Referendums for Public Safety and Parks Go Down to Defeat in Olivette
Both bond issues lacked a 4-7th majority in order to pass approval of the voters.
Photos
Proponents of the two referendums in Olivette, Proposition “S” for public safety and Proposition “P” for parks saw both of their referendums go down to defeat last night.
Proposition “S” was a $9 million dollar proposal to renovate an office building in the Olivette Executive Parkway for a new city hall and police station.
Plans included building a new fire house where city hall stands today.
Prop “P” for some $3 million would have paved the way for the demolition of the Olivette Community Center, and the addition of five ball fields, tennis courts, new play ground areas and other outdoor amenities.
The backers of the referendums found out pretty much how tough economic times are right now.
The vote for Prop “S” went this way: yes, 1,217 (55.12 percent); no, 991 (44.88 percent). The yes side needed 57 percent to pass. Supporters calculated a swing of 22 or 23 votes would have pushed this over the top.
Prop “P” for parks didn’t fare nearly as well. The yes votes were 1,097 (49.80 percent ) and no 1,106 (50.20 percent). The vote came up short of a simple majority.
Some citizens, mostly property owners in the Olivette Executive Parkway took issue with this campaign, and fought hard for the defeat, especially of Prop “S.” They were opposed to remaking a 1980s building, adding more parking to the structure and the general nuisance they felt would be coming to their quiet parkway.
Mayor Arthur Merdinian of Olivette said “I’m incredibly disappointed with these results. A lot of people worked towards the success of this initiatives and right now, I don’t know if we will even bring it back around again.”
City Manager Mike McDowell felt this moment was critical for the future of the city. “Interests rates to do these projects will likely never be lower than right now,” said McDowell.
Former Mayor/present alderman Missy Waldman was also disappointed with the outcome. “This was a democratic decision and I’m disappointed the way it ended up. We will have to sit down and look at the situation and see what we want to do next.
A lot of people worked very hard on these issues. Our public relations firm (Steinbach-Musen) worked hard on this. I am sorry the way it worked out.”
James name
11:00 pm on Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Do the people who voted no on prop p realise that the community center is just going to sit there wasting away
James Baer
6:45 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Past midnight, I was thinking the same thing. There is no money to demolish the building now. It could become a real problem in the future for the City of Olivette. I will see what the city manager has in mind for that key issue.
Nancy Novack
7:51 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
It's understandable that the supporters of Prop S are disappointed but a costly bad plan is still a bad plan whether it took 30 minutes or 3 years. Olivette now needs a cost effective plan that includes a modern facility that is a real improvement to Olivette's image.
Olivette Council member Missy
7:52 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The homeowners on Grandview Drive came to the city asking for a plan to take the traffic off of Grandview Drive. We presented that plan. Unfortunately the matter is now moot. The city will continue to lose over 105,000 a year maintaing the building. One day it could become an abandoned building. Without Olivette voters support to modernize our "indenture restricted recreational use only" of 23 acres of land there is nothing the city can do other than keep the community center open until it truly begins to fall apart.
Fiscally Prudent
8:49 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
- Are kids currently being turned away from the soccer and ball teams due to lack of space? If so, how many and what would their participation financially generate?
- Can Parks and Rec charge more so they can pay for new fields? Why am I asked to pay for fields I won't be using?
- If money is generated from the park, where does that extra money go? Who gets it? Does it go to paying down the debt? Does it go to other city services? Where does it go?
There are many more questions that weren't answered in your so-called, now moot (Yay!) plan. It seems like you would have been much more respectful of the taxpayers when asking for our money to fund your "plan".
Fiscally Prudent
8:49 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
This is a bunch of bull. Wah... Wah... Wah.... You presented an idea and wanted the taxpayers to pay for it. A plan would have entailed real facts and figures on what exactly would have been financially generated from these changes. You are entrusted to run our city government, not our city charity. Put together a real plan.
Tell us:
- What would it cost to tear down the OCC?
- Why exactly do we need to purchase add'l land?
- What is the expected maintenance cost for clean-up, mowing, road repair?
- Are there add'l police costs associated with patrolling the area to keep down undesirable activity from forming? Or, will the police being there more take away from other services to Olivette residents? Or, do we have to hire more police?
- How much more can Parks and Rec generate from not having to rent fields?
Warson View Resident
4:29 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Why are you saying "the city will continue to lose over $105,000 a year maintaining the building"? At the public forums prior to the election, Mike McDonnell said the Community Center would be closed REGARDLESS of the outcome of the vote. So -- close the Center and quit losing the money!
Fiscally Prudent
8:20 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
When I attended a public forum on Props S and P, it was asked why the City of Olivette hadn't saved up some money in the past 40+ years to pay for new facilities. We were told that there wasn't enough money for savings. It was further said that when people want something like what these propositions entail they borrow the money.Yes, I borrowed money to help pay for my home but not before I saved a down payment and not before the bank and insurance company made sure I could pay back the loan and had the money to maintain the property. If the size of the fire house is tripled, is the cost of the maintenance doubled? If the city has no money to save, then where is the money coming from to pay for additional maintenance created from a larger facility and a larger, more used park?
If the city can't afford to tear down the OCC (which they can because we were told that they would save $100k a year if it were torn down - use that money), then I can't afford to let them be the stewards of my money. If the city needs more money so it can save for what it needs, then please use your time and talents to fill the empty spaces along Olive with money-generating tenants. Once the city has saved and can also show a plan with how maintenance will be covered, come to me, the taxpayer, and ask for some of my money to augment your needs. I will be much more likely to help you, to vote in your favor, once you have helped yourself.
Leif Hauser
9:17 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Fiscally Prudent - I remember you from the public forums. It sounds like you see your interests and the community's interests as being somehow separate and distinct. I remind you that the plans were generated by Olivette residents like yourself. I urge you to become involved in one or more of the commissions, boards, or even City Council. As a resident, you are eligible to participate and contribute to your community's future prosperity. Please do so.
Fiscally Prudent
10:26 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Leif - I remember you from the forum also and I found you to be the greatest voice of reason, respect, and knowledge among those presenting.
I do see my interests being separate and distinct from the community's interests. I think everyone does. I feel my interests are a matter of survival. Once I know I can survive, then I can give to those in the community around me. Where people get in trouble is when they put the needs of others over their own needs - and note that I say, "needs" and not "wants". Putting ones "wants" over the "needs" of others is also a problem. But, I digress. Just because I have a distinct interest, that doesn't mean that I haven't been a contributor to my community and don't believe in my community. I feel our family has given more than our share to the community in serving extensively in both Boy and Girl Scouts, elementary school classrooms, church work, elections, and as a neighborhood trustee. If that isn't believing in one's community then I don't know what is. (continued... due to space constraints)
Fiscally Prudent
10:30 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I do believe the people of Olivette should be more involved in the community but I also believe the City of Olivette should do a better job at communicating those needs. I do appreciate the work that has been done to improve the website and I visit it frequently. I also read the newsletter. I do see that there are openings on various boards and commissions but what I don't see is more detail on what actually is expected if one does decide to volunteer. It is hard to say you will volunteer for something when you don't know what is expected.
Concerning Props P and S, it was communicated to me loud and clear what was expected of me. What wasn't communicated was what expected in return.
James name
8:38 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
By the way prop s is the cheapeast available option for a new city hall and police and fire station
Fiscally Prudent
8:57 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
If it's the cheapest way, then show us that it is the cheapest way. What were some other ways and why did those ways prove to be more costly? And, maybe the citizens of Olivette don't want the cheapest way, maybe they want the best way? Maybe they want to be informed with some real information and not some mirrors and smokescreens.
flyoverland
9:33 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I have no dog in this fight, however, you have to wonder how the recently passed huge school tax affected voter's willingness for more. Plus, the Supt. of Schools was quoted here just a few days before the election saying the school would probably seek more bonds to spruce up the high school. There is no shortage of needs, however, in a recession, there is a shortage of available dollars.
Proud Resident
8:20 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I am glad the voters spoke and they said they were not willing to accept this excuse for a pathetic and incompetently developed plan. They sent a message to the city council that they need to wake up and get their act together if they are actually serious about doing something. If this is truly the best that they can do as they claim should we all throw in the towel?
Leif Hauser
8:59 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I suggest you put forth the effort to come forward with a better plan. It takes no appreciable skill to snipe anonymously. So, back up your criticism with something the community can get behind.
Proud Resident
9:23 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Leif, I ask you this; why is a terrible plan, better than no plan at all? With all of the highly over inflated egos in the room I doubt the involved parities would listen to a good plan if it wasn't their own.
Leif you are an elected official and I think you should start acting like one. It is absolutely ridiculous that anytime someone within your community criticizes your plans, you immediately retort to making degradative comments towards them. It's time to grow up, we are not on a playground in second grade.
Leif Hauser
9:45 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Proud Resident - Here is my challenge to you as an elected official. You and I are both residents and to that extent are equally invested in the success of this community's undertakings. As two adults, I am willing to engage you by name, in a constructive debate where we discuss the merits and shortcomings of what you have to offer vs. what I have to offer, your capital improvement plan vs. the one that was on the table. When you say things that suggest I'm not an adult, I'm a second grader, inflated egos, etc, then we aren't talking about the merits and shortcomings of the plan presented to the residents vs. your preferred vision of what the plan should have been. We've gone off topic. Again, convince us of how and why your ideas are the ones we should be pursuing instead.