If this is accurate. St. Louis City only has 311k residents (St. Charles: appointed, neighborhoods)

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

St. Charles is doing the same sprawl development thing as Chesterfield, as Florissant, as Pine Lawn, as Lafayette Square, etc. They're just doing it more recently, and "newer is better" to shoppers. And after we let bridges collapse all over the state so we can fund more lanes in St. Charles, we can watch all that infrastructure deteriorate expensively as the tax base moves on to the next shiny new thing.

Essentially your argument boils down to: "The people moving out to St. Charles should not follow their own best interests, because I know better."


I don't think that is going to win them over. They are probably much more concerned about safety and schools than that bridge in Boonville or a random road in St Louis. They probably don't view their kids well being as the "next shiny new thing", but rather a duty and an obligation.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

Essentially your argument boils down to: "The people moving out to St. Charles should not follow their own best interests, because I know better."


I don't think that is going to win them over. They are probably much more concerned about safety and schools than that bridge in Boonville or a random road in St Louis. They probably don't view their kids well being as the "next shiny new thing", but rather a duty and an obligation.

That doesn't matter. By the time we complete the new infrastructure for these people, half of them will live in Wright City or Union or something, and the remainder won't be paying enough taxes to maintain it all. By the way, for better or worse, the Boonvilles of Missouri far outweigh St. Charles in state voting power, and they have kids too.

I'm not making a value judgment. If the state is going to build more roads for people in sprawlburbs, it will damage its ability to maintain the current infrastructure. MODOT has already said they basically aren't going to build any more because they can't afford to maintain what they have. If we're going to expand infrastructure despite a stable population, it will require new taxes. Or converting rural roads to gravel, but good luck getting votes for that. That's just the math.

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

That doesn't matter. By the time we complete the new infrastructure for these people, half of them will live in Wright City or Union or something, and the remainder won't be paying enough taxes to maintain it all. By the way, for better or worse, the Boonvilles of Missouri far outweigh St. Charles in state voting power, and they have kids too.

I'm not making a value judgment. If the state is going to build more roads for people in sprawlburbs, it will damage its ability to maintain the current infrastructure. MODOT has already said they basically aren't going to build any more because they can't afford to maintain what they have. If we're going to expand infrastructure despite a stable population, it will require new taxes. Or converting rural roads to gravel, but good luck getting votes for that. That's just the math.

That's why the budget goes through a democratic process. State reps for Boonville and St. Charles are not going to look out for the residents of STL, and they shouldn't. Their loyalty should be with the people that voted them in to office. Their job is to bring back more funding to their district. And since the population of STL City continues to dwindle, it's representation in Jeff City will have less pull. Right now the republicans dominate the state legislature. Something tells me that they are not going to make STL City their top priority.

It is really hard to make a compelling case for a larger piece of the pie when your population is declining.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

That's why the budget goes through a democratic process. State reps for Boonville and St. Charles are not going to look out for the residents of STL, and they shouldn't. Their loyalty should be with the people that voted them in to office. Their job is to bring back more funding to their district. And since the population of STL City continues to dwindle, it's representation in Jeff City will have less pull. Right now the republicans dominate the state legislature. Something tells me that they are not going to make STL City their top priority.

It is really hard to make a compelling case for a larger piece of the pie when your population is declining.

My main beef with stl is the take take and take mentality of their politicians wanting to control all the money and wanting the state to pay for it's arenas and football stadiums. Now they want a Pro soccer team and build a big stadium for that. Chances are that could flop just like the Rams and are stuck with multi millions for a venue that isn't used.

I mean the Rams were a PRO football team that at times had success. IF that can't last in St. Louis, MLS certainly won't. Even if the team is good you can't expect it to have sell outs like a big 4 sports team do. Even up until just a couple years ago the Blues were making the playoffs but were having troubles selling out games and they're an NHL team and a popular NHL team for small market standards.

That is my biggest beef with St. Louis is always wanting the state to pay for billionaires play toys. That money could be a lot better spent. MLS just won't bring in that kind of revenue the Blues or Cardinals bring in.

[RisingAurvandil]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

Much of the funding comes from the federal government and is distributed to the states. St. Charles is growing and its voice is getting louder, while STL City continues to shrink. Obviously, St. Charles will continue to get a bigger piece of the pie (budget), and it should. Nobody is calling for a tax increase, just a higher percentage of the current budget should go to St. Charles.

