Support for Donnybrook, Last Call, is provided in part by Design Aire Heating and Cooling.

Thank you for joining us for Last Call, where we get to some extra topics.

We're glad about that.

Joe Holloman, your newspaper reported that a former member of the Board of Aldermen, Tamika Hubbard, is getting a pretty substantial tax break to build a home in North St.

Louis City.

I think she's going to get a 75 % discount on her property taxes for 10 years.

Well, I looked at the place where she's building, and I just don't happen to see much development around there.

I know she's well-connected.

It doesn't look good when a former member of the Board of Aldermen gets a nice tax break, but if we're going to develop that area, don't we have to provide some serious financial incentives?

Well, sure, and then we throw out all the arguments we give on why we don't want to give tax abatements because it keeps money away from various entities.

I think it just has a wrong look, and you can argue it any way you want, but you have a known political family, and she's a second generation of political family who got the land through a nonprofit run by her dad, and then she's going to get the tax break to build a $365 ,000 single-family home.

Great.

Not an apartment, but a single-family home.

Stability for the neighborhood.

But the deal that the aldermen look like they're ready to finalize doesn't require her to live there, so theoretically she could still end up being a landlord there.

To me, it's just one of those when you have those sort of situations, it gives people less trust in government.

They look at it and go, oh, well, they're politically connected.

In fact, I think the street is Jonas Hubbard Boulevard.

That's how connected the family is.

And the area was included in a special deal, I mean added at the behest of another member of the family.

I mean, you both make good points.

We need to do something over there, but it doesn't seem right.

A grant was rescinded, correct?

A $500,000 grant in that area was rescinded or on that property was rescinded or something?

From the Clark-McBury.

Right, exactly.

And I didn't realize that if you run a nonprofit, and I thought there was some public money attached to the nonprofit, how do you pass that on as a family?

I don't know.

I think Mr.

McKee was involved in the whole thing.

Right, and then there was the feud with Baron McCormick over it, too.

Right.

I mean, this is one of those cases, two things St.

Louis could use more of is the word no and the trash can, and this idea deserves both.

I mean, look, if I were the mayor, I'd say, look, the politically connected stuff like this ends.

In other words, if somebody wanted to build a house there who just wanted to build a house there, they get the 75%.

If you're somebody, you don't get the 75%.

I think that's fair.

And why St.

Louis and other places have such problems with this, I don't know.

No, you don't get it because you're a member of the Hubbard family and you're too politically connected.

Because nobody else is trying to build it.

Well, then we should find somebody, just like the airport director.

Say like, no, this is to go on Priceland.

And didn't her sister-in-law introduce the idea, but she recused herself?

It's like, whoo!

Well, you got to admit, if you take a look at the photos, there is no other home in the area.

Well, you know, maybe two blocks away.

But it'll be a pretty lonesome home.

So I can be the landlord and charge rent.

So I'm not paying tax and somebody's paying me to live there.

No, I can't sign off on that.

I think we're currently renting space where we are right now.

There's nothing wrong with renting.

But we don't get a tax break.

Well, I don't know what you got here.

Are we getting an abatement?

I'm not seeing anything.

I don't know.

Well, Bill, I want to ask you about a decision made at the Eagleton Courthouse, federal courthouse downtown St.

Louis, eastern district of Missouri.

And they're kicking out the League of Women Voters, who, after people go through those ceremonies where they become U.S.

citizens inside the courthouse, they usually walk out a door of the courtroom and there's the League of Women Voters ready to register them to vote.

Well, the courthouse has said no.

Nobody's going to be registering people inside the courthouse.

And so now the League of Women Voters are jettisoned to the sidewalk.

What do you think?

I think it's silly.

I mean, I've been to those naturalization services, and it's so fun to see people excited about becoming citizens and signing up to vote right away.

I just, there was something about it that I liked.

And the idea that there's any suspicion toward the League of Women Voters, I think that's overblown.

I mean, I think it's a great idea, too.

I have no problem with the League of Women Voters, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And if other entities showed up with some tables and, you know, somebody might have a problem with that.

So just like, okay, we have to take this outside of the courthouse and put it on the steps outside, cross the street, just have your tables.

You could even have, like, you know, hot dogs and whatnot, make it a little festive occasion, which you couldn't do outside.

But I understand, say, we're not going to do this in here.

Now, the people that don't want it in there, do they have ulterior motives?

Yes, I think so.

But that's not the point.

I agree with actually both of them.

I thought it was very cool that people would sign up because every reporter got sent to cover those ceremonies at one time or another in their career, and I thought, yeah, this is really cool.

And then after you get done in the rotunda and people speak to you and you take your oath, and then you walked right out and signed up to vote.

That was very cool, you know.

But those aren't the times we live in anymore, and everything is an argument.

And so what Alvin brings up is a very good point.

What if some other organization comes in and says, hey, we'd like to give a hand and help people sign up.

Why do they get to be the ones to do it?

Let's have us in.

Let's have us in.

We don't live in a time where we can reach logical, reasonable accommodations anymore.

And that's sad.

But I think Alvin's point is a good one.

I totally agree.

When the argument is you're making it more difficult and more difficult, no, it's not.

It's not more difficult.

I did it when I was 18.

And I was as dumb as a bag of hammers.

So it can be done if this is not making it difficult.

It can be done.

And if the weather is bad, you know, hey, they can stand outside because this is an important thing to do.

But I just think it's easier and nicer.

And the whole slippery slope thing, you know, that another organization might be in, I think you can have rules.

Who's the chief judge now?

Is it Stephen Clark, the Trump appointee?

Is he in charge?

Everybody's a Trump appointee now, except for Henry Autry and the senior judges.

Yeah, I guess so.

You know, the League of Women Voters are officially nonpartisan, but they have positions such as they're against the death penalty.

They're pro-choice.

So maybe some of these judges didn't want them collecting.

No, no, some of these judges just don't want Trump to come down on them.

I mean, that's what that's about.

But nonetheless, you still can't, you know, you can't pick and choose.

They're in for life even if Trump were to be in.

No, I think there is a question about the partisans.

Wendy, I want to ask you about what happened in DeSoto this past week.

Apparently someone took to not only a flock camera, one of those surveillance cameras, but also took out the solar panels as well.

And at the same time, Tony Messenger of the Post-Dispatch had a story that data centers, we all know that data centers have riled up the peasants with pitchforks.

Do you think that flock cameras are the same way now?

I just don't think that, I don't think that flock cameras, and it was, I thought it was funny because that's what you and Sarah were talking about last week, which was, you know, the people are going to be shooting at these, at these, at these, the drones and that kind of thing.

But the flock cameras, I don't, in my world, they do not come anywhere near the level of the data centers.

Not, not anywhere close.

And I think that, I think that in terms of privacy issues, there is some bipartisan agreement there.

I mean, it seems like all over the country, there are Democrats and attorneys, and attorneys, Democrats and Republicans, who agree on the privacy issue.

I don't think it's raising to the level of data centers.

And I, myself as one, for some reason, I just don't, I just can't get worked up over the flock cameras.

Kind of the same with data centers, but I understand why people are just, you know, pitchforks and torches on the data centers.

But the flock cameras, I'm, I just don't know.

That one just doesn't, just doesn't get to me.

I didn't like speed cameras.

I don't like drones delivering packages.

I don't like drones patrolling neighborhoods.

I wish government would quit using electronic devices to monitoring what citizens do.

And so in a general sense, I'm always like, like blighting for eminent domain.

I am going to oppose it until you give me a really good reason why.

You absolutely have to invade my privacy.

That's what it's about.

It helps us, Joe, it helps us arrest people.

It does.

A million.

Okay.

Joe, if you've got a kid.

So does having police officers out on the street.

Well, you know, crime is down, and it happens at the same time with the onset of flock cameras and other devices.

If there's a senior who's in a car who's, let's say, dementia and driving an automobile, you can find the automobile.

If a kid is abducted, you can find the automobile.

If your car is stolen, you can search for those plates.

It's a very useful anti-crime device.

Okay.

Yeah, well, I mean, we've kind of lost the right of privacy with cameras everywhere.

But they get your license plate.

They do not take your facial images.

Right.

So that's got to be feeling good.

Well, and I think, though, Bill, that's why you're feeling a kickback.

I think people have realized how much of our privacy we voluntarily gave away.

Yeah, we gave it away.

So that we could get our packages delivered to our doorstep instead of going to a store.

No, it was a patriot act.

They know what we look at on our computer.

Absolutely.

Exactly.

Wait a minute.

People know what we look at on our computer?

Oh, yeah.

Oh, my God.

Oh, yeah.

Next thing you know, we'll be on television.

Oh, no.

That's it for this week.

Thank you so much for joining us.

We'll see you next time.