Kirkwood’s Next Mayor

If you haven’t yet gotten the chance to check out my analysis of the six candidates vying to join Zimmer or Gibbons on the Council, I think it provides some good context for the article below and is worth checking out ahead of Tuesday’s election!

---

This coming Tuesday, Kirkwood will elect a new Mayor for the first time in eight years. When the city’s voters step into the booth to make their selection, they will be presented with two current council members: Mark Zimmer and Liz Gibbons. A race between two council incumbents should be a close election, but all signs (yard signs, endorsements, Webster-Kirkwood Times letters to the editor), anecdotal though they may be, indicate that Liz Gibbons is about to run away with it.

So today, I think it makes sense to focus on the presumptive winner and spend most of our time exploring how Gibbons has built such a strong base of support, the ideological perspective she’ll bring to the chamber’s central seat, and ultimately what a new Mayor will mean for Kirkwood going forward.

But before we get ahead of ourselves (and Zimmer poses with a printout of this piece like Truman holding the Chicago Tribune), let’s do a bit of background coverage of the horse race itself and how people who care about improving Kirkwood’s affordability, economic growth, and walkability should vote in it.

Zimmer v. Gibbons

While I’m fairly confident that Gibbons will defeat Zimmer, I remain divided as to whether or not I’d prefer the latter to the former. On the one hand, I find Gibbons to be the more capable of the two. She has the types of connections that help make things happen, communicates better than any Kirkwood politician in recent memory, and will likely be elected with the sort of margins that would allow her to make tough decisions with the confidence that she can survive any ensuing political backlash (more on these qualities in a bit).

On the other hand, Zimmer has logged a slightly better voting record of the two, particularly on the issue of housing supply. Longtime Gadfly readers will know that the skyrocketing costs of housing (not just in Kirkwood but across the country) originates from the fact that we’ve stopped building enough of it.

While Zimmer hasn’t exactly blazed a new path towards unlocking the level of supply we’d need to fix the issue, he has at least voted to approve some projects that should help the situation, at the margin. In addition to approving the Kirkwood Apartments and Aria in unanimous votes, Zimmer also supported all three of Savoy’s condo projects on Madison, each of which was contested by at least one member of the council. That’s 38 new homes in Downtown Kirkwood that Zimmer could’ve gone the other way, but he didn’t.

Gibbons was not elected until the last of those three projects, The Hutton, came before the Council in 2020, but when it did, she balked and provided the council’s lone “no” vote on the project. I don’t have a lot of doubts that if she had been given a vote on the previous two Savoy projects (both of which received more criticism than The Hutton) she would have voted “no” on those as well.

Although Zimmer has amassed the superior voting record on housing, unfortunately, the two candidates have more similarities than they do differences. Both Zimmer and Gibbons provided the Council’s only two votes against The James, the project that has done the single most for Kirkwood’s affordability since the construction of The Station Plaza development in the early aughts. Housing is the issue I care about the most, so I’m pretty disappointed that the choice we’ve been left with is between two of the Council’s most housing skeptical members. The differences are there, but they’re not stark.

So if Gibbons is probably going to win, and the alternative is leaves a lot to be desired, what should you do at the polls? Do you vote for Gibbons in the hopes that offering your support will make her more receptive to the YIMBY point-of-view going forward or do you vote for the candidate that has the marginally better record on the issue? Both seem like valid strategies, but I fear that neither would meaningfully move the needle. A few extra votes for Gibbons will get lost in the large margins I expect her to run up, while a housing-based protest vote for Zimmer would probably just blend in with all the other protest votes against Gibbons (I’m thinking in particular of the Safer Streets crowd) and muddy the message.

Instead, to voice clear concern with both Gibbons’ and Zimmer’s housing records (while not burning a bridge with either of them), I think the best option might be to write in Bob Sears, the council candidate with the best record on housing. That might sound sort of loony, but precisely because it would be so out of left field and precisely because he’s become so closely associated with housing issues (He’s been endorsed by myself and Kirkwood for Everyone), I think a sizable Sears write-in total could provide a pretty clear statement of what we’re asking of the Council and provide a clear signal to any future pro-housing candidates out there that their is a base constituency that will back them.

