One of the most common sayings used by charter opponents was, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” I can understand that kind of thinking, because a lot of Franklin County is rural and we really enjoy life the way it is. There is also a natural human condition that resists change. Lots of people (my family included) still live on in a rural area, on 10 or more acres, and the last thing they want is more interference in their daily lives. My objection, however, is that by passing home rule, those who want to limit interference could have protected themselves from outside laws. Home rule can be a good insulator.

Some argued that the charter would increase the size of local government, but I think this was a misinterpretation of the charter — just because there’s greater representation doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be greater intrusion. Why expand the county council to seven members when you can stay with two associate commissioners? Well, when you’re debating a tax hike or deciding where to put a road, wouldn’t you want people from each of the the county’s seven regions to provide input, rather than just two people? Additionally, a seven-member council would better represent the county as a whole. While David Stokes and I were interviewed on KLPW AM radio in Franklin County, we heard multiple people call in with this sentiment: “This is just Washington trying to rule the rest of Franklin County.” I don’t think people realized, however, a seven-person council would have made Washington as equal as the county’s other regions — whereas it’s currently the biggest voting area.

Judging by our radio experience the other day, there had been a campaign of misinformation about the entire issue. For example, people thought that the new county council people could (and would) vote itself a raise as a first order of business. However, this would not have been possible because the charter froze salaries until 2014. After that, Missouri’s Constitution would prohibit a raise from taking effect till after there had been an election. So, even if the council would have voted itself a raise down the road, the members would have to get reelected after that vote. Something tells me that would be a hard campaign to win.

Overall, I think the charter proposal failed out of resistance to change, rather than a true understanding of what charter government is and how it can work either for or against the county’s residents. Hopefully, next time a charter is proposed people will have access to better information about what type of government a charter would really bring.

The post Initial Franklin County Charter Thoughts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

13,614 Total Votes Cast
13,424 people voted on Prop C

4,380 (32.63%) Voted For
9,044 (67.37%) Voted Against

It will be at least another two years till the issue can be revisited by the voters. I sincerely hope that both the opponents and proponents can come together on a compromise. This issue was surrounded with controversy, and hopefully next time (if there is a next time) it won’t be so heated.

See the results here.

The post Franklin County Charter Results appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With more than 100,000 people, Franklin County is the only large county in the Saint Louis metropolitan area lacking a form of self-government. Last April, however, residents gave the green light to a constitutional charter draft for county government. The 14-person commission created for this task — equally split along partisan lines — did an admirable job. Although there are some drawbacks that need to be addressed, the charter draft as it stands would largely be a positive step forward.

To be clear, this new charter would not create a new level of government. Rather, it would simply switch one form of county government for a better one. As someone who was raised in Franklin County, I’ve seen firsthand how the community’s needs have changed over time. Population growth naturally entails additional challenges, and as we now face increasing taxes and declining economic growth, the people of Franklin County need a more direct voice in their government. The proposed charter would entail minimal cost in relation to its benefits. It would bring true representation to unincorporated areas, and it wouldn’t drastically expand the number of county offices. Despite the county’s current executive and commissioners, we are still largely governed by Missouri rules and regulations. Franklin County has grown to the point where it makes sense to become a self-governing entity with rules determined in the county seat — not the state capital.

The new format would add seven county council members, each with a $10,000 annual salary, replacing the two current associate commissioners who make $64,000 apiece. Essentially, the county would trade one commissioner for seven councilors, and although a seven-member council may seem like a high number, it would allow for population growth. The charter specifies that county council lines would be drawn according to population, which would allow for greater representation of the people, especially for those who don’t live in a municipality.

Counties have to strike a balance when deciding how many elected officials to have. Although the charter would wisely maintain a number of offices as elected positions, which is positive for good government, the proposed number does not create an overly cumbersome bureaucracy.

Aside from these positive aspects, one part of the charter is particularly disagreeable. While it does not worsen the county’s property rights situation, the charter commission missed a real opportunity to be a leader in the fight against eminent domain abuse. The proposed charter outlines at great length the situations in which officials might use eminent domain, when it should have simply said, “Franklin County will not take private property from one party to give to another private party for any reason.” The charter language contains elaborate posturing, to give the appearance of real eminent domain protection. As it stands, however, it would still give officials the opportunity to redistribute land between private parties simply by making capricious “blight” designations, if a majority of the council so votes. The county merely adopted the same weak standard that the state has already implemented.

