The results are in!
Propositions P, R, and S passed. They needed about 57.1 percent to win and got 57.4% (!), 61%, and 61%, respectively.
Proposition T (the tax transfer) needed a simple majority but failed with 43.6%.
Most surprising is that incumbent Ward 2 alderman Keith Koenigsfeld lost.
Spectacularly.
Challenger Felicity Buckley won 73.5% of the vote. Congratulations to her.
For the city-wide propositions, about 830 people voted. Ward 2 (the only ward with a contested aldermanic spot)accounted for almost 400 of the votes, judging by the Koenigsfeld/Buckley race. It does seem that Ward 2 is the largest population-wise, so it's hard to tell if the alderman race brought more voters than the population in general.
My "best case scenario" that seemed possible was that P and T would fail, and that the Board would not change.
So P (barely) passed, perhaps thanks to Keith Koenigsfeld's rallying at the polls, but he lost his position on the Board.
The numbers are fairly encouraging for a couple reasons.
First, it shows that voters were not entirely swayed by the deceptive literature that they paid for. A few more votes and P would have been toast; as it is, we will all wind up paying about $40 a year on average (quick calculation) for the wasteful new poolhouse, and about $10 a year for the generator. If what the aldermen are saying is true, that we have 'experienced deficits' recently, then they will -- finally -- have some choices to make. Like a spoiled child, they have never been told "no". It would be ironic if running the generator pushed the general budget over the edge. I'd really like to see it balanced; I fear they'd dip into the reserves if something like that happened.
Second, I'm wondering if Felicity Buckley's door-to-door flyer (the second one) served to inform enough voters to vote against Prop T. T was the only one of the four propositions that she addressed directly in the flyer. If so, it's encouraging that voters can be reached pretty easily, and that living in a smaller city is a sort of check-and-balance, allowing even small groups of individuals to present their side of an issue -- even if it contradicts the "official" recommendation.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
As predicted, poolhouse getting younger.
The alderman said 40 years.
Then the mayor said 35.
Now, the city administrator says 30.
Perhaps I was too hasty in my last post; maybe in another few days the missing shingles will reappear.
Then the mayor said 35.
Now, the city administrator says 30.
Perhaps I was too hasty in my last post; maybe in another few days the missing shingles will reappear.
Deception at the Polls
I voted early this morning, but the real characters came out of the woodwork for the after-work crowd. I headed up to the city center to check and see what turnout was like.
Interesting to note was a giant sign (probably four times the size of a normal political yard sign) asking for a YES on P, R, S, and T. It indicated that it was paid for by the Shrewsbury Firefighters PAC (I assume Political Action Committee). That must be a pretty small committee.
Why on earth firefighters would care about a tax transfer, repaving a street, or the pool house is beyond me.
Upon getting closer, a Shrewsbury firefighter handed me a "YES on P,R,S,T" flyer. I asked him to explain why I'd vote for them (I was particularly interested in the fire department's side). He pointed me to another man, who happened to be an alderman, Keith Koenigsfeld.
Figuring that them giving me the flyer made the questions 'fair game' even though I had already voted, I asked Keith to please explain them. I said "Let's start with P".
Keith incredulously asked, "Have you BEEN to the poolhouse?".
I said "Yes, for the past six years. The flyer said it would soon represent a danger to residents, and I would like to know why?"
Keith indicated that it needed a new water heater.
After a moment of stunned silence, I said, "But that wouldn't warrant replacing the whole building, right?"
Keith then said that the shingles on the roof needed to be replaced as well.
Interesting, I noted, as the roof doesn't have shingles (it's metal).
He then said that he went on a tour with the building inspector and parks director and the inspector said that it "wouldn't pass inspection" if they needed to do any upgrades. I know the building inspector, Matt Stoll, because he inspected a project at my house, and asked "So I could ask Matt why it wouldn't pass, and he'd know?"
