Adam (00:00.0)

Welcome back to “Simplifying the State.” As always, I’m your host, Adam Watson, and we have another special episode for you today. Today I had the pleasure of sitting down and talking with Nathan Mai-Lombardo, a planning and development manager for the City of Ferguson, Missouri, and candidate for the 99th Missouri House District. Mai-Lombardo has a large swath of experience in municipal government and budgets, and wants to go to Jeff City at a time when he says experience with budgets is most needed. We discussed everything from how the city and county could come together to 

To what the future of economic policy in Missouri could be after the changes to the tax code. But before we begin our episode, if you would be so kind as to rate our podcast as well as to follow so that you can stay up to date on what’s happening in our government and our politics, I would really appreciate it. And if you know anyone who may enjoy this podcast, be it a politics nerd like me, or just someone who wants to stay more informed in their day-to-day lives, please share the show with them. And with that, let’s get to our conversation with Nathan Mai-Lombardo 

Adam (1:00) All right, Mr. Mai-Lombardo, thank you for coming on this podcast. So do you want to just tell us a little bit about yourself and what your campaign is?

Nathan M-L (1:08) Sure. My name is Nathan Mai-Lombardo, as you said. I’m a Clayton resident now. I grew up in St. Louis County in Ferguson. As you can see, I’m at work now. I work for the City of Ferguson. My background is in urban planning, economic development, and city management. And I’m running to be your next state representative in District 99, which comprises Clayton, Warson Woods, Olivette, and Ladue.

The current rep is Ian Mackey. He’s termed out, so we have an open seat. And I’m one of the four candidates running in the Democratic primary Aug. 4. My main focus in my campaign right now — well, the main issue that I’m talking to people about, or when they ask what my No. 1 is, is what is now Amendment 5 on the ballot, which is the income tax switcheroo, shall we say. The governor wants to switch out all income taxes with sales taxes, which would be an absolute disaster for our state at really every level of government. And I can go on and on about that. I’m sure we’ll talk a little bit later about it. But that’s the most pressing issue that I am talking to residents about. But what I really want to tell people is that, you know, based on my background at the local level, I really understand where the rubber meets the road. I understand how government services can impact your lives and make a positive difference. And I want to be a representative who makes a positive difference in people’s lives, represents the district well, and brings things back to the district. I’m not running to be, you know, a soldier for one cause or to be a statewide, you know, ladder climber, but I’m really running to be an effective legislator for District 99.

Adam (01:45) I feel like that style of politics is becoming more prevalent, where you try to focus on how the government can affect your daily life in small ways. Would you say that is sort of your focus?

Nathan M-L (02:01) There’s a few levels to that. You know, as I said, I work for the local government, and I love what I do. You know, I said this to many people, but I’m not — I don’t do it to get rich and famous. I’m not trying to get a, you know, bronze statue of me, but to know that the work that I’m doing is helping people, it’s really powerful, and it gives me a lot of satisfaction to do that. And I think, you know, if allowed to be representative, we want to try and continue that, you know.

The issues that people think about at night or that affect them are not these giant national issues. Why is gas expensive? Why is education not being funded evenly across the board? Why is my healthcare rising? It’s issues that affect people’s pocketbooks and their immediate quality of life. And so to your point, you know, when you frame issues in ways that people can really understand and relate to in their lives every day, you know, that is — I hope — certainly a winning strategy. But, you know, it’s just the way that again I want the government to function. I believe that the government can be efficient and effective and do great work. I think that bunch of malarkey that Ronald Reagan said about, you know, if the government’s calling, run away, or something like that, or the government being scary — I think, you know, we’ve had 40 or 50 years of Reaganisms and Reaganomics, and it’s been a disaster. So we need to stop acting like, you know, we can’t do good, and we can’t help people. We can do good, we can help people, we can make a positive difference. And that’s what I want to do.

Adam (03:31) Yeah. So one of the reasons I think that people are — and this goes back to that income tax thing — people are possibly in favor of this income tax is sort of because of that Reaganomics idea. It goes back to his quote: the most dangerous words in the English language are “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.” 

