By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, January 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Labels: Aldermen, BJC/Park_Deal
Board Bill 376, the controversial BJC/Park deal, moved closer to passage by the Board of Aldermen today. Earlier this week, opponents of the deal had a chance to voice their concerns to the aldermanic Parks Committee.
Carla Scissors-Cohen spoke on behalf of the group Citizens to Protect Forest Park. She asked the aldermen to delay acting on this bill until after the voters get a chance to vote on the City Park Protection Initiative, which would amend the charter to require voter approval for any sale or lease of city park land.
Click here to view video of the bill's supporters.
9 Comments:
Gee it's not hard for me to notice who is more sincere... I'd vote for Carla's ideas and reject June's ASAP. BJC's argument based on demographic issues favors the "no lease" option. BJC has numerous other sites nearby to utilize.
1/26/2007 2:35 PM
They don't have nearby sites to utilize. How would you reccomend moving someon from surgery to a bed that is blocks away? Wheel them down the street?
1/26/2007 3:14 PM
Forget that the park already has Highway 40, MetroLink, roadways, parking lots, and multiple insitutions, each occupying more land the already leased garage. Every blade of grass is sacred!
1/26/2007 3:32 PM
The 40 interchange for Kingshighway alone occupies more parkland than the BJC proposal. I suppose these park-purists failing to see the bigger picture could care less about that economic asset as well.
1/26/2007 3:36 PM
"Every blade of grass is sacred!"
WTF? Was there a terrorist attack on that land that I didn't know about? Was the Civil War decided in Forest Park? Did people die to liberate the park from a foreign nation?
Let's not get crazy here.
1/26/2007 3:38 PM
If all grass is sacred then is the land at ellendale sacred too? Will we be picketing the dogpound also?
1/26/2007 3:56 PM
Wish you all were at the Board of Aldermen meeting today.
It was an interesting situation. Joe Roddy, sponsor of the BJC deal, was all over the map w/his comments. He started by acknowledging that the opposition of Citizens to Protect Forest Park had lead to a "dramatically improved" deal from the City's standpoint. Which shows that without citizen oversight the geniuses at the Board of Aldermen, with the exception of Jim Shrewsbury and Jeffrey Boyd, would have tried to give Forest Park away for nearly nothing! And they wonder why citizens are suspicious!
Then he decided to bring up the point that we're in a representative democracy and, by golly, he's a representative entrusted with the public good. Of course he neglected to mention that suspending the rules, so they could fast track a bill for the sole purpose of circumventing the public's right to participate in the decision making might be perceived as less than democratic. All for a bill that effectively sells Forest Park land in a deal that was done behind closed doors. Or perhaps he wants his consituents in the 17th ward to remember this next time they see his name on the ballot. Joe "I sold Forest Park and I'd do it again" Roddy.
The deal is not done yet. Citizens to Protect Forest Park has vowed to keep fighting. One tricky part of the deal is the fact that the city has listed Forest Park for collateral on the bonds it issued for some of the FP renovations. Ooops! One of the three board bills in the BJC-Forest Park deal authorizes the City to beg the bond holders to release the land that BJC wants from the collateral agreement. Will this hurt the City's credit? hmm...
The total deal is encompassed in three board bills, 374, 375, and 376. Today, Friday the 26th, they approved Board Bill 375 and 376 (the Committee Substitute). The third bill, 374, would re-zone the area from park land to "I" Central Business District. No more park ever. This one will come up on a future agenda. Some lease eh? The latest version of the lease itself is the Committee Subsitute for 376.
The new deal names Forest Park Forever as the trustee of the $2 million per year from BJC. Roddy said that Forest Park Forever, a nonprofit, was "so involved in this lease deal". They get to manage the funds for maintenance and upkeep.
At one point, Roddy went on a strange tirade. Here's the gist:
We have a 3rd world phenomenon here in the city. Our city buildings are just not quite there.
(Then he mentioned that City Hall was modeled after one in Paris and that it is now in disrepair, offers small offices for aldermen, and needs a lot of work and he continued..) We neglect things. Because of our budget situation, things just don't get done properly... City Hall isn't fully air conditioned, half of our alleys and streets are in deplorable condition, health costs are going up, every year we layoff people, we've frozen salaries, city employees' retirement security is jeopradized because our pension obligations are not fully funded; we had to fix the civil courts building because the judges sued us over it-- [and here you must see the video, I cannot capture this moment well but I will put down the words]:
"Tell your consituents that you voted for this because judges sued to fix the civil courts building, but Forest Park will have $3.8 million for the next 100 years; we're laying off employees but Forest Park will have $3.8 million for the next 100 years; our pension obligations are not funded but Forest Park will have $3.8 million for the next 100 years"...and so on.
Paper was limited so I didn't write this whole tirade down but it sure seemed like an argument against the park deal. $2 million of that money is from BJC. and $1.8 from Forest Park Forever in a matching deal.
Here's the big, fat irony. Immediately following the BOA meeting...they assembled for a presentation on the new Ballpark Village- a $487 million Cards project that is hoping for $115 million in public subsidy. [Funny, I didn't hear this: "we're laying off people but the Cards- a for-profit, multi-million dollar corporation will get $115 million; half of our streets and alleys are in deplorable condition but the Cards will get $115 million...etc..] It sure makes the comments about Forest Park seem, well, insincere.
Are you disgusted yet?
Wessels said, "I'm proud to vote for this." and "if we don't do this today the park will deteriorate" Yeah right. First, what's the rush? If the deal is so vital, and so sweet, why wouldn't it win voter approval?
Krewson spoke in favor of the deal too. So did Bosley. The rest just voted in its favor. 4 members were absent (Jennifer Florida, Troupe, and Griffin, I think) or did not vote at all (Kennedy, I think, did not vote at all). Feel free to correct this record if you have better notes. The final count was 22 in favor of the sale and two against. The two with backbone, Jeffrey Boyd and Jim Shrewsbury, deserve the gratitude of the residents of this city and the region. Frankly, if the deal is "so great" as Krewson, Roddy and company were falling over themselves to say, then why wouldn't the esteemed voters of the city approve it? And why did opposition to the deal, and 28,000 signatures to put future deals like this on the ballot, have the effect of sending the BOA back to the drawing board to get a 'dramatically improved' deal?
Ahh, democracy.. or at least some version of it.
Keep at it. It ain't over.
1/26/2007 4:50 PM
^Excellent reporting anon! It is amazing to listen to the ridiculous rants made by aldermen... almost as ridiculous as when begging for money then turning around and giving it away! Despicable leadership at best.
1/27/2007 8:03 AM
So are all you park fanatics going to remember this when St. Francis runs again or are your memories and organizational skills as bad as the Century Building freaks?
1/27/2007 8:26 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home