After getting a free ride through most of his two terms in office, and benefiting from years of praise (deserved and undeserved) for the work of entrepreneurs and developers who've been rebuilding and repopulating downtown, Mayor
Francis Slay is having
another tantrum about the
Post-Dispatch's "careless reporting" — this time, on its late coverage of developer
Paul McKee's secret plan for a large section of north St. Louis.
"I am a great admirer of Paul McKee," Slay writes on his blog. "He is a generous donor of time and money to a range of civic enterprises. He is a mainstay of several Catholic charities. In fact, until he decided to spend money acquiring privately owned vacant lots and empty buildings in north St. Louis, he has been either feted or unnoticed. For whatever reason, this particular good deed has earned him the enmity of the local newspaper."
The mayor, who last year called for a group of local investors to buy the paper, goes on to criticize the Post's City Hall reporter.
"The story, by political writer/blogger Jake Wagman, is a thin web of half-facts, rumors, and tenuous connections that would have benefited from better editing and less careless reporting," Slay writes.
The mayor goes on to deny that he knows any details about what McKee has in mind for the 400-plus properties he has acquired so far – but, "I do know that he is buying properties that no one else has even looked at in decades."
Neighbors of McKee's properties have complained about his lack of attention to his buildings, which have been cited numerous times by the City for dangerous conditions.
The aldermen in the wards where most of the properties are located have made several attempts to meet with McKee on his plans for the area and the condition of his properties, with no luck. At the same time, the mayor confirmed to the Post-Dispatch that he has met with McKee several times.
While McKee's plan may eventually lead to much-needed northside development, in the time between his first acquisition and when he breaks ground years from today, residents say his properties are undeniably leading to an even faster decline in the quality of life of people in his targeted neighborhoods.
Perhaps the mayor should heed the words of those citizens at least as much as that of the "vision" of a developer — and not kill the messenger in the process.
McKee wisely wanted to keep the cat in the bag until the last moment, in order to keep his acquisition price as low as possible. But after two front page stories in the daily newspaper, it is probably fair to say the secret is out. Perhaps it is time to bring the aldermen, if not the general public, to the table.
No one — not the public, and obviously not the Post-Dispatch — believes that someone as smart, or at least as rich, as Paul McKee is going to spend millions of dollars on hundreds of properties without a plan for what to do with them.
Labels: Commentary, Mayor
Link to this story
40 Comments:
Why does Paul McKee, or anyone else, have to tell their alderman what plans they have for their private property? There is an official permit process that should take care of that.
It may be beneficial for the property owner to get the alderman 'on board' with whatever is going to happen, but people seem, to me, to be acting like the property owner is required, morally or otherwise, to tell the general public what his plans are.
If the buildings are falling into disrepair, there are remedies for that, namely fines that are kept artificially low by the voters. Fine the heck out of him.
We the people don't have a right to be part of the planning stages. We, through our elected officials, may end up rejecting the plan officially put forward, and that is ok.
Opinion subject to revision if the property owner goes to the public teat.
6/29/2007 8:37 AM
Paul McKee's Blairmont project stands to benefit from a $100 million tax credit that is on the governor's desk right now.
This tax credit was passed by the State Legislature BEFORE Mr. McKee has presented his plan to (we are to believe) to ANYONE.
Is that enough to revise your opinion?
6/29/2007 8:53 AM
Is the bill law yet? Has the governor signed the bill yet?
6/29/2007 9:24 AM
662 parcels is a huge gun held to the head of the near north side. If we don't accept McKee's plan, no one else will be able to do even mid-sized development without McKee's cooperation. That makes what he is doing relevant to anyone concerned with the future of a huge part of the city.
Furthermore, since he wants slop from the trough of government, he ain't exactly doing a free market politically-neutral thing paid for by McKee alone here. This is a combination of government and capital (fascism by strict definition).
Imagine if he tried the same thing south of Delmar -- there would be uproar.
And while McKee doesn't have to tell the aldermen a thing, having the mayor proclaiming that he is meeting with McKee sure doesn't help any argument that he doesn't need to meet with other (African-American) elected officials.
6/29/2007 9:39 AM
Would Paul McKee spend one night next door to one of his acquired properties?
I wish I had a nickel for evertime Ald Griffin played dumb.
6/29/2007 9:47 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
6/29/2007 10:02 AM
Nice, Antonio.