There are a couple more potential problems. The charter would give officials the power to hire consultants or lobbyists, which could lead to undue influence and corruption during the lawmaking process. It would also give the council power to create laws for the “public health and welfare,” and allow them to make rules and regulations that are “necessary and proper.” These phrases are both standard constitutional language, but are still worrisome because they have been abused at both federal and state levels to expand the size and role of government in Americans’ daily lives. Franklin County won’t grow into the behemoth that the federal government has become, but it’s crucial for citizens to continue taking an active role in their communities and keep government unobtrusive and small. The direct and personal connection that comes along with such a small county council will help ensure that citizens respond to official wrongdoing.

Considered in total, though, the charter would establish more local control — the most important and effective form of government — which can bring protection and insulation from bad laws. The charter’s apportionment of a council member for each 14,285 people would also provide a focused and influential representative voice for the people, contrasted with the two current commissioners who must try to listen to and advocate for all 100,000. Franklin County has an active citizenry, with many people who would make great council members or county executives. The charter draft’s missed opportunities and troublesome aspects can always be amended, but the overall proposal would be largely a positive step forward.

Phil Eckelkamp is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He is currently pursuing a degree at Saint Louis University School of Law.

The post Despite Drawbacks, Proposed Franklin Charter a Positive Step Forward appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

People who don’t want to be annexed don’t usually get a chance to have their voices heard, but here in Missouri they are guaranteed that right. There is also an issue of renter v. owner at play here. While renters outnumber owners in this case, they both have an equal voice at the polls. It should be interesting to see how this plays out on election day.

The post Give and Take appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The executive board of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association says it has officially endorsed red-light cameras “as part of a comprehensive traffic safety enforcement toolbox that should remain available to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads.”

This stance runs counter to that of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, which came out earlier this month against the cameras.

I would really like to see why the state’s police chiefs believe red-light cameras are actually a safety tool, despite the contrary conclusions of several studies. Either way, it is a very interesting split among the people enforcing the tickets. We’ll be sure to keep you updated on any and all movement that we see on this issue.

The post Police Split on Red Light Cameras appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My buddy Mike Sweeney, over at STL Hops, is having a “Best Missouri Craft Beer Challenge.” It’s a bracketed tournament that is set up like much like the March Madness tournament, in which you vote for one beer over another and whichever one has the most votes moves on to the next round.  Currently, they are on Round 3, so get over there and vote.

My personal pick to go all the way is the O’Fallon 5-Day IPA. The site attracts a large proportion of hopheads (fans of the ingredient that bitters the beer — not dope smokers), so that bodes well for O’Fallon. Plus, I always favor the underdog, and since they are a 52 seed out of 64, you can’t get much more underdog than that.

As long as a pumpkin beer doesn’t win, I will consider it a valid tournament. Enjoy.

The post Missouri Beer Challenge (March Madness Style) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The event will be held this Friday, Feb. 27, at 6:30 p.m. in the Isom Community Center, 910 N. Newstead. I encourage all of you to attend and let your opinion be heard.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining why the SLPS wouldn’t want to sell to charter schools. The buildings would be vacant anyway. We’ll see whether residents would rather have dilapidated buildings, or places of learning that raise their community’s overall happiness and property value. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the meeting.

The post SLPS to Sell to Charter Schools? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Anheuser-Busch InBev has on tap an effort to lessen the burden of the city’s earnings tax, according to knowledgeable sources.

One source said the brewery has talked with the Bryan Cave law firm about representing them in the effort. Bryan Cave cited client confidentiality when questioned about the subject.

A call to acting City Counselor Steve Kovac, whose office would handle the matter for the city, has not been returned.

One source said the brewery is trying to “avoid a pay cut for the Brazilians coming to town.” InBev, which bought the brewery, is based in Belgium, but many of its top executives are from Brazil.

The 1 percent tax, which affects those who work in the city, represents a big lug for the city, and the brewery was identified in a financial report for fiscal 2008 as the No. 1 source of this tax in the city. Its payment totaled $7.39 million, or 4.2 percent of all earnings and payroll tax collected by the city.

Now, I’m sure that the chances of actually overturning the tax are fairly slim, but I love their ambition of lowering taxes for everyone. Of course, I say this without having read any of the legal theory underpinning the firm’s purported argument, because Bryan Cave is doing its proper legal duty and keeping its mouth shut. I’ll just have to wait with baited breath. There are, however, a few pieces on the Show-Me Institute’s website demonstrating that eliminating the earnings tax makes good economic sense.

