2010

Like Paul McKee I'm going places.

Fast.

Happy New Years.

Al Franken on Health Care and Budget

Mr. FRANKEN. One last word on the deficit and the debt. May I remind everyone that when the Republicans were in the majority and President Bush came to Washington, we had a surplus, a record surplus. At the time the Chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan, testified to Congress that we had a new problem. The new problem was that because of the projected surpluses, we were, in a number of years, going to have too much money, that we were going to pay off the debt and the Federal Government would be forced to buy private equities and that this would not have a maximizing effect on our economy. That is what he said, after Bush became President. That was what he said. He said we were going to have too much money. That is what the Chairman of the Fed said. So we handed the ball off to President Bush, and we handed the ball off to these Republicans. The problem was, we were going to have too much money.

That is not a problem anymore, is it? Now you hear them screaming about the deficit. Think about the deficit they left us. Think about the economic circumstances they left us in. We are talking about getting rid of this excise tax, but we are talking about paying for it. The CBO has scored this bill as cutting the debt in the next 10 years by $179 billion and then $500 billion in the next 10. That is responsible.

What we saw in the years that we had a Republican President and a Republican House and a Republican Senate was an explosion in the deficit. I don't want to hear lectures about the deficit. When I hear presentations from my colleagues, I want them to remember what Senator McCain said when he said facts are stubborn things.

When we debate in this Hall on this floor, let's stick to the facts. So many of the benefits in this bill start immediately. It is simply not fact to say they don't.

Holiday Party on December 11 to Raise Funds for Preservation Legal Efforts

Friends and Supporters,

Friends of the San Luis Inc are hosting a second fund raiser in order to support our legal battle seeking to protect democratic control over the built environment. We appealed Judge Dierker’s decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals. This effort cannot succeed without your support — and it’s quite easy to participate.

Support the policy which brought about St. Louis’ recent economic resurgence. You can do this on December 11th 2009 by paying only 10 dollars for unlimited drinking and fun. Located in Old North St. Louis Restoration Group’s new office, attendees will promote historic preservation and witness the impact of nearly 30 years of community development.

If you can’t attend we are accepting donations. Any amount will help ensure your citizen-rights.

Anti-Wrecking Ball Holiday Party on December 11 to Raise Funds for Preservation Legal Efforts

December 1, 2009

For immediate release.

Contact: Douglas Duckworth 566-3465

On Friday, December 11, local preservationists will host another Anti-Wrecking Ball to raise funds for ongoing legal efforts. Darren Snow, host of KDHX’s “Rocket 88” program, is the DJ for the party. Alll who attend will be entered into a raffle for prizes from STL Style, St. Louis Cinemas and other local businesses.

When: Friday, December 11

Where: Old North St. Louis Community Gallery, 2700 N. 14^th Street

Cost: $10 (includes beer)

The Anti-Wrecking Ball will raise funds for the ongoing appeal of this year’s ruling by St. Louis

Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker that citizens have no standing under city preservation law.

When the Preservation Board approved -- by a close 3-2 vote -- demolition of the modern San Luis Apartments in June, the Friends of the San Luis filed an injunction in court. Under city preservation law, the citizens who make up Friends of the San Luis have a right to appeal – but only after a demolition permit has been issued! The Friends sued to stop demolition so we could appeal the Preservation Board ruling.

However, Judge Dierker ruled against the Friends, and not because he thought their argument was wrong, but because he thinks that citizens who are not owners of property threatened with demolition should have no right to protest or appeal. The San Luis Apartments were demolished this summer, but the ruling left a bigger issue that affects all citizens regardless of what they think about that one particular building.

Unchallenged, Dierker’s ruling could impede citizen efforts to save community landmarks across the city. The Friends of the San Luis filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals in September to stand up for future preservation efforts. The Friends of the San Luis believe that citizen rights should not be demolished along with the San Luis Apartments.

