Bob Sears.

You can tell Bob Sears has been here before. Serving on the council from 2010 to 2018 before being term-limited out, unlike everyone else I’ve written on so far, Sears has a real life voting record to run on. That record, at least from an urbanist perspective, is decidedly mixed. In 2018 Sears joined four other members of the council in approving the Madison condos, in 2017 he joined the unanimous approval of the expansion of the Magic House surface parking lot at the expense of the housing it replaced and in 2011 he found himself on the winning side of a 5-2 decision to bulldoze two urban oriented buildings in downtown Kirkwood in favor of a city owned surface lot. So how does Sears feel about that record and what would he like to add to it? I asked him some questions to find out, starting with that city owned lot:

1. In 2011, you voted in favor of tearing down two buildings in favor of 45 parking spaces. Would you vote the same way today? Should that lot be developed?

I would vote the same now.  There was a massive parking issue in the downtown area with a private lot threatening to raise the rent taxpayers pay to use it as a public lot.  Other lots are also privately owned and it was unclear whether we could depend upon them to continue their generosity. The buildings were in poor shape. At the time of my vote I said, and I still believe, that the plan must be to develop the property with a parking structure behind and a storefront on street level in keeping with the style of the neighboring buildings.  In the meantime, the property is a valuable asset held by the city and, as the city owner, has a great deal of control over what happens on that property; control that did not exist before.  Since it is such a valuable asset on the books of the city, the purchase was a net gain to the city’s balance sheet that is growing faster than our cash investments. 

2. What does walkability mean to you and what concrete ideas do you have for its implementation in Kirkwood?

Walkability means getting streets as safe as we can for foot traffic, understanding that no street can be made perfectly safe.  It also means good lighting downtown with active and vibrant shops with great architecture on a “human scale” meaning windows and doors and architectural features aren’t massive and overbearing.  It also includes the display of art where manageable and appropriate.  So it is a combination of design and safety.  Outside of downtown we need to require all new construction to provide ADA compliant sidewalks.  Where it makes sense and depending on budgets, the city should build some sidewalks as we did on south Geyer.  At other places, including downtown, we need to design in bike lanes, different street parking ideas, interesting pavement design.  

3. Theoretically would you support the Kirkwood Flats proposal? Why or why not?

It is difficult to answer that question having not been privy to all the plans and not knowing what the final presentation from the developer will be.  I can say that I could not have supported it as originally proposed.  Greater residential density surrounding our downtown is key to our businesses, walkability, and enjoyment. Our downtown was nearly dead several decades ago and revived when city planners permitted greater density on the area.  This is the next opportunity.  With this particular development, the number of additional people will make a negligible difference and we still won’t be close to our population in the 1970s. It will have an imperceptible effect on traffic given the current use of Kirkwood Rd.  Furthermore, with families spending only 20% or so of their purchasing budget in brick and mortar shops, bringing more people near our Kirkwood stores is even more important. Plus, people in general now walk more and drive less and want to live near the places they shop and eat.  I would insist on any development proposal to be within our size and height limits and to present excellent architecture.  

4. Do you support a ban on single family-exclusive zoning (i.e. eliminating the ban on duplexes in areas zoned R 1-4)? 

Another difficult question that needs much further exploration and research, both by me and the Council, and P & Z.  I don’t have a knee-jerk repulsion toward the idea.  It may well reflect the way more and more people want to live these days but the effect on the existing neighborhood is where I have concern. That said, many in the community desire more affordable and diverse housing, as do I.  In Kirkwood, much of the value is in the land rather than in the building.  That has been a gradual but recent change.  The only way to increase affordable housing given the situation is to either subsidize taxpayer money (which I reject) or allow for greater density.  Multiple residents on one lot share in the cost of the lot.  Many neighborhoods are very successful and have high property values even with a combination of duplexes and single family.  So the bottom line answer is I don’t reject the idea and believe is an important path to more affordable housing (not cheap housing) but I need to know more about how such efforts have effected the immediate neighborhoods where it has happened. 

You can tell Bob Sears has been here before. The first candidate to respond to my emailed questions by a magnitude of days, his answers were thorough. Where other candidates list their top three priorities, Bob’s website lists eight, each with its own multi-paragraph explanation. But you can also tell that Bob has been here before. More than any other candidate, I feel the desire to add commentary to Sears’ responses the most, to argue the economics, to push back against the supposed consensus or to offer the counter example of what he said on his mailer. He doesn’t paint himself into many corners and he doesn’t commit to much that anybody might find a deal-breaker. From NIMBY’s to Gadflies, you’ll likely find a phrasing you like somewhere. And in that phrasing he leaves himself plenty of room to escape. Every resident of Kirkwood from 18 on up has three votes to burn; Bob just happens to know that the last one counts just as much as the first. For now though, I’m going to let the questions and answers stand on their own.

Well, that’s three down, three to go. I intended to post write-ups of two candidates today but alas, life gets in the way when the grandparents come to town. So we’ll be back at it tomorrow when we ask some questions of dark-horse candidate Sandy Washington and take a look at the voting record of the two incumbents. As always, thanks for reading!