Douglas Duckworth

5818 Mardel Avenue

Apt. A

St. Louis, MO 63109

stlpcsolutions@gmail.com

314.566.3465

Board of Aldermen,

I write to express my concern over the proposed budgetary cuts and offer solutions for moving forward
with FY11 planning. When I first read Mayor Slay’s budget proposal I thought April 1st had arrived early. In a
City which already exhibits discriminatory service delivery, we must solve this situation without imposing
drastic cuts that will only exacerbate disparities. Elected officials cannot ignore our record unemployment
numbers, especially when considering imposing user fees onto those who can barely pay rent. Positive change
has occurred in this City, yet it has not been uniform. During the Slay Administration’s nearly decade-long
deference to the private sector – with complicity at all levels of government – unemployment, especially for the
African American majority, remains comparable to developing countries. Even before the current global
economic crisis, during downtown’s development boom, overall unemployment remained higher than 2000
levels. As with the rest of the United States, trickle-down supply side economics failed St. Louis City. For
decades we catered to the private sector through subsidies and mass demolitions. They continued divestment.
Residents who remained suffered displacement or saw the withdrawal of private and public support. Ethics
demand these citizens not be double-charged for already inferior public services, especially when they incur
higher levels of taxation that those areas which enjoy special attention through abatement!

Before deciding to cut City services, essential programs and departments, undermine our pension
system, and finally placing user fees onto already struggling taxpayers, perhaps we should review the public
policies that promote the fiscal crisis? Other variables besides the recession explain our shortfall. Bureaucratic
reform should happen, yet I question if currently we actually have the time or political will for per-department
studies which includes careful fact gathering and precise analysis? We cannot expect to maximize department
efficiency, effectiveness, or redress service disparities by shooting from the hip. Officials must avoid decisions
driven more by ideology than fact. Narrowly targeted agendas damage the entire City widening our physical and
socioeconomic scars. If we are to compete nationally, with more than Clayton, St. Louis must abandon policies
that do not serve its long term interests.

While certainly the economic crisis plays a role in explaining our fiscal situation, we cannot not ignore
that more than 15% of St. Louis’ assessed value enjoys some form of tax abatement. It may be politically
popular for aldermen to issue tax abatement for preferred developers, however the practice essentially erodes the
tax base of our City thereby directly lowering our tax yield. I urge the Board of Aldermen to promote economic
development in a responsible manner, which takes into account the direct revenue cost resulting from over-
issuing subsidy. Going forward I suggest that the Board of Aldermen refrain from disbursing any further tax
abatement or Tax Increment Financing until they conduct a joint study with the Comptroller’s office regarding
continued necessity. This should be a cost-benefit study showing the exact amount of revenue lost by
neighborhood, Ward, and fiscal year. We should also know how many new City residents these subsidies attract.
E-W Gateway produced data showcasing TIF limitations, especially when issued for retail developments. They
have yet to study tax abatement.

Despite massive public investment, the number of retail jobs has increased only slightly and,
in real dollars, retail sales or per capita spending have not increased in years. Focusing
development incentives on expanding retail sales is a losing economic development strategy
for the region. The future of sales taxes as a principal source of revenue for local governments
should come into question for several reasons: its inherent volatility; the likelihood of a long-
term restructuring of retail trade; increasing level of sales taxes discourages spending and
local sales in favor of non-taxed internet sales; and, the motivation this tax source provides to

1
 focus scarce tax dollars on incentivizing a type of development that appears to yield very
limited regional economic benefit. As local governments come under increasing fiscal stress,
the impacts of billions of dollars in foregone revenue will become increasingly apparent1.

The PFM Group, in their study analyzing our budgetary situation, suggests several mechanisms for
maximizing revenue2. I strongly support taxing some non-profits such as churches, which own income-
generating property yet do not pay taxes. Though I do not believe we should tax non-profit housing corporations
which are rebuilding our distressed neighborhoods. While I do not support seeing corporate advertising on our
civic buildings, I do support the idea of investing what PFM calls Market Based Revenue Opportunities.
Perhaps we can recover the thousands we paid for Mayor Slay to advertise on the new Tucker garage? I strongly
support imposing taxes on alcohol, tobacco, trash bags, fast food and bottled water. Though I use most of these
products on a regular basis, I have no problem paying a higher price knowing our City trash doesn’t sit
overflowing into our alleys. Many might disagree, but these should be put to the voters as soon as possible.

