The St. Louis Board of Aldermen experienced an unexpected halt on Friday as President Megan Green abruptly recessed the meeting before discussions on the Transform STL Act could proceed. The Act aims to allocate $294 million from a Rams settlement, sparking debate and procedural challenges. Tensions escalated when amendments altered the compromise reached between key members, leading to frustration and uncertainty about the future allocation of funds.
Leadership Decision Halts Heated Debate
Green's decision to pause the meeting came after attempts to discuss the Transform STL Act, which seeks to distribute significant funds for various city projects. The board president cited procedural issues and the need for cooler heads to prevail, emphasizing that the meeting was only paused and would resume the following week. This move raised questions among some members regarding the appropriateness of such an action under board rules.
Green explained that she had observed multiple procedural motions intended to disrupt the debate. She stressed the importance of dialogue among board members and the need to ensure productive discussions moving forward. By recessing the meeting, she aimed to allow time for further conversations and potentially resolve the contentious points. However, this decision also highlighted the underlying tensions within the board, particularly concerning the amendments made to the original compromise.
Debate Over Rams Settlement Allocation Intensifies
The Transform STL Act, introduced by Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier, initially garnered support through a compromise with Alderwoman Pamela Boyd. The proposal aimed to fund critical infrastructure, housing development, and childcare subsidies. However, amendments introduced at a previous committee meeting shifted funding allocations, leading to dissatisfaction among several board members.
Boyd expressed frustration over the changes, feeling that the compromise had been undermined. Despite initial collaboration, the amendments reallocated $14 million away from downtown projects to housing and neighborhood development, along with an endowment fund for childcare programs. This shift reignited debates over how best to utilize the settlement funds. Some members, like Ward 14 Alderman Rasheen Aldridge, appreciated the collaborative effort but acknowledged the complexity introduced by the amendments. Meanwhile, others, including Ward 1 Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer, proposed allocating only $40 million for water infrastructure while delaying decisions on the remaining funds due to federal funding uncertainties. This cautious approach reflects concerns about potential changes in federal support for major infrastructure projects and the need to prioritize essential services.
In a recent legal dispute, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has sparked controversy by arguing that money does not constitute property under constitutional law. This unusual stance was taken in response to a case involving Chuck Saine, owner of C.S. Lawn & Landscaping, a small business near Annapolis, Maryland. The DOJ's argument suggests that confiscating $50,000 from Saine’s business does not violate his right to private property because, according to the government, fiat currency is not considered property for constitutional purposes. This position has raised significant concerns about the implications for individual rights and due process.
The core of the controversy lies in the DOJ's assertion that money, particularly fiat currency, should not be classified as property under constitutional law. The department provided three main justifications for this claim: first, that the government creates money, thereby negating ownership; second, that the government's ability to tax implies non-ownership; and third, that the Constitution permits government spending for the general welfare. These arguments have been met with skepticism, especially given their potential ramifications. If accepted, they could set a dangerous precedent, allowing the government to seize funds without providing adequate legal protections.
The case stems from an administrative trial where both the prosecutor and judge were employed by the same federal agency. Saine, represented by the Institute for Justice (I.J.), a public interest law firm, contends that he deserves a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury. The specifics of the alleged violations—related to complex labor laws—are less important than the broader issue of due process. The DOJ's argument that money is not property undermines the fundamental right to a fair trial, raising questions about the integrity of the legal system.
The implications of the DOJ's position extend far beyond this single case. If money is not considered property, it opens the door to unchecked government power over personal finances. Critics argue that such a view contradicts established legal principles, including the Due Process Clause, which protects life, liberty, and property. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized money as property under constitutional law, reinforcing the need for judicial oversight in financial matters. As this case proceeds, many hope that the court will affirm the importance of due process and uphold the principle that money is indeed property, ensuring that individuals like Saine receive a fair hearing.