This weeks edition of the Sun Crest call, direct from Houston, Texas
Interesting as usual, but more so as the Big Bend Crossing project approved by the P & Z board on February 14, 2007 was tabled with a no vote on a second reading by Alderman Jerry Miguel!
Time will tell if this was a mistake or not.
Tom Ford
NO. 290
Time will tell if this was a mistake or not.
Tom Ford
NO. 290
posted by Crestwood Independent at 19:41
39 Comments:
So who was right, Miguel or the Mayor and the rest of the Aldermen?
There is no right or wrong to this issue. There are opposing viewpoints, and each is legitimate. As with many issues the board considers, there is always room for compromise from both sides. The question therefore, is whether the aldermen are willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposing viewpoints and work together to do what's best for the city.
Martha Duchild
So the question should be, "what is best for the City, Alderman Miguel's or the other elected officials position on this matter"? What has the recognizing the legitimacy of opposing view points got to do with what action is the best one for the City?
S.W. Malter
Well, this is all moot anyway because I understand they had a special session on Thurdsay night (Nieder, ans Miguel absent) where the issue moved forward.
We shall see!
Tom Ford
I'll answer your question with another: Why assume that there is only one right solution?
Claiming that one side or the other has the "right" answer is too facile. How can the issue be fully explored and the available options be discussed if your response is framed in such a way as to rule out a compromise? Recognizing the legitimacy of an opposing point of view is an essential part of successfully debating an issue.
Martha Duchild
I am confused due to the fact that the issue of the Medical Building could bring forth such wrath from a city alderman toward a fellow alderman. This kind of putrid public display, having happened time and again, is what this alderman will take from his 2 years in office. A sad legacy.
As for the Medical Bldg.,seems that developers nowdays are rerouting many of their initial plans (i.e. Cardinal Stadium retail)and one has to wonder if they are running things or we are running things. I see nothing wrong with an alderman questionning a developer who corners the city with an impending deadline. Good tactic! I am pleased there is an alderman for my city who is looking out for me and for you and our bottom line.
I am further confused that when an alderman seeks to get to the bottom on an issue and needs info from city hall to pursue an answer he is accused of taking up their valuable time. Sorry, but city hall is there to serve me and you and our aldermen. They are our employees. If they are complaining about an alderman seeking information, they truly need to find another line of work.
Yes, I am confused that an alderman who seeks to get to the meat and bones of an issue is given a public lecture at a public meeting by an alderman who is known for poor attendance and lack of ability to reign in his behavior. It would seem the wrong alderman is being ostrasized.
Considering the fact that this city has faced more than a few critical issues that deserved close scrutiny in order to get the city going again and prevent reoccurence, I can only offer praise to any alderman who sticks his neck out to make sure that whatever action being considered is first getting the strong light of day on it. I just wish he had been around when we were working our way into the 3.5 Million Dollar Line of Credit it took to run our city. Seems we need a caretaker and seems we finally found one.
Failure to compromise breaks a lot of rules. Pull out your campaign literature, city officials, and read what you promised to do if you won. I'll bet it wasn't that you would allow rude behavior to take place and that you would consider all options.
This continual 'rush to judgement' that hurried aldermen seek can be detrimental to our city. Sure we need more retail, but we also need to hang on tight to the steering wheel.
12:18 AM blogger: I agree, thank goodness we have such people as Alderman Miguel, Nieder, and Roby!
To those living in the ward's they serve, you have no idea how fortunate you are to have them.
As a whole the City is fortunate to have them watching out for us, and the coffers.
This April election is going to be one of the most crucial in the history of Crestwood! In Ward two we have two people who are level headed (not at all self centered or bloviating,) both of which would make a fine Alderman.
In the other Wards we also have some fine candidates (such as John Foote) who know the numbers, and have made a commitment to excellence for Crestwood.
What ever you do this April, think about who is BEST QUALIFIED to be on the Board, and get out there and work for them, and yes, VOTE!
Tom Ford
Roby and Miguel disagreed on this one, which one has the right vision for the city?
