By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

SAINT LOUIS — A chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit today claiming that a city ordinance banning people from putting pamphlets on car windshields violates the constitutional right to free speech. You can read the organization’s press release here.

The arrest of Gustavo Rendon that spurred this lawsuit happened after Rendon placed fliers advertising a petition drive on car windshields. His fliers promoted a referendum on a recently approved 1,500-acre development of the city’s north side.

Details of Rendon’s arrest records are unclear, mostly because of heavy redactions. According to Donald Re, counselor at the city’s police department, those redactions were made because the charges against Rendon were dropped.

The ordinance, 11.18.180, reads: “No person shall throw or deposit any commercial or noncommercial handbill in or upon any vehicle without the owner’s consent. Provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful in any public place for a person to hand out or distribute without charge to the receiver thereof a noncommercial handbill to any occupant of a vehicle who is willing to accept it.”

From the lawsuit: “Most recently Plaintiffs have been alarmed by their perception that the City of St. Louis is acting together with a particular developer to the detriment of residents who do not have an effective voice in St. Louis City government.” You can read the entire lawsuit here.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

SAINT LOUIS — The state’s largest teacher union, the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA), argued in court on Friday that public school teachers should be represented by either a single union or none. The lawsuit against the Bayless School District’s collective bargaining policy, “Bayless Working Together,” is one of two lawsuits that the union has filed against public school districts that allow non-exclusive representation. The other, against the Springfield School District’s teacher union election policy, has already been argued in circuit court, with the judge ruling in favor of the district. The union is appealing the decision.

Circuit Court Judge Thomas Prebil likely won’t issue a decision about the validity of the Bayless policy before 2010. Both the Bayless union affiliate, the Bayless National Educational Association (BNEA), and the school district have until Dec. 22 to file post-trial briefs.

Bayless’ bargaining policy is unusual. Many school districts simply hold an election for teachers to choose a union, which then bargains exclusively with the district. But exclusivity isn’t required. Patrick Harvey, director of field services and organizing for the MNEA, testified that about 86 percent of Missouri school districts don’t actually require the majority teacher union to serve as the representative during contract negotiations.

If Prebil rules that “bargain collectively” entails bargaining through exclusive representation only, about 450 school districts would need to change their union bargaining policies, if Harvey’s calculations are correct.

The Bayless bargaining policy doesn’t grant any particular union every seat at the bargaining table; instead, teachers vote for two bargaining representatives for each school building, and the majority teacher union gets to elect one additional representative. The school district says this process can help ensure minority participation.

From the policy: “… the majority employee group receives additional representation, and no groups or individuals are excluded from the process.”

In other states, school districts and teacher unions can look to state statute for direction. In Illinois, for example, legislation governing teacher–school district negotiations is extensive. But in Missouri, there is little law to guide the collective bargaining between teacher unions and school districts. Article 1, Section 29 of the state Constitution merely states “that employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.”

The union’s position is that “bargain collectively” is a phrase historically known to mean bargaining with exclusive representation, while the district’s position is that the word “representatives” allows either exclusive or multiple representation. You can read the union’s lawsuit here.

Sally Barker, an attorney for the BNEA, argued that exclusive representation is like an election, where the winner of the majority represents all.

“That is all we are asking for,” Barker said. “A simple election. The same kind of labor democracy that prevails in every other labor context in this country.”

But if Prebil ruled in favor of the BNEA, argued D. Shane Jones, an attorney for the school district, he would be overstepping his authority.

Establishing a framework for public school bargaining is up to the legislature, Jones said, and if the legislature does nothing, then school districts are left to establish their own policies.

“The plaintiffs are asking you to write a statute for them,” he said. “They’re asking you to fill that statutory void.”

According to Harvey, the state teacher union has been trying to get the legislature to write exclusive bargaining into state statute. The NEA has been introducing exclusive bargaining bills since the ’90s, he said.

Jones said that the legislature’s inaction for so many years is an indication that it’s leaving the policy-writing authority up to the school districts.

The Missouri State Teachers Association, which had joined the Springfield School District in defending its collective bargaining policy, did not join the Bayless case.

