"I don't want a downtown like Maplewood..." MusicNote
Several months ago during the run up to the election Candidate Mary Beth Conlon cited the city of Maplewood and the revitalization of their downtown as an example of what Overlands downtown could look like. MusicNote argued that she had driven through downtown Maplewood and she wasn't impressed. She didn't like what she saw there.
But others disagree with her. Including St Louis magazine. In their article Maplewood what went right they point to Maplewood as a success story and point to it as what small town downtowns could be like.
"The trophies of the "overnight" success are impressive: Maplewood boasts two of the metro area's finest restaurants, Monarch and Arthur Clay's. There's the ever-hip Schlafly Bottleworks. Boutiques and specialty shops range from Femme and Annata to Penzeys Spices. Maplewood has landed lucrative (if controversial) mass retailers, chief among them Wal-Mart. A $6 million townhome development called Cambridge Commons is rising in the center of the city. And homeowners have seen their property appreciate 17 percent each year since 2000."
But I guess Music note is happy with stagnant property values. If her property value is stagnant then her property taxes don't go up. And it's all about taxes and the dollars to the ORT and their supporters.
But others disagree with her. Including St Louis magazine. In their article Maplewood what went right they point to Maplewood as a success story and point to it as what small town downtowns could be like.
"The trophies of the "overnight" success are impressive: Maplewood boasts two of the metro area's finest restaurants, Monarch and Arthur Clay's. There's the ever-hip Schlafly Bottleworks. Boutiques and specialty shops range from Femme and Annata to Penzeys Spices. Maplewood has landed lucrative (if controversial) mass retailers, chief among them Wal-Mart. A $6 million townhome development called Cambridge Commons is rising in the center of the city. And homeowners have seen their property appreciate 17 percent each year since 2000."
But I guess Music note is happy with stagnant property values. If her property value is stagnant then her property taxes don't go up. And it's all about taxes and the dollars to the ORT and their supporters.
posted by John Doe at 7:40 AM
13 Comments:
Classic case of being a Hill-Billy Goat. They don't like progressive change and improvments.
I checked out Mary Beth Conlon's website Under Platform she has a bunch of good ideas/programs on how to improve the city.
I think she'd make a great mayor; unfortunately, we're stuck with this nut case.
I guess it goes to show that every vote really does count.
I was just thinking about that anti-Maplewood craziness as I was driving through Maplewood enroute to Webster Univ.
I took some o the backroads and there is development happening in Maplewood beyond Manchester. It is certainly a valid example of what Overland could do with the right leadership.
Though I agree that there lessons to be learned from Maplewood as well as University City I do have some concerns.
One major concern I have is that we do not have much unused space in Overland. When it comes to the development of "downtown" I am all for giving the Woodson stretch between Midland and Lackland (if not more of it) a face lift. However, doing anything beyond that could require the use of eminent domain in my opinion.
The idea of taking property from one private person / entity to give it to another private person / entity because you believe it will generate more tax revenue for the city is not only wrong in my opinion, it's scary. What is to stop the government from deciding to take my home simply because a 7-11 or some such would generate more revenues for the City then their small portion of my property taxes?
Overland is a wonderful town, full of wonderful people. I personally could not support any plan that took anything from the residents under the color of what is best for Overland, because the people are Overland, including those who would loose their homes and businesses under a plan to widen the "downtown business district".
Lastly, as someone who has worked in homes all over the metro area I can say with certainty that though there are some really nice shops and some upscale areas in both Maplewood and University City, there are some rough, crime ridden areas there as well who's residents make our own crooks look like minor league jaywalkers by comparison.
Taking from one person to give to another is not the way to go in my opinion. Nor is abandoning one part of town to prop up another. I agree that we have to examine what we have and what we could have and develop a long range plan for Overland. But that long range place has to be good for everyone in Overland.
Excellent posts. Curious thing about the new shopping center in Maplewood is that it was developed by an Overland firm: THF Realty.
Overland Sailor, true: we have limited unused space. The landowners could be putting their spots to good use.
