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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Want to Help?

Do you want to help get the word out to your neighbors about the tax increases facing your families?

You may have noticed some of our signs going up around the city. If you live in a high-visibility location and would like a sign to post in your yard for the passing foot and auto traffic to see, you can post a reply to this message, or call 314.646.7845 to request one, and we'll place it in your yard. Several have already gone out. If there are too many requests for signs, we will rotate them among houses between now and election time. They are typical political-sign size and have the words "Stop the Waste. Vote April 3. No on P. No on R. No on S. No on T." in red and black.

We also have window signs for your home. If you want help remind your immediate neighbors of the need to vote on April 3, these signs can help do just that.

Full Color Brochures for Everyone -- Courtesy of You

Good stewards of your tax money?

Did you happen to notice what was in your mailbox today?

Who do you suppose paid for the full-color mailings sent -- first class postage -- to every home in Shrewsbury? After consistently ignoring the one essentially free means of communicating with constituents -- the city's website -- they decide to spend thousands of YOUR dollars trying to pull the wool over your eyes on the bond issue.

You'll find the same colorful flyers adorning the taxpayer-funded bulletin boards at City Hall. Don't bother asking to post your dissenting viewpoint; it's not allowed.

This Is Getting Interesting

While spending your tax money to print and post flyers for the new tax increases, Shrewsbury is not allowing residents to post their own information and notices to the public on taxpayer-funded bulletin boards. Good governance?

This weekend: pictures of our "deteriorating" pool house that apparently needs a half-million dollar replacement.

More Tax Money? SAY NO!

Have you checked your reassessment from St. Louis County yet? The numbers have been posted on the website: http://revenue.stlouisco.com/ias/. For most of us, the numbers are -- yet again -- a shock.

Many Shrewsbury residents are seeing 18-22% increases in the assessed value of their homes. Some are seeing far more. Because the assessment is done every other year, this translates into an almost 10% annual increase on average.

Do you realize that the taxes you pay to the County and Shrewsbury are proportional to this assessed value? Our taxes have been growing at this rate for about a decade. This rate is approximately 300% the rate of inflation which has been anywhere from 1.59% (2002) to 3.39% (2005) this decade.

The City of Shrewsbury is one beneficiary of your increased assessed value.

Even if we don't issue any more debt or increase tax RATES in the city, your taxes will continue to climb. In twenty years, an average resident paying $3000 now will pay about $20,000 a year in taxes.

Remember, WITHOUT raising tax rates your tax burden will continue to increase, generally far outstripping anyone's income growth (certainly the author's).

So why is our board of aldermen telling us that the four bond issues on the April 3 ballot will require "no increase in taxes"? While it may not raise our tax rate, these reckless propositions will ensure that our tax burden will grow at this unsustainable rate for the forseeable future.

Please stay tuned to this website in the next view days to learn about each Proposition and why the official literature is deceptive.

The city is counting on a low voter turnout to rubber-stamp these increases into law. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes! Your aldermen don't seem to be interested in representing YOU. So represent yourself at the polls.

Vote on April 3!

No on P.
NO on R.
NO on S.
NO on T.