Sinquefield, Schock sue St. Louis Public Schools to lift building sales deed restrictions
A Missouri millionaire and a local attorney have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to force St. Louis Public School leaders to sell closed city school buildings to charter schools.
Millionaire Rex Sinquefield and attorney W. Bevis Schock, both school reform advocates, want the district to lift deed restrictions which bar the sale of the moth-balled buildings to any school group.
The restrictions prohibit buyers from reopening the buildings as schools for 100 years.
This is just the most recent effort to force the district to sell the schools to charters. Legislators and advocacy groups have already made the case.
Sinquefield’s public relations’ agency, Slay & Associates, put out this release this morning:
“These deed restrictions do nothing to help the poor and underserved children of the City of Saint Louis,” Sinquefield said. “In addition to denying young people an important educational opportunity, they contribute to the economic instability of our neighborhoods and create a dangerous situation for families. Clearly, this decision by the SAB is short-sighted, and they should completely rescind this egregious disregard for Saint Louis children and the taxpayers who paid for these structures.”
The deed restriction policy is seen by charter public school advocates, and many others, as a direct attempt to prevent charter public school expansion in Saint Louis. Three new charter public schools are scheduled to open in Saint Louis in the fall of 2009 and many other founding teams have begun the process for opening a charter public school. Many charter school founders cite finding a building as one of the most difficult parts of opening a school.
The deed restriction policy is in place despite the fact that the district is facing a $35 million shortfall in the coming budget year.
“The City of St. Louis has consistently maintained that they do not have enough money to educate their children,” said Josh Schindler, attorney for the plaintiffs. “Yet when they have an opportunity to sell closed, vacant buildings, the proceeds of which will benefit children attending SLPS schools, they arbitrarily and capriciously put restrictions on the deeds locking out the greatest potential buyer for these buildings. In addition, the cost to maintain these vacant buildings adds an unnecessary extra burden on taxpayers.”
The deed restriction policy was adopted by the SAB in December 2007 when the district began to close schools to reflect the city’s declining population. The district’s enrollment has shrunk from 45,000 students 10 years ago to less than 27,000 today.
Beavis my college buddy, more or less, tho we’re often on different sides of issues and I never have enough money for him to represent me, but off the top of my head, I think they may have a case. This policy started when I was on the board; I may have been for it then, but pretty much against it now if that’s not the reason it was closed, and we get a fair price; we need to produce academic product to compete with charters, they need to be held to same standards, when they kick a student out money should revert to us; schools help anchor neighborhoods. Hate to see schools pay the money to defend; change the policy; include some reasonable restrictions. That’s my story.
I think the Supreme Court back in 1948 outlawed convents on deeds of trust for property, or was that only for Blacks wanting to move into an area that was Whites only. It seem this would apply, I hope they win , the system can’t educate the majority of the population Minorities in the cities now, give another system a chance to fail. If they do, then we need to look at why African American in our country that attends the public school systems fail. I mean really take a hard look.
I’m sure Hank and his cronies are the problem. They wasted 10 million dollars on themselves. O’Bama won’t do anything about this problem because he can’t. The real question is; are they paying them equally the same amout as convict Hank. Probably should go to one.
Covenant, the gov, but I dont think it applies; this covenant probably ok but against public policy because they’re all technically public schools, probably their best argument? and Superman, Hank? I dont get it; there’s a lot I dont get.
As a preface, anyone who’s read my comments will know that I abhor these deed restrictions. What SLPS has done is unconstitutional and absurd - but that lawsuit is doomed to fail unless they take steps to fix it. You can’t just sue in federal court because you don’t like a policy… with just a very small handful of exceptions, you have to be able to demonstrate how you, personally, have been harmed. Unless Mr. Sinquefield and Mr. Schock have personally offered to purchase property and use it to start a charter or private school, there’s no live case or controversy! Being aware of “third parties” who might want to do so won’t cut it.
Pelagius
I’ll give you a third party suit. Roe V Wade. A suit of this nature happens all the time. As I said in my first post I hope the courts take the case and they win. The system (educational) is broken in St. Louis and the only answer is Charter (no faith base please, getting money) those school building will save millions for private companies to run schools. No private company wants to build a building (cost) it’s time we as tax payers need to put the public school system to death. If you want your child to be a doctor, don’t inflict public education on them.
Gov,
As I said, there are a small handful of exceptions - of which this is not one. Once again, I do think that what SLPS has done is unconstitutional, but a successful case will require both the proper legal theory and a viable client. I truly hope that that kind of a client steps up.
It seems as though most agree these deed restrictions are absurd, why doesn’t the SAB see it this way? How and why would they think this was a good thing? Is the fear of a little competition really worth dragging the kids and the economic state of St. Louis through the mud?
I hope Schock and Sinquefield win this…I am not a lawyer and I have to be honest, I don’t understand Pelagius’ comment. Either way, these deed restrictions need to be lifted and now!
Doubt and frustration for the SAB is all I feel that it even had to go this far.
Mr./s TOM
13% of the population is the makeup of the African Americans, remember that number.
Any stats that are attributed to Black crimes or incarceration far outweighs any stats of the majority of the population “WHITE”. What should be troublesome for you as a Man/Woman is the increase in the violent nature of the black women; she ranks number “ONE” of the group of women entering our prison system.
I’d be the first in line to admit that white people commit crimes! But not in the amount for a small percentage (remember 13%) of the overall population. Social sciencetist look at these Phenomena and place the blame on poverty as the primary cause for the behavior within the black community. After 400+ years of living in this country blacks as a group still don’t acclimate themselves in this society. They see themselves as a group as less then and act accordingly. They as a group live in denial about those whom makeup their group as social misfits and make excuses for their abnormal behavior. I can understand this because if they stood up and denounce it, they fear that they might be the next one that will be looked with a jaded eye because of the color of their skin.
“HE BE MY BROTHER”