Paul McKee, regardless of what Charlie Brennan and Martin Duggan think, does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He has already proven himself guilty in the court of public opinion and under St. Louis City ordinances. Contrary to what they believe, he is not the first to invest in the North Side. Moreover, I wouldn't even call this investment, because that implies that he is improving his property. In fact what he is doing amounts to blockbusting! Homes on St. Louis Avenue are being bought and brick rustled. There is a particular home, still occupied, with the neighboring home being actively dismantled. I bet when McKee comes along and offers money, you bet they will sell! He is devaluing the neighborhoods in order to scare everyone away and get the lowest price.
How does the Mayor know that McKee will preserve the neighborhood and not use eminent domain? How can Slay make any judgment of McKee without seeing the plans? Perhaps because he has seen them?
The reality on the ground is that McKee doesn't need eminent domain because he is busting the neighborhood. Moreover, to call McKee a preservationist is about the most egregious bastardization of the term possible.
Mayor Slay and the aldermen are well aware of his plans. There is no way they would accept such large amounts of money, while turning a blind eye to his horrendous acts, if they didn't have some incentive to keep quiet. Why is the CSB and building division not citing McKee for his rampant violations? Why has the City backed down from its suit against McKee for his neglect of the James Clemens Mansion? Because they have his plans.
No doubt for 2009 Mayor Slay will laud McKee as a Messiah, spending his millions, and the States', in the North Side when he could have spent his money in the suburbs. St. Louis needs to send a clear message to McKee and Slay that this method is not acceptable, especially when other developers, and private citizens are already investing their money and time into North St. Louis. We deserve higher standards for our City! Let him bulldoze cornfields and build his vinyl and brick veneer McMansions. We do not need visionaries like him in our City.
6/29/2007 10:04 AM
Urban development needs planning. St. Louis is past the point at which political leadership excepts every development idea. Further, this area is home to a number of developments which have been renovating rental housing, building new market rate housing and rehabilitating historic structures. City residents deserve confidence in the long term vision of their neighborhoods through political leaders who speak clearly about development priorities, opportunities and constraints. McKeeville--because of the broad geographic nature of the purposes and the refusal of its proponents to answer questions--threatens this stability. Slay and his development people have really dropped the ball on this one and have shown themselves to be syncophants and, worse, not very capable.
6/29/2007 10:21 AM
Anon1, wrong. Public planning is a given in the city and in every municipality in our region. City residents have the right to know that potential planning projects will conform to the same general planning guidelines that have been operating in this area for the last ten years, since the city approved a new plan. Does McKee intend to live up to these plans, or are his deep pockets buying him the right to rewrite the near northside's landscape.
6/29/2007 10:23 AM
Slay is simply scared that the whole cover of secrecy that him and his developer pals have will be blown. Too bad for him his handlers didn't get to him before he got to the press.
6/29/2007 10:47 AM
Mayor Slay does not want to start a fight with Jake Wagman, because Jake may lose one battle but he will win the war in the press.
This was a bad decision to attack Jake Wagman personally. Jake makes his livelihood reporting news stories, and Mayor Slay never had a problem with Jake Wagman until he started reporting on his buddies. Mayor Slay should offer a formal apology to Jake Wagman for attacking him personally in his profession. This shows poor class from a Mayor that still has to face the press.
IT'S A DAMN SHAME THAT'S WHAT IT IS, A DAMN SHAME!
FIGHT ON JAKE! FIGHT ON!
6/29/2007 11:49 AM
The more his fake authority is challenged, the more Slay seems to become volatile. If only stories like this were regular front pages at the PD (which they should be).
6/29/2007 12:31 PM
Is it my imagination, or is Slay in for much rougher treatment by the Post Dispatch with the change from Bertelson to someone else at the editorial page?
6/29/2007 12:44 PM
The Post's Jake Wagman responded indirectly to Slay's criticism by posting an item on Political Fix speculating who might take on Slay for reelection next time:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-politicalfix/2007/06/who-if-anyone-will-run-against-slay-in-2009/
I added my own speculation that a north side leader opposed to McKee's developments could emerge as a leader with the gravitas to challenge the well-funded mayor.
How about Antonio for Mayor?
6/29/2007 1:24 PM
What about Willie Marshall? He got around 21% in 2005 after doing virtually no campaigning.
Hey Oracle man, didn't you write something about that?
