Historical February–March 2004 article. Dates, prices, services and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
Editors’ Note: We are pleased to reprint the following excellent analysis of the pros and cons of the aldermanic system in St. Louis. REPRINTED FROM THE ARCH CITY CHRONICLE, October, 14, 2002 DREAMING OF BIG DADDY It seems clear that there will be a strong motivation on the part of the Stakeholder Assembly to propose a restructuring of the city government that enhances the power of the mayor’s office.
The Advance St. Louis leadership-as well as those who led the Home Rule effort last year-have clear views and a track record of promoting a strong mayor system, even as they have clearly stated that they will abide by the majority opinion coming out of the Assembly.
The likelihood that this novel body will follow the opinions of the Advance St. Louis leadership increases with each meeting of the group, bolstered by comments of the most vocal and well known of the participants in the process. At last Tuesday’s Assembly meeting, the topic was ostensibly neighborhood and economic development.
However, that subject quickly raised the question of whether the city’s current political structure, and specifically the presence of the twenty-eight ward-based aldermen, promotes or detracts from the ability of the city to foster revitalization.
The question is what the impact of a reduced board of aldermen-one can foresee a variety of scenarios, with some elected citywide and some elected from wards- would have on city revitalization. That question begs another: that is, what is the impact of the city’s current structure on neighborhood and economic efforts?
The easy answers-that aldermen are either the answer to all neighborhood problems or the barrier to solving any of them-are artifacts of the reform v. professional politician debates of the Progressive period, and don’t really hold up under scrutiny.
The role of aldermen in development has formal aspects-indicated by policy and procedures laid out in the city’s charter and local ordinancesbut much of aldermanic privilege in this area is informal, and has evolved over time. Aldermanic power is largely reactive, and progressive only in certain instances. For example, smooth passage through numerous development-oriented boards-from the Land Reutilization Agency to the Board of Adjustment and Zoning-is made easier by the approval of an alderman, and impossible by their opposition. Similarly, legislative redevelopment initiativesstreet closings, redevelopment blightings, and tax increment financing designation-cannot occur without aldermanic sponsorship. Aldermen also make appropriations and expenditures related to development efforts, although this role is often misunderstood.
The Board of Aldermen must approve city budgets that set spending levels and mandate the use of city resources towards development. Particularly important in this process is the Housing, Urban Development and Zoning (HUDZ) Committee-now headed by 7th Ward Alderman Phyllis Young.
In past years, the HUDZ committee has been the scene of public feuding between aldermen and the mayor’s office over control of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds, the two primary sources of federal funding. Different types of compromises have existed at different times, but none have ever come close to the misperception that CDBG funds are split equally among the 28 aldermen. Rather, developing a CDBG budget is both a bureaucratic and a political process, starting in the mayor’s office and his staff at CDA, shifting to the Board of Aldermen. Inevitably, annual CDBG appropriations do involve a fair amount of horse-trading.
Some of the funds are directed towards neighborhood redevelopment projectsboth specified projects and subgrantees like neighborhood groups and non-profit organizations-while the remainder goes to general wardbased funds with unspecified recipients. Other funding streams also require aldermanic input, in part. TIF districts, increasingly preferred mechanisms for residential financing, must be approved by the Board of Aldermen, with sponsorship usually through the respective aldermen. Aldermanic support letters help state tax credit applications, although support from the mayor’s office is probably more important. Funding from other public bodies, like the Greater St. Louis Empowerment Zone, often requests local political support letters, but the requirement is not critical.
The power of aldermen is also bound up in the type of concerns and issues facing their ward.
The power of an alderman to prohibit certain projects can be both a good and bad thing, depending upon the perspective.
While a neighborhood advocate may laud the ability of aldermen to scuttle particular types of projects, advocates of affordable housing, homeless shelters, and social services might think differently. Different aldermen have different ways to balance the concerns of businesses and residents in their wardbusinesses don’t vote, but can provide essential campaign funds-and this may shape their perspective on larger economic development projects that impact residential areas.
The concerns of an alderman whose ward has seen residential stability can be very different than the issues facing an alderman representing an area with large amounts of abandoned property and vacant lots. For the former, a maintenance strategy emphasizing housing conservation, prevention of neighborhood blight, and elimination of noxious commercial uses is sufficient; for the latter, development largely means redevelopment, with all the political and economic difficulties that these projects require. Ultimately, the power of aldermen in neighborhood and economic development is closely related to their personal characteristics and capacities, just like the power of the mayor is related to his/her own political capacities and that of his/her staff.
Some mayors have been better at negotiations with aldermen over development, the current mayor being one of them.
Some aldermen rise above the disincentive of receiving part-time pay for fulltime work and deliver constituent services while mastering issues of neighborhood development. For others, the demands of their ward don’t require an active development effort, and constituency service remains their dominant role. Because the role of aldermen comprises both formal and informal power, is highly dependent upon political negotiations and the capacities of the aldermen and the areas they represent, the sort of charter reform envisioned by the Stakeholder Assembly may have only limited effect-or only little shortterm effect.
In the short run, reduction in the number of aldermen might simplify negotiations of larger, city-wide projects, but it may make more difficult the sort of advocacy and attention that is the best part of the current system.
On the one hand, while fewer aldermen reduces the number of elected officials that developers will have to negotiate with, it will also increase the number of constituents that any one alderman serves.
While the current system is redundant in terms of the multiplicity of actors, this multiplicity may actually serve as a release valve, decreasing the immediate impact of those dissatisfied upon the broader consensus that exists in St. Louis development.
On the other hand, ward-based political parochialism is both the blessing and curse of St. Louis politics – both a “neighborliness” that makes neighborhood living appealing and a “not in my back yard” approach that hinders change.
The overuse of the aldermen to negotiate all the turf battles in city administration creates a disincentive for taking risk and doesn’t encourage participants in St. Louis policy processesresidents, city workers and elected politicians alike-to find innovative solutions to St. Louis problems. – Will Winter More information on the Arch City Chronicle, a biweekly broadsheet on the people, politics and personalities of St. Louis, can be found at www.archcitychronicle.com.
Originally published in The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere, February–March 2004.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times2004_02.pdf, printed page(s) 5; PDF page(s) 5.