By Andrew Guevara
For the Show-Me Institute

COLUMBIA — On Monday night, Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) told the Columbia Board of Education that more cuts to the state budget seemed certain, and that the steep decline in state tax revenues would likely affect funding for public schools.

“I don’t know the public really has a full understanding of how difficult of a budget situation we’re in,” he said.

According to Schaefer, who is vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, general tax revenues were down 6.9 percent for fiscal year 2009 and are down 10.8 percent for the current fiscal year. The percentage declines translate to about a $500 million revenue loss in fiscal year 2009, and at least another $500 million by the end of this fiscal year.

The state last saw such a decline during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, when the state’s general revenue fell $463 million for both years and then rebounded, Schaefer said.

Schaefer said that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has this year requested $105 million in order to fully fund the amount of money that the state promises each year to local school districts.

Jan Mees, board president, asked whether there would be any more state withholdings from the budget.

There likely would be, Schaefer said. He said that Gov. Jay Nixon’s cuts seemed to be based on the expectation of a 4-percent decrease in revenues for the year, but pointed out that revenues will likely fall short even of that decline. The state seems poised for a 7-percent decrease for the current fiscal year, he said.

“What can we as a school board do other than to continue to lobby our legislators?” asked district Chief Financial Officer Linda Quinley.

So far, Schaefer said, the best testimony given during the senate appropriations hearings came from experts who knew how money could be spent the most effectively. Also, he said, school districts should show legislators how they have already cut their budgets.

Schaefer said that for him personally, K–12 education and higher education are priorities when drafting the state’s budget.

But, he said, “I don’t think that anybody should be under the illusion that these cuts aren’t going to be painful, because I think that they’re going to be very painful for people. Our job in the General Assembly is to make sure that the cuts that are going to be made are the least negative and the least harmful cuts that can be made.”

Andrew Guevara is a student at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

SAINT LOUIS — A circuit court judge ruled on Thursday that a contested 1,500-acre development of the city’s north side can move forward. Critics had claimed in court that the city ordinance authorizing the development was invalid because the city hadn’t thoroughly vetted the development company’s funding before granting it up to $390.6 million in tax increment financing (TIF). However, Judge Robert Dierker wrote in his ruling that it isn’t the job of the courts to second-guess the city’s decision to approve the project. You can read that ruling here.

“The Court is concerned not with wisdom but with legality,” Dierker wrote. “If St. Louis ordinances 68484 and 68485 are within the scope of the authority conferred on the City’s Board of Aldermen by relevant statutes, the Court has no further role to play.”

Developer Paul McKee and the development company, NorthSide Regeneration, LLC, can count this as a win, but barely. Dierker peppered his ruling with offhand remarks about the wisdom of such a large-scale plan, and even began his ruling with a quote from economist Friedrich von Hayek about the weaknesses of centrally planned cities. And Dierker isn’t done with the case yet. On Feb. 16, he will hear another set of arguments against the ordinances from attorneys Eric Vickers, W. Bevis Schock, and James Schottel, Jr.

D.B. Amon, the attorney who had originally brought the lawsuit against NorthSide, had claimed that the city’s TIF Commission hadn’t investigated the ownership of NorthSide, nor had it received sufficient evidence of a financing commitment for the $8 billion project.

“The ownership and capitalization of Northside Regeneration is rather hazy on the record to date,” acknowledged Dierker, but he wrote that unclear financing alone isn’t enough to render the redevelopment ordinances invalid, and doesn’t show that the city necessarily violated procedure.

During the hearing, TIF Commission Chairman David Newberger had testified that NorthSide’s evidence of financing, a letter from the Bank of Washington stating that it was excited to provide financing for half of the project, was typical of the evidence submitted for other TIF projects.

“No TIF project ever has a firm commitment,” he said during the hearing. “Reason is, financial institutions are sitting on the side and waiting to see what the financial incentives are going to be.”

“As evidenced by the testimony of the chairman of the City’s TIF Commission, the Commission’s review is rather superficial, and the Commission relies heavily on staff employed by the City or one of its agencies, as well as on the redeveloper, for practically all of its information,” wrote Dierker.

