By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, April 27, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Labels: Mayor
Some highlights from Mayor Francis Slay's 25-minute speech today:
On the City's Population Losses and Gains:
"It is difficult to grasp how far the City has come without remembering how far it had fallen. Between 1950 and 2000, the City’s neighborhoods lost more people, more jobs, buildings, and businesses than New Orleans lost to Hurricane Katrina. Finding our way back has taken time, money, and plenty of hard work."
"The U.S. Census Bureau, which annually estimates population, has agreed that our population last July was 353,837 – an increase from the previous July and the two Julys before it. It is not a dramatic jump – about 6,000 more St. Louisans since the last Census – but it has been a steady and welcome one."
On Crime:
"Crime is not the same in every neighborhood. The vast majority of our neighborhoods are safe places any time. But, some of our neighborhoods are not.
No one should be satisfied – wherever you live – until every child can play outside and walk to school without fear, until every senior citizen can live without bars on the window, and where every parent feels comfortable raising a family."
On Development:
"... we have set aside nearly $2-million dollars in Community Development Block Grant funds to spur neighborhood development in challenged neighborhoods in north St. Louis. Now that elections are over and all of you are firmly seated, Barb [Geisman] will be working with you to see that these funds are put towards uses that have long-term impact.
Third, I intend to work with you and President [Lewis] Reed to continue to use tax increment financing to attract private investment to those City neighborhoods where it is most needed and where TIF will work. And he and I will oppose any blanket policy that seeks to ban or restrict residential TIFs."
On Public Education:
"For decades now, families – both white and African American – have left the City to put their children in good schools in the suburbs. In 1970, more than 100,000 children attended the St. Louis Public Schools. Today, that number is fewer than 33,000. Not only are fewer kids attending the St. Louis Public Schools, but enrollment in City parochial schools is falling as the cost goes up.
Fewer families are sending their kids to St. Louis County Schools as the desegregation settlement is phased out. Our City cannot continue to grow if we continue to lose families because of a shortage of quality, affordable schools.
That’s why it is critically important that we fix the St. Louis Public schools. The St. Louis Public Schools did not fail overnight. They will not be fixed overnight either. But, our children cannot wait and our City cannot wait.
That’s why I support quality charter schools."
On the Election Board:
"Our election board – once a source of scandal and national disgrace – has regained its professionalism. (They now finish counting the votes so fast that we can all go to bed before St. Louis county can.)"
Click here to read the full text of the mayor's speech.
6 Comments:
2 Million is really nothing when 29 is allocated for the City of St. Louis as CDBG entitlements.
View page 16 of the 2007 Action Plan.
Considering that North St. Louis is half of the City, I think they should be receiving more than 2 million, especially when historical underfunding, aka Team Four Plan, is a variable.
Also, these same CDBG funds are being issued for the LRA. In fact the LRA receives all of their funding through these grants, except for that 3.4 million for grass cutting and debris removal, plus the 1.5 million use tax, similar to an excise tax, for demolitions. We need to reform or dissolve the LRA and give these grants to local neighborhood associations, or community development groups like Old North St. Louis Restoration Group. Why not give control to people who produce positive outcomes? Clearly the LRA is a failure so why continue the funding? Simply do not include them in the 2008 Action Plan.
4/27/2007 8:03 PM
Spin, spin, spin.
4/28/2007 12:04 AM
The Republican Election Board should be congratulated for bringing this city into the 21st Century.
4/28/2007 11:42 AM
Thanks for the link to the 2007 Action Plan. I’ll probably get slammed for the length of this, but here are a few observations I think need to be made:
The Community Development Block Grants are allocated on the basis of population in ratio to extent of poverty. It could be seen (through eyes of greed) as being in the interests of a city to keep poverty-stricken areas poverty-stricken in order to keep the ratios high. It is easy to do this. Simply expend the CDBG funds in areas of the city that will only marginally benefit from the funds—areas which are not blighted. Leave the blighted areas blighted, so the funds will continue to roll in based on their high poverty statistics. Everyone knows that raising a “C” grade does not impact one’s GPA as much as raising “F’s”. Bottom line: USE FUNDS INTENDED TO HELP THE POOREST OF SOCIETY ON SLIGHTLY DISADVANTAGED AREAS AND KEEP THE POOR NEEDY SO THEY WILL CONTINUE TO QUALIFY YOU FOR MORE FUNDS.
