Terry Jones is assuming that what we have in St. Louis is a working representative democracy where proposals are vetted in public and where interested parties have adequate opportunity for substantive input. He is mistaken, and this vote shows that the citizens are not happy with the current decision making process.

It is my hope that elected officials consider this vote a shot across the bow. They need to start designing and implementing a more transparent decision making process. Otherwise the citizens will take back more of the decision-making power the Board of Aldermen currently enjoys. We are growing a more informed and more active group of citizens who will demand more accountability from our elected officials.

If they continue business as usual, I have no doubt that they will continue to lose power and that "recall fever" will only get worse.

I'd consult lawyers, but it's quite possible that even if Prop P were to have passed prior to a negotiated lease extension for Barnes, a public vote would not necessarily be triggered. At the very least, you would have a legitimate court battle challenging the loopholes of Prop P.

That is to say, so long as Barnes stayed within their existing footprint, such as the now approved extended lease of the same 9.4 acres of parkland disposed decades ago, there is arguably no new disposal of parkland. That Barnes was kind enough to allow park-like amenities on the roof of their garage, which is arguably now the principal use of the 9.4 acres leased decades ago, does not make it today public parkland.

Prop P feels expensive to me. Depending on how it's interpreted, we could be forcing elections for things that don't belong on the ballot and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to run those elections.

I don't mistrust the citizens as much as Prop P organizers do. Citizens have beat back many attempts to use park land over the last 100 years. I think we can count on them to continue.

Proposition P needs to be defeated- I see no reason for a "vote of the people" for every sliver of park land lease.

Amen, Terry. In my opinion, the supporters of Prop P are well intentioned but this is a bureaucratic nightmare. I'd rather spend my time playing in parks with my kids than voting.

The man is wrong. first of all I would vote for the use of Parks for programing. Second, anything that removes power of the Alderman locally will benefit the people of those wards. Third, spending money on
the democratic process is a good thing. When a government is out of control it is best to drive it into debt in order to regain control.
Don De Vivo

I agree with 15wardstl on transparency. However, Prop P is counter-productive. If the process is broken, then fix the process, don't circumvent it.

I received a Yes on Prop P call last night. When I told the guy on the phone that I thought Prop P was bad policy, he launched into me: "I guess that means you're OK with the Mayor selling Kennedy Forest or Tower Grove Park." No, that's not what I said. It seems to me that proponents of Prop P, at least the guy who called me last night, are against debate on these issues. I don't think citizens voting on every City decision to sell or lease park land will lead to a better decision making process, let alone better decisions.

Fear appears to be the main motivation of Proposition P supporters, and fear is never the reason for sound public policy.

Prop P will not require a vote if a group wants to assemble in parks for less than 30 days. Per City Revised Statutes section 22.42, a temporary permit, not a lease, is issued. In fact a lease is not require if the group will be on the park for less than 30 days and not constructing anything. Under Prop P, however, an actual lease, as in the BJC Deal, will require the authorization of the voters. I can see both sides of the argument, but it needs to be made clear that if groups wish to assemble they do not need voter approval, simply a temporary permit from Parks and Recreation.

But Doug, if an existing lessee or tenant of parkland, be it BJC, the Science Center, or any other, were to remain within the same footprint of their existing lease, how would Prop P if passed (though I hope not) even trigger a vote on a lease extension, when no additonal parkland is included in the subject lease extension? In other words, if no net loss of parkland, no vote is necessary.

I am thankful that the opposition indirectly helped reduce the amount of land Barnes was eyeing and get a better price for the land. But given that Barnes will now pay dramatically more for the same amount of land given away decades ago, I think it's time to move on to other battles, especially now that Prop P only threatens legtimate uses of parkland, including an Ellendale animal shelter and O'Fallon and Carondelet recreation centers.

Prop P would only require a vote on a lease extension if it changed the terms of the lease to abridge the public use, as the BJC Deal did.

Prop P doesn't threaten legitimate uses of park land. In my reading, the recreation centers should be fine as well--there are recreation centers in many parks in the City and throughout the country. The animal shelter might be more of a stretch. I question, given that the City owns so much land within its borders, whether its really necessary to use park land for the rec centers or the animal shelter.

The uses that Prop P threatens are things like allowing the construction of high rise buildings on the strip of park between Oakland and 40 (which Waterhouse has been approached about) and construction of commercial uses pieces of parkland like those along the west side of Kingshighway in North City. Do you see City Hall standing up for the citizens of these areas in the face of the dollar?