Gun-waving St. Louis couple lives in 'a private place' that enshrines white supremacy

[LiberalArkie]

Tuesday June 30, 2020 · 12:40 PM CDT



In nationwide reporting about gun-waving lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey, their location is frequently described as “a private street.” But that’s not the case. Neither is this a suburban gated community built in the current era of McMansions. Where the McCloskeys live is something very, very … St. Louisy. It’s a “private place.” Also known as “a self-governing enclave.” And if that sounds like a section of the city carved out explicitly so that wealthy white people can wall themselves off from the surrounding community and be protected from not just associating with the hoi polloi, but having to follow their laws … then you got it in one.

There are a number of these private places in St. Louis city, and several more in the surrounding county. These are not locations far removed from the city’s heart or tucked into some hidden fold. These are not just gated, but walled off areas whose self-rule is baked into the city’s original zoning laws. The private places are not homeowners associations. They’re not condo boards. They’re mini-fiefdoms erected in some of the city’s most-trafficked districts. They are gleaming artifacts to both racial and class segregation … and they are also a f#cking pain in the ass to anyone trying to navigate the city.

If you’re wondering how it is that a parade of protesters on their way to visit the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson stumbled through a walled enclosure that seems as if it was ripped from the Middle Ages, the answer is—because it was simply in the way. As someone who went to night school at Washington University and was a frequent traveler to the Central West End area of St. Louis, it’s hard to overstate just how inconvenient, intrusive, and threatening these private places really are. They are not neighborhoods. They are tiny walled kingdoms inserted right in the midst of the city’s densest areas.

Here’s where Portland Place, home to America’s gun-toting lawyers, really is.



Snip

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/6/30/1957175/-Gun-waving-St-Louis-couple-lives-in-a-private-place-that-enshrines-white-supremacy

[beachbumbob]

1. so we are going to vilify people because they live in such areas? Is that what we do now?

[Alacritous Crier]

4. hmm...

"In a city where African Americans make up half the population, the Black population of Portland Place is zero."

Sure, why not?

[yardwork]

20. I'm on board with that.

[PTWB]

6. I'm fine with vilifying folks who behave as this couple behaved.

They CHOSE to arm themselves, they CHOSE to exit their residence and confront the protesters who were merely passing by, they CHOSE to point their firearms at those peaceful protesters and they CHOSE to escalate the situation into what is easily described as aggravated assault.

That they haven't been charged yet is a travesty of justice. That they will be charged eventually is an inevitability.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. It's never a bad time to dig into the racist history of property development and what it means for

the way people live now.

[brush]

10. You must've missed the photo. They vilified themselves when they...

brandished firearms at innocent, protesters passing by. That's a crime in many jurisdictions.

[Bettie]

11. They weren't protecting their (not-threatened) home

or their lives.

They were protecting their perceived right to never see a Black or brown person in their little enclave.

Yeah, they are villains. By their own actions.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

31. bravo

[TeamPooka]

12. that's what you took from this? You missed the point. That's not why they are villified.

[Cirque du So-What]

13. From the article:

The city explicitly awarded these areas the right to set their own rules when it comes to how homes are constructed—and who was allowed to live there. For generations, no one lived in one of these places without the explicit permission of all the other residents inside the walls. So it’s easy to imagine how very, very diverse these areas are not.

Vilify them? Damn right I will!

[oasis]

19. Wow. Segregationists in perpetuity.

[LanternWaste]

14. Do you always confuse observation and mere mocking with actual vilification?

Or is there a particular catalyst specific to this episode that triggered your flawed conclusion?

I get it... the poor, poor rich. They just can't seem to catch a break these days.

[SidDithers]

16. You're going to defend them?...

Sid

[yellowcanine]

22. I will think they were vilified for assholeish behavior.

The rest is just trying to understand why they behaved in such a way. I think it is called entitled.

[pnwmom]

23. If they live in those places AND they aim guns at peaceful protesters on their way

to the Mayor's house, yes, I'll vilify them.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

30. hahaha! yep. and rightly so

[Alex4Martinez]

36. Fuck yes. They clearly don't pay enough taxes, wealth, income, estate, etc.

A home 1/10 that size would still be too much, but I could live with it.

