Bagels Go Uneaten At Poorly-Attended Olive/170 Business Meeting

UNIVERSITY CITY, MO — Just a handful of business owners showed up to a meeting in University City Tuesday morning to find out how a proposed $200 million development will affect businesses along the Olive Corridor in the city's third ward. That stretch is currently home to dozens of small businesses, including restaurants, grocery stores and beauty parlors. Many of them are minority-owned, and some will be forced to relocate if the development goes forward.

The city told Patch it mailed postcards to Olive Boulevard business owners publicizing the meeting, but the city's website contained no mention of the meeting, and Patch couldn't find any notice published elsewhere. That seems to be in violation of the state's Sunshine Law, which calls for notice of public meetings to be posted at least 24 hours in advance. The law defines a public meeting as "any meeting of a public governmental body...at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy formulated," and further says its provisions "shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy."

An expert on the Sunshine Law tells Patch that the city is likely at risk for having violated the state's transparency statutes, but that there is enough wiggle room that a judge could rule either way.

City manager Gregory Rose told Patch he didn't believe the meeting violated the Sunshine Law. "No one has given me any legal reason why a notice needed to be posted," he said. "We hold public meetings all the time with staff and community members [that aren't posted]."

John Mulligan, the city's attorney, said the meeting wasn't an official city council meeting, so notice wasn't required. "It's my understanding that they're not going to be having a meeting about public policy, so I would think the Sunshine Law wouldn't apply," he said. "The intent of this is for the administration to meet with residents, and the city council[members] are simply attending to hear what they have to say and not to engage in a policy discussion...."

Councilmember Bwayne Smotherson said the meeting was posted, but couldn't say where. Councilmembers Paulette Carr and Tim Cusick refused to answer questions.

(For more local coverage, subscribe to Patch for daily newsletters and breaking news alerts. You can also download the free Patch app for iPhone and Android.)

Rose said postcards were sent to business owners exclusively in English, despite some Asian business owners not speaking English or speaking it as a second language. Rose maintained that the lack of public notice was not related to the meeting's poor attendance. The effectiveness of the meeting, he said, depends on one's perspective.

"Our interest was just obtaining as much input as we can," Rose said. "We recognize that not all of the business owners, because they're operating businesses, will have the time or have the interest in providing that input."

He said the city had held two other more "intimate" meetings with business owners and encouraged any business owners who had not had a chance to speak to attend the upcoming public hearing on August 23.

Later in the meeting, Rose said he would recommend to the mayor and council that they eliminate any cap on relocation assistance for impacted businesses, but whether the city is willing to pay the $100,000 Bavarian BMW-owner John LaClair says he would need to relocate remains to be seen.

Lisa and John Wetzel, who own American Cleaners, said they are happy with the city's outreach. "They've been very good to work with," Lisa Wetzel said.

Colleen Baum, owner of Droege Tree Care, said she was just starting to learn about the project. "I don't think I've been approached a lot, only because I'm not as directly affected..." she said.

A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for August 17 at 6 p.m. at the Heman Park Community Center. The next public hearing will be held August 23 at 6 p.m. at the University City High School.

Photos by J. Ryne Danielson/Patch

A map of the proposed development:

Catch up before the next public hearing by reading Patch's previous reporting below:

• CBA Demands Intensify At Contentious Olive Development Meeting
• Maria Chappelle-Nadal Talks U. City TIF In New Campaign Ad
• AG's Office Investigating U. City Over Sunshine Law Complaints
• U. City Will Meet With Stakeholders Ahead Of Next Public Hearing
• Olive/170 Project Raises Hopes And Fears In University City
• TIF Public Hearing Gets Heated In University City
• University City Rejects Sunshine Request For TIF Analysis
• Post-Dispatch Editorial Board Is Opposed To U City TIF
• Watch Live: Public Hearing On Olive Development In U-City
• Watch The April 15 University City TIF Commission Meeting
• Local Government Watchdog Accuses TIF Chairman Of Conflicts Of Interest
• Citizens Call For Community Benefits Agreement Before TIF Vote
• Olive Retail Anchor To Remain Secret Until TIF Is Approved
• Sale Of McNair Building, Eminent Domain Discussed Monday Night
• Mostly White TIF Commission Weighs Fate Of Minority Community
• Councilmember Smotherson Responds To Patch TIF Commission Article
• Olive Development Meeting Scheduled For 6:30 Tonight: Watch Live
• Commentary: Redeveloping The I-170/Olive Interchange Benefits All Of U-City
• Commentary: U. City's TIF Plan: Bad for the 3rd Ward, Bad for Community

Read other coverage here:

• It’s time to dismantle TIFs as tool of segregation
• University City TIF Plans Worry Olive Boulevard's Immigrant Restaurateurs
• University City divided over TIF financed mixed-use development
• Olive/I-170 redevelopment has potential to benefit University City
• Commentary: Taxpayer largesse unnecessary, wasteful in U City development
• TIF can jump-start U. City neighborhood
• University City's bold redevelopment plans are a win for the city, residents
• University City uses TIF tool responsibly to improve neighborhood
• University City won’t get built up by tearing thriving parts of it down
• University City isn’t acting in best interests of its existing businesses
• Leave well enough alone; don’t OK big-box proposal in U. City
• University City TIF Proposal Has Residents Fighting Back
• Editorial: University City shouldn't give away $70.5 million for a big box store
• Commentary: University City development proposal mirrors failed Sunset Hills plan
• County Let University City Choose Some Appointees For Commission Weighing $70 Million Big-Box TIF
• University City using $190 million in TIF funds for redevelopment
• TIF Public Hearing Gets Heated In University City (St. Louis American Reprint)
• Developer petitioned for Community Benefits Agreement, U. City has no minority inclusion policy for public-subsidized projects
• Curious Louis: The future of St. Louis' 'unofficial' Chinatown
• University City Big Box Plan Exemplifies All That Is Wrong
• Proposed development could change the texture of University City's gritty back door
• U. City Has A Chance To Be An Innovator On TIF Development

Public documents can be found here:

• University City TIF informational web page
• School District Olive/170 Project Information