Discussion with Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder on Historic Tax Credits

My recent post on the status of the historic tax credit ("HTC") program received some interesting responses, with Jeff Rainford (Chief of Staff to City of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay) saying that the Department of Economic Development is "trying to curtail the program" but that a governor-appointed commission "hopefully will produce a compromise that everyone can live with."  On Twitter, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder described the uncertainty created in the hugely successful program as a "devastating body blow."

Shortly thereafter, Governor Nixon announced the formation of a commission to review state tax credits, including HTCs.  While the Missouri Coalition for Historic Preservation and Economic Develoment quickly denounced the governor's move, Mayor Slay expressed his belief that "the governor's new tax credit panel will consider our issues."

Yesterday, I discussed the status of the HTC program with Lieutenant Governor Kinder, a Republican who has often clashed with Governor Nixon on tax credits (and, of course, many other issues) and has positioned himself as an ally of Mayor Slay on the tax credit issue.  I first noted that use of the HTC program has recently dropped drastically, and asked him the extent to which he attributes that to general economic conditions as opposed to the uncertainty that appears to have been created in the tax credit market.

Lieutenant Governor Kinder: "I’ve not done any detailed studies so I can merely say that the uncertainty and noise coming out of Jefferson City certainly has not helped. And a great deal of that noise has been generated by the executive branch of the office of the governor and his own personal pronouncements on the issue which I think are half-baked and ill-informed. I’m sure that it also involves economic factors and the larger economy, and the real estate market."

The lieutenant governor stated that the "uncertainty and noise" relates not only to HTCs. 

Lieutenant Governor Kinder:  “And it takes many forms.  That commission (the Missouri Housing Development Commission) I serve on with State Treasurer, Attorney General and Governor, has existed since 1968. We’ve had governors pretty equally of both parties since that time, and no governor has ever attempted to shut down the work of the commission until now. Literally come out and say, as they have, that their intention is to slow down the work of the commission by not holding meetings, by delaying meetings, and canceling meetings. And I’ve been pressing since May, when they canceled the May meeting, to get another meeting and I’m running into a stone wall of opposition and indifference. That’s a big part of this, what Nixon’s shut down.”

I asked the lieutenant governor about the new "expanded review process" that tax credit applicants have recently been subjected to by DED.  In particular, I wanted to know whether he thinks there is a legal basis for this process (and/or the general delay in application approvals), and if the Governor's actions are within the proper scope of his executive/administrative authority.

Lieutenant Governor Kinder:  “God only knows what the expanded review process is.  There needs to be a legal basis for it. Or else we’re down into the realm of political, discretionary issuance of tax credits, which I have called a step toward a Blagojevich-style of politics in Missouri, which we have never had and don’t want.”

Regarding the new commission appointed by Governor Nixon:

Lieutenant Governor Kinder:  “I do not think that the commission is a good idea. I think it is a usurpation of the elected representatives of the people—the members of the House and the Senate, sitting in the General Assembly.

And I do not accept that it’s a binary choice between this money for tax credits and education.  By the way, let’s assume arguendo that that is a valid point. If you accept that premise, why are the mental health people excluded from the table? Why are the social workers excluded from the table? Why are people that are advocates for correctional reform excluded from the table? If you accept their premise, that this is denying resources to other parts of state government, then everyone should be at the table. But we’ve picked out six representatives of education and said, you have a seat on this commission.

The commission is fundamentally flawed in its concept in my opinion, that these people will deliberate the issue and give us the report we need, when we have elected members of the House and Senate to do that job. And there has been a lively debate about it, and the governor has not been able to get what he wants. So now we’re going to have this commission, which I guess gives him a better chance of getting what he wants.

There is another problem that is pointed out in the [Coalition] press release you referenced that I totally agree with. I’m from small-town Missouri—Cape Girardeau—and I’ve seen the credits do good work in the Fayettes, the Neoshos, the Joplins, the Cape Girardeaus, the Hannibals, and towns all over this state. And no one is representing those Main Street groups that have worked for more than a decade to revitalize their small and medium-sized towns--they don’t have any representation on here.

So I think this commission should be on the defensive. I think their first task is to justify themselves. It is transparent what the governor is up to, and I’d like him to come to the Housing Development Commission sometime—to take one example—and tell us why he’s canceling meetings and delaying meetings. His strategy is to bring developers to his knees by slowing the issuance of tax credits. There are huge, major regional banks that are up in arms about this, who are very alarmed [the lieutenant governor named one such bank, but I have elected not to publish its name here]. The Governor cites the fact that Missouri is #1 in tax credits in the nation, as if that’s a reason to hang our head in shame, when maybe it’s a good thing. And we ought to have that debate. I’m not sure that debate will go on at this commission."