Consequently, the Friends of the San Luis and other preservationists have organized the Anti-Wrecking Ball to raise funds to cover attorney’s fees. After the Friends wins its appeal, the Anti-Wrecking Ball movement will continue to raise money for legal costs associated with citizen preservation action.

Gustavo Rendon Arrested

They share their experience, on Charlie Brennan, about being arrested this Sunday for placing fliers on cars outside April Ford Griffin's church. They were spreading the message for a referendum against eminent domain and McKee's plan.

Brennan points out that McKee wasn't arrested for negligent property management -- in violation of city ordinances.

Thanksgiving "History Lesson" from Todd Akin

West County Congressman Todd Akin says that Thanksgiving was about rejecting socialism, a political and economic theory that didn't even exist at that time...

Capitalism wasn't around either. Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Thanksgiving was 1621.

How much longer will ignorance rule?

Alternate reality tarts at 2:20.

Favazza's Demolition Violates Master Plan

Favazza's has parking both on street and at their own dedicated lot on Marconi.

Demolition of these fine buildings must not be allowed. I spend a lot of time on Southwest Avenue supporting these businesses. A good way to undermine the commercial district would be demolition of viable buildings for parking.

Though not yet in an historic district yet, this demolition runs solidly against the recently completed Southwest Garden Streetscape Master Plan.

Increase pedestrian safety and pedestrian comfort along streets.
Improve the aesthetics of the street.
Create an identity for the streets.
Enhance the address of the street.
Add to the neighborhood.

Constraints were identified before completion of the Master Plan.

Each street is very auto oriented….pedestrian environment is unsafe and unattractive.

The streets lack a defined identity.

Given our malleable planning process citizens must testify.

If you can't attend the 4PM meeting on November 23 then please send comments.

Preservation Board
Adonna Buford, Secretary
1015 Locust Street, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63101
BufordA@stlouiscity.com

Alderman Joseph Vollmer
Board of Aldermen
Room 230
City Hall
1200 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
vollmerj@stlouiscity.com

McKee at Left Bank Tomorrow

If you want to hear yet another regurgitation of the same old presentation then please attend.

Hosted by the Downtown St. Louis Residents Association, McKee will run through his plan from 6-8PM.

Those attending should ask why the redevelopment agreement lacks safeguards for historic preservation, excludes urban design, establishes no minimum of affordable housing, does not enforce minority participation, allows eminent domain, and actually begins in downtown rather than North St. Louis.

Since Deputy Mayor for Development Barbara Geisman said he didn't need the TIF for some buildings, ask McKee why he didn't start on the Clemens Mansion years ago? If he values historic preservation then why did he allow the collapse?

Considering McKee isn't even rehabbing the Clemens -- rather a co-developer -- I would also ask why Slay and City Officials are congratulating themselves, and McKee, today outside the Clemens Mansion.

Legacy of the Century: Espresso Mod Closed

Culinaria was Slay promoting his friends -- as with the destruction of the Century Building.

It wasn't free market competition. It was huge corporate interests capturing elected officials, using state power (tax credits, threatening competition as with McGowan/Heller) to stymie and end competition. Obviously this happens with politics in the fight over resources determining who gets what, but we should consider the impact of such egregiously hedonistic decisions and resulting inane outcomes that render Downtown ultimately less diverse thereby less attractive.

A 24/7 City requires diverse choice -- a mixture of uses. The impact of Culinaria has limited choice and decreased economic diversity.

Culinaria was a huge mistake. With the closing of Espresso Mod, having been Downtown for 4 years and the eventual decline of City Gourmet, it's omnipresent we've made a mistake ever undermining Downtown's diversity and sense of place. Downtown cannot thrive as a monoculture. Seeking to import Chesterfield at the expense of our small businesses will destroy the identity of Downtown which attracts and encourages residency.

