The People for John Griesheimer, campaign committee for State Senator John Griesheimer (R-Washington), on November 6, 2006 accepted a $650.00 contribution from O'Fallon-based McEagle Properties LLC. (This is found in the committee's 30 Days After Election filing dated December 2, 2006.)
Griesheimer has introduced an amendment to the Quality Jobs Act (SB 282) that would create a $100 million state tax credit for land acquisition projects of more than 75 acres in the city of St. Louis. According to Griesheimer, a developer from St. Charles County is interested in the credits for a project in north St. Louis.
McEagle Properties has ties to an acquisition project in north St. Louis that already controls over 100 acres in the JeffVanderLou, St. Louis Place and Old North St. Louis neighborhoods.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71zd9o-Wnm0
So, if the project is for north ST. LOUIS, why is McEagle working this rural Republican?
Why not go to Maida Coleman, whose district includes the sought-after-land?
Why not go to Ald. April Ford-Griffin, and set up local blighting ordinances?
Perhaps McEagle did go through these motions and found no support from people whose constituents will be replaced if the plan goes through.
I suppose any effort to relocate hundreds of black people would find great support among rural Republicans, but not black urban officials.
For anything as big as a 100,000,000 project, the rural legislature would need to support it. Given McKee's business in St. Charles County, it would be appropriate for a native St. Charles County Republican to introduce the bill. If Maida Coleman introduced legislation for 100,000,000, it would be rejected as she is black and a Democrat both of which are minorities in the Legislature. 100,000,000 sounds alright when its supported and sponsored by rural and suburban interests. Yes, if we wanted to fix our own problems, well thats unacceptable.
Well, this amendment is just one in a long line of measures that suppose that the city of St. Louis needs to keep training wheels on its bike into adulthood.
There is no need for the amendment to be tacked on now.
St. Louis developers know what sort of incentives they need. Is this one of them? How do we know yet?
I agree that this is a problem, but $650 does not seem like enough of a contribution to be able to put someone in your pocket. Am I missing something?
I'd agree that a $650 contribution seems pretty small to receive millions in tax credits in return, but with everything else in mind, this can't possibly all be a coincidence, can it?
Post a Comment