Nathan M-L (03:50) Look at you knowing that right on the top of your tongue. I’m very impressed.

Adam (03:54) Yeah. I’m a bit of a history buff. But how do you think we can work to sort of mitigate that feeling among people? How do you think we can make the government work so that people feel as though, yes, I’m paying income tax, yes, I don’t like it, but I know that at the end of the day I’m giving money to a government that is going to ultimately benefit my quality of life?

Nathan M-L (04:19) So, you know, I think Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives — however they want to frame themselves — would have very different answers to this. You know, what we as Democrats, people on the left, have to do is show, No. 1, how programs work and how benefits can help people, and also demonstrate what cuts and reductions in those services will mean, hopefully before people feel the pain of those things. I’ve always said, especially at this level too — local level — I don’t think anyone minds taxes, and I don’t think anybody minds high taxes if they can see a return on the investment. You know, if you pay — a lot of municipalities around St. Louis County especially have different service fees and different enterprise funds for special taxes, right? So if you’re paying an extra sales tax for fire protection or police protection, but you see that your streets are safe, that your fire trucks are new, that you get a new fire station, that your staff has low turnover, you get that return. If you pay a sales tax for roads and your roads are in good shape and you keep, you know, shuttles for seniors and things like that, you’re not going to have any problem with that. You know, it’s when you see money being — and wasting, I hate to say that — money being wasted at a local level is almost nonexistent unless you’re just a crook, because people can see and trace where the money goes pretty easily. So it’s — you know, there’s not that it’s not that that happens, but when there’s not enough money to go around, when services have to be cut or when you see different levels of services in different places, people understand that really clearly. And so I think, you know, it’s in messaging — I will acquiesce that Republican and right-wing propaganda is really good. I mean, who doesn’t love freedom and things like that? But freedom doesn’t mean freedom from education. It doesn’t mean freedom from healthcare. You know, it means we still need to do those things and provide those things. And again, I hate for people to have to suffer or have negative consequences from when the revenues are not there, and the cuts are too big. But we really have to get better at showing the positive things and demonstrating effective uses of revenues.

Adam (06:33) Yeah. So you talked about Amendment 5, the removal of the state income tax. Right now it’s unclear whether that will pass or whether it will not pass. Have you sort of been thinking about, if elected, what you know you will do in Jefferson City should this income tax pass? Because I know that there will be some immediate effects from this plan.

Nathan M-L (06:56) Yeah, so, you know, No. 1 — I mean, I think it’s going to pass. And I will be ecstatic to be wrong about that for the record. I think it would be a disastrous policy. So, you know, let’s keep in mind the state budget this year, right now, that the governor just signed — we’re already spending down all of our state reserves. So we will go into next budget year with no cash in the bank. So right off the top, because we’re using reserves to balance the budget this year, we’ll have immediate cuts of, you know, one or two billion and something like that right off the top.

So that’s already going to be painful. If we then have to factor in reductions in revenues based on lower income taxes and sales taxes going up, which would then, you know, further reduce revenues because people just cannot afford increases — especially the people that will have those taxes be felt most directly.

You know, we’re going to have to have some real serious discussions. You know, No. 1 is where will opportunities be to raise revenues? I don’t think people are fully taking into consideration the Hancock Amendment either when they talk about this issue, because that really ties the hands of the state government in the ability to raise revenues. And we’re not able to cut our way to prosperity. You know, it’s not that I would — and I’ll sort of tie this into what I said earlier — I certainly wouldn’t, and I hope that nobody would take any pleasure in voters really feeling the consequences of actions. But, you know, if the revenues start to plummet, and there’s either A, no practical way due to the Hancock Amendment to raise revenues by the Legislature, or B, an unwillingness of Republicans to offset the cuts in revenues that will happen, there’s going to be no choice but to just have people deal with the effects of this, because, you know, the Democrats — the Republicans have a supermajority. So they don’t need to really take Democrats into consideration at all. And even if they cut it down to a majority, they’re still going to be able to get, you know, things passed regardless of what the Democrats are saying. And so it’s not that I enjoy seeing people, you know, lie in the beds they made for themselves. But practically speaking, you know, aside from being a rational, logical, and educated voice at the table, Republicans don’t have to pay Democrats — they can pay us dust. So, you know, I will go to Jeff City advocating for equality, fairness in revenues, advocating to not have cuts in education because we’re already No. 49. Where is there to go? You know, or cuts in healthcare — where are we supposed to throw off the rolls? How many more poor people, how many more elderly people do you want to have faced life-altering medical bills? You know, it’s kind of crazy, the outcomes to these situations. But aside from, you know, really advocating for a position and trying to get Republicans to understand how these cuts will affect the people of this state, there’s not a whole lot that Democrats can actually do to slow up this process if it does pass. If it doesn’t pass, we’ll still have cuts to deal with, but it’ll be a different league of cuts, and there may again be some other mechanisms to raise revenues to again not just have to cut our way to the bottom. It’s just kind of crazy.