Certainly, eminent domain has been abused by the big corporations. Other ways include land-banking. Where an entity wanted to buy out its neighbors, they bought when the seller was motivated and paid what the seller considered fair.
Abandoning one part of town to prop another part of town: reminds me of buying a million-dollar space in Ward 4 and the Mayor saying it belongs to "you and you and you", - as if the three other wards got similar benefits, yet all paid the bill.
Edgar, thanks for the heads-up on the article. I am just bummed they didn't mention the OVCC by name (or address).
T-or-C, You are absolutely right. If any property any where fell under the need for blight that would qualify.
Suzy, I wish they would have mentioned this site too. Sailor's site was mentioned, but the URL address is wrong....sigh........
Grrrrrrrr and of course Purzner the lying RN tells the Journel...."everything on my site is true"....gag !!!!
ann purzner is very open-minded as to what can be called true.
True she has lousy opinions.
Truly hers are all biased!
If somebody tells her something, it must be true. gaagg indeed!!!
No Ice in Paradise !!!!!!!
Lolly Lolly Ice Head !!!!!
The Article almost got the address right. it is www.theoverlandexaminer.org (or .com). They left the "the" out. However, from what I can see, a host of people ended up putting "overlandexaminer" in goggle and came to the site that way.
As for the Midwood. I still would not like to see ED used, even with that property. However, I would like to see code enforced there. Someone complained to the Mayor at the last meeting about that property and she said she agreed with them but that there was nothing we can do. Nothing? How about code inspections (oh wait, they are too busy citing those who oppose the Mayor)? What about police stakeouts and the like (oh wait, we are down 4 officers, with 1 or 2 others injured and no replacements authorized in the Mayor's budget proposal).
There is alot a city can do when dealing with a problem property like that. Assuming of course that the city is not wasting resources in other areas.
Burger Chef and Jeff?! Now there's a walk down memory lane. You should get with MusicNote for that stroll. You know how she loves those walks.
John, does this website have a hits counter that distinguishes between unique and repeat hits by users? It would be interesting to see how many visits this site recieved after the Journal article.
I see no reason the Midwood is a lost cause. If it's architecturally signficant and a make-over would work, I refuse to conclude that nothing can be done about it.
One of PW's long-standing excuses is that an owner lives somewhere out of town. Not so with Midwood. Its owner lives in Overland, and enjoys such profit as the local traffic provides it.
Overland Sailor,
I think this is the first time but I disagree with you. The Fifth Amendment clearly contemplates the taking of a citizens property. There are esentially two qualifications. First, it must be for "public use". Second, the person deprived of the property must be given just compensation.
The Supreme Courts has long held that the question of "public use" is a legislative question and the Courts must give great deference to a legislative finding of "public use". Only upon a showing of fraud, bad faith or duress will a Court overturn such a finding. This is not a result of the more recent Kilo case. This has always been the case. Its what our Constitution says. The control over its use is found in your vote. If you think it is being used wrongly, vote the bumbs out.
The second inquiry is one of compensation and this is where we truly need legislative reform. Property owners often must bear their own legal expenses. This fact is not unknown to the condemning authorities who always seem to be able to offer just enough to make it not worth your fight. If we can improve on anything, its this part of the process; however, keep in mind, it us, the taxpayer, that must pick up this expense.
The Midwood is a classic example. At some point in time, you need to do what is in the best interest of the community. This is not to be borne by a single property owner, which is the very theoretical underpinning of the 5th Amendment. Alas, we have come full circle.
To not allow a City to deal with blight is like not allowing a City to fight fire, disease or crime. Zoning codes are nothing more than an exercise of the police powers kept in check by the 5th Amendment. When a zoning provision restricts property in such a way that there is no use of the property, the old 5th Amendment kicks in and that owner gets cash. There is no prohibition against zoning in the best interest of the community only that at some point in time, the government must compensate for that.
Bottom line, our society is based on the common good. Eminent domain is part of that fabric. Without it, our communities will wither and infrastructure collapse.
Post a Comment
<< Home