BJC-Forest Park
The discomfort was palpable in the silence following Mayor Slay's motion that the Board of Estimate and Apportionment sign off on legislation approving the BJC-Forest Park deal.
Neither Aldermanic Board President James Shrewsbury or Comptroller Darlene Green, Slay's two colleagues on the city's top board, moved or uttered a sound. Slay's request hung there until Slay, clearing his throat, continued on with a short statement acknowledging the sincerity and hard work of all the groups involved, for and against.
Slay thanked Green for her and her office's efforts in negotiating a deal with BJC, even if she didn't support it in the end.
"Thanks to you and your office, this bill is much better than it was," said Slay.
Though gracious in defeat, the Mayor couldn't hide his wish the deal had passed.
"I can't tell you how disappointed I am," said Slay. He noted it was ironic the decision would come on the same day the New York Times ran an article recognizing St. Louis' efforts to foster the biotech industry in the Cortex district. BJC is a major partner in the district.
"I was unaware of the Comptroller's position when she walked into the room," said Slay when asked after the meeting if he was surprised at the Comptroller's decision.
That said, Slay seemed a bit ruffled at the outcome of the meeting.
On the flip side, opponents of the deal were ecstatic.
"We did it!" said Carla Scissors-Cohen of Citizens to Protect Forest Park, who called her husband to tell him the news. "This is a victory for the citizens of St. Louis."
"You can fight city hall," said Scissors-Cohen. "You can fight city hall if you feel the city is doing something not in the interest of the city."
Green said during the meeting that her decision not to support the deal was influenced by Protect Forest Park's successful petition initiative. In April voters will decide whether the sale of park land should be put to a city-wide vote, or be left in the hands of elected officials.
"I believe in the democratic process," said Green. "I don't believe it is the time to vote in lieu of the petition."
Afterward, Green said she would continue working with both parties to find a compromise position saying there must be "give and take on both sides."
Scissors-Cohen, however, said there would be no sale of any park land. City leaders, she said, would have to find another way to fund park maintenance.
Proponents of the BJC-Forest Park deal say it is an effort to help BJC expand its patient facilities and offices and that the millions given annually to the park by BJc were part of the price, funding park maintenance did not drive the deal. The section of park south of the main building–which BJC currently has a lease on and is home to an underground parking garage–was the most convenient place to add more hospital rooms and offices.
Given the orthodox position of the Protect Forest Park supporters, its is unlikely that Green's "middle ground" exists for them and they will put the pressure on anyone who supports any expansion onto the parcel.
Alderman Joe Roddy, 17th ward, was disappointed the deal failed. BJC is in his ward and he has talked at length about the enormous positive impact they have had in his ward which, not long ago, teetered on the brink.
"I hope we can salvage some of the construction projects," said Roddy, on his way into the Board Chambers. "I hope we can salvage some of the jobs."
Rather than retain faith in representative democracy, Darlene has given voters two choices this spring. Either support Reed and defeat the charter amendment or support Shrewsbury and the amendment.
A former intern, former 16th ward resident, and even former campaign donor, I've long supported Jim. But I have also supported real charter reform for streamlined government, not this reactive amendment that subjects all of our parks to a vote each and every time when existing leases are modified, including many cultural attractions. But if Jim and Darlene are going to forgo their representative role as part of the three-headed monster, then I'm now prepared to play the game too and replace Jim, even if it makes me as reactive as my park-purist foes petitioning for a far-reaching amendment.
Posted by Brian on Fri., Feb 9, 2007 at 10:00 AMJim and Darlene did not forgo their representative role just because they disagree with you. Representative democracy allows for referendums, so in fact, they retained this faith that you are searching for.
Why are you so scared of letting the people decide on the referendum? I can't tell you how supportive I am of Jim and Darlene for listening to the people. 28,000 people asked for the right to vote on this issue. The mayor and the candidate you are supporting were trying to usurp the people's wishes and push this deal out the door before the referendum vote. That is not the kind of leader I want.
I am voting for Jim because Jim listens to us and will protect our rights.
Posted by Chris Alexander on Fri., Feb 9, 2007 at 11:23 AMWhy is it that individuals who are elected by the vote of the people don't want the same voters to have a say about matters that impact them? The same Board of Aldermen were outraged that the Missouri legislators ignored the will of the people in their referendum vote regarding police residency and gun control. Yet the same officials are angry at the Comptroller and President of the Board for acknowledging and respecting the voters right to make this decision.
Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. If it weren't for Darlene, the first deal would have been approvedd. I trust her to continue to negotiate, as she's indicated that she would. According to BJC, they didn't have any immediate plans to build anything on this property, so there are no jobs lost or construction that is being delayed, despite what Roddy is saying. While BJC is certainly a large employer and the jobs there are worth keeping, they aren't going anywhere. In addition to that, how many of you are awhere that they pay no taxes to the City?
Posted by Jane on Fri., Feb 9, 2007 at 11:42 AMQ: How much do BJC employees pay in earnings taxes?
A: More than any other employer in St. Louis.
Posted by Hey Jane on Fri., Feb 9, 2007 at 12:07 PMHow much longer is the earnings tax argument going to be valid?
If/when it is repealed, BJC will be off the tax hook entirely.
Posted by Taxy Tax on Fri., Feb 9, 2007 at 2:30 PMBJC is now the only hospital in the city with a maternity department. Everyone else has abandoned the mothers to be of our children and grandchildren. BJC is a good taxpayer, good corporate neighbor, good citizen. Our friends deserve better treatment than this.
Downfall of the lease shows the insanity of the legislative branch + legislative-executive branch structure in our city charter.
It is not the act of a leader to bow to the loudest voices over a proposed law that he knows will be tossed out by a court.
Initiative petition rights do not fulfill direct democracy ideals when signature collection is a commercial enterprise. States need to enact laws prohibiting this subversion of the petition process.
The first use of initiative petition rights in Missouri was for racial segregation in St. Louis city. I think it likely that had a public vote been required to authorize a lease for the boys club at Penrose Park, given the desegregation times, it would have failed.
The Show Me Institute tax proposal is a joke. City voters are not going to repeal the earnings tax and replace it with a huge new land tax.
I'm not an expert or anything so don't shoot me. I looked at the aeirial map on google and it seems like there are a lot of surface lots on the bjc property. Why not build a combined underground parking & building on one of these? It seems like there are other options here than trashing parkland. There is a lot on the corner of Taylor and the parkway that google shows is owned by BJC. There is also some vacant land just south of that.
Posted by Michelle on Fri., Feb 9, 2007 at 4:31 PMTrashing park land is what graffiti criminals and other vandals do. Trashing park land is what fast food wrapper litterers and bad mannered drinkers of adult beverages and sports drink do. Trashing park land is what dog owners who think public areas are toilets do. The BJC lease deal was not about trashing park land. It was about accommodating a longtime good corporate neighbor in return for new funds toward maintenance of Forest Park and in turn more funds to maintain the city's other parks. Personally, I think it was a better deal for the city than it was for BJC.
Posted by Howard on Fri., Feb 9, 2007 at 6:59 PMHoward - are you the Comptroller? No. So I am trusting her opinion that this was a bad financial deal for the city.
Posted by a better deal? on Sun., Feb 11, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.