The two high-rises pictured above both entered the LRA’s inventory in the 1990s, vacant, awaiting redevelopment. Only one stands today.

At left is a picture of the Continental Building, located at 3615 Olive St. in the city’s Grand Center neighborhood. A 1978 National Register nomination notes, “Built in 1929 with William B. Ittner as architect, the Continental is the most sophisticated statement of art deco in St. Louis.” At right is a picture of the Regency Nursing Inn, which stood at 4560 West Pine Blvd. Built between 1964 and 1966 at a cost of $2.3 million, the convalescent home and medical office building opened for business in 1966. A leasing guide for the 15-story reinforced concrete building stated, “Because of the imposing character and dignity of the REGENCY, pride of tenancy as well as functional interior design will delight the most discerning.”

Although the Continental Building was “sophisticated” and the Regency Building merely “functional,” both ultimately fell into disuse and were subject to vandalism. The LRA assumed ownership of both buildings in the mid-1990s through the tax foreclosure process authorized by the 1971 Municipal Land Reutilization Law. Today, both properties are back in private hands after sales by the LRA, but only the Continental Building still stands. The Regency Building was demolished in 1998 at the behest of the LRA, at a cost of $263,940.

So, what gives? Does the LRA have a preference for art deco over mid-century modern? Or is there another explanation for the LRA’s decision to save one high-rise and demolish the other?

During the June 25, 1997, meeting of the LRA, the agency rejected a $10,000 offer by Roberts West Pine Development and Associates to purchase the Regency Building for rehabilitation as condominiums, deciding instead — in an executive session — to sell the property for $1 to West Pine Court LLC. Minutes from the meeting indicate that West Pine Court LLC had the support of the alderman, whereas Roberts West Pine Development did not.

Today, the site is home to low-rise, brick-faced townhouse condominiums, funded in part by the city’s first residential tax increment financing (TIF) project. To date, the developer has received more than $400,000 from this subsidy.

The Continental Building, too, stood vacant prior to its rehabilitation in 2001 by Owen Development. The residential conversion project received $5.8 million in state historic preservation tax credits and additional funds from the federal historic preservation tax credit. Minutes of the Jan. 26, 2000, meeting of the LRA reveal that the developer had “the enthusiastic support of the alderman” for the proposed rehabilitation of the building as apartments.

The LRA has wide statutory latitude to do anything it pleases, including rejecting high bidders and accepting low bids from the politically favored. As former Commissioner Howard Hayes said during the Oct. 25, 2000, LRA meeting, the agency has “an unspoken bond with 28 aldermen, because they speak for the people of St. Louis, they have been duly elected.”

Does the LRA’s “unspoken bond” entail listening to aldermen while harming taxpayers?

Consider the timeline of what happened here:

• The LRA rejects a $10,000 bid for the Regency Building, a mid-century modern skyscraper.
• The LRA accepts a $1 bid from a developer who simultaneously requested a TIF from the city.
• The LRA demolishes the building at a cost of $263,940.
• The LRA retains the art deco Continental Building in its inventory, pending its transfer to a developer for rehabilitation.
• As of 2010, taxpayers are out at least $400,000 on the West Pine townhouses and more than $5 million on the Continental Building.

At a bare minimum, the LRA should subject its parcels to competitive bidding. The fact that the LRA can raise costs to taxpayers with zero oversight and no accountability is reason enough for today’s Missouri policymakers to revisit and rethink the powers of this ill-conceived agency. In the 21st century, aldermen should not have the powers of land patronage.

The post “An Unspoken Bond”? City Aldermen and Land Patronage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Tune In to Charlie Brennan at 10:00 a.m. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A mere mile northeast of the failed Union Station 10 theater, state and federal taxpayers are shelling out tens of millions to build a new theater and parking garage on Washington Avenue. The new theater is certainly more visible than the Union Station 10 theater, but is it more viable? With its commercial vacancy rate of more than 22 percent, and some of the lowest lease rates in the region, downtown Saint Louis is a challenging market for any type of real estate development. Does building new while foreclosing on the old make any sense? This taxpayer wants to know.

