ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

It did nothing.

On Tuesday, after several hours of debate and parliamentary maneuvering, the board sent the $290 million Rams relocation money bill back to the drawing board.

The meeting was a continuation of one that started Friday but was abruptly ended when aldermanic President Megan Green stormed off the stage after having declared a recess.

What seemingly irked Green on Friday was a proposed amendment by Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer to take $40 million out of the $290 million and ship it to the water department to pay for continuing repairs to broken pipes on an aging system.

Schweitzer left $250 million of the plan untouched, saying that was prudent because cities across the United States are waiting to see what President Donald Trump’s administration does in regard to financial help for cities.

Schweitzer said her common-ground idea emanated from talking to residents about the various ways the Rams money could be spent. She said helping the water department was the consistent theme.

“It was always ‘water and the North Side,’ or ‘water and housing,’� Schweitzer said.

Also, $40 million for water repairs was a relatively constant amount across the several Rams proposals, which had bigger differences between the allocations for downtown, north ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ and some social programs.

Ultimately, Schweitzer’s plan got torpedoed Tuesday by a flood of amendments seemingly designed to scuttle the plan.

After the meeting, Schweitzer defended her efforts.

“I wanted something that delivered basic city services, to get something done,� Schweitzer said. “People are sick of seeing inaction.�

More amenable to inaction was Alderman Rasheen Aldridge, who represents part of downtown and the near North Side.

Aldridge said that after a weekend of talking with aldermanic allies on how to counter Schweitzer’s $40 million water-only plan, he introduced an amendment that would add $50 million for north ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ to her proposal.

Aldridge said giving nothing to the predominantly Black area of north ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ was “a slap in the face.â€�

After several Black board members said $50 million was not enough, Aldridge then kicked up the amount to $100 million.

To add to the paperwork confusion, Alderman Shane Cohn introduced another amendment to Schweitzer’s plan that asked for money for the areas he represents in southeast ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½.

Joining with Aldridge and Cohn in working toward delaying action was Alderwoman Sharon Tyus of north ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½.

Her relationship with younger board members, such as Aldridge, has been adversarial at times because of procedural changes Green and other newer members made that helped negate the power of senior aldermen.

Recognizing the unusual alliance Tuesday, Tyus said to Aldridge at one point, “Politics does make strange bedfellows.�

When it became clear that the amendments from Aldridge and Cohn did not have enough support to derail Schweitzer’s proposal, Tyus and Aldridge then convinced board members Alisha Sonnier and Pamela Boyd to withdraw their Rams bills.

Since Schweitzer’s amendment was, by aldermanic rules, tied to the larger Rams bills, the actions by Boyd and Sonnier killed Schweitzer’s plan.

But while some were disappointed that no action was taken, others were content with keeping $290 million in the bank, collecting interest.

Uttering what could serve as the motto of Tuesday’s meeting, Alderman Bret Narayan said, “All we have to do today, to be successful, is nothing.�

Joining Narayan in applauding the lack of action was Daniela Velazquez, who represents the Shaw/Tower Grove area.

Velazquez saw inaction as “a wise compromise.�

“We don’t know how the changes in the federal government will affect us. We need to start over and look at what our options are,� she said.

Although Mayor Tishaura Jones helped broker the Rams relocation money bill, a statement from her office showed she had little problem with the board’s inactivity.

“When cooler heads prevail, my hope is that the Board of Aldermen will bring a bill to my desk that directs these historic funds to benefit all of ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½,â€� the statement said.

Greater ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½, which helped negotiate the now-dormant compromise, said in a statement that it hoped aldermen dedicate themselves soon to the effort.

“ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ has pressing needs that require bold action and major investment. (Tuesday’s) lack of action by the Board of Aldermen means those urgent needs continue to go unmet,â€� the statement said.

Alderman Michael Browning, who represents west ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ and strongly supported Schweitzer’s effort, found no reason to celebrate Tuesday’s punt.

Calling Tuesday’s inaction “political games,� Browning said Schweitzer’s plan was a logical approach.

Browning said killing the water-only plan, which he described as a “dereliction of duty,� was no reason to celebrate.

“I’m never happy,� he said, “when we can’t get things done for our city.