I wrote most of this essay on the day (12/29/2019) of the last Loop Trolley ride. For those outside of St. Louis, the Delmar Loop is a famous cultural street, connecting University City with the City of St. Louis proper. Revitalized in the late twentieth century primarily by local entrepreneur Joe Edwards, it was voted one of ten “Great Streets in America” by the American Planning Association in 2007.

And the Trolley? Well, the Trolley is, or was…. not so Great. It cost over $50 million, of which around $30 million came from federal grants, $4 million came from City tax abatements, and $3 million from the County; its construction caused nightmarish traffic in the Loop, stagnating commerce in the area; and it didn’t really do anything, other than provide a shuttle from the Missouri History Museum to the Loop, which is kind of cool, I guess. The whole thing endured for about a year. Now it’s dead.

In a political ideologies class in my undergraduate degree, I read an essay that so stuck with me that the closing of the Loop Trolley provided an instant connection to it in my mind. Titled “Town Meetings & Workers’ Control: A Story For Socialists” and written by political theorist Michael Walzer in 1978, it is a parable about a man who builds a town, and echoes the present situation of St. Louis governance pretty strongly.

This fictional entrepreneurial fellow, J.J., who, “when the frontier was still somewhere east of the Great Plains…set out to make his fortune.” First, J.J. establishes a ferry at the bend of a river (not unlike St. Louis itself). Taking pioneers from one bank to the other earns him some wealth. He buys up some land in the area and, when settlers arrive, lends them the acres needed to build a church, a blacksmith, and the other necessities of an American frontier town. When Indians attack (a somewhat problematic use of language and example on Walzer’s part), J.J. orders the rifles and gear needed to fend them off. In this way he becomes the informal mayor. When he borrows money from a bank and builds the town hall, he formalizes this role. What was previously a functional economic arrangement becomes a formal political one.

J-town, as the settlement becomes known, prospers. J.J. is the default leader, though “the settlers were not surprised; neither was there any opposition. J.J. was still a gregarious man; he knew them all, talked to them all, always consulted with them about matters of common interest.” J.J. built the town; that he would own it made a sort of sense. Years pass.

Growth requires a degree of formalization, and an elderly J.J. is obliged to appoint other town officers. In an act of hubris, he makes his idiot son chief of police. It is at this point that the citizens stage an electoral revolt. Here’s the crux of the arguments: J.J. is appreciated by all for his leadership of the early town. But this role only entitles him to “honor and glory, but not to obedience.” The citizens are workers, after all. They were the ones who built and operated the business J.J. arranged, and more to the point, his poor governance impacts their lives. The revolt is successful, and the town moves from informal and lax capitalist dictatorship to formalized workers’ democracy. The moral of the parable, writes Walzer, is that “what touches all should be decided by all”. If it will impact you, you should have a say in it. This could be the thesis statement of the entire socialist movement.

Back to St. Louis, with apologies for the diversion. Joe Edwards is our own local J.J. He is widely recognized and positively acknowledged as the man who built the Loop via his ownership and/or support of fruitful businesses like Blueberry Hill. St. Louis Magazine even called him the “Duke of Delmar”. But not all of his ideas have been so brilliant. Edwards has long been a supporter of installing the trolley system in the Loop. Whether or not such a plan could have been viable, its real-world implementation was not, costing taxpayers millions and providing neither increased tourism nor much of a public good.

Joe isn’t alone in St. Louis-area publicly-funded foibles. Consider, for instance, the public opposition to a Major League Soccer stadium over the past few years, which would have involved tens of millions of dollars in public funds. When the proposal was defeated, the organizers began a plan to create a stadium without spending state and local treasure. And a more recent example, the proposed privatization of Lambert International Airport, was defeated by local groups like Don’t Sell Our Airport and the St. Louis Democratic Socialists of America chapter. One might point to these as examples of the system working: A public vote defeated the MLS stadium proposal, and public opposition defeated the airport privatization plan, led by multimillionaire Republican investor Rex Sinquefield, a man with all Joe Edwards’ defects and none of his virtues. But the system clearly didn’t stop the Loop Trolley, and we’re all poorer and worse off for it.

