Understanding St. Louis: Prop 1 (Yes), Prop 2 (No), Prop NS (No)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook50Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone

While the votes for political office are generally quite anticlimactic in the City of St. Louis general election (having virtually been decided by the Democratic primary), the general is where ballot measures and propositions live and die. This year’s election seems to have driven turnout to a relatively high level. The 2013 general election drew just 12.55% of registered voters, while this week saw 30%.

Again, the general election for offices isn’t so meaningful, but Mayor Slay received 19,989 votes (82.22%) in 2013. Mayor-elect Krewson received 39,375 votes (67.54%) this year. Driving turnout this time were several opportunities for city voters to assess special purpose taxes, and change city government. Maps below by Paul Fehler visualize voting across the city by ward.

What stands out here? Prop 1 passed easily. Widely promoted as the “MetroLink expansion” tax, the funding generated may or may not lead to a new north-south rail line in the city. Plenty of questions remain about that project, but, and this is why it was vitally important to the city that this measure pass, the city now has dedicated funding to finalizing planning for transit expansion.

The asymmetrical relationship between city-county, with St. Louis County providing significantly more transit funding to Metro, has been a hindrance to development smarter urban transit. Still, Prop 1 did gain a majority of votes in central north city wards, which are specifically the areas of the city meant to be served by a new rail line. While central and south city voted for the measure, support was the lowest in areas likely to be served as well.

The voting pattern of Prop 2 mirrors Prop 1 in many ways. Opposition is found in central north city wards, with lower support in central south city as well. The areas of the city with the largest minority populations voting overwhelmingly against Prop 2. Still, the vote was close, with perhaps tepid support from south city Republicans and other more conservative voters being as decisive as the north city vote.

Prop NS found well more than a majority of voters supporting the measure but needed 2/3 approval to pass. Voting patterns again mirror other measures, with the percentage of “No” votes greater than 50% across eight north city wards. As with Prop 1, these are the areas specifically targeted for the use of the funds that would have been generated. Prop NS found significant support in the 28th, 8th, and 15th Wards. Perhaps these are areas that have witnessed the value of historic rehabs, of putting city-owned property back into use.

Very clearly there’s a lack of trust, a general distrust of city government in places most negatively impacted by past and current policy. That’s probably not surprising. I’m not sure Prop 2 (soccer stadium) was really sold as a benefit to north city residents, but Prop 1 and Prop NS were, and yet still failed to find support. Voters did not believe what they were told would help them, would help them.

Another way to look at it is that voters in wards most directly challenged by crime, vacancy voted against changing the status quo, against funding new efforts and ideas. It appears that distruct and skepticism carried the vote. We’re interested in your interpretations as well – see you in the comments!

 

Proposition 1: required a simple majority to increase sales tax 1/2% to fund public transportation expansion and public safety. With 60.39% voting Yes, the measure passed.

Proposition 2: required a simple majority to allocate the new use tax (a component of Prop 1) to fund a Major League Soccer stadium. With 47.21% voting Yes, the measure failed to pass.

Proposition NS: required 2/3 approval to increase property taxes to issue bonds to be used to stabilize vacant buildings. With 58.57% voting Yes, the measure failed to pass.

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook50Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Pingback: Who’s Gonna Get Stuck With the Bill for Seattle’s Highway Tunnel Misadventure? – New York city blog()

  • Pingback: Who’s Gonna Get Stuck With the Bill for Seattle’s Highway Tunnel Misadventure? | Places to visit in New York City()

  • Pingback: Who’s Gonna Get Stuck With the Bill for Seattle’s Highway Tunnel Misadventure? – Streetsblog USA()

  • jhoff1257

    Originally I kind of wanted this to pass. But after seeing all the vitriol tossed at City residents, largely by suburban people, I couldn’t be happier it failed. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the stupid argument that the City just isn’t progressive because they don’t want to fund a play thing that will largely be used by people who aren’t from the City.

    In that same election, voters approved (with a 60% margin) increased funding for public transit, public safety, and neighborhood programs and that corresponding increase in the use tax will go towards affordable housing and public health. Once those legal thresholds are for those programs are met some of that remaining money would go, if our new mayor gets her way, towards hiring more cops and giving our current ones raises.

