Is SLDC A Nexus Of Local Corruption? Absolutely.
In the closing weeks of the campaign, dueling narratives about St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) have come to the forefront of local political conversations. Some of what has been printed comes from the position that SLDC has been generally regarded as an honest and good steward of city tax revenue. Some even suggest that calling SLDC corrupt is both dishonest and only being done to hurt Mayor Jones’s reelection efforts. In reality, the agency has been a source of controversy for many, many years. This means that stories attempting to paint the Jones administration as somehow introducing corruption to the agency are equally false. Corruption at SLDC is a long-running conversation in St.Louis politics.
For decades, activists have pointed out that SLDC has given questionable TIFs, tax abatements, and other incentives to numerous mayors’ campaign donors and those connected to St. Louis’s political class. The agency featured in a starring role during the prosecution of former President of the Board of Aldermen Lewis Reed and others. That’s not ancient history. Neither is the reality that the agency continues to give away tax revenue to the ultra-wealthy, who need it far less than the children in the schools from which the tax revenue is taken. While some may pretend otherwise, this continues to the current administration’s term. It is no secret that corporate welfare has continued to flow to developments in Cortex, City Foundry, and others. All the while, city school buildings sit vacant and neighborhoods empty of families with children. The mayor’s decision to say no to Clayco’s proposed northside plant was a break from tradition, showing that Jones was willing to buck a prominent developer. It also drew the company’s Bob Clark into the mayoral race, where his obscene wealth has played a major role. That doesn’t change the reality that the Jones administration’s incentive policy has mainly been business as usual, especially regarding central corridor developers’ requests.
As previously noted, the corruption issues related to the Northside grant program began well before the list of grantees was announced. SLDC still hasn’t explained why Grow America was chosen and later given an even larger contract. The organization had no staff in St. Louis or expertise in our region’s complex needs. They did have a new board member who is a major ally of SLDC head Neal Richardson, though. While not as egregious as Reed’s cravenly unethical behavior, irresponsible contracting to connected firms has long drawn local voters’ ire. The result was the boondoggle that followed. Small businesses that have waited too long were forced to wait even longer, as SLDC had to fire Grow America and mop up their very public mess. While you may be able to say that Richardson shouldn’t be held responsible for poor contractor work product, it was his choice to award the contract to a firm with no local staffing or much of any experience working in our area. This kind of cronyism is a big part of the city’s long-standing culture of corruption. It certainly didn’t start under Richardson‘s watch, but it is not improper to hold him accountable for continuing it.
SLDC continues to be a nexus of graft and corruption, but what else is expected of an agency whose purpose is to give tax breaks to the well-off? Rather than being incredulous at the suggestion that SLDC has anything less than a sterling reputation, St. Louisians should be demanding an end to the corporate welfare gravy train that is the city’s development policy. The public’s interest in accountability on these issues doesn’t disappear just because your favored candidate wins an election. It also doesn’t magically reappear when they don’t.
To be clear, all of this will be true no matter who wins on Tuesday. A Spencer administration doesn’t guarantee a reformed agency that puts the taxpayers and school children before campaign finance donors. The same is true for the agency’s continued largesse to politically-connected consulting firms, who turn out endless plans that mostly spend their existence sitting on shelves. Between the donations from developers and the city’s white shoe law firms, a quick perusal of Spencer’s campaign finance disclosures makes this reality very clear.
SLDC has facilitated corruption for decades. It continues to do so. Tomorrow’s election, or even a change in agency head, won’t change that. Truly reforming our tax incentive programs remains an urgent need for the city to fund our rapidly emptying classrooms. The way these articles largely disappear the actual victims is the most disgusting part of the current whitewash of SLDC’s long history of facilitating corruption. The kids whose futures are being shortchanged are almost entirely absent from these reports. Instead, we are offered dishonest narratives and political soap opera. While the small businesses still waiting for their grants are victims, the agency’s primary victims are kids. Failing to mention this is a great disservice to the children of our city, who deserve accountability and the opportunities provided by a properly funded education. No matter who wins, wringing the graft from the agency will be something the public will have to force city leaders to accept. This important work awaits us, no matter who wins tomorrow’s election.