Keith said, well, it wasn't actualling the inspector; it was the building commissioner. I don't know the building commissioner, but I intended to ask him later. I asked if the commissioner was a structural engineer and I'm not sure if Keith answered (we were talking back and forth pretty quickly), but I don't believe I heard a "yes".
At that point I wasn't sounding as neutral as I'd started, so I pressed him, asking why a building needed to be razed because it had a bad water heater. Surely, if the Board unanimously approved the measure, there would have been a full report. Keith said he wouldn't be able to give an answer that satisfied me (he read me like a book...)
I found it odd -- and probably humiliating for Koenigsfeld -- that his own personal fliers had the "VOTE YES" as the first item on them, but other than the water heater, he had no idea why the place needed to be demolished.
If you felt so strongly about the issue to print and hand out fliers, which trumped even your own campaign, shouldn't you have some facts at hand?
My conversation with Keith ended there.
Inside, I met the Parks Director, Marc Bernstein (this was not in the polling place; I took the long way into the lobby of the building). Marc is pretty new to the city; he's a very nice guy. He was not the instigator of the ballot measure, but I asked him if he had any more details on the building's condition anyway.
Compared to the alderman who voted to put it on the ballot, Marc was a fountain of information. He did say that the floor/foundation were uneven, and the north wall had cracks. He mentioned that mud-jacking the floor was possible, but they weren't sure how long it would last.
It is my understanding that piering a foundation is considered a 'permanent' solution. Mud-jacking is not exactly temporary, but not permanent either. It's a medium-term fix. Marc said the mud-jacking solution was something like $40,000.
He also mentioned that the lifeguards didn't have a big enough area. To his credit, he said that he personally asked if they could save the roof because it was in such good condition (!). I couldn't resist mentioning that the alderman had just said the shingles needed to be replaced. Marc was sort of bemused by that one.
In the end, I came away feeling just as bad about all four propositions. If the case for one of the largest single line-items (the poolhouse) was built on such shoddy information, I don't feel better about the others.
If I hadn't been so upset at Koenigsfeld's answers -- or lack thereof -- I would have stayed and asked the firefighter for details about the pumper situation. No hard feelings toward him; I have a feeling that he didn't feel quite as strongly as the aldermen on the issues.
Interesting to note was a giant sign (probably four times the size of a normal political yard sign) asking for a YES on P, R, S, and T. It indicated that it was paid for by the Shrewsbury Firefighters PAC (I assume Political Action Committee). That must be a pretty small committee.
Why on earth firefighters would care about a tax transfer, repaving a street, or the pool house is beyond me.
Upon getting closer, a Shrewsbury firefighter handed me a "YES on P,R,S,T" flyer. I asked him to explain why I'd vote for them (I was particularly interested in the fire department's side). He pointed me to another man, who happened to be an alderman, Keith Koenigsfeld.
Figuring that them giving me the flyer made the questions 'fair game' even though I had already voted, I asked Keith to please explain them. I said "Let's start with P".
Keith incredulously asked, "Have you BEEN to the poolhouse?".
I said "Yes, for the past six years. The flyer said it would soon represent a danger to residents, and I would like to know why?"
Keith indicated that it needed a new water heater.
After a moment of stunned silence, I said, "But that wouldn't warrant replacing the whole building, right?"
Keith then said that the shingles on the roof needed to be replaced as well.
Interesting, I noted, as the roof doesn't have shingles (it's metal).
He then said that he went on a tour with the building inspector and parks director and the inspector said that it "wouldn't pass inspection" if they needed to do any upgrades. I know the building inspector, Matt Stoll, because he inspected a project at my house, and asked "So I could ask Matt why it wouldn't pass, and he'd know?"
Keith said, well, it wasn't actualling the inspector; it was the building commissioner. I don't know the building commissioner, but I intended to ask him later. I asked if the commissioner was a structural engineer and I'm not sure if Keith answered (we were talking back and forth pretty quickly), but I don't believe I heard a "yes".
