Wednesday evening, at approximately 11:05 p.m., Richmond Heights reported an attempted carjacking in the garage at the Galleria, Brentwood Police reported on Thursday. The suspects were seen running from the garage, because they could not drive the vehicle because it had a manual transmission.
A Brentwood officer saw two of the suspects on the parking lot at Brentwood Square. When the suspects saw the officer they ran west into the Brentwood Forest area. Minutes later, another Brentwood officer saw the suspects driving a white Jeep Cherokee, speeding on E. Swan Circle.
The vehicle had been taken in the 1400 block of Bluebird Terrace. The victims had returned home, when they were approached by two men who demanded the woman’s purse and keys to the car. Both suspects were armed. The victims complied and the suspects left with the vehicle. The victims were not injured.
The suspects purposely rammed a Brentwood vehicle on Wrenwood Lane and went south on Brentwood Boulevard. A pursuit of the Jeep by several agencies ended with a crash on Natural Bridge Road in north St. Louis City. The suspects fled the scene.
News4 KMOV reported the police chase lasted around 30 minutes. Witnesses told News 4 speeds hit 85 miles per hour during the chase.
Brentwood and Richmond Heights detectives are investigating the incident.
to TRUTH: your crap does not warrant a reply.
AS I WAS SAYING—-ZONING URBAN MEANS the consequences that go with that word: URBAN. Ignoring the long, historical facts associated with URBAN HOUSING–will not make those facts non-applicable to B’wd. We are NOT AN URBAN AREA. To re-zone URBAN what has never been zoned as such, is an act of greed and lack of consideration for the foreseeable consequences. There are plenty of rental homes that do not need to be re-zoned. But they may not satisfy Govt. regs for Section 8 housing–No doubt this new development will be in Sec. 8 compliance, so will fill up quickly, and the government will pay for it. Yes–another government program that redistributes the wealth is on its way. And who pays for that freebie? Taxpayers. These ARE FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE THAT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED. Now if you want the apartment for low income seniors and mobility impaired people—that is ok. But otherwise, B’wd is being set up for encroachment on the rights of permanent residents, increase in crime, a furtherance of conditions for imminent domain seizures and a re-born Audubon Park (B’wds red light and drug place to be.) The crime is already happening in B’wd Forest. This is a pattern, not a fluke.
Maureen, your prejudice is showing.
1. The Urban Development designation in Brentwood allows a developer to do many different things to an area. I direct you to the Brentwood City Code, Chapter 400.1400 to understand what kinds of development are allowed.
2. Brentwood currently has two areas zoned as UD. One is off Strassner and Hanley which includes Buffalo Wild Wings, Springhill Suites and an apartment building as well as other businesses. The other contains The Villas off of Brentwood Blvd.
3. As far as I am aware, there are no “Section 8” housing units in either UD area. Most of the residents are young professionals. At least one STL Blues hockey player lived in The Villas at one point. In the other area, it seems that at least some of the residents are families from other countries that the parents are here attending Washington University, Webster U, and SLU. I have not seen a lot of reports that the Brentwood PD is or has been responding to a lot of crime and violence in either area.
4. “Section 8” housing is the Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Many people are eligible for the program, to include the elderly and infirm that you seem to care so much about.
5. Crime in Brentwood Forrest has nothing to do with Section 8 housing. Brentwood Forrest only allows a small percentage of rental properties and I’m fairly sure the owners of the rental properties are not participating in that program.
6. The more you post, the clearer it becomes to me (based on my education and experience) that your thought process on this matter goes like this- Urban equals African-American which equals Section 8 which equals crime. If I remember my algebra, if A=B, B=C, C=D then A=D and what I read into your posts is “A bunch of African-Americans are going to move into Brentwood and cause the crime rate to go up”. Not a very pretty thought process especially since it all starts with the fact that you have no idea what the whole Urban Development zoning designation means in the first place.
Well, then you didn’t have a very good, or perhaps a very restricted,education after all. Your thinking is linear and lacks depth. AGAIN i will not embarrass you by pointing our the arrogant,and erroneous assumptions YOU. Then you take YOUR failed thought process and apply to ME. And YOUR (exceedingly flawed) assumption and analysis now claim that YOU KNOW all about me. Your flawed…dare i mention (“someone” is getting emotionally hot and bothered under the skin) tells me a lot about you. Consider this a freebie to your absolute dearth of thought-filled, open minded assumptions. You are a are fool. You lack a broad view, which is a serious shame. However, in charity, and for your best ability to respond, I will say you are not 100% a fool. Some of your other posts have been on target. So the worst part applied to you, and limited specifically to this issue, is you are a fool of linear thinking. You have a dangerous lack of comprehending the dynamics, you in truth, do not understand—but vigorously defend. Wait until this is not getting under your skin before you respond–should you respond at all. A response from you is a mix-nox to me–as i will always read your posts. Thanks.
