The summer heat has been taking its toll on the air conditioner-less Board of Aldermen, with Alderwoman Cara Spencer (Ward 8) introducing yet another bill intended to cause more harm than good – all in the name of scoring political points.
Last week, Spencer filed Board Bill 81, which would permit any person over age 65 to defer real property taxes every year through their death, accruing 4% interest along the way. Those deferred payments would then become the responsibility of the new homeowner who purchases or inherits the property — even before the new homeowner has moved in. This means that your children or your grandchildren would be required to pay your deferred real estate taxes, plus interest before they could take ownership of the home you leave to them. The toll this proposed legislation would take on Black families trying to build generational wealth would be crushing.
Spencer’s bill further uses a property’s assessed value, rather than the appraised value, which means that homes that would sell on the market for less than around $1 million would qualify for tax payment deferrals — assuming at least one resident inside is over 65. For reference of how ridiculous this bill is, the infamous McCloskey Mansion in the Central West End is assessed in value at $218,790, just over the threshold for what would be a “qualified” property under Spencer’s proposal. According to city property records, the McCloskey residence is appraised at $1.2 million.
An estimated two-thirds of St. Louis City’s senior population own their homes, versus one-third of seniors who rent. The city’s fiscal note is still pending, but St. Louis County estimated a loss in revenue exceeding $34 million across four years.
Finally, what Spencer is proposing would also exempt Social Security payments from the 1% city earnings tax. While that seems commendable, the fiscal impact on the city would have devastating consequences on the city’s budget and our public schools’ budget. Of note, the bill relies on a state law that doesn’t yet exist, still awaiting the signature of Governor Mike Parson, who has signaled his intent to veto the state legislation. Just because a hypothetical state law opened the door for this tax deferral scheme doesn’t mean that we, as a city, should walk through it.
Perhaps Kairos Cara doesn’t care about funding for St. Louis and its other public schools, or maybe she doesn’t care about building strong, sustainable communities. Nevertheless, the real impact of allowing an estimated 30% of all St. Louis City property owners to defer their taxes would have an immeasurable, harmful effect on the children – and the future – of St. Louis.
Bewilderingly, Spencer’s bill’s attempt to destabilize city property tax revenue comes after she spent weeks in Budget Committee hearings, complaining about a lack of revenue brought in by the city. We remain confused about how her proposed legislation solves the same problem she identified, as all signs would point to Spencer herself contributing to a decline in city tax revenue. But compounding the misguided chaos is Spencer’s Board Bill 29 — her stop and frisk legislation — which is before the Public Safety Committee this afternoon.
Allegedly the bill has been amended, but the EYE hasn’t seen a copy of the reported changes. We are still skeptical of any amendments that would make this stop-and-frisk law any better for the Black and Brown St. Louisans who will be impacted disproportionately by this policy. Spencer’s bill is awfully reminiscent of then-Governor Ronald Reagan’s anti-black stop and frisk law, the Mulford Act of 1967, which was drafted with the goal of disarming the members of the Black Panthers party who were providing security for Oakland and other Black California neighborhoods. Who would have expected this young St. Louis Democrat to suggest the same Republican law championed by Reagan?
While Spencer has been trying to essentially defund St. Louis Public Schools, some unlikely allies have come together under the common cause of unfair treatment of St. Louis tenants. Although 54% of all city residents rent their homes, Alderman Shane Cohn (Ward 3) and Alderwoman Sharon Tyus (Ward 12) presented a united front in opposition to Alderwoman Shameem Clark Hubbard’s (Ward 10) tenants’ “right to counsel” bill. Starting in July 2024, St. Louis renters will be able to enter housing court on equal legal footing as landlords. Thankfully, the legislation passed, but not before a lengthy bitter temper tantrum and a bizarre monologue on aldermanic ethics.
Cohn’s complaints were straightforward enough – he was seemingly still upset by Fox 2 News’s reporting that called him out for owning an Airbnb property while continuing to preside over the legislative process for a bill that would add regulations to short-term rental properties. Cohn failed to notify the City Counselor’s Office of his conflict of interest and continued, business as usual, without making the disclosure. Had Cohn made the disclosure, as required under 2021’s Proposition R, there would not have been any issue. Even Tyus declared her potential conflict of interest as a landlord, noting that simply because she makes that conflict publicly known that absolves her ethically.
But it’s where Cohn claims that every other alderperson has conflicts of interest for merely existing that we get lost. If you’re an alderman who has rented before in your lifetime, Cohn’s read of Proposition R is that you have a conflict of interest. To Alderman Bret Narayan (Ward 4), who represented a handful of tenants in housing court a few years ago, Cohn asserted that he has a conflict because those clients may have paid Narayan for his legal work. Drink tap water? You should have recused yourself from the water rate bill a few weeks ago. Use city streets? You best not vote on anyone’s speed hump bill.
It’s this tenuous grasp on aldermanic ethics in general that helps erode the public’s trust in city government, and the irksome display of obtusity last Friday certainly didn’t help to alleviate that mindset. The regular Board session, which typically lasts between one to two hours, extended to over five hours, mostly because of Tyus’ long-winded charade.
We won’t repeat most of what Tyus stated in public from the floor of the Board of Aldermen chambers because, frankly, it was disrespectful, mean-spirited filth that insulted nearly every demographic in our city. Calling St. Louis renters lazy, scammers, squatters, and pretty much every other name in the book, the senior alderwoman recounted some of her own experiences in eviction court, dragging renters to court and boasting about kicking them out of their homes.
Tyus’s own words as a landlord made the case for not only the tenants’ “right to counsel,” but a tenants’ bill of rights, a rental registry, and other tenant protection-focused legislation. According to publicly-available court records, several former tenants have filed lawsuits against Tyus for the return of their rental deposits – but the alderwoman was nowhere to be found when the tenants tried to serve her.
With stiff landlords like Sharon Tyus, tenants need all the help they can get.
Mind you, both Cohn and Tyus voted in support of the tenants’ “right to counsel” bill during the last aldermanic session when then-alderwoman Christine Ingrassia sponsored the exact same piece of legislation. But now that the program has been funded in the city budget, the two veteran alderpersons have decided that they have a problem with following through on that commitment to protect tenants’ rights.