Adam (10:18) Yeah. And very quickly, can you sort of just give a summary of what the Hancock Amendment is for people who might not know what it is?

Nathan M-L (10:24) Right. So what it effectively does is it stops taxes from going up without going to voter approval. So I’m most familiar with it at the local level, and I’ll explain this to people in that way, because it makes the most sense that way, even though it is still a bit convoluted. So take your property taxes, and I’ll try to pick some random numbers to make it seem a little easier. If your property taxes are a hundred dollars at a certain assessed level at a certain rate, and your municipalities have to set that rate every year — if your assessment goes up a tremendous amount, the revenues that the municipality can collect are only allowed to rise 5 percent. So even if your assessment goes up an exponential amount, you’re still not going to pay more than $105 in property taxes next year. What that means is that the rate will be automatically adjusted down. So that’s the way the Hancock Amendment, you know, sort of handcuffs revenues at a local level. At a state level, any new taxes had to go out for a vote, which is why the taxes never seem to go up because no one votes to raise taxes. So it really was put in place to really just curtail the growth of government spending. And you know, you can sort of sometimes see merits to that, but when costs rise, and inflation rises, and wages need to go up, our state is just not able to raise revenues to pay for the services that the residents expect. Especially when you look at residents wanting to move here, businesses wanting to move here — if we’re not providing the services and safety nets that people expect, and the level of education and health that people expect, we’re not going to get that economic development. And that’s a really interesting oversight. We talk about wanting growth and, you know, economic development, smart economic development policies, but none of that matters if your schools are No. 49. Businesses are not going to come here with bad schools. People are not going to move here with no healthcare. So people discount the economic development aspects of social service programs all the time, and it’s really a big, big deal. But the Hancock Amendment really just sort of ties the hands of the state’s ability to grow revenues to pay for services that people expect.

Adam (12:46) You’ve talked about how revenue is going to be cut — or rather, how budgets are going to get cut if this tax change passes. Unfortunately, education is often one of the things that governments look at cutting first. In District 99, we have two of the best school districts in the state, Clayton and Ladue. They often rank very highly. How do you think that as a representative in Jeff City you will be able to not only ensure that the schools in District 99 — in University City, Olivette, and Clayton, all that — can continue to have the resources they need and continue to allow teachers the necessary freedom they need to teach, and then also how to sort of give that to the rest of the state, because as you said, a lot of schools in the state are not as fortunate to have a higher tax base and so need more resources and need more assistance from the state?

Nathan M-L (13:42) Right. And I’ve met with the school districts, with the boards, and I want them to understand that because I have experience at this level, you know, I’m someone who gets it. I recognize the importance of having those relationships and of having a good relationship between the state and local level when it comes to policy and funding and just a flow of information. And so I want them to know that they have someone who gets it and who will be an ally for them. You know, it is probably true that statewide funding cuts will not impact, you know, the Ladue and Clayton school districts as dramatically as they may affect other places in the state — although, you know, cuts in education are cuts in education. It’s really not acceptable anywhere. You know, we can’t really cut ourselves much lower than we already are. And I do wonder what the thought process of Republicans is to just want to keep cutting education. I mean, obviously — at least it seems obvious to me — that their goal is to continue to privatize education in the state of Missouri, which would be a disaster. You know, one, we don’t want to have people forced to pay for school they can’t afford. And two, we don’t want people, you know, compelled to use schools that may discriminate against them for one way or another. It’s just a completely unacceptable state of affairs. So I will certainly be a strong advocate to continue funding and to further increase funding for education. It’s just unacceptable.