“Macht nichts.” In German it’s spelled “Macht nichts.” It only took me about 3 hours to figure out your tortured syntax.
I gave you a number of points to consider/respond to but instead you, as usual, decided to go off on an unfocused rant that clearly indicates who is “emotionally hot and bothered under the skin”. Feel free to re-read what I posted, consider what I wrote, and refute if you can any of my points.
I am also going to point out that you do exactly what accuse me of. You assume that there is something wrong with my education (BA, 1991, double major in Poli Sci and History, minor in the Honors program). I never claimed to know anything about you. I merely pointed out that your own posts show that you have no understanding of the definition of the Urban Development zoning designation in Brentwood.
Or do what you usually do and go completely off topic. I eagerly await the day that you assign me a demeaning nickname as you have done with “The Brentwood Princess”, Chris Thorton.
Post script: I applaud the gradual shift in weighting informational decisions BACK to the residents. We have an endorsement from Ald. Kramer for Julie –which is VERY reasonable. We also can see that–as i previously figured –no one said—but Rocky Ritter looks to be part of Chris’ possy. We really need Andy Leahy—this shift in BOA would dismantled the “good ole’boys” power grab Chris’ has been operating with, since his election. ANDY LEAHY is getting well deserved attention for keeping his finger on the pulse of his ward’s residents. I COMPLETELY REJECT THE RE-ZONING OF ANYTHING TO AN URBAN STATUS TO ACCOMMODATE YET ANOTHER CRASH OF TRASH APTS. There are plenty of small home rentals available in STL—so why cram MORE people into a developer’s DREAM: “rape and escape” living quarters by rezoning URBAN where it has never existed? –THIS PROJECT SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE PUT ON HOLD. I again give gratis to Rickinstl for allowing me to post, without bringing out the “lions, and tigers and bears” (Oh! MY). Best regards, maureen
John Nuernberger’s reply to Mike H was just more of the same old John. We all enjoy free speech rights and thanks to Doug Miner we are free to express our views here. However, for the record, I just checked the election results from last April. Steve Lochmueller garnered 272 votes or 64.45% Andy Hartnett received 149 or 35.31 . By “old” math that’s a margin of 123 votes. I will agree that throwing one’s hat into the political ring is a scary prospect, and Andy should be commended for his efforts.
Louise, I stand corrected on the numbers my memory sometime fails me but I do remember Steve Lochmoeller had you as a retired citizen serve as his campaign manager as well as having a 12 year ,sitting Alderman Andy Leahy, endorsing him and being out there every day campaigning and knocking on doors on his behalf. It was a tough hill for my son to climb doing all by himself. If I am not mistaken you are also Andy Leahy’s campaign manager in the race this year. Correct? You would not have any other motives to comment against me because I have a Rocky Ritter sign in my yard do you?
I just love you Louise Charboneau—–i think it, tell God, and it comes out of your mouth. You are dear. love, maureen
Chief Roy Wright of RH has officers permanently assigned to the Galleria.
Crime would be worst at the Galleria if they were not visible, but the cannot be every where at one time. I think more officers need to be there inside and out with saturation patrolling. But where do ythese officers come from and who will pay them. In the future I see another Northwest Plaza, etc.
It just crossed my mind: why not FAIL to re-zone for urban building, and hire bike riding neighborhood police. We are talking about a measly 2 acres for 6 floors that sounds MORE like an ant farm. Why not look for opportunities for biker police, and MAYBE even mounted police—You do not need Urban reassignment of area never before zoned as such. This would do a lot to boost the security of neighborhoods, would promote neighborhood interactions and involvements with the peace keepers, and the mounted patrol represents B’wd MORE THAN REZONING AN AREA URBAN. Sorry, i just cannot contest this enough. This is wrong. But i am increasingly more trusting in our BOA and the fact that Maureen Saunders is running again, and praying for the election of Andy Leahy as Aldermen. best regards, maureen
Maureen, I have had experience working with both bike and horse mounted patrols. Bike patrol may (and I stress may) be a viable option for Brentwood but there are many considerations. Bike officers are limited in their patrol range. For example, an officer assigned to the Brentwood Point/Brentwood Square area would not be able to respond to cover a call at Schnucks. Bike patrol would have to be a specific assignment like SLMPD has in the downtown corridor.