At that point I wasn't sounding as neutral as I'd started, so I pressed him, asking why a building needed to be razed because it had a bad water heater. Surely, if the Board unanimously approved the measure, there would have been a full report. Keith said he wouldn't be able to give an answer that satisfied me (he read me like a book...)
I found it odd -- and probably humiliating for Koenigsfeld -- that his own personal fliers had the "VOTE YES" as the first item on them, but other than the water heater, he had no idea why the place needed to be demolished.
If you felt so strongly about the issue to print and hand out fliers, which trumped even your own campaign, shouldn't you have some facts at hand?
My conversation with Keith ended there.
Inside, I met the Parks Director, Marc Bernstein (this was not in the polling place; I took the long way into the lobby of the building). Marc is pretty new to the city; he's a very nice guy. He was not the instigator of the ballot measure, but I asked him if he had any more details on the building's condition anyway.
Compared to the alderman who voted to put it on the ballot, Marc was a fountain of information. He did say that the floor/foundation were uneven, and the north wall had cracks. He mentioned that mud-jacking the floor was possible, but they weren't sure how long it would last.
It is my understanding that piering a foundation is considered a 'permanent' solution. Mud-jacking is not exactly temporary, but not permanent either. It's a medium-term fix. Marc said the mud-jacking solution was something like $40,000.
He also mentioned that the lifeguards didn't have a big enough area. To his credit, he said that he personally asked if they could save the roof because it was in such good condition (!). I couldn't resist mentioning that the alderman had just said the shingles needed to be replaced. Marc was sort of bemused by that one.
In the end, I came away feeling just as bad about all four propositions. If the case for one of the largest single line-items (the poolhouse) was built on such shoddy information, I don't feel better about the others.
If I hadn't been so upset at Koenigsfeld's answers -- or lack thereof -- I would have stayed and asked the firefighter for details about the pumper situation. No hard feelings toward him; I have a feeling that he didn't feel quite as strongly as the aldermen on the issues.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Time to Vote
The most important thing you can do now is VOTE.
We'll see if residents fell for the lies and deception by tomorrow night.
We'll see if residents fell for the lies and deception by tomorrow night.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Felicity Buckley's Response
Ms. Buckley responded to the Gates attack flier today with one of her own. I was prepared for the words to escalate; however, Ms. Buckley's response addressed facts and did not devolve into personal attacks.
As I said earlier, I don't personally agree with all of the positions taken by this candidate. But that's why we have a democratically-elected Board: to choose the person whose stance on the day-to-day issues most closely reflect our own. I certainly agree with her primary goal which is (quoted, including emphasis):
As a citizen, I neither need nor want the populace to vote on every single issue and every single expenditure. To do so would be to expect a level of familiarization with the topic, and the average citizen does not have time to become informed to that level.
I would, however,expect to be solicited for my input, and informed of exactly why my alderman cast his or her vote on issues such as banning family pets based on breed, or recommending $2 million in new spending. I would expect a vote like this, more often than not, to reflect the wishes of those represented. This is unlike one alderman who, during the work session on banning certain dogs, proudly claimed he did not care what the constituents think, and would vote how he wanted anyway.
The main points addressed by Ms. Buckley are as follows. My opinions of each as addressed in the flier appear aftewards in [brackets].
1. A rebuttal of Bert Gates' assertion that she was present at the TOD charette last summer.
[Athough of no particular consequence to the average citizen, it is interesting that this very objective piece of information is disputed by the two.]
She also addresses the road work suggested in her first flier. She says what I noted earlier, that it is not beyond the city to approach the county to seek beautification of these two roads.
[In driving Shrewsbury Ave. a few times over the past couple days, perhaps it just needs a giant vacuuming. Cleaning up the concrete and metal debris would be an immediate improvement.]