During his campaign President Lewis Reed vowed to render our City “open for business.” While we all
agree on the merits of economic development, the City requires revenue to operate. I ask the Board of
Aldermen to resist any incursions against the earnings tax. In fact the City should increase the earnings tax by at
least 0.25%, only for those above our 2000 Census median household income level of $34,074, while repealing
Ordinance 65094. Depending upon the baseline for increasing the income tax, this increase has the potential to
capture more revenue than user fees for trash collection. In order to normalize service delivery, taxes were raised
in Columbus Ohio3. With ordinance 65094 the Board of Aldermen exempted the sale of stock options from the
earnings tax. With the sale of AB to Inbev the City lost around $11,000,000 in revenue for FY09. While I
believe the City should maintain a pro-business stance, we also must realize that this 1% earnings tax in no way
factored into the sale of AB to Inbev. It does however enable us to capture revenue from those that choose to
work yet not domicile in the City. These free-riders benefit from our public and civic services thereby we have
an obligation to receive compensation. This tax exists not because of an anti-business agenda, but directly due to
private divestment trends and the accompanying isolation of “urban problems” mostly within our jurisdiction.
Washington University PhD recipient Joe Frank in his dissertation, Analyzing central city urban service delivery:
Who gets what in the city of Saint Louis, Missouri, explains

…these facilities have come to be perceived by more affluent neighborhoods and suburban
communities as undesirable. According to Oakley and Logan (2007), the difference between
“good” services like libraries, schools, and emergency services, and “bad” services like
mental health and drug treatment centers, group homes and homeless shelters, is the level of
opposition in affluent communities – the “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) phenomenon4.

St. Louis City has disproportionally high amounts of what everyone else in the region doesn’t want.
The City made mistakes, yet we have little regional assistance. I’ve personally seen St. Louis County Police
dumping homeless individuals in Lucas Park5. Historically Black Jack’s refusal to construct public housing due
to overt racism showcases these regional impairments6. Along with these challenges St. Louis City underwent
the largest depopulation of any City on this planet7. In the 1960’s St. Louis City lost 17% of its population and
an astounding 27% in the 1980’s. The 16% loss in the 1990’s might seem like an improvement8! Like General
Motors, many businesses departed our City for suburbia. We require compensation to redress these costs.
Without revenue we lack the capacity to manage. As such executives who profit from income-generating stock
transactions should pay the City its due share – especially when the outcome results in fewer jobs and a declining
corporate presence. The opposite, as with Mayor Slay’s exemption of stock options from the earnings tax, rivals
the unfunded Bush Administration tax cuts which increase our national debt. Unlike the Federal Government we
1
http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/regdev/tifrpt-012609-ExecSum.pdf
2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25828403/Missouri-Council-for-Better-Economy-St-Louis-Revenue-Study
3
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/08/04/electionweb2.html
4
Frank, Joseph. "Urban Service Delivery: Who Gets What in St. Louis Neighborhoods" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Southern Political Science Association, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ravinia, Atlanta, Georgia, <Not Available>. 2010-01-
25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p397355_index.html>
5
http://www.mayorslay.com/news/display.asp?prID=561
6
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902876,00.html
7
http://www.demographia.com/db-intlcitylossr.htm
8
Judd, Dennis and Swanstrom, Todd. City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America. New York: Pearson, 2006. 272-273.

2
must pay as we go. Mayor Slay’s earnings tax cuts incur service reductions or a shift of costs onto those of
disparate socioeconomic status (user fees). Often they already don’t receive their equitable share of services.

In this manner the Democratic members of this Board of Aldermen must consider their allegiance to the
party platform and reinstate certain taxes that support service delivery. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics in 2000 our unemployment rate was 5.2%9. By 2006 it rose to 6.9% and in 2007, near the height of
downtown’s development boom, unemployment reached 7.0%101112. In 2008, during downtown’s supposed 6%
increase in residents, our city’s unemployment climbed to 7.8%1314. The 2000 Census reveals that 24.6% of St.
Louis City’s population resided below the poverty level compared to 12.4% percent nationally. The Census also
shows that in 2000 male African American unemployment in the City reached 18.8%. In the same year 18.9% of
African American females were unemployed15. This rate of unemployment equals Serbia, Sudan, and happens to
be higher than Ghana and the West Bank16. In 2004 estimated African American unemployment throughout our
Region was almost three times that of Caucasians17. Currently unemployment remains much higher than 2007
levels while African American unemployment nationally sits near 20%18. According to the Census’ 2008
American Community Survey, African American unemployment has not improved in St. Louis City. Almost a
decade before the global financial collapse many areas of St. Louis City were already in crisis.

