Odenwald’s holiday wish: A city-county union
Part of my post-vacation reading catch-up included a piece in the most recent Arch City Chronicle, co-authored by outgoing St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald, arguing for the merger of the county and the city.
Here we go again.
The merger idea, much like Santa Claus, comes around about once a year or so, gets some attention, and then goes back into hibernation for a while. Most recently, the proposition was floated by Mayor Francis Slay in 2005, after he was sworn in for his second term. (And again a few weeks later in his State of the City Address.)
But Odenwald is not proposing a âmerger.” Not exactly.
Odenwald prefers the term âre-enterting” — in other words, St. Louis city and county would not join governments outright. The city would simply become the largest of the 90 or so municipalities in the county. Or, as Odenwald puts it, having the county line run from âthe Missouri to the Mississippi.”
Despite the popular perception that the merger, er, re-entering, would cost county taxpayers more, Odenwald says such a move would actually save county property owners because homes in âfashionable” city neighborhoods, such as Compton Heights, have been traditionally undervalued.
It wouldn’t be a complete reunion, Odenwald says. The city could keep its own Health Department, as well as Forest Park. (Although a cynic might say that county residents already use Forest Park at least as much as city residents, but without paying for it.)
Odenwald’s proposal is not, on its face, that drastic. Some tenets, such as a larger county council and a smaller Board of Aldermen, may happen down the road anyway.
The obstacles, though, would be considerable. For one, several rounds of votes in the city, county and legislature. There’d even probably have to be a statewide vote to abolish those laws singling out St. Louis — âa city not within a county” — in the state constitution.
Of course, Odenwald also proposes that almost all of the city’s patronage offices — everything except the departments related to the courts - would be abolished and merged with the county.
Uh-oh - that’s the poison pill.
The very offices Odenwald proposes to erase - the Recorder of Deeds, the License Collector, the Collector of Revenue and the Treasurer - are the very ones with the most political clout in the city. Without at least some of their backing, a city-county union- or any other major initiative - is DOA. (Just ask the folks who pushed for Home Rule in 2004.)
Unless advocates of joining the city and county can find a way to bring the heads of the patronage offices to the table, the merger talk is just, well, talk.
At least until next year.
Since the city-county merger would be of political benefit only to Democrats, it comes as no surprised that Odenwald would support it. But there are a few items here worthy of comment:
1. Re-entry is indeed what is called for, not merger. Because St. Louis would be the largest city in St. Louis county, it would also be the most powerful. But it would still be a city. I don’t think anyone is calling for the city to unincorporate and be annexed, which would be the only other way it could be “merged” into the county.
2. Odenwald is wrong when he says that higher city property values would somehow eliminate the cost to the county. Anyone who has looked at city real estate over the past few years will tell you that it isn’t the place to go for cheap property. Indeed, tax rates are much higher in the city, and re-entry could well result in calls to tax St. Louis property at a rate comparable to the average rate in the county. This would require a dramatic increase in county property tax rates.
3. Elimination of county offices may be a poison pill, but it is also a necessity. Chesterfield doesn’t have its own recorder of deeds, and neither could St. Louis. If St. Louis wants to retain the county offices, it will have to retain its status as a “city not within a county.” Ultimately, St. Louis may decide that the cost of providing county services exceeds the value of the patronage it creates.
4. As far as eliminating the constitutional provisions for “cities not within counties” by a statewide vote - that wouldn’t be required. If the residents of St. Louis, and of St. Louis county, both voted to allow St. Louis to re-enter St. Louis county, those constitutional provisions would no longer apply, even though they still existed.
Military justice system identify’s a certain crime as Penetration regardless of the extent is sufficent to complete the act. So, re-entry would do to St Louis County what the military legal definition of rape would do to an unwilling subject!
I wonder if Kurt, ever listened to the country-western song that goes: Thank God and Gray Hound your gone!/? Well, last November, Kurt got hit by the but!
Strange, I don’t remember being kissed!
I dont see how this would be at any way beneficial to the city of St. Louis. Honestly they don’t pay water bills or sewer bills and they would get another tax, they would lose a number of political seats………..and it would make it easier to wipe out Russ’s congressional seat.
Its absolutely no chance of this happening
I remember my Grandfather going out every night to make speeches in favor of the Borough Plan to reunite St. Louis. But both the City and County rejected the proposal.
Past history illustrated that any discussion of that four letter word “merger” evoked strident opposition from County residents and almost no comment from city folks–perhaps because they knew the County residents would never accept such a change. However, given the developments in our region over time, i.e. the weakening of both the City and the County in relation to the economic development and growth occurring westward counties of our region, opposition today is just as strident from City residents–which is understandable. Holding on to power appears to be the most base concept of political and governmental life today, and presents the greatest obstacles to positive change. The comments received to my suggestions bear out that unfortunate truth.
Many County residents will remain opposed based upon misperceptions and fear. Nick, you misunderstood the point I made about property valuation. I do not disagree with you that property values are increasing in the City of St. Louis. However, the values of city properties have been historically underassessed–meaning that the amount of property taxes generated by many City homes is less than should be generated under existing tax rates. A more accurate assessement process would increase revenues without increasing rates, and folks living in homes valued at $500,000 and more would start paying their fair share, i.e., more than what they are paying now. And you are correct that I am less concerned about how the City’s re-entry into the County might affect the fortunes of any political party as I am as to how it would affect the fortunes of our region’s businesses, institutions and residents.
The article which appeared in the Arch City Chronicle was not my forecast of the future events–, but an opinion of where I believe our future should lead our region. Until the decisonmakers and holders of power begin evaluating suggestions and taking action based upon what is good for the whole instead of the individual poltiical parts, the future of our metropolitan area is cloudy at best. Jake, your article underscores that unfortunate truth.
Kurt