The post Am I Missing Something? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From a public policy perspective, offers to buy vacant city properties are win-win: The city has fewer vacant properties to maintain, and private individuals can take on the risk and profits of redeveloping some of Saint Louis’ most undesirable properties. Yet from January 2003 through December 2010, Saint Louis government has rejected offers to purchase more than 2,200 vacant city properties.

Paper Questions City Landholding Policy (Video)

Copies of the LRA’s Meeting Minutes for Years 2003 Through 2010

The post Standstill: Is Saint Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To explain the disparity between advertised and actual savings, the reporter turned to none other than Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation and upcoming Show-Me Institute speaker. Riedl explained:

“It’s kind of like a parent saying, ‘If you go buy something, I’ll pay the credit card for you.’ And then the kid never goes out and buys it.”

As much as $18 billion of the $38 billion budget cut comes from rescinding previously approved funding allocations for completed projects that came in under budget. In other words, it’s money that was and will never be spent.

For more insight into Washington’s fiscal mess and the games that Congress is playing with the American people, consider attending the seventh installment of the economic policy speaker series cosponsored by the Show-Me Institute, Saint Louis University’s John Cook School of Business, and the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation. On Tuesday, May 3, at 6:30 p.m., Brian Riedl will present a talk, “What Washington Won’t Tell You About the Next Economic Crisis.” The event is free and open to the public, and you can register online.

The post He Gets the Games Washington Plays appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a letter obtained by the Show-Me Institute yesterday, we learned the identity of the district’s next appointee to LRA — Roger CayCe, executive director of operations for SLPS. Rick Sullivan, president and CEO of the school district, wrote, “We are sure Mr. CayCe will depict the same labor as a board member as he does in his position with SLPS.”

June 30, 2010, LRA Commission Meeting

We look forward to presenting our ongoing research about the agency to CayCe in the hope that the LRA will continue its recent positive momentum.

CayCe’s first regular meeting as a member of the LRA Commission will take place at 8:30 a.m. on April 27, 2011, in Suite 1200 at 1015 Locust St. in downtown St. Louis. Mark your calendars; we will be there to keep you up-to-date.

The post Saint Louis Public Schools Special Administrative Board Names New LRA Commissioner appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The vacancy rate for commercial space in downtown St. Louis is higher than 22 percent, yet the state of Missouri continues to fund the construction of new commercial buildings within walking distance of each other. In this particular case, the proposed use of the building (pictured below) as a movie theater raises its own questions. Why will this theater succeed where two others failed? And why is the government stepping in to pick up part of the tab for people to watch movies and eat popcorn? Where’s the sense in that?

The Parking Garage Formerly Known as St. Louis Centre, View to Northwest

Located at Sixth and Washington, the St. Louis Centre redevelopment combines public funding from a variety of sources, including federal New Markets Tax Credits, Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, and equity from the Missouri Development Finance Board. In total, the project to convert the former shopping mall into a parking garage with a ground floor movie theater will cost more than $30 million.

Stadium Cinema Grand Opening, 1967, 1967-68 Downtown St. Louis, Inc. Annual Report

Undoubtedly, some will herald the opening of a new downtown movie theater as a sign of great progress and excitement to come. For downtown observers, however, the prospect of yet another publicly subsidized movie theater recalls St. Louisan Yogi Berra’s saying, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” Consider this: Downtown St. Louis, Inc., celebrated the first theater to open on the ground level of a parking garage in 1967. The Stadium Cine at Chestnut and Broadway operated until May 1984, when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in a front-page article: “The last of the first-run movie houses in the city, the Stadium 1 and 2 Cine downtown, will close indefinitely after Sunday’s movies.” Today, the space is fully leased to other retail tenants.

Union Station 10 Movie Theater, View to Southwest

The same is not true of the next movie theater to open downtown after the Stadium Cine’s closure: The Union Station 10 Cinema — which opened in 1988, closed briefly between 1996 and 1998, and ceased operating in 2003 — stands vacant and available for use today. A leasing guide for the facility describes “The Theater at Union Station” as containing a “[l]arge glass vestibule, open lobby area and expansive ceilings” in addition to its “10 existing theaters, concession area and seating area.” How its vestibule differs from the shiny state-funded parking garage on Washington Avenue is anyone’s guess.