Our party platform states

We will start by renewing the American Dream for a new era – with the same new hope and
new ideas that propelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt towards the New Deal and John F.
Kennedy to the New Frontier. We will provide immediate relief to working people who have
lost their jobs, families who are in danger of losing their homes, and those who – no matter
how hard they work – are seeing prices go up more than their income. We will invest in
America again –in world-class public education, in our infrastructure, and in green technology
– so that our economy can generate the good, high-paying jobs of the future. We will end the
outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care, protect Social Security, and help Americans
save for retirement. …put an end to the reckless, special interest driven corporate loopholes
and tax cuts for the wealthy that have been the centerpiece of the Bush Administration’s
economic policy19.

Compellingly relevant to the discussion of cutting public services, Frank investigates in his dissertation
“…why do some neighborhoods find more success than others in both service delivery and redevelopment?20.”
He hypothesizes:

Elected officials, neighborhood groups, and individual residents operate within the constraints
of existing policies and budgets, to influence the outputs both of allocative policies and of
developmental policies. In so doing, these local decision-makers use allocative processes to
influence developmental processes. Both allocation and development have costs. The costs of
allocative processes – that is, municipal service delivery – typically take the form of direct
expenditures. By comparison, the costs of development more often take the form of foregone
9
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty00.txt
10
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty06.txt
11
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty07.txt
12
http://www.downtownstl.org/docs/Downtown%202007%20Housing%20Report.pdf
13
http://www.downtownstl.org/docs/DTPR08.pdf
14
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty08.txt
15
http://factfinder.census.gov
16
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html?
countryName=Nigeria&countryCode=ni&regionCode=af&rank=47#ni
17
http://www.bls.gov/opub/gp/pdf/gp04_27.pdf
18
http://data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ln
19
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
20
Frank, Joseph. "Urban Service Delivery: Who Gets What in St. Louis Neighborhoods" Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Southern Political Science Association, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ravinia, Atlanta, Georgia, <Not Available>. 2010-01-
25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p397355_index.html>

3
 revenues, also known as tax expenditures, such as income tax credits, property tax abatement,
tax increment financing (TIF), and industrial revenue bonds21.

Frank argues that race, amount of blight, and political influence reinforce themselves determining the degree of
service delivery. He echoes the reality of the Team Four Plan indicating that large amounts of blight do not spur
investment and special attention due to obvious need, but incur the withdrawal of public services thus
exacerbating established blight. Political influence determines which challenged areas receive varied amounts of
attention. He indicates “redevelopment effects are concentrated in locations that are politically influential, even
when they are less blighted, by objective measures, than are those locations with low political influence22.” The
areas which receive redevelopment often enjoy tax subsidies such as tax abatement for anywhere from 5-30
years. Essentially areas which are better off than the more distressed receive greater public support despite that
the more disadvantaged pay higher taxes. In St. Louis City political capacity plays a role guiding the allocation
of public resources. I hope this does not influence the budgeting process.

Frank uses CSB data from 2002 in order to determine public service response times. Some
neighborhoods which receive the slow response times include Forest Park Southeast (25 days),
Wells/Goodfellow, Kings Oak, Academy, Lewis Place, and Fountain Park (24 days). The neighborhoods with
quick response times include Wydown/Skinker (13 days), Lindewood Park, St. Louis Hills, and Riverview (15
days). The average response time in the 98% African American Hamilton Heights is 42 days. The 80% African
American Hyde Park neighborhood has a quicker response time by 6 days. Gravois Park is 20% less African
American than Hyde Park with services delivered 7 days sooner. St. Louis Hills, only 1% African American,
receives services much faster than Hamilton Heights. As the percentage of African Americans increase service
delivery decreases.

Through 26 separate negative-binomial regression models, Frank finds that quick response times are
influenced by the age of a neighborhood associations, that predominately African American neighborhoods
receive slower response times than those where African Americans constitute a minority, that high percentages
of whites increase response times, that neighborhoods with high percentages of residents without a high school
diploma receive slower response times, and that areas with concentrations of housing built before 1939 or high
amounts of renters decreases response times. Frank’s models prove “that majority African-American
neighborhoods can expect to receive slower response than majority white neighborhoods, independent of the
effects of socio-economic status.” This means that working class African American neighborhoods will also be
predisposed to receive slower response times. I urge the Board of Aldermen to keep these findings in mind.