The lieutenant governor shared his thoughts on the effect changes to the HTC program may have on the City of St. Louis, particularly the north side.

Lieutenant Governor Kinder:  "Here’s another aspect of it. Downtown has benefited greatly [from the HTC program]. Soulard has seen some benefit. The Central West End has seen benefit. You go up on the north side, you talk to some of those aldermen—they’re not in my party but I talk to them on a regular basis, and attend some of their functions, like Alderman Antonio French or Alderman Jeffrey Boyd—and you know what they say? All those areas I just mentioned to you, Downtown, Soulard, Central West End , other parts of town, they benefited—but now, just when the groups on the north side get ready to line up for their credits, the governor wants to yank the rug out from under them. It makes it that much more difficult, if not impossible, for them to access these credits that work so well.” He also said that the north side can take off “if it’s not strangled in the cradle.”

The lieutenant governor concluded by saying that, for now, the HTC program should be kept in its current form.

Lieutenant Governor Kinder:  “There was already a $140 million cap imposed last year. They no sooner got that than they started making all these other demands. And by the way, the market is right below the cap, so it’s sort of a fictional issue. We’re not bumping up against that cap this year, nor are we likely to anytime soon.  For now, yes [leave the program as-is]. Now, can we have a debate? Sure we can have a debate. Nobody should fear this ongoing discussion." Tweet

Update from Missouri Coalition for Historic Preservation and Economic Development

The Missouri Coalition for Historic Preservation and Economic Development, which runs the "Save the Historic Tax Credit" site, issued the following press release Thursday afternoon.  Bottom line: They are not impressed with the commission put together by Governor Nixon for the purpose of studying Missouri's tax credit program.
________________________________________________________________________________

July 22, 2010

For Immediate Release

Contact:

Deb Sheals

573-874-3779
[NOTE: The phone number in the e-mailed press release is incorrect; the number above is correct.]

Coalition for Historic Preservation and Economic Development

Governor Nixon's tax credit commission criticized as lacking enough representation of people who know economic benefits of Historic Tax Credits

Columbia, MO - July 22, 2010 - Governor Jay Nixon released his plans for creating a commission to perform a review of the state tax credit programs yesterday. The Missouri Coalition for Historic Preservation and Economic Development (MCHPED) spokesperson Deb Sheals, stated, "We are concerned that the Governor's commission does not appear to have enough representation from people and organizations that are familiar with the dramatic impact the Historic Tax Credit has had in the production of jobs and economic development across Missouri. There are, for example, no representatives from small main street organizations, community development organizations, or historic preservation organizations, all of whom have firsthand experience in how well the program works for the average citizen. Missouri leads the nation in economic development from the historic tax credit, and any commission that is looking at this issue should include more members that are familiar with how it works."

It also appears that the members chosen for the commission mirror a previous effort taken midway through the 2010 legislative session to pit education vs. development and redevelopment in communities throughout the state. This is not an either-or situation; economic development through historic preservation creates a stronger tax base and is therefore a benefit to education.

The State Historic Tax Program is a proven economic engine. Historic Tax Credits create jobs, encourage environmentally sensitive redevelopment, and long term revenue sustainability for the state of Missouri. Since 2000, historic tax credits have generated more than $669 million dollars in revenue for the state and local governments while creating 43,150 new and retained jobs with an average salary of $42,732. (See the attached executive summary of a recent study of the impact of this program.) The Governor's attacks are creating industry-wide uncertainty and have crippled the effectiveness of the program as an economic stimulus.

MCHPED looks forward to once again demonstrating the tremendous state and community benefits generated by the Historic Tax Credit Program. Tweet

Responses on Historic Tax Credit Changes

I have received several interesting responses to my post yesterday regarding recent changes to Missouri's historic tax credit program.

First, shortly after my post I asked Jeff Rainford (twitter.com/JeffRainford), Chief of Staff to Mayor Slay, for the Mayor's thoughts on recent developments with the program. I noted my concern about the uncertainty that has been introduced into the tax credit program, and the extent to which that has the potential to derail the ongoing revitalization of the City in general, and downtown in particular (the Post-Dispatch's article yesterday reveals that use of the historic tax credit program is WAY down in the first half of this year). Mr. Rainford responded as follows:

"Here is where he is. The program is good. It works well. It has been and will continue to be one of the vital components of the City's renaissance. It is an investment for the state. That means it brings back more in tax revenues than it costs.

