The Mayor's Stance on Preservation of the Police Headquarters 1:21 AM

From today's Post-Dispatch article:

Jeff Rainford, chief of staff for Mayor Francis Slay, said the mayor "will be for the most cost-effective option that is the most beneficial option to the Police Department and we don't know what that is yet." He said the mayor was not interested in a temporary solution.

Those options are to A) rehabilitate the 1927 structure, B) demolish and rebuild, or C) relocate altogether. Somehow I doubt that the quote from Jeff Rainford indicates that the city will look at what the effects of losing a solid, historic structure would be when you have a surface lot across the street. Or the value of embodied energy. Or how to build a better building than what's already there.

Option B is ludicrous.

Police Department on Blairmont: "Are you meaning to accuse them of arson?" 6:52 PM

Last week, I called the St. Louis Fire Department to see if they had read any of the bloggers' coverage of the arsons in Blairmontland. I wanted to see if they were aware of what we preservationists, community developers, and concerned residents all are: that Blairmont owns a lot of property in the arson-afflicted areas, and that they have a history of illegal demolitions and otherwise severely neglected property. The arsons might, in fact, be a cheaper way of realizing the slow process of demolitions that has occurred already.

The STLFD referred me to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. A detective (remember--I don't do names. I wrote down the phonetic spelling this time, but left it at work) returned my call today while I was at work.

Essentially, the conversation in my cubicle quickly became a trial of my logic and a defense of Blairmont. Also interesting was that the detective was fully aware of who or what "Blairmont" was, sometimes referring to the company as a "he" (Paul McKee, Jr.?). Read on.

As usual, this is NOT an exact transcript, just my memory of the exchange. If that sounds altogether too shaky for you to accept, feel free to disregard the post. I was pretty fired up (pun truthfully not intended), so a lot of what was said was burnt into my otherwise wont-to-falter memory.

Me: "I was just calling to see if the Police Department was aware of the owners of the property in that string of arsons last week in north St. Louis, because the Blairmont holding companies own almost all of them."

Detective: "Blairmont doesn't own them all, but, yes, we are looking into the case. Does that settle your question?"

Me: "Well, Blairmont owned nine out of eleven. That's a significant percentage."

Detective: "Well, they own a lot of buildings in the area, so that makes sense" [he laughs]

Me: "The LRA owns even more property, and not a single one of their buildings was burnt."

Det.: "Look. This city experiences arsons quite often. Are you suggesting Blairmont is committing arson? That's a pretty bold claim."

Me: "The arsons just happened to occur in the area that Blairmont is speculating within. Plus, there were eleven. I have been tracking the Blairmont companies through several websites and blogs. They routinely empty out occupied properties. At best, they remove the boards from the windows and at worst they seem to summon illegal brick rustlers. I fully believe that the case is pretty strong against Blairmont. They have an awful track record."

Det.: "I have been on the force for 14 years. These fires are not that uncommon. We've had problems with properties being vacant for years, long before Blairmont. And we've had a problem with arsons long before Blairmont too."

Me: "Well, then, let me ask you: in your 14 years, how often have 11 buildings been put up in flames in the same neighborhood in one night?"

Det.: "It's happened at least two or three times."

Me: "Two or three times doesn't seem like a lot to me. I'd say that this is a pretty suspicious occurrence. Especially when you consider that Blairmont has to take action by June in order to collect on a tax credit act he secured for land acquisition up there in north St. Louis."

Det.: "Why would he burn the buildings? That ruins the brick. Brick rustlers wouldn't want them burned."

Me: "To my knowledge, the fire helps separate the bricks from the wood so they're ready to be stacked and carted away."

Det.: "That's not my understanding. I have to disagree with that. The bricks get charred."

Me: "Well, I'm just stating what I've read on some architecture websites and blogs. Plus, the arsons make for cheaper demolitions, do they not?"

Det.: "I don't think so. I mean, the owner still has to clear away the rubble. I think it might cost more to do it that way."

Me: "I don't have the numbers on that, but I've always thought it would be cheaper to have a fire take down a building, along with brick rustlers, than it is to hire a demolition contractor to take down 75 acres worth of buildings."

Det.: "I don't think so. I think the owner still pays for all that."

Me: "Well, even if you're ready to dismiss that Blairmont might have started the fires themselves, you have to treat Blairmont properties as especially dangerous considering how often they're subjected to brick rustling, demolition by neglect, and arson. Even if it is coincidence, you have to look at the fate of each one of his buildings. They're falling down. One blogger has taken photos for the past 70 days of Blairmont properties. Like clockwork, after Blairmont gets to them, they're turned into rubble and brick rustlers get to them. Seems a little odd to me. If I were conducting an investigation of the arsons, I'd be suspicious of Blairmont. I'm not saying that it's a clear and demonstrable fact, but there is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an investigation, I think."

Det.: "I have to prove. I can't go on that kind of evidence. So you're wanting to accuse them of arson. That's pretty bold."

Me: "Blairmont has shown such a demonstrable lack of care for its properties in north St. Louis that it's hard to ignore what's happening. I would suggest you visit the blog I'm talking about. It has pictures--before and afters and stuff."

Det.: "What is it?"

Me: "builtstlouis.blogspot.com"

Det.: "Well, I will look into this. Thanks for calling."

Me: "Yeah. Thanks for your time."

The detective's tone bordered on mockery. It sounded as if he was tasked with deflecting public criticism and scrutiny in light of the strong case one could make against Blairmont.


If the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is not outraged by the endangerment of city residents enough to further investigate (perhaps indirect) foul play by Blairmont, what hope do any grassroots groups and citizens have to fight the urban renewal scheme--or at least involve themselves in it?


