Another Perspective
November 15, 2004
Board of Aldermen
227 South Central Ave.
City of Clayton
Clayton, MO 63105
Dear Aldermen:
I was unable to attend the Clayton-Richmond Heights town meeting last Thursday evening, since I was out of town. I have spoken to people who were there. Had I been there, I would have attempted to make the following points:
Although there may well be some potential benefits to be gained from the proposed merger between the two municipalities (e.g. greater sales tax revenues), and hence reason to explore the idea, there no doubt are also potential serious drawbacks. What disturbs me is that the process thus far has highlighted ONLY THE POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES – you sent out a letter that trumpeted the possible benefits but FAILED TO MENTION A SINGLE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE! Then you brought in a distinctly pro-merger “expert” to “facilitate” a discussion of issues billed as merely ‘informational.”
In other words, thus far there has been no serious effort truly to engage the community in a dialogue of pros and cons, as opposed to trying to ram a political agenda down the throats of the community. Adding to this perception was the decision to force residents to ask questions through writing out cards, screened by Clayton officials, rather than permitting residents to directly voice their concerns – a well-known tactic used by those who wish to engage in “crowd control” and to mute opposition. What were you afraid of – that people would express anger? So what? Is that not part of an open, democratic process? (If the concern was that some folks might talk beyond their allotted time, that would have been easily handled by simple enforcement of time limits.) If, as you claim, you want to involve the citizenry and “listen” to what they have to say, then these sorts of shenanigans have to stop in the future.
Related to point #1 above, if we were to go forward with a study, can the citizenry expect a serious, objective analysis of the impact of a merger on home property values – which are likely to decline as a result of the simple laws of supply and demand applicable to housing stock – or will we get a study by Amy Lui and other such “experts” tilted toward merger?
Regarding the issue of a possible school district merger down the road, I happen to be among those who believe there is a “hidden agenda” on the part of some folks who, indeed, want to see that happen. This would undoubtedly devastate our property values (not to mention the academic quality of the district). Why, then, when asked by a questioner if you would go on record as opposing any such merger, the Clayton officialdom copped out by saying it was not up to them but the states and the voters in each district? Why could you not at least alleviate Clayton resident fears over this agenda by instantly taking it off the table? There was nothing to prevent you from publicly repudiating any such idea. Could it be that the mayor or others actually favor such a scenario, which would gain huge momentum from a municipal merger? I can just see, in the aftermath of a municipal merger, some social engineers saying “it is not logical to have one city and more than one school district,” no?
I apologize if I sound at all suspicious or even paranoid, but thus far you have not inspired confidence that you are engaged in a fair, balanced, intellectually honest process. Indeed, this has all the hallmarks of a runaway train, where we are being told to get on board or get out of the way. I should add that, meanwhile, this entire media event is causing tremendous adverse publicity for our city, as the newspapers talk of “decreasing population” and “eroding tax base,” as if Clayton is a community in “decline” that is starting to resemble the city of St. Louis.
Granted, that we have some fiscal problems which need to be addressed, that we should not stick our heads in the sand, and that the mayor and others deserve credit for considering some options and exercising “vision,” BUT you need to insure the community that you are considering options short of merger and that no merger vote will be authorized unless the community has clearly articulated they wish this option to be voted on. I am hardly the only one who is feeling very angry over the manner in which this process is unfolding.
You and the mayor are honorable people – please start acting in an honorable fashion. Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
J. Martin Rochester
7425 York Drive
Clayton, Mo 63105
c. Mayor Uchitelle
Board of Aldermen
227 South Central Ave.
City of Clayton
Clayton, MO 63105
Dear Aldermen:
I was unable to attend the Clayton-Richmond Heights town meeting last Thursday evening, since I was out of town. I have spoken to people who were there. Had I been there, I would have attempted to make the following points:
Although there may well be some potential benefits to be gained from the proposed merger between the two municipalities (e.g. greater sales tax revenues), and hence reason to explore the idea, there no doubt are also potential serious drawbacks. What disturbs me is that the process thus far has highlighted ONLY THE POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES – you sent out a letter that trumpeted the possible benefits but FAILED TO MENTION A SINGLE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE! Then you brought in a distinctly pro-merger “expert” to “facilitate” a discussion of issues billed as merely ‘informational.”
In other words, thus far there has been no serious effort truly to engage the community in a dialogue of pros and cons, as opposed to trying to ram a political agenda down the throats of the community. Adding to this perception was the decision to force residents to ask questions through writing out cards, screened by Clayton officials, rather than permitting residents to directly voice their concerns – a well-known tactic used by those who wish to engage in “crowd control” and to mute opposition. What were you afraid of – that people would express anger? So what? Is that not part of an open, democratic process? (If the concern was that some folks might talk beyond their allotted time, that would have been easily handled by simple enforcement of time limits.) If, as you claim, you want to involve the citizenry and “listen” to what they have to say, then these sorts of shenanigans have to stop in the future.
Related to point #1 above, if we were to go forward with a study, can the citizenry expect a serious, objective analysis of the impact of a merger on home property values – which are likely to decline as a result of the simple laws of supply and demand applicable to housing stock – or will we get a study by Amy Lui and other such “experts” tilted toward merger?
Regarding the issue of a possible school district merger down the road, I happen to be among those who believe there is a “hidden agenda” on the part of some folks who, indeed, want to see that happen. This would undoubtedly devastate our property values (not to mention the academic quality of the district). Why, then, when asked by a questioner if you would go on record as opposing any such merger, the Clayton officialdom copped out by saying it was not up to them but the states and the voters in each district? Why could you not at least alleviate Clayton resident fears over this agenda by instantly taking it off the table? There was nothing to prevent you from publicly repudiating any such idea. Could it be that the mayor or others actually favor such a scenario, which would gain huge momentum from a municipal merger? I can just see, in the aftermath of a municipal merger, some social engineers saying “it is not logical to have one city and more than one school district,” no?
I apologize if I sound at all suspicious or even paranoid, but thus far you have not inspired confidence that you are engaged in a fair, balanced, intellectually honest process. Indeed, this has all the hallmarks of a runaway train, where we are being told to get on board or get out of the way. I should add that, meanwhile, this entire media event is causing tremendous adverse publicity for our city, as the newspapers talk of “decreasing population” and “eroding tax base,” as if Clayton is a community in “decline” that is starting to resemble the city of St. Louis.
Granted, that we have some fiscal problems which need to be addressed, that we should not stick our heads in the sand, and that the mayor and others deserve credit for considering some options and exercising “vision,” BUT you need to insure the community that you are considering options short of merger and that no merger vote will be authorized unless the community has clearly articulated they wish this option to be voted on. I am hardly the only one who is feeling very angry over the manner in which this process is unfolding.
You and the mayor are honorable people – please start acting in an honorable fashion. Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
J. Martin Rochester
7425 York Drive
Clayton, Mo 63105
c. Mayor Uchitelle
posted by Andrew Rochman
1 COMMENTS
1 Comments:
Two anonymous comments have been removed to this particular post. Anonymous comments are NOT allowed. Everyone must remember to include their full name and city if they wish to have their comments remain public on this web site. The guidelines are located on the sidebar for your review. Thanks for your cooperation.
Post a Comment
<< Home