Missouri Can Take a Lesson From Florida’s Toll Roads

I recently spent time in Florida, which included driving from Miami down to the Florida Keys. Along the way, I traveled on several toll roads which are part of Florida’s expansive turnpike system. If Missouri wanted to implement toll roads, Florida’s system serves as a reminder to Missourians that electronic tolling is eminently possible and can raise money from drivers to keep roads in good condition.

Every toll road I drove on was tolled 100 percent electronically—there was no option to pay with cash. My rental car was equipped with a transponder that registered with overhead sensors when driving through a checkpoint. Cars that didn’t have a transponder would have their license plate photographed and a bill sent to them in the mail. Drivers without transponders paid higher rates to reflect the higher administrative costs of physically mailing bills rather than deducting money from an online account.

Toll rates vary by vehicle type and number of axles. The more axles on your vehicle, the higher the toll. Rates also vary by the location of the road. The higher the cost of maintaining the road, the more drivers pay for its use. And while I did not use it on my trip, the Florida Turnpike’s website has an online map that lets drivers calculate the cost of tolls on their trip based on the exact route they plan to take.

Florida’s all-electronic toll roads are the future of tolling. Drivers don’t need to stop and start at every checkpoint, nor do they need to constantly remember to carry cash. Missouri has heavily traveled highways that need rebuilding (page 18), and tolling is a responsible way to raise the money needed to get them back in good shape. It wouldn’t be easy to establish toll roads in Missouri. There are a number of legal hurdles that would make implementing tolling in Missouri a challenge, and voters have been reluctant to accept their use.

But if Missourians knew how easy it is to drive on modern toll roads, they might be willing to give tolling a shot.

A Win for Restaurants and Cocktail Enthusiasts

Senate Bill 126 has passed the legislature and will permanently allow restaurants to serve to-go cocktails if signed by the governor. During the height of the pandemic, the state waived the regulation that prohibited to-go cocktails to allow restaurants more opportunities to serve customers. This was a lifeline for many restaurants and was hugely popular with customers.

When regulations such as this one were originally waived, I (and many others) hoped these waivers would become permanent. If these regulations weren’t necessary during the pandemic, are they necessary during normal times? What is the harm in allowing restaurants to serve packaged, tamper-proof to-go cocktails? It doesn’t seem any different than buying a canned cocktail or the ingredients for a cocktail at a liquor store.

Luckily, the legislature is siding with restaurants and customers. If signed, this bill would allow restaurants more freedom to do business and please customers as they see fit.

More Evidence of Failures of CIDs

The two sure things in life are said to be death and taxes. I might add a third (admittedly related to the latter): When special taxing districts such as community improvement districts (CIDs) or transportation development districts (TDDs) face an audit, they fail it.

Numerous state audits over the past decades have identified the shortcomings of these districts. Now, the Kansas City Auditor has reviewed the use of CIDs in Kansas City and found many of the same issues. Show-Me Institute analysts have written about the problems with CIDs and TDDs for years. Common problems with these special taxing districts include financial abuses, lack of transparency, egregious boundary drawing to avoid voter participation, and much more.

The recent audit of CIDs in KC found many of the same things. From the article in the Kansas City Star (emphasis added):

In recent years, however, several CIDs have been created to benefit a single property owner or developer. In 2016, for example, the Intercontinental Hotel at the Country Club Plaza created a CID for itself to raise taxes earmarked to pay for upkeep of deterioration that the ritzy hotel argued had created blighted conditions. A similar CID was approved for the Romanelli Shopping Center in Waldo in 2019.

Both were criticized for using taxes to subsidize property maintenance. More than half of the existing CIDs in Kansas City benefit a single owner or developer, as opposed to community-based districts like those covering Westport or downtown.

The audit also noted that several CIDs — more than a third — have not submitted their annual budgets to City Hall, a requirement under Missouri law.

Legislation just passed by the state legislature makes some modest reforms to CIDs. These reforms include mandating annual financial reports, competitive bids for contracts, and requiring at least one independent board member. Hopefully, the governor will sign it. But we need to go much further and ensure these taxing districts cannot abuse the public trust for private gain, which is all many of them are good for. (Yes, there are exceptions to that.)

