Thursday, March 11, 2010
Sustainability
Developing and maintaining a sustainable community is vitally important, and we know that a vibrant economy, strong social fabric, and environmental quality are essential components of a healthy, livable, sustainable community.
Here in the City of St. Louis, we’re lucky to have a number of features that are inherently sustainable.
We have great access to public transportation (though the system’s future hangs in the balance of the county’s April 6 election); wonderful mixed-use neighborhoods that make it possible to walk to work and to dining and entertainment opportunities; an earned reputation as a great place for bicycling; and buildings with strong bones and great architecture, well placed in intact historic neighborhoods, that can be reused.
(Reusing these existing buildings and the infrastructure that supports them is THE most sustainable building technique. It saves material, saves energy, and rejuvenates entire neighborhoods.)
As we make use of our existing sustainable features, it is essential that we move forward with additional initiatives - with recycling, with more cycling enhancements, with energy efficiency improvements in our municipal buildings, and with new partnerships with the private sector that encourage their sustainable practices.
There is a lot at stake.
For the first decade in a long time, we are growing our population. Many of our downtown’s buildings, once used for manufacturing and offices, now house young professionals, families, and empty nesters. These people have been drawn to our City’s center because of the many attractions and amenities City living offers – and they like the fact that their “new” homes have rich histories. Most importantly, they are drawn to us because we are the most sustainable place in our region. So, it is essential that continue to reward their investment with our actions.
Beyond the city limits, there are additional challenges.
Air quality and water quality issues do not respect geopolitical boundaries. These are regional issues that we all need to address together. That is a fact that President Obama, HUD Secretary Ron Sims, and HUD’s new Director of the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, Shelley Poticha, clearly recognized when they chose St. Louis last week to talk about federal grants to promote regional sustainability.
St. Louis County executive Charlie Dooley and I have been talking for a while about new partnerships. Sustainability is at the top of our list.
|
Thursday, March 11, 2010
What Will Become Of The Admiral?
To the list of questions without immediate answers (What is going on at the Missouri Gaming Commission? Why is there any serious consideration being given to a plan to put a casino adjacent to the Confluence of the Rivers?), please add the following: What will become of the landmark (but decrepit) Admiral riverboat?
|
Friday, March 5, 2010
Workerbee
Several members of Congress, including Rep. Sam Graves of northwest Missouri, have proposed replacing the image of former President Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill with that of former President Ronald Reagan.
I am – at least for purposes of a blog argument - willing to horse trade with the congressmen.
Put the Gipper’s visage on the fifty, but put Grant’s name on the new Mississippi River Bridge, which was designated the Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Bridge by the Missouri General Assembly in August, 2005.
Grant, as every St. Louisan knows, was a St. Louis businessman and county resident (“Grant’s Farm”). The US Grant Bridge seems fitting, right?
|
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Residency Rule
The history of the City’s residency rule is interesting. It was first imposed because we could, then retained because we had to. The current situation of requiring most employees (veteran police officers and some specialty employees are exempted) to live within the city limits is somewhere between the two. I personally agree that City employees should accept residency as a condition of employment, but I do not believe that it would be the end of world if that were not so. Over the past decade, the City has become a much more livable place – and there are great neighborhoods that match pretty much every taste and income. School choices have improved. There are a great many more things to do in the City than in the county. The fact is, I think that most employees would live in the City by choice these days. If they chose to to move out, there are many people who would move in.
It is possible that City employees may get just that choice. A bill being considered by the Board of Aldermen would put the issue of mandatory residence for city employees on the ballot. Changing the rule would require an amendment to the City Charter, a change that would require the approval of 60 percent of those voting in a municipal election.
Reasonable people can debate the merits of a residency rule. But, I strongly believe that City voters, not legislators from other parts of the state, should make the decision. So, I support giving our voters a chance to have their say, and strongly oppose legislation in Jefferson City that would repeal the rule without a vote of the people.
|
Thursday, March 4, 2010
BB 304
I am concerned about some provisions of a bill currently being considered by the Board of Aldermen. BB 304 would restrict the sale of some useful cold medicines without a doctor’s prescription. The Missouri towns of Gerald, Poplar Bluff, Union, and Washington have already passed such ordinances. So has the state of Mississippi. Meth is not a big problem in the City of St. Louis, but the bill’s sponsor argues that other drug addicts use over-the-counter cold medicine as currency to buy illegal drugs here.