Horse patrol is completely wrong for Brentwood. Horses have to stabled, fed, taken care of during their down times, riders have to be trained, there are veterinary bills, bills for the horse-shoeing, riding boots, saddles, tack etc. Costs are very high for horse patrol. In addition, horse mounted officers can’t respond as quickly and their patrol range is generally limited to park areas. Riding horses on mostly pavement is hard on the horses feet and legs.
Hi Mike H., there are enough good minds to supplant the use of re-zoning to urban, squeeze an apartment building onto 2+/- acres. Whatever else, DO NOT REZONE THIS URBAN. This is, at it’s core, another way of crushing the life out of B’wd. P&Z once again is at the center of a terrible decision. And the contractor is drooling over the money he will make, yet never personally deal with the consequences. This is wrong on EVERY LEVEL. If this wrong decision goes through, expect the consequences. These are known, foreseeable consequences. Giving P&Z the out of triggering the law of unintended consequences has come and gone. This is a foreseeable consequence, over-crowding, increased crime, increased volume of traffic, vandalism and all the problems urban areas already face. I am thinking they have included more people per apartment, like a roach nest. I understand and agree about the care needed for a mounted police patrol–but it’s time to stop thinking inside the box. OR we build urban and name the complex the Michael Brown/Al Sharpton housing project. You know this is right. Our current African American neighbors are educated and not part of the urban experience. But watch race become more of an issue by building Urban. All ethnicities would just love to be Brentwood squatters. THIS HAS FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES. No to rezoning area as urban.
OH! i forgot: “Thanks Mike H.”
Maureen – I would advise you show up to the meeting on Monday. That way you can learn what is actually going on, instead of just repeating URBAN over and over and over again.
The area for the Villas of Brentwood and Hanley Station Condominiums are zoned UD (Urban Development). Please explain to me how having these zoned “UD” has brought squatters and horrible consequences to Brentwood. I can not wait to hear that.
Here is the map in case you don’t believe me.
https://www.brentwoodmo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/780
Very well taken point, “Speak Now”. What will be the net of City tax income from re-zoning, after we need a boatload of more police–who are professional as our FR’s are now, the City pays the BPD to train them, pay for enhanced equipment, Kevlar vests for every officer, tasers, dashboard cams with audio function on all police cars, increased requirements for fire-arms certification, regular professional debriefing of officers who have dealt in a traumatic situation, availability to disassemble crowds turning hostile with pepper-smoke bombs–and i am too tired to go on. Refreshing the question, what is the true net tax benefit for Brentwood after all our FR’s are updated for urban consequences? Will B’wd FR’s STILL be able to leave their area to back up other PD’s in a crisis, and expect reciprocation from our neighboring cities? And PLEASE do not tell me you have not considered this. No FR should go into harms way without a full complement of protective gear, and alternatives to manage cease, desist and disband without resorting to using firearms. So please calculate with cost accounting when you are counting your tax revenues. Given B’wd’s reputation for safety, resident taxes may actually go up if you go urban. This is factual — not speculative in terms of keeping our FR’s safe, while they keep us safe.
Maureen you are right on the money here. There is no way the revenue produced by this type of short sihgted development can cover the forseeable costs of safely dealing with the unintended consequences. Police and ambulance personal will need additional training and equipment and we are inviting the same types problems plaguing Ferguson and other cities!
Montressor, Yes. Yes. and Yes. This is exactly why pointing to the short sighted development of P&Z and the mayor, attaches CULPABILITY AND (and for those stuck on the dictionary at “A” ) it means responsibility for OBVIOUS consequences of the over-development of B’wd. An analogy for this disturbing practice any parent would understand. “Suddenly your tween has become a teen and rapidly continues to grow. However when the growth outweighs the ability of the body to properly uphold joints and vertebrae. Your failure to see that your child physically has rapidly advanced in height and weight, while the joints, bones, muscles and vertebrae have not yet matured. The bone, vertebrae (and discs) and muscles are ready to handle that height and weight. The growth and increased weight are too much for the hard and soft anatomy to handle. Failure to recognize this process and acting like it is not “really” that bad, you get to explain to the child why he has chronic hard and soft anatomy breakdowns, and over stressed joint pain—because YOU did not protect him from this. That child is strapped for life with the consequences you failed to acknowledge.
