|
|
One thing that originally drew me to housing as an issue is that, at least in theory, it's pretty nonpartisan. Its founding principles are decidedly pro-free market, anti-red tape, and pro-small government in nature, and yet its goals —more affordable housing, reduced segregation, and access to opportunity— are long-time progressive goals. That dual appeal is what has allowed YIMBYs to make meaningful progress in places as blue as California and as red as Montana.
|
It's also why I really try very hard to keep this blog non-partisan as possible. No matter who you voted for on Tuesday, or what your views on abortion are, or who is in the White House, I want to convince you that making progress on housing policy is a worthwhile goal
|
|
All that being said, a few thoughts on the results before we dip into the quick hits:
|
|
- Prop T Passes: I came out hard against Prop T, the local sales tax increase to fund local roads, and I lost big. Prop T passed 64.94% to 35.06% in the end. Lots of people I really like came out strongly in favor of this measure and it really will mean the streets issue should be more or less off the table for the next 15 years. My big fear is just that Kirkwood will continue to place low priority on pedestrian, cyclist, and driver safety when they go to redesign these streets as TDD money is made available to repave them. If the City Engineer's recent recommendations for South Clay and South Kirkwood Road are any indication, we have a lot of work to do on this front. More on this soon.
- Prop R Passes: Kirkwood also abolished the residency requirement for the City Attorney, which should help us recruit a replacement for retiring City Attorney John Hessel. I was supportive of this, so it's small consolation prize.
- Missouri Amendments Basically the Opposite of what I wanted: I wrote a big outline of my positions on all the other state and St. Louis County ballot questions, so of course the results are basically the opposite of all my preferences. Most notably, in Missouri, voters:
- Kirkwood City Council Left Vulnerable: Despite all my rhetoric about keeping this blog above the partisan fray at the top, I do think that this election is likely to have more profound implications for the current incarnation of our City Council than first meets the eye. Our council is elected on a non-partisan basis (there's no R or D next to candidates' names when you vote for them), but almost all our our current Council has fairly strong and well-known ties to the Republican Party. That doesn't really matter right now, but I do suspect that by the time the next municipal election rolls around in April 2026, it will be a much bigger issue. Whenever a new party comes to power —especially when their excesses are not checked by the other party holding either house of congress— they tend to over-reach on their policy goals and generate thermostatic public backlash. That just happened to Republicans in 2020, to Democrats on Tuesday, and given Trump's track record, seems very likely to happen to Republicans again over the next four years. It'll be interesting to see if Kirkwood's Council will be able to avoid being caught up in that backlash.
|
|
|
|
|
- The most interesting item from last night's P&Z meeting agenda is actually found in the minutes from P&Z's previous meeting. Currently, our zoning code requires owners to construct a sidewalk in front of their property if: 1) they're building an addition that would double the floor area of the existing building, 2) the street doesn't currently have a sidewalk, and 3) the city's Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan recommended that the street should have a sidewalk. That's a very specific set of circumstances that is meant to ensure that the city is building it's sidewalk network when the opportunity arises, with the idea being that if you're doubling the size of your building, including a concrete sidewalk is going to be a pretty marginal cost. But the City Council is convinced that this sidewalk requirement is a big reason why people sell their homes to be used as tear-downs rather than building additions on them and staying put. Luckily, P&Z didn't buy that argument at all and voted against recommending the text amendment. That denial means that when text amendment goes back before City Council (the Public Hearing is December 5th), it will need five of the Council's seven members to vote in favor for the change to be enacted. There are just so many ways for the Council to stop tear-downs and improve affordability than ditching walkability and I hope three members will have the courage to say so.
- A couple of notes on tonight's City Council agenda:
- This will be the first Council meeting since a short-staffed council (only five of its seven members were in attendance) voted down a rezoning of 430 S. Clay from B-1: Neighborhood Business to R-5: Multifamily to facilitate the construction of 8 townhomes. It will be interesting to see if this gets mentioned/reconsidered.
- There's a public hearing for a zoning change that would facilitate a duplex at 223 W. Monroe
- The Council is set to approve funding for South Clay despite the fact that it includes no significant pedestrian improvements
- It looks like the first piece of construction on the Grant's Trail extension will be for the South Taylor rail crossing
- A reminder to fill out the Safe Routes to Schools survey and the Southeast Kirkwood Connectivity Study survey if you haven't already!
|
|
|
|
That's it for today. Kirkwood Public Library is hosting an interesting-sounding event called "Exploring the Legcay of the 1904 World's Fair Through Fiction" tonight at 6:30; events calendar here! Talk to you all here soon; we have lots of work to do.
|
|
|
|
|