My opposition to these projects doesn’t come from the fiscal conservative’s impulse to save money in the public treasury. Rather, I use the leftist’s critique that instead of playgrounds and attractions for the professional managerial classes, the money should be spent on social services, the homeless, jobs programs, desperately-needed police reform, and greening the city. I think much of the electorate knows this. Imagine if their representatives on the Board of Alderman and the local Democratic Party weren’t mostly weak shills for property developers and investors. Better yet, imagine if the electorate could determine where the money went themselves. Imagine, in short, a community where what touches all is decided by all.

P.S. The Trolley broke down on its final ride in front of Joe Edwards’ Peacock Loop Diner. On a thematically-related note, when Edwards rolled out plans for the diner in 2013, he said he chose the name because “everybody likes [peacocks]—I don’t think anyone has a bad thing to say about a peacock.” Amazing.

The post Socialism and the Loop Trolley appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The “Better Together” plan for the re-consolidation of St. Louis City and St. Louis County is being released, and the initiative drive is about to begin. These are my thoughts about it. (There are ten points, but they are not inscribed on two tablets.)

1.  I definitely support some kind of merger or consolidation of St. Louis City and County. I don’t need to be convinced that something must be done. I understand that many people like their local governments and are worried about losing that connection, but at the minimum, the city and county must somehow be brought together.
2.  I am open to ideas on the best way to do this— form of government(s), taxation and financing, timetable, etc.— I will consider all options. I don’t have any preconceived notions.
3.  I am determined to ignore County residents saying they don’t want any part of the city and its crime, bad schools, etc. I will also look beyond City residents worried that this is all just a power grab. And I am happy to pay no attention to government officials who are just protecting their own fiefdoms. (I do understand that many in the black community are concerned that any kind of consolidation will weaken their political clout, but I don’t think that is automatically true.
4. I am not going to be swayed by “We’re stuck in 1904 (or 1876) and we must move forward” kind of slick PR slogans. I know we must do something. What is the best way to do it?
5.   I am not going to be swayed by arguments along the lines of “we have to do something now and this is the proposal that’s out there so it is this or nothing.” We are talking about taking steps that will have a huge impact on the region for the next century or two. As frustrating as the current situation is, I’m not going to vote for a bad plan just for the sake of doing something. I’d rather wait and do it right.
6.  I will not support anything that opens the door to privatization of government services.
7.  I will not support any plans, proposals, or campaigns that in any way limit full public disclosure of discussions, information, decisions, etc.
8.  I am not convinced that this is something the whole state must vote on—at least not before city and county residents come to an agreement.
9.   Nothing against the five people who developed the plan, but there is already one strike against this because there was no public discussion of the plan before it was released and presented to the public. (I know they had hearings and public sessions, but the plan was developed behind closed doors.) The Better Together campaign has gotten off on the wrong foot.
10.   The fact that Rex Sinquefield is investing massive amounts of money in this means the proposal already has two strikes. Sin-Q has proven that he does not care about the well-being of our region’s residents. He only cares about protecting his own wealth and forcing his libertarian philosophy on everyone. It is very tempting to oppose the plan on this basis alone. His involvement puts a very negative cover over this whole thing.

So— the Better Together plan has two strikes against it. It has a lot of work to do to not strike out. And in the mean time, I am open to competing ideas.

What do you think?

The post Proposed St. Louis City – County merger: Better together? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Proposition D on Missouri’s 2018 midterm ballot asks voters whether to increase the tax on a gallon of gas. Should you vote for it?  Good question. If passed, Proposition D would raise the gas tax by a total of 10 cents, over four years. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? After all, tax included, a gallon of gas in Missouri costs less than the same gallon in Illinois. You could argue that we’re getting a disproportionate bargain, and that voting yes would bring Missouri in line with neighboring states.