We need far more voter involvement, stricter reporting requirements, tougher limits on which expenditures are allowed, and total tax caps, just to name a few potential improvements. The single most important thing we need is a requirement that a full city (or county, for unincorporated areas) vote to approve all new CIDs and TDDs.  Absent greater reform, these special taxing districts will continue to just be the great Missouri tax-and-spend deception.

Synchronicity in Warson Woods and Glendale

The city of Warson Woods in St. Louis County is considering contracting with the neighboring city of Glendale for police services. You might think that a government contract between two similar suburbs would be a routine thing for local officials to consider. Well, think again.

Some people in Warson Woods are up in arms over this proposal. It’s their city and their taxes, and they have every right to be concerned and ask tough questions. But the reaction, in my opinion, does seem out of line relative to the proposal. Warson Woods would not be taken over by some giant organization. The city would go from being served by a department of 6 total officers to being served by a combined department of about 15 officers, including all of the Warson Woods policemen. If you want to know the names of your local police (a perfectly worthy aim), you can still do that.

The proposed contract is estimated to save around $2 million over the next ten years. That is a lot of money for a city like Warson Woods. Warson Woods leaders have put together a committee to investigate the proposal from Glendale, and I hope it gets the careful consideration it deserves.

The people of this region have made it clear that most people don’t want some massive government consolidation. But nobody should reject out-of-hand smart changes to our government structure in St. Louis County. The idea that contracting with a neighboring city for police services to save tax money and improve services (more frequently having multiple officers on patrol will improve service) is somehow radical is unfortunate. It is, in fact, quite common. Warson Woods itself has contracted with Glendale for fire services for decades. The small, neighboring suburb of Oakland contracts with Kirkwood for police services. Nearby Frontenac patrols three other smaller communities adjacent to Frontenac: Westwood, Huntleigh, and Crystal Lake Park. I have honestly never heard anyone in Westwood (which is really a country club with a city attached to it, like Prussia) or Oakland say, “Things are great here, but it would be better if we just had our own police department. Those guys from Kirkwood and Frontenac just aren’t cutting it.”

I wish the committee investigating the proposal all the best. Few may want a massive overhaul of local government in St. Louis, but that doesn’t mean there should be knee-jerk opposition to smart, narrowly defined changes that save tax dollars and improve public services at the same time.

Remember This: The Charter School Destruction Playbook

Imagine you wanted to open a new restaurant, but in order to do so, every restaurant in a five-mile radius had to vote to allow you to do so. Not only that; imagine if you had to pre-emptively prove that your opening would not harm the bottom line of any of those other restaurants. Now imagine if you were already open and the law changed to require you to now answer to all the other restaurants in the area, even though you have been successfully operating for more than a decade.

That is what was proposed in Senate Bill 315 this year. Luckily, it did not make much progress, but it exists as an important historical artifact that school choice supporters should remember, as its various planks are sure to emerge in the future.

Under the bill, charter schools, which can now be authorized by universities and the Missouri Public Charter School Commission, would only be authorized by local public school districts. In order to operate, charter schools would have to prove not only that they would meet the needs of their students (which they must do now) but that they “meet those needs in a manner that improves the local public school system.” What’s more, all existing charter school contracts would transfer to local school boards once they expire, so not only new charter schools but all existing charter schools would come under local district control.

The whole point of charter schools is to offer students a public education separated from the local school district’s oversight. If folks wanted to send their kids to a district school, they would send their kids to a district school. This bill would be the death knell for alternative forms of public education and a slap in the face to the more than 25,000 children and their families who have chosen charter schools.

Public school districts struggle enough to manage their own schools. Why on earth do we think they could take over the management of Missouri’s 66 charter schools? If the Kansas City and St. Louis districts were knocking it out of the park, you could understand the argument for giving them more influence over charter schools. They are not knocking it out of the park. How about we encourage them to get their houses in order before taking over any other schools?

The key to understanding this bill is following the money. Let’s look at the bill description text: “Charter schools may be authorized or expanded only after a district has assessed the impact of the proposed charter school on local public school resources, programs and services, and other elements set forth in the act.” As Hamlet said, there’s the rub. This bill is not about what is best for kids; it is about preventing per-pupil funding from following them to the schools that actually educate them. It is about protecting school district coffers.