A July 10, 1988, column by St. Louis Post-Dispatch film critic Joe Pollack, “First-Run Movies Come Back To City,” offered a description of Union Station 10: “In the pattern of today’s movie houses, the new theater will have a luxurious look and, more important, big concession areas. It will house a delicatessen, an ice cream parlor, and a bar.” From available information sources, the only difference between it and the new, new downtown theater on Washington Avenue is that Union Station 10 had seven more screens but no touch pads for placing beer orders. Apparently, that’s the reason for taxpayers to subsidize another new facility.

We’ve seen this movie before — not once, but twice. I did not expect Missouri to fund a third. For taxpayers, this deal deserves two thumbs down.

The post Two Thumbs Down for Downtown Theater Subsidy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post A Second Chance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In an interview, SAB President Sullivan said, “I would expect an appointment to be imminent. The board discussed it today.” He continued, “I need to confirm qualifications and willingness of some people we’re considering.”

Although Sullivan did not name any potential candidates for appointment to the LRA Commission, he elaborated on the SAB’s selection criteria: “[W]e want somebody who understands all of the issues related to LRA, familiarity with real estate or otherwise.”

When asked whose interests the new appointee will represent, the school district or residents, Sullivan said that the appointee “[has] a responsibility to represent the interests of the city and take into consideration how they’re appointed. So, first and foremost are the residents of the city, city interests, and then keeping in mind where that appointment came from.”‘

Sullivan hinted strongly that the SAB hopes to have its appointment in place by the March 30, 2011, meeting of the LRA Commission.

The Show-Me Institute will continue to follow these developments closely. Stay tuned to Show-Me Daily for the latest on this story.

The post Appointment of New LRA Commissioner “Imminent” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hayes was the longest-serving member of the LRA, having begun his service on Jan. 1, 1999, as the representative appointed by the Saint Louis Public Schools. During his tenure, the LRA’s property holdings rose from 8,729 parcels to more than 9,300 — an increase of nearly 8 percent.

The Show-Me Institute made an effort to contact each member of the LRA Commission prior to publication of the institute’s initial LRA findings. Indeed, the institute contacted Saint Louis Public Schools for comment about our research multiple times, on Jan. 31, Feb. 2, and Feb. 11, and met with LRA staff members in late January.

On Feb. 14, Hayes resigned his unpaid position as a member of the LRA Commission with the following statement:

This letter is to serve as my official resignation from the Land Reutilization Authority.

It has been a unique experience that will long be remembered.

A phone call today to Saint Louis Public Schools confirmed that the Special Administrative Board will meet Thursday night, March 10. The school district’s communications director promised me that he will ask the SAB whom it intends to nominate as Hayes’ replacement.

Our yearlong study into the practices of the LRA found that the agency rejects roughly one out of every two offers to purchase vacant city property.

The Show-Me Institute will be following the selection of a new commissioner closely, because this represents an opportunity for a fresh start at the LRA. Will a new commissioner choose to sell more property? Will a new commissioner change LRA policy? We’ll keep you posted.

The post Longest-Serving LRA Commissioner Resigns appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ballpark Village, April 2010, View to Northeast

The anchor tenant for the development, Stifel Financial, will relocate from its present downtown St. Louis headquarters, which stands six blocks north of Ballpark Village. Tax dollars, in the amount of at least $35 million and potentially increasing to $188 million, are essential to the project’s financing. These monies will be spent up-front by the developers, assuming that the project’s bonds find willing buyers. Despite assurances that the city of St. Louis will not need to cover potential shortfalls on the project’s bond revenues, the St. Louis Comptroller’s Office has reportedly expressed concern about the size of the proposed financial package and its fiscal impact on St. Louis city government.

Taxing districts at both the local and state levels will forgo revenues that they would otherwise collect in order to fund this project. The Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Act, like Tax Increment Financing, allows an authorized project to capture revenue growth from activities on the site. Unlike TIF, however, MODESA funding allows a development project to capture state tax dollars in addition to local tax dollars. Keep in mind that this off-budget spending will come from a city government that claims its inability to provide basic services should the earnings tax go away!