    Oh and in that same election the City elected the first woman mayor in St. Louis history.

    St Louis City not progressive? Pull your heads out of your asses.

    • Nick

      “Originally I kind of wanted this to pass. But after seeing all the vitriol tossed at City residents, largely by suburban people, I couldn’t be happier it failed.”

      That’s good. Let’s base our policy decisions on spite against the county. Who needs tax dollars from the wealthiest residents in the region having a new
      reason to come into the city anyways!

      • jhoff1257

        Yeah because we’ve seen that work so well with all the other stadiums and silver bullet projects the city already has. I grew up in West County and I can tell you right now that none of those people are spending the day in the City because sports. They drive in, see the game, and drive right back out. That’s the kind of Downtown you want? I think more cops, neighborhood programs, and the first step toward a public transit expansion will be much better for the city, and downtown, in the long run. If you really want to attract those that live on the fringes to come spend time in the city, you’re better off doing something about the crime, vacancy, and other chronic issues the city faces. You know, all the things suburban folks list when explaining why they avoid the city like the plague.

        We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I guess my priorities for making a better St. Louis are a bit different then yours. No biggie, enjoy your weekend.

        • Nick

          I don’t think it’s the ideal downtown, but I also think we need to work with what we have and the options presented to us. I think the arguments for transit regenerating downtown are just as weak as those of a stadium. At least with a soccer stadium it’s a small fraction of the cost of a new Metrolink line and we get something that’s culturally relevant to soccer-crazy St. Louis. But agree to disagree…have a great weekend as well.

  • Francis Hoffman

    I voted Yes on NS, Yes on 1, and Yes on 2. I have lived in the 16th ward for 35 years and I’m now 57 years old. I work at AB and am part of the union there. We have a solid middle class ward. Francis Park is a great park. Tom Oldenburg is our new alderman. A St Gabriel parishioner. The 16th ward is Catholic, pro-life, democratic, middle class, and safe. There are great businesses and great people living here. A great place to raise children. Great schools, great parishes, and a great community. I invite all city residents to see what we have here and spread it to your other wards. I do my part by volunteering at a north city soup kitchen. We can work together and stop the divide by listening to each other and looking at wards that are successful and following their lead. I wish NS would have passed because I believe it would have really helped the north side. My question is: why did the north side vote it down?

    • kbr89

      I think a lot of the attitude in the north side was against tax increases. They haven’t helped them in the past why would these new increases be any different? They would only be a larger financial burden. It all comes down to how the BoA allocates the funds. I voted for the increases but I was a no on 2. It’s time the city starts taking care of the citizens it has and not the ones it wants. I really wanted NS to pass, hopefully they put some of the use tax money to that cause.

  • SouthCityJR

    As a 15th ward resident who voted yes on NS, I am disappointed with the strong No votes from Northside. This was a program that would greatly benefit Northside and do little to help my Ward, but I voted to increase my taxes to help those folks out. This entire mayoral campaign season was all about how we don’t do enough for the less wealthy parts of town. BS! We tried and they don’t even want our help. Do they think years and years of continued demos is the answer to their vacancy problem? Hasn’t exactly worked out so well. This bugs me to no end.

    • David

      Agreed. I tried to make the same point below.

    • STLrainbow

      NS was a tough one; it didn’t receive a lot of coverage and not the easiest to understand… it really took hearing a speaker talk about it at a neighborhood meeting for me to buy into it. I heard from a few folks they thought it was for demolition. Anyway, hopefully it’s a learning experience and the effort can adapt and move forward in other ways.

    • marvin gardens

      They don’t want our help. So true.

    • kbr89

      I think there was also a lot of miscommunication about the benefits of stabilization versus demolition. NS would be cheaper than demolishing all of them and it would preserve some of our history and culture but its hard to sell that when you live in an area that even if they stabilize all the homes on the LRA rolls would still be the last area rehabbers would volunteer their investments for.

