By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 9:42 AM
At an endorsement meeting of the 24th Ward Democrats last night, President of the Board of Aldermen Jim Shrewsbury said he will vote against the plan to extend BJC's lease of a portion of park land once it reaches the Board of Estimate & Apportionment. Labels: BJC/Park_Deal, BOA_President_Race
The Board of E&A is made up of the President, the Mayor and the Comptroller and its approval is required for any major financial dealings in the city. Mayor Francis Slay supports the deal while Comptroller Darlene Green has for months been critical of it.
Yesterday the aldermanic Parks Committee approved Board Bill 376 which amends the lease agreement (check back for video from that meeting later). Shrewsbury's was one of three votes against the bill.
But just prior to that vote, the Shrewsbury voted in favor of a bill co-sponsored by him and 24th Ward Ald. Bill Waterhouse that would take a portion of Arsenal-Ellendale Park to build an animal care facility. Representatives from Citizens to Protect Forest Park also spoke against this taking of park land. At last night's 24th Ward meeting, he was asked why he opposes taking park land for hospital beds, but supports taking park land for animal beds.
Shrewsbury won the ward's endorsement 38 to 4 with 1 abstention.
Shrewsbury and his opponent in the March election, Lewis Reed*, were asked why the Board of Aldermen is moving BJC/Forest Park deal forward before voters get a chance to voice their opinion on the matter in a March ballot initiative. Reed deferred the question to Shrewsbury saying that as the current president, Shrewsbury had pledged to kill the bill. Shrewsbury strongly denied ever making such a statement and said he doesn't have the ability to kill a board bill.
*Lewis Reed is a client of A.D. French & Associates
8 Comments:
He doesn't have the ability to kill a board bill? Does this guy think people are stupid or something? He's the president of the board and he doesn't know how to kill a bill if he really wants to? Maybe he should take some lessons from Freeman Bosley, Sr.
1/25/2007 10:20 AM
Can the Board of Aldermen override a "veto" of the Board of E and A?
1/25/2007 10:41 AM
Giving a portion of a park to a non-for-profit which will provide essential City services seems rational to me. Jim does make good points about the Forest Park Master Plan as well. If we were able to raise record amounts of funds through taxes and donations, then we can do it again.
Rule 63:
The principal sponsor of any bill, whose name shall be listed first, may defer such bill from consideration on the Perfection or the Third Reading Calendar unless two thirds of all members of the Board of Aldermen vote to consider said bill. Upon deferral by a principal sponsor the bill shall be placed on the Perfection-Informal Calendar or the Third Reading-Informal Calendar. The principal sponsor shall have the right to bring said bills off the Informal Calendars for consideration at any meeting.
Rules
1/25/2007 10:44 AM
Jim, could have put the bill into a committee not run by the sponsor, that might have slowed it up, or he could have put it into a committee he controls, since he assigns committees. Also he could have talked to the Alderman and ask him to wait in intoducing it. He is the President after all.
1/25/2007 1:44 PM
Anon you do make some good points. Jim could have used whatever influence he has to slow the process, yet to say he controls the committees at this point? Why would the committees listen to him given he could be replaced by Reed? Also, on one hand he is only one vote on the committee, yet he does refer bills to Engrossment.
He/She shall assign bills to appropriate committees and refer bills, when ready, to the Engrossment Committee.
Perhaps he can deny referral to the Engrossment Committee? More info here.
Yet, if he did deny referral, assuming its possible and I am no expert, he could be considered an obstructionist which would violate Aldermanic Courtesy.
Jim asking Roddy to defer the bill is also against Aldermanic Courtesy and naive. Roddy in no way will oppose the BJC deal.
1/25/2007 4:20 PM
But Doug, as President, the BJC deal is in Jim's ward. Jim's ward is the whole city. He says so himself. He says, "I'm an alderman at-large." So by his words, that is in his ward, therefore he doesn't need to show aldermanic courtesy since it is in his ward. Plus should the President really show aldermanic courtesy? Of all people he should be the last to use that excuse, per his words.
1/25/2007 5:21 PM
The thing that makes this bill so important is that the lease payments will be used to maintain parks throughout the city on an annual basis. The money raised for the Forest park improvoemtns were normally one time gifts, not annual appropiations. Imagine what improvements to our many pocket parks, (swings, 1st class playground equipment, updated ball fields)could be planned and carried out if we knew there would ba an annual appropiation of $1.6 million and especially on the Northside!
1/26/2007 8:37 AM
Well, Charles, since the chariman of BJC is busy ousting black people from the northside, what difference does the expenditure of the lease money make? The northside'll be whiter than St. Chuck by the time McKee is done.
1/26/2007 2:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home