To: Main Street Merchants and SMPS members.
From: Bob Schuette, SMPS Treasurer.
RE: Comments & Commentary by Charles Hill.
This weeks editorial by “Charles Hill” blames the South Main Preservation Society board of directors for being close-minded, anti-business and for single-handedly blocking an attractive business proposal for the Saint Charles riverfront. Unfortunately, Mr. “Hill” once again has his facts wrong and, as is too often the case, has chosen to distort and twist the truth in order to make his friends look good.
Mr. Hill implies that SMPS told Mr. Stockhorst not to present his plans to SMPS because he would not be well received. Fact 1 — Mr. Stockhorst never made a request of the SMPS board to present his plans at an SMPS meeting. Fact 2 — Councilman Muench requested that the SMPS board allow Mr. Stockhorst to give a presentation prior to the SMPS meeting and that request was granted. Fact 3 — Councilman Muench likewise informed me that this same presentation would probably not take place since it was already common knowledge that Mr. Stockhorst gave a poor presentation and received a negative response from both the tourism commission and the landmarks preservation board. Fact 4 — After his poor reception before these boards, I personally received word from councilman Muench that Mr. Stockhorst was asked to withdraw his proposal by both Mr. Muench and Nadine Boon of the city’s economic development office. Fact 5 — The presentation of his proposals to SMPS was not cancelled by the SMPS membership or board. The presentation was cancelled because there simply was no point to a presentation once the city’s officials and commissions had overwhelmingly rejected his proposals. At no time did the SMPS board or any SMPS officers individually or collectively block this proposal. We simply did not have to block it because the project was dead in the water before we were even able to take a position. The city’s representatives, boards and commissions did their jobs well and I commend them all for their efforts.
The current position of the SMPS board of directors is simply this: We welcome any development proposals for the Saint Charles Historic District and Riverfront that are appropriate to the area. Because so much time, effort and money has been spent to recover and develop the historic district, and because this district has become such a treasured asset to the community, we do, however, retain the right to oppose those plans and proposals that are inappropriate and would serve to detract or diminish the character of the district.
Note to Mr. Brockmeyer: It takes as much ink to print the truth as it does to print a lie. The truth may not be as interesting, but when your columnists write an article that is critical of any board or organization, you may wish to contact someone from that board or organization and get the real story. Your efforts would be appreciated by your readers, subscribers and advertisers, I am sure.
Sincerely,
Bob Schuette
Treasurer, SMPS
First Capitol Trading Post
207 S Main St
Saint Charles MO 63301-2804
(636) 946-2883
Editor’s Response,
Your e-mail has been forwarded to Charles Hill so he can reply if he so desires. In as much as you put a note in your e-mail to me, I felt obligated to respond. Charles Hill is a columnist. He does not write editorials nor does he report news. He writes his opinion and comments. Columns are meant to stimulate discussion and debate. Charles Hill has been successful in that regard as evidenced by your correspondence and that of Mr. Worthington.
Charles Hill is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. However, when you accuse this newspaper of printing lies I feel I must respond. All too often when one disagrees with another’s opinion they immediately claim lies are being told or misinformation is being given. That appears to be the case in this regard.
I have re-read Charles Hill’s column and I could not find anywhere, as you claim, where he told a lie. You may disagree with his opinion, but that does not make it a lie.
You failed to mention in your missive, the conference call held amongst SMPS Board members that resulted in the cancellation of Mr. Stockhorst’s presentation.
The First Capitol News does appreciate our readers and subscribers and especially our advertisers. Without them there would be no purpose for our existence. Our readers and subscribers tell us they read our publication from cover to cover. They can’t put it down. Our advertisers appreciate the fact we are the most read newspaper in St. Charles and they know advertising in our publication brings results.
Thank you for being a reader of the First Capitol News.
To the Editor
I trust you will agree that a cogent reply to the ‘Charles Hill’ Commentary of July 23 issue of First Capitol News is due your readers.
‘Charles Hill’. You are indeed slow! And fundamentally incorrect. Your vitriolic disdain for South Main demonstrates only that the “newly closed” mind is within the skull of ‘Charles Hill’.
The barge-based restaurant, marina, nightclub, excursion boat, plans have indeed been presented: to the Tourism Board and reported by the Post Dispatch in late June, to SBD, and to Landmarks. I too have seen the proposal – I think you dream too much.
SMPS board has taken no action whatever! Nor can it allow or disallow a project. Certainly its members, among others, have serious questions. Citizens to Protect the Riverfront (CPR, not SMPS made a documented presentation to Landmarks opposing the developer’s plan. That board (and other observers) obviously dismayed by the inappropriate and poorly developed plan for the most sensitive part of the riverfront, took no action but gracefully suggested that the gentleman do more research as to the types of vessels and activities that would be a good fit for the Bishop’s Landing and surrounding area. Mr. Muench pulled the subsequent SMPS presentation for good reason: he became informed!
This project lacked credibility in many other ways as well, and I find it inexcusable that the City allowed it to proceed. Businesses succeed based on good planning, good management, adequate financing, and a ready market. Informed business minded persons have already sent the folly of the Roosters’ proposal.
How about that “Riverfront study?” I recollect that it advises careful development, recognizing the need for compatibility!
The Roosters LLC proposal offers only historically insensitive renderings, without photos or drawings of existing equipment (what took City staff so long to look?) It offers no market study, no financial basis, no developed engineering plans, no business attraction consonant with either the Missouri River or the extended Historic Zoning District. Yet incredibly the proposal required the City to put up the land! Next to Bishop’s Landing! Such a deal! Mr. Riddler, omniscient beacon of the council, would back away; he cuts the project loose, disclaims his deep involvement in this matter. How so? City Council was fact in the process of providing for Roosters LLC, thirty acres of waterfront, parking and public land at the very core of the tourism base of St. Charles. What colossal hypocrisy for the councilman to now say, “If the promoter can acquire a location along the river on the north end of St. Charles, I would be happy to welcome him to Ward 1.” “Way to go Council President!”
Now, Mr. Riddler, you owe Mr. Stockhorst an apology, or the deed to Blanchette Landing. ‘Charles Hill’ owes South Main a retraction of the ridiculous “tax burden” accusation.
George Worthington
Business Owner and Resident
Dear Editor,
What’s the difference between Jerry Reese and Richard Baum? About 80 pounds. I remember Jerry Reese telling us that he wouldn’t be another rubber stamp but that is exactly what he is. At the last Council meeting he told the other Council members they aren’t professional and they are acting like 6th graders.
Mr. Reese, a 6th grader understands right from wrong, and they know to keep a promise. This is something you obviously don’t know or understand and you owe the 6th graders an apology.
S. Colclasure
Dear Editor,
To say that I am disappointed in the Council’s action denying your ability to print the City Council’s agenda would be an understatement. I am most disappointed in my Councilman Bob Hoepfner for voting against the contract. I guess since he is no longer going to be published by you because the First Capitol News refused to let him degrade and belittle his fellow council members, he no longer feels the need for any of us to know what is going on. Bob used to be the person pushing for the public to know, the people are the most important. His actions demonstrate how truly self serving this public servant is. His new allegiance with Mayor York has many of us wondering what deals he made, after all he touted the fact that he moved her from the dais just to show her who was in charge. I guess we all know now who is in charge, Mayor York, not Bob. Bob’s never ending lust for power has landed him in a bed of snakes.
I would like to thank you for printing the agendas and hope that one day soon Bob and the Mayor will learn that “we the people” are the ones they should look out for, not each other.
Dale Glen
Baa Baa Black Sheep
Have you any wool? There are definitely many who have had the wool pulled over their heads. Opinion is that a certain councilman has also lost memory of how hard the Patti cake of St. Charles campaigned against the grumpy and stubborn opponent of her favorite elect. Most people realize how scratchy and hot wool can be, not to mention black wool shows every speck of lint and dirt. Makes one wonder what Patti cake will do with all this black wool, perhaps create a stuffed black bear to adhere to her every command. There’s just one problem, sooner or later all wild animals will turn on their master.
This brings to question the necessity for Patti cake needing a bodyguard! Rumor on the street is she’s afraid of retaliation from her “TOP COP”, Tommy Mayer for having NOT protecting him from loosing his job. With word from a very good source, Patti cake is trying very hard to distant herself from her best friend. Wonder why? Could it possibly be he is no longer of any use to her? Word is he helped get her son on the St. Louis Police force, of which is now rejecting Tommy Mayer’s application.
What’s wrong with this picture? We all know how Patti cake plays her games with peoples lives, using them like a pawn to position them only for her personal gain. “Someday-Check-mate.”
The word on the street is it would be wiser for Patti cake to have Pastor Tillman at her side to protect her from the enemy she is so afraid of; sometimes we are our own worst enemy. Without a doubt he would be better to advise her of all her coming and goings, before a council meeting and after the council meeting. Also, she would need help with all her luncheons and church breakfasts. Let’s not forget her cheese and wine parties, she needs help spreading her black wool around. There’s no reason why the taxpayers should be paying for her senseless bodyguard charge when Pastor Tillman can do it for free. No donation necessary for such a kind act. You can fool some of the people some of the tine, but you can’t fool all the people. I personally have to wonder why Patti cake only wants certain officers as her bodyguard? Are the rest of the officers below the chosen few or perhaps they are above the chosen few and she knows she can’t pull the wool over their heads. It just doesn’t fit!
Respecting the citizens of our City to be intelligent and wise enough to not have the wool pulled over them, why would Patti cake and her loyal knights go to such expense to raise money for her defense fund, start a publication, and hire a professional like Jamboretz? Makes you wonder how high is the gain? Will the taxpayers pay the price again? Perhaps Pastor Tillman can persuade Patti cake that the City should pay their bills and not do such vindictive things to good people. Wonder if the Council would like to have their checks held back? Especially when some don’t earn the pay and some like Reese and Weller are always missing from the meetings.
Maybe the Council could come up with a merit system for Council pay, or perhaps deduct pay from the Mayor’s salary for every time she gets up during a meeting to stroll all over the city hall, holding private meetings in the hall with a paid bodyguard standing by while she conducts her personal business. I have to wonder, does Patti cake think there are no men in the Council chambers who would throw their body in front of the silver sword to protect and defend her?
Through all the years of mayors in St. Charles this is the first time one had had a bodyguard or refused to pay City bills. Maybe the wool could really get contagious and the citizens of St. Charles could refuse to pay their taxes for some lame reason. What’s good for the goose is definitely good for the gander.
Maybe our Council could contact a Representative or a Senator, a Congressman or even a Governor to write a letter, change a bill, make a new law to better serve the taxpayers and NOT the chosen few.
Citizens speak out!
\Joyce Bredensteiner