Usually, politics are decided at the margin and we have to do the mature thing and side with the marginally better candidate and make whatever progress we can, but to my mind, Gibbons is such a lock to win that I think a more radical protest might be our only way of moving the needle. But anyway, enough preamble, let’s meet your new Mayor.

Meet Your Mayor

One of the surprises of this race, at least for me, has been outgoing Mayor Tim Griffin’s endorsement of Gibbons as the best choice to serve as his replacement despite the stark differences in view they’ve taken towards development in Downtown Kirkwood. When the Webster-Kirkwood Times ran their Mayoral preview a couple of weeks back, we finally got some insights into his reasoning. As the Times paraphrased, Griffin endorsed Gibbons because he believes that her “‘large network of friends, followers, and supporters’ will trust her to make tough decisions.”

I think that quote speaks to two things pretty directly. The first is that Gibbon’s large network and many connections really does give her certain advantages in what she can potentially achieve as Mayor, and the second is that for better or worse, Gibbons does have a substantial base of support, which should insulate her from blowback if and when she has to make tough decisions (like on housing) for the betterment of the community. I think the best way to look at the hopes and fears I associate with a Gibbons administration is to look at a few of the areas where these unique advantages could have a substantial impact on the course a Gibbons would chart for the community.

Friends in High Places

Gibbons has connections with everyone from the Kirkwood-Des Peres Chamber of Commerce (which named her as its 2022 Citizen of the Year), to the family-run vendor of the Kirkwood Farmer’s Market, Summit Produce, which has all but endorsed her run, but the relationships that will yield the most significant opportunities for Kirkwood are likely those that Gibbons has formed with the state’s Republican leadership. These relationships —likely at least partially the result of Gibbons’ husband’s service as both a Republican state representative and senator— have proven especially valuable in securing state funding for Amtrak-related initiatives.

When the state legislature cut funding for Amtrak in their FY 2022 budget leaving Kirkwood with a single daily train rather than two, Gibbons spearheaded Kirkwood’s lobbying effort to get the funding restored, ultimately resulting in the resumption of full service six months later.

In that same budget, Kirkwood also received a matching grant of $2.5M to go towards the upcoming renovations to Kirkwood Station, largely at the behest of Gibbons’ working relationship with Republican Representative Dean Plocher, who was at the time the Majority Floor Leader. Since then, Plocher has become the Speaker of the House (and since has found himself embroiled in several high-profile scandals).

Then, in December 2023, Gibbons rode Amtrak with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission lobbying for further support of train service to Kirkwood. Then, in her January 16th council update newsletter, Gibbons mentioned that “Amtrak’s Missouri River Runner is being looked at by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for possible expansion to 3 trains per day,” before going on to explain what a positive economic impact such an expansion would bring to the city. She also noted that we were a long way off from a third daily train actually coming to fruition (again, the state legislature’s disinterest in providing funding is a big impediment here), but Gibbons’ signature force of will is probably the single biggest asset we could bring to bear in our attempt to break through the deadlock (short of significantly increasing population density —and thus demand for trips— around the station).

Even if Gibbons can’t convert such a hail mary, though, I think there’s good reason to believe that these sorts of relationships could grease the wheels of lower-hanging fruit, like ensuring that Kirkwood’s new station gets funding for a new raised platform to allow for easier on and off-boarding, a critical piece of infrastructure for ensuring Kirkwood can become the sort of cycling destination that we aspire to be.

Housing

I also am hopeful that Gibbons will (or perhaps has) come to realize that her voting record on housing really is diametrically opposed to many of her other top priorities and that allowing the development of more homes would improve the viability of signature issues like Amtrak and the Grant’s Tail. Perhaps it was just another sign of her significant political acumen, but Gibbons’ responses at the Kirkwood for Everyone candidate forum indicated that there are perhaps some reasons for optimism on this front.