When determining the levels of public service delivery, Frank does concede that the political influence
of aldermen becomes less significant than the degree of neighborhood association establishment. This can be
explained insofar as the primary role of neighborhood associations is ensuring effective service delivery, whereas
aldermen have multiple roles and some may be more focused upon promoting economic development projects23.
Overall therefore race and the amount of blight, often associated with older housing, negatively impact public
service delivery greater than the political capacity of aldermen or socioeconomic status. Though many other
scholars directly tie the degree of political participation to income242526. Time devoted to political activity
excludes time for other activities such as work, rearing children, and basic leisure time. For the poor often this
cost can be too high. In this manner it’s not surprising that poorer neighborhoods may not have extremely
effective neighborhood associations.

Importantly Frank reviews response times of each City department. This is especially relevant when
determining funding levels and future reforms. Three departments receive the largest number of requests:
Forestry (24,194), Building Division (15,818), and Refuse (18,537). Unfortunately statistical models were
unable to predict response times for the Refuse division. The average response time of all 104,909 requests the
City received in 2002 was 22 days, whereas Forestry was 11 days longer at 33. This could be that many requests

21
Ibid, 27.
22
Ibid, 31.
23
Ibid, 83-96.
24
See William Julius Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged and When Work Disappears
25
Cohen, Cathy J., and Dawson, Michael C. "Neighborhood Poverty and African American Politics." American Political Science
Review. 87.2. (1993): 286-302
26
Jones-Correa, Michael. Governing American Cities. New York: Russell Sage. 2001. 187-203

4
require owner approval. Consistently greater numbers of African Americans reduce Forestry response time as do
areas with high percentages of housing built before 193927. Building Division response times were near the
mean. This can be easily explained since much of their work is done through observation which does not require
owner approval. Interestingly Building Division determinants differed from the entire study. Across all 26
models only aldermanic seniority impacted response time28. Frank says “This suggests bureaucratic
responsiveness to elected official demands may be more evident in the Building Division in particular, than in
Saint Louis city government as a whole. This finding is consistent with research by Jones (1981, 1985) at the
Chicago Department of Buildings.” Independent of the Building Division Frank concludes:

…findings suggest institutional racism is at work in Saint Louis… it also supports the
proposition that ecological factors like age of housing also determine service delivery
effectiveness, as measured by response time. The Saint Louis case also tells us something
about American politics in general: that race still matters. The national political discourse in
2008 and 2009 has highlighted the “post-racial” administration of newly elected President
Barack Obama…many local communities like Saint Louis, racial discrimination, racial
segregation and racial conflict are still very much part of the political discourse…racial
tension influences how services are delivered on a daily basis29.

Uncontrolled subsidies have not created employment gains, therefore I urge the Board of Aldermen to
stop issuing subsidies for every company that shakes down the City. Perhaps St. Louis City should stop its
decades-long practice of catering to the private sector under the argument of promoting itself. Along with
subsidy, we will construct Thompson Coburn yet another parking garage. This should be a tax generating condo
development bringing residents downtown supporting local commerce30. I do not understand why the City keeps
supporting projects that almost everyone agrees are not in the taxpayer’s interest31! St. Louis needs to invest in
neighborhoods rather than destroying them for the fantasy of economic development. This practice has not
served to counteract seemingly never-ending suburban sprawl. Indeed E-W Gateway highlights this trend “Areas
farthest from St. Louis’ urban core continue to experience the most rapid population and employment growth in
the region. Ranking above average in employment dispersal, the region continues to experience growth in the
percent of the employment base that is located outside of the central urban core32.”

How can we expect to grow downtown as a neighborhood, and now support public services through
this fiscal crisis, when we cater to every corporation that extorts us for a payoff – saying they will leave if we
don’t issue subsidy or promote the land use (parking as with Thompson Coburn), which only incentivizes
suburban free-riders? I find this ironic since Real Estate Row we evicted small business law firms – many which
were located in the City since their incorporation. The City should take a greater role in supporting small
business growth, especially when some larger corporations lack the civic leadership and loyalty of the past. The
City must also stop competing with Clayton and instead look nationally and internationally for residents and
firms. Our extremely low cost of living, unique built environment, diverse population, and stellar cultural
institutions positions us ideally against any major US City.