  • mc

    We can thank the Tishaura Jones and Megan Ellyia Green loving hipsters in the 15th Ward for voting proposition 2 down. It is a disgrace how they spread falsehoods about the stadium proposition. As a city resident for 29 years, I have never seen such lies spread about something completely transparent. Even Forbes magazine published an article about how financially responsible the proposition was. I’m not exactly sure what their agenda was but it was definitely not constructive. Let’s stop dividing our city. Instead, let’s start uniting people together. Soccer unites people of all color and ethnicities. The proposition passing would have brought many jobs to a lot of people and a lot of pride for our community. It is sad how divided our city has become.

    • Adam

      please. yes, tens upon tens of minimum wage jobs.

      could you elaborate on the falsehoods that were supposedly spread by these “hipsters”, and on which “hipsters” spread them?

      • STLrainbow

        I live in the 15th Ward and while not a hipster, I voted no and have no regrets.

    • Nick

      Hear hear. I’m incredibly disappointed with the result of Prop 2, and the overall dissent from so many other city residents towards it. Seeing various comments on social media about the plan seem to show that most people were completely misinformed about the proposal. IMO, the state of our downtown is a microcosm of the region as a whole. The midsized, midwestern cities that are growing around the country are growing because their downtowns are attracting younger folks, along with new business. This is where St. Louis is failing. While the stadium wasn’t a panacea, it was a step in the right direction, at least potentially. At least it was an attempt. For all the talk from so many city folks about how we’re divided as a region, how about our divisions within city limits preventing us from creating positive development, giving people a reason to come downtown, and giving the city some kind of hope for the future?

      • kbr89

        You’re just making the case for more trickle down prosperity. If we attract more people to the city it will bring jobs for the poorest among us. I don’t know a single person from the county, where I grew up, who would come live in the city just because there is a soccer team here. They are all too scared to live down here because of the crime. Just last night there was another shooting on the metro. We cannot keep expecting to grow our way out of the mess we are in.

        Our highway system is too efficient. Driving from out west into the city for work is too viable for people.

        • Nick

          Like I said, it’s not a panacea, but it’s better than doing nothing. And at least it would bring crowds downtown a few more days out of the year, possible sustaining more restaurants, possibly reinvigorating Union Station, etc. If you have any ideas other than ‘the city is screwed, why bother?’, I’m all ears.

          • kbr89

            Blues have been drawing real well and I don’t see too many sustained restaurants or much benefit to Union Station. Scottrade is only two blocks from Union Station.

            We need more civic engagement especially on the north side. I would like to see civics taught in school and something like compulsory voting where people HAVE to vote. We need to look for ways to get people engaged in the democratic process even if that means more and more city resources don’t benefit us on the south side but if we rise we rise together. Development projects are great but city resources can’t keep going towards TIFs and Tax Abatement. These are city assets and while we can get some short term gains by giving away land to Paul Mckee or selling off our rights to the airport all we are doing in the long run is making more money for private individuals to plug short term budgetary problems

          • Nick

            I would argue places like Maurizio’s and Maggy O’briens probably see a significant boost to their bottom line every year directly attributable to the existence of Scottrade…along with the few remaining restaurants in Union Station. Further down Clark, Ballpark Village aside, without the existence of Busch places like Paddy O’s and Kilroys would almost certainly not exist.

            At the end of the day, I agree building stadiums to spur development is not very effective. In the case of the soccer stadium I take exception to this because 1. IMO downtown is continuing its slow decline, so why not give it a shot, and 2. (more importantly) St. Louis has storied soccer history that fits extremely well with MLS.

            As for your ideas, some of them would be helpful yet likely difficult to implement. However, redeveloping Rust Belt cities is tricky business, and a little creativity is needed now and then.

      • Thomas

        Hi Nick,

        I actually bought a place in downtown, so I should be entitled to give an opinion here as I am a resident of this neighborhood and this is my home. The things that I like about downtown do not involve sports. For many people who do not live in this area, they think that sports will help solve downtown, whereas for me, they are the major detriment to a real vibrant neighborhood here. The only thing I see another stadium (that would make FOUR stadiums in downtown, where’s that better future?) doing is generating construction of more parking garages nearby.

