By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, February 07, 2007 at 11:08 AM
BREAKING NEWS Comptroller Darlene Green, nor Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury, would second Mayor Francis Slay's motion today to approve the lease agreement that would have allowed BJC Hospital to expand into a small portion of Forest Park on which it already operates a parking garage. Green and Shrewsbury's silence came just minutes ago at a morning meeting of the three-member Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Labels: BJC/Park_Deal, Breaking_News
46 Comments:
What a shame! Millions of dollars lost for our city and no solution on how to make up that money offered by Shrewsbury or Green.
2/07/2007 11:47 AM
I hear that Green at least negotiated with BJC. Shrewsbury just sat there like an obstructionist and said NO DEAL! He, as the leader of the legislative body, didn't even look for or suggest alternatives.
2/07/2007 11:51 AM
did she not have the balls to even give her reasons? this city is so f'ed up and i am worried it will never be fixed. i wonder why i moved here from the county, and why i want to even bother staying around.
2/07/2007 11:58 AM
woo-hoo!
2/07/2007 12:04 PM
Not sure if any of these make good campaign slogans. Just trying them out.
Jim Shrewsbury-Puppies over People.
Jim Shrewsbury-Puppies over Parks.
Jim Shrewsbury-Obstructionist.
Jim Shrewsbury-Short sighted.
Jim Shrewsbury-Politics over People.
Any of them any good?
Puppy Power!!!
2/07/2007 12:04 PM
Not exactly two profiles in courage
2/07/2007 12:06 PM
Not sure if any of these make good campaign slogans. Just trying them out.
Lewis Reed-Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir!
Lewis Reed-Money over People.
Lewis Reed-Development over Parks.
Lewis Reed-Band Aid Solutions for Big Problems.
Lewis Reed-Sure, why not.
2/07/2007 12:25 PM
Come on we are all democrats, can't we get along. We are supposed to understand that politics prevails in St. Louis. Neither Reed and nor Shrewsbury care about us. How about let's call a truce and vote for indepedent we can live with that doesn't care about politics? What do you say Mr. Haas?
2/07/2007 12:45 PM
More proof that the 28th Ward endorsed the right man last week!
The sooner Shrewsbury is gone the better.
2/07/2007 12:57 PM
I have to get in on this.
Jim Shrewsbury-No Solution, No Problem, Just Say NO.
Look I have looked into both of their records a little bit, and have seen that both vote with the mayor pretty often. Jim does it more than Lewis though because Jim gets extra opportunity to vote because of E&A. Remember Jim gave away the City to John Steffen over Darlene's objection. Both went for Civilian Review, and the Mayor and Jim went in together on the Dog killing field while Lewis objected to it.
2/07/2007 12:59 PM
Way to screw it up again Dar Dar. It is a damn shame that both Green and Shrewbury can't sit down at the table like adults and work this out. It seems they don't care about the long term future of this city. Pissing off the city's largest employer and losing millions in funding for Forest park is almost criminal. And for what reason? Grow up a**holes.
2/07/2007 1:07 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2/07/2007 1:15 PM
If I'm among the 22 members of the Board of Aldemen who voted for this, I'm asking myself, "What is our President doing?"
If I'm one of the city's bondholders, I'm asking myself, "What is the comptroller doing?"
If I'm a city resident, I'm asking myself, "What kind of message are these two elected officials sending to one of our city's top institutions and the region?"
What is their agenda?
2/07/2007 1:17 PM
Since I'm one of the overwhelming majority of citizen's who are AGAINST this deal, I am thanking President Shrewsbury and the Comptroller for protecting my interests!
2/07/2007 1:29 PM
That is not me!
Bob Rice
2/07/2007 1:31 PM
How can anon say the majority of the City is against the deal? NOT TRUE. This is a loss for the City and a loss of money for all of our City Parks!
2/07/2007 1:39 PM
Jim and Darlene voting for this would have been tantamount to the when the state legislature passed a law allowing concealed weapons after the citizen's of our state voted against proposition b.
Isn't that why we elect people - to represent us??
I want politicians to listen to me, that's why I am voting for Shrewsbury.
2/07/2007 1:40 PM
Thanks Jim!
Goodbye high-paying medical industry jobs!
Goodbye increased earnings taxes!