In the absence of economic growth, publicly funded projects like Ballpark Village simply move economic activity from one site to another, which may cause governments to run deficits. Government, therefore, must either cut spending by $35 million or raise taxes and fees to cover this shortfall.

Is increasing bonded indebtedness by a minimum of $100 per city resident worth the cost? Is this what city taxpayers signed up for  a decade ago, when the city of St. Louis eliminated the “Amusement Tax” on Cardinals tickets?

You be the judge.

The post Worth the Cost? A New View of Ballpark Village appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In one of its final actions of 2010, the LRA Commission voted — with two of its three members present — to approve a lease agreement with CBS Outdoor that will permit the LRA to capture revenue from billboards that recently entered the public corporation’s land holdings.

That’s right. In St. Louis city, government owns billboards.

Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but I see no rationale for government ownership of billboards. Does a market failure really exist for outdoor advertising in St. Louis city?

Although the LRA nominally purports to represent the interests of the St. Louis mayor, comptroller, and Board of Education, little of the public corporation’s revenue ever seems to reach city taxing districts. Furthermore, billboard revenues are not the panacea for the city’s long-term fiscal problems.

Oddly enough, the LRA Commission’s action in 2010 directly contravenes the actions of the LRA Commission in 2001. During the April 25, 2001, meeting of the commission, a commissioner “asked that staff investigate the location and condition of [the LRA’s] billboards, so they can determine how the LRA can get out of the billboard business, in a reasonable amount of time.”

This is not the first case of “mission creep” for the LRA, and I doubt that it will be the last.

My hope for the new year is that the LRA will do right by the taxpayers of St. Louis city by selling its assets. Privatization broadens the tax base, which should lower marginal tax rates.

The post A Market Failure in Outdoor Advertising? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to a Nov. 18, 2010, St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, “Historic tax credit could face big cut,” the Tax Credit Review Commission has proposed the following changes to the historic tax credit:

• Reduce the program’s annual cap of $140 million, imposed in 2009, to $75 million.
• Eliminate “stacking” of the Historic Preservation Tax Credit and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit on the same project.
• Cap the amount that an owner-occupied home could receive in credits at $50,000 per project, and only for homes purchased for less than $350,000.

Using data from the Show-Me Living tax credit tool, we see that the state of Missouri expended $973 million on historic preservation from 2000 to the present, the highest expenditure for any tax credit program after the low-income housing tax credit. Historic preservation represents 28 percent of the $3.4 billion in total tax credit spending by the state during this period.

Click to enlarge

Of this historic preservation spending, $530 million — or 54 percent of the state’s total expenditure under this program — went to projects located in the Fifth Senate District, which includes downtown St. Louis.

Since the year 2000, 1,734 projects received the state historic preservation tax credit. The median amount received per project was $78,400. Of these projects, 761 — or 44 percent — also received the federal historic preservation tax credit. For these projects, the median Missouri expenditure per project was $157,607. For projects receiving only the Missouri state historic preservation tax credit and no federal historic preservation tax credit, the median Missouri expenditure was $55,690.

Projects in the top 25 percent by cost accounted for $780 million of the $970 million spent by the state on historic preservation. The bottom 75 percent of projects received 20 percent of the funding.

Click to enlarge

A proposed cap of $50,000 per owner-occupied residence would impact fewer than 500 of the projects represented in the data above, because projects that receive the federal historic preservation tax credit are not owner-occupied.

The following chart considers the impact of a proposed $75 million annual cap on historic preservation spending:

Click to enlarge

We see that for the years 2002 through 2007, the cap would have limited the amount of Missouri taxpayer money expended. Over time, we see that the cap could have reduced total Missouri spending by $220 million.

The Tax Credit Review Commission is right to draw attention to tax credit “stacking,” with its recommendation that the historic preservation tax credit should not be combined with the low-income housing tax credit for the same project.

