Once again, there is some coincidence between what I have written about this election cycle and what Sixth Ward aldermanic candidate Christian Saller has stated.
Two days before my post of yesterday, " Election Next Week: Yawn! I Mean, Yay!", Saller posted this statement to his campaign blog:
I do not and have not disparaged my opponents throughout the course of this campaign. I am happy to be cordial and polite when we see each other in person and have made it my policy to avoid saying anything about them when I go door to door or otherwise interact with constituents in the 6th Ward. I have campaigned on my merits and why I think I would perform well as a full-time alderman with a strong emphasis on constituent service and economic development. In my view, the unfortunate tendency of some to attempt to "trash" opponents or to even subtly demean them in some manner diminishes the caliber of the entire campaign, so I have not and will not engage in such behavior. As candidates, we differ in style and substance, though I am willing to assume that we all have sincere and honorable intentions in our respective approaches to the job.
While it's easy to disagree with that last sentence, overall the statement is exemplary. Hopefully it will carry some weight with voters and other candidates, at least at some point in the future.
Showing posts with label 2007 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2007 election. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Election Next Week: Yawn! I Mean, Yay!
One week away from a primary election (the election in this sick city), one wonders why the city is so sleepy. One barely catches any news of heated arguments over policy, sharp ideological differences or the infectious charisma of up-and-comers. Of course, I live on the near northside in an odd-numbered ward. There is no local aldermanic contest, and the citywide candidates have barely been around these parts. But even if I lived elsewhere, the malaise would still be evident.
Yes, there are lots of yard signs in some parts of the city. But is there much in the way of political campaigning? The races that do get coverage seem mired in the politics of personality. The race for president of the board of alderman seems more like a painful ritual, and while I sympathize with Jim Shrewsbury's effort to stay focused on real issues I still don't feel excited or motivated to be concerned.
What I have seen is disappointing -- mud-slinging, innuendo, gossip and posturing. For some reason, political junkies are interested in the races although one find it hard to see why. Voter turnout should be its usual low factor. The city will sleep through Tuesday, and what a shame that will be.
Here we have huge issues: a state takeover of the public schools, the BJC lease, the plot to displace residents from the near north side and a tax credit to do so, the appropriate use of TIF financing, police residency, the need for comprehensive zoning changes, the ongoing failure of the city's ancient charter, the county's dumping of homeless people on the city, regional government, the new river bridge, the definition of blight, historic preservation policy, civilian oversight of police, the lead poisoning epidemic and so forth.
Perhaps I am misreading media coverage of these issues as popular interest in their resolution. However, I see an intense desire for citizens to become informed about these issues. People really care, and even their interest in the lackluster election this year is strong.
What people lack are choices at the ballot box. Renewed civic debate has yet to translate into political strategies. When it does, we will see a great flowering that will shake the Democratic machine off of its pedestal. For now, we can dream -- or not vote next week.
The sad fact is that the races on the ballot are important, and even if one does not find much to ignite them among the contestants, they will legislate for the next four years (don't believe the alderpeople that say they are only there to serve, because they do legislate). The race for aldermanic president is especially important, given that whoever wins will preside over the Board of Aldermen and sit on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment for four years. That is four years of blighting bills, TIFs, transitional school board appointment power and ruling on filibusters. Those are important powers, even if the smokescreen of political spin have clouded the air.
City residents, please vote next week but please help build better choices next time.
(For the record, I am a former Green Party committeeman -- and former Green -- who has spent much time aiding candidates in the city campaigning for real change. Also for the record, I do not expect libertarian socialism to be the basis of a St. Louis political party.)
Yes, there are lots of yard signs in some parts of the city. But is there much in the way of political campaigning? The races that do get coverage seem mired in the politics of personality. The race for president of the board of alderman seems more like a painful ritual, and while I sympathize with Jim Shrewsbury's effort to stay focused on real issues I still don't feel excited or motivated to be concerned.
What I have seen is disappointing -- mud-slinging, innuendo, gossip and posturing. For some reason, political junkies are interested in the races although one find it hard to see why. Voter turnout should be its usual low factor. The city will sleep through Tuesday, and what a shame that will be.