According to a summary published by the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis, the current tax is 17 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel fuel, compared to Iowa’s 31 cents for gasoline and 32.5 cents for diesel fuel. The higher tax is estimated to generate at least $288 million annually for the Highway Patrol and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction.

I generally support tax increases, because it’s clear from the necessity of continuous cutbacks in services, Missouri government is not adequately funded. But then I started thinking about the regressive nature of sales taxes, and how this increase would put a disproportionate burden on people at lower income levels. And then I read an op-ed by former Missouri legislator Joan Bray. As someone who served 18 years on the Missouri legislature—with a major focus on transportation — Bray’s opinion carries weight. She is urging voters to say no to Prop D, saying that it contains a “poison pill that should outrage voters.”  Here’s her argument, as published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Just like the last two proposals for gas tax hikes, this increase would disproportionately help rural areas by funding only interstates and “letter highways.” Under the state constitution, gas tax goes solely to roads and bridges. None can be spent for urban or rural public transportation, passenger rail, ferries or bicycle paths. This proposal makes sure those modes continue to starve.

I had hoped that after the sound drubbing voters gave the last two gas tax hikes, the concrete cartel in Jefferson City would realize it should address the plight of all transportation modes. But it decided to obfuscate instead. It is promoting the tax for safety — funding the Highway Patrol — while shifting the patrol’s current appropriation to roads and bridges.

The bill’s poison pill defies responsible distribution of state revenue. It sets up the “Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund” into which the Legislature would appropriate general revenue. At last, the road and bridge guys could legally take from the pot of money already gutted by tax cuts to build their pet projects.

Who would lose from this sleight of hand? Anyone who relies on state funding for elementary and secondary schools, universities, mental health care, Medicaid, hospitals, criminal justice and prisons, environmental protections, and, not to forget, other modes of transportation without their own special tax like roads and bridges have.

Once again, myopic transportation planners in Jefferson City need to be denied. Locking the state into more funding that ignores the transportation needs of millions of urban, rural and poor Missourians seals the state’s fate in concrete.

Here’s the exact wording that you’ll see on the ballot under Missouri Proposition D. You decide. Full disclosure: Unfortunately, I voted absentee—and I voted yes—before Bray’s op-ed was published. Oops. Someone out there, please cancel me out with a no vote.

Shall Missouri law be amended to fund Missouri state law enforcement by increasing the motor fuel tax by two and one half cents per gallon annually for four years beginning July 1, 2019, exempt Special Olympic, Paralympic, and Olympic prizes from state taxes, and to establish the Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund? If passed, this measure will generate at least $288 million annually to the State Road Fund to provide for the funding of Missouri state law enforcement and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction and maintenance.

The post Gas tax [Proposition D] on MO ballot: I voted yes before I knew what I was doing appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Gooey butter cake, the Gateway Arch, the Cardinals, and telling jokes on Halloween. There is no doubt that all of these things remind you of the city of St. Louis, Missouri. But what if, when you thought about St. Louis, you pictured the MetroLink or a MetroBus similar to how we think of the Subway in NYC or the El in Chicago? Well, if St. Louis ever wants public transportation to be as prominent as it is in these two cities, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

Currently our Metro system spans a total of 46 miles throughout St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Clair County (Illinois). Within the MetroLink specifically, ridership has declined 11% since June of 2017. Some of the possible reasons for the decline in ridership include the negative security perceptions of the community, the relocation of the Rams lessening traffic downtown, lower gas prices, and the increase in rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft. So far, Lyft has created $15 million in revenue for local drivers in their 16 months of service in STL. Recently, the company struck a deal with Chaifetz Arena at St. Louis University to create a designated area for Lyft drivers to pick up customers. Just this past August, Lyft provided around 5,000 rides for people during the PGA tour in St. Louis. Rideshare programs like this are generally more appealing to consumers mainly because of the ease at which one can summon a ride through a simple app on their cell phone.