Gibbons has the single worst voting record on the forum’s central topic, but she managed to turn in one of the forum’s best performances. She voiced a clear understanding that the only real way to improve Kirkwood’s affordability is to build our way out, “I think what we need to do is be able to provide additional housing in Kirkwood so level out the cost of housing. In November of 2022, the average home in Kirkwood sold for 750,000. That is a shock to me that we have gotten to that point. But the more housing that we offer, whether it’s apartments, duplexes, triplexes, like I mentioned before, the more we have to offer, the more that’s going to level out. what the costs of homes are. So I think adding to our housing stock is the answer.”

Now we’ve already discussed Gibbons’ spotty record on granting variances to bigger apartment and condo projects, so I think ADUs, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and other missing-middle forms is probably her preferred route to increasing our housing stock. That’s probably not great news for places like Downtown (when I asked her questions ahead of the 2020 election she stated that the site of the James would be better utilized as townhomes, which I fundamentally disagree with given how necessary street-level retail spaces are for creating a walkable community), but for Kirkwood as a whole, I think facilitating this kind of light density could really help. Not only would a broad up-zoning of Kirkwood’s single-family lots (which occupy the vast majority of Kirkwood’s zoning map) provide real scale to increases in our housing supply, it also could potentially achieve this while avoiding the polarizing effects large one-off apartment projects often have and thus prove to be more a sustainable solution until the backlash to Downtown’s rapid changes subsides.

Gibbons also used the forum to outline at least one area of the code that she thought could use liberalizing and which also seemed to enjoy broad consensus from the rest of the candidates on the stage, stating, “One of the things that we have in our code right now is floor area ratio, FAR. And it doesn’t have anything to do with lot coverage. The floor area ratio includes an upstairs. So that limits people on what they can add on… We still have the lot coverage requirement. So what does it matter whether it’s a first floor or a second floor?” She concluded “that’s an area that we could really make some strong changes in our code and allow more people to add on to their homes.”

Kirkwood has all kinds of these overlapping zoning rules that make it harder to both interpret what is allowed and more difficult to build more broadly. Simplifying these aspects of the code and stripping out the places where it’s repetitive strikes me as a very worthwhile goal.

Some other changes seem likely to be more difficult to get Gibbons to agree to. Gibbons gave momentum to the cause of bringing the Grant’s Trail extension to Downtown Kirkwood and did a lot of behind-the-scenes work to fruition, which she deserves a tremendous amount of credit for, but unfortunately, she also seems reluctant to fully capitalize on her pet project’s transformative potential.

When I asked Gibbons whether she would be supportive of rezoning the industrial land that surrounds the trail en route to Downtown to allow restaurants, beer gardens, and housing, she remained largely evasive. After originally evading the question —instead choosing to highlight how the project could bring visitors to downtown who would spend money without taking up parking spots— Gibbons eventually offered: “Yes, I think we should definitely put things along the trail. And as a matter of fact, there’s a coffee roaster that’s right along where we want the trail to go. We’ve been working with Union Pacific to get that spur. What a great place for a little coffee place. So, yes.”

Given how much time and effort she’s invested in the project, you’d think Gibbons would be naturally motivated to achieve the biggest return on that investment. If Grant’s Trail is going to bring in visitors from outside of Kirkwood to spend money Downtown without adding to parking demand, as Gibbons said, then surely allowing people to live along the trail inside Kirkwood would yield even greater benefits. It’s a lot easier to walk or bike along the trail to Downtown when it’s a five-minute journey rather than a 30 minute one from Affton, so I allowing for the former should yield even more sales tax revenue than the latter, while also dramatically improving the property tax revenue the city brings in.

That tax revenue could then be reinvested in projects that would pay similar dividends for Kirkwood (like my proposed “Frisco Trail” connecting Downtown Kirkwood to Downtown Webster via East Adams and Lockwood) and which fall precisely in Gibbon’s wheelhouse.

Allowing the land along the trail to be put to its highest value use would also improve our community’s affordability. Even better, I think it could achieve this without garnering too much political backlash as the industrial land has almost no current residents so it lacks a natural constituency to oppose such development.

