This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Dec. 13, 2012 - A St. Louis Board of Aldermen committee approved legislation to place on the ballot a multifaceted sales tax proposal to fund, among other things, improvements around the St. Louis Arch.
Alderwoman Phyllis Young’s bill passed out of the board’s Parks and Environment Committee Thursday by 7-1. Vigorous discussion in a public hearing preceded the vote.
“I view this as a remarkable opportunity of garnering support from outside our geographic boundary,” said Alderman Joe Roddy, D-17th Ward and the chair of the parks committee. “The thought of people perhaps in St. Charles or St. Louis County supporting a project on our region’s riverfront is pretty remarkable.”
The one dissenting vote came from Alderman Antonio French, D-21st Ward, who contended that the proposal's backers didn’t provide enough information for the committee to make an informed decision.
French said he'd "seen more detail on proposals for car washes than what we were given today. I think there’s a lot more debate that needs to be have on this subject.”
French echoed a concern articulated last week by Alderman Scott Ogilvie, I-Ward 24, that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a project to spruce up land around the Arch may not be the best use of taxpayer money. That's especially the case, French said, when crime is such a big issue in the city.
“Even in St. Louis city, I think people are going to ask, ‘is this our top priority?’” French said. “Crime is a top concern for most folks. Usually on people’s top 10 list, the Arch improvements don’t come near the top 10.”
Legislation signed earlier this year permits the St. Louis Board of Aldermen and the county councils in St. Louis County and St. Charles County to put a 3/16th of 1 percent sales tax increase on the ballot. About 40 percent would go to local parks. The remaining 60 percent would be split between Great Rivers Greenway to develop trails throughout the region and to the CityArchRiver project.
If passed by all three counties, the plan could raise about $38 million a year, of which roughly $11.4 million would go the CityArchRiver project. To pass, voters in St. Louis County and at least one other jurisdiction would have to approve the proposal. Voters would have to re-approve continuation of the tax after 20 years.
For Alderman Tom Villa, D-11th Ward, the regional nature of the tax is an important element worth supporting. Despite his own initial misgivings, Villa, D-11th Ward, said the committee would send a “very, very bad message to our regional friends in St. Louis County and St. Charles County if we did not proceed at this particular committee level.” The St. Louis County Council is expected to take up the proposal soon, although the measure’s future in St. Charles County is less clear.
“St. Louis city is never going to have 850,000 residents again,” said Villa, noting he was one of the few people in the committee room who was alive when the city had that population. “It’s a different city now. But when you have three different sets of people with I think good intentions, it would be shortsighted for us as a region – and particularly short-sighted for us as a city – to turn our back on probably the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to finally have a plan dealing with our riverfront to reach fruition.”
Public speaks out
Thursday’s committee hearing marked the first time some members of the public spoke out on the plan, outside of a Missouri Senate committee hearing earlier this year.
For the most part, the public forum was split relatively equally between proponents and opponents of the measure.
“This is an incredible opportunity for us to come together as a community and as a region,” said Kathy Sorkin, a vice president of Roseman and Associates.
By creating the Arch, she said, St. Louis “did something bold, we did something daring and it’s breathtaking. And we need to take it to another level.”
Alberta Dillard – a member of the Great Rivers Greenway board and resident of the 4th Ward – said she felt the tax increase would “greatly enhance the city.”
“I think the improvements would benefit the people here in the city,” she said. “I think it would also possibly improve the tourism for the city, which would also increase revenue.”
But some public speakers questioned the wisdom of directing sales tax money toward improving a national park.
“What I’m not happy is spending … the region’s money on changes to a national park itself that we do not own,” said Cody Peterson, a downtown resident who works for the Brown Shoe Company. “I’m not thrilled about increasing one of the nation’s highest sales tax rates. I mean, with progress that’s been made down here, I really don’t want to discourage people from shopping in the city.”
(When asked if there were examples of local taxes being directed toward such a purpose, National Parks Service spokesman David Barna told the Beacon in an e-mail that he “checked around the service and cannot find a similar situation.”)
James Potter – a reverend active in providing support for the homeless – questioned the wisdom of spending so much money to improve parks when there aren’t enough shelters available for some the region’s poorest residents.
“I’m not going to take that long because it’s a no brainer – no,” Potter said. “As a matter fact, it’s unthinkable that (such an) increase would take place for parks, trails and the Gateway Arch ground.”
“I’m asking the St. Louis region to change their priorities – in fact to change their lenses in their glasses,” he added. “And put homeless people before this cosmetic change.”