In St. Louis, feeling safe riding a train to and from work is important if we ever want to have a successful public transit system within this city. It’s a given fact that when people feel unsafe using a specific form of transportation, they are more likely to find other methods of transport to get to and from places. According to the Belleville News Democrat (BND), in 2017 there were “1.4 violent crimes, such as homicide or robbery, per 100,000 boardings” on the MetroLink. By comparison, “8.5 people per 100,000 Illinois residents died in a motor vehicle crash” that same year. So, for all the people who believe that everyone driving their own car to and from work would be safer, that’s not necessarily true.

Currently, our MetroLink stations have no turnstiles on their platforms, which makes it easier for people to sneak onto the trains. Every now and then, there are fare inspectors who will randomly ask riders to show their time stamped ticket as proof that they paid for the ride, but this becomes more of a challenge when trains get super crowded. An additional safety concern is that there are currently no connecting train cars for police or passengers to move between while the train is moving. This means that it is harder for passengers to escape possible danger that arises as the train is in motion.

While many of these concerns can be solved through the reconstruction of trains and stations, there are still safety concerns regarding policing policies throughout the system. For instance, the Metro security guards don’t share a common radio frequency with the local police departments, nor is there a common radio system shared among the three different security jurisdictions of St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Clair County. If this did exist, it would make it easier to deploy officers when and where it’s necessary if a train is in motion. Other possible improvements to security include adding turnstiles, fences, or some sort of barrier, putting a guard on each platform, or having just a single access point to platforms instead of multiple entry points.

As a response to this growing uncertainty that St. Louisans have towards the MetroLink, St. Louis County officials have decided to delay the study of further expansion of the MetroLink until they have completed an evaluation of security practices used within the system. Keep in mind that the new Cortex station has been the only new station to open in the past 10 years of the MetroLink system. Going back to the security assessment, it will be carried out by an engineering company named WSP USA. This investigation of the 38 MetroLink stations in MO/IL will include looking at the lack of coordination between local municipalities across the system and reviewing the general policies of each police force. The study is expected to be completed by January 2019.

On the other side of the Mississippi in St. Clair County, they have been actively implementing new measures to increase safety on their trains. An example being that they have a deputy on every train from 5:00PM – 1:00AM in locations where higher crime has been reported. As a result of this, there has been a 7% decrease in crime on the MetroLink in this county. Both STL City and STL County need to take note and recognize that if they want to see more people taking transit, then they better step up their game and patrol more officers.

Throughout all the chaos of trying to increase public transit use, there is one group, Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT), that has been somewhat successful. The purpose of this group is to “…lead efforts for an integrated, affordable, and convenient public transportation system with light rail expansion as the critical component that will drive economic growth to improve quality of life in the St. Louis region. One of their more popular programs is called “Try and Ride” which helps first time riders become more familiar with the Metro system. So far, they have helped over 5,800 people through providing services such as personalized route information, free fare for an entire month, and registration in the Guaranteed Ride Program. This programs allows travelers to use ride-hailing services such as Lyft or Uber in case of sickness, unscheduled overtime at work, other personal emergencies, etc. CMT will provide up to $60 per ride in these instances.

Of course will always be pros and cons to public transportation, but for a city currently in the midst of a battle over public transit, privatizing our local airport may not be the best idea. Currently, there is an active push to privatize St. Louis Lambert International Airport, which falls within St. Louis City jurisdiction. The headliner for this project is Rex Sinquefield, a well-known financial contributor to political campaigns in Missouri. His nonprofit organization, Grow Missouri, helped pay for STL’s approved application sent to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This whole idea of privatizing the airport was introduced in early 2017 when Mayor Slay was still in office, and has now been passed onto Mayor Krewson by default. St. Louis City has selected members for the FLY314 Coalition of Advisors (supported by Grow MO aka Rex) whose job is to work closely with the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to look at ideas from interested investment partners. Supposedly, their job is to also inform the community and airport operations throughout this process, but unfortunately, it is being done under the radar, hidden from public view. Airport privatization needs to be approved by the FAA, Board of Aldermen, Board of Estimate and Apportionment, and a majority of the airlines at Lambert Airport in order to pass.