One of the — when you Google Ladue School District or Clayton School District, they’re not just ranked best in Missouri, right? They’re ranked high nationally, and that’s something that’s a big source of pride. So one of the things I am determined to do is to find out what policies and teaching methodologies and innovative methods are working in these districts and see how we can get those put in place statewide. You know, yes, it is true that in District 99 you’re going to have more resources, but that’s not all that it comes down to. There’s a lot more that goes into good education and improving outcomes for children. And that’s what’s really important. So if I can do something to impact policy, to get, you know, more innovative methods and just try new things to raise outcomes, I definitely want to take the best ideas and see how those can be implemented statewide.

Adam (15:56) Yeah. So previously you had mentioned that economic development aspect of the tax plan and how that will sort of negatively impact it. I think, you know, the governor and the government are obviously interested in developing the economy of Missouri. Recently, they have sort of been making a big push toward data centers — not just in St. Louis County, St. Louis City, across Missouri. I think there was one proposed in Ferguson where you work. So how do you see the increase in data centers, and do you think it should be regulated? Do you think that we should be getting more data centers but under stricter regulations, and, you know, that will ultimately play into people’s cost concerns because their power bills and water bills will usually go up when these data centers come in?

Nathan M-L (16:49) Yeah. You know, the whole narrative around data centers has really gotten — I’m not going to say out of control, but it’s a little bit detached from the actual reality of the situation. Now, I don’t think anybody is dying to live next door to a data center, but I don’t think anybody is dying to live next door to a distribution warehouse either. It’s just a typical industrial use. It is a more intense user of resources in some ways, but — and I’m not necessarily a, you know, particular advocate for or against data centers. There are things that we are going to have to have as a society because we’re all talking to each other on our phones right now. So, you know, there are things that we’re going to have to have in order just to have the raw computing power available to do the things that are now commonplace in our lives. And they do have to go somewhere. I think that there are sites that are better than others for data centers. You know, a lot of them now are getting built in rural places in Missouri, and that does make a little bit more sense because they’re kind of out in the middle of nowhere. There may be more power and water available at those places, as opposed to putting them in urban places. But with those kinds of developments, the context matters. The one in Ferguson, you know, some aspects of that project were pretty interesting because the site that it was getting put on was very unique and very challenging to redevelop. Same with the one that just went in St. Louis, you know, at the armory site — very unique site, has some challenges, but also has a lot of power and water available there. So it’s not that we just say no data centers, or regulate them away — unless a municipality wants to do that. They’re certainly free to do that. I work in zoning and economic development, so, you know, a place can regulate itself to be whatever it wants to be. I have no particular opinion on that. If I am employed by a place and they want my professional opinion, I will of course give that. But if someone wants to, you know, have all purple houses, they are free to regulate all purple houses. That’s just how this field works, and that’s totally fine. But the site impacts matter in projects like data centers. The utility availability matters when it comes to data centers. They’re not going to go everywhere, but there are places that it does make sense. And so we have to be open-minded to that because again, we want to be friendly to economic development. Data centers are valuable, and they don’t pull a lot of resources from a municipal level. Like there’s not a lot of crime or fire or things like that associated with a data center. So they could have very high revenues relative to what they cost in terms of services. And that’s a very important aspect for municipalities to just take into consideration. I would also say, you know, people are very concerned about utility usage — and again, not that I will advocate for one way or another — but it’s not in any data center’s best interest to be a high utility user. And as time goes by, we know all technology gets more efficient. The less power a data center uses, the less it costs the owners of that data center to operate it. So they’re going to want to have the most efficient equipment in there, and they’re going to want to constantly upgrade that to the most efficient equipment. If they’re using less water, it will cost them less money to run it. So those kinds of things do change over time. And again, just something to take into consideration as we move through time and as we require more computing power in our daily lives for the things we take for granted.

