The Loop Trolley and the Sunk Cost Fallacy

Are backers of the Loop Trolley asking the East West Gateway Council of Governments for another $1.3 million in federal funds because they say: A) people want to ride it, or B) a lot of effort has already been put into the trolley? If you guessed “both,” you would be right.

However, reality paints a different picture. For option A, the trolley shut down in December 2019 because hardly anybody wanted to ride it. Neither ridership nor ticket sales exceeded 10 percent of what the Loop Trolley Company predicted.

Option B is an example of what economists call the sunk cost fallacy. The sunk cost fallacy is when an individual keeps doing something that isn’t working just because he’s already invested time or money into it. It’s like buying a movie ticket, realizing that the movie is terrible after ten minutes, but deciding to stay anyway because you already bought the ticket. The money is a sunk cost. The movie will not magically get better just because you paid for the ticket.

Similarly, taxpayers have already spent $51 million on the trolley. The trolley made less than $33,000 in its one year of operation, meaning that for every dollar the trolley made, it received over $1,500 from taxpayers. It suffered numerous construction delays, routinely cut its operating hours, and its extended construction harmed the local businesses it was supposed to help.

It strains credulity to think another $1.2 million of taxpayer money will somehow make the Loop Trolley successful. It’s even less logical to think that this $1.2 million is necessary because of the first $51 million taxpayer dollars.

If backers of the trolley want to find private investors to support the trolley because investors think it’s a worthwhile idea, that’s one thing, but trying to make taxpayers the investors is a different story. Several members of the East West Gateway Council of Governments just recommended that the full body vote for approval of the $1.3 million in federal funds at their October 27 meeting. However, members of the East West Gateway Council of Governments should make sure to look at the big picture before committing any more taxpayer money to the Loop Trolley.

Ferguson, Missouri Will Not Be Improved by More Special Taxing Districts

Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis County which you may have heard of, is launching a new community improvement district (CID). CIDs are special taxing districts that levy taxes to fund public improvements within a designated area. However, there are significant issues with CIDs, and, upon review, the one proposed for Ferguson seems to embody just about all those problems.

The Missouri State Auditor’s office has documented numerous flaws in CIDs. At the public meeting on the Ferguson CID last week, one of the speakers even encouraged the city council to review one of these audits to give the city guidance. (I would be surprised if the city did that, but I’d love to be wrong.) Among the many issues with CIDs: lack of transparency; improper oversight once established; failure to follow required rules for dealing with tax dollars, including lack of public bids and private use of tax funds; and erroneous tax collections. Perhaps the largest problem with CIDs is that they are frequently used to fund private entities with public tax dollars. Things such as private business parking lots should be—and until very recently were—considered private items to be funded by businesses, not taxpayers.

The proposed CID in Ferguson is a new tax for only one parcel of land that will authorize a sales tax for the new stores going into the development. Essentially, this project will use public tax dollars for private purposes. The board of the CID consists mainly of representatives of the developer, so the private interests of the developer will be their focus, not the proper use of tax dollars. (To be clear, two of the five members of the board are public representatives, but—despite being no math genius as best I can telltwo is less than half of five.) The developers claim that this parcel is blighted, which is highly questionable. It is adjacent to the very nice campus of Florissant Valley Community College. There is no public vote on this CID—it is a mail-in ballot voted by only the property owner(s), who will likely vote to support the new, surreptitious tax on their own customers that will be used to benefit the property owners.

This proposed CID will have no public vote, little public benefit, and very limited public oversight. This is not the way to go forward for Ferguson. CIDs like these should be stopped and the state should make substantial reforms to the CID rules.

Census Data Brings Bad News, Florida’s Plan For Schools, Saying No to $8 Million

David Stokes, Patrick Ishmael and Susan Pendergrass join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the recently released census data, Florida’s expansion of school choice and a Missouri school district said “no thank you” to millions in stimulus money.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

It’s Back to . . . Wait, What?

Mid-August is back to school time. Kids are getting new backpacks and school supplies. Teachers are decorating their rooms. A month ago, we were on a glide path back to some type of normal, and then the COVID-19 Delta variant hit. Instead of a fresh start in a critical year for so many children who lost ground educationally last year, it’s mayhem.

Once again, many, many parents are completely fed up with district leadership. In addition, teacher union leadership is whipsawing in what it does and doesn’t support for teacher safety. Most schools figured out how to safely provide in-person instruction by the end of the last school year. Now it seems like they’re scrambling for solutions. Last year districts were forced to create functional virtual education programming. This year they risk losing state funding if they bring it back.

Parents have been loudly expressing their frustration for at least a year and a half with having just one option for their children. Yet districts still think they can issue edicts (must mask/mask optional) that apply to each and every kid and expect that parents will just get in line? Those days, in my opinion, are over. Parents are suing. Parents are protesting. Parents are packing school board meetings.

One thing is clear: It is not only possible but also necessary to have a varied portfolio of schools from which parents can choose. It’s time to give parents access to public education funding to find a good solution for their families. That may be an education hub (or pod) at the YMCA. That may be a private school. That may be a neighboring school district with different policies. That may be homeschooling.

Florida is expanding its Hope Scholarship program to families who don’t want to send their children to schools that have mask mandates. At the end of August, Missouri will have a scholarship program for students with disabilities and low-income students. That program could be ramped up and publicly funded. Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has received nearly $3.5 billion in federal stimulus funding. It’s time for real leadership.

The Start of a New School Year with Ray Domanico

Susan Pendergrass is joined by Ray Domanico to discuss the challenges that students, parents and schools face as the 2021 school year begins.

