Does a loud, vocal minority of Forest Park neighbors - or 20,000 Save Forest Park petition signers - represent the true views of most St. Louisans on the issue of the BJC Forest Park lease and jobs bonanza?

Doubt it.

More likely, the further you get away from the park, the less people care, or the more they support the BJC proposal.

Looks like the BJC deal passed, with only Shrewsbury and one other person voting against it. Now Green has to make up her mind.

Vocalist, let's hope you're right.

I was inclined to support Shrewsbury, but due to his vote on this issue, I am not.

This is a bogus interest group trying to woo people by providing as few details as possible. They think they can just say "save our parks!" and everyone will jump on board.

Hopefully that's not the case.

Glad that two people still understand the "public" part of "public land."

So Michael,

You're suggesting that the 2 who voted "no" are better decision makers than the twenty something who voted "yes"?

The site was already leased to BJC.

The city needs more good paying jobs.

The BJC expansion will yield thousands of new, good paying jobs in the city.

And let's not forget the multiplier effect of all those jobs: more demand for services, housing, etc.

Health care is a growing segment of our society and economy.

It's good these jobs are coming to the city, and a great organization like BJC. WashU/BJC is a national leader in health care and science.

The BJC expansion can't hurt our efforts to become more of a bio-tech center.

Thank you the aldermen who voted "yes to good jobs", "yes to supporting good health care", and "yes to growing our bio-tech industry".

Thanks for showing leadership.

"The BJC expansion will yield thousands of new, good paying jobs in the city."

But how many of those high-tech jobs will actually go to city residents?

No one ever talks about that aspect.

I'd say the jobs are a lot more likely to go to city residents than if thousands of new jobs were created in a St. Charles County, wouldn't you?

And, equally important, those new city workers, whereever they live now, are a lot more likely to choose to live in the city, than if those same jobs were located 40 miles away in the far suburbs.

And what the heck, since they'll already be paying the earnings, they're almost city residents anyway! The earnings tax objection to living in the city won't apply to them.

A deal with millions of dollars in city general revenue potential for decades to come, and the comptroller is deciding it...

I feel some loyalty to BJC here because they've stayed committed to the city. St. John's, dePaul, Missouri Baptist, St. Luke's and St. Anthony's all deserted the city when the city became more poor and black. BJC didn't. I'm not suggesting that gives them the right to whatever they want but I do think that they've earned the right for us to give their needs serious consideration. And I absolutely HATE siding with a big corporation. But fair is fair.

THOUSANDS of jobs?

Where can I get the source for this figure?

Here's some helpful info?:

Jobs coming with hospital expansion in Pennsylvania

http://www.chp.edu/pressroom/newsrelease144.php

BJC's specific plans haven't been announced, but let's hope the project has high urban density, 20-30 story tall buildings covering 2/3rds of the site, making room for lots of lab jobs, construction jobs, maintenance jobs, laundry jobs, medical jobs, food service jobs, and on and on and on.

and here's the story from the source:

http://www.bjc.org/bjc_about_content.aspx?id=2832

^

What does Shrewsbury have against new hospital jobs in Pittsburgh?

Obstructionist!

I agree with you, Michael. The operative word is "public." Here's a slightly edited version of something I posted on the subject to another forum:

If the supporters are so confident that the BJC expansion plan would win public approval, why are they so loath to put it to a public vote? Most of the city residents I know (and no, most of us don't live in the immediate vicinity of Forest Park) are extremely skeptical of the proposal, "perfected" though it might be. The city doesn't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to holding corporations to their promises (Exhibit A: Kiel Opera House).

As for why some of us oppose the loss of public park land, the answer is simple: Precedent. If the city is so quick to cave in this instance, how long will it be before another private entity demands the same treatment? What about the other parts of Forest Park that are cut off from the most commonly used areas? These portions might not be heavily used, but they still constitute valuable green space. What happens when Walgreen's wants to plunk down one of their hideous cement boxes in the middle of a Northside park? (It's not as ludicrous as it sounds; I believe their scumbag proxies approached Ald. Bosley about this not so long ago.)

There are other plots of real estate that BJC could use for expansion purposes -- perhaps the surface parking lot that Koplar has been sitting on lo these many years? But why should the board members of BJC even investigate other, perhaps more expensive and less convenient options when everyone is so willing to bend over and accommodate them? Yes, BJC has done a lot for the city, but the city has done a lot for BJC, too. BJC benefits from its central location (the proximity to WU, for instance), and it's laughable to suggest that they might up and leave us if we don't accede to their demands. Didn't the Cardinals ownership make a similar threat when they successfully blackmailed the city into a new stadium? Where does it end?

Rene-

The only problem with your scenario is the way the city does everything ad hoc.

If X company wanted to buy part of a city park for private development, they'd need a sponsor, and supporters for approval.

In the case of BJC, the Board, looking at the big picture, is leasing public land for a private use.

Next time would be looked at as an entirely stand alone situation.

Re. the Fairground Park/Walgreens deal, yes, the neighborhood and alderman were suporting the plan to build a Walgreens at the Bear Pit corner of Fairground Park.

However, a quick meeting with city preservation officials, noting the historic significance of the area in question, put the kybosh on that idea in two shakes.

Perhaps a private use on some other, non-essential city park? Sounds like an idea worth considering.

Exhibit A: those useless greenspaces between City Hall and the Soldiers Memorial.

City leaders, let's start the RFP process to develop those sites next week!

And think for a minute, how'd did those blocks become parkland to begin with?

They were slums across from city hall, acquired by the city, cleared, and turned into parks.

If they were returned to private use, some might make the case that the process had gone full circle, and that would be a good thing.