Historical signed letter. Descriptions of Council procedures, community divisions and proposed redevelopment reflect the writers’ period views and claims; they are not independent findings.
The November 1981 issue of the Paper printed the letter of a past president of Rosedale who expressed his dismay at the Skinker-DeBaliviere Community Council’s (SDCC) decision to rescind its Neighborhood Assistant Act proposal.
The author’s inaccurate interpretation of the events surrounding the withdrawal of the Council’s proposal has prompted us to offer this rebuttal.
First, the facts regarding the Sept. 28 SDCC meeting—even those supporting the proposal were embarrassed by the railroading nature of that meeting.
At the Oct. 12 (regular) SDCC meeting no one denied the impropriety of calling that “special” meeting without proper notification, not to speak of the deliberate deception of announcing a meeting on “Presentation on Kingsbury Square/DeBaliviere Redevelopment Projects” when the true purpose was to vote on the Pershing-Waterman Project.
This year a neighborhood redevelopment corporation was reproached for having a couple of illegible pages in their proposal and was required to submit legible copies to all SDCC board members.
At the Sept. 28 meeting though, no board member had seen anything in writing concerning the proposal, before or during the meeting.
According to SDCC’s own Guidelines for Supporting Housing Projects all segments of the community should be made aware of the project prior to the Board’s consideration.
No one in Washington Heights knew of the proposal until the night of the meeting. SDCC Redevelopment Advisory Committee; directed to act as a formal liaison between SDCC and any developer on all matters concerning redevelopment, knew nothing of the proposal.
The urgency of the “special” September meeting was contrived.
One supporting document in the proposal was a year old.
We agree with the Washington Heights open letter that expressed its outrage that the SDCC/Pantheon proposal so blatantly ignored the serious housing needs that exist within the commonly accepted boundaries of SDCC.
The most important point in all this, however, is that these incidents reveal the Council’s continued refusal to recognize the needs of the total spectrum of residents in the area.
The residents of Washington Heights have continued to express their distrust for SDCC and Pantheon and to be concerned about the threat these two pose to the community.
The Council and Pantheon have made no efforts over the years to alleviate this distrust.
The Council was aware of this distrust when certain SDCC board members orchestrated the application for Pantheon.
When the citizens became aware of this proposal they expressed their feelings at the Oct. 12 SDCC meeting and the proposal was withdrawn. Has the SDCC hierarchy respected the voice of the people? No, at the November meeting they moved to (1) enforce a closed meeting, thereby not allowing the people a voice, and (2) reduce the number of Washington Heights representatives.
A current Washington Heights’ area representative recalls his involvement with the Council. Several years ago he became aware that the Council was proposing a rehab project for the Nina Triangle.
He attended their meetings and was given the impression that regardless of what he or anyone in that area did they would all have to leave the community.
There was no attempt by anyone on that board to contact any of the property owners.
When the owners worked for input into the project they were met with strong opposition from the then Director of SDCC, certain members of the board and the alderman.
When the residents of Washington Heights were made aware of the possible consequences’, they came out and gave the owners overwhelming support at the public meeting several years ago at Hamilton Branch 3.
This support has continued through the years.
But over the years the majority of the black representatives to the SDCC from Washington Heights have given up trying to work through the Council.
All too often things that seemed to be in the best interests of the community were overruled by board members—most of whom were apathetic and had no understanding or empathy for the needs of their neighbors east of Des Peres.
The Washington Heights’ board members are generally outvoted.
On many votes that could affect the Washington Heights’ community adversely, the Council votes are divided, pitting Washington Heights against Rosedale, Parkview and the funding institutions; and often it appears to pit the majority of the black minority against the white majority.
The minority therefore uses the public meeting to express its displeasure.
They ‘do not have the vote or the speaking abilities of many of the genteel people, but they do know when they are being manipulated. Why is it that the American “dream” is so often realized only by those who exercise their self-perceived “manifest destiny” at the expense of others? What is more cruel than to ignore the needs of a portion of our society, aid in their decline, profit from government tax breaks and other policies designed to aid them, declare them expendable and then call them rude when they object? Rosedale, Parkview and the funding institutions bear the burden for the unrest in the community. Perhaps these funding agencies, which have four votes and control the purse strings, Rosedale and Parkview should be more concerned with people problems and listen to and abide by the wishes of the community. Instead, they are concerned with the brick and mortar issues of development.
If all the SDCC representatives cannot work toward securing the welfare of the rich, poor, elderly, black, white, old residents and new residents in this neighborhood, then what is their purpose? Whose welfare do they have in mind? Cordially, Willis Lloyd Mary Kastens
Originally published in The Paper, December 1981.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1981_12.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
