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.
No comments:
Post a Comment