Council approves Arnold Triangle expa...

Council approves Arnold Triangle expansion plan

There are 8 comments on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch story from May 10, 2006, titled Council approves Arnold Triangle expansion plan. In it, St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that:

All but one member of the Arnold City Council voted to expand the Arnold Triangle redevelopment project at a meeting Thursday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at St. Louis Post-Dispatch.


Saint Louis, MO

#1 May 10, 2006
Bravo ! bravo !(me clapping) Great Job Mr. Vinson.!

To take citizens homes and businesses for commercial profit is a blatant misuse and abuse of eminent domain. This property is not blighted. It is prime commercial property.
Poor and improper planning of a city does not justify the taking.

Do not be fooled by the likes of Dave Venable, he says he is against eminent domain, but yet he votes yes.
He can not understand why they will not just get an appraisal , take their money and leave. Just go quietly !
His comments were upsetting the people in the triangle so he stated he would have no further comment until the business owners successfully shot themselves in the foot.

Randy Crisler was against the no smoking ban, but yet is all for red light cameras and votes yes to taking land. I find that odd. He squealed very loud when his money was taken. Wonder what he would do if they took HIS house.

I read in the paper that the latest land grab includes a piece of property that had been in a family for years,
generations. That particular family had no idea they were taking their land and read about it in the local newspaper. They were not happy at all.

The gall of these people. Not only do they take, they don’t even have the decency to notify you properly.

This is not the Wild Wild West, where the mayor and his gang run roughshod over the town.

Now Get Off My Land !!

Saint Louis, MO

#2 May 10, 2006
Are you sure Mr. Crisler voted yes? I thought he voted no with Mr. Vinson.

Saint Louis, MO

#3 May 11, 2006
Look at the top of the page it says ALL but ONE. It was on the front page of the Journal yesterday.
I take all to include Crisler and after reading the article the one to be Vinson.

I know our papers are sometimes biased, but if they start out right lying I am going to be very upset.

If it is a misprint maybe Crisler should have it corrected.

Randy shouted the loudest when the no smoking ban took 12,000 per year from his income, and from his children. He stated publicly that it hurt jobs, employees, income, health insurance, seniority, and family vacations. That sad story and the promise to listen to his ward before making hasty legislation won his seat
He got a seat on the council and a new job, many others may not have been so lucky.

I am left wondering how Crisler could possibly justify voting yes to taking land, homes and businesses from families and their children ? How willing would he be to give up his home and business ?

Saint Louis, MO

#4 May 11, 2006
Your right Sherry. I read the Leader today and it said 7 to 1.

Saint Louis, MO

#5 May 11, 2006
The article in the Leader was long. It sounds like almost all of the homeowners have already sold their proptery and that 3 of the 7 business's have made an agreements. The number of property owners who have not already made agreements is very small so it sounds like most are happy with the settlements. The article also stated that the people were paid 125% to 200% of the value of the property. I guess the few who have not reached an agreement do not feel they are being offered enough for the property or it has been in the family for a long time and they don't want to sell.
There were also statements from several of the Council People and the Mayor.(Phil A., Joyce D. Jim E.) They all seem happy with the way the buyouts are going and feel that Arnold has treated the property owners well and don't want to be compared to Sunset Hills.
Sounds like they hope to have the new center open in 2008.

Saint Louis, MO

#6 May 12, 2006

Maybe you have not been keeping up with this close enough, I have read in the papers that they started out by offering the commercial businesses less than the residential. What type of game was that?
At first they intended to throw everybody out including the VFW, I see things are changing on that.

When did it become ok for a City Hall to borrow money and enter the real estate business, only to force people out by buying up their property. Is that not the job of the developer ? It leads me to believe there is a problem with the developer. Has this developer missed any dead lines? Hmmmm… maybe that was when they decided to take more. And well…. you know rearrange…..toss out most of, if not all the studies they have already spent money on. Arnold has wasted more money over the years on studies than any other place I’ve seen.

The people in the triangle have had the Big Hammer (eminent domain) held over their heads for quite some time. I believe that was voted on some time back. It has been published in the newspapers many times they don’t want to use eminent domain but they will if they are FORCED to.
What choice do these people have ?

I guess, by god the council is happy. They are forcing people from their homes and businesses for their own profit and corporate gain. They don’t want to be compared to Sunset Hills ? I guess not !! It was a disaster.

Is it safe to conclude you are for the misuse of eminent domain ?

Lebanon, IL

#7 May 12, 2006
Could the people who have reached an agreement on selling their homes have said no to the offer? A few have apparently not accepted an offer yet. This is the same as the business's. Three were apparently happy with the offer and took it. Of course Arnold Stove and Fireplace will be moving into the new center as will the bank. The VFW will also have a new home built in the triangle. It would seem that some of the people involved are happy and I have seen no bad articles in the paper from anyone who accepted the buyouts which pretty much says the are happy with the buyout.

No I am not for the misuse of eminent domain. I feel that things have gotten out of hand and it is no longer being used the way it was meant to be used. Hopefully someone in the state or federal government will look into it. I would have rather seen the old K-Mart area dealt with and I would also like to see all the empty store fronts filled. They keep building new strip malls and cannot get anyone to fill them up. I feel we already have a Home Depot and that hurt the small hardware stores and if Lowes comes in I feel it will cause the small hardware stores in the area to close. This area used to have family owned drug stores and grocery stores but they are also a thing of the past. The larger stores chased them out.

Washington, DC

#8 Oct 5, 2010
[Randy Crisler was against the no smoking ban, but yet is all for red light cameras and votes yes to taking land. I find that odd. He squealed very loud when his money was taken. Wonder what he would do if they took HIS house.
Ummm, I think his house is now taken by the banks

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Overland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Democrats in Chaos (Nov '16) 11 hr Marcus Welby 200
Still Feel DACA is WONDERFUL? Sat Marcus Welby 11
Chic fil a coming to Florissant Sat In the know 57
Vintage Florissant! (Jan '08) Sat Sandy Ziegler 839
Make America White Again Sat Mr Ray 21
North County Trivia (Feb '09) Jan 19 Hardhead 37
"New Crimes in Florissant" Jan 19 White Chick 8

Overland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Overland Mortgages