It’s been one year since former Board of Aldermen president Lewis Reed and former aldermen Jeffrey Boyd and John Collins-Muhammad were indicted, and while there has been a recognizable shift in the energy at the Board, there are still some old, lingering habits that die hard.
During last week’s Housing, Urban Development, and Zoning Committee hearing at the Board of Aldermen, Alderwoman Shameem Clark-Hubbard (Ward 10) presented Board Bill 37, which revised an existing ordinance directing $37 million in federal COVID funds to North St. Louis.
The amount of funds was not in dispute. The purpose of the federal relief funds wasn’t changing. But Alderman Shane Cohn (Ward 3) nevertheless took this as an opportunity to challenge the allocations to North City specifically and demanded an explanation for southside exclusion. “Venting” to the Post-Dispatch, Cohn pushed this demonstrably false narrative that “the city hasn’t allocated a dime of federal pandemic aid specifically for the southeast side of the city.”
Except, Cohn himself had locked down a $200,000 allocation for Marquette Park, and that’s in addition to the $5.5 million allocated to community violence intervention programs, the largest (Dutchtown’s Cure Violence office) being located in Cohn’s own ward. Those amounts are certainly more than “a dime.”
Southside residents also will be able to apply to access support from a $500,000 allocation for real and personal property tax forgiveness; a $2.5 million mortgage assistance fund; a $5 million guaranteed basic income program; a $5 million Small Business Fund; a $20 million Citywide Housing Development Fund; a $1 million food assistance program; and so much more. Cohn’s protestations – rooted in a false notion – led him to an attempt to amend Clark-Hubbard’s bill to funnel money already earmarked for North City to a handful of southside neighborhoods.
But perhaps the most appalling moment of the HUDZ meeting was Cohn’s assertion that the industrialization of the white Kosciusko neighborhood was equivalent to the systemic, racist annihilation of the historic black neighborhood, Mill Creek Valley. Ignoring the fact that Kosciusko still exists, Cohn’s assertion that north and south neighborhoods experienced the same type of divestment is just flat-out incorrect and further reinforces white resentment of North City by many on the Southside. Of note, Cohn supported the original ordinance that unanimously passed in 2021, and public records his full support of North City receiving $37 million for revitalization.
Cohn did not have the votes he needed to change the North City-focused bill, but he nevertheless introduced his amendment and forced his colleagues to deal with his racially-naive contention.
“Some of the things that you’re referencing, we all understand,” Clark-Hubbard challenged. “To move the needle on [the small business owners of North St. Louis], I think it’s very disingenuous and very unfair to them and to the Northside.”
“To me, it seems like the intent of the original bill is to undo historical wrongs, but specifically racially-motivated historical wrongs,” Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier (Ward 7) noted. “We all have different histories in our areas and I’m just curious…have you thought of some of those differences as far as the historical reasons for disinvestment?”
Cohn’s cringeworthy grandstanding is reminiscent of white South City alderpersons’ age-old habit of recognizing the racist divestment of North City while refusing to do anything about it. Even though he voted in support of the original $37 million allocation to Northside businesses and commercial districts, his performance last week reflected the Schoemehl-era shenanigans that caused further divestment from North City in the 1980s.
But the histrionics didn’t end there, with the oft-mundane city water service issue becoming a hot topic during last week’s full Board meeting. By now, you may have heard about the Board of Aldermen voting and passing the bill to raise citywide water service rates by up to 40% over the next few years. The cause of the increase is simple: the city’s population has declined and the Water Department doesn’t generate enough revenue to continue operations at the current rates. Bonds are not an option; the Water Department is already over-leveraged. Some have suggested dipping into the Rams settlement funds, but the Water Department’s capital needs exceed the city’s share of Kroenke cash.
There have been more than 60 water main breaks since October 2022. Just two weeks ago, in one weekend, there were 16 water main breaks throughout South St. Louis neighborhoods, shutting down several major roadways while City employees worked quickly through the heat to restore service. A December report by the State Auditor’s Office predicted the chaos and criticized the Board for failing to increase water rates.
Clearly, the Board has simply ignored the issue for more than a decade, and those water main breaks in the eight months prove what happens when a city neglects vital infrastructure needs.
The bill’s sponsor, Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer, was unfairly harangued by the press and some of her colleagues, but as the saying goes, a hit dog will holler. The bill’s loudest critics, Alderwomen Cara Spencer (Ward 8) and Sharon Tyus (Ward 12), are also two of the longest-serving alderpersons – each with her own storied history of serving in roles that touch on public infrastructure.
Tyus, formerly the chair of the Streets, Traffic, and Refuse Committee, previously blocked necessary legislation for the STL Works fund, rather relying on utilities and motor vehicle taxes to repair sidewalks, fill potholes, purchase new trash trucks, and supplements of City employee pay. Tyus is also a North City landlord, with a well-documented record of failing to pay her fair share of water and sewer bills.
Spencer is the former executive director of the Missouri Consumers Council, a nonprofit organization that opposes all rate increases for both public and private utilities. She also sat on the Public Utilities Committee in November 2016, when the Board made its last unsuccessful attempt to raise rates.
In other words, the two people on the Board who should best know and understand the dire need of the City Water Department were the two harming residents’ interests the most. Both alderwomen feigned ignorance of the Water Department’s urgent requirements and made odd suggestions that Schweitzer’s rate increase legislation was “rushed” – despite the Board’s attempts to raise rates for more than a decade.
Because of that cowardice and expanded costs of materials, water rates will increase by 40%, instead of the 22% as originally pitched in 2016. If you’re upset by that increase, just remember that the next concern is the City Water Department becoming insolvent and being forcibly privatized. In observing how some of the alderpersons behaved in the last week, our readers would think that some of them would prefer the unthinkable: privatizing city water.
The old habit that some veteran alderpersons can’t seem to quit?
Refusing to take responsibility for problems that they caused – long-standing problems that they now scold younger alderpersons about when the new generation moves to address them.