Promoting parking, thus suburban free-riders, ironically stymies residency thereby increasing our
earnings tax dependency. Therefore the City must repeal Ordinance 68537 and do everything possible to entirely
abandon the St. Louis Centre Parking Garage Project. Agreed upon as a way to alleviate Thompson Coburn’s
demands, and also revenue needs due to Pyramid Inc’s bankruptcy, this taxpayer-obligated project provides none
of the benefits which we were promised. In this deal the City exchanges one definition of blight for another.
This project has minimal retail, absolutely no residential, and essentially adds more life-killing parking to our
already over-served downtown. I had the benefit of visiting New Orleans for the Super Bowl and my 25th
birthday. While their downtown certainly has its share of garages, they minimize parking and maximize
residency.

27
Ibid, 97.
28
Ibid, 100.
29
Ib id, 102.
30
http://stlua.blogspot.com/2009/10/st-louis-centre-from-suburban-mall-to.html
31
http://www.pubdef.net/2006/12/14/citys-bad-deal-moves-forward/
32
http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/wws/wws06.pdf

5
 Like St. Louis New Orleans has many issues to confront, readily apparent in the appallingly near-
absence of progress in the 9th and lower 9th Wards. Though, in many areas of New Orleans, gas stations and strip
malls do not proliferate throughout their residential areas. The result: strong, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods
and vibrant commercial districts. These attract new residents and promote tourism. People value these unique
urban environments because they’re rare. The super-majority of the United States’ housing was built after World
War II, whereas the opposite exists in St. Louis City. Thus the scarce St. Louis experience provides a
comparative economic advantage over many cities and especially suburbia. Harvard’s Graduate School of
Design Professor Alex Krieger, who sits on the Gateway Arch Design Competition Jury, makes the case for
preservation and how suburban environments are inherently not valued:

Because so much is new and still forming in a rapidly changing world, the parts, which
precede the new, become both more cherished and more threatened. The threats are
obsolescence, replacement, insufficient resources for preservation, and, indeed, demand for
things new. The cherishing is for authenticity, continuity with prior epochs and values, and a
longing for stability against incessant newness. As economists point out, scarce commodities
usually become more valuable. The suburban landscape is no longer scarce, while traditional
pockets of urbanism are becoming more so. In many parts of the world the importance of
preservation is yet to be established, but in America the period of federally sponsored urban
renewal challenged cavalier attitudes towards history. Demolition is no longer seen as a
precursor to improvement. The instinct to preserve evidence of the physical past -- to reaffirm
the value for things which have persisted -- will only grow as the rates of change in business,
commerce and technology accelerates the phenomenon of obsolescence, while falsely
devaluing both place and artifice33.

Promoting excessive parking undermines the economic advantages which our built environment
provides. The benefit of limiting parking overrides the convenience of facilitating a downtown that essentially
empties after 5PM. I ask the Board of Aldermen to delay the St. Louis Center renovation until it can support the
quality residential taxpayers want. We should find other means to alleviate the mandatory TIF repayments. As
he could hold his position for life, perhaps Mayor Slay could donate from his campaign fund? We must place a
moratorium on downtown parking until a comprehensive parking study can be completed. As our parking
happens to be among the cheapest nationally, the City should establish a parking tax. This will promote
residency, deter commuting free-riders, while providing additional revenue. Cities like Baltimore, New York,
Pittsburgh, and Montreal have such a tax34.

The proposed cuts to Planning and Urban Design can only be seen as offensive, provincial, and quite
damaging to our City. Besides our vibrant residents, the historically diverse built environment happens to be our
greatest asset. Egregious errors like Real Estate Row, the Ambassador, the Century Building, the San Luis, the
countless number of North St. Louis demolitions, and every strip mall or suburban gas station constructed,
signifies our overwhelming need for updated zoning, rigorous preservation enforcement, and urban design
reform. No one wants to move to a City which looks like banal suburbia. That reality partially explains E-W
Gateways finding’s that the St. Louis region has nearly zero annual population growth35. The responsibility of
growing our City, through enumerating and enforcing common sense building guidelines, exists with every
member of the Board of Aldermen. This especially will not occur with a decapitated Planning and Urban Design
Department. We still have not replaced Rollin Stanley! Barbara Geisman is not our Planning Director! I find
this most disturbing since we are in the middle of the largest economic development project in St. Louis’
History: Paul McKee’s Northside! If we value our unique built environment that exists nowhere else, providing
us a comparative advantage over other cities, then we must fully fund and legislatively support Planning and
Urban Design. Many more competitive cities have much larger Planning Departments, zoning and urban design
codes that reflect modern society, and as a result are redefining city living. As defined by Paul Davidoff, founder
of the advocacy planning movement and pluralistic planning, urban planners should strive to be vanguards of
public interest mediating conflict between disparate groups thereby improving the final outcome. Obviously
planning cannot be separated from politics, but when solely driven by it we lose the standards that guide action
and ensure a competitive future. We also endanger our valuable socioeconomic assets which cannot be
recreated.

