louisville: 22%
Kansas City: 22.6%
Detroit: 22.9%
Indianapolis 23%
Nashville: 24.4%
Cincinnati 24.5%
St.Paul 31.2%
Denver 33.6%
Minneapolis 33.8%

Data from Cushman Wakefield Q1 Market Beat Reports

We track the CBD as a separate district at CBRE whereas Cushman includes Cortex/Midtown in their numbers.
 
CBD:
Q1 Class A Vacancy: 32.9%
Q1 Class A Availability: 34.7%

Unfortunately, availability (listed but not yet vacant), is a forward looking indicator for future vacancy.

Would love to see the Bob Clark plan of taking down a tower happen soon...

They have a CBD breakout at 9.7m sq ft of leasable space. Your downtown (broken down by class) come out to 13.5m. What’s the difference about if they’re focused on a larger area vs your CBD only

^I do get a little embarrassed visitors see our continuing issue at this corner over now several years. This is on top of one of the areas of our region that out of towners see most, and we make less than a great impression around there. Always have some issue we can’t clean up


It’s been going on for 7-8 years now. We gotta take action with urgency

Does not diminish nor negate the above said problem but compared to other cities Cincinnati for example (and there are many others) our 'problem' is not overwhelming That begs the question: Why can't we overcome it or more importantly how do we do it?

It's absurd.  I don't understand why we as a society (or city) tolerate any of it.  If someone is doing something illegal arrest them, charge them.  Do it again and again and again.  Send the signal that we won't tolerate this.  Same goes for expired tag/no tags and a variety of other violations that aren't enforced.  Why should those of us that contribute to society, pay taxes, and work for a better St. Louis, suffer from those who don't?

Homelessness is a difficult, challenging, and complex issue, but homelessness is not a free pass to take and possess illegal drugs, carry an illegal weapon, be publicly intoxicated, urinate/defecate and/or expose yourself in public, and in general violate the rights of others with your action.  Enforce, charge, and punish.

robertn42 wrote: ↑

May 02, 2025

It's absurd.  I don't understand why we as a society (or city) tolerate any of it.  If someone is doing something illegal arrest them, charge them.  Do it again and again and again.  Send the signal that we won't tolerate this.  Same goes for expired tag/no tags and a variety of other violations that aren't enforced.  Why should those of us that contribute to society, pay taxes, and work for a better St. Louis, suffer from those who don't?

Homelessness is a difficult, challenging, and complex issue, but homelessness is not a free pass to take and possess illegal drugs, carry an illegal weapon, be publicly intoxicated, urinate/defecate and/or expose yourself in public, and in general violate the rights of others with your action.  Enforce, charge, and punish.

Watch it. Tough-on-crime opinions aren’t welcome here. It’s not their fault remember?

This isn’t about being tough or soft on crime. It’s not even a homeless issue. We are dealing with people battling addiction and severe mental health problems. A jail cell does nothing to fix either, and the brutal truth is that we’ve completely lost the will as a society to actually help these people. Instead, we lock them up, throw them away, and act surprised when nothing changes. The clown above is a textbook example of how dumbed-down and unserious public discourse has become. People like him are exactly why we keep spinning our wheels and getting nowhere when it comes to real solutions.

Yeah comparing homelessness and expired license plate tags is difficult to take seriously.

Police arrested 6 dealers few weeks ago associated with the gathering

robertn42 wrote: ↑

May 02, 2025

It's absurd.  I don't understand why we as a society (or city) tolerate any of it.  If someone is doing something illegal arrest them, charge them.  Do it again and again and again.  Send the signal that we won't tolerate this.  Same goes for expired tag/no tags and a variety of other violations that aren't enforced.  Why should those of us that contribute to society, pay taxes, and work for a better St. Louis, suffer from those who don't?

Homelessness is a difficult, challenging, and complex issue, but homelessness is not a free pass to take and possess illegal drugs, carry an illegal weapon, be publicly intoxicated, urinate/defecate and/or expose yourself in public, and in general violate the rights of others with your action.  Enforce, charge, and punish.

So what you're describing is "tough on crime" policies and that's what "we as a society" have been doing for decades and it's been proven to not actually work. All it does is put more people in prison (increase the tax burden) and doesn't actually fix the underlying problems.

Auggie wrote: ↑

May 02, 2025

robertn42 wrote: ↑

May 02, 2025

It's absurd.  I don't understand why we as a society (or city) tolerate any of it.  If someone is doing something illegal arrest them, charge them.  Do it again and again and again.  Send the signal that we won't tolerate this.  Same goes for expired tag/no tags and a variety of other violations that aren't enforced.  Why should those of us that contribute to society, pay taxes, and work for a better St. Louis, suffer from those who don't?

Homelessness is a difficult, challenging, and complex issue, but homelessness is not a free pass to take and possess illegal drugs, carry an illegal weapon, be publicly intoxicated, urinate/defecate and/or expose yourself in public, and in general violate the rights of others with your action.  Enforce, charge, and punish.

So what you're describing is "tough on crime" policies and that's what "we as a society" have been doing for decades and it's been proven to not actually work. All it does is put more people in prison (increase the tax burden) and doesn't actually fix the underlying problems.

There is a tax burden to the policing and incarceration, but I'd argue there is a much larger tax burden/revenue loss from allowing the illegal/unsavory behavior to go unchecked.  When fewer people visit an area due to this, when businesses move out, when a city's reputation takes a national hit, the cost is tremendous. 

robertn42 wrote: ↑

May 02, 2025

Auggie wrote: ↑

May 02, 2025

robertn42 wrote: ↑

May 02, 2025

It's absurd.  I don't understand why we as a society (or city) tolerate any of it.  If someone is doing something illegal arrest them, charge them.  Do it again and again and again.  Send the signal that we won't tolerate this.  Same goes for expired tag/no tags and a variety of other violations that aren't enforced.  Why should those of us that contribute to society, pay taxes, and work for a better St. Louis, suffer from those who don't?

Homelessness is a difficult, challenging, and complex issue, but homelessness is not a free pass to take and possess illegal drugs, carry an illegal weapon, be publicly intoxicated, urinate/defecate and/or expose yourself in public, and in general violate the rights of others with your action.  Enforce, charge, and punish.

So what you're describing is "tough on crime" policies and that's what "we as a society" have been doing for decades and it's been proven to not actually work. All it does is put more people in prison (increase the tax burden) and doesn't actually fix the underlying problems.

There is a tax burden to the policing and incarceration, but I'd argue there is a much larger tax burden/revenue loss from allowing the illegal/unsavory behavior to go unchecked.  When fewer people visit an area due to this, when businesses move out, when a city's reputation takes a national hit, the cost is tremendous. 

I would not argue that because St. Louis alone spends hundreds of millions per year on police and incarnation and doesn't get the idealized outcome of low crime that the "tough on crime" theory presents.

So we have the tax burden of police and incarnation (from the municipality all the way to the the feds) but we don't get the outcome of low crime. So we just have the worst of two worlds. Doubling down on that will not fix the underlying problems, just like it hasn't for the last 50 years.