Official Board of Elections Announcement

BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS

OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM & ANALYSIS

REGARDING SHAW SPECIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

VOTING PROCEDURES

MARCH 3, 2009

1. BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Ordinances 68198 and 68199 passed by the Board of Aldermen of the City of St. Louis , the City Register directed the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis to hold an election on March 3, 2009 regarding imposition of a proposed tax on real property in the Shaw Special Business District.

This sort of special business district tax election involves a special tax on real estate. Hence, such elections are uniquely different from ordinary elections involving only registered individual voters, because such special tax district elections also involve owners of real property and businesses as voters who may not even reside in or be registered voters within the special business district at issue.

The eligibility for voting in such elections is stated in Section 71.800 R.S. Mo 2009. The statute is more than three decades old and is something less than a masterpiece of clarity and coherence.

For example, the statute seems to require all voters to apply for a ballot to the clerk of the City to be eligible to vote, Section 71.800-6 (1). This would lead to a peculiar process of the registered voters in the district having to apply specially to be able to vote [in effect requiring a clumsy “re-registration” sure to confuse voters]. Additionally, the statute states that no person may apply for a ballot later than the fourth Tuesday before the date for mailing ballots specified in the governing body’s order, Section 71.800-6 (4). In the present case, the governing body’s order directing the election specified no date for mailing ballots and instead targets voting at the regular election under the City Charter on March 3, 2009.

2. ANALYSIS

What appears to have happened over more than a decade in the City of St. Louis is that by direction of the City government elections have been conducted through the regular ongoing election process to avoid a welter of voter confusion and extra expense to taxpayers by trying to operate a separate election process through the City. The Election Authority has the registration records, the staff trained to run elections, the counting equipment, and the convenient spread of polling sites known to voters.

Thus, for a great many years the City and the Election Authority have cooperated to hold such elections through the regular election process under the supervision of the staff of the Election Authority. The process has moved smoothly and without substantial difficulty.

The present Shaw Special Business District proposition has generated lively citizen interest in which questions seeking clarification of the voting process have arisen. The nub of concern is trying to sort out precise ground rules for voting in an election involving both regular registered voters residing in the district and property or business owners as voters (some of which are corporate or trust entities not physically residing in the district).

To meet these requests, the Election Board and its staff, in consultation with the attorney for the Board, hereby promulgate the following guidelines for the Shaw Special Business District Elections to be held on March 3, 2009:

3. SPECIAL GUIDELINES ON VOTING PROCESS FOR MARCH 3, 2009 FOR SHAW SPECIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

A. No person or entity will be barred from voting on March 3, 2009 for failing to have mailed in a special application four weeks prior.

B. All individuals or entities which are not registered voters within the District but are real estate or business owners within the District shall vote by provisional ballot. The provisional ballot process is useful because the ballot is paired with the evidence presented regarding that voter’s qualifications to vote. The provisional ballot and that evidence are then reviewed by the Election Authority during the certification process. If the voter’s qualifications are established, the ballot is counted; if the qualifications are not established, the ballot is not counted. Either way, the voter will be able to determine later if the ballot was counted.

C. The provisional balloting process for such business or real estate voters shall occur by paper ballot at a special desk within the polling site serving the area where the business or land is located. They may also vote (like regular registered voters) at the Election Authority main office. All polling sites and the Election Authority main office shall have specially trained deputies on site to handle such voters.

D. Regular registered voters within the District shall vote as they do at all regular elections, presenting the usual identification required by the election statutes. District residents who are not registered voters but who are landowners or business owners within the District may vote per items B, C, E, and F herein.

E. The evidence required to validate the qualifications of a real estate or business-owning voter under the provisional balloting process shall be:

(1) A tax receipt or deed showing real estate ownership, identifying the precise location by address

within the District,

OR

(2) A copy of a current business license showing an address within the District,

AND

(3) Evidence regarding an entity voter that the person actually voting on its behalf has some authority

to act on behalf of such entity.

[See §71.800–6(c); 9 R.S. Mo 2009]

F. If the same person or entity owns more than one site within the District, they shall nevertheless have only one vote. Likewise, an individual who is a registered voter within the District and also owns real estate in the District shall have only one vote (as a registered voter). The statutory guideline is clear on this point:  “Each qualified voter shall have one vote. Each voter which is not an individual shall determine how to cast its vote…” [emphasis added] §71.800–9, R.S. Mo 2009.  If properties are held by different legal entities, each such separate entity shall be entitled to one vote, even if they are controlled by the same person. [The entity, not the person, is the qualified “voter” in this election].

G. The Election Authority shall provide guidance to all voters in the polling places by signage and by having a trained specialist on site to help voters through the process.

H. The Election Authority shall diligently enforce these standards and the regular guidelines for elections to ensure an orderly and honest election process.

DATED: 2/23/09

FOR THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS

OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

BY________________________

JERRY WAMSER

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

(314) 729 – 0272

FAX: (314) 729 – 7474

PLEASE reference the Blogroll…

In the spirit of fair debate, no comment has yet to go unapproved.

That said, I only request that posters please refer to the reference information in the Blogroll when making statements such as “crime in Shaw has increased”.

According to the SLMPD, the total crime index for Shaw is as follows:

Total Crime 2007: 713
Total Crime 2008: 551

January 2008: 59
January 2009: 27

These are the facts.

How about this alternative?

Rather than taxing the residents of our neighborhood,  the already formed SBD is capable of applying for grants to address the problem as they see it.

By the way, federal grants are how a portion of Forrest Park South East’s private patrols are funded.  The remainder is funded by the businesses and Washington University.  The residents are not taxed for their private patrols.

If Shaw is truly experiencing increased crime, we should have no problems receiving funding for grants such as this one:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/psn.html

And while State Farm Insurance does NOT offer a deduction in your homeowners’ insurance for a neighborhood private patrol, they DO offer a Safe Neighborhood Grant here:

http://www.statefarm.com/about/part_spos/grants/cogrants.asp

As the SBD is already formed, enrolling in the Central Contractor Registration website will give them access to a multitude of these grants to choose from.

FBI, Mayor, Police Department say crime is down

FBI Reports Crime Down In City
Sept. 16, 2008 – FBI reported today that violent crime was down more than 11% and property crime was down nearly 17% in the City of St. Louis.

“It is no accident that crime went down. The hard work and ingenuity of many people is paying off. Making neighborhoods safe requires the successful coordination of dozens of different agencies, departments, and initiatives,” Mayor Francis G. Slay said. The City has implemented programs on both prevention of crime and intervention.

Existing Options

Citizen’s Service Bureau
This one has been discussed many times.  The CSB is a wonderful resource for reporting broken street lights, public graffiti, building violations, refuse around an occupied property and many other issues.  They are a city government division that does respond to complaints with case numbers and follow-ups.  Complaints can be phoned in during business hours at 622-4800 or submitted online anytime at http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/csb.html

Visit the Police Substation
This is really no different than the tax proponents saying that we can contact the members of the Special Business District Board to inform them of problem areas or situations.  Obviously we can call 911 or the non-emergency number, but we can also stop by the Substation at 2211 S. 39th Street for less immediate matters.  This gives us the opportunity to meet the officers who are patrolling our area and we can informally notify them of problem areas in the neighborhood for their patrols.

Court Watch
The Court Watch Program is a relatively simple program that holds our court system accountable for the arrests that are made in our neighborhood.  This is a program that has worked well for several communities – but it requires community participation.

What Are Other Concerns of This Bill?

While the legality of the election process and who gets to vote, how they were notified, and what the Board of Aldermen has let slip through the cracks to get this on the ballot does not seem to bother some, there are several other issues that come to mind when  discussing this Board Bill…

SBD Specifics:
There are very few.  The Board Bill states the funds are to be used for:
A. To provide special police and/or security facilities, equipment, vehicles and/or personnel for the protection and enjoyment of the property owners and the general public within the District;
B. To construct, install, improve and/or maintain useful, or necessary, or desired, security related improvements…
At several meetings proponents of the SBD have made it clear that a “portion” of the funds would be used for beautification.  What percentage of the portion?  That is unclear.  What is even more unclear is the number of security personnel and hours allocated to our neighborhood.  All of these decisions would be up to the 7 person board appointed by the Mayor.

Police Presence in Shaw:
In May 2008, the City passed a sales tax increase that funded the hiring of 1395 new officers.  According to the Circuit Attorney’s Office, crime has been on the decline and in December and January dropped by a record 10-15%.  Also, in January 2009 a Police Substation opened on 39th Street.   Getting to know these officers (and more importantly, giving them information about problem areas in the neighborhood) is just a quick trip by the substation!

SBDs in Other Neighborhoods:
Of the 56 St. Louis neighborhoods that have hired security, only two are of similar size and don’t include their entire district, thus making it difficult to compare with Shaw.  The majority of the neighborhoods are only a few streets in size with a limited number of houses.  To maintain a similar ratio of security-to-people, security-to-structure or security-to-geographic size, the SBD would need to hire between 11 and 14 security guards.  The current tax increase being proposed would only pay for two to four.
For more information about SBDs and accountability, check out this NY Times Article

Alternatives to Private Patrol?
One of the primary concerns with this bill is, “Why would we pay for another tax when we are already paying taxes for the police?”  There are more resources than just the police we are paying for and not properly utilizing that provide the services which reduce and deter crime; resources, such as the CSB, that can be held accountable by those we vote into office.
Rather than adding another program (and cost) to the system which only adds another layer of blame when crime is committed, reinforce these services we currently have – and demand better quality from them.
For other alternatives to an additional tax, please click here.

Welcome. Here are the facts.

We challenge the formation of a Special Business District in the Shaw neighborhood, which would levy a heavy tax upon property owners for the alleged purpose of hiring private security.  This effort was put forth by a small group of neighborhood residents and does not necessarily represent the views of the neighborhood community at large.