But, as NorthSide argued in its post-hearing brief, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that courts should refuse to second-guess local government legislation unless fraud, collusion, or bad faith was involved.

Dierker echoed that decision in his ruling.

“[I]t must be borne in mind that legislation is usually presumed valid, and that the Court does not enjoy the authority to second-guess the judgment of the Board of Aldermen,” he wrote. “Absent evidence of bad faith, fraud or collusion, the burden on the plaintiffs in seeking to invalidate the ordinances is a heavy one.”

Furthermore, Dierker wrote, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would be harmed if the project continued to move forward.

“Plaintiffs’ property may have suffered a diminution in value, but there is not evidence that they have attempted to sell any property without success or that defendants have intruded in any way on their use and enjoyment of their property,” he wrote. “As to the balance of hardships, a preliminary injunction is likely to do more harm to defendants than benefit to plaintiffs.”

Of course, Dierker wrote later, if things got much worse, the plaintiffs could always renew their motion to halt the project.

Full disclosure: W. Bevis Schock, one of the intervening attorneys in the case, also serves as the secretary of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors. Schock is involved in the case through his private legal practice, not through his capacity as an institute board member.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

SAINT LOUIS — A petition drive to put a recently approved large-scale development of the city’s north side up for city vote to failed to gather enough signatures.

The backers of the petition, critics of the 1,500-acre development put forward by NorthSide Regeneration LLC and developer Paul McKee, had gathered more than 3,000 signatures, said Jim Roos, an anti–eminent domain activist.

But that number wasn’t enough. The Saint Louis Board of Elections required at least 4,400 signatures of city voters, and the deadline was 5 p.m. Thursday. As a result, the group sponsoring the petition, Citizens for a More Responsible Saint Louis City Government, didn’t turn in any of the gathered signatures.

The effort was driven by volunteers and donations, Roos said. About 20 people had given donations for a total of close to $4,000, he said.

Roos, who said he was exhausted from the effort and in a somber mood, said the city’s deadline for signature gathering was too difficult to meet.

“The ordinance gives us 30 days from when the mayor signs the bill,” he said. “It took us a while to develop a form that would pass the test.”

He continued, “We had less than two weeks to actually gather signatures once we figured out what form to use.”

Bob Williams, another activist involved with the petition drive, said Thursday before the deadline that he didn’t think the group would make it. But, he said, if nothing else, the drive had helped educate the community about the referendum process.

Roos voiced a similar sentiment on Friday.

“I think it was a great idea both in terms of participatory democracy and to challenge 23 years of blighting and eminent domain, and I think the waste — I really mean that — the waste of future tax subsidy for one developer,” he said.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

SAINT LOUIS — Another plaintiff (and set of attorneys) has joined the lawsuit filed against the development company that the city of Saint Louis recently approved for $390.6 million in tax increment financing (TIF) to redevelop 1,500 acres in the city’s north side and in northern portions of downtown.

Dorian Amon, the attorney who filed the initial lawsuit against the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, argued that the city’s development agreement with NorthSide was invalid because the city failed to investigate the project’s financing thoroughly.

The attorneys representing the new plaintiff are arguing for the same ruling, but for different reasons. Some of the allegations made in the motion to intervene filed by attorneys Eric Vickers, W. Bevis Schock, and James W. Schottle, Jr., were:

• The blighting of the properties in the redevelopment area was “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious,” because the city didn’t conduct an independent study to determine whether the redevelopment area should be blighted.
• The city blighted the area in “bad faith” because it didn’t seek out alternative development proposals, and because the city misled the public and plaintiffs about “the power of eminent domain provided NorthSide under the Ordinance.”
• The city failed to show that the area hasn’t had recent growth and development.

You can read the pleadings submitted by Vickers, Schock, and Schottle here.

On Wednesday, circuit court Judge Robert Dierker granted the new plaintiff’s motion to intervene, and set a hearing for 11 a.m. on Feb. 16 to hear the new arguments against the city ordinance.

Dierker is expected to decide soon whether to grant Amon’s request for a temporary injunction, which would stop the development for a short period of time. At the February hearing, Dierker will consider whether to grant a permanent injunction.

