The Board of Aldermen on Oct. 24 perfected (advanced) board bill 82, a measure authorizing the sale and quick-claim conveyance of remaining city-owned parcels commonly known as Enco/Interco Plaza, by roll call (10 ayes, 3 nays). The proposal drew sustained floor debate over whether the parcel is protected parkland under City Charter Article 26 and whether previous partial sales were lawful.

Sponsor and rationale
Alderman from the fourteenth, sponsor of the bill, said the plaza has been fenced off and underused, described multiple public-safety and nuisance incidents at the location and said the sale would enable parking and development adjacent to the Post-Dispatch building. He described prior conveyances and said city departments and the city counselorprovided analysis concluding the remaining parcels are sellable. "This plaza is something that as a resident, as a alderman ... does not look at this place to be a place that is relaxation," he said.

Objections and charter concerns
Several members urged caution and requested the board follow the charter procedure for park land. Alderman from the ninth presented research and argued the parcel was intended and used as a park in multiple planning documents and public records; he urged submitting the sale to voters if the land is "held out for use" as a public park. Alderman from the twelfth and others invoked City Charter Article 26which requires voter approval for the sale or change in use of property "principally used or held out for use as a public park." The board debated the existence and effect of a 1977 quitclaim deed and whether an ordinance existed that explicitly established the plaza as a park.

Vote and outcome
A roll-call motion to perfect the bill passed 10to3. The sponsor said the city register and parks commissioner had confirmed the parcel was not actively maintained by Parks and that portions of the plaza had previously been conveyed; opponents said the historical record and planning documents show the site has been treated as a park and therefore would be protected by the charter.

Next steps and legal questions
Opponents said the clerk should certify the proposed ordinance to the Board of Election Commissioners under the charter if the board proceeds; some members signaled intent to litigate or seek mandamus if the clerk does not follow the charter's procedures. The transcript records competing legal opinions: a city-counsel opinion provided to some members supporting the sale, and outside counsel/advocates arguing Article 26 coverage. The sponsor noted the city attorney stands ready to defend the city if litigation follows.