Rather than work to provide a better education for students, districts are trying to snuff out their competition. It is shameful and wrong.

They didn’t succeed this year, but supporters of charter schools must remain vigilant because their opponents have shown their intent.

Live Event! Media Matters: The Impact of Storytelling on Culture

Join us on Monday, June 14 (Flag Day) for an in-person presentation by Lee Habeeb on The Impact of Storytelling on Culture.

Lee Habeeb is the CEO and founder of the non-profit radio network American Private Radio and the on-air radio host of Our American Stories.

Event Details

NOTE:  If you are not fully vaccinated, in accordance with CDC guidelines and St. Louis City Emergency Order 19, please wear a mask and observe social distancing.

Where: 5297 Washington Place | Saint Louis, MO 63108

When: Monday, June 14 

Reception@5:30 pm

Presentation@6:00 pm

Click Here to Register

About Our American Stories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo_vp16jmS4&t=1s

Download the Our American Stories podcast on Itunes, Google Play, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and visit ouramericanstories.com to find an affiliate station near you.

About Our Speaker

Lee Habeeb got his start in radio co-creating The Laura Ingraham Show, which launched in 2001. By 2007, it was the #1 show in America in its time slot. He moved to Salem Media Group, where he serves as VP of Content, overseeing shows hosted by some of conservativism’s greats: Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Larry Elder, and Eric Metaxas. Habeeb also writes a weekly column at Newsweek.

Setting the Record Straight About Missouri’s New ESA Program

Earlier this week, Susan Pendergrass wrote a blog post addressing some of the criticisms levied by The Kansas City Star editorial board about a bill that creates an Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) program in Missouri:

Big shock—now that the Missouri legislature has finally created a program to give school choice to students from low-income families and students with disabilities, the misinformation campaign against the program has begun. Case in point: The Kansas City Star editorial board has fired a first shot at the Empowerment Scholarship Account program, and it has gone wide.

On May 19, Show-Me Institute Senior Fellow of Education Policy Michael Q. McShane joined The Pete Mundo Morning Show to set the record straight about Missouri’s new, yet to be signed into law, ESA program.

Listen Here

Is Medicaid Expansion Going to Court?

Missouri will not be implementing Medicaid expansion on July 1st, and the question of when it eventually happens, or if it happens at all, appears destined for the courts.

In August, Missouri voters approved Medicaid expansion through a constitutional amendment. Recently, Missouri’s legislature passed next year’s budget sans funding for Medicaid expansion. As I wrote more than a month ago, the state’s general assembly had real reasons for deciding against funding expansion. Medicaid expansion represents a significant growth in future spending obligations for the state’s budget. Despite claims to the contrary, expansion was set to cost more than $1.5 billion next year, with approximately $100 million coming from state sales and income taxes that would normally go toward other programs.

Missouri’s constitution gives the legislature the sole responsibility of authorizing state spending. Further, it states that constitutional amendments cannot impose new costs without outlining how that cost would be paid for. Since the amendment approved by voters last August has proven to have an enormous price tag, and included no funding mechanism, the legislature decided not funding expansion was a constitutionally valid option.

After the budget was approved, several legislators noted the constitutional amendment still requires eligibility guidelines to be expanded on July 1st, regardless of whether there is funding to cover the cost. Recently, the state’s Medicaid agency began laying the regulatory groundwork for eligibility expansion. But last Thursday, Governor Parson tore up that groundwork and withdrew the proposed changes that would expand eligibility on July 1st. In the statement announcing withdrawal, the governor’s cited reason was the lack of budgeted funding.

Heading into the new state fiscal year, there’s only one thing about Medicaid expansion that’s certain: it will not be happening in Missouri on July 1st. Expansion advocates aren’t going to just sit back and let this go, which is why a legal challenge appears imminent. It’s likely the next step is for someone to be denied coverage who would have qualified under the approved constitutional amendment after July 1st, which will prompt a lawsuit and send the issue to the courts. Judges will have to decide not only whether an amendment can compel the legislature to appropriate funds, but also if eligibility must be expanded absent any funding.

It’s important Missourians take notice of how this situation plays out over the next few months because it could significantly impact the future of our state. Potential judicial action could affect the state’s initiative petition process, the health coverage status for thousands of Missourians, and the allocation of billions in future state revenue.

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