Given this political expediency and Gibbons’ nose for finding political wins, I’m hopeful that there’s still progress to be made here, especially given the impact such a rezoning could have for the Kirkwood Performing Arts Center, which continues to face challenges. That project was the brainchild of former council member Wallace Ward, an ally of Gibbons who has endorsed her for Mayor. While on the council, Ward argued that moving the theatre to the southern portion of Downtown would help spur development in that part of the city and Gibbons seems motivated to make good on her friend’s promise. When the Aria, currently under construction across the street from KPAC, came before the Council, Gibbons offered enthusiastic support for the project. If we had two or three Arias within a short walk down the trail from the KPAC, you’d significantly increase both the theatre’s customer base and it’s overall economic impact and I think you could very clearly articulate that both investments were indeed worth it.

Walkability

I already mentioned that the pedestrian safety crowd has some significant disagreements with Gibbons, but I think she’s demonstrated real growth on the subject of walkability as well. When I asked her in an ideal world what she’d like to see come of the Jefferson city-owned parking lots that the city put out requests for proposals on late last year, Gibbons offered:

“First of all, one of the things we’ve learned on the West Jefferson, the break with the parking lot in the middle of our shopping really creates an issue with people not going all the way down the block. So I believe that putting something there that would have retail so that we’d have retail or restaurants, what have you, all the way down the block would be a real advantage. strong on and this was Marina who came in from DC for a consultant on our master plan. that no building should be higher than two stories to its neighbor. So if we were to put something in on Jefferson, in my opinion, it shouldn’t be more than three stories, which would make it only two stories next to each other. And the last thing is we want a hotel somewhere in Kirkwood.”

Now, when combined with the parking requirements the city has placed on those lots, those goals are pretty incompatible, but improving the pedestrian experience by bridging the gap in the street wall on the West Jefferson lot is the right idea and indicates to me that Gibbons is at least thinking beyond the shortsighted idea to put a parking garage on the site.

Gibbons also demonstrated some good pedestrian safety instincts on the North Kirkwood Road diet. When the proposal first came before the council, the plans called for simply changing the two existing curbside travel lanes to parking lanes. While that change would have been an improvement over the status-quo, it also defied the established best practice of prioritizing a center-turn lane (which reduces congestion and accidents) over additional parking spots. This flawed version initial version of the project was advanced by the Council on a 5-2 vote, but Zimmer’s and Gibbons’s opposition seems to have paved the way for a temporary demonstration version of the project (which Gibbons claims credit for in much of her campaign literature) and ultimately its revision to include the center turn lane that was originally omitted. Once revised, both council members came around to backing the project in its improved form.

I’m not sure whether Gibbons was legitimately supportive of the road diet or rather simply saw the writing on the wall and did what she could to improve a project she fundamentally disagreed with, but I’m at least encouraged by the fact that when asked if she’d support implementing further such diets on streets like South Kirkwood Road and Big Bend at the Candidate Forum, Gibbons (and Zimmer) raised her hand that she would.

Kirkwood at a Crossroads

I think this article has mostly highlighted some of the ways that I’m optimistic about a Gibbons administration. I hope that optimism is not misplaced, because now is a critical inflection point for our community.

Coming out of the 2008 financial crisis and the completion of the Kirkwood Station Plaza development, new development in Kirkwood was essentially stagnate. Then, as the economy began to recover and with a Mayor who prioritized economic development, especially downtown, at the helm, Kirkwood started to come back to life. Multifamily developments first started to pop up along Madison with Savoy’s three condo buildings, then the city bankrolled the construction of a new Downtown performing arts center; the Grant’s Trail project came shortly thereafter, which were then themselves followed by even larger private investments in the form of The James, and Kirkwood Apartments, and The Aria.

That’s a lot of change in a short period, and I think some level of political backlash was inevitable. People see small homes being torn down and big apartment buildings going up, they see roads getting narrower and parking more scarce and they want some who is going to put a stop to it all. I sincerely disagree with that point of view, but fully acknowledge that the sentiment is real and prevalent. If we’re going to face down that backlash, we’re going to need a politician with the electoral strength and communication skills needed to be able to resist fully caving to that backlash and instead shape the discontent that backs it into a more sustainable future. I hope Mayor Gibbons can be that person.