On Wednesday, the city faces the same problems. There is still an archaic charter that inhibits sensible government. The aldermanic courtesy system still has aldermen calling the shots for development rather than acting as legislators tackling policy problems. The city's comprehensive plan and zoning code are outdated, and the position of city planner here lacks real statutory power. The only citywide office with real authority on design is a
development position. The city owns massive amounts of real estate and has no marketing or preservation plan for this. The school system is about to be taken over by the state, and the police department still is. Regionally, the city is still carrying a bigger expenditure load that it should, at half the revenue load. Mass transit needs improvement. Crime is too prevalent in some parts of the city. There is no civilian oversight of the police department. The city struggles to deal with the lead poisoning epidemic. The city still loses jobs.
These problems and more await us in the morning. As a city, we seem in denial about the inadequacy of our political system to identify these problems, let alone treat them. We limp along piecemeal with no strategic planning, no big picture, no step toward the sorts of big changes St. Louis needs to grow.
Some would say that the winner of the race for President of the Board of Alderman shows us a way forward that looks at the systematic change this city needs to grow. While I concede that his campaign was more effective at getting people excited about politics than his opponent's campaign, I do not mistake image for vision. Time will tell what Lewis Reed will do in office, and all we have now is a moment in the present to hope that he does well.
However, this is no turning point. While those who have embraced the parochial, polarized mentality of this city may view the election results as a stinging change, it seems inconsequential compared to the changes truly needed to secure the city's future. Personally, while I supported Jim Shrewsbury, I was never energized by his candidacy. I constantly waited for him to take some of the big chances he had to elevate citizen discontent into a political agenda. He chose a more conservative and less compelling path, like so many good-intentioned people before. Only this time, the principled and honest guy lost to the fast talker.
This time, the city is in the midst of great development and cultural growth. The political sector is way behind the trends that are remaking St. Louis, and what is badly needed was a campaign to reconcile these forces into a sustainable effort to renew the city. Perhaps that time is coming; for now, no big changes in public policy seem immediate although changes in the tenor of city government are.
I look around at the people eager for such change and wonder how long they will settle for the defeat they are dealing themselves. When will we rise up above the constraints of connections, timidness and propriety and create the meaningful political discourse a big city deserves? After all, Reed's supporters sure didn't wait.