The Feds match highway money at an 80:20 ratio. Despite that, our 20% is still far too low. I believe we have the smallest per-mile budget in America. Likewise, other states are investing more and being rewarded with a much larger share of the pie.

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

No. I'm saying that the funding should shift with the population. They are doing something right in St. Charles and they should be rewarded for it. STL City has been suffering for decades under democratic control. Imagine what the population would be if it wasn't for the Bosnians. Maybe 250k?

Until we can afford to maintain our existing highways, we should not be blazing new roads. That's akin to a credit card addiction. The state seems to realize this, as there are no major expansions underway in Missouri.

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

The future is screaming St. Charles. Might as well start investing now.

We heard those exact words about North County in the 70s. Sure, St. Charles still has good days ahead. But I'd argue that its best days are behind it. Growth there has slowed dramatically since the 90s.

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

I can't see how anyone can live in IL. IL has higher gas tax, corrupt politics, AND their gun laws are not very good. Granted they're not commiefornia or NY but they're TERRIBLE to MO gun laws.

Dear Guns & Ammo, perhaps you should visit an optometrist. As another poster mentioned, guns laws are not a major facet in the lives of many. And furthermore, taxes are certainly higher in StL (MO) than the Metro East (IL). I've lived and worked on both sides of the river. Apparently, you have not. There are no major differences in day-to-day life.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

The Feds match highway money at an 80:20 ratio. Despite that, our 20% is still far too low. I believe we have the smallest per-mile budget in America. Likewise, other states are investing more and being rewarded with a much larger share of the pie.



Until we can afford to maintain our existing highways, we should not be blazing new roads. That's akin to a credit card addiction. The state seems to realize this, as there are no major expansions underway in Missouri.



We heard those exact words about North County in the 70s. Sure, St. Charles still has good days ahead. But I'd argue that its best days are behind it. Growth there has slowed dramatically since the 90s.



Dear Guns & Ammo, perhaps you should visit an optometrist. As another poster mentioned, guns laws are not a major facet in the lives of many. And furthermore, taxes are certainly higher in StL (MO) than the Metro East (IL). I've lived and worked on both sides of the river. Apparently, you have not. There are no major differences in day-to-day life.

There is more to Missouri than just St. Louis city or stl county btw.

Gun laws are a big factor to me. The only states I will live in for now on are ones that allow permit less concealed carry. Our gun laws here in FL are a lot more restrictive than Missouri. our ccw law is a lot stricter and carrying into prohibited locations results in arrest in FL, and we have 3 day wait periods on handguns and no open carry. Missouri I could open carry my AR15 downtown if I wanted in St. Louis lol.

The Republican supermajorities and leadership under Eric Greitens is far superior to that if democrap controlled IL.

[MOforthewin]

Also don't exclude other areas of MO that are saying a lot of growth such as Christian County for example is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. Greene County has seen growth and Taney county had 30 percent growth increase from 2000 to 2010.

Especially with Right to Work passing I can see even further rapid growth in that area due to manufacturing jobs if they eventually relocate to those areas since it's a fair sized city. I can see SWMO having more growth than the rest of the state.

I wonder if the growth in that region is due to the university, or people possibly retiring there (Taney, Christian) because Table Rock Lake is nearby and due to the milder climate down there in southern MO.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

That's why the budget goes through a democratic process. State reps for Boonville and St. Charles are not going to look out for the residents of STL, and they shouldn't. Their loyalty should be with the people that voted them in to office. Their job is to bring back more funding to their district. And since the population of STL City continues to dwindle, it's representation in Jeff City will have less pull. Right now the republicans dominate the state legislature. Something tells me that they are not going to make STL City their top priority.

It is really hard to make a compelling case for a larger piece of the pie when your population is declining.

The cities might not control the legislature, but they're the ones subsidizing it. Regardless, just because the legislature can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, it's fully within their rights to dramatically expand infrastructure despite no money and a stagnant population, driving the state into inevitable bankruptcy.

[pianist1972]

I don't have hard proof, but would not be surprised if St. Louis is undercounted.

[1764]

Most of the hallowing out in the city is in North St.Louis where majority of the African American population lives. It'll continue to hallow out for another decade or 2. I can see the city population stabilizing along the way though it will take a lot than whats happening now for that to change.
I'm not going to waste my time on people who choose to be negative about St.Louis City the ignorance exudes more and more just like Trump no pun intended you are what you are!