Full disclosure: W. Bevis Schock, one of the intervening attorneys in the case, also serves as the secretary of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors. Schock is involved in the case through his private legal practice, not through his capacity as an institute board member.

Correction: According to city records, the Feb. 16 hearing was rescheduled for 11 a.m.

By Andrew Guevara
For the Show-Me Institute

On Tuesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee met to hear another round of public testimony from government agency spokesmen. Faced with a considerable tax revenue shortfall, state legislators will likely need to make budget cuts for the coming fiscal year. During the second day of public testimony, however, the committee heard the same message it had heard the day before from government agency representatives: Don’t make additional cuts.

On Tuesday, representatives from the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Public Services, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Economic Development, the Judiciary, and the Office of the Public Defender had signed up to testify before the committee. About 65 people were set to testify before the committee for Tuesday with a few spillovers from Monday. Before the lunch recess, more than 25 people or groups had testified.

The morning testimony was filled with personal stories from former alcoholics, drug abusers, persons with disabilities, parents of children with developmental disorders, and others attempting to spare their respective programs from budget cuts.

However, committee members continued to focus on reducing the state budget. “The cuts are coming, really no one is going to be spared,” said Sen. Jim Lembke (R–Saint Louis).

At one point, Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) asked, “Where would you point us to look to cut costs?”

Some people, such as Wendy Sullivan, president of Life Skills, urged funding cuts from existing facilities, such as the Bellefontaine Habilitation Center in Saint Louis, and downsizing state rehabilitation centers. Others, such as Dan Buck, CEO of the St. Patrick Center in Saint Louis, pointed to state tax credits.

Sen. Tom Dempsey (R–Saint Charles) said it was possible that the state could reconsider existing historical preservation and low-income housing tax credits.

Others offered ways to increase state revenues. Wayne Lee, a disability advocate, recommended that the state streamline taxes, while Gerrit DenHartog, a lobbyist for addiction rehabilitation organizations, advised an alcohol tax increase.

“The federal government doesn’t have any money. They’re borrowing from China. Their bubble is about to burst,” said Lembke, by way of advice to the St. Patrick Center and other organizations facing state funding cuts. “Let’s look to each other instead of government.”

Andrew Guevara is a student at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

JEFFERSON CITY — The requests weren’t for more money, but for a halt to additional budget cuts. On Monday, the Senate Appropriations Committee began a series of public hearings to hear various government agency representatives plead for maintained funding from the state. With state tax revenues down, however, more cuts will likely be made.

“We’re looking at a billion dollar shortfall,” said Sen. Jim Lembke (R–Saint Louis), “and it’s going to be worse next year.”

About 30 people asked the committee on Monday to maintain funding for governmental programs that fall underneath the administrative umbrellas of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Department of Higher Education, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Corrections, and the Office of Administration. About 65 more are slated to testify on Tuesday, said Committee Director Dan Haug. Each person testifying is allowed three minutes to speak.

The public testimony is the first step in the state’s budgeting process, which will resume in full swing after the governor’s State of the State address in January.

Larry Hendren, testifying on behalf of the University of Missouri’s Alliance of Alumni, told the committee that although the university has frozen tuition and student fees, it is receiving $2 million from the federal government to balance its operating budget, and has restructured retirement benefits — neither of which are sustainable budget fixes.

But, with a predicted 6- or 8-percent shortfall for the year, committee members weren’t very sympathetic.

“Do you know anywhere we could cut?” asked Sen. Tim Green (D–Saint Louis). He explained that if the committee couldn’t make cuts in one program, it would have to cut another.

Throughout the afternoon, Green asked several others who requested the maintenance of state funding to offer suggestions of where they would make cuts. No one had a concrete answer.

With a severe tax revenue shortfall of more than 10 percent during the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, Gov. Jay Nixon made $200 million in state budget cuts, something Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia), brought up several times during public testimony. He asked several representatives to explain the reasoning behind the cuts made to their specific government agencies, implying that the amounts seemed somewhat arbitrary.