DED says they are just being more careful, but it is our opinion that they are trying to curtail the program.

Eventually, the governor is going to appoint a commission that hopefully will produce a compromise that everyone can live with, and we can get on with rebuilding the City.  In the meantime, there is an incredible amount of rebuilding going on Dowtown right now, much of it dependent on the historics." (I guess I should have published that info about the commission right away--I would have had the scoop!)

Second, someone from Space Architects (twitter.com/SPACEarchitects) tweeted: "As an architect who often speaks to prospects about HTC's, uncertainty = deal over."  That's consistent with everything else I have heard on the subject.

Finally, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (twitter.com/PeterKinder), who is an ally of Mayor Slay's on the historic tax credit fight, tweeted that the uncertainty that has been created in the program is "devastating" and a "body blow" (or maybe the two tweets were meant to be read together as "devastating body blow"). I will be talking to Lieutenant Governor Kinder in more detail later this week, and will publish his thoughts here.

Stay tuned . . . Tweet

What's Next for the Missouri Historic Tax Credit?

When the Missouri General Assembly's 2010 regular session adjourned in May, the state's highly lauded historic rehabilitation tax credit program narrowly dodged a bullet.  Despite the efforts of Governor Nixon and his allies to reform historic tax credits ("HTCs") and other state tax credit programs "from scratch," new legislation to curtail the use of HTCs was not passed.  Supporters of the HTC program celebrated the near miss, while simultaneously warning of "a greater fight next year."

It appears that those demanding changes to the state's tax credit programs do not intend to wait that long.  An e-mail recently circulated by the Coalition for Historic Preservation and Economic Development has shed light on an "expanded review process" recently implemented by the Missouri Department of Economic Development, that apparently affects both preliminary and final HTC applications.  A sample letter from the DED to a potential HTC recipient states that the purpose of the expanded review process is "to ensure the eligibility of all projects, costs and expenses."

According to the Coalition, the details of the new process are unclear, "without clarification on the length of time being allocated for the added review[,] who within DED is responsible for conducting the expanded HTC review," or "when final approvals will be obtained."  As far as I can tell, the state isn't even bringing the new process to the public's attention, with the website for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources continuing to refer to a 30-day process for "initial processing at the Department of Economic Development, review of proposed work by the State Historic Preservation Office and final processing by the Department of Economic Development."  The Coalition's view of the result of the new "undocumented" process is clear, however:  a slowing down of the entire HTC process, a resulting increase in project costs, a reduction in the number of HTCs issued, and an inability to obtain financing for new projects.

In the same e-mail, the Coalition notes that "$350 million in line item vetos and expenditure restrictions for the FY2011 budget that went into effect July 1 included $47 million to come out of existing tax credit programs."  The e-mail highlights a spreadsheet from the Office of Administration, that includes the following comments next to the noted $47 million tax credit item:  "Tax credit redemptions anticipated to be lower than orginally forecast based on economic sitaution.  Also, more carefully review all tax credits before they are authorized."  [Emphasis added.]

This below-the-radar tinkering with the HTC rules, coupled with new program caps and other changes implemented in 2010 and the governor's presumed intent to pursue further limits on the program next session, appear to have already created the uncertainty and confusion in the tax credit marketplace feared by supporters of the HTC program.  In today's front page Post-Dispatch article, Tim Logan reports that only $13.4 million in HTCs were authorized in the first half of 2010, down from $87.7 million in the first half of 2009 and $86.1 million in the second half of 2009.  The number of applications filed during the first half of 2010 fell by over 60% compared to the same period in 2009, with half of those "still awaiting approval." 

Tim notes that a rough economy, particularly in the commercial real estate sector, is surely partly to blame.  But the real estate market has suffered and credit markets have been tight for several years now.  The actual and threatened changes to the HTC program in recent years, and related uncertainty in obtaining the credits, has almost certainly caused some, if not most, of the drastic drop-off in use of the HTC program.  Elements of fear have even been injected into the process, with Tim's article referencing "a dozen local bankers, developers and others who work with historic tax credits" who would not speak publicly "for fear of alienating the powerful state Department of Economic Development." 

How can a market for tax credits--one that, in prior years, was held up as a national model and a key driver of the Missouri economy--function efficiently in that environment?    Not surprisingly, it can't.  In Tim's words, "[q]uestions about when, or even if, they will get repaid can make banks and investors skittish."  Up-front financing for historic rehabilitation projects becomes much more difficult in the absence of clear, objective, apolitical criteria for the HTCs that are sold to the financier (at a discount) prior to their issuance.