        I’m sorry but please try living in an area full of parking garages and telling me how your quality of life is. Downtown is where this region’s car-centric problems come home to roost. I’m sick of walking for an entire block in downtown without not just an open storefront but just an actual storefront because of what the demand for so many parking garages has done for this place. I decided to live downtown in no small part because I wanted to play a small part in inducing demand for a downtown that isn’t just sports bars and parking garages catering to sportsfans. Downtown will be vibrant if it decides to be a neighborhood first before an entertainment destination.

        People stroll around vibrant neighborhoods thinking “I could live here”, they don’t show up to vibrant parking garages and think “I could park here.” I voted against the public funding for the stadium because I don’t think further silver bullet projects here will have any effect (show me one that has), let alone think that the public tax dollars, including mine, should be spent on what I see is a detriment to a healthy downtown. I’m sorry to disappoint, but having a little more say over the neighborhood where I call home would be quite refreshing!

        • Nick

          So you prefer the walkability of a highway off-ramp as opposed to a stadium?

    • Michael B

      Oh please. You should also thank Joe Roddy and his 17th ward voters then. Or how about Cara Spencer’s ward? Did you not read the article above or look at the maps? A large majority of wards voted it down. I (17th ward) voted no on both Props 1 and 2. I like soccer. I want a team. I’m proud of our city. Prop 2 wasn’t the answer to a divided city, especially when St. Louis County wasn’t even involved in the process. But pointing the finger at alderwomen and mayoral candidates (who received almost as many votes as our mayor-elect in the primary), that IS divisive. Instead of accusing “no” voters of trying to deconstruct and divide, try listening to the majority of the voters about why they voted it down. Let’s talk about uniting the city and the county and approaching these things as a region. That would unite people together.

      • Nick

        Joe Roddy didn’t actively campaign against it as others did. In terms of listening to “no” voters, I’ve seen far more misinformed reasons as to why it should’ve been voted against. For example, “why wasn’t the county included?!?” is a big one. For starters, the ownership claims they did approach county leadership about being part of the deal, and they would only participate if the stadium was built in the county, which went against the League’s goal of building stadiums in the city. On top of that, analysis done by the ownership showed county residents were even less likely than the city to vote in favor of public funding. I could go on and on.

        • Michael B

          Ok, but Stenger also says he wasn’t approached. So someone is lying. My point about the county wasn’t that it wasn’t looked into. My complaint is that this should be a regional effort. The fact that it wouldn’t have been approved in the county just adds to that point. Funding should come from the region, not just the city.

          It’s easy to point at people and call them misinformed, but I haven’t heard a convincing argument for the stadium yet. Publicly funded stadiums are a bad idea. The data supports that.

          SC STL spent $1 million trying to convince people. There was no organized opposition campaign. SC STL’s argument just wasn’t convincing to enough voters.

          I could list off a ton of reasons why I voted against, but none of them include being divisive or not having pride in my city.

          • Nick

            Agreed someone is lying, and we’ll never really know who. But lie or no, it’s logical that the county would take a stance such as that. And the county was looked into and not pursued for the reasons I noted above.

  • Samuel Brittingham

    I’m shocked that Shaw, TGE, Compton, and TGS voted against the stadium.

    I really wanted to see St. Louis vote yes. Because to em it would have been a symbol of progress. I don’t believe it would have done anything for revitalizing downtown. How many times can we bill public works projects as revitalization projects, just to see nothing get revitalized.

    Pro sports are important for civic pride and attracting new employers and employees. Ppl love sports and want to be near sports teams. Maybe StL can start hunting an NBA franchise. KC makes more sense for basketball, but we need to be a three spot town.

    • thomas h benton

      Except that most of the people in these neighborhoods are smart enough to know that stadiums are not progress – they’re just stadiums. Stadium backers always make these kinds of vague and overhyped promises, and they do not materialize. Shaw, TGE, Compton Heights, TGS – these are all strong neighborhoods because they have strong fundamentals – strong middle class populations, good housing stock that is seeing maintenance and rehab, etc. This is the path our city needs to take, not taxpayer funded stadiums that overtax the city and which – based on all empirical and historical evidence – won’t do as much to revitalize the city as nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes focus on day to day city services will do. It never ceases to amaze me how un-analytical stadium backers tend to be.