Here we have huge issues: a state takeover of the public schools, the BJC lease, the plot to displace residents from the near north side and a tax credit to do so, the appropriate use of TIF financing, police residency, the need for comprehensive zoning changes, the ongoing failure of the city's ancient charter, the county's dumping of homeless people on the city, regional government, the new river bridge, the definition of blight, historic preservation policy, civilian oversight of police, the lead poisoning epidemic and so forth.
Perhaps I am misreading media coverage of these issues as popular interest in their resolution. However, I see an intense desire for citizens to become informed about these issues. People really care, and even their interest in the lackluster election this year is strong.
What people lack are choices at the ballot box. Renewed civic debate has yet to translate into political strategies. When it does, we will see a great flowering that will shake the Democratic machine off of its pedestal. For now, we can dream -- or not vote next week.
The sad fact is that the races on the ballot are important, and even if one does not find much to ignite them among the contestants, they will legislate for the next four years (don't believe the alderpeople that say they are only there to serve, because they do legislate). The race for aldermanic president is especially important, given that whoever wins will preside over the Board of Aldermen and sit on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment for four years. That is four years of blighting bills, TIFs, transitional school board appointment power and ruling on filibusters. Those are important powers, even if the smokescreen of political spin have clouded the air.
City residents, please vote next week but please help build better choices next time.
(For the record, I am a former Green Party committeeman -- and former Green -- who has spent much time aiding candidates in the city campaigning for real change. Also for the record, I do not expect libertarian socialism to be the basis of a St. Louis political party.)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Blairmont's Associates Giving to Both Shrewsbury and Reed
The two candidates for president of the Board of Aldermen have reported campaign contributions related to the "Blairmont" effort.
According to his 40 day before the primary election filing, Jim Shrewsbury received $750.00 from Eagle Realty Company on November 10, which represents the Blairmont family of companies. In fairness, Eagle Realty Company does appraisal work for the St. Louis Development Corporation and the Land Reutilization Authority and may have other cause to make this donation.
In his report, Lewis Reed shows that he raised in one day an astounding $4,000 in contributions from companies related to developer Paul J. McKee, Jr. including one of the Blairmont holding companies. On December 7, 2006 the following companies connected to McKee donated $1000 each: Create, LLC; Havenwood, LLC; Boardwalk Corporate Centre LLC; and Allston Alliance, LC. Allston Alliance LC is one of the Blairmont holding companies, owning the Cass Avenue Schnucks site; its registered agent is John Steffen, head of the Pyramid Companies. (On Reed's report, Allston Alliance lists a return address of 906 Olive Street, Suite 600, same as the Pyramid Companies.) While Steffen's role is unclear, McKee reported a 30% ownership stake in Allston Alliance LC. Also in fairness, McKee is chairman of BJC Healthcare that is seeking to renegotiate its lease of part of Forest Park. Shrewsbury opposes that renegotiation.
While these contributions may not amount to influence, they should be noted. The silence by public officials and candidates on the "Blairmont" project is notable. The private control of an entire ward's future should be of utmost concern to all elected officials, since such control ultimately threatens the role of government to shape development to be responsible both to city residents and to existing law.
According to his 40 day before the primary election filing, Jim Shrewsbury received $750.00 from Eagle Realty Company on November 10, which represents the Blairmont family of companies. In fairness, Eagle Realty Company does appraisal work for the St. Louis Development Corporation and the Land Reutilization Authority and may have other cause to make this donation.
In his report, Lewis Reed shows that he raised in one day an astounding $4,000 in contributions from companies related to developer Paul J. McKee, Jr. including one of the Blairmont holding companies. On December 7, 2006 the following companies connected to McKee donated $1000 each: Create, LLC; Havenwood, LLC; Boardwalk Corporate Centre LLC; and Allston Alliance, LC. Allston Alliance LC is one of the Blairmont holding companies, owning the Cass Avenue Schnucks site; its registered agent is John Steffen, head of the Pyramid Companies. (On Reed's report, Allston Alliance lists a return address of 906 Olive Street, Suite 600, same as the Pyramid Companies.) While Steffen's role is unclear, McKee reported a 30% ownership stake in Allston Alliance LC. Also in fairness, McKee is chairman of BJC Healthcare that is seeking to renegotiate its lease of part of Forest Park. Shrewsbury opposes that renegotiation.
