Ridesharing Is an Opportunity for Saint Louis

In an increasingly competitive world, it is ever more important that our city and our region seize every opportunity to become a more inviting place to work, live, and set up a business. But too often, special interests ally with control-oriented public officials to stifle innovations and protect the modus operandi. Local officials can claim to have protected the consumer, and the special interests can point to the businesses they have “saved,” but less visible damage is done to Saint Louis’ competitiveness, and so many advantages are thrown away. A clear example of this shortsighted policy is Saint Louis’ treatment of ridesharing.

Ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft are rapidly growing across the country. Their popularity comes from the ability to provide quick, convenient, and inexpensive rides, especially compared with traditional cabs. A study in San Francisco found that more than 90 percent of customers who requested Uber or Lyft had a driver arrive in less than 10 minutes, a huge improvement over traditional cab service. In New York City, the average Uber response time is faster than that of ambulances. Payment is electronic and customers rate drivers, allowing for quality control.

In addition to making it easier to get a lift home, ridesharing may also increase public safety. Ridesharing companies often use peak pricing to ensure the supply of drivers matches demand, no matter the time. The ready availability of drivers makes the safe choice the easy choice for the late-night crowd. Uber claims that incidences of drunk driving have fallen considerably where they operate freely, such as Austin and California.

Normally, Saint Louis officials would be eager to support a new service that increases mobility within the region while potentially creating hundreds of new jobs. In the case of ridesharing, there is no real cost to extending such support other than the political cost of refusing to kowtow to taxicab lobbying. Ridesharing is provided by locals, using resources they already own: personal vehicles. More than 90 percent of metro area households have one vehicle; around 60 percent have two or more. Ridesharing allows Saint Louisans to make better use of these resources by giving rides to other residents and visitors.

For local officials and regulators, ridesharing is a danger to the customer and unfair competition. It’s not safe, they say, despite the fact that large ridesharing companies perform extensive background checks. There’s an insurance problem, they say, despite the fact that Uber and Lyft have extensive insurance policies. Ridesharing companies price gouge, they say, demonstrating their failure to understand how peak pricing ensures that there are always cars available.

In reality, the taxicab industry in Saint Louis has been tightly regulated for decades, often in ways that actively harm, not protect, the customer. The Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, with taxi company owners as members, controls the supply, price, and even dress code of taxi companies in Saint Louis City and County. These regulations effectively block anything but limited, expensive ridesharing options.

Ridesharing companies have the potential to deliver huge benefits to the Saint Louis region, by leveraging the resources residents already own. At the state level, and in other Missouri cities, efforts are under way to remove regulatory barriers to ridesharing. Saint Louisans should encourage these efforts, and support local policy change. They should not let the naysayers, who fear loss of control or heightened competition, deny the region of those benefits.

 

Tax Incentives: How Much Money Do Governments Give Away?

This summer the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is set to release new guidance to state and local governments on how to report the tax incentives they distribute every year. The nonprofit board largely determines financial reporting standards for state and local governments. So although GASB may itself seem like an obscure organization, its guidance is closely watched and widely accepted by governments across the United States.

As reported in The Nerve,

. . . state and local governments for the first time would have to report, among other things, in their annual financial statements:

  • General description of their tax abatement programs;
  • The total number of tax abatement agreements entered into during the reporting period, and the total number of agreements in effect at the end of the period;
  • The dollar amount by which the reporting government’s tax revenues were reduced during the reporting period because of tax abatement agreements; and
  • A description of the types of commitments other than to reduce taxes—for example, tax dollars spent on purchasing land and installing utility lines—and the most “significant individual commitments other than to reduce taxes, if any, made by the reporting government in tax abatement agreements.”

Translation? Governments would have to disclose, in a standardized format, exactly how much money they give away. That’s a huge paradigm shift, both from the standpoints of government transparency and public research. Greg LeRoy of Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that looks at tax incentives, called the development “tectonic.” “These things (incentives) have gotten so out of control, so overgrown, so arcane—it’s been off the radar.”

LeRoy is right, of course. If local and state governments have to divulge all of the relevant details about the incentives they’re giving away, it could have a huge impact on how governments interact with tax incentive beneficiaries—and how taxpayers view the tax incentive programs themselves. As explained in the blog Next City,

Cold, hard numbers could soon settle the heated debates about whether tax incentives encourage regional growth and competitiveness or simply deplete public resources. LeRoy argues that any site location consultant for a corporation could tell you that tax breaks often don’t affect the bottom line: State and local taxes comprise less than two percent of a company’s total cost structure. Other environmental factors like labor, logistics and materials matter much more. But companies would never admit that to the governments offering them free money.

Like other places around the country, Missouri’s tax incentive programs are a mess. If GASB institutes robust accounting standards for these incentives—and it appears it might—it may go a long way to draining the cronyism swamp in this state. Cross your fingers.

On Kit Bond Bridge, Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

kitbondbridge

In this week’s episode of Ruckus, which covers local policy issues in Kansas City, one of the panelists defended using other people’s money to plan luxury apartments near the Missouri River. When the Show-Me Institute’s Patrick Tuohey expressed concern over that plan, the other panelist demanded to know whether Tuohey was also against the new Kit Bond Bridge (see video at 12:30). The implication was that the city had built a great new bridge for people to drive on; why not spend money developing the riverfront?