      • David

        How exactly do you plan on adding more middle class people to St. Louis?

        This is the big open question. There are no more incentives after this that are really feasible. The people are tapped with taxes and they can’t go much higher.

        If you say lower crime and people will come, why didn’t that happen in the past two decades of decreasing crime? Better schools, sure, but this doesn’t affect that.

        What is the plan? Right now we are on the road to another generation of young enthusiastic people leaving the city to move to places where they will be taxed less and own bigger houses as soon as they have children and can afford them. This group is the tax base that is being used to subsidize civic improvements.

        You don’t have to look far to see people like that who feel the city is a stagnant place that simply doesn’t care about the future after the stadium vote. Whether or not they are right, the 8th and 15th wards will have to keep raising their own taxes a lot if they hope to keep funding everything.

        • thomas h benton

          You ask what the plan is. I will be the first to concede that the City needs a more strategic vision, but many of the people who led the charge against the stadium and do have a plan. For some reason, stadium supporters and suburban types just don’t grasp it. It’s livability – infrastructure (metrolink, etc.), historic preservation, public safety. It’s small ball – in a good way. For over half a century, from demolishing its historic riverfront for the Arch to prostrating itself before the Rams, St. Louis has tried homerun/moonshot type redevelopment and urban renewal. That has not worked. I would have been all for a stadium if there had been some evidence it would have been a net positive.

          • David

            There will be more damage from this from a perception point of view. People think it is a sign that St. Louis is stagnant. Whether or not that is true, you have to be able to replace those people if they move out. We are hoping that urban renewal, infrastructure, and historic preservation will do it. Okay, looking forward to that changing the perception.

            If this had died in the board of aldermen it would have been better for the area than it losing this vote. Instead it is yet another largely publicized loss. I am just hoping our population estimates don’t get worse in the next couple years.

          • thomas h benton

            There’s a certain segment of the St. Louis suburbs that is going to interpret most anything that happens in the City as a negative, but I don’t see the fact that City voters rejected a bad, rushed, and overhyped stadium deal as a negative. Certainly some people may see it that way, but I do not. I’m also not making the connection between the stadium failing and population loss that you are.

          • JB

            I can see both sides of the argument, although I voted yes. I completely agree with the slow-but-steady efforts to improve the livability of the neighborhoods/urban renewal as the primary engine to grow the city. The problem with that grass roots effort is that the $4mm/year that we just agreed to hand city hall will likely never be used to advance that strategy. It doesn’t seem as if the government has any plan for how they’ll use it and their track record for investment to better the city has been pretty definitive over the past 50 years.

            I think a lot of the people who voted yes overrate the development a stadium can bring to an area, but a lot of people who vote no also underrate the positive impact of civic pride that not much else can provide on the level of a sports team that represents the city.

          • thomas h benton
        • Nat76

          “…people will come, why didn’t that happen in the past two decades of decreasing crime?”

          It did David. The city saw a huge increase in the number of 25 to 44 year old college grads from 2000 to 2015…the target community I think you’re referring to when talking about young people. Where the city is losing people is among those who are either poor/working class or older (or both).

          • David

            Do you have links for that demographic info? If it is what I expect from the census data it is the Central Corridor boom.

            People who are poor, working class, or older rarely contribute much to the tax roles. Young people were added to the city by the boom in college and graduate enrollment which has now tailed off since it was fueled by debt. Even if it didn’t, we were still net losing people. It wasn’t a decrease in crime that brought them here, but two central corridor universities and the hospitals.

            If, as you say, the poor were moving out of St. Louis, we wouldn’t have as much need for all these initiatives. Our tax base would have grown while service needs decreased. Instead, we are still losing population and the young cohort isn’t enough to offset our population loses. Obviously the revenue growth from the tax base isn’t there or we wouldn’t have these propositions.

          • Nat76

            It’s 2000 SF3 Census vs. 2015 1-year ACS for the city. The changes aren’t limited to the central corridor. Some of the biggest swings: Benton Park, TGS, TGE, Shaw…but the college education gains (in excess of what you’d get from general higher ed level improvements nationwide) spread wider than that. The population changes people obsess over obscure why/how population changes. Highlights:

            We lost 29,000 people. 23K kids. 70% of that drop is related to lower fertility rates, more highly educated not having as many and Xers (prime kid raisers) being a smaller generation. Over 65s down 11K. 25-64s with a college degree: up 31K. Those with only HS degree or below: down 22K. 18-24 year olds down a bit…its a small group (7 years), so you get short boom/busts.