Consider this: Missouri’s various tax credit programs, despite their many names, perform very similar activities. Low income housing tax credits reimburse project costs incurred by “housing professionals, such as architects, appraisers, attorneys, accountants, contractors and property managers.” Historic preservation tax credits reimburse “costs associated with work undertaken on the historic building, as well as architectural and engineering fees, legal expenses, development fees, and other construction-related costs.” In both programs, expenditures of taxpayer dollars accrue to the exact same activities and individuals. Thus, “stacking” of tax credits on a project may yield the holy grail of public subsidy: “zero dollars” in private equity development.

In such a scenario, the stacking of tax credits is likely “crowding out” private investment, while potentially distorting the stated function of the tax expenditures. (Is the “historic credit” building low-income housing, or is the “low-income credit” building historic?)

The Tax Credit Review Commission’s report is only a start. Missouri has much to debate.

To add my two cents, I think that the most efficient way to reduce state expenditures on historic preservation would be to discount the state’s spending on projects that also receive federal reimbursement for the same costs.

The post Eliminate, Reduce, Discount, or Cap? Considering the Future of Missouri’s Historic Tax Credit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This amounts to a total of $171.28 for each Missouri resident spent on tax credit projects in just one of the state’s 34 Senate districts.

If we look in greater detail at the more than $600 million expended by the state for “Redevelopment” in the Fifth Senate District, we see that  $530 million was devoted to historic preservation.

Of the state historic preservation spending in the Fifth Senate District, $375 million went to projects that also received the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit. Missouri’s preservation tax credit reimburses 25 percent of project costs, and the federal tax credit reimburses 20 percent of project costs, so we can estimate total Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit spending in Missouri’s Fifth Senate District at $300 million.

This amounts to $0.98 in federal funds spent on historic preservation in Missouri’s Fifth Senate District for every resident of the United States.

When we consider local tax increment financing (TIF), using data from the Missouri Department of Economic Development’s 2009 TIF Annual Report, we can account for an additional $600 million in taxpayer funding for development in St. Louis city. As we can see in the chart below, as of 2009, less than $100 million of this spending has been paid for.

Given current estimates of St. Louis city’s population from the American Community Survey, TIF expenditures amount to $1,768.61 for each city resident.

The total amount of public funding for real estate development in St. Louis city may be unknowable, given the complex interplay between various modes of taxpayer financing. Data exists for Community Improvement Districts, federal grants, state and local industrial development bond financing, local real property tax abatement, and other public programs, but is much harder to aggregate.

A person almost has to go to law school to appreciate how development in St. Louis works. For those of us living here without the benefit of a legal education, though, it is readily apparent that, although state and local governments spend lots of taxpayer monies on real estate development, no one is providing quantitative evidence that the benefits of these expenditures exceed the costs.

The post Real Estate Development With Public Dollars Provides No Demonstrable Net Benefit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consider 4634 Cottage Ave., pictured below in August 2010. Until 1999, it was in private ownership following its construction in 1906. A sign reading “Private Property NO TRESPASSING” hangs ironically on one of the building’s boarded door openings, a vestige of the structure’s past life as an income-producing property.

Today, the multi-family dwelling is in a perpetual state of decay because of its status a property owned by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA).

Private owners in a free market have vastly different incentives than do government agencies to ensure the health and vibrancy of assets under their control.

This month’s meeting of the LRA Commission will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 27, at 8:30 a.m. in the board room of St. Louis Development Corporation, on the 12th floor of 1015 Locust St. in downtown St. Louis.

The post Suffocating Neighborhoods, Parcel by Parcel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Yesterday, I stumbled across a Sept. 30, 2010, article in the St. Louis Business Journal that prompted me to do a little research using the Show-Me Living web tools. The story, “Chemical Building owner files for Chapter 11,” reports: “Chemical Building Acquisition LLC, an investor group based near Los Angeles, sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Missouri, delaying planned redevelopment of the historic building at 777 Olive St.”

Curious, didn’t “Chemical Building Acquisition LLC” receive more than $1 million in Brownfield Tax Credits in 2007? Thanks to Show-Me Living, I can say definitively that the answer is yes.