9:15 A.M. and 2:19 P.M. bloggers
Surely you are not trying to start a brushfire. How yesterday this is. One vote, one decision does not constitute which alderman is the one with the right vision. Which questions are the most pertinent, and which have an ulterior motive or a political intent. Unlike those who repeatedly cast the less than ethical vote in lock step as a tag team with little conception of what is best for the city or its outcome (a common political practice of the last administration), we now have a few officials who can see an issue with a commendable independence and hopefully a positive forseeable outcome.
Please don't assume aldermen who share the same set of values basically and are independent by nature are not representing their constituancy and the city and are taking sides. How refreshing to see a change of scenery - even though every time Mr. Miguel exercises his need for clarity, he is chastized, he hangs in there. One must question the intent of those who oppose questions that surround important issues and wish to "hurry" very imporant long term issues which will affect the bottom line for years to come. Presumably Mr. Roby has his reasons for his votes. If you are in his ward, why don't you call him and ask.
I shudder to think of our future without Mr. Miguel and those who are "paying attention." I appreciate his efforts to dig out the facts and consider the alternatives. This is exactly what Crestwood has needed for some time. If, on the other hand, you think the way to govern is to insult a man for his talent and his virtues and disagree to disagree, then you definitely have a different dream for Crestwood than I do.
I don't happen to think we can sell our city to anyone who sees political unrest at city hall. Who on earth wants to step in this kind of mud?
Nice non-answer poster 1:28, but one of the two positions has to be the best and right one for the City. Which one is it, Miguel's or Roby's position on this issue? It does matter.
There is no insult intended for either Alderman, and I am not suggesting they vote in lock step with the Mayor and Mr. Myers. I am just trying to find out through this blog what the citizens feel was the right and best position on the issue.
I'll say it again - perhaps neither has the "right" answer and that the best course of action is a compromise between the two, or some other idea altogether.
The point is, you cannot possibly hope to deliberate issues with any considered thought if your first reaction is to choose sides, in the belief that one side has the "right" answer and the other does not.
Martha Duchild
There have been developer issues in Sunset Hills and in Rock Hill and Manchester. More will happen as O'Fallon and the far west continue to develop. We have the same possibility here. The city of St. Louis has one next to the stadium. A change in plans which is in conflict with original plans should be questioned. Especially if it deals with retail and deviates from the original concept. I see nothing wrong with getting the answers it takes to make a proper decision. Getting these answers by asking for more time and more answers would more than likely allow for the compromise necessary to determine what is right. Developers are starting to muscle into our communities and someone and sometimes we must muscle back.
Thank you to any alderman with this kind of insight and reasoning. I want this city to wag the dog. If we have a deal on every corner, on every vacant lot, we set a precedent we cannot explain.
Yes, perhaps nether side is right, then again, perhaps one side is and the other side isn't.
Do you recall a couple of years ago when the Board voted down a similar proposal for a savings credit union on a retail sales lot? Was the Board wrong then or right? The voting down did bring about a law suit. Were they right then?
Perhaps the BOA then wasn't wrong and all Alderman Miguel is doing now is following that Boards leadership? But is it the right and best position for the City?
I am amazed how on ever subject in the past year this blog has produced strong comments on what was the correct and incorrect action taken, but on this action, everyone has turned to "moderates".
Martha,
let me put it to you this way. I don't know what Ward you live in, but if your Alderman asked you which way he/she should vote on this question, which way would you tell them to go and why?
This, I presume, is not a debate over personalities, or ideologies, but rather whether we have an answer as to why there is a change in plans for this site, who it is a plus for, and is there a compromise posaible.
4:35 PM blogger: What? Please elaborate, as I have no idea where your coming from on this post!
Tom Ford
The agreement between the City and the developers for this site was for sales tax producing business, not non sales tax producing business. That is the change being referred to in post 4:35. It is not about the people but is the change in the agreement a good for the City?
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
My aldermen already know my positions on how to treat the use of development tools in general, and how I feel about this one in particular.
What are your thoughts on this deal?
Martha Duchild
I support Alderman Miguel's position. The Mayor was wrong in even allowing this to come to the Board.
Tom,
Let me "try" to elaborate so you will know where I am coming from.