6/29/2007 1:48 PM
Did Percy Green ever run for elected office?
6/29/2007 2:35 PM
Sorry, Doug. I don't think he ran, but he was appointed to an office back in the day by Bosely.
Just some stuff;
http://www.cutv.com/PGreen.htm
and by Peter Downs
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2001-10-03/news/no-mercy-for-percy/
6/29/2007 3:00 PM
No one — not the public, and obviously not the Post-Dispatch — believes that someone as smart, or at least as rich, as Paul McKee is going to spend millions of dollars on hundreds of properties without a plan for what to do with them.
Just as noone with a brain would think that BJC would offer $1.6 million a year, starting now, for property that they didn't have a definite plan for. Exactly how stupid do these people think we are?
6/29/2007 3:56 PM
That damn Slay seems to throw more tantrums than a spoiled 3 year old! Perhaps some anger management counseling will do him some good!Has anyone ever seen the " Nuisance Property Court" on CityTV10 where a judge browbeats and talks disrespectfully to elderly city residents (all black ) on fixed incomes whom homes have fallen in disrepair due to lack of funds due to their fixed incomes? Why isn't McKee fined severly and browbeaten by this judge for his many nuisance properties that are in disrepair? Has Slay deemed him an untouchable that is better than city residents and he doesn't have to abide by the rules regarding property upkeep? I know if one of his many derelict properties were to collapse on someone,I hope they or their family would sue him for millions!
6/29/2007 4:05 PM
[Sarcasm on]Well good. Let's show people how we appreciate their investment in our city. We'll trash them in the press and on blogs for tax credits that are no different than the credits we offer to others and then later complain that nobody wants to invest in the city. Clearly these properties are worth top dollar. [Sarcasm off]
McKee needs to be held to the same standards for property maintenance as everybody else, which in most neighborhoods unfortunately means nothing is really enforced. People need to realize that growing the local economy with meaningful businesses(i.e. something better than retail) is going to require a community that welcomes and supports investment and development.
6/30/2007 10:36 AM
This guy isn't investing. As was probably stated before, investing means putting money into something. The only way McKee's houses put anything into the St. Louis economy is by promoting the red-hot industries of prostitution, drug dealing, and brick rustling. Anyway, I think he will raze them all soon to make room for suburban style crap for people moving back into the city.
(Duckworth is the prophet of the second coming)
6/30/2007 11:28 AM
" . . . to make room for suburban style crap for people moving back into the city."
Yeah?
6/30/2007 11:58 AM
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...
The mass redevelopment of North St. Louis is exactly what we need. Many people cry out about how segregated St. Louis is. You can bet with this redevelopment, North St. Louis will be less segregated. And the poorer black folk will move to other low-income residential areas, possibly helping to equalize the racial balance in those neighborhoods.
Much of the problems in North St. Louis -- gangs, drugs, murder, and other crime -- are highly correlated with the high concentration of poverty. This redevelopment will add balance back to the area and naturally reduce the level of problems that plague the area.
Perhaps some old buildings will be lost. But is it more important to save people from gangs, drugs, and other crime or save a building? I'd hope that people were more important.
Sure, there is some pain in the near term, but it is clear that it is quite worthwhile in the long term.
6/30/2007 12:38 PM
by kicking out poor blacks who can't afford high property taxes because of this wonderful gentrification?
6/30/2007 4:31 PM
"by kicking out poor blacks who can't afford high property taxes because of this wonderful gentrification?"
You're still talking about St. Louis right? The gentrification argument can be made for New York and San Francisco, but it doesn't even come close to applying to St. Louis. If my house was in an equivalent neighborhood in Chicago it would cost about seven times what it costs here and I'd pay twice as much in tax. Different economies sure, but even when adjusted for income differences St. Louis is still a much cheaper place to live. People from out of town are usually quite surprised to find out how affordable housing here is. Given the vast amount of vacant space in St. Louis, the "gentrification is bad" argument just doesn't hold up.
6/30/2007 9:34 PM
The Mayor is shitting in the hat of all those who've been working in the city's neighborhoods the last 10+ years. Many small businesses & citezens who've propped Slays 'redevelopment of the City' up are now not worthy of helping, much less having an opinion. This needs to be the end of these types of political shinanigans. Stand Up Officials. Please? We will remember.
