Self got an election reminder card in the mail this week, about the Special Bond Election next Tuesday in the city of St. Louis, on Proposition 1, which is about whether or not STL City voters will approve a $180M bond issue, for various city infrastructure works. Nicholas J.C. Pistor has this article from the St. Louis Post Dispatch on the ballot measure. The key point that is the launching point for this SNLC traces to this bit in Pistor's article:
"Turnout for the special election is expected to be low because nothing else is on the city ballot...."
That's probably quite likely to be true. This touches on the whole question of voter turnout, of course......
There's a lot of general wailing, whining and railing against Repuke voter suppression skullduggery, which is quite understandably justified. However, there's the other side of the coin, namely the voters themselves, and their own efforts to register or to stay registered. It's perfectly possible to register to vote well in advance of elections, in an off year. It doesn't take that much effort to register early. Nor does it take that much effort for people to show up on election day, to take a relatively short stretch, just a few minutes, out of their oh-so-busy lives every 2 years, to vote either for sensible people (on balance, Democrats) or against ignorant thugs (on balance, Republicans). Years ago, when I moved into the city of STL out of the county, I got the voter registration forms at a branch of the city library. I've voted regularly enough to have remained on the rolls.
In the case of Proposition 1, not that FB comments are an obvious indication, at least on-line sentiment is vocally against Proposition 1. Pistor noted one reason why:
"The matter comes as questions have been raised about spending from the city’s budget on things such as new cars for elected officials or a half-million-dollar cash retirement payout to a fire department pension employee. The bond issue wouldn’t cover those kinds of expenses, but they collectively might affect voter confidence in the city’s spending priorities."
In addition, city comptroller Darlene Green raised some issues, reported by Pistor on his
P-D blog "Political Fix"
here:
'But she took specific issue with the $10 million that was added by aldermen, which will be controlled by them and spread out over their 28 wards.
"I have a fiscal concern regarding $10 million in the proposed bond issue for Ward capital when taxpayers already fund Ward capital through the sales tax," Green said. "In fact, taxpayers would be asked to pay twice, once from the ½ cent sales tax when making retail purchases and again from their property tax. This double dipping, in my view, poses an undue burden on taxpayers."...
...Green said the aldermen have already amassed a large amount of cash in their ward accounts that they don't spend. She said any addition through a real estate tax would be double taxation.
"Taxpayers fund capital improvements for the 28 Aldermanic Wards with the ½ cent sales tax at a rate of $8 million per year and will do so every year," Green said. "The Board shouldn't be double dipping especially when existing outstanding balances amounts to $31 million-- money which has built up in Ward capital accounts. Though there are designated projects for most of the money, it will take several years to spend."
So there are certainly legitimate issues to address here about Proposition 1. Speaking in general terms, it isn't automatically a case of Repuke "all taxes are bad" (anti-)thinking, vs. Democratic "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" dichotomy, however true that scenario tends to be in the USA in real life. The amount of money that the bond issue will amount to, in terms of what individual city residents will have to pay is pretty modest, as Pistor's summary in his earlier article noted:
"The owner of a house with a taxable value of $140,000 would pay an additional $50 each year."
The Editorial Board of the
P-D endorsed Proposition 1
here. The endorsement noted that approval of Proposition 1 requires a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority of 50% plus 1 vote. So it is entirely possible that Proposition 1 will fall short of the required 2/3 vote, but have an overall majority vote. Based on absolutely nothing, that is my guess as to what will happen. Like Pistor's article, the
P-D endorsement notes the prediction of expected voter turnout as "what is expected to be a very small number of city voters". Barring accidents, I intend to be one of that few.
So it goes. With that, time for the usual SNLC protocol, namely your loser stories for the week.....