Francis Slay’s Snow Job on the St. Louis Board of Aldermen

February 9, 2010 by thomasaduda

As I drove home from work this evening on a treacherous, snow covered Interstate highway maintained by the State of Missouri and dangerous, icy streets maintained by the St. Louis City Street Department, I could not stop thinking about the September 23, 2009 hearing of the St. Louis City TIF Commission during which the unelected body (under the leadership of Mayor Slay’s appointee David Newburger) recommended to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen approval of Paul McKee’s request for $390 million in our tax money.

With their nearly-unanimous subsequent passage of McKee’s TIF in October 2009, our Aldermen knowingly and willfully set in motion a process that would deny the State of Missouri up to $95 million in tax revenue during its worst-ever budget crisis. That is what a “tax credit” represents, after all–a denial of monetary resources to a government that would otherwise have the capacity to provide a service.

Indeed, Paul Rothstein and Nathan Wineinger’s excellent article, “Transferable Tax Credits in Missouri: An Analytical Review,” states:

Following standard practice in the evaluation of tax policy, the initial assumption is that the tax credit program does not exist and the state budget is balanced. The tax credit is then introduced. This creates a shortfall in revenue that must be met either by a reduction in spending or an increase in other taxes… (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regional Economic Development, 2007, 3(2), pp. 53-74)

Irrespective of ideological differences about the size and proper function of government, I would hope that we can all agree that snow removal is a public good for which taxation is appropriate. Can you imagine how otherwise inefficient and absurd our lives would be if we all needed our own snow plows or required memberships in snow plowing collectives to have passable public streets in the winter? If I failed to pay my monthly dues, would the snow plow skip my block but still plow my neighbor’s?

I am using tonight’s snow as an example of how, whether or not we like government, certain collective needs require both government’s existence and its capacity to address them.

Unfortunately, the Board of Aldermen’s rubber stamp of Paul McKee’s TIF in October 2009 belied any rational analysis of cause and effect. After all, McKee’s request for state money (in the form of a tax credit) that he readily admitted he would use to pay off mortgage debt is a ludicrous public expenditure when tragic cuts to state services are already underway. Since Governor Nixon and Mayor Slay are loath to even ask if voters would prefer slight increases in taxes and fees to the alternative of zero access to public goods, we are, therefore, left to drive on roads that remain unplowed hours after a predicted snowfall occurred.

I am returning to the subject of McKee’s TIF tonight in anticipation of tomorrow’s hearing of the Board of Aldermen’s Ways and Means Committee at 6:30PM in St. Louis City Hall Room 208, because the ease with which our Aldermen grant public dollars to private entities is largely the cause of our City’s present budgetary meltdown. That said, I recognize that our Aldermen also represent the only possible check on Francis Slay’s absolute power in the budget process, in light of President of the Board of Aldermen Lewis Reed’s penchant for silently acquiescing to Francis Slay’s illegitimate dictates.

If we are to have any hope of salvaging our City and protecting our health, we must actively lobby our individual Aldermen to stand up for us while drafting the Fiscal 2011 Budget.

Since I did not have any luck using reason during my appeals in opposition to McKee at the TIF hearing and again at the October hearing of the Board of Aldermen’s Housing, Urban Development, and Zoning Committee, I am curious to hear any and all reader responses to my new tact: trying to identify a raw emotional nerve that will resonate with our Aldermen. My draft appeal–subject to revision–is as follows:

Aldermen, stop letting Francis Slay play you for members of the Vanguard Cabinet.

Approval of McKee’s TIF yielded nothing of value for our Wards, of course, but it benefitted one entity quite handsomely: McKee’s lender for his parcels of land in North City, the Bank of Washington. The Bank of Washington’s president, in addition to being the signatory for a ludicrous financial “commitment” letter for McKee’s delusional $8 billion “development” scheme, is a contributor to Mayor Francis Slay. Do not take my word for it; instead, read it and weep:

Missouri Ethics Commission Contributor Name Search, "Eckelkamp," 2008

Missouri Ethics Commission Contributor Name Search, "Eckelkamp," 2009

Eckelkamp’s $7,500.00 to Slay in exchange for $19.6 million from the State is a pretty good deal, if you ask me. It only happened, though, because our Aldermen acquiesced to the Mayor’s desires.

I hope that they will not do the same in the present budget debate, but I have yet to answer the question of whether any public testimony ever has the capacity to incite them to fulfill their duties as our representatives under the City Charter. We will see.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Board of Aldermen, Ideology Matters, Misplaced Priorities, My man Matt!, Policy Failure, President Reed | Leave a Comment »

Despite St. Louis City’s Fiscal Implosion, Pay-To-Play With Slay Remains Alive and Well: Holcim Inc., Revisited

February 8, 2010 by thomasaduda

It is cliché to quote Rahm Emanuel’s November 2008 contention that leaders should “never allow a crisis to go to waste,” but I do so today because Francis Slay understands this reality better than anyone in St. Louis City government. At present, Slay wants us to accept illogical and draconian budget cuts as the natural consequence of the alleged “crisis” that his actions precipitated. With no irony whatsoever, Slay blithely asserts:

In the last decade….the cost of pensions and health care grew from $18-million to $75-million, a more than 400% increase. Obviously, that was a trend that was going to have to be addressed no matter what sales and property tax revenues where doing. The economy made the problem more acute: and it gave the budget process a real focus…

I do not know about you, but I am uncomfortable with the notion of turning over crisis management to the person who caused the crisis in the first place. I am heartened to see at this early stage in the budget debate that the St. Louis Board of Aldermen’s African American Caucus, too, seems hesitant to rubber stamp budget proposals coming out of the Mayor’s Office. (The African American Caucus did also insist that the Ways and Means Committee of the Board of Aldermen hold its upcoming Wednesday, February 10 hearing at 6:30PM in City Hall Room 208 so that the public might attend.)