The agreement for this property was essentially for part of it to produce sales tax. When the developer suddenly decides to change this origiinal conception,it behooves aldermen to dig into the matter for an answer. I would consider this routine for a good representative. It appears Mr. Miguel did just that only to have another Alderman, whose practice it has been to criticize him at every turn - criticize him.
So, I just wondered if the alderman who likes to criticize Mr. Miguel had been the one to initiate the questions and take issue with this developer and delve deeper into the matter, would it have been perfectly okay then? (In other words it often seems a personality thing) Anything that Mr. Miguel challenges is not okay. Even though it is sound. Anything the other Alderman brings up is automatically a go, and if Mr. Miguel does not agree, he is accused of wasting time.This is how I have seen it happen.
I happen to think it is important to challenge changes no matter how much time it takes. If we don't, our city will become a pushover and we will end up cow-towing to every developer who hits the city limits. I think it would have been a fairly good idea if the Sunset Hills Aldermen would have listened to their TIF Board, or at least challenged Mr. Browne on some of his plans for buyout. This is why I can appreciate Mr. Miguel. He covers all the bases and then decides. This is why I am disturbed that we have an alderman or two who seem to be unable to support another aldermen in his quest for the needed info. I can only determine this is a personality thing. What else could it be, Tom?
Thanks.
Is our board capitulating to developers just to fill empty lots?
In the board meetings I have attended, there doesn't seem to be any other reason for approving these deals (and the numerous attendant changes) other than to fill the spaces and to convey the message to developers that we are a "business-friendly" city.
Being business-savvy and business friendly are not mutually exclusive, and if the city wants to get the most out of these developments, it needs to take a harder look at what is being offered and negotiate so that the city's interests (and not just the developer's) are being met.
Martha Duchild
Apparently we have given Grewe and Sansone the idea that we are desperate not deliberate. AT least it appears so.
Yes, excellent observations.
Don't forget, even the Mayor has blasted Miguel on these issues!..It is not just other members of the Board.
I wouldn't say the Mayor is in the same blasting category as those who blast Mr. Miguel regularly. They are in fixed mode. It is a given. With the Mayor, I'm not sure there is the same intensity or animosity. However, they all need to get a grip. It is totally childish and is not going unnoticed. I wish I could trade one of my aldermen for Mr. Miguel. He is not to be believed.
" This is why I am disturbed that we have an alderman or two who seem to be unable to support another aldermen in his quest for the needed info. I can only determine this is a personality thing. What else could it be, Tom?
Thanks"
This is a very interesting comment, and I would say most probebly true, if not for the fact that the Alderman in question has no personality, ergo, no conflict!
We have seen this sort of rude, imbicilic, haughty behavure from this "gentleman" on the dias for far too long now, and we need only to wait till April to change that!
We have on one side a man such as Alderman Miguel who truley believes in Crestwood, and on the other a "gentleman," who, for whatever reason seems to believe he is important in this town!
I can only hope that in retirement (from politics) this "gentleman" will be able to convince his friends on the cocktail circut, and at the club of his importance, because he will never convince me, or anyone that I know!
Tom Ford
Don't forget that Alderman Miguel said at a meeting that the City would need another property tax increase down the road. I believe that is why he wants to see space for retail be used for retail, to reduce that tax increase when it comes.
What I don't understand is why there is still a law suit with Novas/aka Jon Browning? I thought that was all taken care of per the Mayor. The other thing I don't get is Westfield, they pulled out all the stops to keep Novas from developing in Sunset Hills, and now they show no desire to stay in Crestwood. The Mayor said he was against the Novas developement, so that had to make Westfield feel good. What has happened in the last 18 months to make them change? Greer, Madrid, and Fagan are all gone so they cant be upsetting them. Anyone know for sure what was the results of their phone poll they took a few months ago? Maybe there is something in there that could shed some light on their actions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Not nice to call people moron.
Let's don't be petty about spelling, ok. We get the drift.