While these contributions may not amount to influence, they should be noted. The silence by public officials and candidates on the "Blairmont" project is notable. The private control of an entire ward's future should be of utmost concern to all elected officials, since such control ultimately threatens the role of government to shape development to be responsible both to city residents and to existing law.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Christian Saller Can Tell You Where He Stands
Although I no longer make endorsements in this blog, and there really aren't many candidates running for the Board of Aldermen this year, I have to point out one of the candidates.
Christian Saller, a Democrat running in the Sixth Ward, actually has a historic preservation platform. He also has well-defined stances on problem properties and neighborhood development.
Recall my call for such artciulated stances in my December 7 post entitled "Candidates and the Built Environment." At least one candidate has answered the call.
Christian Saller, a Democrat running in the Sixth Ward, actually has a historic preservation platform. He also has well-defined stances on problem properties and neighborhood development.
Recall my call for such artciulated stances in my December 7 post entitled "Candidates and the Built Environment." At least one candidate has answered the call.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Candidates and the Built Environment
There will be many candidates for public office in St. Louis during the spring election cycle. The office of President of the Board of Alderman, aldermanic seats in even-numbered wards and two school board seats are on the ballot. The aldermanic candidates in particular are seeking or defending legislative power. They will make promises to voters about a number of issues.
Voters interested in urban issues need to make sure that candidates get their stances on the record. While a soft promise is better than none at all, the difference can be indiscernible. Aldermen introduce and vote on legislation impacting the built environment. Much of this legislation includes redevelopment ordinances -- most often "blighting" ordinances -- as well as tax abatement and tax increment financing. However, aldermen can do much more than dutifully respond to developers' requests for support. They shape, create and interpret public policies. They are more than the functionaries that they often claim to be.
We should ask candidates for specific promises. If a candidate wants to "preserve old buildings," we need to ask if that means that he would introduce a much-needed ordinance to reinstate city-wide preservation review. If a candidate thinks tax abatement is out of control, she needs to specify what legislative route she will pursue to address that. Talk is cheap, and either the elected candidates will do something to make policy changes their rhetoric endorses or they won't.
Our support for aldermanic candidates in the city should be contingent on receiving specific legislative actions he or she will take. Aldermen act through legislation, and candidates for aldermanic office won't talk in terms of specific bills we should be careful. Our support should hinge on firm promises based on the power that they seek. Even though many incumbents avoid advancing public policy change, aldermen have more power than other elected officials to determine what our built environment policies will be. No changes in LRA practices, preservation review, nuisance property enforcement or the zoning code can come about without an act of the board of aldermen. That's where a lot of power lies under the city charter. We should be wary of candidates for the board who won't tell us how they will use that power -- and those incumbents who claim that they don't have it.
Voters interested in urban issues need to make sure that candidates get their stances on the record. While a soft promise is better than none at all, the difference can be indiscernible. Aldermen introduce and vote on legislation impacting the built environment. Much of this legislation includes redevelopment ordinances -- most often "blighting" ordinances -- as well as tax abatement and tax increment financing. However, aldermen can do much more than dutifully respond to developers' requests for support. They shape, create and interpret public policies. They are more than the functionaries that they often claim to be.
We should ask candidates for specific promises. If a candidate wants to "preserve old buildings," we need to ask if that means that he would introduce a much-needed ordinance to reinstate city-wide preservation review. If a candidate thinks tax abatement is out of control, she needs to specify what legislative route she will pursue to address that. Talk is cheap, and either the elected candidates will do something to make policy changes their rhetoric endorses or they won't.
Our support for aldermanic candidates in the city should be contingent on receiving specific legislative actions he or she will take. Aldermen act through legislation, and candidates for aldermanic office won't talk in terms of specific bills we should be careful. Our support should hinge on firm promises based on the power that they seek. Even though many incumbents avoid advancing public policy change, aldermen have more power than other elected officials to determine what our built environment policies will be. No changes in LRA practices, preservation review, nuisance property enforcement or the zoning code can come about without an act of the board of aldermen. That's where a lot of power lies under the city charter. We should be wary of candidates for the board who won't tell us how they will use that power -- and those incumbents who claim that they don't have it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
