������Ƶ

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen Monday about how the city should spend $250 million from the Rams relocation settlement.

No action was taken and no money was spent, which is not necessarily the worst result from a political meeting.

It seems the aldermen just wanted input. Well, that’s not entirely accurate; they wanted more input on how to get more input.

Aldermanic President Megan E. Green opened the proceedings by saying she wanted to ensure that “every voice is heard” and “lasting changes” are made for younger generations.

She used words like “elevate,” “empower” and “thrive,” so you know we’re talking aspirational stuff.

Never mind that when it comes to input, the city created in August for residents to share thoughts about how to spend the dough. It has done a good job, garnering about 1,900 responses.

But more input is needed.

So what about the complaints made in the last year or two to city service bureaus and aldermanic offices (not to mention news stories) about dropped 911 calls, lack of police response, traffic violations, street collapses and poor trash service?

Nope, we need more input.

So maybe we could look to the aldermanic president, the 14 full-time board members and to the mayor and comptroller offices.

To that point, Casey Millburg, policy adviser for Mayor Tishaura O. Jones, told aldermen that her boss has been “already talking” with city residents about the issue.

The aldermen also noted that paper versions of the survey on the Rams money are available at St. Louis Public Library branches.

Yet as far as the aldermen are concerned, we still haven’t scratched the input surface.

But thank goodness, we have a “process” going on.

(Note: If a drinking game had been played and a shot of liquor had to be downed every time the word “process” was mentioned at the meeting, the crowd would’ve been in sorry shape.)

This specific process has four phases and an “ideas portal,” which will be active through January.

The first phase asks basic questions about needs and problems. In the second phase, participants will select their priorities. The third phase is time for “matching ideas to priorities.”

Then, in the fourth phase, participants will vote on ideas by assigning 10 tokens to various projects. (There will be “I Voted” stickers, right?).

Finally, some people and groups will be named “Idea Champions” and be invited to an aldermanic meeting to present their ideas.

Cristina Garmendia, Green’s policy adviser, was the main process guru for the meeting.

Garmendia noted that of the 495 people who left written responses after filling out the first phase survey, 39% listed public safety — crime, lack of police, lawlessness, traffic violations — as a main concern. She also noted there was “a lot of support for our police.”

While by no means surprising, I applaud Garmendia’s honesty in simply stating those facts.

Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer, D-1st Ward, also touched on that very subject.

She said the survey “was really light on questions about city services,” noting that it had only one question each about street problems and public safety.

Schweitzer said there should be more focus on those issues because “every time I hear anyone talk about this money, that’s what I hear people say.”

But for all the best intentions, this is where the wheels tend to fall off the public-input wagon.

For example, a number of elected officials — though some are trying to tiptoe away from it — remain in the “defund the police” camp.

So what good will it do that 39% of those responding so far are in favor of more funding the police?

And many respondents also seem to favor spending bucks on basics like street repair, garbage pickup and water system improvements — services that must seem rather mundane in the face of progressive urban planning.

But even the younger generation of city residents — which many of us have been at one time or another — will grow tired of potholes, garbage and crime.

Sure, politicians like to applaud the wisdom of public input. But that’s when they agree with the input.

And when they disagree? Well, you can’t expect the public to be right all the time.

The real meat of the meeting came during the opening statement, when Green said she wanted residents to share the “expectations that you have” of city officials.

Excellent idea.

If the mayor, comptroller, aldermanic president and 14 aldermen have plans for the money, they should say what they are, explain the need and estimate the cost. If they don’t have any ideas, then quit.

As a city resident of 39 years, that’s my input to include in the process. Sure hope it doesn’t hurt my chances of being named an “Idea Champion.”