B’wd is doing the same thing. They are too rapidly building commercial, without having the infrastructure in place to support such rapid growth and weight. These are the unintended consequences. NOW you cannot plead ignorance—you “never saw that coming.” B’wd already has done this with, for example Starbucks. Either you refuse to look at the long view and need to be replaced, or you are ignorant of assessing the long view needing to be replaced.
Hmmm…Where to begin, where to begin?
1. Any commercial development will draw crime. When asked why he robbed banks, John Dillinger replied “Because that’s where the money is.”
2. The commercial development in the area of 170 and 40 was placed there exactly because of it’s accessibility. Yes it helps the criminals but if customers can’t get there, the development will fail. St. Louis Mills, anyone?
3. Commercial development brings money into Brentwood. Look at our schools. We are not Webster Groves, a district begging for money that can’t get it because all they have to rely on is property taxes.
4. Commercial development brings money into Brentwood. (Yes, I said it twice) Maureen Wheat, since you are so concerned about the elderly and the infirm, what do you think pays for the MAGIC bus service here in Brentwood? Are you aware that those in need can get grants for repairs to their homes through the city? Where do you think that money comes from?
5. Developing the free-range woodchuck habitat at Hanley and Manchester is hardly a “build everything, everywhere” philosophy. It seems to be more of a “MoDOT can’t make up it’s mind on re-designing the intersection so to hell with them, let’s do what works for Brentwood” philosophy. I agree that the apartment buildings that may go in there need to be designed to fit the area and a traffic study needs to be done before approval but leaving it as it is doesn’t help Brentwood citizens at all. (Unless you’re a believer that all life is equal, in which case I submit that it’s time for those free-loading groundhogs to start paying taxes).
6. Stopping development until the “increasingly armed felons are brought under control” is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever read. I’m not even sure how to respond to it because the statement is so outlandish.
A couple of direct responses- Maureen First, what are “the CRJ dots”? I can’t figure out what that stands for. Second, it’s the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Third, what is it you hope to accomplish by stopping development? You throw out these sweeping statements like “We should put a halt to development” or “The Mayor should step aside and let Alderman Kramer take over” but you never actually explain what you hope to accomplish.
RickinSTL- For a guy that doesn’t know John Nuernberger “from Adam”, you make a lot of assumptions and accusations about him. I’ve met John once and he seemed pleasant enough. I didn’t get the impression that he is some sort of evil puppet-master, pulling the strings of Brentwood development. Fun fact: John lives in a modest, two (or maybe three) bedroom house like many, if not most of us do, here in Brentwood. Not a lot of profit in being a “Brentwood power-broker” apparently.
TL:DR I’m right and everyone else is wrong.
Pleasant. Apparently you weren’t around here when his stepson was running for alderman.
“Spittle flecked rant” describes much of his commentary. As to “accusations & assumptions”, maybe you’re right. Maybe all the smoke surrounding city government is just that. Smoke. Let’s ask Mayor Kelly & City Admin. Seemayer. Oh, wait…
Well, I’m sure that all the remaining people who hang around city hall are pure of heart. I’m sure none of them are interested in getting a slice of that pile of tax money. I’m sure the deal to build a 6 story barracks on that corner will be a huge boon to the city, and no one will profit.
By the way, what do you have against groundhogs? Did one scare you as a child?
Freeloaders I said and freeloaders I meant. Just wait until I get started on the squirrels.
You are correct that I did not see anything posted by John Neurnberger during the last aldermanic race. However I choose to withhold judgement until I read them myself or get an opinion from someone I know and trust.
Regarding Kelly and Seemayer- neither of them is involved in the city business anymore. You are projecting past bad behavior on current officeholders. What proof do you or anyone else have that there are any shady dealings going on? If you know of anything, please come forward. Alderman Sanders seems very willing to stand up against corruption and unethical behavior. I’m sure she would do the right thing to stop this kind of thing.
A final point- if we are going to bring up past bad behavior, I’d like to point out that there were city employees benefiting from the lack of oversight that the audit brought to light. Were they ever punished? Did they have to pay back the overtime that they earned but we’re not entitled to? If not, maybe we need another outside audit.