Ray is a senior fellow and director of education policy at the Manhattan Institute. His career has spanned the public and non-profit sectors, in research and advocacy roles. Most recently, Domanico was director of education research at New York City’s Independent Budget Office, where he led a team tasked with studying and reporting on the policies and progress of America’s largest public school system.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

We’re Not in Last Place—We’re Not Even in the Race

The release of the 2020 Census Bureau numbers brought bad news: The St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has dropped out of the top 20 largest MSAs in the country. We’ve been in a so-called “race to the bottom” for a long time, but now it feels like we’re not even in the race.

The growth of the St. Louis MSA, which contains 7 counties in Missouri and 8 counties in Illinois, has been stagnant for years, driven in no small part by poor population growth in St. Louis City. While some lawmakers were pleasantly surprised that our 2020 numbers weren’t worse, I’m disappointed at what has become of a once booming and prosperous Midwestern region.

What is it that keeps St. Louis out of the race?

Maybe it’s the sales tax rates that can be over 11 percent. Or the earnings tax in St. Louis City. Perhaps it’s the poor public schools and lack of school choice. Or the crime. It’s likely a mix of all these things and more; anything that makes St. Louis a less attractive place to live, work, or start a business has negative effects on population growth. You would think that years of stagnant growth would inspire lawmakers to take steps in the right direction, but we’ve seen little change. Maybe this fall from the top 20 will finally light a fire under lawmakers.

What Comes After Farce?

The quest for a new St. Louis County Auditor has entered a phase that is hard to name.

For a long time, the county had a county auditor. That part is the history. In 2017, the county hired a new auditor who, unfortunately, had no experience with auditing. That part is the tragedy. In the ensuing four years, the auditor has not 1) demonstrated growth in the job, nor 2) hired talented assistance, nor 3) resigned, but has continued to serve as the auditor of the largest county in Missouri without performing any audits. Let me repeat this, the auditor’s office does no audits. This, obviously, has been the farce.

But the latest turn is that the St. Louis County Council has finally decided to replace the auditor, and, lo and behold, it’s proving difficult to find anyone to take the position. That is the part that is yet to be named.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars coming into St. Louis County government from COVID stimulus, on top of the billion-dollar budget it already has. The county needs a qualified auditor and appropriate staff to help oversee that money and account for it. There have been at least two major embezzlement scandals in county government that I can remember, and that does not even count Steve Stenger’s various issues.

The county council offered the job to someone, but the person turned it down, even though the candidate had gone through the entire application process. Precisely why the person refused is unknown. Whatever the council has to do to attract qualified candidates, it should consider it. Raise the pay? If necessary, fine. Remove the CPA requirement? Fine (but keep the auditor certification requirements). Lower the pension vesting rules? Well, no, keep those as they are. Most importantly, just make sure whoever gets the job can document a history of doing real audits of government bodies or closely related things (such as large businesses).

But do what it takes to get someone in that office who can property do the job. Until that happens, I don’t know what to call the phase the county is in.

Perhaps “befuddlement?”

Missouri Supreme Court Revives Medicaid Expansion

The Missouri Supreme Court has weighed in on Medicaid expansion. The court determined the state’s initiative petition to expand Medicaid was in fact constitutional. The decision reverses the Cole County Circuit Court’s finding and paves the way for those newly eligible to begin enrolling in the coming days. The court’s opinion is an unfortunate blow for those of us worried about the extraordinary taxpayer costs that will accompany expansion. But there’s reason to believe Missouri’s fight over Medicaid funding is not over quite yet.

In last month’s lower court ruling, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem found the initiative expanding Medicaid unconstitutional because it failed to include a funding mechanism. As I’ve written before, a constitutional amendment that requires new state expenditures should include measures for funding the expenditures. In my opinion, absent such a requirement, an amendment would infringe on the constitutionally delegated power of Missouri’s legislative branch to appropriate state spending. The state supreme court disagreed, but with one huge caveat.

The court ruled that the amendment doesn’t violate the constitution because it doesn’t specifically appropriate funds. In other words: Missouri’s constitutional amendment can require the state’s Medicaid program to enroll those eligible under expansion, but it can’t compel the legislature to appropriate the funds necessary to cover their costs.

If this sounds confusing, that’s because it is. Missouri’s highest court in the land drew a fine line to determine constitutionality but left obvious and important questions unanswered. The legislature thought its refusal to include expansion funding in this year’s budget meant the policy wouldn’t be implemented, but Missouri’s Medicaid budget lines do not include language indicating who the funds cover. As a result, the court concluded the budgeted funds are available to all who are eligible and that would include those covered by the expansion. The decision means that Missouri must start incurring new costs despite not having a plan to pay for them. Until the legislature acts, the cost of covering new enrollees will need to be paid for out of funds specifically set aside for those currently enrolled in Missouri’s program. If this occurs, the Medicaid program will run out of budgeted funds much sooner than anticipated.

So, what should the legislature do? The supreme court’s decision appears to give legislators the authority to continue refusing to provide funding for expansion. Not providing funding for new enrollees would likely require amending the current budget to make clear that the already approved Medicaid budget lines do not apply to expansion enrollees. This action could lead to another court challenge. Lawmakers could also choose to approve expansion funding. But where will the money come from? That’s the multibillion-dollar question. Even though the federal government has currently agreed to pick up 90 percent of the billions in expected expansion costs, all spending needs to be appropriated, and Missouri’s share would still be significant.

It will be interesting to see what our elected officials decide regarding funding the state’s Medicaid program going forward. It seems safe to say there won’t be any easy answers.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging