24thState

The Arch Tax: Bryan Cave Lobbies for Neighborhood Improvement Project, Invoices St. Louis County

Darin Morley has submitted the following article about the April 2nd ballot initiative, Prop P also known as the Arch Tax. Morley blogs at Reboot Congress.

.     .     .

Improving the Arch grounds has been a dream of Bryan Cave attorney Walter Metcalfe since at least 2007. As the St. Louis Beacon reported in January of this year:

Back in late 2007, then-Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne took a walking tour of the Arch grounds with Bryan Cave attorney Walter Metcalfe and former U.S. Sen. John Danforth. Metcalfe said that Kempthorne, a former Idaho governor, wasn't impressed.

“He said at the time, this is the worst entrance to a national park in the United States,” Metcalfe said.

After the tour, Kempthorne went back to Metcalfe’s office with Danforth, Missouri Botanical Garden President Emeritus Peter Raven and then-Missouri History Museum President Bob Archibald.

I've included a map below so that you can better understand the arduous journey these men under took when they "went back to Metcalfe's office". Looks like a four block walk from the Arch grounds--the green line on the map.

The men probably had to wait for traffic lights while cars zoomed by on I-70 below. Unsurprisingly, Metcalfe took up the cause of revitalizing the St. Louis Arch and boosting the property values of neighboring businesses like his own law firm, Bryan Cave, as well as Arch tax cheerleader Civic Progress.

You might wonder: Who is Civic Progress? They are the lead donor pushing for the passage of the Arch tax. They're also a client of Bryan Cave. None other than Walter Metcalfe is listed as Civic Progress's legal counsel.

 

Part of the Arch improvements include a roof over I-70. That should improve foot traffic from the Arch to Bryan Cave, but since the tax that appears on the April 2nd ballot is a sales tax, downtown law firms will not be collecting it. In short, Bryan Cave will reap the benefits of the Arch Tax while someone else foots the bill.

In fact, Bryan Cave has already realized some revenue from this project. The pro-Arch tax Committee (Citizens For Safe And Accessible Arch And Public Parks Initiative In Collaboration With Civic Progress Action Commitee) filed a report 2/21/2013 which shows that Bryan Cave had already been paid about $5,800 for legal services. That report also identifies the sources of the pro-Arch tax Committee's funds: about $250,000 from Civic Progress, $75,000 from the Regional Business Council, and about $34,000 in in-kind donations from Washington University.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that in total the tax will raise $780 million over twenty years. What they don't report, is where that money will be raised. If we assume that everyone in the region is hit by the tax about equally, then we can use the 2010 census numbers to approximate how much St. Louis city and county are each contributing to these projects. The 2010 census put the population of St. Louis city at 319,294 and the population of St. Louis county at 998,954. In other words, roughly three-quarters of the funds come from St. Louis county.

If the Arch tax passes, other parks in the St. Louis area will benefit from some of the funding. And a portion is slated for the unaccountable public-private Great Rivers Greenway. The Arch portion is 30% of the project or about $234 million. That means that roughly $175.5 million of St. Louis county funds will be exhausted on a project that boosts the property values of the most valuable land in the St. Louis region. In other words, those who own property adjacent to the area's premiere venues--the top 1%--reap the financial benefits while Target shoppers in the county foot the bill.

Mark your calendar and remember to vote NO on Prop P on April 2nd.

 

Monarch Fire District - Vote Cunningham April 2nd

We have written on this race before where you kind find the bigger picture details, so we will not cover those here. It is entertaining watching fire board candidiate, Cole McNary try to have his cake and eat it too, meaning taking the union money while claiming to be the candidate of fiscal prudence. He actually claims to be unaware of their support while Mary Shapiro, a seasoned professional with the Suburban Journals, schrewdly points out that Steve Swyers, the man McNary claims he will model, is one of the two union endorsed sitting members of the board. Like McNary, Swyers claimed to be a Republican, independent of the union all through his campaign, but Shapiro has officially ended the charade by calling him out. The question now is whether voters will reject the dishonest campaigns of RINOs claiming to be independent of the union or if the six figure woolen eye covering campaigns will lull them into confusion.

24thState has always been about unraveling tangled webs woven by politicans seeking power. For taking the union dough, and opposing the reform faction, Monarch Concerned Taxpayers, McNary deserves to be rebuked by voters a second time. His opponent, Jane Cunningham is not without controversy of her own, but to our knowledge screwing taxpayers is not one of them. McNary is eating the union cheese now so he has chosen his banner even if he will not be honest about it. Monarch Concerned Taxpayers is the rallying organization for taxpayers and the union is the rallying point for well, the union members. Voters, you do the math.

Public/Private Partnerships are Bad For Taxpayers

Prop P, the Arch Tax, which appears on the April 2nd ballot in St. Louis city and county, will distribute 60% of tax receipts to the Public/Private Partnerships of Great Rivers Greenway and CityArchRiver. These organizations collect taxpayer money and private donations to fund their operations. What makes this arrangement bad for taxpayers is that Public/Private Partnerships are not accountable to the taxpayer. If an elected official misspends taxpayer money you can vote that politician out. Public/Private Partnerships can spend your tax money on dreadful projects with no repercussions.

Currently city and county taxpayer dollars fund 70 million dollars to the following Public/Private Partnerships in the city of St. Louis, the Zoo, Art Museum, Science Center, Botanical Garden and the History Museum. Ten million taxpayer dollars fund 2/3rds of the History Museum budget. Unaccountability led to the waste perpetrated by former History Museum President Robert Archibald.

Investigative reporters at the Post Dispatch uncovered that Robert Archibald had purchased with History Museum money a rib shack on an acre parcel of land for $875,000.00 from ex mayor of St. Louis Freeman Bosley Jr. This purchase was made with no appraisal or environmental study. It was subsequently revealed the land has soil contamination and is appraised at $225,000.00.

Archibald receives a yearly pay package $515,000.00 in salary and benefits and then hired the public relations firm Fleishmann Hillard a stipend of $15,000.00 a month for damage control. To make matters worse Archibald resigned and was given a golden parachute by an unaccountable board at the History Museum a 6 month consulting contract at $270,000.00 and $567,000.00 for unused vacation time. County Supervisor Charley Dooley is quoted regarding the scandal involving Robert Archibald, “I want to thank Dr. Robert Archibald for his years of service helping the History Museum become an important cultural institution that has enriched our community.”

The only person enriched was Robert Archibald on the taxpayer dime. Charley Dooley can make those types of statements because he is insulated by the Public/Private Partnership arrangement. A No vote on Prop P is a vote for accountability and against corrupt Public/Private Partnerships.

 

Fire District Hijinks Create Titanic Battle

It has long been the goal of 24tState to be an independent source of breaking news and information with a special focus on equipping voters with specific tactics to act civicly in their own best interest which we can do because we are insiders. Key among these interests is the local fire district elections. The latest occurrence in a crucial race is something we have never seen before but one that is likely a harbinger of things to come.

See the following from an email blast by a taxpayer group in the Monarch Fire District reporting that voters in these normally low key races will see two prominent Republican names square off. All taxpayers need to pay attention to this because there is a simple logic behind the madness.

Yesterday the Monarch Fire Board race went from a four-way contest to a conventional race between two opponents.  Current Union Director Kim Evans and recent Union recruit Russell Lake both withdrew from this election, leaving only Union Candidate Cole McNary and Independent Jane Cunningham.  We believe the Union strategy shifted when Rick Gans withdrew from this race last week and was replaced with the popular Cunningham.  Gans tells us he is not surprised by Evans' withdrawal as he was shocked she even filed given her record of tax increases and support of billing residents for ambulance service.  Apparently Lake, a protégé of Union Director Swyers, decided he was not ready to do battle in this election.

 Now that the final candidates are clearly known, Cunningham's task will be to make sure that voters know they are choosing between her opponent, who will serve the Union as Evans so ably did for six years, and her, with her well-established record of being the voice of the taxpayers.  We will watch as McNary tries to use his credentials as a former Republican office holder and his father's well recognized name to make it appear he will be the choice of conservative voters.  The "new" McNary received Union support last year in his failed Treasurer's race and he has already surprisingly declared to several that the Union is supporting him in this race.

 We will be updating the website with this development in the next 24 hours.

The reason Jane Cunningham is running instead of Rick Gans is that defeat of any union fire district candidate requires hurculearn effort. The union firefighters have every reason to "invest" in campaign cash and time in order to elect the people that determine whether they work less for more or work even less for even more. The taxpayer candidate has to raise funds from friends and family. The typically Monarch candidate will spend $20,000 to the union's $100,000. For taxpayers to look to a seasoned politician with a broad donor base is a shrewd move. Gans, a businessman, made a very selfless act by stepping aside. One can only imagine the pressure placed on Evans to step down from her $1000 per month pay and generous health insurance benefits.

Here is the inside baseball. The other reason firfighters all over St. Louis spend so much on Monarch races is that the union in every other district can point to Monarch as a justification to request more pay. "We do not need to make as much as Monarch, but be close, otherwise we risk losing our best firefighters to them". That is the argument. The typical Monarch firefighter receives well over $100k in compensation and benefits in exchange for spending eight 24hr shifts doing that unique job.

Here is another insight into the sad, but dirty politics. Cole McNary is running to join Steve Swyers and Robyn Harris now that Evans stepped aside. Thanks to the tireless work of the watchdog group Monarch Concerned Taxpayers, everyone knows that Swyers' consistent votes in concert with Evans and against Harris reveal that he was lying to voters when he promised to be the taxpayers' candidate, denying he was allied with his son's fellow union firefighters. While "low information voters" fell pray to the machine behind first time candiidate Swyers, the taxpayers paying attention knew that Gans was their guy, clearly on the side of taxpayers.

The taxpayers again, have their "guy" in Jane Cunningham. Now that the union candidate Evans is gone, the union clearly is behind McNary. McNary is now faced with a bigger challenge than Swyers in convincing voters he is independent of the union. Will he really try to tell voters that the union is sitting this one out, content to allow the taxpayers to enjoy a 2:1 majority with Swyers being their only loyalist? Will McNary's former Chesterfield constituents naively retain their trust for the guy who represented them for six years and be shocked when he joins the cagey Swyers and votes with the union? This is going to be a very hard sell for McNary and the union, but they probably have $100k to spend several times over. Taxpayers can only hope that Cunningham can bring her own significant connections and resources to bear as the banner carrier for taxpayers and that voters will see through efforts by McNary to steal that banner.

 

 

 

 

 

Prop A Promotes Partisan Policy, Not Principles

Proponents of Prop A have been selling a tainted bill of goods to grassroots conservatives.  Supposedly, 'local control' of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department represents the purest of Jeffersonian principles, identified in this quote:

It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.  What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government, which has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body...

Notice the "..." at the end there.  I mention this because this is how one individual, representing an organization funded to promote issues such as Prop A, has presented it.  Well, as it turns out, this quote has been taken completely out of context, in order to sell that tainted bill of goods.  You see, this quote comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to one Joseph C. Cabell, and just prior to the aforementioned quote comes this line from Jefferson:

Let the national government be entrusted with the defence [sic] of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. (emphasis added)

Perhaps, the omission was quite innocent, but in light of the amount of money being spent for a statewide referendum that really only relates to the City of St. Louis (and its effect on the surrounding counties), I doubt it.

As I have argued in forums & threads, constitutionally speaking there are only two subdivisions: the national government & the governments of the several states.  This relationship is governed by the principle of federalism.  And as we all know, the national government is one of limited powers, while the state governments are ones of general powers, as discussed in Federalist #45 & enshrined in the 10th Amendment.  Generally speaking, state powers consist of safety, health and education, and include state common law consensus on crime, contract and tort.

The current administration of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police does not violate the principle of federalism, and falls within the state power of safety, consistent with the Missouri Constitution.  Since we have established that no constitutional or Jeffersonian principle is at stake in the issue of Prop A, we can conclude that this is an issue of policy, and policy always boils down to partisan politics.  So, where did this policy of 'local control' originate?  Well, from Mayor Slay and the STL City Democrat Machine.  If you think they sit on the same side as you in partisan politics, then you would be doing them a favor by voting for Prop A.

I have my own Jefferson quote for this debate:

...unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.

Does Prop A allow the mass to retain sufficient control?  Well, we can follow that question with another, "Has the STL City Democrat Machine ever lost an election?"  And, lest someone think I was taking a quote out of context, please check on the source.  Interestingly, in this same letter, written from Jefferson to Francois Adriaan van der Kemp, we get the following line:

The only orthodox object of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it.

What can we glean from this line?  Breaking Jeffersonian principle down into baser elements, such as 'local control,' detracts from the primary focus of Jefferson; simply put, "Does this function of government make those it affects happier?"  In the case of Prop A, I would have to argue no, in light of the fact that it has already garnered much opposition from conservative grassroots groups & GOP organizations in the STL area which follow:

Tea Party groups:

• St. Louis Tea Party
• K and N Patriots
• Jefferson County Tea Party

Republican Organizations:

• St. Louis City Central Committee
• St. Louis County Central Committee
• Jefferson County Republican Club
• Concord Village/Lemay Township
• Meramec Township
• Gravois Township
• Tesson Ferry Township
• Lewis and Clark Township
• Northwest Township
• Airport Township
• Wild Horse Township

Surely, the debate will continue, but for now:

VOTE NO ON PROP A

Joe Montecillo endorsed by Carmen Wilkerson

Former St. George Mayor Carmen Wilkerson has endorsed Joe Montecillo. Montecillo is a Democrat running against leftist Bob Burns in the Democrat primary for State Rep in Missouri's 93rd district. Wilkerson's complete statement is below.

Joe Montecillo Version 3.1

Bob Burns: One Candidate, Two Campaigns

While perusing the Missouri Ethics Commission's website Sunday evening, I noticed a couple of oddities about Bob Burns committee filings.

Burns is no stranger to criticism from this blog since, as a staffer for US Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), he called Obamacare protestors Nazi brownshirts. Burns joined the Occupy protestors last fall in downtown St. Louis. Ironically for Burns, the leading Occupy group, Occupy Wall Street, was endorsed by the American Nazi Party. And now Burns wants the people of Missouri's 93rd state house district to elect him as their representative.

So what did I notice at the Missouri Ethics Commission? For starters, I noticed that Burns has five committees, two of which are active:

When I looked at the two committees, I noticed that one was for his race for the 93rd house district and the other was for the April 2013 election for the St. Louis Community College Board of Trustees. You may recall that Burns lost his 2012 bid for the Board of Trustees.

I also noticed that Burns failed to answer a question on his committee filings: "Do you have more than one candidate committee?" Here's a snapshot from the paperwork for the state house race which he filed in April of this year:

And here's a snapshot from his Board of Trustees candidate filing. This was filed in May of this year:

Did he just miss the question both times? Well, consider that when he filed in January of this year to run for the Board of Trustees--that's the election he lost last April--he didn't have any trouble answering that question:

Has he amended either his filing for the 93rd state house district or his bid for the board of trustees? It looks to me that in January he answered the question and then three and four months later, in April and May, he just skiped it despite the fact that he knew he'd be running as a candidate in multiple races. Why do that?

Ex-McCaskill Staffer Bob Burns Goes Down in Flames

The St. Louis Post Dispatch is reporting that Joan McGivney has defeated Bob Burns in their race for St. Louis Community College Trustee Subdistrict 3. With all precincts reporting, McGivney has a 105 vote lead with 6985 votes to Burns's 6880. Congratulations to McGivney!

Bob Burns rose to infamy when, as Senator Claire McCaskill's field representative, he called Tea Partiers protesting President Obama's healthcare takeover "brownshirts". Here's Burns from a couple years ago:

Stay strong. Someone said brownshirts, and some people got offended by that, but if you look at history, when Hitler took over Germany, they did just that. They disrupted meetings, screaming, and then it got violent, but they were always in the minority.

Burns is pictured above marching with the Occupy St. Louis radicals. The occupy movement has lived the violence that Bob Burns only imagined Tea Partiers committed: rapes, murders, assaults. In fact, this evening Tea Partiers held a candle light vigil for victims of Bob Burns and his occupy thugs.

If you forgot about today's election you'll have another opportunity to vote against Bob Burns so long as you live in Missouri's 93rd State House District. You might even consider taking a Democrat ballot in the August primary and voting for Joe Montecillo.

Petty Politics and the Prerogative of Motherhood

The war between Republicans Ann Wagner and Ed Martin promises to be a messy one. The two candidates are vying to be the GOP nominee in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District (MO2). Wagner has racked up endorsement after endorsement from establishment politicians and the occasional bigwig Democrat fundraiser while Martin is relying on his near fifty percent name recognition in the district and strong grassroots ties.

Last month, New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie keynoted a fundraiser for Country Club Conservative Ann Wagner. The $1000 a plate event was unremarkable until last Thursday when the St. Louis Post Dispatch's Jake Wagman saw fit to reveal the contents of a letter to Governor Chris Christie from Ed Martin's mother, Virginia Martin, who happens to be one of Christie's constituents:

"Perhaps your staff was not made aware of the fact that Ed Martin Jr. is the other Republican candidate in that primary," the woman from Whitehouse Station, N.J. wrote in a letter to Christie.

She questioned why Christie would support Wagner when "Ed is a native born New Jerseyan," the product of Readington Township Public Schools and St. Peter's Prep in Jersey City.

The writer was in a position to know.

"Ed Martin, Jr.," she wrote, "happens to be my son."

While it's disappointing that Gov Christie's people released this letter to the Ann Wagner campaign, it is downright surprising that Wagner's high-paid consultants would pass it to the press. it's surprising because it provides an opportunity for her critics to reveal all of the petty tidbits that otherwise would go unmentioned.

It's also a bit of a tell--despite great fund raising, Wagner's campaign is frightened by the grassroots support that Martin has in MO2 and her own lack of traction. 

As one tipster pointed out, Wagner's fund raising helps to gild the lavish tastes she developed as Ambassador to Luxembourg. Those tastes were on display in the 2010 election cycle. During that campaign, Wagner maintained an opulent and oft-empty corner suite in the MOGOP headquarters on Watson Rd.

Such is the luxury that an insider like Wagner has come to expect. Having once served as Chairman of the Missouri GOP she still has allies within the party. As another tipster pointed out, it was not Wagner's campaign that paid to bring Governor Christie to Missouri for her campaign fund raiser, but the state GOP (MOGOP) that picked up the tab. Why not bill it as a Christie-MOGOP event and broaden the appeal across the GOP base? Wagner's influence within the party allowed her team to wrest control and brand it a Wagner-Christie event, but did she really benefit from that?

My tipster also alleged that Christie was led to believe that Wagner was running unopposed. Since the state GOP had indicated months ago that it intended to remain neutral, the party is clearly playing unfairly in this primary now. The cheater inside MOGOP responsible for arranging Christie's visit should be ashamed of himself.

A thousand dollars a plate is a lot of money, but it should not be a barrier to a draw like Christie. I was told by a third tipster that Wagner had trouble filling the event and had to hold a fire-sale just days before Christie arrived. Those supporters that ponied up $1000 may be disappointed to learn that some groups and individuals were offered tickets for only a tenth of that.  Maybe if it was billed as the GOP event it was supposed to be instead of a Wagner fundraising opportunity, those seats wouldn't have been discounted.  Such is the price of hijacking a Garden State potentate in a primary run.