33
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/people/faculty/krieger/articles/urbanrevival.pdf
34
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/building-blocks/commercial-real-estate/2009/06/st-louis-parking-relatively-cheap/
35
http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/wws/wws06.pdf

6
 Given his record of complete failure regarding building maintenance, that he has built nothing,
employed no one, and has not signed a single firm onto the project, at this time I do not want any LRA property
sold to Paul McKee. On this issue thus far the City has categorically failed. The redevelopment agreement
lacks safeguards for historic preservation, excludes urban design, establishes no minimum of affordable housing,
does not enforce minority participation, allows eminent domain, and begins in downtown not North St. Louis.
Given McKee’s exclusively suburban projects, office parks and tract housing may replace the remaining
Victorian architecture and density. We must not grant McKee a single parcel especially when he still has not
transferred (he should not sell them) his dilapidating ONSL holdings back to the Old North Restoration Group!
Some of these buildings are impediments to the Crown Square project. If the City needs more funding for
Forestry then increase the existing use tax – or fund it by collecting fines from building code violators.

At a time of high unemployment, and ever-declining middle class wages, and frighteningly disturbing
race-based public service disparities, I overwhelmingly oppose any issuance or reappraisal of user fees upon
trash collection, fire protection services, and finally vehicle registration36. This is not abstraction. Since
September 2009 I have been unemployed only keeping my apartment due to benefits. It’s entirely unethical to
charge for trash collection on a housing unit basis since landlords will simply pass along this cost to renters. I
need not remind the Board of Aldermen that many residents are renters since they lost their home during market
collapse. We must not increase the cost of public services or decrease quality especially during this time of
economic constraint. If there must be a fee for trash collection, as with the proposed increase in the city earnings
tax, then it must correlate with income. Moreover, economic development requires quality public services.

No matter what level of corporate welfare, we cannot expect private investment in our City with dirty
streets. Most importantly if cuts must be made I would urge the Board of Aldermen and Streets Department to
ensure that areas of greatest need receive the fewest cuts. As Frank shows select areas of our City exist under-
served. Anecdotally brother recently moved onto the 5000 block of Mardel Avenue, recently featured Feb. 10th
on Fox 2 KTVI. The trash problem certainly exists. Unfortunately it’s far worse in distressed areas like those
too common in North St. Louis. We must not cut services or impose fees onto those with service disparities and
high unemployment. The City must fund even higher levels of public service like trash collection. I do not
understand why, especially from those who probably never in their lifetime saw their bank account reach a
negative balance, opposition exists to this proposal?

In the St. Louis Business Journal Article “City needs the taxes Cardinals generate”, when Slay was
President of the Board, he argued:

Team figures show that 93 percent of the fans who attend Cardinal baseball games live
outside the city of St. Louis. A whopping 35 percent of the fans come from outside a 50-mile
radius. These fans bring new money into the city economy. It is the increased taxes they will
pay on tickets and concessions which will fund the bulk of the city's contribution to the new
stadium. On the other hand, if the Cardinals move the team elsewhere, the city would lose all
of the money these fans bring into our local economy37.

Slay promoted the new stadium under the argument that it would generate additional revenue which the City
needs for operation. Yet after being elected Slay and the Board of Aldermen exempted ticket sales from the
gross receipts tax! I urge the Board of Aldermen to repeal Ordinance 68380 which exempted the 5% gross
receipts tax on entertainment products. In 2002, with the Cardinals, we lost $3,000,000. If we reinstate this tax
assuredly we could recoup an even higher yield. This has no excuse! Why do we exempt a tax on the sale of a
product which price continues to rise yet holds constant demand? Slay agreed in 2000 that, with the Cardinals,
the City should tax those that live elsewhere. Importantly, St. Charles and Maryland Heights certainly benefit
when City residents attend entertainment events at the Family Arena, the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, or
gamble at their casinos. Why did we shut out this revenue stream? Perhaps, as with the temporary boxing
exemption, because Slay “thinks it’s just plain fun38?” Exempting the gross receipts tax directly contradicts
Slay’s argument. If I dress up like Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, and perform a few songs in the Rotunda, will I get
a tax break? It will be fun, too.