The development over at the Sam's area, wasn't it about promised development that didn't happen early on? Typical for this developer isn't it? Isn't Rock Hill dealing with them now? They seem to get you hooked and then change the game plan to better suit themselves. They don't seek compromise, they want to do it their way. Actually, originally, there was to be a restaurant or hotel or both wasnn't it? Plans seem to get mentioned and then evaporate. If they were going to have a Medical Building and retail and rearrange the real estate, then drop or reduce the retail, then of course we don't wish to be made the fool. I fully expect a sound reason and it would seem Mr. Miguel is asking the right questions.
I, too, can't figure out why Westfield would seek to crush the Sunset Hills project then do nothing to bring back the Mall? Just another example of the current day developers. We have to do whatever it takes to maintain a sense of stability and sensibility about all this, and yes, it does take compromise. I think the way Crestwood has been portrayed in the press (and rightly so) and by word of mouth due to the lack of ability for this city's previous BOA, carried over to today's BOA to quit squabbling, plays a role in how we are perceived as a good landing spot for investment. One has to presume that certain of the board do not have a clue as to how they are perceived, and how important it is for them to get serious about our city. It is unconscionable for certain politicians, ex-politicians and even ex-employees to represent the constituancy by creating havoc at meetings and publicly disagreeing with any kind of rhetoric they did not originate. Debate is great, expected. Name calling and personal attacks is not. Taking sides for the sake of taking sides has become normal procedure thus making it hard to land on what is best. City business is serious business. It affects the lives of over 12,000 residents and the future of our city. I think April can't come soon enough and let's hope with April will come a new trend, good press and great expectations. I am saddened by the fact that the politics of reason have simply not been prevailing. But I am pleased the board bully will be soon gone, and his residue soon forgotten.
Here here, last poster! I agree with 99 percent of what you say.
The only disagreement is not so much a disagreement but an answer to your question of why Westfield won't improve the Crestwood mall after they pulled out of Sunset Hills. Have you seen what they've planned for West County? Or South County? All their money is going into malls that make a profit. Sadly, not the Crestwood-Sunset Hills area.
Just a sign of the times.
And a P.S. to that. No amount of squabbling over the mayor or any aldermen is going to change that. Nor is any election. It's not their fault that Westfield doesn't improve the Crestwood mall. It's just a quality that shoppers see in West County and South County that, frankly, Crestwood's mall doesn't even compare to. The sooner Westfield sells the mall and someone else goes in, the better Crestwood will be in the long run. In the short term, the drop in sales tax will hurt. But if the city can weather that storm, it'll make it and a new (hopefully unique!) business will take off in the mall's old location.
From the 12:44 blogger ... I read the next 2 blogs after mine and am pleased to see two people with such positive and hopeful ideas. I know people who absolutely love Crestwood Westfield Plaza.
Just wonder what was said in Las Vegas to our people when they met with Westfield. Guess they made no promises. If we could just put our finger on what it takes to "bring it back". Yes, maybe a new owner would be just what we need. We have 3 good anchors, people like to eat at Dillard's Restaurant and certainly at Pasta House. Maybe not enough flash and dash, but that could be remidied. There are people who do like to park once and shop in air conditioning and in a warm mall, not like at the bluffs where it is a long way to the other end of the stores. Oh well, maybe we just need to have a meeting and put our heads together. A people meeting. If the press picked up on resident enthusiasm, it might be a plus.
8:33PM blogger: Sorry pal but we have no "morons" in Crestwood that I know of! You will notice that your post has been removed, so from now on, please be a bit more civil!
We all know who tyhe blogger was talking about, so there is no reason to insult the blogger!
Tom Ford
You know, I only know of one person who is known to regularly and publicly chastise people and call them names. Maybe others on this blog do it as well, but it will probably always be blamed on the aldermanic disciple who apparently did not get help for anger management. This reputation will follow him always. Wonder if it was worth it. The only one is actually hurt was himself.
I would rather be leading his life than yours!
Really! I don't think so!
But, now we all know who wrote the last blog.
Oh please please do share with those of us who don't know who wrote the last "blog" their name. And while your at it explain why knowing is worth a hill of beans.
This blog is run by a racist so who cares who posts on it.
Wow! You posted on it. What kind of hypocrit are you anyway? Go take your nap, pal. Everytime someone hits a nerve which affects you, you chirp in. You really are from yawnsville!
Bye, Bye.
Post a Comment
<< Home