Sure makes you wonder.

Coming up... 4:55 PM

My recounting of this morning's surprising phone conversation with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department regarding Blairmont and last week's suspicious string of arsons.

Stay tuned.

St. Louis needs to become a "walking city" again if it hopes to reduce crime. 9:30 AM

A brilliant presentation in my "Citizen Participation" class inspired me to write this post.

My friend and the presenter in question, Rosie, used a timeless quote from Jane Jacobs' seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

No amount of police can enforce civilization where the normal casual enforcement of it has broken down.

What Jacobs means is that, without "eyes on the street" and people that care for (rather than fear) their community, neighborhoods will inevitably decline regardless of police presence. Law enforcement officials cannot replace a social fabric that was designed to offer mutual protection by neighborhood stewardship and vigilance.

One New Orleans group named SilenceisViolence has risen up against that city's crime wave to, to use the apt cliche, "take back the streets". "City Walks" is a program they sponsor in which a group of residents take...:

...weekly evening strolls from one New Orleans neighborhood to another. These walks are intended to nurture connections among neighborhoods, to establish a positive, anti-violence presence on our streets, and to bring new faces to businesses around the city. The City Walks will be held each Sunday evening, with a 7pm departure. We will walk 1-2 miles each week and will have a small reception at our destination establishment. Transportation will be provided back to the departure establishment.

What a simple and completely doable idea this could be for St. Louis. It is positive on so many fronts.

1. It encourages walking through St. Louis neighborhoods--the very best form of transportation by which to appreciate this beautiful city is the tried-and-tested foot.
2. It takes people through stigmatized and crime ridden neighborhoods so that residents can both take in the "bad" and appeal to the "good" that the neighborhood has to offer.
3. It adds activity to neighborhoods that don't often see a wave of meandering pedestrians.
4. It potentially builds cooperation and trust between neighbors who perhaps were too afraid to leave their homes to speak to one another before.
5. It links adjacent neighborhoods and teaches residents to recognize that we shouldn't be so damn parochial!
   

In a city that reported 138 homicides last year such as St. Louis, the City Walks program could only serve to benefit the more forlorn of the city's streets.

Lest crimes be reported as merely those of "St. Louis"... 1:15 PM

...the honorable former mayor Vincent C. Schoemehl, Jr. suggested a neighborhood name designation program that is mostly unaltered today.

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article written in 1989 focuses primarily on how crime reporting will change post-neighborhood definitions. No longer will all of "north St. Louis" be pegged with the wrongdoings of "Mark Twain", it says. And it says again. And again. And again. ... And again:

The Police Department is cooperating with Schoemehl's plan by designating specific neighborhoods of occurrence in police reports. ''We hope it will instill some pride in the neighborhoods,'' Police Chief Robert E. Scheetz said. So, police reports will reflect that: If a drug dealer is shot in the 3300 block of Clara Avenue, he's shot in the Wells Goodfellow neighborhood, in addition to the specific address. If a man is arrested for cultivating marijuana on Garner Avenue in southwest St. Louis, he's arrested in Franz Park. If a woman is robbed in the 1700 block of South Grand Boulevard, she's been robbed in Tiffany. If a woman is raped in the 1900 block of Benton Street, she's raped in St. Louis Place. If another woman is raped in the 3900 block of Cote Brilliante Avenue, she's raped in the Greater Ville. If a man is arrested for selling cocaine in the 5200 block of Lillian Avenue, he's also arrested in the Mark Twain neighborhood.

Why is our major daily speaking of hypothetical rapes?

Okay, so I'm picking on this article that is rather interesting. I had always wondered when today's neighborhood nomenclature had arisen.

As if to taunt, however, LexisNexis refuses to let me see the graphic in the original article, which is said to contain a map of Schoemehl's 74 neighborhoods, not today's 79.

Luckily, the bottom of the article leaves us to guess with its text only description of the graphic, featuring all of the following neighborhoods that, I suppose, did not make the cut or are slightly different from those that did.

• Kingshighway South (Northhampton, I assume, since Southampton is there.)
• The "Southwest" and "Garden" neighborhoods are not yet merged.
• North Tower Grove (Shaw's there, but Tower Grove South isn't. That wouldn't make sense though. (?))
• Dutchtown's just Dutchtown (no South) and McKinley is just McKinley (no Heights).
• East Compton (Tower Grove East?)
• Terry Park(Gate District - western portion)
• Lafayette Towne (Also the Gate District)
• Central Business District (As opposed to Downtown and Downtown West)
• Forest Park South (No "Southeast")
• University High Area (King's Oak, I suppose, but "High Area"? Are you kidding me?)
• Cabanne (This one appeared on Norbury Wayman's 1970s-era neighborhood list--this is today's "West End")
• Ivory (In Carondelet? The Ivory Triangle? But it's grouped with all of the north neighborhoods...)
• Perry (Anyone?)

It's funny how un-organically and in top-down fashion these neighborhoods were created. Yes, they used current neighborhood organization boundaries, but some seem rather ignored today (Hamilton Heights, Kings Oak) and other obvious ones aren't even represented (Dogtown instead of Clayton-Tamm, etc.; Laclede's Landing; Kingshighway Hills in Northampton).

Maybe reexamining neighborhood boundaries/names would reawaken civic pride (or at least activity). A citywide charette in several different neighborhoods where residents have to show up to defend and define their 'hoods might be just the sort of civic revival that is needed for St. Louisans to take pride enough in their neighborhoods to avoid another Southtown Centre or St. Louis Marketplace.

Just a thought.