7/01/2007 8:20 PM
"Perhaps some old buildings will be lost. But is it more important to save people from gangs, drugs, and other crime or save a building? I'd hope that people were more important."
Nice false argument.
The gangs of McRee Town are alive and well in Gravois Park and Forest Park Southeast. The buildings are gone, though. The only thing that gest demolished through urban renewal is buildings -- not poverty, not crime and not unemployment. Urban renewal is displacement, plan and simple.
7/02/2007 11:07 AM
^ Well said.
7/02/2007 2:49 PM
Have you actually studied the trends? Show me some stats to back your claims. Lowering the concentration of poverty in an area no doubt decreases the levels of drugs, crimes and gangs.
And that's why Blairmont is such a good thing. Property values will increase and so will prosperity and peace in the area. It will take time, but if North St. Louis will ever come back, it will primarily be because of this.
----
The gangs of McRee Town are alive and well in Gravois Park and Forest Park Southeast. The buildings are gone, though. The only thing that gest demolished through urban renewal is buildings -- not poverty, not crime and not unemployment. Urban renewal is displacement, plan and simple.
7/02/2007 4:50 PM
anon 9:34--
The average City household, earning a little less than $40k per year, can qualify for $120k +/- in mortgage. Unfortuately, that is an average, so there are many who subsist on less.
Likewise, since all the improvements will be tax abated, the value of those improvements will cause the property taxes of adjacent properties (unabated) to skyrocket. In 2005, our taxes went up by $3000 in one year. I can't imagine the havoc that would cause for NSL residents I know living on a fixed income or working two service jobs.
It doesn't take much gentrification to push over the edge of affordability.
7/02/2007 6:51 PM
Property Values are already increasing, we don't HAVE to give it all away! The Northside IS coming back, despite of McKee's prospecting (on secret State Revenue). Offer future Owner Occupants and/or bid out 100 mil worth of intcentives to work within a certain approved plan, and there will be a swarm. By the time McKee's interest free acquisition / eminent domain time is up, it could have already been 1/2 done.
The only thing that needs done on the Northside is more DONE on the Northside. Start with the potholes. This is a 5 year holding pattern Old North and Hyde Park should not be forced to endure. Lowering poverty in an area... move em all out. It's lower. lol... I'm sure they all find better jobs and/or cheaper living expenses wherever they go. Promblem Solved? It's $1250 mo in Winghaven for a 2 bed apt/duplex, on the low income side of town. It's the most income segregated compound I've ever been through. All Cookie cut. $500,000's here, $350,000's here, apts over there, old folks here, jobs here, shopping there (didn't notice any less expensive housing anywhere).
Oh, and a point about 'gangs' in St Louis, they're just kids mostly. Confused, yeah. Want to be part of a team. Guess they think a color does that. Most are wearin the same one if any at all. But I see more problems these days are on a 'click by click' basis, not a 'gang war' basis. In other words... It's usually over a girl (or guy) mixed w/ overactive testosterone, loud friends, and the all too common feeling of 'nothing to lose'or 'something to prove'. An expert on the subject can (please) correct me if I'm wrong.
Just pushing them around to other parts of town will only create more areas needing 'redeveloped'. Oh wait, that fits perfectly doesn't it?
7/02/2007 9:09 PM
"Have you actually studied the trends? Show me some stats to back your claims. Lowering the concentration of poverty in an area no doubt decreases the levels of drugs, crimes and gangs."
When the exact same fucking gang moves from one part of town to another, I don't know what stats show that. I'd be glad to take you on a walk in Gravois Park at 3:30 a.m., though.
7/02/2007 11:04 PM
"An expert on the subject can (please) correct me if I'm wrong.
Just pushing them around to other parts of town will only create more areas needing 'redeveloped'. Oh wait, that fits perfectly doesn't it?"
- Since a high concentration of poverty leads to drugs, gangs, and assorted crime, it's actually best that those who move, move in a diffused fashion.
7/03/2007 10:49 AM
Funny, I thought Slay was a democratically elected official--not a spoiled aristocrat. What was I thinking?! Fact is, urban renewal has always been a method to steal property and push moderately incomed people out. Nothing new here. It happened to my folks when I was little--they throw you out in mid winter, or the landlord dismantles the furnace so you freeze or leave. Slay's as much a racist bigot as any member of the KKK. McKee is just using his political whore, expecting a sound return on his 'investment.' Slay and such lapdogs receive payment 'for services rendered.' Why is everyone so shocked?!