Goodbye millions of dollars in park maintenance funds!
Thanks BJC-deal opponents! Now we all suffer and pay more taxes thanks to your ill-informed opinions!
Well, we do have the same choice BJC has for its expansion plans-we could move out of the city.
2/07/2007 1:43 PM
Thanks for not giving away our park. What were they going to ask for next, the arch grounds? Thanks for taking the time to analyze the deal instead of just doing whatever the Mayor wants. Thank God for E&A.
I hope BJC takes the time to look for other places to build and proposes a good deal to the city next time instead of trying to rob us. In the meantime three cheers to Green and Shrewsbury for protecting us.
2/07/2007 1:50 PM
Darlene is buying time -- isn't it smarter to postpone a deal than to rush through with a bad deal (or even perceived as bad)? BJC can propose a new deal, go through the right channels and try it again. Nicely done, Comptroller Green.
2/07/2007 1:54 PM
Please, BJC has been there forever and they aren't going anywhere.
2/07/2007 2:21 PM
No impersonating, please.
2/07/2007 2:44 PM
"I want politicians to listen to me, that's why I am voting for Shrewsbury."
Actually, to make the parallel to the E&A meeting perfect, you wouldn't vote for Shrewsbury. You'd just not vote.
2/07/2007 2:59 PM
I think you misread the article. There was no vote. The mayor made a motion to approve and no one seconded it. Therefore, there was nothing to vote on.
2/07/2007 3:11 PM
Jim is shrewd. The same white liberals who get all warm and fuzzy over Lewis as a token nod to diversity are also likely nut-jobs who think every blade of grass is sacred (and love puppies too).
2/07/2007 3:14 PM
I believe the state should step in and take over city hall, don't you?Replace the alderman,comptroller and mayor with a 3 person board.They could be appointed by the president,v.p and blunt...
2/07/2007 6:15 PM
I must conclude that BJC didn't grease the hands of Jim or Darlene enough. They thought that their employer status and presentation on demographic trends, along with their comrades at WashOutU, was sufficient and that the fix was in!
Back to the drawing boards..it's not over.
2/07/2007 6:20 PM
Time for Darlene Green to go.
2/07/2007 7:06 PM
I find it interesting that no one remembers that the dog pound won't cost the City any money. Or that fundraising for the pound started because of the DEATH of Rodney McAllister who was mauled to death several years ago by stray dogs in the 26th Ward. Volunteers have worked for free holding fundraiser, trivia nights, silent auctions, etc. to help build a new dog pound. Pounds aren't just to house puppies, but also to house dangers dogs who aren't secured by irresponsible owners. Shrewsbury took over the task of trying to raise the funds for the pound without using City money.
Now you want to equate this with puppies over people? What about Rodney and the other young kids who play daily and are exposed to pit bulls running loose?
Get real people! Darlene was right. BJC has stated that they don't have ANY IMMEDIATE plans for the park site. If that's true, then let the people vote in April and then BJC can present their proposal to the public and allow public discourse on the project. There is no loss of jobs that will result from this decision and no danger of BJC leaving the City. They were pressing this because 20,000 confirmed signatures petitioned the Board of Elections to put this issue on the ballot. IF we are allowed to vote for politicans, then we should also have their respect on our right to excerise the electoral process on other matters.
They are elected officials, not kings and queens. Darlene's fiscal instincts have always been with the taxpayers in mind. Oh by the way, since we are talking about balls here, why did Lewis Reed take a walk on the Ballpark Village vote?
2/07/2007 7:57 PM
soundbite of the day at city hall during roll call:
Lewis Reed.....
Lewis REed......
Lewis REEED.....?
2/07/2007 9:47 PM
"WashOutU"--what is that supposed to mean?
2/07/2007 9:48 PM
I'll echo "2/07/2007 7:57 PM
anonymous' post", except with my name. Let's get real here imperialists running dogs, or whatever the 70's expression is, this vote wasnt to kill the BJC parks deal, it was to let the people vote on their referendum, then if it passes, we can see whether the people support the park lease or not.
I personally can support a deal (is the $2million a year adjusted by 5% each year for inflation?), but if the people want to speak, let them. Then if the referendum passes, they/we can vote on the park deal.