2. Re-assertion of fiscal responibility, primarily that the voter information was misleading; namely, that we could choose to reduce our tax rate due to the bonds being paid off, but were not clearly informed of that option.
[A couple points: first, the comment that citizens could reduce taxes by voting no on Proposition T. I would have also mentioned Propositions P, R, and S. Essentially, funds for all four would come out of the same tax stream which would otherwise be shut off when the bonds are retired. While T may be the most straightforward "let's spend this money" proposition, all four have the same effect.
Second, Ms. Buckley quotes a figure of $280.00 per year in potential tax savings for a $200,000 home. I'm not sure what this figure actually is. A quick calculation shows that a $200,000 home owes Shrewsbury approximately $380 total per year in property taxes ($200000 * 19% (county assessment rate) * $1.00 (approximate Shrewsbury tax rate) / $100 (per $100 assessed valuation)).
Using that, proposition T's burden to this owner would be about $55 annually. The others amount to more expenditure initially (because they are capital investments), but the tax burden would be spread out over the life of the 20-year bonds. A super-quick calculation would use the $250,000 stream of bond payments that are soon expiring, dividen by approximately 2000 households = about $125 annually. I think $280 is on the steep side.
So I would like to know where this figure came from, and welcome any clarification. However, the sentiment would be the same for any non-trivial amount.]
3. TOD planning comments. Ms. Buckley paints the picture that TOD near the Metrolink station is a foregone conclusion. After the details of the history of the planning sessions and charettes, Ms. Buckley says
[Certainly, many at Metro have expressed this same sentiment, as a "no-brainer" for development. I definitely agree with the final sentence, that citizens from Shrewsbury (and from the Lindenwood Park neighborhood, Maplewood, and others nearby) should be allowed to give input at the earliest stages. This is a very complex issue, and if plans ever go forward to extending River des Peres Blvd to Big Bend and making an interchange with I-44, the complexity will be multiplied. It will require a lot of coordination and taxpayer dollars.
When the Metrolink final plans were unveiled at the open-house sessions in Shrewsbury, they were just that: final plans. While generally well-done, the sessions' response to most citizen inquiries was something like "we can't do that because it's not in the plans." The average resident is not an architect or engineer; however, gauging and responding to public opinion on the project in its early stages would be more beneficial than presenting only a done deal.
Personally, I would be for some mixed-density development by the Metrolink station. It would have to be pedestrian and transit-friendly; however, very few developments in the metro area meet that criteria. This makes it so much more important to go through the proposals with the proverbial find-toothed comb. Steve Patterson's blog showed the Loughborough Commons development, in which early plans seemed to indicate no sidewalks leading to the Lowes/Schnucks stores. The developer waved off criticism, stating that the plans were simply too small of a scale to show that level of detail. Of course, the thickness of the curb was indicated on the plans. As expected, the development was built without sidewalks. We need to be critical on issues such as this! Throwing a Chili's in a big parking lot should not be considered TOD.
Perhaps a "Boulevard Shrewsbury" like Boulevard St. Louis in Richmond Heights (but less 'trendy' and a bit more 'real' and resident-focused) would fit everyone's tastes.]
Ms. Buckley also addresses Kenrick Plaza and its problems
[Kenrick is a pretty bad-looking property. It is, by casual observation, mostly full. The gaping exception is the old Drug Emporium space. It does appear empty many times because a number of storefronts are low-traffic offices. Attention existing aldermen and other officials: I wouldn't choose Kenrick Plaza's "success" as a rallying point for your own campaigns.
On a side note, I'm not sure whether it would be in the city's best interests -- or even possible -- to encourage the Kenrick 8 Cinema to get its act together. In theory, it seems like it should do well; if only it showed the "good" movies, perhaps citizens from Shrewsbury and St. Louis Hills and surrounding wouldn't be forced to face the prospect of going to Ronnie's or further out to see a show.]