Jos N. White
7/03/2007 12:22 PM
To constant change--
I don't know that the northside is coming back, at least in terms of population. I am sure there are pockets that are seeing growth, but St. Louis, as a city, is treading water (little uptick), population wise, and I can't say for sure where the small amount of growth were coming from.
Even if population is about level, that is an improvement, but not enough of one. The northside needs a kick in the pants, a shot in the arm etc. to jumpstart the area.
I can't say that this McKee thing will be the cure-all, but what is happening now, or what was happening before McKee, is not working at the rate that it should.
I just don't see anything in second place for the northside right now. I don't look upon the status quo, the last ten years, as acceptable.
7/03/2007 12:26 PM
I think there's a correlate to this kind of "diffused movement" in what took place in the SLPS high schools as a result of the efforts of William Roberti and Mayor Slay's chosen school board.
The alternative schools were eliminated and the city's most disruptive and desperate children were "diffused" throughout the city high schools. This would be like leveling the blighted, crime-ridden areas of town. Crime would certainly decrease IN THOSE AREAS, but it would "diffuse" into all other areas of the city.
In the school district, this strategy moved students who (for whatever reason) associated themselves with certain geographic "gangs" into the domains of what they perceived to be "opposing" students and their territories. This had the subsequent effect of INCREASING the violence level in ALL of the high schools. It would not be hard to predict that a strategy for "diffusing" the poor population of the city would have a similar effect.
Drugs, crimes and gangs are interrelated in a way that makes complete sense from an underground economy standpoint. Drugs are the product, gangs are the merchants. Gang territories are markets. The products create a supernatural demand among the consumers, who are motivated to commit crime as needed in order to purchase the products. The enormous amount of profit involved also motivates the "salesmen" to become extremely territorial, and to use violence to protect their interests.
The confused kids who are just associating by "colors" or "groups"--whether they realize it or not--are indicating their willingness to become part of the "sales team". Those who ARE "salesmen" see it that way whether the children do or not. Once involved, it is a job one cannot just quit, since company secrets are very heavily guarded.
When legal means and societal support do not suffice to meet basic human needs, an underground economy is the inevitable result. When drugs are added to the equation, "basic human needs" are redefined by addicts to include the support of the addiction, and the underground economy enlarges to supply the demand.
Society has recognized that without the tools of education, children from poor environments rarely have the means to escape the underground economy and its effects, and has recently put great emphasis on "improving the schools". But the quality of one's education is primarily determined by the value one places on it. (Much like the difference in tenants' care of rental property vs. the care shown by homeowners.) Until urban children "own" their education, they will not invest themselves in it in ways that make it valuable to them.
Many urban children do not see education as the "pearl of great price" that they ought to treasure as it has the power to lift them above all the chaos around them--even though that IS what it IS. Many urban students do not see ANY correlation between effort in schoolwork and results in life. They do not see that learning has value to them. What has value to them are much more short-term things. If I have seen it once, I have seen it a million times: children who will never learn their multiplication tables because it will empower them to live better lives will do it for a piece of candy. They value immediate, tangible results. They value merchandise, money and priviledges. But isn't that what society has taught them to value?
Many urban children have no idea how much anything costs, or how much work one must do at a given job to earn that money. Why? They live in an underground economy. There IS no correlation between schoolwork, work and lifestyle in their world. The drug dealer who dropped out of school has a big screen TV and a phat car. Mom sells her food stamps and gets her nails done. HUD pays the rent, and Mom's live-in boyfriend the state knows nothing about buys things for the family they could never afford. The teenagers on the corner offer money, candy and food for holding a bag or looking out for police. How can a teacher without a tootsie roll compete with all that?
Nothing will change until the underground economy is no longer an attractive lifestyle choice. This requires police work, social services, community awareness, health care, adult education, parenting support, jobs programs, etc. But mostly, the ABOVE-GROUND economy needs to INVADE the underground economy's territory and offer a BETTER DEAL: concrete correlations between effort and results, work and lifestyles, school and work. This requires societal commitment to lift poor communities out of poverty, not relocate them or displace them. And this is the REAL purpose of government financial incentives for development of blighted urban areas. Instead of running the poor out of town, the town should be running out of the poor.