However, if St. Louis ever hopes to see the day where public transit is a main method of transportation, we have to use a more efficient process than the one used in the whole Loop trolley ordeal, which by the way, is still not in full service! According to the 2018 State of the St. Louis Workforce Report conducted by St. Louis Community College, one of the top five potential barriers to expanding employment is lack of transportation. Thus, if we are able to make using our public transportation system safer, easier, and generally more enjoyable, it’ll benefit our workforce, eventually improving St. Louis as a whole.

Links:
https://custapp.marketvolt.com/cv.aspx?cm=1198762691&x=51036870&cust=427641269

That Guy | Metro St. Louis

https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article210317754.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/along-for-the-ride/st-louis-county-delays-study-of-future-metrolink-expansion/article_0637637f-f55f-50b8-b133-b2c104ff6239.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/metrolink-study-to-focus-on-justifying-project-showing-strong-local/article_013f1546-9cad-57fb-8fa1-c051f7363e4f.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/along-for-the-ride/efforts-to-improve-security-on-metrolink-move-forward-but-slowly/article_1799c5c7-eacf-5ffa-939d-be41cabd6a0c.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/try-try-again-st-louis-county-seeks-firm-to-study/article_cffe1ad1-ad2c-5a2f-8b1d-68cd31c3e09d.html

CMT’s Try & Ride Program

System Maps

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/tough-to-gauge-risk-to-metrolink-riders/article_c3e4a153-4446-50a0-b227-f2a83b191aa5.html
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2018/08/14/expand-metrolink-ridership-falls-as-subsidies-grow.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/latest-loop-trolley-opening-guesstimate-mid-autumn-at-the-latest/article_bb26b910-778d-5db3-9d83-7db2674d0398.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/top-city-officials-vote-to-begin-exploration-of-privatizing-lambert/article_14e304e2-9f86-5b11-bdd1-dfc67fc30735.html
https://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/12429091/metro-transit-invites-region-to-celebrate-stl-car-free-day-on-september-21

The post St. Louis public transportation needs to get on track appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Nate Silver’s 538 website is considered by many to be the gold standard in political handicapping. It gets a lot right, although like most of the rest of the world, a day before the 2016 presidential election it had Hillary Clinton winning with a measure of comfort.

Recently 538 published the current odds for all thirty-four U.S. Senate seats up for election as well as the 435 House seats. While they measure the chances of each candidate winning down to a tenth of a percentage point, they help us by categorizing each race in the following color-coded categories.

I have to admit that I am somewhat mystified by their analysis of Missouri’s Second Congressional District. This is a region that includes most of suburban St. Louis County as well as parts of ex-urban St. Charles and Jefferson Counties.

As of Monday, September 3, 2018, 538 gives Democrat Cort VanOstran only a 7% of winning his race against incumbent Republican Ann Wagner. Before we look at 538’s methodology, let’ look at some historical and current information that would indicate that VanOstran has a much better chance:

1. In 2008, Barack Obama came close to carrying MO-02, at a time when the district boundaries were more conservative than now.
2. In 2012, Senator Claire McCaskill overwhelmingly defeated Republican Todd Akin in MO-02, his old district.
3. In the August 2018 Missouri primaries, Republicans did not field serious candidates for either the St. Louis County Executive or the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney. The Democrats will slide to victory essentially unopposed this November.

Cort VanOstran is a strong candidate for the Democrats, and while Ann Wagner is an entrenched candidate for the Republicans, she has many weaknesses including her phobias about meeting with voters or engaging in public forums or debates. Cort also has a very well-organized campaign with legions of volunteers. He has pushed the right buttons to raise significant amounts of money. He was very gracious with the four Democratic candidates who he defeated in the August primary and they have all pledged their support to him.

So why is Cort seemingly trailing by so much, behind to a point where 538 gives Wagner a fourteen-to-one chance of winning?

Seemingly there can be only two reasons: one is that 538 simply has it wrong; two being that VanOstran is not lighting the fire under Democratic voters to put himself in a more competitive position.