4. Ms. Buckley clarifies her stance on beautification, suggesting that the city work with businesses to beautify with the use of flowers and other aesthetic improvements.
[I see no harm at all in that. There are larger aesthetic problems, such as the ghastly power lines strung along in front of homes on Weil Ave, one of our busiest thoroughfares. In light of the city's inability to do something about that, however, other forms of beautification would be welcomed.]
She closes by re-asserting the importance of communication.
[end of flier]
Overall, an informational flier that left me personally feeling pretty good about the candidate. It was also put out at a very smart time. I knew Gates would try to get the "last word" in the Webster-Kirkwood Times. I sent another letter, but knew the likelihood of it getting printed was low because another of mine was printed just a week before. It was a little disappointing to see that other concerned citizens did not write in -- or perhaps were not chosen to be included -- to counter Gates' information (or misinformation, as when the letter stated these were "no-tax proposals").
It's going to be an interesting election. Most people that I talk to are pretty worked up about the lack of information on this latest round of tax increases. It certainly won't help the pro-tax cause that the election is so close to reassessment time, with many people still reeling.
Several neighbors have asked me to print out their ballots (this can be done at the County Elections site) so that they can study their choices beforehand. There are also school board elections, at least for Affton S.D., on the ballot. It was likely that a few neighbors wouldn't have voted at all had they not been informed of the tax increase proposals. I think that the mayor weighed in on an aldermanic vote probably got people more interested as well. We'll see what that means come Tuesday night.
Get out and vote!
NO on P. NO on R. NO on S. NO on T.
As I said earlier, I don't personally agree with all of the positions taken by this candidate. But that's why we have a democratically-elected Board: to choose the person whose stance on the day-to-day issues most closely reflect our own. I certainly agree with her primary goal which is (quoted, including emphasis):
..to encourage citizen awareness and involvement, on issues of importance to our community..
As a citizen, I neither need nor want the populace to vote on every single issue and every single expenditure. To do so would be to expect a level of familiarization with the topic, and the average citizen does not have time to become informed to that level.
I would, however,expect to be solicited for my input, and informed of exactly why my alderman cast his or her vote on issues such as banning family pets based on breed, or recommending $2 million in new spending. I would expect a vote like this, more often than not, to reflect the wishes of those represented. This is unlike one alderman who, during the work session on banning certain dogs, proudly claimed he did not care what the constituents think, and would vote how he wanted anyway.
The main points addressed by Ms. Buckley are as follows. My opinions of each as addressed in the flier appear aftewards in [brackets].
1. A rebuttal of Bert Gates' assertion that she was present at the TOD charette last summer.
[Athough of no particular consequence to the average citizen, it is interesting that this very objective piece of information is disputed by the two.]
She also addresses the road work suggested in her first flier. She says what I noted earlier, that it is not beyond the city to approach the county to seek beautification of these two roads.
[In driving Shrewsbury Ave. a few times over the past couple days, perhaps it just needs a giant vacuuming. Cleaning up the concrete and metal debris would be an immediate improvement.]
2. Re-assertion of fiscal responibility, primarily that the voter information was misleading; namely, that we could choose to reduce our tax rate due to the bonds being paid off, but were not clearly informed of that option.
[A couple points: first, the comment that citizens could reduce taxes by voting no on Proposition T. I would have also mentioned Propositions P, R, and S. Essentially, funds for all four would come out of the same tax stream which would otherwise be shut off when the bonds are retired. While T may be the most straightforward "let's spend this money" proposition, all four have the same effect.
Second, Ms. Buckley quotes a figure of $280.00 per year in potential tax savings for a $200,000 home. I'm not sure what this figure actually is. A quick calculation shows that a $200,000 home owes Shrewsbury approximately $380 total per year in property taxes ($200000 * 19% (county assessment rate) * $1.00 (approximate Shrewsbury tax rate) / $100 (per $100 assessed valuation)).
