Maplewood Mayor Barry Greenberg has responded to comments made on the report on the proposed Community Improvement District, which was discussed at Tuesday’s city council meeting.
Greenberg’s response:
Many of the comments made regarding the establishment of a Community Improvement District (CID) are inaccurate based on what appears to be a lack of understanding of how a CID is established and its intended purpose, the concept of use tax and how sales tax on automobiles is paid in the state of Missouri.
A more detailed explanation of the structure of a CID is available at:
https://www.armstrongteasdale.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Summary%20of%20CID-8992440-1.PDF
The CID receives an assessment of one percent of goods sold within the district that are subject to sales tax and the same for use tax. Sales tax is pretty straightforward, use tax is discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax
Sales tax on automobiles is based on where the buyer lives, not where the vehicle was sold.
Based on the provided information, some of the comments previously made are inaccurate and some I would consider to be negligent. I implore readers to conduct more research and analysis prior to accusing elected officials of being “on the take” or suggesting actions that would not be in compliance with applicable law. Apparently you hold your elected officials to a much higher standard than yourself. I would also suggest that you attend Council meetings to gain an understanding of the process and use the opportunity to voice your concerns in a venue where you can’t post anonymously and you have to take ownership for your comments.
Wanted to share this timely article and audit report on existing CIDs in the region, to further inform the debate. https://bit.ly/2BJhwEQ
This is a very interesting discussion. Mr. Greenberg, what are the best ways, in your opinion, for a Maplewood resident to be better informed and more involved in Maplewood’s affairs? Thank you.
Luke, Tired Of It and others,
Don’t let them intimidate you. I attended the council meetings for almost 2 years, attempting to do exactly what the Mayor suggested–to learn about how the process works. My conclusion? The whole thing is designed to intimidate and the desired outcome is the exact opposite of getting the citizens involved: The elevated dais, the Robert’s Rules of Order, the presence of a city attorney, the reliance on legal language, the requirement that citizens speak BEFORE hearing or reading any dialog on any topic, the fact that questions to the council are prohibited during meetings, only one way statements of very limited time are allowed.
So as a concerned citizen, you walk into an unfamiliar setting, with unfamiliar rules and are asked to make a statement on a topic that you came to learn more about, but BEFORE you’ve heard any discussion or read any supporting materials. Concerned citizens are effectively shoved into a structured channel that is designed to drive them to the conclusion that their best approach is to stay quiet, say nothing and “let the experts handle things.”
In counter to that approach, consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approach. In contrast to the City Council, the P&Z is set up to encourage people to come and hear what is being proposed and the various pros and cons. They are specifically invited to attend hearings that affect their neighborhoods/businesses. They are encouraged to ask questions in a setting where true understanding is possible (notice I didn’t say “agreement,” which is a different matter, but understanding is the first step in “getting involved.”) The P&Z chair controls order and agenda flow, but the process is intended to leave room for citizens to proactively interact with their government.
Council meetings are the antithesis of citizen participation. If they were REALLY interested in input, they would be actively seeking it, instead of chastising you for not being informed. They invent the language used, control the tools, the format and likely result. And then they want to tell you that the problem is that you aren’t involved enough.
As for anonymity, some the greatest documents in the world were written under an alias. Sometimes it might be wise not to stick your head up too far in a city where the people you are criticizing have their hands on the levers of citation power, code enforcement and the ability to create and enforce laws. “Discretion is the better part of valor.”
Q!
Well said, Q. This is a very accurate summation of how a city council meeting is run. Public input is always welcome and sought, but, is best handled at the committee meeting level, or thru personal contact with your councilperson prior to the council meeting. Once an item is on the agenda, the debating and planning is already completed. The items on the council agenda are a culmination of much study and public input through the P&Z, Parks Board, Sustainability Commission, or other boards supporting the city. These are non-compensated positions of citizen volunteers that regularly meet to discuss issues or problems and guide our elected officials to decisions that will most benefit our community.
Planning and zoning IS an extension of the city council. As suggested by Dave, that is the level at which much more involvement is available.
The link provided by the Mayor explains what a CID is, but says nothing about exactly where CID be located and who would pay the 1%? sales tax. Who pays the tax if car buyers are not? It sure seems like what Sunnen wants, Sunnen gets — Wal-mart, the Metrolink station only two blocks away from the Manchester Rd station, the car dealerships along Hanley, the 250 unit apartment building on Flora, etc. Can we assume if this CID eventually passes, that the sales tax will fund future development behind dealerships up to the Metrolink tracks? It cannot be simply be to reimburse Sunnen for demolishing the old neighborhood and the development(s) completed so far, can it?
What is the purpose of the CID? It seems like we’re going to be paying this sales tax for 25 years so that we can pay some company for building a car dealership. If that is what we’re doing, then why are we doing it?
You will only be paying into the CID if you buy parts from a business within the CID.
This CID is tiny. It’s only the strip of Hanley near Sunnen, and the only people paying the tax levied by this CID are the patrons of the Porsche, Maserati/Alfa Romeo and Mini dealerships.
I personally have no tears to shed for those who choose to drive these cars and must now pay an additional 1% for their oil changes.
Any cluster of businesses can draw up a petition and plan for the use of funds and form a CID. Sometimes there can be issues with transparency of how funds are used, but for the most part they are pretty benign.
Fun fact, did you know that the Starbucks on Grand is its own tiny CID? Literally that one business signed a petition and turned it in (easy to get everyone to agree to the formation of the CID when everyone is just you) to become perhaps St. Louis’s smallest political entity capable of levying taxes. I think they just use the funds for upkeep and landscaping?
John Oliver did a segment on special taxing districts a while back that is interesting/funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3saU5racsGE
PS: Anonymous posting is hella lame.