In a post earlier this year, I detailed the costs and benefits of Missouri's HTC program, as well as the political points that I believe should be made by those seeking to protect the program.  Those include the economic benefits that bely Governor Nixon's characterization of the HTC program (in context of the overall Missouri economy) as  a "zero sum game"; the jobs that are created by the HTC program; and the probability that changes to the HTC program would result in "dollars that could have been invested in Missouri [] being invested elsewhere"--in other words, states with more favorable tax credit programs.  Tim's article addresses this last point directly, quoting Representative John Diehl (R-Town and Country) as stating: "Investors just aren't going to invest in places where the rules and the process aren't clear."

In that post, I referred to Governor Nixon's broad attack on the HTC program--akin to taking a hatchet to a problem requiring a scalpel--as "political malpractice."  Although some changes to Missouri's tax credit programs are surely needed in light of budgetary hardships, changes to a hugely successful program--the success of which relies on clarity and objectivity--must be made in a careful, targeted, and transparent manner.  By using administrative antics to achieve what the governor could not achieve legislatively, the state appears to have muddied the waters enough to cause a drastic slowdown in the use of the HTC program and, presumably, future redevelopment.

It is troubling to consider the extent to which the market uncertainty created by these changes, and even more problematic changes potentially enacted in the future, may negatively impact the City of St. Louis.  The HTC program has been a critically important component of the ongoing rejuvenation of the City, and downtown in particular.  In downtown alone, more than 100 historic buildings were redeveloped in the last decade, with 4,400 new residential units coming online and 5,000 new downtown residents, making downtown "the fastest growing community in the St. Louis region."  By the end of this year, over $5 billion dollars will have been invested in the redevelopment of downtown in the last decade, much of which could not have occurred without the HTCs used to help finance the high-cost rehabilitation of the City's historic buildings. 

Mayor Slay has rightly opposed changes to the HTC program that are likely to hinder continued urban development and achievement of the City's goals for upcoming years (which include a 60% increase in downtown's population by 2020, to 20,000 residents).  In Tim Logan's words, builders know that "ad hoc, unspecified changes threaten to bring redevelopment in St. Louis to a grinding halt."  Which recent projects might have been delayed or not occurred at all, but for the certainty of obtaining HTC financing?  Would the complex and fragile financing of the Peabody Opera House, which included $12.5 million in Missouri HTCs coupled with $12 million in federal HTCs, have come together?  Which future projects might be significantly delayed or never happen at all--perhaps a future rebirth of the gorgeous Arcade Building?  Or, more likely, will it be the many smaller rehabs undertaken by the politically unconnected that will suffer as a result of new, undefined rules and probable future attacks on the program? 

It appears that the question now being asked by the tax credit market is, "Who knows??" Tweet

Another Vision for Transformative Change: The Brilliant Simplicity of a New Memorial Drive

For my first post on this site, I set forth my personal "vision for transformative change" of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, home of the Gateway Arch.  My idea was for "the creation of two world-class, architecturally significant destinations, designed and positioned to engage the Memorial grounds in new ways, and to evoke and complement the Arch while deferring to it as the undisputed centerpiece of the Memorial."  Check out the original post if you are interested in my ideas for the "Gateway Arcade" and the "Gateway History and Cultural Center."

As I mentioned in that post, my idea was really nothing more than an exercise in thought, intended to encourage people to "think big" in their plans for the redesign of the Memorial and the ongoing revitalization of downtown generally.  I received a lot of positive feedback on the post, but also a fair amount of commentary suggesting that this sort of mega-project approach was much less desirable than smaller-scale, organic growth.  That is a view of redevelopment I certainly agree with generally, but I do think that the Memorial lends itself to new, above-ground improvements that would have the benefit of not requiring the destruction of any existing downtown buildings.  I still believe that the buildings I proposed could be great additions to the Archgrounds.

BUT . . .

I have since been utterly convinced that there is a far superior way to achieve the goal of reconnecting the City to the Arch and the River.  When I mentioned City to River in my first post, I was only vaguely familiar with the group's vision for removing the downtown portion of Interstate 70 (actually, what will become the former Interstate 70 once the new Mississippi River Bridge is completed).  Before I had given much thought to the proposal, it seemed to me, frankly, as much a fantasy as my own proposal.  Now that I have become more informed . . . well, let's just say that I have seen the light, to the point where I have joined the group and am actively advocating their vision.  (Be sure to check out today's front page Post-Dispatch article on City to River.)

A new Memorial Drive, at Spruce Street
Source

In my opinion, there are so many things to love about City to River's idea: it is a way to truly reconnect the City to the Arch and the River; it is the best and most comprehensive way to heal our City's wounded riverfront; it is a long-term investment in the City; it is, like the Arch, brilliant yet simple and obvious; and it is achievable.  My hat is off to the folks who have created and worked tirelessly on this idea for the last several years, and I am excited to be on board to help spread their vision for a truly transformative change.

Understandably, people have many questions about City to River--questions about (among other things) the scope and feasibility of its proposal, effects on traffic, and cost issues.  I have found that once people (like me) get answers to those questions, they tend to have a sort of "a-ha!" moment where the idea becomes, as they say, a "no-brainer."  I strongly encourage people to look over City to River's website, including the summary of its proposal and the answers to the group's most frequently asked questions.  I would also ask readers to help with City to River's efforts as much as possible.  Here's how you can help (from the City to River website):

"City to River strongly encourages all St. Louisans to take an active role in promoting the reconnection of the City to its riverfront—after all, this is a decision we will all live with for the rest of our lives. You can help by contacting political leaders, spreading the word to family, friends, and colleagues, helping us contact downtown stakeholders, and communicating with the competition jurors and design teams. In addition, there are likely to be opportunities to help more directly with our efforts in a volunteer capacity as the design competition progresses this summer.

For more information, find out What You Can Do or contact us at info@citytoriver.org.


To track our progress please visit our blog, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. We encourage people to check in often to track new developments and to see where City to River may need your help.

Of course, we will answer any other questions the community may have to the best of our ability. If you have other questions or need additional information to determine how to support City to River's efforts, please do not hesitate to e-mail us at info@citytoriver.org." Tweet

A Great Weekend in a Great City

Despite the blazing heat, this was simply a great weekend for those who love the City of St. Louis.  Among the festivities were a record-attendance Komen Race for the Cure, the Central West End Art Fair and Taste, the second installment of Open Streets, and the professional Tour de Grove race.  Here are some pics from a few of the festivities:

A record 71,205 participants for this year's Komen Race for the Cure

Rams cheerleaders at the finish line

Walking toward the Arch

Central West End Art Fair & Taste

Good crowd at the Art Fair & Taste

Open Streets, Part Deux

Hula-hoopers at Open Streets

Cooling off at Citygarden

And no trip to the City is complete without a stop here . . .

Tweet

Communicating the Vision

Growing up, I was often reminded that, to achieve a significant goal, "you have to make a plan and work a plan."  In other words, you first need to have a clear vision of what you're trying to accomplish and an understanding of the steps that will get you there.  You then need to work the plan, completing all of the small but difficult tasks that, collectively, get you across the finish line.

At least with respect to downtown, I think it would be hard to dispute that the City of St. Louis has made a plan and is working a plan.  Continuing the enormous successes of the last decade (including $4.5 billion in downtown investment), the public-private Downtown St. Louis Partnership is now implementing Downtown Next, a new ten-year revitalization plan.  The plan is ambitious in its vision and scope, yet appropriately focused on the human-scale needs of an increasing residential and worker population.  Recent financing developments on several major projects (including Park Pacific, The Laurel, St. Louis Centre, and One City Centre) all point to the plan moving forward as intended. 

In the context of this monumental public endeavor to rejuvenate an urban core, though, I would add one other component to my childhood mantra:  you have to communicate the plan.  Turning around the City--any city--requires community acceptance and buy-in of the plan, and a significant change in public perception resulting in a critical mass of increased density.  As part of downtown's marketing effort, it is critical to maximize awareness of downtown's recent successes and future plans, and to convey the message that a thriving urban core will act as a rising tide that raises all ships in the St. Louis region.

The point of this post is not to suggest that the City is doing a poor job of communicating those very things.  The Partnership appears to have expended a considerable amount of time and money on marketing efforts, including their Excited About Now and Downtown is Alive campaigns.  Downtown events and programs, including the farmers' market at the Old Post Office Plaza and the Riverfront Times Music Showcase, seem to get a fair amount of press.  Social media such as Twitter and Facebook appear to be widely used by City leadership, the Partnership, and local media to communicate positive developments directly to members of the public.  I am not a marketing expert and cannot really speak to the efficacy of these efforts.  It does seem to me that more could be done to reach a broader audience--a topic ripe for future exploration, but again, not exactly what this particular post is about. 

