by Herm Smith

Do you think that it’s okay for the Planning Commission and Planning & Development Department to defy zoning ordinances? Should the Plan Commission reaffirm a fourteen-year old Master Plan that encourages the use of Eminent Domain against property owners despite the Missouri Supreme Court ruling and the Clayton Citizens vote disapproving of the use of eminent domain?

Again, this week the commission considered allowing exceptions to the local law. The members are disregarding citizen votes, the municipal ordinances and Missouri State court decisions.

At the November 5, meeting

• Conrad Properties Corporation presented a conceptual review for a mixed-use development at 201, 211, 215 N. Meramec and 8015 Pershing (across from the Daniele Hotel in the CBD). The company requested exception for three additional stories over the current seven-story zoning ordinance allowance, and approximately half the required parking spaces. Although the Plan Commission did not take a vote, since this was only the first, conceptual review stage, there was little concern voiced that these changes were contrary to the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinances.

• Catherine Powers, the Director of Planning and Development, only met the minimum legal standards for hearing notification despite the fact that the Commission was considering reaffirming the 1993 Business District Master Plan that endorses the use of eminent domain. She published the notice in the St. Louis Countian. The City Attorney, Kevin O’Keefe, requested reaffirmation of the Clayton Business District Plans of 1993 listed as a “public hearing.” This is no small matter as this Plan encourages eminent domain and has not been amended to reflect the strong wishes of the Clayton electorate.

As you recall, the Missouri Supreme Court last year ruled against eminent domain in the proposed Centene Project, saying the area was not blighted. The overwhelming majority of Clayton Citizens told the City that eminent domain should NOT be used in Clayton.

Not surprisingly, only two citizens were present for the public meeting.

Mary Burrows asked why the City was asking the Plan Commission to reaffirm a 1993 Master Plan that encouraged eminent domain when (a) the Missouri Supreme Court had ruled against Clayton last year, and (b) citizens had overwhelming voted against the use of eminent domain as encouraged by the 1993 Business District Master Plan.

Atttorney O’Keefe responded that the City had lost the case because the City did not present enough evidence. He strongly implied that the City still endorsed the use of eminent domain. He argued that the City was just performing an administrative chore reaffirming the existing plan because they were unable to find the original document.

It appeared that not one of the commission members had received a copy of the motion they were being asked to vote on. Thus, the City Attorney was asked to read the motion.
After the reading, the Chairman implied that he would be very surprised if the members didn’t have further questions. Even though one Commission member was concerned about the legality of this issue the Commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

Is this good governance? Is this respect for the law and for the democratic process? Can’t Clayton do better?