Using that, proposition T's burden to this owner would be about $55 annually. The others amount to more expenditure initially (because they are capital investments), but the tax burden would be spread out over the life of the 20-year bonds. A super-quick calculation would use the $250,000 stream of bond payments that are soon expiring, dividen by approximately 2000 households = about $125 annually. I think $280 is on the steep side.
So I would like to know where this figure came from, and welcome any clarification. However, the sentiment would be the same for any non-trivial amount.]
3. TOD planning comments. Ms. Buckley paints the picture that TOD near the Metrolink station is a foregone conclusion. After the details of the history of the planning sessions and charettes, Ms. Buckley says
...it would be my goal to keep the citizens informed of the redevelopment iseas even at the earlierst states and to encourage input from citizens.
[Certainly, many at Metro have expressed this same sentiment, as a "no-brainer" for development. I definitely agree with the final sentence, that citizens from Shrewsbury (and from the Lindenwood Park neighborhood, Maplewood, and others nearby) should be allowed to give input at the earliest stages. This is a very complex issue, and if plans ever go forward to extending River des Peres Blvd to Big Bend and making an interchange with I-44, the complexity will be multiplied. It will require a lot of coordination and taxpayer dollars.
When the Metrolink final plans were unveiled at the open-house sessions in Shrewsbury, they were just that: final plans. While generally well-done, the sessions' response to most citizen inquiries was something like "we can't do that because it's not in the plans." The average resident is not an architect or engineer; however, gauging and responding to public opinion on the project in its early stages would be more beneficial than presenting only a done deal.
Personally, I would be for some mixed-density development by the Metrolink station. It would have to be pedestrian and transit-friendly; however, very few developments in the metro area meet that criteria. This makes it so much more important to go through the proposals with the proverbial find-toothed comb. Steve Patterson's blog showed the Loughborough Commons development, in which early plans seemed to indicate no sidewalks leading to the Lowes/Schnucks stores. The developer waved off criticism, stating that the plans were simply too small of a scale to show that level of detail. Of course, the thickness of the curb was indicated on the plans. As expected, the development was built without sidewalks. We need to be critical on issues such as this! Throwing a Chili's in a big parking lot should not be considered TOD.
Perhaps a "Boulevard Shrewsbury" like Boulevard St. Louis in Richmond Heights (but less 'trendy' and a bit more 'real' and resident-focused) would fit everyone's tastes.]
Ms. Buckley also addresses Kenrick Plaza and its problems
[Kenrick is a pretty bad-looking property. It is, by casual observation, mostly full. The gaping exception is the old Drug Emporium space. It does appear empty many times because a number of storefronts are low-traffic offices. Attention existing aldermen and other officials: I wouldn't choose Kenrick Plaza's "success" as a rallying point for your own campaigns.
On a side note, I'm not sure whether it would be in the city's best interests -- or even possible -- to encourage the Kenrick 8 Cinema to get its act together. In theory, it seems like it should do well; if only it showed the "good" movies, perhaps citizens from Shrewsbury and St. Louis Hills and surrounding wouldn't be forced to face the prospect of going to Ronnie's or further out to see a show.]
4. Ms. Buckley clarifies her stance on beautification, suggesting that the city work with businesses to beautify with the use of flowers and other aesthetic improvements.
[I see no harm at all in that. There are larger aesthetic problems, such as the ghastly power lines strung along in front of homes on Weil Ave, one of our busiest thoroughfares. In light of the city's inability to do something about that, however, other forms of beautification would be welcomed.]
She closes by re-asserting the importance of communication.
[end of flier]
Overall, an informational flier that left me personally feeling pretty good about the candidate. It was also put out at a very smart time. I knew Gates would try to get the "last word" in the Webster-Kirkwood Times. I sent another letter, but knew the likelihood of it getting printed was low because another of mine was printed just a week before. It was a little disappointing to see that other concerned citizens did not write in -- or perhaps were not chosen to be included -- to counter Gates' information (or misinformation, as when the letter stated these were "no-tax proposals").
It's going to be an interesting election. Most people that I talk to are pretty worked up about the lack of information on this latest round of tax increases. It certainly won't help the pro-tax cause that the election is so close to reassessment time, with many people still reeling.
Several neighbors have asked me to print out their ballots (this can be done at the County Elections site) so that they can study their choices beforehand. There are also school board elections, at least for Affton S.D., on the ballot. It was likely that a few neighbors wouldn't have voted at all had they not been informed of the tax increase proposals. I think that the mayor weighed in on an aldermanic vote probably got people more interested as well. We'll see what that means come Tuesday night.
Get out and vote!
NO on P. NO on R. NO on S. NO on T.
Friday, March 30, 2007
What's Good for the Goose....
I find it amusing that Mayor Gates's letter lambastes Kurt Odenwald for failing to speak to his aldermen about his misgivings of the upcoming tax increases on the ballot, instead of writing his letter to the Webster-Kirkwood Times.
Why doesn't Bert Gates or any of the aldmermen feel it was necessary to come to the citizens before unanimously recommending a $2M tax increase? Why aren't we told of the options to fix the poolhouse, why we need more vehicles, or where the sales tax revenue went?
Who are the constituents here?
Why doesn't Bert Gates or any of the aldmermen feel it was necessary to come to the citizens before unanimously recommending a $2M tax increase? Why aren't we told of the options to fix the poolhouse, why we need more vehicles, or where the sales tax revenue went?
Who are the constituents here?
Pool House Getting Younger
Did anybody notice in Bert's letter to the Webster-Kirkwood Times that the pool house is only 35 years old? Yet in the official city pamphlet, printed a couple weeks ago, it's more like 40?
Maybe if we wait a few more weeks, it will be brand new again.
I wonder if our City Fathers would still find a reason to tear it down and rebuild it.
Maybe if we wait a few more weeks, it will be brand new again.
I wonder if our City Fathers would still find a reason to tear it down and rebuild it.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Commenting Allowed
Due to requests from visitors -- including some from surrounding municipalities -- commenting is now permitted without creating an account. Please let us know your thoughts.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Time for a Change of Attitude
In speaking with Aldermen, and listening to them in years past, I've noticed a few disturbing mindsets.
First, it has been mentioned numerous times that Shrewsbury's "chunk" of your tax dollar pie is small compared to the County's and either the Webster Groves or Affton school districts. More often than not, this factoid is used to dismiss criticism that the city's property tax income has been increasing at 300% the rate of inflation, yet the city still wants more. To me, this fact simply speaks to the need for "Hancock Lid" type legislation that limits County and municipality tax income growth to a certain amount, adjustable by mean income of its residents and inflation. This does not, on the other hand, give carte blanche to the city to do whatever it wants without public input and oversight.
Second, the same factoid applied to the Fire Department. In the few times I've dealt with the department, I've found the employees professional, courteous, and an asset to our community. Yet the fact that their services are provided at much less cost to taxpayers than the Affton Fire Protection District (in particular) does not give the city license to change the operation. Why do we feel that because we have a piece of our city that functions at a fair cost to residents, that there must be something wrong, and doubling the amount of fire protection equipment we have is surely in our best interest? Could it possibly mean that Affton FPD simply wastes far more money than we do on giant firehouses and superflous equipment?
First, it has been mentioned numerous times that Shrewsbury's "chunk" of your tax dollar pie is small compared to the County's and either the Webster Groves or Affton school districts. More often than not, this factoid is used to dismiss criticism that the city's property tax income has been increasing at 300% the rate of inflation, yet the city still wants more. To me, this fact simply speaks to the need for "Hancock Lid" type legislation that limits County and municipality tax income growth to a certain amount, adjustable by mean income of its residents and inflation. This does not, on the other hand, give carte blanche to the city to do whatever it wants without public input and oversight.