Now I shouldn't only blame Slay, as we have this underlying fetish of trying to attract large corporations under the misguided front of luring suburbanites (as if they will live here simply disregarding our plethora of parking and decades of being behind the ball on residential development Downtown). This occurred with Real Estate Row as Pride of St. Louis Corporation ousted the small businesses residing in those buildings in order to promote their own office buildings -- under the argument that it was economic development promoting the City, attracting new corporations keeping us competitive with suburbia. It didn't and many firms which were here for decades left entirely ironically to the suburbs.

I've been here since 1966, and I think its a shabby way to treat people. It was a straight cold business way of doing things...Palmer says he would like to stay downtown, but like other tenants he may be forced out because of the higher rentals in the newer, more modern buildings, and he may not be the only one.

Charles Vago has the unfortunate distinction of being the newest tenant in the Title Guaranty. I spent a lot of money on this place to rehab it. I don't know how the little guy is going to stay downtwon or come dowtown with these kind of rents.

- Would you like to see this sort of thing destroyed? The Riverfront Times. January 12, 1983.

This project was disguised as promoting choice for Downtown residents -- but in reality we already had a grocery store Downtown. In fact Heller wanted to expand City Grocers into the Syndicate Trust, whereas another grocery store was opening on Washington Avenue. Culinaria was really about enrichment of Schnucks' bottom line. If they cared about economic choice for Downtown residents -- and the success of Downtown -- then why did they close their store immediately north of Downtown in 2000?

Diversity -- not parking garages, bland single use office buildings, and re-packaged chain stores trying and failing to appear unique -- attracts worthwhile corporations and residents. Culinaria is Schnucks. It has no soul. It wasn't entrepreneurial risk taking as Craig Heller and others did more than a decade ago. It has no unique identity, a story to tell, it adds nothing to the collective diversity and place of Downtown. Small businesses do this while their authenticity and scarcity of experience -- like our historic buildings -- attracts because you can't get them everywhere. Employees and corporations from out of town, those we need, don't want a bland Downtown with a surplus of parking and singular economic choice. Downtown devolves into essentially a hybrid; neither a strict office park nor a dense central business district or neighborhood. It falls into neither category with the insufficient critical mass to form an urban residential community, while lacking the true idyllic suburban office park environment categorized by seas of parking, minuscule malnourished foliage, and limited minority presence. Those who want strict urban or suburban really find neither.

We must decide what we want to be because we can't chose both and expect to grow. We can't claim to promote residency then demolish adaptable historic buildings, erect parking garages where condos should be, and drive out businesses which residents supported. St. Louis, if it wants an actual Downtown with life, must then categorically throw out the old model of excessive parking and promote that which provides the 24/7 environment -- what critics have been saying we needed for decades. It's insane. I'm essentially reiterating arguments made in 1975. Why should this even be up for debate!

The recycling of older buildings is important, not because of sentiment, but because it would strengthen the very fabric of downtown. Recycling would reinforce the variety of choice and diversity which is so basic for downtown design and would help create round-the-clock usage of the area. If we allow the leveling of architectural resources for more auto parking and other short-term facilities, we only dilute the heart of this great metropolitan area.

-Preservation and Downtown Design. Walter L. Eschbach. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development St. Louis Area Office. July, 1975.

The downtown area's greatest need is a middle and upper income resident population of abut 30,000..You can't beat Clayton by aping Clayton...Clayton wants a rather sterile, boring kind of place while downtowns offer a certain untidy ferment...downtown areas provide an irreplaceable resource as the center of activity for a metropolitan area -- an estate to which no shopping center can aspire.

-Edmund K. Faltermayer. More People, Not Projects, Are Favored For Downtown. Post Dispatch. April 29, 1975

If Culinaria puts all competition out of business they have market power controlling price -- thus undermining the original arguments for inviting them Downtown (that City Grocers was too expensive). If the City creates political barriers protecting their monopoly over the Downtown market then the situation exacerbates. This was a bad economic decision for consumers and the City, but we all seem to believe Room 200's effective issue framing.