I would also like to point out that our elected officials also have the same amount of time in their day as everyone else, and they have chosen to sacrifice a good part of it as public servants.
Communication between the city and residents can always improve. I personally would like council meetings to be filmed and uploaded to YouTube, just as the County Council does. But at some point people need to take a bit of agency for themselves and their civic engagement.
Well said, Jon-Erik!
America has always held its leaders to a much higher standard. We expect our leaders to be of a higher fiber to lead us to a higher place. Political careers are damaged and ended by reports of an offense or indiscretion that would barely be a ripple in a private life. Millions are spent by political parties and politicians pointing out that opponents are of a lower standard. The American voter feels she or he has a right to expect that our leaders, whether appointed or elected, whether in Maplewood, Jefferson City or Washington D.C. be of a higher standard in all aspects. We consider it as an unspoken promise that when you run for office you will uphold a higher standard.
What is surprising Mr. Mayor is that you seem surprised by that. That is worrisome given that some of our State and Federal leaders are apparently also unaware of that ideal. If anything, perhaps we, as voters, should be more insistent on that higher standard.
You urge people to do more research and analysis, but that is what you and the council were elected to do. You complain that people don’t have an understanding of something but you don’t try to explain it, you post a link. How would you feel if you cardiologist told you “Well I’m a little concerned, follow this link and you’ll know why.”
And yes Mr. Mayor, I am posting this anonymously because I hope it’s the sentiment of more than just one person. So no, you won’t know my name, and apparently that may upset you, but then again, you didn’t know my name when I voted for you either, did you?
“America has always held its leaders to a much higher standard.” I guess you never heard of Donald Trump?
Good call there.
I still like the mayor and don’t think one unfortunate comment made out of frustration should provoke such a harsh response, but yeah, the last few lines read should have been crafted more carefully.
I do see in those lines though Mr. Greenberg does want people to care about the community and show up, but we do all have lives & you don’t always know what battles your neighbors are fighting. Some of us don’t have time or patience left at the end of the day to attend city council meetings and deal with the frustrations of bureaucracy. We just want the bad things about our community changed and the new things done right, and that’s why we elect representatives whose judgement we’re supposed to trust (but also speak out about when we disagree).
As far as the Trump comment, just because we can’t expect better from our big country doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expect better from our community. I completely agree with the anonymous commenter that elected officials should be held to a higher standard.
I don’t mind being held to a higher standard, the part that frustrates me is commenters drawing conclusions from partial or inaccurate information and thinking that their conclusions are correct.
I don’t agree that I should need to research, analyze and draw conclusions for my constituents. There is nuance to all of the issues and if I expected everyone to subscribe to my train of thought I would not have the benefit of their input, not that everyone would believe everything I say. The conversation works best when all sides are informed and discussion is based on processing facts not factoids or conjecture.
I have no problem with the conversation that is taking place here. But when someone suggests that myself or one of the other council members is engaged in shady practices based on flawed logic, I would like to be able to address them directly and not have them hide behind a cloak of anonymity.
I may or may not know your name, but if you were on of the 85% of the households I visited when I ran for office, you would know more about why I ran for office. I would rather do my job as mayor than address misinformation posted as a “factual” opinion.
I do agree though that posting links is not the answer for most of us. A synopsis of what is in the links with an explanation of it would help those of us with busy lives have a better understanding. We are hoping that you as our elected official would have done the research and be able to give us an unbiased explanation of the policies that we don’t understand and are commenting on in this format. If there is confusion, and you subscribe to this online format, perhaps you could help us get better perspective in your response, rather than a link telling us to do our research. This is a public forum, perhaps you could defer from sending us elsewhere and explain it to those who voted you into office.
One person made a comment about a “Politico being on the take” and no one agreed with him, so I am not sure where your “frustration” came from. Links aren’t a good response and I really don’t care for the way you talked down to all of us in your response. The council meetings are a joke and there isn’t anything that an ordinary citizen can say or do that would change any of your votes. Visiting “85%” of the households in Maplewood is a big number to brag about, I guess my area was in the 15% that you didn’t. I didn’t vote for you, but I would never talk down to you or call you names like a lot of people in this community. I may not care for some of your politics/policies but I would never insult you like some of the “Progressive” people that comment on this site do when people don’t agree with them.
Well said.
I do not see the reasoning behind “Anonymous'” comment for why he/she doesn’t provide a name. If others agree then they agree. What does giving a name or not have to do with agreeing or not? The Internet has allowed for all types of rudeness and despicable remarks, under the cloak of anonymity, to be made. Too many want to spout off allowing juvenile, raw, undiscplined outrage and other inanities to spew out of themselves as though they were draining their septic tanks. This may be psychologically beneficial to empty themelves of their hostilities, but does no good, only harm, to the general good. I completely agree with Mayor Greenberg that our country is inundated with those who speak without knowledge of the facts. Rather, they create their own facts from raw emotions, beliefs in fictionalized worlds or not putting out the effort to study and learn the actual facts. I am always amazed by those who have had no thought nor opinion on any particular matter until asked at which point they conjure an opinion (I have to include myself in these ranks). This is extremely dangerous to democracies as an informed public is absolutely required for a country to proceed in wise directions. Also, of great value is open, civil discussion, not retreat into entrenched positions huddled together with those of like beliefs.
Mayor Greenberg and the Council should come up with more intuitive ways to engage the community rather than saying “attend council meetings”. That time of day is bath/story/bedtime for my kids. I guess I will have to skip that and attend a council meeting to make the suggestion of an online chat or Q&A. I’d love to be more engaged in the community but my time with my family is far more sacred.
I m open to suggestions on how I can interact more with our citizens and with more citizens.
Not a very professional response.
I am not sure whose response you are referring to.
Comments are closed.