By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 8:52 AM
Jake Wagman wrote a story in Friday's Post-Dispatch shedding a little light on some of the conflicts of interest that infest the Barnes-Forest Park deal.
Much of Jake's story focused on lobbyist Lou Hamilton, who works for both Mayor Francis Slay and Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Hamilton has also made loans to at least one of the aldermen Slay selected to "independently" examine the deal. From Jake's article:
Recently, Barnes-Jewish officials hired Hamilton to lobby for them on the Forest Park deal. That Hamilton wears so many hats in the deal - employee of the mayor, friend to aldermen, lobbyist for the hospital - is a window into the sometimes close-knit world of city politics.
This kind of playing both sides has become the modus operandi of several employees of the mayor.
Readers might recall a story we published back in February about the ongoing conflict of interest that exists with the personal and business relationship of two other Slay appointees: Deputy Mayor Barb Geisman and hired gun (who's been firing blanks after losing three campaigns in a row for his boss) Richard Callow.
Very similar to this situation, Callow was lobbying for the St. Louis Cardinals (along with Hamilton) when the team's owners were trying to get as much public money as possible to build a new stadium. At the same time, his "partner," Geisman, as deputy mayor, was presumably trying to get the best deal for taxpayers (although you couldn't much tell that from the horrible deal that Slay first supported before being slapped down by the state).
Callow continues to work for Slay's political campaign, ghostwriting for Slay on his blog and leading the Mayor's political fights like last month's school board election and charter reform.
PUB DEF readers may also recognize the name of Lou Hamilton. He was the winner of our "Name that Politico!" contest last month. Still haven't gotten that "prize" to him yet.
Related stories:
Callow + Geisman = Conflict of Interest
Barnes purchase of Forest Park land passes
VIDEO: Planning Commission Vote
7 Comments:
Don't forget Hamilton's blue light special --- on the dash of his SUV speeding through stop signs to get to the Mayor's ball in February.
5/16/2006 11:12 AM
In every case you can think of Slay takes the side of the big corporation over the city taxpayers.
5/16/2006 2:31 PM
Hamilton's and Rainford's answer to Wagman's question of whether a conflict exists is simply unacceptable. To say that he only lobbies aldermen is just crazy. His duties clearly also include lobbying the mayor and his appointees.
5/16/2006 6:13 PM
^I think amending a lease that for the next 44 years would only pay the City $150k a year to now over $1.5m a year is definitely looking out for City taxpayers. That's a lot green to pay for Forest Park's future, in exchange for tiny bit of green outside the main park atop a parking garage.
5/17/2006 8:50 AM
^
yeah, that new lease is so good it excuses the unethical behavior of a$$holes like hamilton...and karl rove too?
5/17/2006 11:41 AM
^Not excuses for Hamilton or Rove, but the public benefits of an amended lease should be considered counter-intuitive to the second poster's "Slay takes the side of the big corporation OVER the city taxpayers."
In the case of the AMENDED lease, it's a win-win for both a big corporation (BJC, which also pays substantial taxes already as the City's largest and for-profit employer) AND taxpayers (by shifting public needs to private resources). Such dramatically increased lease payments will help meet Forest Park's future needs without competing for limited funding for all our other numerous needs in the City. So that's indeed looking out for the taxpayer.
Our Comptroller, who is by far very creative in financing and a good watchdog over our coffers, is likely just ticked she didn't think of it first, or mad that BJC went directly to the Mayor's Office.
5/17/2006 12:10 PM
Given just how many people in this city are on the BJC and/or WashU payroll (including me), it would be hard to find somebody WITHOUT a conflict-of-interest in this situation.
I still have misgivings though.
The lease really should include:
1) Annual lease payment increases tied to inflation. In 90 years, $1.5 million will be a pittance. It'll probably cost $10 to buy a can of soda by then!
2) Specific locations in Forest Park or nearby where all recreational facilities - tennis courts, racquetball courts, playground - will be replaced.
3) Some idea of the plans for both pieces of ground. We keep forgetting that the open green space SOUTH of Clayton Avenue is included in this deal, and that space will probably get a little bigger after the I-64 interchange is rebuilt. NO surface parking should be permitted!
I still wonder about the timing of this announcement relatively in tandem with the Art Museum's expansion plans.
Could it be this was announced around the same time to deflect attention from yet another intrusion into relatively pristine Forest Park greenspace (compared to the BJC site) by a taxpayer-funded institution of dubious economic significance like SLAM?
Don't get me wrong - I'd much rather spend a day at the Art Museum than at Barnes-Jewish. By a long shot. But SLAM is a semi-public institution that deserves just as much public oversight into its actions as BJC!
5/17/2006 2:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home