Marcia Pfeiffer, testifying on behalf of state community colleges, said that about $7.75 million in state funding for community colleges had been cut. She said that the particular amount of funding that had been cut had no other significance than that it amounted to approximately 15 percent of the total $50 million that had been cut from state funding for higher education.

By Andrew Guevara
For the Show-Me Institute

With state tax revenues down 10.8 percent during the first quarter of the 2010 fiscal year, compared with the first quarter of 2009, experts predict that collections will continue to slide. This decline comes in addition to a 7-percent decrease seen during the previous fiscal year.

Gov. Jay Nixon responded to the decline in state tax revenues in October with $200 million in budget cuts, based on a projected decrease of 4 percent for the entire year.  However, some experts predict that the actual rate for the fiscal year could be between 6 and 8 percent, and foresee further cuts in January.

“The state budget is dramatically out of balance, the only thing that is keeping it in line are the federal stabilization dollars. Once those dollars are gone, everything will be impacted,” said James R. Moody, principal of James R. Moody and Associates, former state director of Missouri’s Office of Administration, and former state budget director.

Missouri began receiving budget stabilization funds from the federal government during fiscal year 2009. The Missouri Budget Office reports that the state will receive $2.32 billion total in federal stimulus dollars, with the money set to run out during fiscal year 2011. Of the $1.35 billion that the state will receive during the current fiscal year, $164 million will be used to balance the budget.

With an estimated decline of 7 percent for this fiscal year, Moody said he predicts that the state’s net general revenue will be $6.93 billion, falling more than $1 billion short of state operating expenses of $8.58 billion.

Amy Blouin, executive director of the Missouri Budget Project, attributes the decline in state revenue to the economic recession and to tax credits and tax cuts made in recent years.

According to Blouin, state tax credits have grown from $365 million in 2006 to $585 million in 2009, a 60-percent increase, while tax reductions have grown to about $325 million per year, combining to more than half of a billion dollars per year in additional costs.

Moody forecasts that drastic cuts will occur when the federal dollars run out unless a second federal stimulus package is created.

When asked whether there was a way to reverse the decline in state revenues, Moody said, “The revenues from income tax withholding have been very negative. I don’t think this will be changing very quickly. It’s a reflection on how many people are working.” He continued, “The state pretty much has to make draconian cuts. “

But Blouin recommends that the state needs to modernize its revenue structure. One way that the state could do that, she said, is to expand the items subject to the state sales tax.

“Currently, the state doesn’t collect tax with purchases made on the Internet,” she said. “Missouri and every other state is losing sales tax over the Internet. The University of Tennessee estimates it cost the state about $200 million per year.”

Moreover, she continued, “Some of the tax breaks that we give to certain sectors of the population are outdated. The timely filing discount, a tax reduction given to companies for paying taxes on time to offset the cost for filing and accounting in past decades, is one example. We are the only state that still does that.”

With Nixon predicted to make cuts to the state’s budget, the General Assembly is making plans to address the issue of how to balance the state’s budget.

“We don’t have any silver bullet to make this go away,” said Rep. Ron Richard (R-Joplin), speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives. He said he plans to continue meeting with Rep. Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), the state budget chairman, and other members on the legislature until the end of the year to try to alleviate the problem.

Icet was not able to be available for comment.

On Dec. 7 and 8, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee will hear public testimony on how to allocate the state’s funds for the upcoming year.

Andrew Guevara is a student at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

On Thursday, a circuit court judge heard arguments that the city of Saint Louis’ Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Commission had not thoroughly investigated the financial backing of a proposed redevelopment of the city’s north side before approving it. The lawsuit, by no means a certain bet, could halt the recently approved project put forward by developer Paul McKee and his company NorthSide Regeneration LLC.

Judge Robert Dierker has not yet decided the case, but is working to reach a decision as soon as possible. Attorneys for all involved parties have until Dec. 7 to file additional documents, and Dierker will make his decision at some point after that.

Dorian Amon, the attorney who brought the lawsuit and who is representing several north side residents, spent nearly three hours questioning TIF Commissioner David Newburger about the efforts that the commission had made to determine whether NorthSide had the ability to raise enough money for its $8 billion project.