Really good post Mike H. Thank you… Either i am having another change of life crisis, OR BRENTWOOD IS STARTING TO TAKE NOTICE of the out of control administrators, (not to include Bola, or anyone in her Office.) kind of narrows it down, quite a bit–to, like one person. Again, Mike H. your post was very fair. John is my friend on FB and we do not always agree, BUT HE HOLDS NO MALICE–AND IS DOING HIS BEST, JUST AS HE SEES IT. [must be another change of life crisis: even people with whom i disagree, are surfacing as responsible posters.—agreement comes with negotiation, not with knuckle dragging, administrative thug-hood.] Like most people, i can take defeat, but i absolutely reject steamrolling. That appears to be changing in B’wd. best regards, maureen
HiMike H. I apologize for failing to answer your questions. Sometimes a post has a target of me, which ok–i just do not always see the posts. BSCRJ (Professional Criminal Justice education) and BSLE (Professional Legal Education). The Law of unintended consequences is a form of limited planning, with no attention to the long view. What appears as acceptable on it’s face, causes secondary problems that should have been considered, but were not. Great example of a done deal and unintended consequences is the Starbucks on B’wd Boulevard. The neighbors are hassled, the traffic is wicked, and no research was done on “anything Starbucks,” in like areas and the consequences should have been foreseen. This was just seriously bad planning. It is akin to the secondary consequences of re-zoning to urban so a lot of people can be packed into 2+/- acres–The secondary consequences are foreseeable and being ignored. This does not any longer fall under the law of unintended consequences, and goes directly to BAD PLANNING–as the consequences are foreseeable. i apologize for not responding immediately–and further for taking a jab at your life experiences and education. I was wrong to do that. maureen
Mike H your comments are spot on and I live in a 3 bedroom home that was and it was some of the first infill construction about 30 years ago. I was proud my son ran for office at 28 years old and unfortunately lost by 40 votes on his first try, which happens. He is a lifelong Brentwood resident, went to Brentwood schools, and chose to buy a home here and to get involved to make Brentwood better. It appears that if someone does not support Maureen S and Andy L they you are labeled a hater just like if you are involved in the City on P&Z, which I am, it is also insinuated you are corrupt and accused of getting a slice of that pile of tax money. I laugh at the absurdy of those type comments.
Crime can happen anywhere. People have such short memories. I recall in the 1980s my mom used to warn that Brentwood forest had too many section 8 inhabitants to be safe any my friends living on York drive recounted seeing fires and hearing screams and gunshots at night from the BF direction. Delmar loop, Washington avenue, CWE, Maplewood, the landing…. All have gone through the same discussion of “look how bad it’s gotten” without remembering how bad it he once been.
On a related topic—how are our police holding up? I get so mad when I think of them going into harms way because some money-monger developer wants to build and flee. What is being done to protect the police, who are potecting all of us. We have the best force in the country. Time to put a bright light on them.
I note you chose to use the word “mad” rather than angry, Maureen. Well chosen.
Notice how the Galleria on BB, Sam’s & Walmart on Hanley, have seemingly turned into exposed outposts on the fringe of civilization ever since Metrolink came to the area? The question is, who’s pushing harder, the Vandals, or civil society. I’m afraid that till some of these Vandals get shot, this problem is going to get worse.
So I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE CONNECTING THE CRJ DOTS? Brentwood is naively over developing large commercial areas. These are historical magnets for crimes of opportunity, and our hwy system makes for quick runs in any direction. I don’t blame the metrolink—i think this is over-commercialization out of balance with community, police and safety normalcy. This was a foreseeable consequence—and i understand there is going to be a apartment complex on the COMMERCE ON STROIDS mentality of brentwood power brokers. The residents used to be the power brokers. I think a moratorium on commerce until the public safety issues and increasing criminally armed felons can be brought under control.
Maureen you are not connecting the proper dots. This Crime happened at the Galleria which is in Richmond Heights and Brentwood had nothing t0 do with that development and then the criminals fled to Brentwood Forest which was developed about 60 years ago. How can this be the City of Brentwood’s fault? The reason someone wants to spend 10 to 20 Million on developing an apartment community on a property that they own and will manage for years to come (units at $1000 t0 $2000 in rent) is partly because the metro link is located nearby. Any correlation that Rickstl has made about Crime and the Mass Transit is a philosophy that is very antiquated and outdated and just causes fear. By the way tax dollars generated from our commercial developments pay to have an excellent and well trained police force. Otherwise the residents would have to pay more taxes to keep those services.