Even if the 1-percent tax were struck down, though, I’m sure city officials would try to find another way to get “their” money.

The post Unforeseen Benefit Coming to STL? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, let’s hear it. What would you like to see?

The post First Weekend Open Thread appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

No apology necessary

Jim Roos owes no apology for the “End Eminent Domain Abuse” mural, which protests the use of eminent domain for private (rather than public) use (“Sign of the times,” Feb. 2). The editorial failed to acknowledge that St. Louis has taken 24 properties from Mr. Roos’ non-profit housing ministry to make way for private development.

The editorial also omitted the fact that the building on which Mr. Roos had the mural painted is itself threatened with eminent domain abuse. Posting the protest at the site of the government’s wrong was the one way to effectively voice dissent.

The editorial got one thing right: Content neutrality is a prerequisite for a constitutionally valid sign code. Yet St. Louis’s code is anything but neutral; it allows signs concerning a host of other topics. It is disconcerting that the Post-Dispatch believes Mr. Roos should apologize for wanting the same protection for a political protest.

If St. Louis doesn’t want citizens conspicuously protesting eminent domain abuse, the city simply should stop engaging in it.

Michael Bindas | Seattle, Wash.

Staff attorney, Institute for Justice

The post Ending Eminent Domain Abuse appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

BTW, I would like to point out that I linked to Rosenbaum’s article on this subject and excluded others because he embraced new media technology in his blog entry — which, in turn, gave the most authentic and unbiased report. Good to have you back, Jason.

The post Tradition Beats Technology appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I know this is not a Missouri issue yet, but I would really love to see someone who has a great record of being in touch with the people and populist issues take it up here in Missouri. Any suggestions?

The post Bravo, North Dakota appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This blog has not exactly been quiet about red–light cameras. Enough has been said about the issue before, but I just wanted to keep our loyal readers up to date with some new movement.

The post Seeing Red appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A good Internet-enabled machine is relatively cheap, and gives legislators access to a plethora of information. I’m not talking about visiting Wikipedia to figure out the annual cost for dolphin studies during 2008; I’m talking about being able to figure out how much the Missouri government spends on particular projects, and how those figures compare to other states. Also, wouldn’t it be great if someone could easily pull out an article from the Show-Me Institute, the Cato Institute, or the Institute for Justice, and actually start talking about policy in-depth?

Having worked in the legislature, I am all for the efficiency of government — and there was more than one occasion in which I received a phone call or text message asking me to look up certain facts or find a rebuttal to a policy argument. I was happy to do my job, but by the time I actually found something, printed it out, went to the floor, had an usher get my legislator, wait for him read it, and then watch him wait to be called on by whomever was at the dais that day/hour, the point was moot — by that point, the bill or amendment was no longer up for discussion. So, allowing each legislator a laptop would hopefully solve at least this issue, while allowing them to particiapate in actual debate.

I know that there may be some issues with security and whatnot but I have to downplay those as minimal. Good firewalls, antivirus programs, and a great tech staff already exist, and this would not present any significant additional burden on the system. I have a very hard time understanding why legislators would protest the proposal so much. Someone care to explain it to me?

The post Dark Chambers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’ve always thought that the pay of elected officials and their staff is a tricky subject. On one hand, you want to ensure that you attract the “best and the brightest,” so that the taxpayers are getting good government. On the other hand, you don’t want to spend more of the taxpayers’ money than necessary in order to have a good working government. I realize that the combination of someone being brilliant and also willing to accept what is normally a substantially lower salary than they might receive elsewhere is a rarity. The people who fit this description are usually driven by a sense of service and duty to the state.

Salaries in the governor’s office are up $21,757, and by rejecting their 4-percent cost-of-living increase, the state legislature “saved” the taxpayers $234,165.80 according to my calculations ($35,915 x .04 x 163). That is a fairly substantial savings, in my book. Additionally, by rejecting pay raises for associate circuit judges, they saved the state $289,500 (193 x $1,500). Overall, there was a “savings” of $501,908.80 ($234,165.80 + $289,500 – $21,757). The cynical part of me understands that the legislature needed to make a political move, because voting for a pay raise — even if it is a cost-of-living increase — can be political suicide, but it is a good move nonetheless.

