My kind of town

The New York Times loves St. Louis. Not loves in a pack-your-bags-and-abandon-Manhattan kind of way, but at least in a there-by-the-grace-of-God-or-a-one-way-ticket-out-of-Palookaville (or St. Louis!)-go-we kind of way. Or at least that's how it seemed after April's "Hope for a Renaissance After Exodus in St. Louis" story about the city's official population number (complete with charts and graphs and photos of abandoned buildings, though it's now behind the Select wall) and May's "Development Rises on St. Louis Area Flood Plains" story. The latter seems written in hopes that the Missouri River floods would take out some of the surely ill-advised construction in areas that were flooded in the deluges of '93, and while I have to say, NY Times, we kinda hope so too, I also had to say, after reading both articles, what the hell? What did St. Louis ever do to you, 'cept make you feel superior?

Now, I'm not saying there aren't valid points in these articles. The Exodus story goes over well-traversed economic and educational terrian but ignores the landmarks that seem significant to us locals--or that don't serve its gloom and doom thesis. I'd quote it, but I ain't paying for it. The flood story seems more realistic, but maybe just because I agree with it more. This chunk, for example, refers to the same development I made fun of the other day, but gives the buyers a bit of a pass:

Fear of flooding did not appear to scare off prospective buyers at the New Town at St. Charles, a housing development whose sales office hummed with activity on Sunday, even as the Missouri River was rising. Although the community is near the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, residents are not required to have flood insurance, because they are beyond the 100-year flood plain.

The location was a selling point for Ken Snider, a high school teacher from St. Louis.

“It’s not going to flood here for another 100 years,” Mr. Snider said, “and I won’t be around by then.”

So, even though New Town is supposedly safe, I'll point out that "100-year flood plain" actually means an annual 1% chance of flooding in that spot. Which, while it would defy odds out the wazoo, could happen every year, and, whenever it happens, will not be by a pre-determined century-long schedule. But if it did happen, I'm confident the Times, or at least reporter Susan Saulny, would be practically beside herself with excitement, given that today's caption, since deleted (the cheaters), referred to already-disapaiting floodwaters "rushing toward downtown St. Louis," darn that 30 foot flood wall. Because it's the can-you-believe-people-live-here tone of these articles as much as their existence that kind of amuses me. Are there not other cities in the great fly-over that are also not what they used to be?

I was all set to be further amused if Saulny, the reporter of both stories, turned out to be from St. Louis, but my friend Google suggests she's from New Orleans. She has a good story herself, having met her doctor husband on 9/11 as she reported from ground zero; life works in mysterious ways. Newspapers, though? Not so much. My guess, from a look at her story list, is that these City of the Apocalypse stories were initiated or inspired when she was here for the Shawn Hornbeck kidnapping story. I still think it's kind of funny they keep getting published, though, at the same time, I do kind of hope the series isn't over. How else will I know what's terribly wrong here?