This is an epic failure. We had an organic Downtown developing which offered an experience that my exurban mother commented, and really anyone with capacity understands, didn't exist in our Region. We destroyed our comparative advantage, architectural history and the opportunity for more residents and a lively Old Post Office District, for the careerist ambitions of a Mayor who desires to be another Richard J. Daley. Four consecutive mayoral terms should not come at such a high price which we cannot suffer.

Aforementioned articles appear in Larry Giles' Gateway Mall Scrapbook

$2,500 for Senator Wright-Jones

Yes

STEVE STONE ST. LOUIS, MO

8/19/2009 - - - - - 2500.00

$2,500.00 Monetary

Letter to BOA

I sent this tonight. If the public wants to comment they should do it now.

On the 21st of December 2006 I sent a letter to Mayor Slay, and other elected officials, expressing my distress regarding the mistreatment of our citizens and built environment – at the hands of a millionaire real estate developer Paul McKee. I have followed the issue with rigor, sometimes expressing my disgust and great frustration that this project moves forward. Since McKee began acquisitions, St. Louis has suffered the displacement of residents and the demolition of many previously occupied buildings, all historic and socioeconomic assets providing our Metropolis a comparative advantage over other cities. Paul McKee spoke in Old North St. Louis saying existing businesses will stay and get new services, yet those that watch this project know that's a complete lie.

I constantly ask myself why any St. Louisan of sound mind, with a knowledge of history, can render support for this project. Paul McKee has no experience at developing large scale residential or commercial projects in an occupied area. He places no value upon our historic architecture. Out of the hundreds, he claims that only some 60, or 75-85 buildings will be saved. McKee says he spent $1,500,000 on property maintenance, which happens to be inconsequential when considering the per parcel mean. Barbara Geisman claims that McKee may begin working on the Clemens Mansion without disbursement of TIF financing. If true then McKee should have began rehabilitation efforts years ago after initial acquisition. Why has McKee not released his “legacy property list;” pejorative terminology equating our historic buildings to some geriatric employee that needs to retire due to obsolescence! Most importantly why was Development Strategies able to perform their blighting study of every parcel within the project area without including an historic district survey of every building?

I spoke with Percy Green who claims that we have no enforcement or incentive mechanisms ensuring that McKee reaches the 25% minority employment threshold. A significant amount of these 20,000 permanent and 40,000 construction jobs must go to those who live within and surrounding the project area. St. Louis cannot reach the natural rate of unemployment – and reduce crime – without employing those who reside within concentrated poverty. The St. Louis Region will not progress if the NorthSide becomes erected and sustained through those of higher socioeconomic means at the expense of those who reside in the project area. When the General Motors plant left North St. Louis abandoning its workforce, after decades of manufacturing Corvettes, for Wentzville, the impact was drastic. The opposite must not occur: an able and willing workforce denied the opportunity at economic advancement. The City must enforce the 25% minority employment goal.

Many other ideas exist for improving this project, like having a legacy property list available before the Board of Aldermen approves funding for any project area, placing the entire project area in preservation review, the outright banning of eminent domain, the ability for community housing corporations to receive TIF funding for their own projects, TIF funding going towards the Healthy Home Repair Program in respective wards, inclusionary zoning enumerating a set percentage of affordable housing, and finally that all aspects of this project be monitored by an independent commission consisting of a member elected by the people within the project area and two total appointed by the Board of Alderman and Mayor's Office.

I do not believe much of this will be included in the redevelopment agreement enacted by the Board of Aldermen. Unfortunate since McKee, according to St. Louis Magazine, considers the area to be “ghetto” and that existing rehabbers “nickel-dimed it.” Given McKee's obvious contempt for our community, though inaction and words, the City should place every condition into the final project ensuring it receives well beyond what McKee promises. Nothing must rely upon on good faith as McKee has not earned it.

Best,
Douglas Duckworth