Why is the population of St. Louis less than half it was in 1950, and less now than in 1880? (Kansas City: apartments, for rent)

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

Yes! Bigger is not always better! Quality over quantity. Besides, why would an urban city want to annex suburbs that are supposedly so unsustainable, inefficient and expensive to maintain. The only reason would be to make numbers look better on paper and partly disguise/dilute problems, and perhaps "redistribute" wealth in one way or another. Disguising/diluting problems, basically ignoring them, isn't going to solve anything.

Also, I tend to think power being in more people's hands, as in each municipality having it's own governance, each school district, etc. is better than centralizing power. Then cities can choose to go different routes, try different things, and learn from one another, set examples, and have their own flavor.

I also like this!

I don't understand some folks desire to have such monolithic entities of centralized power. Although, I do like alliances in which separate entities can cooperate.

[stlcitygirl]

Why do you keep liking your own posts?

[aragx6]

I think school districts are exactly an example of how inefficient super small entities can be. I know this is an issue the state of Illinois has had to deal with because many Chicago suburbs have extremely small districts.

That means you have a superintendent and an assistant superintendent making six figure salaries (and get pensions) while their districts only have a few hundred kids.

The state has been trying to force consolidation -- a plan Quinn thinks could save $100 million a year. Then again, Quinn is kind of a moron so I'd take that stat with a grain of salt.

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

Why do you keep liking your own posts?

Because I had forgotten I posted in this thread and when I went through it I saw I had written exactly what my thoughts are.

Originally Posted by aragx6

I think school districts are exactly an example of how inefficient super small entities can be. I know this is an issue the state of Illinois has had to deal with because many Chicago suburbs have extremely small districts.

That means you have a superintendent and an assistant superintendent making six figure salaries (and get pensions) while their districts only have a few hundred kids.

The state has been trying to force consolidation -- a plan Quinn thinks could save $100 million a year. Then again, Quinn is kind of a moron so I'd take that stat with a grain of salt.

Interesting. Yes, smaller entities = more management, putting that management's focus on a smaller workload, and in my mind allowing said focus to be more narrowly focused on specific needs. This is exactly the approach I believe would be effective in turning around the KCMO school district and similar districts. Microdistricts. Although, I tend to peg the size of each microdistrict at around 3-4K because my model is somewhat based on small-town district sizes and applying that to neighborhoods in cities. As for efficiency, I guess you have to decide on whether the benefits are worth it. Although, I tend to think it's obvious more management focusing on more specific needs would be beneficial in the case of a difficult to manage entity like the KCMO school district. Maybe if we were putting our focus on things like this in the real world we'd be making six figures. Haha.

[stlouisan]

Whoever mentioned the annex, the annex happened in 1876, so 1880 is actually a relevant comparison. First off, St. Louis was a manufacturing city that experienced the rust belt effect combined with white flight when African Americans came in during the Great Migration. The decline of heavy manufacturing along with white flight is responsible for St. Louis' state today. As far as 1880 goes, St. Louis was a booming city then, and still contained the majority of the MSA's population. St. Louis, St. Charles, and the Metro East have urbanized and helped keep the city in its declined state.

[gwillyfromphilly]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

Whoever mentioned the annex, the annex happened in 1876, so 1880 is actually a relevant comparison. First off, St. Louis was a manufacturing city that experienced the rust belt effect combined with white flight when African Americans came in during the Great Migration. The decline of heavy manufacturing along with white flight is responsible for St. Louis' state today. As far as 1880 goes, St. Louis was a booming city then, and still contained the majority of the MSA's population. St. Louis, St. Charles, and the Metro East have urbanized and helped keep the city in its declined state.

If St. Louis was able to annex St. Louis county then it would be mission accomplished right?

[aragx6]

I don't think, in the long term, that a full merger makes that much sense for anyone. St. Louis city reentering the county and allowing for smart annexation where desired would make sense for both.

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

If St. Louis was able to annex St. Louis county then it would be mission accomplished right?

Oh at the time they thought the mission was accomplished...St. Louis County was mainly rural at the time of the annexation. From a modern standpoint the move was suicide. St. Louis City has effectively cut itself off from the vast majority of the middle to upper class citizens in the metro area, and limited its size to only 60 square miles. Downtown Clayton is stealing business from Downtown St. Louis, etc. In essence, because of the annexation, the county is slowly but surely eating the city alive.

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I don't think, in the long term, that a full merger makes that much sense for anyone. St. Louis city reentering the county and allowing for smart annexation where desired would make sense for both.

For the city it would be an enormous benefit. Schools would improve with the extra tax dollars, the decline would slow up, etc. For the county, however, there is no reason for the merger. All it would do is increase taxes and potentially stifle our growth.

[aragx6]

^The county is not growing -- it's actually shrinking -- so it didn't take the city to "stifle growth" for the county.

Additionally, combining school districts is a whole other issue entirely. There are multiple school districts in Kansas City currently, so there's no resaon to suspect St. louis schools would see any revenue increases from reentering the county.