Nathan Coursey, Author at Show-Me Institute

Higher Property Taxes: The Cost of Doing Business?

Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:00:00 +0000

Taxes are, unfortunately, a necessary evil. But when we have to pay them, we should at least expect that they be applied fairly, so everyone pays his or her share. It would be hard to argue that this is the case in the 10 Saint Louis municipalities listed in the table below. All of them tax commercial property owners at rates that are at least 125% of the rates that residents pay. In Edmundson, Twin Oaks, and Brentwood, residential property isn’t taxed at all. Even among these three, Edmundson stands out, because the commercial property tax rate there was doubled with the passage of Proposition C in the November 3 general election, while the residential rate remained unchanged—at zero. As a result, the commercial property tax rate in Edmundson will be more than 30 cents per $100 assessed value higher than in any of the other municipalities listed on the table.

2014 Property Tax Rates for Commercial and Residential Properties
Municipality		Commercial Assessed Value	Residential Assessed Value	Comm. Rate	Res. Rate	Rate Ratio (C/R)
1.	Edmundson	$18,330,570	$3,830,260	0.5*	0	No Res. Rate
2.	Twin Oaks	$8,211,080	$4,803,540	0.342	0	No Res. Rate
3.	Brentwood	$108,114,606	$131,496,620	0.2	0	No Res. Rate
4.	Maplewood	$68,431,831	$71,415,070	0.51	0.19	2.68
5.	Westwood	$236,136**	$18,275,380	0.1	0.059	1.69
6.	Crestwood	$59,662,160	$160,432,460	0.431	0.256	1.68
7.	Bridgeton	$249,636,058	$97,184,040	0.25	0.16	1.56
8.	Pasadena Hills	$105,890**	$9,212,610	0.5	0.3386	1.48
9.	Valley Park	$36,622,033	$68,733,500	0.668	0.484	1.38
10.	Pagedale	$11,446,030	$10,842,420	0.341	0.264	1.29

* Edmundson's Commercial Rate of 0.5 was just raised to 1.0.

** The total commercial property in these cities is so small that it raises very little money, whatever the rate may be.

Assessed values and rates are 2014 figures taken from the Missouri State Auditor's Office 2014 Property Tax Rates

Former Show-Me Institute Policy Researcher Michael Rathbone has taken Edmundson to task over this issue before, but the other municipalities listed have similar (if less extreme) taxation policies, shifting much of the cost of government services away from residents and onto commercial property owners. Residents in these areas might enjoy the low tax rates on their property (if they pay property tax at all), but it is short-sighted—not to mention unfair—to expect the owners of commercial property to pick up the slack.

The post Higher Property Taxes: The Cost of Doing Business? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Great Race: Taxi v. Uber v. Metro Link

Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:00:00 +0000

With UberX finally available in Saint Louis, Show-Me Institute staff decided to hold a race to see how the service can add to the city’s transportation options. The contestants, Nathan Coursey, Joseph Miller, and Brittany Wagner, took a taxi, an Uber car, and the MetroLink, respectively, from the Show-Me Institute office in St. Louis's Central West End to Mr. Curry’s downtown. Watch the video to see who prevails!

The post The Great Race: Taxi v. Uber v. Metro Link appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Subsidize Parking in Upscale Central West End Redevelopment

Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:00:00 +0000

Last week the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Commission voted to approve Koman Group’s $4.5 million TIF proposal for 32 N. Euclid in the heart of the Central West End. The application will now go before the Board of Alderman for additional approval. David Stokes, director of development at the Show-Me Institute, spoke in April of 2014 to the Missouri House of Representatives on some of the problems with using TIF as a redevelopment strategy. Policy analyst Joseph Miller recently wrote about how the current building, which houses a successful neighborhood bar and dry cleaner, is by no means a “blight” to the community.

Why is it necessary to use TIF in a prosperous city neighborhood to finance two floors of underground parking in a walkable, urban neighborhood? 32 North Euclid is located in a thriving city neighborhood within close proximity to a 160-unit public garage, metered parking, and the Central West End Metrolink station. The program plan presented to the TIF Commission is a six-floor, mixed-use building with ground floor retail, second floor office space, and four upper floors of luxury apartments. The building will ultimately contain between 52 and 68 market-rate units with a very high price point. Koman is estimating it will construct between 70 and 80 subterranean parking spaces at a cost of $45,000 to $60,000 per space. Given these cost estimates, over 70%—and up to 100%—of taxpayer money funding the project will go to pay for parking.

While I understand the financial reason for wanting ground floor retail along Euclid and the aesthetic reason for wanting to hide parking, these simply don’t justify diverting millions of dollars of future tax revenues to finance parking for a luxury development in a neighborhood with a Walkscore in the low 80s. Classifying the current building as a blight to the community is dubious at best. This TIF proposal demonstrates how a subsidy intended to spark redevelopment on sites where development would not occur “but-for” the subsidy is being abused to finance luxury residential developments in wealthy, high-growth neighborhoods at the taxpayer’s expense.

The post Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Subsidize Parking in Upscale Central West End Redevelopment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.