Of course, this reasoning is flawed. First, basic infrastructure usually is considered a reasonable recipient of government investments. A bridge that carries tens of thousands of vehicles a day fits that definition; luxury apartments and bar districts do not. Second, let’s be clear here: The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), not the Kansas City government, led the planning and oversaw the construction of the bridge. As those who follow this blog will know, MoDOT does not usually fund projects with general tax dollars, a fact that Kansas City would do well to recognize and emulate.

In fact, the $245 million KcICON project, which included the Kit Bond Bridge, was funded with proceeds from Amendment 3 (which is tied to motor vehicle sales taxes) and federal dollars (mostly derived from federal road user fees) set aside to pay improvements to the national highway system. The city didn’t kick in at all for the bridge; the city only put forward $10 million to guarantee a specific type of interchange at Front Street. That’s less than Kansas City plans to spend to subsidize just one new luxury apartment building.

Bottom line: The Kit Bond Bridge was built by the state transportation department for a legitimate government purpose, with funding based from state and federal vehicle fees. That’s nothing like subsidizing a luxury apartment with taxpayer dollars; to act otherwise is to misunderstand what good public policy looks like.

K-12 Funding in Missouri-What’s the Solution?

I hear “Missouri’s public schools are underfunded” from educators, administrators, and concerned taxpayers on a regular basis. The Post-Dispatch recently published an op-ed by Show-Me Institute Distinguished Fellow James Shuls addressing this issue.

800px-Money_Cash

Shuls explained that we shouldn’t view our public school system as underfunded. Rather, we should view the system as set up poorly. He suggested reforming Missouri’s K-12 foundation formula:

We can make the formula far more rational. We can stop paying districts to educate students who no longer live within their boundaries. We can stop pegging funding targets to the wealthiest districts. We can stop holding local effort constant by using current assessments. And, if we’re going to have a system that allocates state aid fairly, we must.

The number of solutions he proposed was the most persuasive aspect of his examination of the funding “problem.”

He concluded, “It’s time to stop asking why we are underfunding our formula and start asking how we might design a better school funding system.”

The Show-Me Institute on Television

In recent weeks, Show-Me Institute representatives have appeared on several public policy television shows in Missouri, most recently on KCPT’s April 9 episode of Ruckus in Kansas City.

Other recent television appearances include:

  • On March 19, CEO Brenda Talent appeared on Donnybrook in Saint Louis to discuss Missouri school district transfers, among other things.
  • On the same day in Kansas City, Institute Board Chairman Crosby Kemper III appeared on Ruckus. The explosive growth in Kansas City government spending was among the topics discussed.
  • Patrick Tuohey was on KCPT’s Kansas City Week in Review on March 13.

We are grateful to be part of the public policy debate in those cities and across Missouri in newspapers, blogs, and radio.

Report on Parking in Saint Louis Finds Employees Take Best Spots, Don’t Pay

Last year, Saint Louis City began a long-awaited overhaul of the city’s parking meters. After a pilot period where different forms of modern meters were tested in the Central West End, city officials chose new meters that take credit cards and electronic payment through Parkmobile.

Adding new payment options and modernizing parking fee collection is a step forward for the city. Even better, the city commissioned a study to find where demand was highest and where meters were making so little money they could be removed. However, in addition to identifying where and when parking meters should be replaced, the report also scrutinized the city’s existing parking policies. Specifically, the city is allowing government employees to improperly obtain free parking.

According to the report, the city allows any individual employed by the city or county, regardless of their position, to park for free at any metered spot. They only need to display an approved parking permit, and they can park long-term. While some jobs require the ability to quickly access a vehicle (such as police officers), most do not. When city employees take some of the most demanded spots in the city, they hurt local businesses, make it more difficult for residents to park, and reduce the city’s income.

To make matters worse, the city apparently has had no policy for issuing parking permits, nor does it even know how many permits exist. As the report puts it:

In St. Louis, the problem of employees parking in the most convenient on-street parking spaces and not paying is exacerbated by the fact that there is no comprehensive list of authorized and outstanding City issued permits, or a specific set of rules governing which departments are permitted parking permits and why they qualify. This makes it nearly impossible to determine which vehicles displaying permits are parked for legitimate City business and which are not.

The obvious solution is for the city to come up with guidelines that decide which positions require parking permits and only issue permits necessary for these employees. The city should also track who has permits and for what reason. These common-sense fixes will improve parking downtown, to the benefit of Saint Louisans and the city’s bottom line.

The Incredible Shrinking City

According to recently released U.S. Census data, the population of the city of Saint Louis has once again decreased. In 2014, Saint Louis’ population dropped to 317,419, a decline of 1,946 people since the 2010 Census. Although the drop is only 0.6 percent, the trend of a declining population continues for Saint Louis. In fact, ever since the 1950s, Saint Louis City’s population has been sinking.

In 1950 Saint Louis was the eighth largest city in the United States with a population of 856,796. According to the 2014 Census estimate, Saint Louis has two-thirds fewer people than in 1950.

St. Louis population table

Such a dramatic decrease in population has major effects on local government. As the population declines, taxable income and sales leave the area and revenue declines with it. Lower population levels exacerbate other issues such as abandoned buildings, lower property values, and, as a result, fewer funds for public schools.

Saint Louis is a city that has much to offer. So why are people continuing to leave? What should the city do to halt the deflating population?

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