36
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/06poverty_booza.aspx
37
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2001/01/01/editorial3.html
38
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2005/07/11/daily81.html

7
 I strongly oppose placing any cuts to Drug Court, especially only due to Barbara Geisman’s argument
that it “might not be effective39.” I know a few lawyers who disagree. Missouri Supreme Court Chief Judge
William Ray Price. Jr indicates Missouri has 8,500 graduates and “At one fourth to one fifth the cost of
incarceration, more than one half of drug court participant’s graduate, and recidivism is only in the 10 percent
range. The last five meta studies on drug courts, from all across the United States, have shown that drug courts
reduce crime from 8 to 26 percent40.” St. Louis City has a severe drug problem. Absent rational analysis we
should not interfere with effective programs, especially those that already have limited enrollment due to high
demand and limited resources41. St. Louis’ Drug Court actually costs less than placing non-violent offenders in
jail: $12,731 vs. $5,042. As of 2006 the City has 1,000 graduates. For every dollar spent this fiscally positive
program saves the City $6.3242. The Institute of Applied Research found in their 2004 study that “After four
years the benefits exceeded the total drug court cost associated with graduating 219 individuals by $298,399 or
$1,362 per drug court graduate43.” This judge-supervised program ensures that our often African American
residents do not end up in jail, away from their families, when they could receive rehabilitation re-entering
society as a productive taxpayer. This must be an imperative for our City! African Americans disproportionally
populate our prisons. Columbia University scholar Manning Marable illuminates the reality:

In 1974, the number of Americans incarcerated in all state prisons stood at 187,500. By 1991,
the number had reached 711,700. Nearly two-thirds of all state prisoners in 1991 had less than
a high school education. One third of all prisoners were unemployed at the time of their
arrests. Incarceration rates by the end of the 1980s had soared to unprecedented rates,
especially for black Americans. As of December 1989, the total US prison population,
including federal institutions, exceeded one million for the first time in history, an
incarceration rate of the general population of one out of every 250 citizens. For African
Americans, the rate was over 700 per 100,000, or about seven times more than for whites.
About one half of all prisoners were black. Twenty-three percent of all black males in their
twenties were either in jail or prison, on parole, probation, or awaiting trial. The rate of
incarceration of black Americans in 1989 had even surpassed that experienced by blacks who
still lived under the apartheid regime of South Africa. The pattern of racial bias in these
statistics is confirmed by the research of the US Commission on Civil Rights, which found
that while African Americans today constitute only 14% of all drug users nationally, they are
35% of all drug arrests, 55% of all drug convictions, and 75% of all prison admissions for
drug offenses 44.

Ignoring the fiscal benefits of keeping African Americans out of prison, the negative impacts of incarceration
upon the African American family are well documented454647. Before making changes, I urge the Board of
Aldermen to speak with the judges, administrators, and program graduates. I also ask the Board of Aldermen to
contact members of UMSL’s Criminal Justice Program. Specifically contact Robert Keel or Richard Wright,
314.516.6052 and 314.516.5034. It’s ranked among the top 10 in the Nation. We must not arbitrarily impact this
cost-effective program that produces positive results counteracting such overwhelmingly disturbing realities.

I absolutely oppose closing any recreation center. Youth today have few safe public spaces available
for recreation. The same applies for senior citizens. When William B. Ittner built many of our wonderful SLPS
buildings, he conceived them not only as schools but community centers to be used by everyone. Times and
constraints have changed, yet his emphasis remains integral to promoting public health and community cohesion.
We must fight the erosion of neighborhood institutions that bind us together, especially those that promote public

39
http://21stward.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/69330hearing01262010.pdf
40
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2010/02/supreme-court-mayors-aide-disagree-do-drug-courts-work/
41
http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/courtopics/ResourceGuide.asp?topic=DrugCt
42
http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/Drug%20Court%20Brochure.pdf
43
http://www.iarstl.org/papers/SLFDCcostbenefitExecSum.pdf
44
http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/1200/122k05.htm
45
http://www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers/incarcerationmarriagefamilylife/document
46
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40040178
47
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1229637

8
health and safety! As one interviewee states in the controversial August 19 2008 River Front Times article,
“Where else are we going to go? asks Nicolette. There aren't a lot of places where we can hang out?48”

I would like to know how the North Side community center came underbid. Was this due to firms
simply lowering their cost due to scarcity, or are there quality disparities among the North and South Side
community centers? Justice demands that every dollar collected by the sales tax be directly spent on the North
Side community center. I don’t care if the center came underbid. The City should then allocate the “extra” tax
revenue on either capital improvements to the existing upcoming North Side Center, or perhaps find a way to
subsidize the fee for disadvantaged residents who desire membership. North St. Louis needs these investments
more than most communities in our Region. It’s only equitable that the North Side receives maximum benefit
given historic and current disparities in public and private investment.