Healthy skepticism of Francis Slay’s motives is imperative, given that he views lawmaking at the local level as nothing more than a service provided to the highest bidder.

To this point, the pay-to-play with Slay habit manifests as follows:

  1. A company or individual donates money to Slay’s campaign account.
  2. Tax credits, tax abatements, and tax cuts accrue to the donor.

Pretty simple. In fact, I will go so far as to say that this process is logical. Donors lavish monies on Slay for Mayor under this paradigm, because they profit handsomely with comparatively little investment relative to the costs of earning a profit through a legitimate, market based means. The thinking goes, “Why bother to invest, when profiting through law is a lot cheaper?”

Now, how does pay-to-play with Slay work in an age of austerity?

As far as I can tell, it is quite similar:

  1. A company donates staggering sums to Slay’s campaign account.
  2. The City Department responsible for providing oversight for that company’s operations ends up on the chopping block in the next budget.

Easy enough. Companies–and Slay for Mayor–find ways to profit from city government in bad economic times as well.

Facility Emission Summary, Holcim (US) Inc. St. Louis Terminal, 111 E. Carrie Street, 2005 EPA Air Pollution Data, Map Courtesy of Google Earth

Back in early September when I wrote about my difficulty breathing in St. Louis, I had no idea that the Mayor would seek to reward Holcim Inc. for its more than $10,000.00 in campaign contributions with the complete elimination of the City’s Division of Air Pollution Control by Fiscal 2011.

Holcim Inc., in addition to operating the largest cement plant in the U.S. in Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, also has a St. Louis Terminal on East Carrie Avenue at Hall Street, pictured above at the top left with the white arrow; (the Arch grounds are at the bottom right of the image). Related information about the Holcim St. Louis Terminal’s air pollution comes to us courtesy of the EPA’s “Facility Emission Summaries” Google Earth data set.

When Francis Slay advocates for Missouri to grant St. Louis City local control of the Police while simultaneously suggesting that Missouri assume all responsibilities  for air pollution control presently vested in St. Louis City regulators, you know that something is afoot. Hypocrisy is the surest indication of corruption, and that is why Francis Slay will never be my mayor.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Ideology Matters, Misplaced Priorities, Policy Failure | 1 Comment »

Make Your Voice Heard: Wednesday, February 10 at 6:30PM

February 7, 2010 by thomasaduda

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen’s Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing in Room 208 of St. Louis City Hall this Wednesday, February 10, at 6:30PM to discuss possible “adjustments” to the City’s Budget for the 2011 fiscal year.

As of today, no elected official has deigned to proffer any explanation whatsoever for their present effort to gut more than $40 million from the Fiscal 2011 Budget. Jeff Rainford, an unelected assistant to Mayor Francis Slay, allegedly (the following quote comes from his “prepared remarks”) asserted to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen on November 17, 2009 that:

State and local governments across the country are facing a one-two-three punch: declining revenues because of the global recession, declining state aid because they have their own budget problems, and increased pension obligations because of the stock market crash last year….
Rainford’s statement continued and hit upon essentially one theme: compensation costs for city employees are out of control and the only solution will be to cut items from the budget.

On January 18, 2010, MayorSlay.com posted what it labeled “a draft budget document being considered by St. Louis Aldermen” under the headline “Building The Next City Budget.” The draft, dated January 15, 2010, proposes certain line item reductions in city government spending, with cost savings enumerated adjacent to each item. Unfortunately, many of the “possibilities” on the list are so vague and poorly understood as to render judgement on their potential for cost savings nearly impossible. I wish that I were making this up, but our Aldermen–at the behest of our Mayor–are presently debating cuts of indeterminate size and effect.

"Building the Next City Budget," MayorSlay.com, January 15, 2009 DRAFT

I think that there are important questions to which the public deserves answers prior to our engagement in the effort to reduce government spending on our needs.

Firstly, why are projected cuts in FY 2011 so great? Were not reduced revenues and increased costs for non-discretionary spending items eminently foreseeable problems? Did any of our elected officials, including Mayor Francis Slay and Aldermen in odd-numbered Wards, intentionally ignore opportunities to address structural imbalances in the City’s budget during the 2009 election year? How can anyone assert with any intellectual honesty that the recession is the sole cause of reduced tax revenues, when tax abatement is such a widespread practice by the Board of Aldermen?

Secondly, why are only cuts being proposed? Other cities, most notably Columbus, Ohio, responded to temporary budget shortfalls and long-term structural imbalances between city revenues and expenditures with revenue enhancements commensurate with their budget deficits. I recognize that we have a one-party system of government in St. Louis City, yet I cannot fathom how our nominal Democrats at the local level reconcile their policy positions with the values expressed in the Party’s platform. Prioritizing support for big business and developers over providing services to residents seems anathema to my understanding of the Democratic Party as a representative body for those with little individual power.