In NorthSide’s application for $390.6 million in TIF funds from the city, the company included a letter from an executive of the Bank of Washington, which stated that the bank was reiterating its financial support for the first half of the project. However, no specific loan amounts were included in the letter, nor did the bank executive sign it.

Amon argued that the letter wasn’t sufficient evidence of financial support for the project, pointing to its vague language. During questioning, Newburger, who said he has considered at least 50 development projects while serving on the commission, acknowledged that details are often hard to pin down.

“The terms of the plan is in constant flux,” he said.

The Bank of Washington letter, Newburger said, is typical of the evidence of financial backing submitted for all projects.

“No TIF project ever has a firm commitment,” he said. “Reason is, financial institutions are sitting on the side and waiting to see what the financial incentives are going to be.”

Later, when questioned by Paul Puricelli, who is representing NorthSide, Newburger explained that if concrete and sufficient evidence of financial backing had been submitted to the city, the city would have no reason to grant TIF funds.

“Fundamental reality of this, is this is an incentive program,” Newburger said. “We have to have testimony that without this TIF assistance that the transaction can’t be accomplished.”

Alderman April Ford-Griffin, who represents a ward that lies mostly within the development’s footprint, was also called to the stand to testify about what she and the Board of Aldermen had done to verify financial backing for the project.

Ford-Griffin said that there hadn’t been any formal investigation into the financial backing of the project, or into other statements made by McKee.

Instead, she said, the Board of Aldermen was more concerned with the amount of money McKee had already investigated in the project, and the efforts NorthSide was taking to acquire other government assistance.

“We were looking to make sure that they were leveraging everything,” she said, referring to all of the applications that the developer has made for federal and state subsidies.

When Amon and Puricelli were done making their respective cases about whether the TIF Comission and Board of Aldermen had done due diligence, Dierker left the attorneys with some advice.

“What we’re dealing with is not an administrative review of the commission’s procedures,” he said. “We’re dealing with the validity of the ordinance.” Dierker’s comment referred to the redevelopment ordinance passed by the Board of Aldermen establishing a redevelopment agreement between the city and NorthSide.

It’s possible, Dierker continued, that missteps by either the TIF Comission or the Board of Aldermen could invalidate the ordinance, but he firmly suggested that when the attorneys make their final written arguments on Monday, they focus on the city ordinance.

ANOTHER APPROACH

At the beginning of the hearing, three more attorneys, Eric Vickers, W. Bevis Schock, and James Schottel, Jr., attended the hearing in order to intervene in the case. Essentially, they would be also would be arguing that the redevelopment ordinance is invalid, but for different reasons than presented by Amon. Their motion to intervene will be held at 11 a.m., Dec. 9.

Full disclosure: W. Bevis Schock, one of the intervening attorneys in the case, also serves as the secretary of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors. Schock is involved in the case through his private legal practice, not through his capacity as an institute board member.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

The lawyer for a recently approved redevelopment of 1,500 acres in the city of Saint Louis’ north side says that the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, will likely need eminent domain to acquire about 20 properties in the redevelopment area. The project, put forward by developer Paul McKee, has been contentious in the past because of the perceived threat of eminent domain, and because it calls for nearly $400 million in tax increment financing (TIF) from the city.

Paul Puricelli, who works for the law firm Stoney, Leyton, & Gershman, is representing NorthSide as a defendant in a lawsuit that alleges, among other things, that the city’s TIF Commission and Board of Aldermen didn’t fully investigate the financial backing of the proposed NorthSide project before recommending and approving it.

Puricelli made an hour-long presentation at the Missouri Bar Association’s Committee on Eminent Domain on Nov. 20. Members of the committee include prominent eminent domain attorneys with private practices, and attorneys who work for state agencies that often use eminent domain, such as the Missouri Department of Transporation (MoDOT).

Dave Roland, a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, recorded the proceedings of the Nov. 20 committee meeting, from which all of the following quotes and statements are taken.

During the presentation, Puricelli stated that there are about 20 properties, which are not owner-occupied residences, that NorthSide needs but hasn’t been able to acquire, and that the company is hoping to utilize the power of eminent domain to obtain them.