Finally, I have not heard much about how exactly the City seeks to reform the pension system, except
erroneous statements from Mayor Slay that pension benefits are higher than those from private sector
employment.49 Even an employee making around $60,000 annually, working for an astronomical 30 years,
would receive well under $30,000 per year as a benefit50. Does Slay want to privatize the system? Does he want
employees to pay into the pension? I would like to remind the Board that we do have some great city employees.
My current landlord worked for Mike McMillan as a building inspector. She did a great job and worked very
hard to address problem properties. I find it unethical that the City would consider cutting her benefits,
especially when she chose a public service career. My uncle, a City resident, received a degree in finance and
currently teaches business at the largely African American Hazelwood East. This is challenging, yet his class
placed 3rd in a State of Missouri business competition51. I know that some aldermen do actually like their NSO.
Many other examples exist locally, regionally, and nationally of government employees doing their job for the
taxpayer. Given the financial allure of private sector employment, I do not want financial disincentive
diminishing the pool of qualified applicants. We need to ensure that public service careers remain competitive
with the private sector. Given research, I caution any moves to privatize the pension system52535455.

Using existing departments, the City should take every effort at code enforcement and collecting
outstanding fines. I’ve been told that we have around $2,000,000 in outstanding unpaid fines. These must be
collected immediately. Moreover, the License Collector should ensure that every landlord obtains their business
license, as is required for those who rent property. Bureaucratic reform should occur and performance must be
the mantra of all departments. We must address the glaring disparities in public service delivery. Yet reform
should only occur after an in depth per-department analysis which determines efficiency, effectiveness, and cost
savings in relation to the department’s given mission. These should include County offices. Frank’s research
provides a starting point. I fear that short-term cuts under the auspices of cost-savings are simply expressions of
a pro-privatization agenda. Given less oversight and accountability, can we rest assured that privatization will
redress our service disparities?

Mayor Slay, who received $50,000 from the anti-government Rex Sinquefield in December 2009, says
he find this budget process exciting56. Yet I am greatly concerned about the City’s ability to deliver services to a
population with nearly 20% unemployment and far higher underemployment. I understand the great burden this
fiscal crisis places upon elected officials. I hope you keep the interests of our many struggling impoverished and
middle class residents in mind. Frank provides an excellent caveat which supports our reality: some aldermen
are too focused upon economic development projects independent of their impact upon public service delivery.
Our fiscal crisis reveals the direct cost of these actions. We do not have enough revenue to fund current levels of
delivery. I find this abhorrent since many, due to skin color, already have inferior public services. We can’t

48
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2008-08-20/news/out-of-control-shoplifting-at-the-st-louis-galleria-violent-attacks-in-the-delmar-
loop-is-metrolink-a-vehicle-for-crime
49
http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=1429
50
http://stlcin.missouri.org/retirement/pensioncalculator.cfm
51
http://stlamerican.com/articles/2006/03/08/business/local_business/localbusiness01.txt
52
http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/retirement/2006/12/22/do-pensions-beat-401ks.aspx
53
http://www.afscme.org/issues/12821.cfm
54
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08983t.pdf
55
https://www.cesifo-group.de/DocCIDL/cesifo1_wp2735.pdf
56
http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=1428

9
ignore that Frank’s data came from 2002, well before unemployment rose significantly during the Slay
Administration reaching its current heightened levels due to global financial collapse. Services have since been
reduced. We must also realize that areas with higher percentages of African Americans do need and want
services. For example, according to Frank, both the 4th and 28th Wards have similar numerical populations yet
the 28th had less than 12,000 requests whereas the 4th had more than 50,000!

How can we ask existing taxpayers, who obviously want services, to pay a user fee when they already
don’t receive an adequate response?

How can we justify cuts?

In the end our budget must be reconciled without mass layoffs, arbitrarily cutting or eliminating
important services, undermining our pension, or through implementing knee-jerk “reforms” because certain
individuals, absent independent research, think they’re a good idea. Ideology, bias, or “excitement” must not
guide this process or disqualify obvious solutions which will restore our fiscal solvency.

Thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy comments.

Always,

Douglas Charles Duckworth

10