Thirdly, how will any of the proposed cuts in FY 2011 address the city’s long-term deficits? If pension and healthcare costs are truly growing ceaselessly, then I have a very difficult time accepting that cuts now to essential services will provide a sustainable solution to this problem. Pensions constitute obligatory expenditures that the City cannot cut. Bonded indebtedness, too, constitutes another inflexible spending obligation. Why, when our elected officials are well aware of these realities, does Francis Slay insist on eliminating Park Rangers, closing Recreation Centers, and reducing twice-weekly trash collection to once a week?

St. Louis Board of Aldermen Calendar Letter for the Week Ending February 12, 2010

We can thank Aldermen French for providing a transcript of the January 26, 2010 hearing of the Board of Aldermen’s Ways and Means Committee about the Mayor’s proposed cuts. Despite Alderman French’s assertion that the transcript in and of itself represents a measure of transparency in the budget process, the transcript essentially offers the public no information of value. I will not say that I wasted an hour and a half reading the musings of our elected officials, but I will not admit to having gained much from the document either.

Ironically, the transcript simultaneously does and does not elucidate what I find to be most troublesome and galling about the current budget debate–it is completely nebulous. Many of the most controversial cuts proposed and ultimate consequences of the current debate’s framing are not even in the public domain. In fact, our Aldermen are reviewing a separate set of proposed cuts than those published on MayorSlay.com. Do not take my word for it; instead, please review the following annotated draft of cuts dated January 26, 2010 (my annotations).

Representative Page, Annotated Draft of Proposed City Budget Cuts, Dated January 26, 2010

Items present on the Board of Aldermen’s January 26 list of proposed cuts missing from Mayor Slay’s draft dated January 15 include the following:

  • “Retain cable TV but explore enterprise,” Public Utilities – $164,000
  • “Eliminate monthly/spring/fall bulk pickup,” Streets/Traffic/Refuse – ???
  • “Eliminate leaf pickup,” Streets/Traffic/Refuse – ???
  • “Eliminate six (6) NSOs,” Public Safety – Building/Other – $428,571
  • “Eliminate Air Pollution – State to perform,” Health – $450,000
  • “Consolidate City/County health functions,” Health – ???

I find it appalling that anyone in elective office even thinks that it is acceptable to discuss eliminating bulk trash collection, ceasing enforcement of air pollution regulations, and decimating the health department, when our Aldermen and Mayor continue to worsen our fiscal outlook through their indiscriminate approval of tax abatements.

Furthermore, the entire budget debate is rather galling, because none of the proposed actions on either the January 15 or January 26 documents actually addresses the root causes of the budget problem as articulated by the Mayor’s mouthpiece, Jeff Rainford. I fear that Francis Slay is either playing a game with our Aldermen or that our Aldermen are complicit in Slay’s scheme to privatize the delivery of all government services. Since public employees are the whipping boys of choice for Rainford/Callow/Geisman’s indiscretions, the only logical way to solve the budget crisis as articulated by their skewed narrative will be to reduce the number of employees for which the City pays health insurance and pension costs. A flurry of new private contracts granted by the city will incidentally offer all elected officials another means of extorting campaign funds as well.

I often call Francis Slay by any number of different names, but I will return to the monikers “uninformed or delusional” in response to the wishful thinking he spewed on February 4, 2010. His asinine ravings, entitled “Budget Process,” include the following gems: “Until the global economy collapsed, the City of St. Louis did not have a revenue problem….We did, however, have a pension and health care problem.”

Assuming that what he asserts is correct, why did Francis Slay do nothing to address said “pension” and “health care” “problem[s]?” Why do his proposed budget cuts still do nothing to address the “problems” that he identifies? How can we treat the Mayor with any deference, when his actions and words are patently illogical?

I do not need any further evidence for Slay’s paternalism, irresponsibility, and tragic incompetence than his following statement from February 4th:

“This is not going to be an easy task, but it is necessary, inevitable — and sort of exciting.“

Sentencing generations of St. Louisans to lives with asthma and no access to public health service is apparently “exciting” for Francis Slay.

Slay is not my mayor for a reason, after all. He does not seem to grasp the basic reality that a government requires revenue to function.

Let the Ways and Means Committee know this Wednesday at 6:30PM that you understand what is at stake in the budget crisis better than Francis Slay does.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arrogance of Incumbency, Board of Aldermen, Does He Read What He Writes?, Ideology Matters, Misplaced Priorities, Policy Failure, President Reed, Tax Burden | 2 Comments »

Unemployment Numbers Remained Abysmal in December

February 5, 2010 by thomasaduda

What a terrible year. New Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that December was the eighth month in a row that the number of unemployed persons in St. Louis City exceeded 15,000.

Unemployed in St. Louis, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2009-December 2009

For some, however, 2009 was a banner year.

I hope that 2010 brings brighter days for residents of our community desperately seeking work, but I cannot say that I am optimistic. After all, Francis Slay and his ilk do not believe in compensating persons for their labor or creating jobs. But they sure have a knack for “development.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arrogance of Incumbency, Board of Aldermen, Does He Read What He Writes?, Ideology Matters, Misplaced Priorities, Policy Failure, President Reed, Transcendent | Leave a Comment »

Can the City’s 2009 CAFR Help Us to Identify Misplaced Priorities?

