By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, February 23, 2007 at 10:00 AM
BREAKING NEWS - READ IT HERE FIRST Labels: BJC/Park_Deal
By a vote of 2-1, the Board of Estimate & Apportionment has agreed to modify and extend BJC HealthCare's lease of a portion of city park land.
At their meeting this morning in City Hall, Mayor Francis Slay and Comptroller Darlene Green voted in favor while Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury voted against.
15 Comments:
I think Shrewsbury's no vote has some validity given the past attempts to take parts of Forest Park - south of I-64/Hwy 40 and then a proposal to build over Kingshighway and touch down in the main Forest Park.
Where his position falls apart a bit is the Hudlin Park space is in a different context than the others. Most would object to building on the other areas and indeed many object to this location but I think many others don't object.
I still don't like how all this came about --- waiting to solve a financial crisis until a major entity comes along. What other issues are out there simply waiting for a major employer to solve out of their own self interests?
2/23/2007 10:35 AM
Urban Review,
Sorry, but that is some tortured logic.
The history of previous encroachments into Forest Park compared to this current proposal means very little when viewed in the context of this, our "ad hoc" city.
In St. Louis, we do the public's business on a case by case basis. That's what happens with our weak mayor, three-headed Board of E and A system.
This proposal, looked at on its own merits, is a very good deal for the city. That's why it has so much support from all corners of the city.
The next time someone wants to buy, sell, or lease city property, it will go through a similar, tortured, ad hoc process, and the BJC deal won't mean a thing.
2/23/2007 11:07 AM
I'm struggling with Shrewsbury's vote against this. The deal has gotten so much better. As I understand it BJC has agreed to put some kind of 24/7 emergency center in north St. Louis. This is desperately needed. So I look at Jim voting against this emergency medical center for north St. Louis while he pushes another deal that gives park land for a dog pound. I'm really struggling with these priorities.
2/23/2007 11:42 AM
Steve, I also have to disagree. While Darlene Green opposed the deal in the beginning and used her leverage to negotiate a better deal for the City, Jim Shrewsbury has just said "no, no, no."
This is not Forest Park. Forest Park as we know it is the nearly 1,300 acres across the street, not the 9 acres covered by this lease and which is already home to Barnes' parking garage!
Steve, you and I talk about this all the time. Too many politicians in this town use their power just to stop things, not to make things better.
2/23/2007 11:43 AM
Did anyone actually read what I wrote? Clearly many people want to keep this as green space, which gives his view "some validity."
In my second paragraph I acknowledged Shrewsbury's "position falls apart" because of the location of this particular parcel. Basically, he is trying to tie back to earlier attempts at taking Forest Park green space but this case is in fact different.
And I agree with anonymous #1 that we have a very ad hoc system of doing our business based on our city charter. I don't have to like it though.
2/23/2007 11:56 AM
Thank you Jim for having a position and holding true to it. I know I can count on you to stick to your guns, unlike "flip-flopping" Lewis.
This is a horrible precedent! What is next, is Washu going to take over the west end of the park?!
2/23/2007 11:57 AM
To Anon at 11:57 am,
Um, no. Wash U will never build over the western end of Forest Park. How do I know. Here's how.
Ask anyone who knows St. Louis to define the boundaries of Forest Park, and they will tell you Kingsighway, Skinker, Lindell, and Highway 40. Those boundaries are understood by everyone and they are sacrosanct.
On the other hand, that strip of greenspace over a parking lot, east of Kingshighway and next to BJC was not understood as Forest Park, and not considered sacred.
Might another city park site in be converted to private use some day in the future? Absolutely. Bet on it. Let's hope so.
Why? Because, if in the judgement of our city leaders, it makes sense to privatize or sell a piece of city parkland, then, yes, by all means, we should do it. Remember, no one is indispensable, they're not making more land (and if there's a better use for it, our leaders should consider such) and there are no absolutes in life, except when we say so.
See? Everything in St. Louis is done on an ad hoc basis, studied to death, and not approved until it survives the gauntlet of byzantine-style government, neighborhood groups, bureaucratic reviews, government committees, the Board of Aldermen, and possibly the Board of E and A.
And because we have such a drawn out, public, byzantine process, we can all relax. Nothing happens here quickly.
How long has this BJC deal in the works, anyway?
2/23/2007 1:21 PM
I'd rather not have three people on the E&A that are willing to roll whenever someone waves a check in their faces. I like that Jim stuck to his guns even though he's been under pressure to bow to the mayor - both views are needed to make sure that the city doesn't do things just to do them.
2/23/2007 2:17 PM
What I agree with and find so stupid is in Urban review's 3rd paragraph: waiting to solve a finanical crisis.
Did Forest Park Forever, in their years of collecting funds not possibly think about who was going to pay to maintain all their work? Did they think that when the time came, they would be able to hit the residents up for an increase in their taxes?
Why weren't they putting money aside for an endowment instead of waiting for BJC or Taylor to come to the rescue?
More importantly, what would have happened had that deal not gone through? Had BJC not coughed up more bucks? What will happen in the future when that money isn't enough?
2/23/2007 3:29 PM
There are a zillion problems out there waiting for a way to finance their solution. The public employees' unfunded pensions, the storm sewers, the steam loop, repairs in most of the 105 parks, citywide wi-fi, Soldiers Memorial, the public schools, the LRA inventory of abandoned properties, modernization of the airport, the rec centers, rolling stock, relocation of the health department . . .
None of these is any more a secret than was the on-going search for the money to maintain the Forest Park improvements.
2/23/2007 5:45 PM
Dear Anonymous at 5:45 pm,
Thank you for that excellent dose of reality.
As President of the Board of Aldermen, has Shrewsbury taken the lead on any of these issues?
I've never heard him address one...well, I take that back.
He has talked about the pensions of public employees...no wonder those public employees are endorsing him.
2/23/2007 8:08 PM
Anon #2 -- if it's already improved this much, who's to say we couldn't get more out of BJC yet? It's called negotiating. Thanks, Jim (and at first Darlene) for slowing the process to get us a fairer deal.
2/23/2007 8:15 PM
Antonio, my opinion, it is not appropriate for you to give an opinion on an issue relating to one of the people running for President of the Board while you're representing the other.
Covering the race, compromise enough; no one begrudges you earning a living; but if you're to maintain semblance of integrity, you shouldnt give opinions on issues affecting the race. my opinion.
2/23/2007 9:21 PM
I agree with Urban Review. We need less aldermen(about 9 is enough) and they need to not be so worried about trash pickup but about governing this city in the 21st century. WE NEED CHARTER REFORM!!
2/23/2007 11:20 PM
For the sake of the anonymous poster that wrote: "Antonio, my opinion, it is not appropriate for you to give an opinion on an issue relating to one of the people running for President of the Board while you're representing the other."
Let me repost my earlier comment...
While I greatly appreciate the high regard in which people hold Pub Def, every now and then I have to remind folks that this is not a newspaper and not a television news network. This is a blog -- a blog produced by one man. That man, me, is a political consultant. This site earns me no profit. So in order to eat and pay my bills, I have to do what I do best: work elections.
Hell, it's not like there are very many good-paying jobs in this town for black reporters. But that's another story.
I think I go above and beyond to (1) deliver you a pretty good product for which you pay nothing, and (2) clearly identify whatever perceived conflicts of interest one may reasonably infer.
This really is a case of "I report. You decide." Except on every story involving someone I have a financial arrangement with, I clearly identify that relationship.
What more do you want?
2/24/2007 10:05 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home