A clause of the St. Louis bill would require the Board of Aldermen to weigh the inconvenience the new ordinance will cause against the possibility that pseudoephedrine products might be used in the illegal production of methamphetamine. To that stated requirement, I would add another: I believe that aldermen should also weigh the fact that a significant number of their constituents do not have readily affordable access to physicians. Should being poor, uninsured, and having a bad cold be the occasion for violating a City ordinance?
The production and sale of meth is already illegal. And Federal law already prohibits the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine except from locked cabinets and behind the counter, limits the monthly amount an individual can purchase, requires photo IDs, and makes retailers keep records of purchasers.
I think this well-intentioned bill needs more thought. I hope the Board pauses to see if the problem warrants the solution. Before drawing any final conclusions myself, I would like to hear from Chief Dan Isom and his narcotics officers.
|
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Mother Teresa
(Thanks, Colleen Carroll Campbell, for writing about this last week in the Post-Dispatch.)
A group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation has mounted a campaign to lobby against a proposed US Postal Service stamp honoring Mother Teresa. The group says the stamp plan violates a USPS regulation against stamps that “honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs."
Ms. Campbell notes that Mother Teresa’s prior honors (besides Beautitude by Pope John Paul II and honors by most major governments, that is) include the Nobel Peace Prize, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and honorary US citizenship.
Consider this my shot in the campaign in support of the USPS’s original decision to issue the stamp bearing the visage of a great humanitarian. Unless the USPS reconsiders, the stamp will be available on April 17. I plan to put it on my holiday cards.
|
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Reducing Car Cloutings
The St. Louis Police Department today announced its plan to reduce the number of car break-ins (“cloutings”) that have been going on wherever large numbers of cars are parked for what will likely be a while. (Think game, movie, shopping, dinner …)
The challenges in gaining ground against this particularly annoying sort of property crime, say the police, are two-fold: people who make break-ins more attractive by leaving valuables (and not-so-valuables) in plain sight and the relative lack of deterrence in the light state punishments for this crime.
So, to address the first challenge, the police will mount a low-cost, high-profile public education campaign to remind motorists to park "smart" and not leave anything in sight in their cars. At the center of the campaign will be prominently displayed posters and billboards designed to catch their eye and change their habits. And the chief says that thieves should consider that he will also be deploying decoy cars and video cameras in some locations.
The second challenge is tougher. Circuit attorney Jennifer Joyce says that first-time car clouters are rarely punished in the sometimes slow-moving and always very busy state court system. So, I hope to persuade the Board of Aldermen to make car clouting a municipal offense that will let police bring criminals to the city courts where punishment for this offense might be stronger and faster.
|
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
My Testimony This Afternoon
During 150 years of state control, St. Louis’s police officers have not had much opportunity to discuss their pay, health care, pensions, or working conditions.
One result of that is that most street officers end up knowing very little about the finances of their department. An opinion piece penned for the newspaper recently asserted that the department’s budget was cut by $20 million last year. In fact, the FY 2009 police budget, including pensions, went UP by $13 million. That’s a big difference. How could officers be so mistaken?
The cost of fringe benefits for an average police office is 66 percent of their salary. That means if a police officer is taking home $60,000 per year, he (or she) is costing the taxpayers nearly $100,000 per year. But, our officers don’t see that themselves. Their pension and health care costs have gone through the roof, but officers’ benefits are no better today than a decade ago. That is the worst of both worlds – straining taxpayers and disappointing officers.
One way to find more common ground between taxpayers and police officers would be to sit down together more often at tables in the City where things can really get decided.
So, I plan to make a little news in Jefferson City this afternoon:
I will tell Missouri senators that, if the state chooses to give the City its police department back, the City will recognize the St. Louis Police Officers Association as the bargaining unit and will negotiate a written, binding contract with the officers. We will also create a management/labor team to involve the officers themselves in the daily operation of the department. Officers will have more, not less, involvement in the department under local control.
That removes all but one argument from the debate over local control. Will the governor be willing to give up his traditional prerogative to name police commissioners?
|
|
|
