The St. Louis County Council pulled a rare move on Sept. 8 in overriding two vetoes by County Executive Sam Page.

Both pieces of legislation vetoed by Page were originally introduced by Sixth District Councilman Mike Archer (R-Oakville), and both vetoes were overridden by a vote of 6-1, with Fifth District Councilwoman Lisa Clancy as the lone dissenting vote. It takes five votes from the seven-member County Council to override a veto by the county executive.

“I disagree with him, but I respectfully disagree because he has that power under the charter and you have to respect the rule of law,” Archer said in regard to the county executive’s vetoes. “He was exercising what he thought was in the best interest of the county, and I got my votes together to exercise what I thought was in the best interest of the county. That’s the Republic that we live under.”

“Aggressive solicitation”

The first bill vetoed by Page was one of Archer’s most-talked-about bills: a bill regulating “aggressive solicitation.”

Per the bill language, “aggressive manner” concerning solicitation includes a wide variety of actions, such as intentionally or recklessly making any physical contact with another person without that person’s consent; following someone to cause fear and/or intimidation; continuing to solicit within five feet of someone after the individual has made a negative response; intentionally or recklessly blocking the safe or free passage of someone and intentionally or recklessly using obscene or abusive language or gestures.

The legislation also prohibits soliciting “in any public transportation vehicle, or bus or stop,” including the entrance and exit ramps to interstate highways, as well as state or county roads. Other prohibited actions include soliciting from an operator of a motor vehicle in traffic on a public street and soliciting on private property. Soliciting within 15 feet of any entrance or exit of any bank, check-cashing business or ATM during hours of operation without the consent of the owner is also prohibited.

Since Archer first brought awareness to the topic last October, it has garnered significant attention, both in opposition and support.

Those against the legislation have said the ban will effectively criminalize poverty, due in part to its limit on soliciting between the hours of sunset and 9 a.m. — an especially large block of time during the winter, when daylight saving time and seasonal changes impact daylight hours — or during inclement weather when visibility is limited. Archer shared with The Call that he will be conducting meetings with Catholic Charities, Feed my People and the St. Patrick’s Center to find resources for such individuals.

On the other hand, those for the legislation have said it will make conditions safer for solicitors, as there has been an increasing number of dangerous incidents involving individuals getting injured by oncoming traffic, particularly in the dark. Multiple councilmembers have also pointed to situations in which they or their constituents have felt unsafe due to actions of solicitors that this legislation would prohibit.

According to a memo by Page, he vetoed Archer’s bill due to the belief that it “is not written to be effective and could expose the county to costly litigation,” stating that courts across the country have rejected similar restrictions.

The possibility of litigation has been brought up in the past regarding this legislation, though Council Attorney Mary Elizabeth Dorsey assured the council at its Committee of the Whole meeting on July 14 not to worry.

“There was a municipal court case filed,” Dorsey said in July in reference to similar legislation passed in Des Peres, a municipality in West St. Louis County. “The person was found guilty under the ordinance. It was appealed, and it went in favor of the city. That’s the only recent challenge I’m aware of.”

In addition to Des Peres, other municipalities across St. Louis County — including South County’s Sunset Hills, as well as Brentwood, Chesterfield, Ellisville, Manchester and Creve Coeur — have already enacted similar legislation on soliciting. This is necessary for those municipalities to be able to enforce restrictions on soliciting, as Archer’s legislation is essentially only enforceable in unincorporated St. Louis County, according to him; each municipality within St. Louis County must pass its own version of this legislation to enforce it.

South County Center feasibility study

The next bill vetoed by Page was another highly-discussed bill, though more South County-specific: a bill authorizing the county to provide up to $130,000 to the Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC), or its designee, for the purpose of conducting a feasibility study for repurposing the South County Center.

The mall, 18 S. County Center Way, has seen steadily declining foot traffic for years, leading to the closure of its second floor. Archer has previously stated that the mall could be repurposed into a sports complex and event center with a focus on ice rinks for youth hockey.

It should be noted that previous efforts to conduct a feasibility study were thwarted; a resolution, which goes through a different legislative process than a bill, was passed regarding the same study in December, though the study was not conducted.

Page vetoed Archer’s recent bill calling for the study, citing conflicts with state law and the county’s procurement code, as well as a lack of specificity around what “repurposing” means. Page also brought up the county’s current budget crisis and that the bill calls the shopping center the “South County Mall” when its “legal and official name” is “South County Center.”

“The legislation does not identify the property owner, provide additional details about the property, or otherwise define what ‘repurposing’ means,” Page’s memo reads. “That ambiguity is particularly concerning given recent public discussion and speculation about the potential use of this site for a data center … the bill also does not expressly state that a data center is excluded from the proposed ‘repurposing’ or from the feasibility study.”

The county’s planning department is currently working on a draft of proposed policy recommendations regarding data centers, though nothing has been passed by the County Council and there are no current pending data center development proposals in unincorporated St. Louis County, let alone in South County.

“Nobody has ever mentioned a data center going in there. I really feel like that’s a red herring and a flashpoint that Dr. Page is trying to stir up the mud in the water,” Archer told The Call.

Now that the feasibility study has been approved, it will be conducted within the next 30 to 45 days, per Archer. Next steps will be determined by the results, though Archer shared that he is “forever the optimist” and expects the outcome to “be excellent.”