538’s methodology is complex and seemingly thorough. You can read the entire explanation from Nate Silver by clicking here. He recognizes that it is very difficult to prognosticate congressional races because there is far less polling data than there is for presidential races, or even senate races. But here are some of the factors that it uses:

1. Polling, to the extent that it exists for individual House races.
2. Analysis of polls in similar districts, to the extent that they exist.
3. Previous election returns in the district.
4. How each candidate fared with primary opponents.
5. Money raised
6. Support by PACs and Super-PACs.
7. Partisan lean; how the district voted in the two previous presidential elections.
8. Congressional approval ratings; how incumbents in Congress are generally regarded.
9. Examining micro-issues unique to the district.

By these criteria, Ann Wagner has certain clear advantages; the district was carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016. She has far more money than Cort, but he will be by far the best-financed Democrat in this election in the 2000s. Cort clearly has an advantage when it comes to the general perception of incumbents in Congress, although most voters give their own representative a pass on this criterion. It is difficult to define micro issues on the district that are different from national concerns. Without crunching the 538 numbers, it would seem that the race could be reasonably close.

538 works with algorithms, AKA an unambiguous specification of how to solve a class of problems. Algorithms can perform calculation, data processing and automated reasoning tasks. But there initially has to be human input, and we are not privy as to how 538 determines that. Clearly, the likes of Nate Silver are much smarter than I, but they too are prone to making mistakes. Perhaps the assumptions that they make into defining their algorithms simply are not a good match for Missouri’s Second District.

Then again, despite a strong conventional campaign, perhaps Cort VanOstran is not lighting a fire under voters; one that the likes of 538 could see becomes part of a micro issue in the Second District. A year ago, there was another candidate in MO-02 named Kelli Dunaway who said that any Democrat had to find a way to get noticed and she was thinking about chaining herself to the fence at the toxic Westlake Landfill in St. Louis County. It has pizzazz, the kind that may be needed to get the mainstream media off dead-center and to raise voter awareness.

Kelli later dropped out of the race, in part because she did not think that she had the financial resources to keep up with other Democratic candidates such as VanOstran. But her outside-the-box thinking should carry on.

Wagner’s Achilles Heel is her hermit-like visibility on the campaign trail. Not only has she refused debates and forums; she will not appear any place where an opponent of hers might be. She carefully scripts her appearances to only be in front of “friendly audiences” and questions are essentially screened.

For six years, the media has given her a pass on this. Her previous Democratic opponents have put pressure on her, but without the financial resources that Cort now has or a mainstream media seeing Wagner’s invisibility as a threat to democracy, most voters are unaware of Silent Ann’s strategy.

Here’s an unsolicited suggestion to Cort. With the money that you have, get a jump on Ann through television ads, still a very effective means of messaging. I remember in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election and he saturated the airwaves with pre-emptive ads that essentially prevented Republican Bob Dole from ever getting his campaign in gear.

What if Cort ran a television ad similar to this:

1. Visual: Cort talking into the camera.
2. Audio (a rough sample):

“Hi, I’m Cort VanOstran, Democratic candidate for Missouri’s Second Congressional District. While I want to win this race, it’s far more important to me that the voters in the district are able to make an informed decision about for whom to cast their vote.

For six years, Ann Wagner has refused to appear either in front of a neutral audience or with another candidate. I would like to have an open forum with Ann, the kind that the League of Women Voters sponsors. It is not my nature to attack or to be nasty. I just want voters to have an opportunity to hear both your and my ideas. Regardless of what you say, I will not be personal in attack, although I think that your positions on many issues require strong challenge.

Voters, if you would like to encourage Ann to join me in an open forum, please text “Please, Ann” to xxxxx.

I don’t know if this would tilt the 538 needle, but I think that it needs a stimulus. If Cort has a better idea, I’m all for it. I hate to go to a football analogy, but before Cort needs to throw a “Hail, Mary,” it would be better to construct a very effective two-minute offense. Time is running out.

For a different take on MO-02, read Sarah Fenske’s article in Riverfront Times.