And this goes to the tax situation too. One of the big challenges we have in Missouri is the personal property tax. Now, everybody hates the personal property tax. I hate personal property taxes because I have to pay it on my cars every year, just like everybody does, right? So my question would be: why go after income tax and not go after the personal property taxes? And a lot of the reason for the data centers specifically — because it’s just happened, it’s a recent phenomenon — a lot of the reason they’re in the papers is that they get big tax breaks. The reason they get big tax breaks is not because of the property taxes; it’s because of the personal property taxes. A data center is just a warehouse full of servers. The property taxes for that are not outrageous compared to any other use. But the personal property taxes on a data center, which is again full of servers, are going to be hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s what makes them uncompetitive here. And so that’s why they ask for big tax breaks, because we have this personal property tax that’s unique to Missouri that makes them just uncompetitive. And we can’t have them here — that’s the main thing. And that goes with a lot of businesses, especially with deals called Chapter 100s, which I won’t get into the weeds about, but that’s an economic development tool that Missouri has to redevelop industrial sites, typically used in brownfields or economically distressed areas, to just make the numbers work on a business deal. And a lot of times you just see everybody waiving these personal property taxes because they are just killers to making deals make sense. And so to me, a more logical place to start would be personal property tax reform. Now that would be a big deal because a lot of our municipalities and counties get personal property tax revenues, and of course they can’t afford those cuts. So how do we supplant that or change it? But getting away from the personal property taxes, I think, would be a much more palatable discussion than just getting rid of income taxes and having your sales taxes go through the roof.

Adam (22:06) So obviously you had mentioned that this is an open seat — Ian Mackey is being termed out. I know that you have his endorsement in this race. Could you sort of tell us, you know, how you got that endorsement and how that could impact your campaign?

Nathan M-L (22:22) Well, first of all, I want to say I’m very thankful. I’m honored to have his endorsement. It’s a big deal. I’ve knocked on hundreds of doors so far, and many people have said, if Ian supports you, I support you. He’s done a very good job, been a very effective legislator, and been an excellent communicator. And the district residents really respect that. And so we’re going to keep that up. We’ll maintain that communication and that accessibility. It’s just the right way to be. Does it help? Yeah, it helps quite a bit. I’m very thankful for it.

How did I get an endorsement? I called him up and said, Hey, I wanted to meet you. Here’s who I am, here’s what I want to do, here’s how I am, and it worked for him. And I appreciate that. You know, he’s a direct guy; I’m a direct guy. It just made sense for him; it made sense for me. He knows that I’m going to be a representative for the district. I’m not going to have people telling me what to do or how to vote. I understand the legislative process and state budgets and all these policy documents. I’ve had to write those things and do budgets in my regular professional life. So a lot of the stuff that I would be doing is just, you know, what I do now, just on a little bit bigger scale. But he knows that I would be an effective legislator and a strong voice for the district. And I think he really respected that.

Adam (23:39) Do you think that ability to be direct with people and to sort of make a convincing argument, do you think that will help you? You know, in Jefferson City, Democrats are in the super minority. It’ll be virtually impossible to get anything done without Republican support. So obviously that’s a consideration.