February 3, 2010 by thomasaduda

I wish that I had a mind for numbers. Ever since meeting my match in Calculus II as a high school senior and again as a college freshman, I made a decision to follow the path of least resistance and stick to pictures and words. Unfortunately for non-number people like me, numbers have an hegemony that stands unique in our culture. One needs only look at the national uproar over President Obama’s proposed Federal budget for 2011 to see what I mean. Frankly, nothing could push Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s actions during the State of the Union Address off of the front pages like numbers on a page.

But what about the numbers on a page closer to home? What really are the key figures in the City’s present budget debates–$45 million? $10 million? $15,197,028?

If you’re like me, the numbers themselves are devoid of meaning. They’re disembodied abstractions of something more, of something that hits closer to home. I’m going to quote one of my three favorite Cornell professors, a staunch Republican and former professional county manager from New York’s Southern Tier, who declared often and succinctly that “a budget is a statement of values.”

Bingo. Now, that’s what these debates are really all about.

My basic understanding of accounting and budgeting is as follows:

  1. There are two sides to an accountant’s balance sheet: income and expenditure.
  2. A budget is a document that allocates funds according to priorities and needs.
  3. Budgets are based off of expectations, which may prove accurate or inaccurate.

As I said, I am not a numbers person, so I try to stick to the values component of the equation. I do recognize, however, that we must map our values on society and in a budget according to structural constraints. That’s why I excoriated Francis Slay in my last post. (Mayor Slay seems loath to admit that there really are limits to his power: namely, that pension costs are obligatory expenditures, and as such they have the potential to crowd out discretionary spending.)

This brings us to another wrinkle in the budget process. As much as some wish that we could start from scratch every year with the budget, we simply cannot. Budgets are planning documents that tie past promises, present needs, and future expectations into a coherent and balanced narrative of numbers.

Sigh.

As much as I hoped to avoid getting into the minutiae of the City’s budget, I really can’t do justice to present debates without a partial (this is notmymayor.com, after all) analysis of the values embedded within St. Louis City’s annual spending plan. The object of the following brief and wholly inadequate analysis, then, is the City of St. Louis’s 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, also known as a CAFR, available here. It’s a one-stop shop that accounts for every dollar that came into the city and every dollar that went out for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

Here’s the first discretionary spending item that caught my eye:

St. Louis City 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 3

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, the City of St. Louis added $26.6 million in TIF liabilities (an expenditure) to its balance sheet. TIF, of course, is free money for developers that is anything but for the City, as evidenced by the fact that the City receives no equity (or “related asset”) in projects for which it grants a TIF.

City of St. Louis 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 93

At present, the City of St. Louis has more than $160 million in TIF liabilities on the books. These obligations will consume monies that would otherwise go toward different spending priorities, like trash service.

City of St. Louis 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 94

As I said before, a budget does more than speak to the present; it simultaneously must look both backward and forward. If we are reading page 94 correctly, then the City will spend more money on retiring TIF bonds in its present (2010) fiscal year ($17,152,000) than it budgeted for trash service ($15,197,028). If we are reading page 94 correctly, then we face a catastrophic TIF disaster beginning in 2015, when promises made today come due.

Now, since “a budget is a statement of values,” we should pause to consider what exactly this “free money” for developers is buying–unfair competition for existing businesses, which cannot help but to shutter and vacate our community in search of a just and level economic playing field. (Unless you are the direct beneficiary of TIF funds, you are sorely out of luck when it comes to finding a silver lining in this particular component of the City’s budget.)

Shifting gears, what is happening on the revenue side of the equation? Isn’t our unemployment crisis and ensuing drop off in tax revenues largely to blame for the City’s present inability to fund basic services for residents?

If only it were that simple.

Tragically, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen is continuing its appallingly unjust practice of tax abatement week after week after week, yet you do not see the effects of these abatements reported in the CAFR. Monies willfully forgone and ultimately uncollected are simply missing from the discussion. Our Aldermen remain silent on this matter, because they quite like the power of granting favors to their friends. Who really wants to pay taxes, anyway? If you are friends with your Alderman, you don’t have to!

I know that some choose to interpret my writings as bluster and that others feel that I am brusque. At the end of the fiscal year, however, I cannot stop from calling budgetary indiscretions as I see them–the products of decisions made by those who nominally represent us.

Employee pensions are not the cause of our budget crisis, as missing leadership is the true root of all problems.

But then again, feel free to disagree; I don’t have a mind for numbers.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Board of Aldermen, Ideology Matters, My man Matt!, Policy Failure, President Reed | 3 Comments »

Public Pension Systems Fully Considered

February 1, 2010 by thomasaduda

I generally try to make it a rule that I do not respond to the plaintive drivel spewed from MayorSlay.com. On occasion, however, the statements and assertions advanced by the depraved soul inhabiting Room 200 at St. Louis City Hall are so ridiculous as to require an immediate and forceful response.

Yesterday, a seemingly innocuous post, “Public Pension Systems Considered,” appeared on the personal website of our great leader. The text, comprised of nothing more than a few bullet points intended to elicit sympathy for Francis during this time of draconian and undemocratic budget cuts, boils down to the following statement: “Because of opposition from the employee groups….the costs borne City residents [sic] for [our pension] systems will continue to increase without check.”

