St. Louis not likely to get vote on stadium

There is a hard-to-define line between issues that deserve voter involvement and those that are left to the decision-making duties of our elected officials.

Examples are all around us.

Look at the drawn-out court battle over the Cape Girardeau taxes that are supposed to raise funds for the proposed River Campus of Southeast Missouri State University. Businessman Jim Drury contends the ordinance calling for the vote was defective but insists the matter could be resolved by allowing voters to have another crack at the issue.

By law, most local decisions that impose more taxes require a vote of the people. This includes school bond issues and levy increases above a state-mandated cap. Because of this requirement, districts like the one at Perryville haven't had a tax increase in more than three decades because voters keep saying no. Left to Perryville's school board, there's little doubt taxes would have been raised over the years to maintain programs in the cash-strapped district.

Now a St. Louis alderman, Irving Clay, has proposed that that city's voters be allowed to decide it they want city taxes to subsidize the proposed new baseball stadium for the Cardinals.

By extension, it could be suggested that a similar statewide vote would allow Missouri taxpayers to decide on state assistance for the project.

The Missouri Legislature has been historically inconsistent on such matters. Sometimes legislators enact tax increases on their own, while at other times they vote to put such decisions on the ballot.

In the case of the proposed Cardinals stadium, both state leaders and St. Louis officials are pretty certain about one thing: If tax-funded support is put to a vote, voters are more than likely going to say no.

Because many state and most city officials think the new stadium is vital to the economic future of St. Louis, they would prefer to use the authority of representative government to make this crucial decision.

Although Gov. Bob Holden has negotiated a financial plan with other government officials and the owners of the Cardinals for state participation in the stadium project, the final stamp of approval must still come either from legislators or voters.

It's easy to understand why St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay opposes a citywide vote on the stadium issue. He sincerely believes the best interests of the city will be served by the new ballpark and the adjoining development of housing, offices and retail outlets. There is no denying that much of downtown St. Louis has become an urban wasteland.

Indeed, losing the Cardinals -- a possibility that appears to be more than a political threat -- would all but sound the economic death knell for St. Louis. Because of the importance of the new stadium, Mayor Slay and others would rather make this tough decision themselves and answer to voters when election time rolls around.