While I’m on the subject of pay raises for judges, it seems that a modest increase of $1,500 per judge won’t be enough to make an actual difference for either cost of living or recruitment away from the private sector, so the fact that this didn’t pass is a good thing. Additionally, the judges just received a pay raise in July, up to $$109,366. So, a new increase from $109,366 to $110,866 doesn’t seem all that enticing. This decision to let each of the 5,842,713 people in Missouri keep their average of $0.90 (443,367.35 ÷ 5,842,713) is a good thing. Yes, I know that not each one of those people pays taxes, but you get my point).

So, that’s just my $0.02.

The post Cutting Back appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This seems to be a great step in the right direction, which started today with competitive bidding on 6 of Missouri’s 183 fee offices. So, now instead of officials giving the offices away through political patronage, there will be a system of points for five different categories. Requiring bidders to offer the best quality at the lowest cost for a service that everyone has to use is a great thing. I hope that the practical execution of this legislation turns out well as the initial idea.

On a personal note I know several people who were recipients of fee office contracts, and they are all very good people. I heard from several of them after the election, and a few of them said, without prompt, that if they lost their fee office they would not be all that disappointed. They were able to articulate how much hassle the offices really are, and that all the negatives we experience (long lines, computer crashes, outdated software, etc.) are just as much of a negative for them — being the subject of so much hate is never fun. So, hopefully, the bid process will allow those who genuinely want to run the office to continue to do so, and for those that don’t — enjoy less hassle in your life.

The post A Step in the Right Direction appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The article says that Internet sales are on the rise for the second straight year, hitting $204 billion annually (which again is probably an overestimate), while traditional brick-and-mortar stores are continuing to lose money.  In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the state couldn’t collect a sales tax from a particular business unless it had a physical presence in that state — but Congress could lift that ban at any time. As we stand on the razor’s edge of a serious economic downturn, I believe it’s a mistake to institute new tax policy that would dampen consumer spending even more.

The article seems to totally disregard why Internet sales are up.  When the market is allowed to operate without interference, this allows a clearer view of what the invisible hand is doing. Things are cheaper online largely because they don’t involve sales tax, and are subject to fewer labor costs, but online products also often come with free shipping — and there is no added personal cost of travel to and from a store. The combination of these factors — the ease of shopping from home, paying less, and easily finding desired products — makes clear why Internet sales are on the rise. These are also good reasons for local stores to place their inventory online and lobby for lower taxes — not push for more taxes. Although placing a tax on Internet sales (whether by the local, state, or federal government) may appear to level the playing field, at least from the brick-and-mortar perspective, it really serves as a protectionist measure for local stores without benefiting consumers.

As a sidenote to the whole idea of Internet taxation, the logistics of how this would work are almost unfathomable. Would officials simply tax online purchases for traditional stores like Best Buy or Walmart and exempt purely Internet-based sales on sites like Amazon and Overstock? How would they track sales for sites like eBay and Craigslist? Are they going to send revenue agents out to track each sale?  Does the state have the authority to tax beyond its boundaries? Would this have to be a federal tax, pursuant to the Constitution’s commerce clause? Does the state realize that forcing commercial activity underground only promotes organized crime? These are are just a few things to think about when contemplating such an idea. Rather than spurring the creation of a new market for illicit online sales, the government should be in the business of fostering legitimate commerce.

The post Misery Loves Company appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you’re looking to follow what is going on, you can visit the official site at CESWeb.com, or you can visit several sites that follow electronics, like CNET or Wired.

The post Showcasing the Free Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The part that caught my interest was not only the wide range of beer selection (who can disagree with that?) but also the way they will do their food. Instead of trying to be good at everything, they have chosen to be really great at one thing, and let others deal with the hassle of cooking. Rather than serving food from an in-house kitchen, they will instead be allowing customers to order food from local surrounding restaurants, such as Surf Dogs, Foodies, and East Coast Pizza. Just tell the servers what you want, and they will order it for you.

I particularly love this idea because it allows the merging of several different capital markets into one place. Instead of offering subpar or par food, they will be offering good/great food from other merchants, thereby utilizing the services those establishments already offer. Additionally, they will be a no-smoking bar inside and a smoking bar on the outside patio — again, playing to the widest possible market. They seem to have merged a Growler’s-style menu (which has gotten too bland for my tastes) and a Friar Tuck’s or Lucas Liquor type of selection. This kind of restaurant allows for the percentage of drinkers who actually enjoy lots of choice and high-quality food to come together with the same people who “enjoy” BMC and bar food. Additionally, I like the fact that they still allow smoking on some level. Hopefully, they won’t draw a line in the sand with cigars — but we’ll see. I’m not sure there is anything better than a good cigar from a small island nation south of Florida and a good RIS. Who knows, this may even get me out of U. City once in a while.