The way the CDBG and other grant funds are being disbursed in St. Louis certainly seems to violate at least the spirit of the law.
Pages 16-18 of the Action Plan outline how grant money was spent. Here’s a brief, selected breakdown of some interesting ones:
·Funding to encourage new construction/rehabilitation of market rate housing was more than twice the amount per unit as that spent on affordable housing. $8006.00 per unit for market-rate housing vs. $3313.00 per unit for affordable housing. Approximately one-third of housing incentive monies went to develop market-rate housing instead of affordable housing.
·Funding for services to the homeless averaged $16.00 per unit. That’s 1-6.
·Funding to provide incentives to businesses and to construct building facades in commercial districts averaged $18,108.00 per unit.
·Funding for the lead abatement program “Lead Safe St. Louis” averaged $52.00 per unit. That’s 5-2.
Here is what Congress says the CDBG program is supposed to do: (From HUD) http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/rulesandregs/laws/sec5301.cfm
“The Congress further finds and ... require--
(1) systematic and sustained action by Federal, State, and local governments to eliminate blight, to conserve and renew older urban areas, to improve the living environment of low- and moderate-income families, and to develop new centers of population growth and economic activity…
(c) Decent housing, suitable living environment, and economic opportunities for persons of low and moderate income...
(1) the elimination of slums and blight and the prevention of blighting influences and the deterioration of property and neighborhood and community facilities of importance to the welfare of the community, principally persons of low and moderate income;
(2) the elimination of conditions which are detrimental to health, safety, and public welfare...
(6) the reduction of the isolation of income groups within communities and geographical areas and the promotion of an increase in the diversity and vitality of neighborhoods through the spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for persons of lower income and the revitalization of deteriorating or deteriorated neighborhoods…”
Here’s the LAW that is in effect concerning the use of the CDBG money (section 5306 money): http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/rulesandregs/laws/sec5306.cfm
From the U.S. Code
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 1999]
[CITE: 42USC5304]
3. A grant under section 5306 of this title may be made only if the grantee certifies that it is following a detailed citizen participation plan which--
A. provides for and encourages citizen participation, with particular emphasis on participation by persons of low and moderate income who are residents of slum and blight areas and of areas in which section 106 [42 U.S.C. 5306] funds are proposed to be used...
B. provides citizens with reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and records relating to the grantee's proposed use of funds
C. provides for technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low and moderate income that request such assistance in developing proposals...
D. provides for public hearings to obtain citizen views and to respond to proposals and questions at all stages of the community development program...
Any grant under section 5306 of this title shall be made only if the grantee certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary that-- …
2. the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.] and the Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.], and the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing;
3. the projected use of funds has been developed so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which will benefit low- and moderate-income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, and the projected use of funds may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs…”
My Comment: Have these things been done? Have the residents of North St. Louis or organizations serving in blighted areas been allowed to submit their own proposals for CDBG plans? Have they been given technical assistance to do so? Have there been public hearings? Has the Civil Rights Act been upheld? Has the projected use of funds maximized benefit to slums or blighted areas and urgent health and welfare needs?
Somewhere in some fancy multi-page report to the federal government, the city has certified that its “citizen participation plan” requirement has been met.
Anyone who disagrees may file a complaint with HUD. Go to www.hud.gov/complaints/fraud_waste.cfm
4/30/2007 5:16 PM
Sorry, I cut off the end of the web address:
Anyone who disagrees may file a complaint with HUD. Go to www.hud.gov/complaints/fraud_waste.cfm
4/30/2007 5:41 PM
OK its not me cutting it off. I'm separating the address this time so maybe the whole thing will come out. (Ever get the feeling someone doesn't want you to post something?)
Anyone who disagrees may file a complaint with HUD. Go to www.hud.gov/complaints/
fraud_waste.cfm
4/30/2007 5:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home