As a mother herself, I'm sure that Ann Wagner understands that it's her right always and everywhere to defend her children from injustice. That is the prerogative of motherhood that Virginia Martin was exercising. It demeans both the Christie administration and the Wagner campaign to attack that prerogative.

Ann, if you're going to pay Jeff Roe $14,000 a month you should demand better opposition research. That's a lot of money to spend to uncover the fact that Ed Martin's mother loves him. More importantly, is family really on the table in this primary? Really?

If you have news or information to share, please email me: 24thPM@gmail.com

 

Disciplined McCaskill Staffer Bob Burns Leading Another Charge To Smear Tea Party As Violent Thugs And Terrorists

Letters to the editor are a long-standing tradition for the American newspaper.  The voice of the common man is shaped as citizens wishing to air their own views write in, giving the newspaper a community feel and ensuring the voice of the people is heard.  The value of those letters has declined as the growth of talk radio and blogs gave new avenues of expression to the public, but in smaller communities, and to some extent even in the city newspapers, a letter to the editor is considered more authentic and more powerful.

For that reason, the Progressive Left, doing the bidding of Claire McCaskill, has decided to poison the well of public opinion with propaganda.  Unable to muster actual passion from the community, the Left has decided to use violent imagery from fake letter writing campaigns to sway newspaper readers.  In a meeting sponsored by MOPAG, Senator McCaskill:

...pretty much begged us to get letters in the papers in the collar counties, the counties that ring K.C. and St. Louis. She wanted that because those counties have such large numbers of swing voters and because people actually read those small local papers

McCaskill is asking MOPAG to write letters to the editor on behalf of her campaign.  Note she isn’t doing anything to lead the public to spontaneously write these letters.  She’s simply asking her minions to do the work.  That makes sense, as Bob Burns, the (former?) McCaskill staffer who called the Tea Party Nazi Brownshirts is a leader of MOPAG (Missouri Progressive Action Group).  And like the good lemmings they are, the fine members of MOPAG, led by Willy Kessler (Willy K), have created a zombie army of letter writers to get their names in the paper. The link above continues:

Image from Talk To Me Johnnie

The committee now has eight writers. They need at least ten, but think what they could do with twenty. If you have a knack for letter writing, consider joining them. You'll get the talking points to make the process easier. And you'll know that you're helping convince persuadable voters that our side has the values they agree with.

Care to know what those talking points are for September?

• GOP are “thugs” working for the wealthy; “enforcers” for the mega-rich, lots of mafia comparisons are possible.
• GOP as terrorists; hostage metaphors are good since they are already prevalent; we should always reinforce the image.
• The Republican downgrade or Tea Party downgrade.
• GOP as tricksters – Tea Party dupes is a related image.

That is some striking language.  Letter writers are supposed to reinforce an image of the GOP as thugs working for the wealthy.  They are terrorists, and should be called hostage-takers, because the image links the Tea Party to violent mobs.  We’re not surprised that Bob Burns is still out there trying to telling Missouri progressives that the Tea Party and Republicans are fascist thugs.  We are a little concerned that Claire McCaskill continues to use his services when he so clearly meant what he said.  If you remember, McCaskill suspended Bob Burns over his remarks and publicly apologized to this blog and the Tea Party for his words. That she would apologize, but then have him lead the letter writing campaign using similar violent language is not only disturbing, but also disingenuous.

These are her words*:

"I'm embarrassed. I apologize. The words used by a member of my staff were wrong and do not reflect my opinion. I respect the right of every Missourian to express their opinion, and calling them names for using their First Amendment rights is flat wrong. The staff member who made this mistake will be disciplined," McCaskill said.

If McCaskill was embarrassed by Burns’ remarks in June of 2010, why is she recruiting him to write letters using the same violent rhetoric in 2011?

* Snapshot of McCaskill email: