Monday, March 4, 2019

Tuesday's Race, Better Together and Restoring Black Relevance in St. Louis

On Tuesday, voters will decide who will be our next president of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. I haven’t seen this much energy, money and excitement about this race since the city’s first black mayor, Freeman Bosley, Jr., endorsed south city alderman, Francis R. Slay for the seat in 1994. It was a monumental moment in local politics because the mayor was an African-American, the comptroller, Virvus Jones, was African-American and two black women, Sharon Tyus (D-21st) and Ald. Velma Bailey (D-19th) were also seeking the president of the board seat.
To put it mildly, white political and civic leaders freaked out. Having all three seats of the powerful board of Estimate & Apportionment (E&A) board headed by black people was simply unfathomable. To have black people calling the shots on how city money would be distributed was something that had to be halted by any means necessary.
I am absolutely ga-ga over the fact that so much interest has been generated about this prez-of-the-board race. To me, it’s a referendum, maybe even a reboot, of a local political system that’s been co-opted by the rich and compromised by the fear of black power in the city. Odd as it may be, this particular race will either represent a continuation of or a realigning of the city’s priorities. 

Since the police shooting of Mike Brown in 2014, the Bernie Sanders movement of  2016 and Tishaura Jones’ bid for mayor in 2017, younger people have become actively engaged, as candidates and as voters. Candidates have spearheaded new and robust ways through social media and old-fashioned face-to-face meetings to inform and activate voters. I sense a mighty trajectory of change that’s destined to challenge the stealth, stubborn, stoic and, dare I say, racist, mode of political operations by the status quo.  
Tishaura Jones
But let;s be clear: This old guard, the establishment, elitist political and civic oligarchs have no intention of going quietly into the night. The “empire” has consistently struck back with well-funded campaigns that’s less about “race” and more about racial irrelevancy.
From a historical perspective, city leaders have yet to recover from the exodus of almost 500,000 people (mostly white) from the city between 1950 and 1990. Based on the paranoid belief that blacks (black crime, black poverty, black politics, black people) are the root causes of our population loss, the powerful and privileged have mounted race-based campaigns ranging from ward redistricting, ward reduction to the current “Better Together” merger proposition. By many accounts, this particular scheme will basically strip black elected officials of any say in a city with an almost majority black population.

This model of city governance, current and transitional, serves as my major motivation in Tuesday’s elections. My choice for president of the board is based on who, among the three top candidates-Lewis Reed, Megan Green or Jamilah Nasheed-has the juice to preserve and increase black political power in the city. Secondly, it's about who will put the brakes on the power brokers’ intent to dissipate that power. Other issues: development in long-ignored black neighborhoods, commiserate political representation, and push-back against privatization-are all connected to these concerns.
Lewis Reed, the current president of the board, gets the most scrutiny from me. He’s been in that position for 11 years, but I’ve yet to see him exhibit the same leadership, dedication, drive or enthusiastic support for development in North St. Louis that he has for baseball or soccer stadiums, high-end developments downtown or the Central Corridor, airport privatization or the current effort to merge the city and county.
Reed has been endorsed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the propaganda piece for the whims of the rich & culturally-clueless. He also has the blessings of Mayor Lyda Krewson, former Mayor’s Slay’s hand-picked czar of take-back politics.
As the St. Louis American noted in its Feb. 28th article, white democratic conservatives like Aldermen Joe Vaccaro, Beth Murphy and Joe Roddy have also endorsed Reed. According the article, it’s “telling” and time for serious change when representatives of old, biased thinking believe Reed best protects their interests. For me, I just think Reed has gotten far too comfortable with old thinking and establishment money.
If Megan Green wasn’t who she is, she’d probably have my support. Green has already demonstrated that she’s willing to rock the boats of rich, influential elites and the politicians they unceremoniously fund. She has stood for integrity, transparency, equity and voter input on issues like airport privatization. Green has the support of a diverse group of residents and grassroots organizations. I’m also impressed that she’s a young and unafraid female politician. 
My problem with Megan, isn’t Megan. It’s the fact that her victory will jeopardize the racial make-up of the E&A board at a time when the stakes are too high, and the black political machine’s engine is just now sputtering anew. Besides, we must view this new wave of progressive, local politics with caution. Yes, white progressives have challenged docile, go-along-white conservative Democrats. But I’ve yet to see any sign of “progressive” collaboration with black aldermen.  White progressives are cool and all but, honestly, when confronted by what many consider “uncompromising” black leaders, they tend to be just as conservative as conservatives. Many act as if they know what’s best for black people without embracing, consulting or collaborating with their black colleagues.
To be frank, I’m looking for a resurgence of creative, strong black leadership in the city. I like the energy and innovative thinking of young aldermen like John Muhammad (D-21st) and Brandon Bosley (D-3rd Ward). A great addition to the board will be the Rev. Darryl Gray,candidate for alderman in the 18th Ward. I believe Gray, a well-known and seasoned activist and humanitarian, has the bonafides to help bond some of the broken pieces that divide the current board of aldermen.

Rev. Darryl Gray (left)
I want an uncompromising president of the board who recognizes the untapped potential in this city; someone who can rally, inspire and motivate the diverse board of aldermen to use their collective power to invest city resources into long-ignored neighborhoods and people that the power-brokers have deemed irrelevant.  
Bosley and Muhammad have already instigated a recall of Krewson based on the belief that she’s a sell-out for backing a proposal that will render the city impotent in determining its own destiny. No doubt, Krewson will survive the recall but it will remain a stain on her record for years to come and a rallying cry for a displaced people.
I’m taking a long-range view with this upcoming race. Treasurer, Tishaura Jones has already intimated that she will again seek the seat she lost in 2017 due to the arrogance and egos of black candidates who basically handed the race to Krewson. Personally, I maintain that their crimes of pride and ignorance should not go unpunished.
So, let’s say push-back from locals and county municipalities that want no part of the city due to its over-hyped negative perceptions, dooms this merger proposition. What if Jones wins the next mayoral contest? Her endorsement of State Senator Jamilah Nasheed heavily influenced my decision to also back the candidate. Jones as mayor and Nasheed as head of the aldermanic board means two, maybe three (with Comptroller Darlene Green) independent, influential black women in control of how city resources will be distributed. This will represent a huge and much-needed blow to the cadre of powerful individuals, like former Mayor Slay, who are doggedly determined to privatize everything and strip the city of its prominence, potential and power.
For these reasons and more, I’m hoping Nasheed wins this race. Is she perfect? No. But, of the three top contenders, I think she’s our best shot. Again, turning to the American’s commentary about Nasheed...“we have a candidate – born and bred in North St. Louis – whom we know very well and have known for decades.”  
Nasheed, I hope, won’t be tethered to the whims of rich, local dictators. Yes, like Reed, some have contributed to her campaign, but she’s also voted against their interests, as the American article stressed. The bottom line is that Nasheed will be accountable to a largely grassroots base, she will also be held accountable by Jones, by the people, by me. Of course, the same can be said about Megan Green but not about Reed. If Green wins, I will shed no tears, but I’ll quietly worry about the path of black political progress.
Folks, despite what the naysayers say and do, we’re onto something here in St. Louis. Everything we need to reduce crime, build safer, stronger communities and empower young people is within our grasp. We simply have to believe in ourselves and our collective capabilities. St. Louis doesn’t need to merge with the county to be great. We can be great by developing our own culturally-rich identity like New Orleans or Atlanta. We can be great by rejecting race-based fears and investing in organizations like Better Family Life, the Urban League, Beloved Streets and projects like mine that use agriculture and the selling of fresh food and food-based products to fuel an economic engine in North St. Louis. Just as St. Louis has created a worldwide template for effective protests, we can attract positive press and acclaim by transforming troubled neighborhoods into possible black Meccas.
We must aggressively address the decades-old, backwards status quo mindset that “black” is bad. Now is not the time to backslide, we have much work to do. We must convince the divided but diverse masses that investing in black communities and empowering black people is not a threat to white people or white neighborhoods. It’s a solid investment in our city, our people, our children and our future.
We can be great by finally, finally making black St. Louis relevant again.
That said, on Tuesday, March 5th, join me in electing Jamilah Nasheed president of the board of Aldermen.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

There will be no "Better Together" without Respect

By Sylvester Brown, Jr.

I love St. Louis!

As a much younger journalist born and raised in “Da Lou,” I never imagined myself saying those words. For decades, I’ve complained about our region’s stubborn, segregationist mindset; the uber-wealthy oligarchs who run roughshod over citizens with tax-dependent developments in already stable neighborhoods. I’ve taken these rich, disconnected ruffians to task for dismantling and displacing entire black communities while callously disregarding loyal long-time residents.  I’ve criticized black and white leaders for their lack of vision and inaction regarding reciprocity and equality. The disproportionate economic, social and racial inequities drive me batty.
All this and more comes to my mind as local media outlets are all abuzz about a plan to merge St. Louis City with St. Louis County. A group called “Better Together” recently announced a detailed reunification process. It's a bold plan designed to wed the city with the county in order to make us a bigger, better and more unified metropolis.
Maybe I'm just a paranoid skeptic, but this proposed matrimony gives me the heebie-jeebies. It makes wonder about the complexities and ramifications of  so-called "change."  
Again, I've come to truly love this city. It's an extraordinary place where I, an impoverished youth and high school dropout, still managed to carve out a role as a respected magazine publisher, a columnist for the city’s major newspaper and a verbal activist for "at-risk" children and revitalized long-ignored neighborhoods. I’m not alone in this category of uniqueness. St. Louis is small enough and unexplored enough that almost any wild-eyed dreamer can make his or her mark. It's a place where that old, oft-cited creed: “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere,” is a proud staple of our tenacity and grit.  
The city of St. Louis, with all its dysfunctional pieces, has that distinct trailblazer spirit. Our protests have set the template for civil disobedience demonstrations around the world. We are the unofficial home of the St. Paul Sandwich and a burgeoning, racially-diverse, progressive political base. It’s yummy, unconventional venues like Mokabe's, Red Guitar Bread, Uncle Bill’s, Goody-Goody and Sunday breakfast at CW Lounge. This is the place where an avantgarde individual like spoken word artist Bruce Franks can employ his swag at the State Capitol. That spirit of urban "toughness" is exemplified by Tishaura Jones, the grassroots gentrifiers of Old North and the eclectic treasures found in the Grove and the Chippewa strip. It’s John Goodman and Goodfellow, Cedric and St. Louis Ave., Dick Gregory and Grand Blvd, Tennessee Williams and Walnut Park. It’s Josephine Baker, Maya Angelou, Redd Fox, Tina Turner, Chingy, SZA, Akon and so many others who were born here and went out to showcase their brilliance against incredible odds.

The city of St. Louis, with all its dysfunctional pieces, has that distinct trailblazer spirit. 

No doubt, there are many benefits to this merging thing. St. Louis' population has been on a steady decline since the 1950s. Back in the early 1900s, we were the fourth largest population in the country. We’re now in 62nd place. Merging the city and county would give us a combined population of 1.3 million residents, ranking the region as the 10th largest city in the country.
Fine, great. But “bigger” doesn’t necessarily mean “better.” If both the city and county are stigmatized by racial polarization, segregation and social and economic disparities, most likely, we’re gonna get more fat-cat control and more privatization without community input. There’s a chance we’ll have more police malfeasance, bigger tax perks and hand-outs to rich developers. "Bigger" might mean larger numbers of underfunded public schools, quietly codified housing discrimination, more minority political under-representation and over all bigger regional disdain for voters, poor people and people of color.
My spider senses immediately started tingling when I learned that Better Together has been bankrolled by billionaire philanthropist and political donor Rex Sinquefield. Love him or loathe him, he isn’t exactly the poster child for public input or grassroots involvement in many of the issues he's paid for or promoted.
Glenn Burleigh, spokesman for STL Not for Sale, the anti-airport privatization group, posted something on Facebook that underscores Sinquefield’s influence on the people responsible for Better Together’s merger plan:
“A rich person chose five people to make decisions in an unaccountable vacuum and we all have to live through the process of pushing the outcome of a sterling example of the idiotic ‘design thinking’ that plagues America's elites, these days.”
 Granted, there are a bunch of folks much smarter than me who back this fusion sensation. At a recent political forum, all three candidates for the president of the board of aldermen's seat said they support a city/county marriage in some form or another.
    But here’s what gets me, the city I love is being portrayed as the unwanted, balloon-headed stepchild in conversations outside the city. Instead of being viewed as the cultural hub of the state, the crown jewel of boot-strap innovation, we’re largely stereotyped by county and rural outsiders as a crime-filled land of the walking dead, overflowing with lazy welfare recipients and violent drugged-out, dark-skinned predators.
“A rich person chose five people to make decisions in an unaccountable vacuum and we all have to live through the process of pushing the outcome of a sterling example of the idiotic ‘design thinking’ that plagues America's elites, these days.”

The Better Together crew are calling for a statewide vote to decide whether to consolidate the city and County. Some state legislators, county mayors and the St. Louis County Municipal League, which represents county towns, are against the merger. Many cite the city's disproportionate numbers of murders, impoverished and homelessness people. Those are serious concerns but the negativeness of the city doesn't define our city. And, as newsman Charles Jaco penned in a recent St. Louis American commentary, “racism has more than a little to do with the opposition by many of the county’s towns to a merger.”
We’re now asking the “white flight” people who vacated the city for the perceived benefits of the ‘burbs,’ to now become decision-makers and stewards of the city. 
Before we talk nuptials, let’s talk progress. As backwards as the city is in many respects, it’s far ahead of the county in terms of addressing racial reciprocity and economic equity. Treasurer and 2017 mayoral candidate Tishaura Jones, several “progressive” white aldermen, some newly elected black aldermen and at least two of the president of the board of aldermen candidates have effectively challenged our stale, good-ole-boy, pay-to-play political system. They have bold, inclusive narrative and have established new ways to engage and activate voters, especially young voters. 
The city/county merger threatens to, if not erase, drastically change the city’s promising trajectory. Still, a lot of people welcome that change. I get it. 

"Racism has more than a little to do with the opposition by many of the county’s towns to a merger." - Charles Jaco

This is not to say there’s been no racial progress in county politics. According to Better Together, Wesley Bell’s victory in the county prosecutor’s race “demonstrates that majority white populations can and do elect African-American officials." 
Maybe, but least we forget that once Bell, who campaigned on the issue of police accountability, was elected, county prosecutors voted to join the St. Louis Police Officers Association (SLPOA). The very organization Jaco aptly described as a “labor union in the same way the Ku Klux Klan is a “fraternal organization.” 
I've become very protective of this city. I may criticize her but I don't like it when its done by outsiders. With this merger, city and county leaders act like St. Louis is damaged goods, like the county is the prize bridegroom and the city is the deformed, damaged and desperate bride. The county may have the population and potential to improve our status nationally, but don’t get this stuff twisted. We are the prize. Nobody travels hundreds or thousands of miles to visit the St. Louis County Zoo, Muny, Opera or the County Cardinals. They don't come here for county barbecue or county blues.  If the county doesn't respect the city at the beginning of this courtship, we're destined for an abusive relationship after we're wed. 

With this merger, city leaders act like St. Louis is damaged goods, like the county is the prize bridegroom and St. Louis is the deformed, damaged and desperate bride.

I’m not poo-pooing the whole idea of a merger. I just think both the city and county need time to prepare for the marriage.  The city, especially, needs time to refine itself, establish itself as a progressive, diverse, crown jewel before we compromise our progress.  
Consider this a plea from someone who sees the untapped potential of a disrespected populace; someone wary of highfalutin, well-financed but short-sighted schemes to change things; someone who’s grown tired of black folk being irrelevant in this region.
Forgive my skepticism. I can’t help myself. After all, I’m just an ordinary guy who loves his extraordinary city.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Elect Jamilah Nasheed: Let’s Do What We Gotta Do!

Jan. 16, 2019
By Sylvester Brown, Jr.

State Senator Jamilah Nasheed and me

Five years ago, State Senator Jamilah Nasheed casually parked her car in front of her home in the 4000 block of Olive Blvd. Seemingly out of nowhere, a wannabe carjacker pointed a gun at her head, demanding the keys to her car. Nasheed refused and according to the police report, the suspect threatened to blow her brains out.  
“Do what you’re going to do," the politician stubbornly responded. Miraculously, the stunned suspect returned to his car and drove away.
That story from 2014 came back to me last week as candidate Nasheed and I met for lunch at River Lillie, a cozy little southern-style restaurant in the Old North neighborhood. Over salmon croquettes and fried catfish, Nasheed laid out her case for election in the upcoming president of the board of alderman’s race. With deep dimples that emphasized a smile uncoordinated with her intense glare, she told me:
“Syl, we simply have to change the leadership in this city.”

“Do what you’re going to do," the politician stubbornly responded. 

As we talked, I was reminded of the then 41-year-old, stubborn, tough-as-steel politician who stood her ground with a gun pointed at her face.  Probably not the smartest move in such a dangerous situation but Nasheed is no stranger to danger or death.
A few months before she was born, her father, a Vietnam War veteran, was killed in a drive-by shooting while playing dice outside the Pruitt-Igoe housing project. Two years later, her mom committed suicide. Nasheed was raised by her grandmother, Evelyn Williams, in the Darst-Webbe housing projects. She and her three brothers lived off $500 of government assistance every month. Before she became a Muslim and bookstore-owner, Nasheed was a teenage thug. She was a gangbanger, drug dealer and was even sent to juvenile detention for stabbing a young lady.
I’ve had my issues with Nasheed. In a commentary last month, I questioned her credentials to lead the board of Aldermen. Still, I was leaning in her direction. It was my “shero,” Treasurer, Tishaura Jone’s recent endorsement, that sealed the deal for me. I found myself agreeing with her assessment of Nasheed:
“We need someone who is going to be bold and effective,” Jones wrote. “She isn’t in this for herself. No matter what part of the city you come from, no matter your background, no matter how you grew up, she is here for all of us.”
I haven’t forgotten Nasheed’s role during the 2017 mayoral election travesty where three black candidates divided the vote which led to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s slim victory. Nasheed, who was the fourth candidate, dropped out of the race and suggested the others do the same. They should all endorse Tishaura Jones, she said because she had the juice to beat Krewson. Jones loss the election by a mere 888 votes. If only one of the black candidates dropped out, she’d possibly be mayor today.

“We need someone who is going to be bold and effective...” - Tishaura Jones on Jamilah Nasheed 

I’ve always admired Nasheed’s moxie and her commitment to her constituents, black, white, common, influential, rich or poor. Of the three candidates running in the race, I believe Nasheed will be the tough leader we need in these tough times.  
You see, I was born, raised and still live in the city of St. Louis. I’ve been writing about this place, its politics and people for more than 30 years. This has given me insight into what to expect. Right now, like the young folk say, the city is feelin’ itself. Once again, its arrogantly, bodaciously and recklessly making moves to rectify mistakes of the past.
More than 140 years ago, city leaders, tired of providing the lion's share of tax revenues to the county, established a new state constitution. “Home Rule” was designed to give the city control of its own destiny without interference from county governments. Because of its soaring population at the time, the city created boundaries that divided it from the county. As a result, it locked itself out any opportunities to expand its territorial reach. Home Rule also fueled the creation of duplicate systems: sanitation, public schools and fire and police departments throughout the region.
In the early, 1950s, once again confident that its population was going to exceed the one million-mark, city leaders sought to remove its black population from the downtown area for redevelopment. They failed to realize that new highways and new developments in the suburbs would lead to a dramatic loss of its white population.  
For at least the past 30 years, they’ve used tax dollars and incentives to unapologetically shore up or rebuild areas of the city that has the potential to bring upper-to-middle-class whites back to the city. The Central West End, the Central Corridor, parts of south St. Louis and the downtown area surrounding the new National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) are all being primed for the arrival of the county’s “exodusters,” new age “gentrifiers” and high-wage-earning millennials.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with growth or expansion. Personally, I like the new breed of young whites who have migrated to the city. Some of them want to see a more progressive, more diverse, safer and more vibrant metropolis. Many are looking for ways to be a part of holistic change, but their enthusiasm is muted by division and the lack of a unified vision. The reality is that St. Louis has a long, ugly history of doing development in arrogant, unequitable, dismissive and racist ways. Just like in the old days of purposeful segregation today’s stale, stoic leaders are still insisting on investing in white neighborhoods while leaving black communities to rot and ruin. The city needs tough, visionary, young and diverse leaders to upset the apple cart of rich, mostly white oligarchs’ intent on territorial domination through cherry-picked, tax-dependent developments.
As far as Nasheed is concerned, her major opponent, current Aldermanic Board President, Lewis Reed, has been compromised by the power barons. She also asserts that he has not “leveraged his power for the benefit of all constituents.”
The “power” Nasheed referenced is his seat on the powerful Board of Estimate and Apportionment (A&E), the city’s chief fiscal body, along with the mayor and comptroller.
For example, Nasheed says Reed is playing “footsy” with the powers-that-be intent on privatizing the city’s biggest asset, St. Louis Lambert International Airport. She questions why they are doing so without public input.
Lately, local media has been fixated on what I deem “silly news,” regarding what individuals were fired by recently elected black politicians or the hours State Rep Bruce Franks (District 78), worked with youth as part of his part time job with a city agency. All this nonsense while a bigger, dare I say, more unethical scam is being perpetrated by fat cats and politicians involved with privatizing the airport.

Nasheed says Reed is playing “footsy” with the powers-that-be intent on privatizing the city’s biggest asset, St. Louis Lambert International Airport.

 The St. Louis American and a few other news outlets have provided in-depth analysis of the situation but here’s a brief summary: Shortly before leaving office, former Mayor Francis G. Slay initiated the process to seek federal approval to study the prospect of putting Lambert under private management. A year later, he and a slew of his former staffers were hired as consultants for the Madrid-based company that’s one of three top contenders in the bidding process. Slay has teamed with “Grow Missouri” a nonprofit funded by Missouri billionaire Rex Sinquefield to submit the application to the Federal Aviation Administration. According to news reports, Grow Missouri is paying the consultant fees at the tune of about $800,000 a month. If the city goes through with its privatization efforts, taxpayers will reimburse Grow Missouri.
St. Louis Public Radio’s Melody Walker’s piece explores the possible conflict-of-interest concerns and violations of Missouri statutes involved in this boondoggle. Alderwoman Cara Spencer (D-20th Ward) and Alderman Scott Ogilvie (D-24th Ward) have sponsored a bill requiring a public vote on any airport privatization plans.  Mayor Lyda Krewson does not support the idea and, along with Reed, voted to allow the privatization study to go forward. Comptroller Darlene Green, who also sits on the E&A board voted “no.” Meanwhile, Spencer and Ogilvie’s bill is being held up, without a vote, in the Board of Aldermen’s Transportation and Commerce Committee.

This is the sort of political thuggery that calls for new, aggressive leadership. Nasheed is in favor of giving citizens the right to vote on the issue. She’s also publicly called for the removal of Grow Missouri from the Airport Privatization Advisory Team, even though she’s received campaign money from Sinquefield.

This sort of political thuggery calls for new, aggressive leadership.

I like and respect Lewis and the other contender in the aldermanic president’s race, Megan Ellyia Green. However, of the three, I feel Nasheed has the passion, community connections, street cred and experience to shake things up at City Hall. During our lunch, we discussed development in black communities that would be on par with years of tax-paid developments in already stable, white communities. Nasheed immediately went to “empowerment,” saying we should find, support and empower up-and-coming black developers and nonprofits already doing the hard work of stabilizing, reenergizing and revitalizing long-ignored and underfunded neighborhoods.

Candidate and State Senator Jamilah Nasheed 
The St. Louis region needs serious political reform. The outdated, narrow-minded, good-ole-boy system here needs a challenge in the form of the female surge that swept Congress during the midterm elections. The name “Jamillah Nasheed” has that same culturally-refreshing ring as other firebrand newcomers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Gina Ortiz-Jones and Jahana Hayes.
If the endorsement of an old dude who’s been chronicling St. Louis’ adventures and misadventures forever has any weight, I’m throwing it behind Nasheed. We need fresh blood, we need more bold, female elected officials, we need someone to challenge the greedy, unchallenged status quo in this city. We need someone who can face a symbolic gun to her head without blinking, someone who will gird her shoulders for the fight and say: “Do what you’re gotta do! I’m gonna protect what I hold dear.”

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Who’s the Best Candidate in the President of the Board of Aldermen Race? Inquiring Minds Need to Know

“What do you do when two of your friends run against each other in a major local election?”

That question, posted on Facebook by Treasurer, Tishaura Jones, resonated with me. She was alluding to the upcoming President of the Board Aldermen’s race. I assume Jones was talking about candidates, state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis) and Alderwoman Megan Green (D-15th Ward). Since the mayoral campaign last year, it seems she and Lewis Reed, the current board president, aren’t on the best of terms, politically.
I share Ms. Jones conundrum, except I know and like all three candidates. They’re personable, professional and have solid followings.  Therefore. I’m voting based on what I think needs to happen in this city and in local body politic in general.
Let’s start with an analysis of the role, power and responsibilities of the board president: Arguably, the President of the Aldermanic Board holds the second highest position in city government. Along with the comptroller and Mayor he/she sits on the powerful Estimate and Apportionment board which essentially decides where taxpayer’s money go. The president of the board of aldermen leads the legislative body of the city. She/he decides what legislation or “board bills” go to what committees, who sits on those committees and what bills go to the mayor to be signed into law.  
Additionally, the President of the board of aldermen is supposed to serve in a “check & balance” position, making sure the mayor doesn’t just dominate the legislative process. Accordingly, she/he oversees the city’s budget process, set goals and monitors a variety of issues, including land-use, which happens to be of importance to me.
If you’ve read my commentaries, you know I’ve been very critical of the board of aldermen, especially black politicians. For the most part, as a collective, they seem weak and vision-less. I simply can’t understand how, for at least the past 20 years, they’ve approved and allowed taxpayer dollars to go to wealthy developers and majority stable, white neighborhoods. All this while the wards they serve remain mostly fallow, underdeveloped and under-served. Let me be clear, my criticism isn’t just relegated to the board of aldermen. As far as I’m concerned, elected officials on the state and national levels have also come up short in their roles as “black leaders.”
Still, some recently elected young, progressive politicians give me hope. I’m looking for the candidates who boldly demonstrates they can corral, motivate, inspire and move the board in a more positive, inclusive and racially-equitable direction.  


To be honest, all three candidates demonstrate weaknesses in the areas I outline. I also understand that whites outvote blacks in all local and national elections. From Obama on down the line, there is a tendency to downplay outright appeals to black voters out of fear of alienating white voters. However, in this era of dynamic, outspoken political leaders like Cong. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and our very own, Tishaura Jones, it’s time out for timid, racially-wary, appeasing politicians.   
It’s in this arena where current board president, Lewis Reed, gets the most scrutiny from me simply because he’s held the office for the past 11 years.
On his and the city’s websites, Reed boasts of his accomplishments as the 6th Ward aldermen in the Lafayette Square neighborhood. The revitalization and redevelopment work, which he says resulted in $1.7 billion in new development in the 6th Ward and on Washington Ave., is indeed laudable. However, after all those years in office, I expected evidence of how he’s worked with the aldermen he leads. What specific legislation has he championed for North St. Louis? He states no history or vision of what explicit initiatives he would pursue if reelected.
The election is in March. I suppose there’s enough time to make a better case for black leadership. I hope he does.
I’ve known Jamilah Nasheed, who was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in 2006, ever since she opened an inner-city bookstore at the tinder age of 19. I respect her and do not doubt her passion or commitment towards her African American constituents. Her accomplishments outlined on her website and in a recent St. Louis American article are impressive.
Nasheed says, “I’m proud of my work giving a voice to the voiceless on issues like civil rights, women’s health and a living wage, fighting to improve our schools and stop crime, all the while bringing millions of dollars back home to serve our communities.”
 Great. But she doesn’t give us any examples of how she convinced other state legislators to follow her lead. I left her site wanting more evidence that she can indeed work with a diverse and difficult board of aldermen. What “board bills” will she adopt, pass onto committees and how will she persuade the mayor to sign them into law?
Ironically, it was 15th Ward Alderwoman, Meghan Green, the lone white candidate, who came closest to defining my idea of a aldermanic leader:
"The board lacks a legislative agenda…" Green told the Riverfront Times. “The petty politics, backroom deals, that's what's been dominating the board. We have to have somebody in that position who hasn't been playing the insider game and who hasn't been afraid to stand up to the status quo. That needs to the be the role of the president, to set that standard..."
Green, elected in 2014, is considered one of the most progressive members of the Aldermanic Board. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch highlighted, she’s been a vocal critic of tax incentives, expressed her desire to make City Hall more transparent and she wants to reform how St. Louis approaches public safety and economic development.
Green says she’s already “played a major role in driving the legislative agenda at the Board, by introducing bills governing community benefits agreements, marijuana decriminalization and police reform.”
Good stuff. But “driving legislation” that some colleagues may like is far different from seeking compromise, cajoling or convincing those who may disagree with her as president of the board. I’m a big fan but, as a “progressive” politician, I’ve yet to see how she’s been a “leader” among her black colleagues. She doesn’t mention the number of their bills she’s supported or how she helped them become law.
Are there any? I shouldn’t have to guess.
Let’s be real, the city is still racially and politically-divided. The president of the board must demonstrate that he/she has the juice to effectively wade into those divisive waters and make a “progressive difference.” Green doesn’t make a convincing argument in what I’ve read on her website or articles written so far.


Who will truly serve as the check & balance mechanism against the status quo? I didn’t see where any of the candidates addressed this efficiently.  Yes, Reed was there for the budgets approved under his tenure. But, considering that those city budgets, approved over the past 20 years have led to the enrichment of developers in stable, majority white-populated neighborhoods while leaving majority black North St. Louis wards high and dry isn’t particularly brag-worthy.
He cites that he founded Bike St. Louis and the online community platform Nextdoor. He also says he’s “a proud partner of the LGBTQ community and established the city’s first dog park. All good things but, seriously, how much opposition did Reed really have on these issues?
To be fair, on his website, Reed does cite examples of fighting “with the administration.” He says he had to “push good legislation” aimed at raising the minimum wage. He fought to introduce legislation that required developers to include community benefits agreements. He also says he developed “joint partnerships” that included “academia, nonprofit, clergy, business leaders, city services, the police and more” to work together on crime reduction efforts.  
“The relationships she’s built in Jefferson City will be an advantage over her opponents in the race,” Nasheed told the Post-Dispatch. Her work on the state level to “improve education, reduce incarceration and end human trafficking,” are examples of her ability to collaborate with fellow legislators.
I absolutely love Jamillah, but I’d be remiss not to mention her abrupt turn-around from avid critic of former Mayor Francis Slay to becoming one of his most prominent supporters. Reed, drilled down on this in an interview with the St. Louis American:
“Considering the fact that the soon to be termed out State Senator Nasheed was a hard-core supporter of and contributed money to former Mayor Francis Slay when I ran against him in 2013…I believe voters will easily see through her announcement statement as empty rhetoric and know that her true motives are not what’s good for the community, but only what’s good for her own personal benefit.”
Sour grapes? Perhaps. But it’s hard for me to get over her support of a mayor who did absolutely nothing to improve black neighborhoods throughout his 16 years in office.   
Nasheed says she’s “locked in over $6 million in the state budget for job and career training programs,” which include pre-apprenticeship programs for women and minorities and additional funding for nonprofits that support children and families. She also introduced and got Senate Bill 731 passed which was designed to help “preserve” St. Louis neighborhoods by going after absentee landlords who allow vacant properties to devalue neighbors. All wonderful but not exactly revolutionary ideas.
Nasheed accurately says “St. Louis has lived a tale of two cities, for far too long.” She’s vowed to bridge “the Delmar Divide,” address gun violence, the lack of opportunity for communities that have not seen growth or development and have “been left behind.”
Good words, but how exactly will she uplift those “left behind” communities? I saw no concrete platform, bold agenda or detailed explanation for economic investment in disadvantaged, black neighborhoods. Would saying so turn white voters off?
Mayor Lyda Krewson and some black aldermen have endorsed the idea or introduced legislation aimed at reducing the number of abandoned buildings or putting vacant buildings and land in the hands of low-income residents. So far, Nasheed has missed a golden opportunity to detail how she, as board president, will turn these ambitious wishes and proposed bills into concrete realities.
Green, on her website, takes a more direct, albeit equally-vague approach:
We can have a City that stops giving away money to developers who don’t qualify and gives everyday people a say in the development decisions that impact them.”
Under one of her “Boldly Forward” categories, Green says she will challenge the city system that doled out $700 million in tax revenues, TIFs and tax-abatements to “the wealthiest wards in the City and resulted in the significant displacement of low-income African Americans from these areas.”
I agree with her assessment that “the City should be more responsible” and limit questionable subsidies without community benefit. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. The RFT article also noted that some of Green’s colleagues on the board “see her as a show-off more interested in playing to her progressive base than getting things done.” Can she be effective with those outside her fan base? How will she wane other less trusting aldermen off the tax-supported subsidy nipple and into an environment where investments in less affluent neighborhoods and poorer people are a priority?
Voters need to know.
Since the mid-1990s, African Americans have held at least two of these authoritative seats. Green’s candidacy threatens to upset that ratio. Now, considering how little black neighborhoods and residents have benefited from having “black faces in high places,” a shake-up might be warranted.
Still, with a white mayor and a white candidate who’s yet to show how “progressive” she can really be with African-American legislators, Green’s candidacy comes with a risk.


Green, Nasheed and Reed all support the city-wide use of community benefit agreements that work with residents to determine which projects should receive tax subsidies. Oh, there’s plenty of nit-picking among them. Nasheed says Reed didn’t push hard enough for community benefits in exchange for tax subsidies. Reed and Green both introduced community benefit agreements bills last year. Both had differences regarding who would negotiate what deals: the aldermen, a committee of ward residents or some combination of both. Neither bill got enough votes for passage however.
All the candidates share a desire to direct city funds toward crime reduction. But, it’s in this arena where the two black candidates have given me the willies.
Earlier this year, Nasheed sent a letter to Gov. Mike Parson asking him to declare a state of emergency in the city. Her argument, according to media accounts, was if we spend billions fighting the Taliban, why can’t we spend a fraction of that money combating drug dealers and street gangs in St. Louis.
Reed has latched onto Operation Ceasefire, a 1990s Boston-born initiative that saw a 63 percent reduction in youth homicides two years after it was implemented. The program includes a strategy in which police, prosecutors, community leaders and service providers engage with reputed gang members. If they fail to stem violent behavior suspected perpetrators will be targeted for arrests, prosecution and stiffer penalties.
I have nothing against efforts to reduce crime, but we already suffer from police brutality, unarmed shootings of black people, prosecutorial misconduct, race-based stops and sentencing. Just because the program has been universally praised in the media and appeals to insensitive and unconnected white voters doesn’t mean it will work in St. Louis. I’m skeptical of any effort designed to empower law enforcement to target minorities. Additionally, dozens of cities have adopted Boston’s cease fire program with spotty results. Some, like Chicago, still have disproportionate murder and crime rates.
I’m biased, but I sincerely believe solutions for crime reduction are already in our midst. I believe we will never stem disproportionate rates of crime or murder until we do the hard work of eradicating poverty, investing in poor neighborhoods and empowering residents to control their own social and economic futures. 
Besides, there are dozens of nonprofits like Better Family Life, Beloved Streets of America, the Sweet Potato Project and many more working on affordable housing, urban entrepreneurism and economic development in poor, high-crime areas. Who will lead the charge in investing city funds into local efforts?
Once again, Green’s approach seems more practical but short on specifics:
“For too long, St. Louis has invested in an “arrest and incarcerate” model that strains the relationship between police and the community while failing to address the root causes of crime in our community.  We can’t make the city safer without addressing poverty, the lack of opportunity, mental health, and drug addiction.”
Unlike Reed, Green isn’t just looking outside St. Louis for solutions. She vows to use the Ferguson Commission Report, Washington University’s “For Sake of All Report and recommendations from Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and Campaign Zero “as blueprints as we re-envision public safety to invest in people.”
The cease-fire approach comes with the scary possibilities aligned with increasing police and the courts power, but it also includes working with a network of nonprofits and social agencies. It’s here where Reed needs to provide clarity and specifics that explain how black leaders and organizations can significantly increase their roles in public safety and crime prevention while avoiding the racist “war on drugs” legacy that has historically targeted, prosecuted and persecuted black people while crippling black communities.


It may seem like I’m leaning toward Green in the upcoming race. I’m not, at least not at this point. My wish is that the candidates consider this commentary a request for lucidity, specifics and a solid agenda, not simple soundbites and feel-good rhetoric.
Last year, we blew a historic opportunity to elect Tishaura Jones, a young, refreshing mayoral candidate who spooked the status quo and specifically spoke to an equitable agenda for all St. Louisans. Across the country, recently elected bold, articulate and dynamic minority and female candidates are poised for great change in our nation.
This is not the time for lackluster leadership in our region. St. Louis is still overwhelmingly stale, stuck in the past, void of leadership and overall vision-less. Candidates for the powerful president of the board of aldermen seat can better explain their qualifications and expectations for this role.
My hope, as we move closer to March, is that they will update their websites, speak publicly or simply show voters how they, without a doubt, will lead the board of aldermen and the city into a new era of progressive, inclusive and equitable governance for all.