A strong hat-tip goes to my buddy Mike Sweeney over at STLHops.com (a St. Louis beer blog), who first alerted me to this story.

The post The Merging of All Good Things in Life appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis area officials have long struggled over how to fund the mass transit system. In the November elections, county voters will choose whether to increase the transit sales tax by one-half cent in order to fund Metro. If this measure passes, it will also trigger a one-fourth-cent transit sales tax in Saint Louis city. During the weeks preceding the November elections, voters will hear the arguments both for and against the tax increase. Both sides have merit.

The new tax increase, if it is approved by voters, is expected to generate approximately $87 million in additional funding for Metro, the majority of which would come from Saint Louis County’s higher tax rate and larger base. Saint Louis city’s one-fourth-cent increase would generate approximately $9 million in additional funding. About half of the additional funds raised, around $40 million, would be used to fund the current bus and light-rail system, while the remaining half would be used to fund future MetroLink expansion. Metro officials have stated that without the tax increase, the agency would be forced either to cut back on services or increase fare prices to ensure a balanced budget.

These officials view the prospect of increased fares as harmful, because they fear ridership would fall accordingly. However, this may actually be a better way to raise revenue. In the past, raising fares was a surefire way to decrease Metro patronage, but that assumption might not hold true today. As gasoline prices hover near $4 per gallon, it is plausible that most current Metro riders would rather absorb an increased fare than turn to even greater expenses at the pump. High fuel prices make it unlikely that anything short of a particularly large fare hike would spur a significant decrease in ridership.

To whatever extent possible, those who actually use Metro should be the ones to pay for its services. Therefore, any discussion of additional funding for Metro should include an estimation of the system’s popularity, and, in turn, its cost to taxpayers. For the fiscal year 2008, Metro officials project that the system will carry more than 60 million passengers. MetroBus ridership accounts for 33.5 million of that figure, while MetroLink will transport almost 26 million. Metro has always operated, however, with significant taxpayer cost. According to the agency’s 2007 figures, taxpayers subsidized Metro at a rate of $2.30 per rider, with MetroBus’s $2.61 subsidy average higher than MetroLink’s $1.39. In all, Metro received close to $124 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies during 2007, and although some of this revenue is paid by transit users in addition to their fares, the vast majority comes from non-riders. Higher fares can be seen as a fairer means of raising revenue than increasing the already-sizable tax burden devoted to underwriting Metro.

Conversely, those who ride the Metro regularly are not the only people who benefit from its services. For example, in 2007, Metro carried almost 2 million riders attending special events, which includes sporting events and conventions downtown. If not for Metro, the roads would have been more congested, with more people vying to park — perhaps driving up parking space prices. The reduction in gas usage that Metro facilitated on these occasions, paired with reduced congestion on our roads, are factors that benefit us all — even those who don’t use public transit.

Some of those opposed to the tax increase, however, simply don’t think the money will be spent wisely. Half of the revenue raised from new tax proceeds will fund MetroLink’s expansion, which is an enormously expensive project. For instance, the recent Cross County Extension added eight new miles of track for an estimated cost of $650 million. MetroBus has a much lower operating cost per mile than MetroLink, which means that bus routes can cover more ground at a cheaper rate than rail, while avoiding MetroLink’s large infrastructure requirements. However, it’s likely that increasing gas prices will gradually shrink the margin of efficiency that MetroBus now enjoys.

Metro funding has always been — and probably always will be — a struggle. Yet there is an important role for the government play in public transit provision. How best to provide crucial transit services is debatable. Are widespread taxes fair, or should costs focus on those who actually ride Metro? Those interested in a wider array of possible solutions should delve into the research about public-private partnerships conducted by the Show-Me Institute and the Reason Foundation. Cities like Denver and Las Vegas have already saved millions by allowing private firms to participate in operating mass transit.

Patrick Eckelkamp was a summer 2008 intern at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He is currently studying at Saint Louis University’s campus in Spain, pursuing an economics degree.

The post Metro Transit Funding Raises Difficult Questions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.