Nathan M-L (23:59) My intention is not to go to Jefferson City and be a bomb thrower. That’s not helpful. But, you know, there’s a reason that the firefighters endorsed me and that they did it immediately. It’s because of my track record of working with them, getting deals done, and showing them a lot of respect. And I just intend to do the same thing. But that’s how you get any deal done, right? You don’t show up being a bomb thrower, being insulting, or having a track record of not working together. You know, and that’s what I intend to do. If I’ve got to go into a meeting with Republicans and I know that I’m not going to get what I want, I’m going to ask for 100. If I can get 10, I’ll be very thankful, and I’ll come back tomorrow and talk about the 90. But I’m not going to go there and demand 100 or nothing because then I’ll end up with nothing and I’ll have nothing to show for it. I’ve said this before, but I’m a deal maker, not a deal breaker. I want to work with people. I want to be an effective legislator. I’ll share a story from the past with you. And if I’ve sort of allowed myself to daydream, I hope I get a chance to tell the story in a bigger forum sometime. But at my very first job, it was at a city in South Georgia called Garden City. And my side story to this is that even though most people have never met my dad and he’s no longer with us, he had the one quality I know that I inherited from my dad: the ability to have a concise point and take a long time to get there. And so this is a good example of me having a concise point, but I’m going to take a little bit of time to get there. But the city I worked at was called Garden City, Georgia, and the mayor at the time, his name was Andy Quinney, was a very good mayor. And he would start — we’d start every council meeting the same way. He’d start with a prayer — take that to mean what you will, or have your own thoughts about it. But he’d have the prayer, the prayer usually generic, just thank you for everybody, you know, asking for guidance on whatever the topic of the day was, and whatever we were discussing at the meeting was fine. But he would always end every prayer the same way. He would say, “Lord, help us do the proper thing and not the popular thing.” And since 2007, I have never forgotten that. I think about it every day. And so my goal is to go to Jeff City, represent this district well, and do the proper thing and not the popular thing. And I hope that I can instill in all my fellow representatives and legislators — members of the government — let’s do the proper thing and not the popular thing, because that’s going to be what helps people and that’s what I want to do.

Adam (26:17) Yeah. So the state Legislature has been sort of moving in a way that is sort of not representative of what the people want. Missouri voters, they voted to pass and ratify abortion into the state constitution. They passed an increase in the minimum wage, mandatory paid sick leave, time off, stuff like that. And it seems as though the state Legislature has not responded to that, and on top of that is actively making it harder to do these popular ballot initiatives with that changing of how you can get those measures onto the ballot, requiring a certain amount of people in all seven congressional districts as opposed to just a flat majority. How do you sort of see that and how will you work to sort of bring the people back into the Legislature?

Nathan M-L (27:12) So several issues there. No. 1, with the paid leave and the minimum wage increases, you know, I am very willing — day one — to sponsor legislation, introduce, co-sponsor, introduce, whatever I need to do, advocate for, to undo the legislative actions that were taken to undo the will of the voters. That’s just ridiculous. It’s a slap in the face to the voters, to the whole democratic system.

So, those are the kind of issues that I’m talking about that affect people every day. And those are the kind of issues that we don’t think about having a bigger economic effect, but they do. And it’s — if your business cannot afford to provide a living wage for people or to provide bare-bones benefits, there may be an issue with your business. If your business relies on people being paid poorly and giving them no benefits, what is your business? I also think it’s very interesting how so many businesses — and we’re just going to use Walmart as an example because it’s so well-publicized — how many businesses pay their employees low wages, and then those employees also have to get on public assistance? It’s like, what are we talking about here? You profit billions of dollars on the backs of taxpayers because you don’t pay right and you don’t give benefits to your employees. So that kind of nonsense — those are the kinds of things we have to have common-sense regulations and laws about. And, you know, we’re subsidizing these giant businesses, and we’re not providing benefits that really affect people when they specifically voted to get them. It’s just a huge slap in the face to so many people.

No. 2, Amendment 4 on the ballot in August is this crazy scheme to basically ban — what that will effectively do is stop the initiative process in Missouri. So if any Missourian really cares about democracy, they will vote no on 4, because that will destroy the initiative. It will — you will never get things passed in Missouri ever again. And if it would pass, you wouldn’t really be able to undo it because it had to go out for a vote. And it also, again, as you said, passes in all the congressional districts, which is just nonsense. So it’s really just a backdoor scheme to stop the democratic process in the state. It’s just terrible. So hopefully people will vote no on 4 and, you know, preserve our democracy in the state. As far as the abortion rights, that’s going to be on the November ballot. And the Republicans have been very cunning in the way they’re doing that. You know, people who are pro-choice are going to want to vote no on that. And the way it’s worded, your first inclination would be to vote yes for the abortion part because it’s worded in a way that you would want to support abortion in those cases. So it’s very tricky. But then they’ve also, of course, put the ballot candy on there banning gender-affirming care of all types for minors. That includes even hormone therapy. So even non-invasive treatments are banned, which is taking that awfully far. And here we are. So, you know, I again — not trying to be negative, Nathan — but I think that will probably pass in November because of the tricky language and because of adding transgender youth healthcare onto that. And it’s again just a terrible state of affairs to be going after people the way that they are and to be disrespecting the will of the voters. But that seems to be the modus operandi right now for a group of Republicans in the Legislature, and it’s just a slap in the face to the voters of Missouri. It’s very disrespectful.