The post It’s difficult to handicap Missouri’s Second Congressional District appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you live in St. Louis County, Missouri, and you’re planning to vote in next week’s primary election, your August 7 ballot will include three proposed amendments to the County Charter that may come as a surprise. I’m known to be somewhat of a political junkie, but when I looked at the sample ballot that arrived in the mail a few days ago, I saw the three proposals for the first time [printed in the tiniest type possible, thus virtually unreadable.] These are the kind of what-the-hell ballot items that even plugged-in voters know little about, and either ignore or, in protest, vote against.

But you’ll only be voting on two of them, because a judge just ruled that the third one [Proposition 4] is invalid, even though it’s already printed on the ballot.

In a nutshell

Here’s what the three propositions are about. According to the Post-Dispatch,

Charter Amendment Proposition 2 asks voters whether to allow the County Council to hire its own lawyers in certain cases when it is at odds with the county’s executive branch.

Charter Amendment Proposition 3 asks voters to change the definition of “employment” in the county charter to the same test established under state law that distinguishes employees from independent contractors.

Charter Amendment Proposition 4 asks voters to set a $2,600 contribution limit to candidates for county office and restrict contributions from entities competing for county contracts. It would also expand the council’s authority to transfer money. [Invalidated]

 

Arcane, right? It’s really hard to fathom what these propositions are about, and why they’re on the ballot in the first place. From what I can glean from news reports, these proposed amendments are the result of political in-fighting between members of the St. Louis County Council and County Executive Steve Stenger [who faces a Democratic primary challenger on August 7.]  Proposition 2 arises from Council members’ sense that the County’s lawyer is on the “side” of the Stenger administration, and that the Council needs a lawyer to represent its separate interests. Proposition 4 apparently grew out of some Council members’ objections to the way some contracts have been awarded to Stenger donors. It’s designed, they says, to address the issue of “pay to play.” [This proposition was invalidated by a Missouri court on July 25, 2018. So, never mind…]

Proposition 3 is especially hard to understand, so I’ll just quote the Post-Dispatch:

The measure would clear up questions such as the one that threatens to end Councilman Ernie Trakas’ tenure on the council. Last month, a special prosecutor asked a judge to remove Trakas because he performs contract legal work for three outstate school districts.

The crazy back story

Did I mention that these propositions were originally part of a package of five passed by the County Council in May? County Executive Stenger then vetoed them, and then the Council overrode his veto with 6 – 1 votes to get three of them on the ballot.

But wait, there’s more: A St. Louis County resident filed a lawsuit stating the the propositions should not be on the ballot, for a variety of reasons. The propositions are on August 7 ballots, which have already been printed, but a judge appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 4 on July 25. According to the Post-Dispatch, “The wording in the question he struck was unclear because it used the word ‘interdepartmental’ instead of ‘intradepartmental’ when discussing the fund transfers. That was enough to strike it, he ruled.”

Adding to the intrigue is the fact that the St. Louis County Circuit Court recused itself from the pending lawsuit and kicked it up to the Supreme Court, because the County Council controls the County court’s budget, and Proposition 2 includes a clause that could affect funding.

Got that? Anyway, you still get to vote on two of the three propositions. That should be fun for election officials to explain.

What’s going on here?

My obviously limited understanding of what’s going on here is that the Aug. 7 ballot is being polluted by obscure measures that drag voters into the political fight between Stenger and his opponents on the Council. The only one of these three politically vindictive proposals that seems to me to have any benefit to the general public was the now-inoperative Proposition 4—but only the part of it that limited campaign contributions to $2,600. But there’s probably a much better way to accomplish campaign finance reform with a more cleanly worded measure on a different ballot. And couldn’t these people have settled these political differences in-house without involving and confusing the rest of us?

Spoiler alert: My first instinct was to protest these obscure proposals by voting no on all of them. I have since learned that they are seen by some as “good-government” propositions. With less than 24 hours to go, I am seriously considering voting YES on all three, er, I mean, two.

The post Two what-the-hell propositions on August 7 ballot—and a third that doesn’t count appeared first on Occasional Planet.