Now, I first wrote about Francis Slay and Lewis Reed’s anti-worker ideology back on October 2, 2009, when I stated that they intended to blame public employee compensation for the City’s horrendous budget outlook. Then and now, I reject as absurd the contention that the same City workers responsible for providing public services in the manner directed by our local government could bear any responsibility whatsoever for the City’s missing and diminishing revenues. We have plenty of revenue sources on the books, but thanks to the skewed ideologies and world views of Aldermen like Lyda Krewson, Kacie Starr Triplett, and others, the City passes laws each week that selectively absolve certain of our community’s residents and non-residents of their tax liabilities. Beyond inefficiencies and accounting failures, these are the primary causes for the City’s budget implosion:

  1. Tax abatement, which hurts schools, libraries, and the City’s bottom line.
  2. Tax Increment Financing, which is a complete sham from an economic development standpoint.
  3. Special deals, which are apparently available only to those who hold fundraisers for Francis Slay.

Francis Slay does not talk about any of these as determinants of the budget problem, though, since drawing attention to the currency he uses to extort campaign contributions might actually cause City residents to question who Francis Slay truly represents. Instead, Francis whines about structural constraints on his power (without actually naming them) as a substitute for providing leadership.

Alright, let’s consider some of Francis’s bullet points from yesterday:

  • The City Employees pension cost went from $7 million a year early in the last decade to $61 million a year this year. (For perspective, the entire General Fund budget is $450 million.)
  • In 2000, taxpayers spent an average $43,000 to compensate each City employee. Today, taxpayers are spending $68,000 per employee, an increase of 58 percent, much of it for increased pension costs (and their cousin, health care costs).
  • The City’s $61 million a year pension cost will increase by an additional $11 million next year.

Sounds pretty awful, doesn’t it?  Until you consider what really happened, that is.

  • In 1999, Francis Slay sponsored and orchestrated the passage of Ordinance 64833, which increased the City’s pension liabilities.
  • Per the usual, Slay had no intention of putting money where his mouth is, and the City did not appropriate enough money to fund its pensions.
  • In 2006, the Police and Fire Retirement Systems filed separate lawsuits against the City to require that the City fulfill its promises.
  • On March 13, 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “actuarial soundness” must govern the City’s management of its pension funds (Cases No. 87976 & 87877).
  • At that time, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously rejected the following argument by the City: “The City contends that paying the amounts certified cannot be done without exceeding its revenues because it has already appropriated and transferred the funds for the fiscal years at issue.”

The City had to scramble to find a solution to its problem. Lewis Reed and Stephen Conway sponsored Ordinance 67774, which placed the following tax increase proposition before the voters:

Shall the City of St. Louis impose a sales tax at a rate of one half of one percent, solely for the purpose of providing revenues for the operation of public safety departments of the city including hiring more police officers, police and firefighter compensation, prosecuting more criminals, nuisance crimes and problem properties, and funding police and fire pensions?

On February 5, 2008, City voters approved the sales tax increase (“City voters back sales tax, safety Half-cent measure will help fund police, firefighter pensions, add officers,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 7, 2008). At no point following its passage did the Mayor express the view that perhaps the tax increase would prove insufficient. To the contrary, Slay commended City voters for their actions: “I think it really demonstrates that the people of St. Louis have a lot of respect for and support for the police officers and firefighters of our town.” Comptroller Darlene Green took a markedly different stance: “What we have now is a short-term fix for a long-term problem” (qtd. in ibid.).

Now that the City’s long-term problems have become a political nightmare for many of our elective office holders, we need leadership, not whining. That’s why Francis Slay will never be my mayor.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

A Continuing Infatuation: The Privatization of St. Louis City’s Resources, With Francis Slay and Lewis Reed at the Helm

January 31, 2010 by thomasaduda

…The creation of a separate, limited purpose government providing a particular service to the payers….can add to the complex nature of local governance and may ultimately make local government less accountable to local residents…

The turn to non-tax revenue sources also tends to reduce the ability of states and local governments to engage in redistributive programs. The key…is that they provide the payers with a benefit at least equal to their payments (or to the social costs imposed by the payer’s behavior). By definition, this precludes the use of fees and assessments to finance broadly redistributive activities. Assessments and fees enable those willing and able to pay for higher levels of service for themselves to do so, but services for the poor must be funded out of general, redistributive taxation, and those taxes are more likely to be subject to constitutional restrictions. This, however, may well be consistent with the goals of those who favor tax limitation.

-Richard Briffault, Vice-Dean and Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law School, ”The Disfavored Constitution: State Fiscal Limits and State Constitutional Law,” 34 Rutgers Law Journal (Summer 2003): 907

Back in 2007, far too many people with whom I discussed the upcoming Democratic Primary for President of the St. Louis Board of Alderman informed me that they intended to vote for Lewis Reed, because he was “more progressive” than Jim Shrewsbury. When pressed, few could articulate what their words or inclination meant in real life, with the exception of some who cited Reed’s “support” for painting bike lanes on streets that have not received a new coat of asphalt in decades. Since his time in office on the City’s Board of Estimate and Apportionment, Lewis Reed has exceeded the expectations that I developed for him from the moment I first saw “Reed” signs on Pyramid Construction’s Jefferson Arms Building downtown in 2007. Frankly, who knew that Lewis would end up proudly accepting $30,000.00 in campaign contributions from Rex Sinquefield, a man whose “Show-Me Institute” has the following as its mission:

Advancing liberty with responsibility

by promoting market solutions

for Missouri public policy.