Adam (30:51) Sort of another thing that I think the Legislature has recently done — or has been doing for a while — that I think is sort of going against democratic ideals is the gerrymandering thing. So obviously the more publicized one is the recent gerrymandering with the federal congressional districts, the removal of Emanuel Cleaver’s district over Kansas City. And then also the gerrymandering that’s been going on for a while in regards to the state Legislature, because when you look at presidential elections, the vote — you know, it’s not super close, but it’s like 55-45, something like that. But when you look at the makeup of the state Legislature, it’s like 75 percent Republican, so that doesn’t really make sense. 

Nathan M-L (31:19) It doesn’t at all. It’s just — and I give Republicans credit for playing the long game on the maps. And if you look at the research and see what they’ve done, they’ve been playing the map game for decades and they’ve been very successful at it. I wish Democrats had not had their head in the sand about that. I hope that after Amendment 4 fails in August, we can get, you know, our few hundred thousand signatures signed and get an amendment on the constitution to ban gerrymandering, because it has destroyed our state. In no way do our representatives — the makeup — represent the state of Missouri at the state or federal level. It’s — to your point — it is a red state, but it’s not that red. And you see what happens when populist ideas and proposals go out for a statewide vote. We expand Medicaid, we give minimum wage, we give healthcare benefits. We allow paid time off. We guarantee abortion rights. So step by step by step, the voters of Missouri say that they want more liberal and progressive policies, and because the Legislature is not representative of the state, they take it away. And it’s outrageous. And so we have to find a way, you know — Democrats are going to have to buck up a little bit and get tough and get serious. And the only way to do it is to get the — is to ban gerrymandering statewide, and we have got to try to do this.

Adam (33:00) I’ve got sort of a — that’s a question that is like so very off topic from what that last one was. But you work in municipal government, and obviously one big municipal question in St. Louis, St. Louis County, is that split — is the split between the county and the city. Currently, Ian Mackey is supportive of the two merging — the county merging into the city and creating like one large municipal plan; the Better Together plan, I think, is what it’s called. Where do you — I want to know where you stand on that plan and where you stand on the idea of, you know, these two entities merging.

Where sort of do you stand on that merging of the two?

Nathan M-L (33:48) Well, the police board is asking for tens of millions of dollars more because they’re trying to claim that the city’s, you know, one-time windfall and cash reserves count as revenues for them to take every year, which is an absolute joke of a position to have. But the city of St. Louis does need to be spending, you know — 25 percent on police is a reasonable amount. That’s very typical for municipalities. But they need to figure that out. But what the police board is trying to do and how much money they’re trying to take — that’s not right. As far as the county and city go, No. 1 — the Better Together plan was never going to pass around here. Getting rid of all the municipalities and creating one giant local government when you have so many people who have a stake in the process — it was never going to happen. It was unrealistic and was just not going to work here. St. Louis city does need to be a member municipality in St. Louis County, like — you know, I’m sitting in Ferguson — the city of St. Louis needs to be a member of St. Louis County just like the city of Ferguson. That alone would result in tens of millions of dollars in cost savings for both the county and the city of St. Louis. And I don’t think there would be really any objection to the city coming into the county if people could understand that it’s not a merger. It’s just becoming a municipality in the county.

And because that would — my example that I use is always the health department. St. Louis city has a health department; the county has a health department. That’s a county-level service. Those could merge right off the top. The city would save a whole bunch of money, and the county would get a lot of efficiencies. So boom, that’s one easy thing that could be done. So the city of St. Louis does need to be a member municipality in St. Louis County. I think that makes all the sense in the world. I don’t think that’s a controversial statement in 2026. And I think that that needs to find a way to happen. I think that people would actually vote to do that, honestly.