[jmg257]

2. Pays to be rich....filthy rich. Nice if you can afford it.

Even become your own Gated Community Response Team.

[wryter2000]

3. The bar association

Shouldn't the state bar be looking into the fact that these two were threatening people with guns?

[BamaRefugee]

7. I don't know if it's a felony but here is at least one possibly applicable Missouri Statute

State law does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, but does prohibit exhibiting “any weapon readily capable of lethal use” in an angry or threatening manner in the presence of one or more persons. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4).

[wryter2000]

8. She definitely pointed hers at people

With her finger on the trigger. I didn't see him do anything like that.

[BamaRefugee]

17. The statute doesn't require pointing a weapon, just exhibiting it

[BamaRefugee]

5. So are the streets and sidewalks public property? I saw no signs posted at that gate that stated it

was private property, and all the articles I read used the phrase "considered private".
There was a sign that said RESIDENTS ONLY, which would mean if that's the actual law, then none of the residents can ever have a visitor. But at least where I live, if your property is off limits to the public, you have to post it and have the applicable municipal code showing why, in tiny letters at the bottom of the sign.

[PaulRevere08]

15. Wow! I used google earth street view to take a walk around the huge perimeter.

You can't see a street view inside but go down Union or Kingshighway and you can see all the locked gates. I've never seen anything like this in a city before.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6468074,-90.2643835,3a,75y,283.53h,93.97t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s8MQx3UZO_Dol2W3itYz73A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i22

[rgbecker]

18. Really, Gated communities and doorman and guard protected buildings are not that rare in America.

Private subdivisions with rules covered every possible activity. Entire little towns with regulations that make sure no poor people will accidentally wonder in. If you have the money, you can afford the protection. If you have the money, you probably feel the need for protection. It's all about income inequality. It's all about Capitalism. It's Racism and so much more. St. Louis is not unlike many mid-western Industrial cities. Laws on the books making sure the rich can live like rich people, unaffected by the poor working class. These cities are now just skeletons of their former selves as the rich abandoned them and headed for the suburbs. St. Louis is actually lucky to have a few neighborhoods surviving and housing some people that have the means to pay the taxes and upkeep bills which dwarf the average person's housing costs.

[brooklynite]

24. Tell me, how many strangers do you welcome knocking on your door?

Traveling salesmen, Mormon Missionaries, politicians? The answer for most people is "none". The only difference is that wealthy people can afford isolation or a doorman. I know plenty of high income people who live in those Doorman buildings and its never because they "feel the need for protection" (NYC is extremely safe). It's the space and the view and the privacy.

[cwydro]

26. They don't seem to feel too safe.

Yikes.

[brooklynite]

27. Explain?

[cwydro]

28. Perhaps I didn't understand your post.

I thought you were saying they lived in this enclave for security.

To me, that does not seem to be working out for them.

Otherwise, I understand your point. People have a right to feel safe.

[brooklynite]

38. My point is that people don't all live in doorman apartments or "communities" for "safety"

Here in NYC, its about privacy.

[Bettie]

34. Welcome? Not generally

but I also don't threaten passers-by with a gun and profanity.

And if those people knock on my door, I politely tell them I'm not interested, because I'm a decent human being.

[cwydro]

21. If I had the money they seem to have.

I sure as hell wouldn't live in St. Louis.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

32. St. Louis is a great city. why di you have to diss that great American location?

[cwydro]

33. I see people dis the south all the time on this forum.

I live in the south.

St. Louis is not a place I'd want to live.

OK?

[rgbecker]

35. Jeez, Not even a hint of why not?

The Central West End in St. Louis is home to some of the most liberal people in the country. The heat and Humidity? Can you give us something to go on?

[cwydro]

37. These people give me something to go on lol.

Heat and humidity? I live in NC!

[Celerity]

25. the Veiled Prophet of Khorassan

The Mystery of St. Louis's Veiled Prophet

Racial and class tensions are nothing new in the city, as the story of a parade founded by white elites in 1877 to protect their position shows.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/fair-st-louis-and-the-veiled-prophet/379460/

[aikoaiko]

29. The author is a little overly dramatic, but yes, gated communities are about keeping people out.

Where I lived it was Tuxedo Park in NYS.