Consistent with recent Missouri audits showing the failure of tax credit subsidies to serve their intended purposes, the $1,065,000 spent on the Chemical Building to date appears to be a waste of taxpayer funds. After all, consider the following eligibility criterion for the Brownfield Redevelopment Program:

The project must be projected by DED to result in the creation of at least ten new jobs or the retention of 25 jobs by a private commercial operation.

If you have a question about how to find this information, Show-Me Living is a great place to start finding the answers.

The post Where Did That Money Go, Again? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Pictured above in August 2010 is the 1818 Washington Ave. Building in downtown St. Louis. Paired main entry doors punctuate the center of the building’s primary facade, while four ground-level storefront bays are at right. A pizza restaurant occupies this retail space, displaying a bright red-on-white background “Now Open” sign, in addition to handsome neon signs for Bud Light and Bud Light Lime.

Two blocks to the southwest, at 2001 Olive St., a one-story building features plywood boards over the entirety of its glazed area. Permanent signage for the pizza place remains atop this building, while a banner reading “We Will be Relocating to 1818 Washington Ave. July 1st, 2010,” with red lettering on a white background, hangs from a ground-level storefront bay at left.

In a truly competitive free market, the story would end here: A business moved from one building to another. So what?

As this business relocation occurred in St. Louis city, however, legislated market distortion and an administrative exercise in symbolic violence likely contributed to the outcome pictured above.

On the legislative front:

Ordinances 67319, 67462 and 67463 designated 1818 Washington Ave. as a redevelopment area, executed a redevelopment agreement between the developer and the city of St. Louis, and authorized “$2,380,000 Plus Issuance Costs” in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) notes for the construction of 1818 Washington and another nearby project.

On the administrative front:

In addition to TIF, the 1818 Washington project stands to utilize “Federal and State Historic Tax Credit programs.” Combined, they could yield up to 45 percent of the project’s costs in tax credits for the developer — 20 percent for the federal credit; 25 percent for the state credit. (The building is a contributing resource in the “Lucas Avenue Industrial Historic District (Boundary Increase),” after all.)

In a free market, favorable lease terms or a street address on the vaunted Washington Avenue could prove enticements enough for a business to relocate. In St. Louis city, we are instead left to ask what role public monies are playing in a business location decision, and whether associated municipally approved TIF legislation is actually legal.

Missouri TIF law states the following in §92.805(4), RSM0:

For redevelopment projects or redevelopment plans approved after December 23, 1997, if a retail establishment relocates within one year from one facility to another facility within the same county and the governing body of the municipality finds that the relocation is a direct beneficiary of tax increment financing, then for purposes of this definition, the economic activity taxes generated by the retail establishment shall equal the total additional revenues from economic activity taxes which are imposed by a municipality or other taxing district over the amount of economic activity taxes generated by the retail establishment in the calendar year prior to its relocation to the redevelopment area;

If the pizza restaurant succeeds at growing its revenues dramatically at its new location, the rehabilitated building’s developer will prosper as government loses funds that it would receive were the restaurant not in a TIF district. Had the rehabilitated building attracted a business truly new to St. Louis city, government would receive a greater share of the TIF project’s associated revenues.

Subsidizing projects that displace economic activities from one site to another is a losing proposition for cities and their residents. In St. Louis city, the elimination of TIF would allow our community to awake from its current nightmare of ever-increasing taxes and instead move us toward broadly shared prosperity, courtesy of the free market.

The post Now Open, but So What? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last Friday, I travelled to the 108th Missouri State Fair in Sedalia, for my shift at the Show-Me Institute’s booth, fully prepared to engage in conversation with Missourians about how state and local governments create barriers to the free exchange of goods and services. I expected to field some tricky questions about whether the Show-Me Institute has partisan affiliations — we have none — or about pending, unaffiliated ballot initiatives, but I did not meet a single Missourian who wanted to know about either of these matters. Instead, I got tripped up by a seven-year-old’s query, “What is the smallest town in the state?”

Had the child asked which of Missouri’s 115 counties has the highest rate of tax abatement as a percentage of total real property assessed valuation, I could have provided an answer. Had he inquired about the intricacies of state supplemental tax increment financing, I would have jumped at the chance to describe its function and effects. I certainly would have had something to say about state spending for historic preservation or the myths of downtown “revitalization” in St. Louis. But I did not know the answer to the question, “What is the smallest town in the state?”