The county’s budget problems, in my opinion — this is my opinion as Nathan, the individual person — the large amount of unincorporated areas in St. Louis County that the county has to provide municipal services for, that’s what drives its budget challenges. The county provides municipal services, and it shouldn’t be doing that. It’s a county, not a municipality. So those unincorporated areas in St. Louis County either need to form their own city or need to merge with an existing municipality and incorporate. That would go a long way toward helping the county’s budget issues because it would then allow it to provide only county-level services and not municipal-level services. That’s just your basic civics right there. Municipal consolidation in St. Louis County — and I’ll make no proposals about that on this call or on any recorded line. And I joke about that a little bit, but there are some municipalities that could merge with each other that would make a whole lot of sense, and you could really save a lot of money and get a lot of efficiencies in service. And frankly, better representative government. You know, a town that has 10 people is not going to have as much say as a town that has 100,000 people; it’s not going to have as much purchasing power, it’s not going to have as much power of representation, it’s not going to have as much revenue. So there are definitely some obvious ways that towns can incorporate now. You know, cities of all sizes have a place and are appropriate. And I’m not going to say that a town of 10 people is bad, or that a town of 100,000 people is good, but, you know, we can do things better in a more logical way in St. Louis County without throwing bombs, without trying to make one giant, you know, municipality. There are just some rational and logical things that can be done if people are willing to just have some humility about the process and just take an honest look at it. The fact of the matter is St. Louis County, all the municipalities in St. Louis County, and the city of St. Louis — we cannot continue on this fractured path that we’re on.

You know, we have discussions seemingly every year region-wide about why other places are doing, you know, better than us in some ways — although I’m not going to say that I think St. Louis County isn’t an amazing place. I love it here; this is where I’m going to spend the rest of my life. I think every time I have a friend visit here, they just are blown away by what is around here because nobody knows. And I kinda like that because it’s not, you know, a billion people like Atlanta and growing so fast in other places. But we can do better; we can do smarter. We’ve got to do that. We should be — we need a lot more pride in ourselves and in our region, and just to make some more logical and thoughtful decisions. But if we do that, we can, you know, be one of those top-tier places, as we absolutely deserve to be.

Adam (38:14) Yeah. You know, lastly, what do you think is the biggest difference between you and your opponents? Obviously it’s a crowded primary, and I don’t mean like my opponent is bad for this reason or they did this and that’s not right, but like what do you think you bring, or what do you think differentiates yourself from this sort of crowded field?

Nathan M-L (38:23) Sure, sure, sure. Very simple to me. And I’ll say from the front, you know, my campaign is not about getting people to vote against somebody else. And I only want people — I mean, now if somebody wants to vote against somebody to vote for me, I — you know, you have to — I was joking with somebody today. I said, I can’t be that effective from the No. 2 position. You know, you want to win. So I am thankful for everybody who wants to support me, and wants to vote for me. But I am really running a campaign talking about me, about what I can do, about my experience, and not worrying about what somebody else has done or what they might do. And I would just stand on my own resume. My biggest differentiator is the quantity and quality of my experience throughout levels of government and my track record of delivering for people. I can give examples of getting union contracts done, getting development projects done, getting infrastructure projects done, on and on and on — tangible things that I’ve been able to do, policies that I’ve written, budgets that I’ve done. And my track record is very clear. Again, you know, the reason that elected officials know me and like me and have endorsed me, and why unions know me and like me and endorsed me, is because of what I’ve accomplished and who I am. That doesn’t mean anybody else is bad or has bad ideas, but my case for being an effective legislator, I believe, is very clear, and I do believe that I would be the best, most effective legislator for District 99.

Adam (39:55) All right. Nathan Mai-Lombardo, thank you so much for coming on the show, and I wish you luck in your election.

Nathan M-L (40:00) Thank you so much. Maybe I’ll run into you out canvassing again sometime. So thanks so much. Absolutely. I really appreciate it, man. Take care of yourself. Talk soon.

Adam (40:04) Maybe yeah. Maybe we’ll run into each other again.

Thank you. You too.