Second, the same factoid applied to the Fire Department. In the few times I've dealt with the department, I've found the employees professional, courteous, and an asset to our community. Yet the fact that their services are provided at much less cost to taxpayers than the Affton Fire Protection District (in particular) does not give the city license to change the operation. Why do we feel that because we have a piece of our city that functions at a fair cost to residents, that there must be something wrong, and doubling the amount of fire protection equipment we have is surely in our best interest? Could it possibly mean that Affton FPD simply wastes far more money than we do on giant firehouses and superflous equipment?
Make your own signs
Due to overwhelming requests for signs, please find links to full versions below. These are 11x8" (landscape) versions and can be inserted into Word or your favorite graphics program.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Hidden Dangers of Shrewsbury
Here's the pool house that official city literature claims will "soon represent a hazard" to our populace. It must be replaced--immediately--at a cost of over a half-million dollars.
Seriously, walking around the structure reveals a building the likes of which "aren't built anymore". For one, it's brick. Two, the exposed eaves and undersides of the roof are thick, solid wood in what appears to be very good condition.
Of course, I'm not a structural engineer. But neither is Barry Alexander, Bert Gates, or -- to my knowledge -- any of the Board of Aldermen. To accept a statement as ridiculous as they one they are proposing is irresponsible.
If -- and this is not even remotely established -- but if the pool house had any structural problems, why replace this heavily-built and completely functional structure completely? Is there no way to spend, say, 20% of the proposed cost of a new building and give this one a nice rehab?For a building that's used maybe four months out of the year, I think that would be a fair compromise, IF it was even needed.
I guess in the world of other people's money, the sky's the limit.
Personal Attacks?
Mayor Bert Gates had a flyer distributed around the neighborhoods of Shrewsbury today. In it, he attacks candidate Felicity Buckley for the issues she outlines in her campaign literature distributed similarly a few weeks ago.
While I was not initially impressed by Ms. Buckley's main concerns, I similarly disagree with Gates, who calls her "misinformed". Ms. Buckley said she wanted Shrewsbury Ave (over I-44) and Murdoch "spruced up" as entryways to our city. Gates attacks this, saying these are County arterial roads over which Shrewsbury has no control.
First, Bert, it's spelled "Murdoch", not "Murdock". Better dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before calling someone else misinformed.
Secondly, passing the buck to the County is not particularly effective either. If the city felt these issues were important, is it so unheard of for city-county cooperation to get something done? After all, the city does have signs in the right-of way along Murdoch and Laclede. If, say, a gardening club wanted to pick up litter and plant some flowers, is it so beneath Shrewsbury to work with the County to get it done?
One final issue about the flier: Bert opted for the green sign with single-color print and paid a messenger to deliver them. Amazing what somebody who budgets can do, vs. the first-class, full-color brochures that taxpayers paid for earlier in the week. It's pretty easy to spend someone else's money.
While I was not initially impressed by Ms. Buckley's main concerns, I similarly disagree with Gates, who calls her "misinformed". Ms. Buckley said she wanted Shrewsbury Ave (over I-44) and Murdoch "spruced up" as entryways to our city. Gates attacks this, saying these are County arterial roads over which Shrewsbury has no control.
First, Bert, it's spelled "Murdoch", not "Murdock". Better dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before calling someone else misinformed.
Secondly, passing the buck to the County is not particularly effective either. If the city felt these issues were important, is it so unheard of for city-county cooperation to get something done? After all, the city does have signs in the right-of way along Murdoch and Laclede. If, say, a gardening club wanted to pick up litter and plant some flowers, is it so beneath Shrewsbury to work with the County to get it done?
One final issue about the flier: Bert opted for the green sign with single-color print and paid a messenger to deliver them. Amazing what somebody who budgets can do, vs. the first-class, full-color brochures that taxpayers paid for earlier in the week. It's pretty easy to spend someone else's money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)