And if the legislation is held up in court tests by those who think it's vague or overbroad (may be), then it will be they who hold up the park deal by delaying a vote not those who oppose it.
My preference: put the BJC lease to a vote after the April election if the referendum passes while a court test is being processed, just dont get an injunction against the BJC lease deal vote.
And for those criticizing Jim and Darlene: you have no shame, you have no brains, maybe you work for BJC or their flacks (not disrepect to that wonderful hospital which built a parking garage on my former residential street Laclede, and in spite of their wonderful medicine is a 2000 pound gorilla and bully which we welcome in city, but only on fair terms. That should be agreeable to all.
2/07/2007 10:29 PM
I hear arguments that selling off (OK, leasing) Forest Park greenspace to BJC would bring the city "high-paying medical industry jobs . . . [and] increased earnings taxes."
Sounds like Republican arguments to me.
2/08/2007 1:22 AM
Except republicans oppose the earning tax. Oracle, you should know that...
2/08/2007 6:38 AM
Tom Bauer isn't a Republican, but always talks about earnings tax when making deals to give huge tax breaks to developers. He also is all about not listening to constituents and doing what he wants. I wonder if he supports approving the BJC deal before voters get their say on it. He's running for alderman again. Maybe someone should ask him.
Maybe someone should ask Reed if he considers himself much like Tom Bauer.
2/08/2007 10:02 AM
Ah-ha, Developers! That's what Reed's support of this deal is about. It's not simply about BJC. He is a pro-developer candidate and that's why people who pick development at any cost, like Jennifer Florida, are flocking to him. If Reed gets elected president of the board of aldermen expect any consideration for historic preservation to go out the window. The board will mow down our history and give land away to build shiny new buildings and homes that most of us can't afford. They'll call it a renaissance, but we won't be here for it. We'll have to move out of the city when our property taxes go through the roof or our homes are taken by eminent domain.
2/08/2007 11:31 AM
It is my understanding that Alderman Reed has managed to maintain the historic integrity of his ward without eminent domain and without destroying its beauty. I have been to Lafayette Square and to Squires, and both places look beautiful. I think he has done an excellent job of filling in development with existing houses. I would be interested in Steve Paterson's opinion on the 6th Ward.
2/08/2007 11:41 AM
See, now Jim even has the building-huggers on his side. Add those to the Forest Park tree-huggers and the Animal Shelter puppy-lovers, and Jim is slowly eroding any white liberal support for Lewis. Some might think such political maneuvers could risk Jim's base of white conservatives, but they wouldn't vote for a black man anyway. I told you Jim is crafty.
2/08/2007 11:49 AM
"Forest Park tree huggers"?
So you, a Reed supporter, could care less about Forest Park? Sounds like the development at any cost crowd is out in support of Reed. Tell Pyramid and your developer friends that people who care about responsible development say "hi."
2/08/2007 12:06 PM
So the pro-historic building, animal-loving people who want parks for recreation in the city are for Shrewsbury, right? Is that your argument?
Does that mean the dog-kicking, cement-loving, let's tear down the Cathedral Basilica people are for Reed?
Gee, who should I vote for?
2/08/2007 12:15 PM
On the last report Jim Shrewsbury recieved more money from John Steffen/Pyramid than Lewis Reed did.
2/08/2007 12:30 PM
"On the last report Jim Shrewsbury recieved more money from John Steffen/Pyramid than Lewis Reed did."
Of course Pyramid is contributing to both campaigns. They couldn't risk backing the wrong horse.
2/08/2007 1:03 PM
If John Steffen and Pyramid gave more money to Shrewsbury doesn't that mean that Jim is more in debt to John Steffen than Reed is. And if so doesn't that mean that Shrewsbury is anti-building huggers?
2/08/2007 1:38 PM
So I read that Reed voted for BJC to develop in our public park, but he voted against Cordish developing the hole in the ground in downtown? That doesn't make sense at all. What St. Louis doesn't need now is a decision-maker who can't make up his/her mind.
2/09/2007 8:54 AM
Well, Shrewsbury voted for risking City revenue with the St. Louis Centre TIF, but against enhancing our revenue through extending BJC's lease. How's that for inconsistency?
2/09/2007 5:24 PM
Lewis voted for the TIF at St. Louis Center.
2/10/2007 6:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home