            Percent of 25 to 44s with a college degree jumped from 23% to 46% from 2000 to 2015. That 23 pt jump? More than any other county for which ACS 1-year data is available for 2015 (roughly 500 largest countries in US).

            What I’m saying is based upon fact, not impression or fiction. As for why we still need additional tax revenue and these initiatives: you don’t undo the steep declines in the city from 1950 until 1995 or so with 15 years of strong improvement. That improvement also hasn’t been universal. The cost of deferring things in that decline period isn’t linear. For example,a $500 problem on your house you should have fixed last fall can easily become a $5000 problem on your house if you wait a couple years.

          • marvin gardens

            There is what is called “black flight”. African-Americans are leaving the city in droves and moving to North County. That’s why there is a decrease in population. There are not enough incoming middle class people coming into the city as there are blacks leaving the city.

        • Roger Mexico

          Some neighborhoods are becoming more middle class while simultaneously having lower population density. A clear example is Shaw which lost 10% of population from 2000 to 2010 (census) but had 50% increase in housing values from 2000-2015 (federal housing data). People concentrate on the slight population loss but underrate the important benefits that these higher income residents will bring (improvement to city’s bottom line).

  • David

    That’s how I read it as well. It is really disappointing. It is hard to get motivated for things like NS when this is the result you get. I knew 60% was a long shot, but to see the areas that candidates pointed to all through the primaries as not getting enough support vote against more support is just disheartening. At least the central corridor is willing to try. This election has really sapped a lot of enthusiasm i had.

    I am glad Krewson won, but she really has her work cut out for her with the way half of the city seems to vote against things.

    • Adam

      it hasn’t sapped mine. there were too many asks on this ballot. Prop 1–the big one–got the green light. i’m also disappointed that NS didn’t pass but it needed 2/3, which is never easy to get. i suspect it’ll come back later. as for the stadium, St. Louisans are tired of subsidizing bloated promises that don’t come to fruition. so i understand the vote.

      • David

        Which is what Prop 1 is largely. We all know it. We’ll get a feasibility study on the line, which will look great, but the County will fight it because they want the line. Then while we are fighting each other for the money we will go to the Feds who will shrug because this administration isn’t going to support that kind of matching any more.

        I want a North South line, but I am realistic. Plus, the people it is intended to help the most, voted against it. That’s where this gets to be patronizing. The urbanists on this site and throughout the Central Corridor want to help an area badly that according to these maps don’t want that help.

        So, be happy that the soccer supporters helped bring in Prop 1 for what the urbanists decided was best for North St. Louis. As Alex writes in the article, it doesn’t seem like they trust our favored North South line much more than a stadium.

        • Adam

          It’s not just about helping people in N. St. Louis. We need a more robust public transit system more than we need a soccer stadium. Period. The N-S line is the next logical extension, not only because it helps the population least likely to own an automobile, but because we already have an E-W line. And, as the mayor has reiterated multiple times, Prop 1 is for the city’s portion. It has nothing to do with the county.

          What urbanists decided? Give me a break. I love how labels like “hipster” and “urbanist” get thrown around when people don’t get what they want.

          • David

            Look at the maps again. The biggest support came from places that either were largely in favor of the stadium or fit the description of young urbanists, the types who would vote to tax themselves to help north city through NS.

            I am sold on a North South line. I just don’t think it is happening. That ship sailed when Trump got elected. Sure, Prop 1 is a nice way to try still, but don’t hang your hat on it.

          • Adam

            Wait, so if lots of support came from areas that also strongly supported the stadium, doesn’t that mean that lots of stadium supporters are “hipsters” and “urbanists”?