John, Are you seriously trying not to understand the larger picture? Or did you misread the overall comment? I understand you are a great proponent of the best interests of Brentwood. But i ALSO believe that Audubon Park / Brentwood Forest crimes have been a foreseeable consequence related to the magnet commerce areas. It is ok to have different opinions–as i am seeing the changes in BOA are taking a clear-eyed look at our old friend: the law of unintentional consequences. We have to just disagree, John. And i maintain the crime increase was a foreseeable consequence. If a crime happens in RH, or M’wd, i still take that to heart. Put a moratorium on all new commercial and multi-family commercial developments. I am for a thoughtful pause about what kind of a frontline we are putting our FR’s on and the impact on residents of the Cities of B’wd, M’wd and RH Thanks John.
” philosophy that is very antiquated and outdated and just causes fear”
Really? Is that phrase supposed to win arguments? I might say that the “build everything, everywhere” philosophy which you seem to support, using other people’s money,is a failed idea whose time passed sometime in the 70’s. Of course, only one of us stands to gain financially from these developments, and it ain’t me. John, aren’t you involved in real estate development? Aren’t you one of the Saunders-haters? Would you be surprised if some people thought that your hatred for her stemmed from your desire to get the heat off development deals and spending in Brentwood after the last round of embezzlement? Also that your step son’s failed run for alderman, and support of “Rocky”, the guy challenging Leahy, came from the same place? I don’t know you from Adam. We’ve never met to my knowledge. I have no business before the city government. I’m just a resident who’s seen a lot of backdoor dealing around city hall, and I’d like it to stop. How about you?
Rickinstl—-thank you. It is hard to believe that the public edu. system does not teach the basics of planning ie “the law of unintended consequences. and that the common abbreviation of CRJ is not familiar to some. To whomever posted, far and wide, how limited their experience and education has been—-LOOK THESE UP. It is genuinely scary that you might have a dr. lic., a job requiring higher level thinking, and THANK YOU RICKINSTL. We may not alway agree, but i can always follow your reasoning. best regards, maureen
Maureen, stop being disingenuous. I asked a serious question to understand what CRJ stands for so I can try to see what point you were making. Instead, you decided to insult my education and experience. I did try to look up CRJ. Canadair Regional Jet? Carly Ray Jepsen? Google is extremely unhelpful in this matter.
Oh, and I went to Catholic schools so please stop blaming the public school system for my lack of knowledge regarding the mysterious abbreviation “CRJ”.
John, Hi! i hope you read my post about the net income for City Hall based on taxes and the realities. A major change that I have no doubt will comply with section 8, to get taxes, has the foreseeable consequences of beefing up our police in number of officers and the kinds of safety for our FR’s and crowd gone bad (just because people will always press the safety envelope when they see where and how they live increase criminal activities. B’wd is not set up for urban crimes with their current number of FRs and need to review safety for our FR’s re alternatives to fire arm engagement. One poster has ALREADY said that kills for out of control thugs will stop the rise in crime. NO it will not. We need a higher number of professional CRJ’s and avoid killings to make a point about B’wd not standing for criminal activities. Once this is identified as a short-sheet of safety, people will come here JUST to do criminal harm. They will not even be from st. louis–they will be financed to artificially distort the truth of any event. Remember “Hands Up. Don’t shoot.”? THAT NEVER HAPPENED in truth. But we had the world looking at St Louis-Ferguson as a racist society. Ferguson has historically been a black version of B’wd—calm and residential. I truly do not believe the secondary consequences of a govt. subsidized shoe box sized apartments has been adequately examined. btw, i am a member of the NRA for constitutional reasons, and i also think CC weapons are constitutional. If b’wd is going to do this very foolish development, there are HUGE consequences. These are foreseeable consequences and no one is preparing for these consequences. THAT IS BAD PLANNING. I know you have heart John—but Brentwood is not set up for backing this re-zoning to be urban. Let people who are able to pay for their dwelling, rent one of the many rental existing properties. But to re-zone urban does not bode well for our City. We are not prepared for what are foreseeable consequences and they will manifest: i promise. Anyway, i easily get caught up in foreseeable negative consequences when many people are naive and do not see this train coming.Would LOVE to know who is flying blind, and if they would want their personal residences re-zoned urban. You know damn well there would be an huge outcry to preserve property values and that would eliminate the re-zoning. “hey, yeah–this is great, but not in my neighborhood.” This is the mentality of the ‘screw b’wd–let’s inappropriately change s*** make our money and then we are gone. G’night. maureen
Comments are closed.