“We have publicly stated that we anticipate that there will be 20 or fewer parcels subject to eminent domain for the redevelopment,” Puricelli said during the meeting. “Before you get too worried, Bob [an eminent domain attorney], there’s also going to be some infrastructure work by the city, also the possibility of eminent domain there.”

“For our purposes, we narrowed it down to 20 or fewer parcels,” he continued. “But eminent domain is viewed certainly by us as a critical component to getting those last 20 parcels acquired.”

McKee has stated in the past that he does not wish to use eminent domain, and a statement posted on NorthSide’s website states: “[Eminent domain] is lengthy, requires many hours of legal time, is a drain on government resources, and is not the method by which McEagle seeks to acquire any piece of ground within the redevelopment area.”

McKee, when reached by phone, refused to comment on Puricelli’s statements.

Currently, NorthSide does not have the power of eminent domain. However, the redevelopment agreement between the city and the company states that eminent domain can be used either for a public use, for things like roads, or “if the Developer has pursued and exhausted efforts to voluntarily acquire property the Board of Aldermen deems necessary to implement one or more portions of the Redevelopment Plan and deems critical to the Redevelopment Plan’s success.”

A number of attorneys for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) attended the Nov. 20 meeting, and acknowledged the agency’s almost certain role in the redevelopment’s road projects. “The 800 pound gorilla in this thing is MoDOT,” said one of the department’s attorneys.

Puricelli, who said he has been on both sides of the eminent domain issue, said that critics often focus on eminent domain during development, but that its use is necessary for such projects, and is not the devil it’s made out to be. Alderman Freeman Bosly, Sr., has also publicly voiced a similar sentiment.

When read several of the statements that Puricelli made to the committee, north side activist Romona Taylor Williams said she hadn’t heard any statements regarding the 20 or so properties to which Puricelli had referred during the meeting.

“I’ve not heard anything to that affect,” she said. “The only thing that the alderpersons have been saying to the community is that there is no eminent domain. And we know that’s not true.”

Aldermen April Ford-Griffin and Marlene Davis did not return immediate calls for comment. Both have made presentations at many community meetings with McKee about the project and have clearly stated that eminent domain would not be used.

“We need to do a better job of educating people, the Board of Aldermen, and the public about eminent domain, and what it is and what it isn’t,” Puricelli said. “For these types of projects to move forward, we still have the possibility — the hope of getting this right. But it is not a guarantee. And it will be a serious, serious problem if we don’t get it. For other redevelopment projects, it could be a stake in the heart.”

“These are parcels we couldn’t acquire under the radar,” Puricelli said later during the meeting when asked why McEagle hadn’t been able to purchase them. “Properties we need to make this thing ultimately work.”

When reached by phone for comment on his statements at the meeting, Puricelli said that 20 properties was the maximum number of properties that had ever been discussed as potentially being subject to eminent domain. “The hope is to acquire all of these properties voluntarily,” he said.

“I suspect that accommodations would have to be made,” Puricelli said when asked what NorthSide would do if the Board of Aldermen refused to grant the power of eminent domain for the remaining properties. “They would have to develop without that power.”

Bob Denlow, a prominent eminent domain and condemnation attorney in Saint Louis who represents property owners and serves as chairman of the Missouri Bar Association’s Committee on Eminent Domain, said the area was largely vacant.

“For those of you who have never driven through this area — it looks like a series of football fields — it is vacant, vacant, vacant land,” he said during the meeting. “Some of the controversy is that McKee has accelerated the decline by having bought properties and leaving them vacant. That has been an accusation. But for those people who are really familiar with the area, it’s just grass field.”

Williams, the activist who has been critical of the NorthSide Regeneration redevelopment process, strongly disagreed when asked to comment on Denlow’s characterization.

“You have a massive area that no one is giving any attention to at all,” she said. “For instance, the homes that are in the 19th ward. These are stable communities, but no one puts any attention on the 19th ward.”

“Or,” she continued, “what about this church, Shining Light, that has been in this community since 1938 and now their property is slated for open space?”

To see a Google map of the redevelopment area buildings and boundary lines, click here.