          • Nick

            Dollar for dollar, the N-S line is likely to be a much bigger bust for city growth relative to a stadium. Even if the line somehow goes through, it’s probably 10-15 years before it will be built. If things don’t change, North City will be even more desolate than it is today. We’re going to spend hundreds of millions to a billion to run a Metrolink line up there? If the goal is to help those without an automobile, bus lines obviously make more sense. Infinitely cheaper, and can be changed according to shifts in population throughout the city.

          • Adam

            N-S will serve NGA for starters. What’s a soccer stadium gonna do for North St. Louis?

          • Nick

            No it won’t. Look at a map. The closest station on the new proposed line is 10+ blocks away from the NGA site.

          • Adam

            10 blocks is suuuper far. There’s also a strong chance of development between the station and the facility.

          • Nick

            10 blocks through North City is plenty far enough to guarantee no employees from the NGA will use it. And it’s actually more than 10 blocks.

          • rgbose

            The plan is to consider a route alternative that serves NGA.

          • Nick

            That would certainly make more sense. My main point is it seems misguided to believe a Metrolink line will do anything more to develop the city than a stadium, given it hasn’t seemed to happen with the current line.

          • Adam

            Both existing lines run through the central corridor, which is seeing a level of development that it hasn’t seen in decades. Based on comparisons of stadium-driven versus transit-driven development elsewhere in the US, I think it seems misguided to suggest that it won’t.

          • Nick

            Correlation doesn’t imply causation. For example, the Metrolink also runs through North County and the East side, the portions of which are both declining. The Metrolink must CAUSE decline! In reality the Metrolink is likely innocuous. The Central Corridor is booming mainly because of expansion around Barnes and Cortex, and subsequently retail/residential around it. The hospital has been around long before Metrolink, and Cortex is where it is because it was close to Wash U’s medical campus and the land was cheap…again not much to do with Metrolink.

          • Adam

            That’s why I said compare with other places as well. The North and East sides are extreme examples that are going to take more work than, say, LoDo in Denver. No, it’s not a guarantee, but more often than not transit spurs economic development. Lots of research demonstrating that stadiums don’t.

          • jhoff1257

            Yeah the KC Streetcar, which admittedly is a bit different then what a N/S MetroLink would be, has been a massive boon to development in that city. While the North Side would certainly take more time to develop I think it would be wise to build a line where the majority of the regions car-less people live. Regarding the portions through Downtown and the South Side I think we’d see some significant investment along a fixed rail route, far more then we would with a stadium.

          • jhoff1257

            Actually, no. The new study the city is conducting includes a realignment of the line to run it along Jefferson right along the NGA property. This was covered in the PD extensively.

          • Nick

            Do you have a source? This PD article only mentions the route of the original proposal:

            http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/metrolink-yes-soccer-stadium-no-and-a-win-for-st/article_c30360fe-6ffc-5f40-a296-f9bd4f45c82f.html

            Even still, there’s about 3,000 jobs going to that site. Saying 5% of those people would use the line is being generous. Along with the trajectory the North Side is heading, that would still be a colossal waste of money for that amount of ridership.

          • Alex Ihnen

            Yes. Running the line next to what will be permanent low-density development is a really, really stupid idea.

          • Nick

            Hi Alex, could you maybe expound a little bit on this? I thought you were a big proponent of Prop 1? Or maybe I should save this for live chat….

          • jhoff1257

            You selected one PD article about the election. When news broke last year about the City pursuing a N/S line it was detailed. I tried to attach a map that shows the new proposed alignment but for whatever reason it won’t load. Just use the google.

    • thomas h benton

      Don’t get discouraged. We’re dealing with headwinds in the City that are literally decades in the making. Unfortunately as the article notes there is a great deal of mistrust in some of the north city areas that would have benefitted from NS – plus, 2/3 really is a hard lift. I think it’s realist to go again at NS with a better education campaign and perhaps at a time when there are not so many other controversial tax measure on the ballot.

    • rgbose

      Vocal support from more electeds would have helped. Remember how many were in favor and vocal about continuing the earnings tax last year?

      I’d like to see some to the new sales/use tax revenue going to what NS proposed, $500k to $1M/yr and if it goes well, then maybe a proposal as big as NS would pass.

    • Michael B

      Wasn’t it 66.67? Not just 60%. That’s a really high bar to meet.