What could be more “progressive” than dismantling the social safety net through the guise of “promoting market solutions?” I mean, clearly we should welcome any attempt to alter long-standing public policy agreements, because such alterations–irrespective of their content–represent bold efforts at forming a more perfect union. Just as Francis Slay “tries to do the best for our city,” Lewis Reed tries his darnedest as well. We just shouldn’t ever interrogate what “best” means for longtime residents. (Sarcasm intended.)

I started thinking about Lewis Reed, Francis Slay, and others who take money from Rex Sinquefield recently while reviewing the history of special tax assessments in the United States. A few years back, I read Robert Fogelson’s Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, 1880-1950 and did not really think much of it. I revisited the book this weekend, though, and found that I correctly recalled that it touches upon the history of special tax assessments as a mechanism for funding public improvements. Fogelson’s brief mentions of “special assessments” are primarily in the context of city funding for rail transit improvements during the 1910s and 1920s.

Bike St. Louis, January 2010

The theory around the turn of the century and onward was that a “special assessment” represented a means of capturing a share of increased property value associated with the construction of a specific public improvement. For example, properties bordering a street that just received a new coat of asphalt might pay a “special assessment” for the asphalt that properties a few blocks away would avoid. Despite the attempts of property owners to challenge these taxes in state courts, courts rarely found that “special assessments” violated requirements for tax uniformity; a clear rationale exists for capturing a greater share from some than from others of the increased value that accrues to property owners from a public improvement.

Fast-forward to Missouri in 1998. The Community Improvement District Act arrived on the scene and appeared to represent an extension of past efforts to assess nearby property owners for the costs of improvements that primarily benefit them. I already outlined the convoluted process that one must follow to establish a Community Improvement District, and I identified many of the costs to consumers associated with CIDs and TDDs on my draft map, available here. What I have yet to do is to interrogate the following matters: 1.) what constitutes an allowable CID “improvement” expenditure and 2.) who pays for the CID?

Now, if we consider the history of “special assessments,” we see some similarities to Community Improvement Districts but also some important differences. Firstly, a Community Improvement District assessment is made solely at the discretion of the Community Improvement District’s Board of Directors (with rubber stamp district “voter” approval), as a CID represents an independent governmental entity. Secondly, the CID Board again has sole discretion to identify which “improvements” it deems necessary for funding and then uses whatever means it deems appropriate to effectuate them. Finally, a CID has authority to levy a sales tax–precisely the kind of tax that visitors to the district pay as opposed to the kind of tax that district property owners pay.

Contrast how CIDs function with the classic example of a “special assessment” for new asphalt: in the new asphalt scenario, the City identifies a street in poor condition, proceeds to repave it, and then levies a special assessment for the costs of the pavement on all of the property owners whose parcels abut the street. The City maintains agency throughout the entire process and ultimately remains accountable to those residing within its limits for the decisions that it makes. A CID does not operate with the same level of accountability, however, as the local governing body of the community that approves the CID cedes all of the local government’s authority (as permitted by the CID Act) to a five-member CID Board of Directors. When the Board of Directors of a CID comprises members of a private developer’s team, we see some interesting interpretations of what constitutes a “public improvement.” (Read: developers use CID proceeds to pad their pockets and to pay their attorneys; they do not use them to benefit the public.)

Like any system of law, language or intention are not the determinants of its effect on people; rather those persons responsible for implementing each provision of the law bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that it functions in a manner consistent with our collective value systems.

On this note, the Grove and South Grand CIDs represent the only two Community Improvement Districts in St. Louis City that appear to function at all as one would hope under a plain reading of the Missouri CID Act. That said, even if CIDs work at all as one would expect, they still undermine any sense of equity that I believe we must collectively strive to achieve in the pursuit of a healthy functioning democracy and local government. Stop for a moment to consider that not every neighborhood has a CID. How is it that certain areas of our community receive better services than others? Is imposition of a regressive tax truly the solution to an inequity?

Rex Sinquefield and those whom he bankrolls most certainly believe so, since prioritizing economic efficiency above all else necessarily means that equity falls by the wayside.

(Incidentally, a Federal judge recently declared part of the Missouri CID Act unconstitutional on the grounds that the law violates equal protection rights for voters; the case was Day et al. v. Robinwood West Community Improvement District, 4:08-cv-1888.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Board of Aldermen, Ideology Matters, Platform for Change, President Reed | Leave a Comment »

Listen to My Interview on KDHX’s “Collateral Damage”

January 29, 2010 by thomasaduda

KDHX 88.1 FM is a community treasure, because it represents an honest forum for open expression. I was a guest on D.J. Wilson’s “Collateral Damage” on Monday, January 25. You can listen to the interview here. Please feel free to email me or post a comment with any questions or feedback.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in St. Louis in the Media | Leave a Comment »

A Model of Transparency: The Grove CID

January 29, 2010 by thomasaduda

Like the South Grand CID, the Grove CID works as Missouri law intends–it offers local property owners, with the approval of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, an opportunity to assess up to a one percent sales tax for special improvements in the Grove Community Improvement District’s geographic area. I call the Grove CID a model of transparency, because unlike dozens of other special taxing districts and independent governmental entities in St. Louis City, the Grove has a website that offers those curious about its operations easy access to the following:

  1. A copy of its petition to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen to incorporate.
  2. A link to St. Louis Ordinance 68107, which legitimates the Grove CID.
  3. Links to its annual budget, approved by the CID’s Board of Directors.
  4. Photos of improvements purportedly made with CID funds.
  5. Announcements of future CID Board meetings and minutes from past meetings.

On balance, the Grove CID is everything City taxpayers and residents could hope for and more.

Contrast the Grove CID’s transparency with the Cozens/MLK/Grand CID, and you immediately see a striking difference. Koman Properties, the developer whose property owning affiliates petitioned the St. Louis Board of Aldermen for incorporation of the Cozens/MLK/Grand CID, does not bother to provide online public access to any of the information that the Grove CID offers free to the public on its website. When I sought access to the Cozens/MLK/Grand CID’s incorporation petition and annual financial report, I needed to request the information from the City Register’s Office at City Hall. I could also have placed my request directly to the address of record for the Cozens/MLK/Grand CID, but this information is absent from the overly broad Ordinance 67435 sponsored by License Collector Michael McMillan during his time as an ambitious Alderman. The problem with requesting documents from the City Register may be obvious, however: it takes valuable time from our city employees and it ultimately requires that the consumer pay for photocopies.

If Francis Slay and his Aldermanic henchmen like Lyda Krewson cared about government transparency or providing equitable public services, then we would necessarily have much more stringent reporting requirements for CIDs and TDDs approved by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. Alas, we are on our own and the only message that I can interpret from Francis Slay’s capricious public policies is that of Buyer Beware.

Stay tuned for a future post that will touch upon the history of special taxing assessments in U.S. cities.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arrogance of Incumbency, Board of Aldermen, Ideology Matters, Platform for Change, Policy Failure, Solutions | 1 Comment »

Francis Slay’s Hostility to Full Gay Rights, In His Own Words

January 28, 2010 by thomasaduda

I lived in San Francisco following the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in May 2008 that the state’s denial of marriage rights to same sex couples violated the California Constitution’s equal protection clause. Gay marriages occurred by the dozens every day of the summer that I spent as an intern at the architectural firm of Page & Turnbull, and with the exception of occasional protestors downtown and on the Muni, I had the distinct sense that gay marriage was no big deal to the vast majority of Californians with whom I interacted on a daily basis.

Market Street, Downtown San Francisco, June 2008, © Thomas Duda

That is not to say, of course, that gay marriage was a non-issue. Equal marriage rights meant everything to many couples who spent decades unable to garner or even to hope for state recognition of their relationships. For selfish and bigoted folks alike, gay marriage also represented an opportunity to mobilize voters through the initiative petition process.

To me as a young twenty something from Missouri, I only really thought about California marriage rights when I attended a meeting of the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board at City Hall. There, I witnessed many beaming couples sporting rainbow cummerbunds exchanging vows in one of the most attractive public buildings in the United States. But even then, I cared more about rocking out to Cyndi Lauper, who was the Grand Marshall of Pride that year. I was young, and I had no idea that Proposition 8 would become a rallying cry across our nation. I just wanted to have fun.

My primary political effort that summer was to find a California Notary who would attest to my identity on my absentee ballot for Missouri State Senate. I was truly desperate to have my vote for Robin Wright-Jones counted, as Rodney “the Republican” Hubbard was as hostile to progressive causes as anyone to ever seek elective office from St. Louis City. Although I did little to actively defeat Proposition 8, I thought that investing in an effort back home in Missouri made the most sense. After all, Proposition 8 was unique to California, or so I thought.

I’m waxing nostalgic for my time as a resident of a vibrant city with progressive leadership, excellent public transportation, and many job opportunities, because Francis Slay is now pretending to support gay marriage.

“NOH8,” dated January 20, 2010, is a MayorSlay.com blog post that features a picture of the Mayor with a piece of duct tape over his mouth and the words “NO” “H8″ written in marker on his left cheek. My friend clued me in on the “NOH8″ campaign, because frankly I am not up to date on how straight politicians are choosing to pander these days. Apparently, Francis Slay believes that following in Cindy McCain’s footsteps by posing for a “NOH8″ picture is a great way to deflect attention from his past statements on gay rights, his silence at present on how to achieve legal recognition for gays in Missouri, and his administration’s appalling record of human oppression.

Firstly, I find it amusing that a mayor who buys his way to reelection now wants to speak out against Proposition 8, an effort whose success, too, was the consequence of large money contributions. Francis, you are two years too late and completely out of touch.

Secondly, I am curious to know if the image of Francis Slay purporting to support equal marriage rights represents a change in his anti-marriage viewpoint, which Richard Callow so callously articulated as follows:

May 26, 2009, MayorSlay.com, “No H8 Rally”

…Same-sex marriage is currently so illegal in Missouri that it would take a combination of actions by the General Assembly, a popular petition, a convention, a statewide vote, and the signature of the governor to change our laws.

I do not think that is going happen easily in Missouri — or soon — even though I do not believe that legalizing such unions would hurt society, the civil institution of marriage, the state of Missouri, or anyone in particular.

As a practical person, I would rather spend my efforts ensuring that certain benefits — i.e., joint ownership, survivorship, medical decision making — are available to all Missouri couples…

Now, I will deconstruct the above remarks, but let’s see how and when Mayor Slay chooses to weigh in on “gay issues” at other times (starting with the most recent first):

December 3, 2009, MayorSlay.com, “Violent Crimes Fueled by Hate”

I recently met with a couple of young men who were injured in a fracas in a parking lot shared by a local nightclub popular in the gay community and a bar popular with a local college crowd. The injuries sustained by some of the young men were serious enough to require medical attention.

Not every act of violence against a gay person is a hate crime, but what happened outside the Complex Night Club had the elements: unprovoked confrontation, anti-gay slurs, a speedy exit before authorities arrived….

St. Louis is a gay-friendly city. We are proud of our diversity. We will not, as a community, tolerate violence — especially, violence fueled by hate. I have gay siblings; I particularly deplore these acts of violence…

April 30, 2009, MayorSlay.com, “HR 1913″

It is disappointing to read US Rep. Roy Blunt’s comments critical of proposed federal legislation that would grant greater protections for gay victims of violence…

February 9, 2009, MayorSlay.com, “Why Isn’t J-Mo on the Committee?”

I donʼt always see eye to eye with state representative Jeanette Mott Oxford. If, however, she has been excluded from a special legislative committee in Jefferson City because of her sexual orientation, then I strongly agree with her that a mistake has been made…

July 19, 2006, MayorSlay.com, “A Positive Step”

…Some of the state’s most at-risk children could benefit from new regulations issued by the Missouri Department of Social Services. The new regulations will allow gays to be licensed as foster parents…

January 10, 2006, MayorSlay.com, “Mayor’s Remarks to Biz Journal”

…First, though, here’ s what we don’t need to do:

•Defeating the stem cell initiative would be a bad thing

•Failing to fund education — grade schools, high schools, and colleges — would be a bad thing

•Cutting back on economic development initiatives, like the historic tax credit, would be a bad thing

•Making the state less welcoming to new Americans, to gays, to seniors, and to children would be bad things, and

•Overly restricting the ability of local governments to revitalize blighted areas would be a very bad thing….

November 8, 2005, MayorSlay.com, “A Friendly Place”

…MayorSlay.com will speculate that a bunch of good clubs and restaurants, PrideFest, Mardi Gras, the Mayor’s Ball, a community of gay-owned businesses, a well-read gay newspaper, friendly churches, a good City vote on a bad constitutional amendment, a domestic partnership registry, housing and employment protections in the civil rights code, some progressive local employers, and inclusive personnel and benefits polices for City employees all contributed to the listing [as one of 50 Fabulous Gay-Friendly Places to Live].

April 29, 2005, MayorSlay.com, “State of the City Address”

…One element central to our City’s renaissance is our willingness to celebrate our diversity. We are very different from the rest of our state. We live in neighborhoods and historic buildings unmatched in the region. We are older, younger, gayer, blacker, hipper, and more traveled than our neighbors…

Okay, so as of May 2009, Francis Slay, through his ghastly and not so secret ghost writer, Richard Callow, implicitly deplored the actions of Missourians who seek equal marriage rights. Stating his belief that such efforts are not “practical,” Francis Slay signaled to his campaign contributors that they should not expect him to support gay marriage in Missouri. Instead of saying that he believes that gay marriage will benefit society, Slay frames the matter as follows: “I do not believe that legalizing such unions would hurt society.” There is a huge difference between an endorsement and puff, with Francis Slay instead opining offensively with puff.

Again, if you look closely at the words that Slay uses to express his “support” for gay rights, you notice some striking patterns. Often, Slay deploys mentions of “gays” in St. Louis City to bolster his credentials as a champion of “diversity.” Despite his nearly decade long time in office as Mayor, however, Slay has never taken steps to incorporate gays into positions of power at the local level; to the contrary, he patronizingly cut State Representative Jeanette Mott Oxford down while absolving State Republican leaders of any responsibility for having denied Representative Mott Oxford a seat on the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families through his use of the passive voice, “…a mistake has been made.” In other words, assertive gays need not apply for a seat on the vanguard cabinet.

Another pattern in Francis Slay’s public pronouncements about gay rights is his odd need to provide commentary about matters for which he bears no responsibility, namely state administrative decisions and pending federal legislation. It really means a lot to me as a gay St. Louisan to have a Mayor who pays a public relations firm more than $50,000.00 a year to write blog posts expressive of support for my interests at levels of government where Slay holds no power.

In reality, Francis Slay’s support for gay rights really boils down to the following–he doesn’t believe that I should be the victim of violence because of my sexual orientation, even though he admits that someone might want to slug me for other reasons such that the violent act would not necessarily constitute a hate crime. As Slay said in 2006, “Making the state less welcoming…to gays…would be bad.” And hate crimes, according to Slay, are bad.

Slay “supports gay rights” just like Jeff Smith “supported gay rights”–by paying lip service and never putting any political capital on the line. The issue that matters most to me is Missouri’s need for enhanced Employment Nondiscrimination, Housing Nondiscrimination, and Public Accommodation Nondiscrimination laws at the state level. Francis Slay remains silent where it matters, despite having more than enough leverage at his disposal to get what he wants.

Imagine if Francis Slay told his cronies at the St. Louis RCGA that they should not expect any more public money unless or until they stand up for nondiscrimination in Missouri.

That would be a game-changer.

Imagine if Francis Slay told his campaign contributors that he cannot accept funds from those opposed to marriage equality.

That would be a game-changer.

Imagine if Francis Slay pushed Joseph Keaveny into supporting nondiscrimination as Corrupt Keaveny’s  number one legislative priority, instead of trying to wrest hundreds of millions in dollars away from the Police Pension Fund.

That would be a game-changer.

Instead, Francis Slay chooses to be a poser claiming not to hate. But what he fails to say is that he has no respect. He’s just too “practical” for that.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Arrogance of Incumbency | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries