But beyond the tone of the article, predictively dismissive of any kind of public mobilizing effort, what truth does it bear?
To pick apart the misrepresentations, not to say lies, in this piece, will take a few days. Start with one overarching (and false) point -- that this initiative would have restricted the city's ability to deliver public services. That is a lie. Is this part of the general counsel's job description?
The initiative would have restricted the city's ability to hand over public money to a subset of businesses tied to the extractive industry. It would not have restricted the rights or operations of those businesses, who should respond to market signals, not public handouts. (Frontczak refers to Peabody's own handout, a 20 million dollar tax break, i.e. TIF, as an "incentive" -- though it is not made clear why the world's largest coal company needed an incentive from a city that she herself describes as suffering decades of "urban decay". Peabody CEO Greg Boyce took home over 10 million in 2013, and the company had revenues of about 7 billion that year.)
Against her assertion, the initiative would not have done anything to cut public services (or impact jobs). It would have exerted a democratic control on how public money is spent. The shrill claim that any progressive change will destroy jobs is a canard, an idiot's argument. The idea that any development is good development sets aside moral and environmental concerns tied to these extractive industries. Frontczak is simply telling stories to defend one of many powerful corporations that blackmail struggling cities so that they will bow their heads to corporate interests.
The judge made his decision based on a criterion not mentioned by Frontczak, that, after Citizen's United, more or less, corporations are people too. Given that the three branches of government celebrated by Frontczak disagreed with the people on this one is not surprising. Peabody and its affiliated industries spend a lot of money giving, lobbying, and influencing these branches of government. And, after all, this is Missouri, where the legislature and the Supreme Court are firmly rooted in (or corrupted by) the idea that anything that is good for any business (or at least the biggest corporate donors) must be the right thing to do. She calls this democracy at its finest. It's more like corporate corruption of the democratic process and of law. This is oligarchy at its worst.
St. Louis is a company town. Frontczak and Peabody are merely deepening that reality. There is no democracy in company towns, there is only dependence. The deepening of that dependence is the task of the company and those 'leaders' who are beholden to its interests. Public acceptance of stories like Frontczak's is also part of what makes company towns persist. For the relationship to be maintained, communities have to remain silent and exercise docile consent. Take Back STL was a challenge to this docility.
Peabody's counter-attack, carried out via the Mayor's office, was an assault on the democratic process and on citizen participation.
It does not hurt when a major media outlet lines up to genuflect as well.
Pick through the piece yourself, the front lines of the war on truth - and the war on climate, democracy, and public health – Peabody style.
Development, not democracy, at stake : Stltoday
