Washington Post: Nonprofit group proposes merging St. Louis city with county

[Lakelander]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Someday when I'm really bored, I'm going to research how Jacksonville managed to take over Duval County. That seems to me to be the premier example of the center swallowing the rest and likely an example of the suburban folks getting stuck with paying for downtown problems as a result. But I'll have to look into it.

I know here in Tucson, the city keeps mumbling about annexing the "foothills" (of the Catalina mountains) which are the city's affluent and contiguous suburbs and the very idea strikes horror into the folks who live there.

I also live in an unincorporated area (second home) but we are next to a small town that has substantially higher (maybe 50% but that's just an estimate) taxes than ours.

Both the City of Jax and Duval County's government were pretty criminally corrupt in the 1960s. Public high schools were discredited, growth was stagnant and several politicians were indicted. Residents decided to blow both governments up and create one government in its place.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

I would argue no. The county is almost fully developed on what land is capable of being developed. Some communities within St. Louis County may be exurban minded but I would not say rural.

The shear amount of parochialism pervasive in the region at local government is mind boggling. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This merger would help alleviate a lot of this which has been a tremendous hindrance from the region seeing meaningful economic growth. The region does not work together on much of anything. On top of that the City of St. Louis government is astonishingly dysfunctional and archaic. It can only improve.

I would say this about St Louis, both the city and the county: I look at the city and county in much the same way as I look at San Francisco and San Mateo County in CA. Of course San Mateo County has more land than SF (448 sq ft almost 10 times bigger than SF's 49 sq ft), but SF has the bigger population (884,363 for SF, and 764,797 for San Mateo according to the 2016 Census) and bigger population growth. If you were to combine the two counties together, you'd have a population of 1,649,160, making that combined county the fifth largest city in America, but SF and San Mateo is split and SF can't expand further south, so it has no choice but to build up in order to increase it's population and density.

St Louis was the fourth largest city according to the 1900 census, registering 575,238 people and has it's largest count in 1950, of 856,796 people in 1950, when it was the eighth largest city in America. It's now the 61st largest city in America, with a population of 308,626 (2017 Census) and has a CSA of 2,911,945, both gradually declining. An while St Louis does have companies such as Anheuser Busch, Enterprise, Edward Jones, Centene, Purina, and Monsanto, it's economy isn't as strong nor is it as dynamic as the Bay Area and CA.

CA is still relevant despite reports of residents moving to other states such as NV and AZ, while MO isn't the same state it was since the 1900s. Even if St Louis City and County were to consolidate into one bigger city, it's not going to stop residents from leaving STL nor is this going to improve the city's local economy, as STL needs to find something that's relevant to the present. Manufacturing isn't as strong as it was during the 20th century, and much of the economic activity is coming from the county, not the city. While there are some projects I like from the city of STL (like the North-South Metrolink line), the city needs to place incentives and learn how cities like SF are able to thrive despite SF having a land area of only 46 sq ft, Boston having 48 sq ft, and Miami having 36 sq ft.

[Centropolis]

i mean, generally speaking metro st. louis has been growing...barely. when it comes to midwestern cities, reputation is everything, and can mean the difference between stagnant and slow growth. slow growth is preferable.