I promised my questioner that I would get back to him after consulting the Census, so, without further ado, here is the answer to the trickiest question from Sedalia:

Goss Town, population one, in Monroe County, population 9,311, is the smallest town in the state.

If you have a question for the Show-Me Institute, please feel free to stop by our booth in Sedalia for the remainder of the fair, or place a comment on the blog.

The post “What Is the Smallest Town in the State?” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In July, the city of St. Louis’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) Board of Commissioners heard public testimony from six persons seeking to purchase property, and the board actually approved three of the sales! (Commissioners deferred action on one of the properties and offered a five-year “garden lease” on each of the other two parcels subject to public testimony.) Per its usual practice, the LRA sent buyers off with the encouragement that they “will receive a letter in the mail” enumerating their required next steps for taking title to the city-owned properties.

All other agenda items received their recommended actions.

The above may seem like nothing more than minutiae to persons unfamiliar with the problems associated with LRA ownership of formerly private lands, but for persons who live next door to any of the LRA’s thousands of parcels in the city or for taxpayers anywhere in the city, the above actions are of particular significance.

One person who testified this month seeking to purchase a vacant lot adjacent to her home spoke of how burglaries are “a constant problem,” and that she hoped the acquisition of the lot would allow her to better protect her property. Another potential purchaser expressed her desire to become a homeowner, only to be rebuffed by the commission with an admonishment that she “talk to the alderman,” demonstrate stronger financial abilities, and await further review by the commission at the next meeting. A husband and wife expressed their desire to purchase the lot adjacent to their home in order to provide space for room additions to accommodate their daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren. Two representatives from a church spoke about how the purchase of a fenced parking lot would greatly assist in the church’s programming and outreach.

Considered together, the myriad of motivations and the multitude of proposed uses for LRA-owned land parcels suggest to me that individuals, when free to conduct land transfers, make better decisions about land use than do any seemingly well-intentioned bureaucrats on an executive commission.

The LRA meets in the Board Room at St. Louis Development Corporation, 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200, at 8:30 a.m. on the last Wednesday of each month.

The post Individuals Make Better Decisions About Land Use Than Do Government Commissions, So Why Won’t the LRA Sell? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is in this spirit that I present one of my works in progress from my summer here at the Show-Me Institute.

Backers of the 25-percent Missouri Historic Preservation Tax Credit often cite the statistic that our state is “first in the nation” for “federal historic rehab tax credit projects,” so I thought that it could prove valuable to see exactly where said federal projects occurred.

Click here to view a draft map of Missouri rehabilitation projects that received the 20-percent Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit. Data comes from a June 2010 information request to the National Park Service, and includes projects dating from 1996 to mid-June 2010.

I see no need to editorialize about the map at this stage in my research, but I think that those who proudly support historic tax credit programs would do well by the public to explain why spending millions on certain construction activities is an appropriate use of public funds.

However, given that “historic preservation” is a catchall for education, place-making, job creation, and aesthetics, defining the precise function of public expenditures made in the name of preservation is an impossible task. Our positions as taxpayers, historians, developers, contractors, homeowners, tenants, policymakers, and tourists necessarily inform our differing and potentially divergent perceptions of these policies and expenditures. Our propensity toward repeated engagement in the same argument about the relative worth of a tax dollar spent on historic preservation as opposed to one spent on public education, while refusing to acknowledge some basic facts about the program in question, often leaves us blowing hot air.

At present in Missouri, recipients of historic preservation tax credits need not acknowledge the receipt of public funds in any format on the project site. In fact, recipients of historic preservation tax credits need not even acknowledge the historic significance of their taxpayer-supported property on site, such as in the form of a plaque. If we are to have a truly informed debate about the worth of the historic preservation tax credit, I would hope that we can all agree that disclosure is a good place to start.

Without good information, our state will never make good policy.

In my mind, the verdict is still out on whether the historic preservation tax credit really does what its backers aver.

The post Indeterminacy in Public Expenditure: What Is a “Historic Preservation” Tax Credit? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.