Instead, I wanted to address a related issue raised by Matt Mourning in a recent post on his excellent Dotage St. Louis blog.  Matt notes the "dissonant chord" among bloggers and some other St. Louisans who feel that bloggers, at best, do not take enough concrete action, and at worst, negatively affect urban progress in St. Louis by focusing on feel-good issues rather than the real problems facing the City.  At the risk of coming off as completely self-interested (as a newbie blogger myself), I would like to explain why I think this is so wrongheaded. 

Like Matt, I believe that a key purpose and effect of writing about the City is to get people excited--about its neighborhoods, its people, and its future.  It's about sharing with others where you think the City is (or should be) heading, and how it can best get there.  In that regard, I think that writings by people who love the City and are interested in the revival of downtown help to communicate a vision, critically supplementing the City's efforts to communicate and implement its more formal, comprehensive plan.  Like laughter, positive energy is contagious, and helps to improve public perception of the City--a critical component of its ongoing rejuvenation.  Dampering that enthusiasm in any way only diminishes the City's ability to work the plan (which I believe is worthy of our support).

Of course, many things about the City (and any other city) are not positive, and there are major areas for improvement on serious issues.  Nonetheless, I don't think it's fair to say that people shouldn't write about the particular issues that are important to them, simply because others believe that those are not the "key" issues affecting the City. Everyone has different interests, and not every person can be expected to tackle or be primarily motivated by socioeconomic issues such as crime, poverty and education.  In any event, none of these urban issues exist in a vacuum, and it seems misguided to think that these problems will not be positively affected by the increases in population, revenues, development, jobs, and civic pride that will continue to accompany downtown's revival.

The argument also seems to present a sort of false dichotomy, in that I don't really see that bloggers are doing nothing more than writing.  Surely, many writers also are directly involved in concrete actions that are making a real, positive difference in the City.  As one prominent example, some of the most well-known local bloggers (including Alex Ihnen of Urban STL, Paul Hohmann of Vanishing St. Louis, and Rick Bonasch of STL Rising) are part of the ongoing City to River effort to remove the section of Interstate 70 in front of the Gateway Archgrounds and replace it with a new, at-grade Memorial Drive.  The group has taken an active role in pushing for what would be a transformative reshaping of downtown, including creating designs, publishing testimonials, meeting with key political and business leaders, and initiating advocacy efforts in the community.  It is too early to say what the result of the City to River effort will be (although it appears to be gaining ground), but whether successful or not, it is unfair to characterize its proponents as "mere bloggers."

Even for those who chose to do nothing more than blog, who's to say that that is inappropriate?  Presumably, people choose to write for many different reasons.  For some, it's what they have time to do; constraints imposed by their professional and/or personal lives do not permit them to do much more than type and circulate occasional thoughts.  For others, writing may simply be what they're good at, and the way they find that they communicate and contribute most effectively.  Some people might wish they were more involved in City matters on a day-to-day basis, but for reasons beyond their control find their current professional lives unaligned with those personal interests.  And for some, writing and the accompanying research is a method of educating themselves on urban issues, such that these "mere bloggers" of today may become the critical thinkers and community leaders of tomorrrow.

I have to believe that the viewpoint referenced by Matt is not widely held, and that most people who care about St. Louis appreciate the overall positive impact that many local bloggers are making on our community (just to be clear, I'm not referring to myself here--I'm new to the scene and take zero credit).  I wouldn't even take the time to address the issue here except that, again, I believe spreading a positive vision of the future of St. Louis is such a critical component of overall revitalization efforts. 

Of course, a "vision" is not a "plan."  None of this is to suggest that I think anyone--including myself--should be comfortable with merely posting a thought every now and then (or even every day) if they are reasonably able to do more.  As Matt says, there is always more work to do.  Particularly where people with a shared vision can join together to speak with a louder voice and coordinate specific efforts--where they can implement a plan rather than just communicate a vision--they should do so.  I, for one, am actively looking for ways to become further involved in St. Louis issues beyond just this site, and I'm sure that many others out there are as well.

Nonetheless, simply communicating a positive vision of St. Louis's present and future isn't nothing.  I happen to think it has the potential to go a long way toward changing "hearts and minds" in the community.  As with any major turnaround, the unthinkable becomes the thinkable becomes the inevitable.  St. Louis is already well on its way down that path, and continuing--and amplifying--the positive commentary can only help get us across the finish line faster.

So I say, keep it up folks . . . let's hear some chatter out there. Tweet