7/03/2007 2:56 PM
^ Much of this post makes sense. But one can't simply lift these people out of poverty. The ghetto mind enslaves itself with a defeatist attitude, glorification of money, jewelry, sex and guns. As you suggest, they must own their education. By extension, they must also take ownership of their lives and move to take themselves out of poverty, drugs, crime and gangs.
If the area isn't improved, crime and drugs will be just as bad if not worse. Don't you dare tell me folks don't want housing values to go up! If you're a smart urbanist, you'd want them to rise by way of the renovation of the current building stock and addition of infill. So, there would be displacement anyway. Tough cookies.
And to the reader calling Slay racist, it's been my experience that the people crying the loudest about racism are the racists themselves. Nice one, hiding behind your anonymity. There's nothing racist about working to move North St. Louis out of the abyssmal squalor that it is. It's called progress.
Bitch all you want, but until you can come to the table with alternative solutions, you remain part of the problem.
7/03/2007 4:00 PM
Very Good Points Ariel, and well said, start writing that blog... I'll read.
Not sure 'enslaves itself' is the way I'd put it (Anon). I'm not saying that attitude isn't there, but is it so far from rich people's values and goals? Isn't the 'ghetto mind' just imitating what it sees as 'acceptable' in its and all society? And using (what appears) to be the path of least resistance to acheive it, or at least the look of it? The mentality is (as is so often) perception based. From the inside it looks like this, from the outside it looks like that. From accross town it likely looks the same.
7/03/2007 9:18 PM
My wild guess is that the developer will build McTownhouses for the middle class, back to the City types who want to be convenient to Downtown & Midtown jobs,and all the attreactions that City living provides nearby. What will the effect be on the many non-development properties?
Imagine this: Bill Gates walks into a neighborhood bar. The *average income* of everyone in the bar goes up 10,000%. Hint: everyones paycheck stays the same.
Does the theoretical development we're talking about end crime, prostitution, and poverty? More likely, the forced gentrification of higher property taxes will disperse the ne'er-do-wells, but will it end their miserable circumstances? Who will they live near when they move?
Case in point: The Darst Webbe high-rise projects were demolished, and the near Southside, where the diffusees relocated, had hell to pay for 10 years.
The theoretical development is a cause for concern to everyone who lives around "affordable housing". THAT's why the Public has a right to know what's going on, and the Aldermen damn-well better know wazzzzup!
Another Dave
7/04/2007 10:57 PM
Anon 4 pm said Slay is "working to move North St. Louis out of the abyssmal squalor that it is. It's called progress."
It sure doesn't LOOK that way.
There is one obvious strategy to having McKee's properties scattered over different wards and left to remain blighted: Federal Community Block grant money is allocated based on the percentage of blighted properties in a ward, and the number of those wards. So far, the mayor has spent that grant money mainly to "dress up" downtown and the south side. If he were really trying to improve the north side, wouldn't he be concentrating the grant money there? It LOOKS like he's been milking the federal government to fund his pet projects by keeping the northside blighted. And it LOOKS like McKee has been complicit in it. That's just an opinion of what it LOOKS like.
So why the change now? Why suddently is McKee moving to get tax credits for development? I heard a quote from him saying that he didn't even qualify for the tax credits in question because they were for larger scale tracts of land than he had. Perhaps part 2 of the scheme was to drive the property values down so low that he (and the mayor) could eventually make a good argument for eminent domain in order to buy up the surrounding areas. Then he WILL qualify for the tax credits in question.
It will not work to level city blocks for new development or turn 80,000.00 properties into 250,000.00 properties in an effort to improve the north side. There are not enough "upscale urbanites" to fill the loft district let alone the north side. Ever notice how many lofts are vacant?
Any development on the north side needs to provide moderate and low income property coupled with appropriately funded social support services to make the community successful. Perhaps some kind of "homesteading" program could be developed where properties are offered contract for deed to low income residents with specific drug and crime-free related requirements part of the contract. This is one example of the kind of "above-ground" economy invasion that provides concrete links between efforts and rewards that are missing in the "underground economy" of the north side.
In any case, if mayor Slay has been "working to move North St. Louis out of the abyssmal squalor", he has really gone about it in a strange and counterproductive way. In fact, I'd alter the statement to say Mayor Slay has been "working to move North St. Louis out." The citizens and groups currently working to renovate and rebuild the north side should be the big voice in any further development plans. They are the ones who know what works and what is really needed.
7/05/2007 11:45 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home