Brakes Still On for Uber and Lyft

After living in Saint Louis for several years, I’ve learned from experience that cabs are unreliable and too expensive for many individuals on a tight budget. As a college student who has used Uber many times in other cities, I know that Uber and Lyft bring more competition into the market and lower prices for consumers while still providing them with a safe and efficient service—elements that are nonexistent in the Saint Louis taxicab market.

This past week, when the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) unanimously approved Uber’s application to function as a third-party dispatcher for existing premium sedans, I was initially excited, figuring that cab services would be cheaper and easier to use. My excitement, however, was misguided, as the commission’s recent decision still puts the brakes on any meaningful competition that Uber and Lyft would provide.

The MTC, “in its continuing endeavor to provide safe, high quality taxi service to St. Louis,” has retained and added regulations that will prevent Uber or any other ridesharing company from offering anything but an expensive, premium service. Some examples of these regulations include:

  • The price of a premium sedan must be greater than $33,000.
  • The price of a premium SUV must be greater than $42,000.
  • The vehicle cannot be more than six model years old while in service.
  • For-hire services must have a non-residential business address.

It gets worse. Aside from controlling the downstream pricing of ridesharing services, the MTC still plans to tightly control the supply of premium sedans available to Uber through the issuance of permits. Initially, the MTC will only issue 26 permits for premium services, and only five will be rewarded to new, single-vehicle operators. The rest will go to existing sedan companies that can afford three or more sedans. These smoke and mirror tricks, designed to make it appear that the MTC is becoming friendlier to other services and companies, are in reality reinforcing the restrictions on the entry and pricing of the taxi market.

These arbitrary restrictions become even more evident when trying to order an Uber. When I attempted to order a car through the Uber app, the message appears that “no Black cars are available.” So even after the changes, trying to use Uber is just as difficult as when they were barred from entering the market. Clearly, the MTC’s decision is not doing anything to fulfill their duty of providing enough supply to meet the demand.

The Columbia Police Department and Pennies from Heaven

As Columbia residents prepare to decide whether to increase the budget of the police department through property tax increases, they might be interested in how the police department spends the funds available today. In the video below (begin viewing at 8:43), from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Columbia’s chief of police explained how the department used funds derived from civil asset forfeiture. Reducing the tax burden for Columbia residents, however, was not one of those uses.

Without addressing the propriety of civil forfeiture laws, a department does not inspire confidence when it claims it needs more taxpayer dollars although it spends the proceeds of assets seized from residents on “toys,” as though they were “pennies from heaven.” Columbia residents might consider whether the funds the department currently receives are prudently managed before more is allocated.

Ain’t No Sunshine: What’s Going On Behind Government’s Closed Doors?

This month, the Missouri State Auditor’s office released a report on state and local government compliance with Missouri’s Sunshine Law. The Sunshine Law requires government bodies to keep meetings open to the public, provides procedures and safeguards when a meeting needs to be held in private, and imposes other requirements on government bodies to ensure transparency. According to the auditor’s report, state agencies and local governments across the state are not complying with these laws.

The report includes numerous violations of public records and public meeting requirements. The following government bodies failed to abide by the proper procedure for making meetings closed to the public:

capital

  • Gentry County
  • City of Savannah
  • Ste. Genevieve County
  • City of Liberal
  • Southern Dallas County Fire Protection District
  • Daviess County
  • City of Brentwood
  • Department of Public Safety/State Emergency Management Agency
  • City of Buckner
  • City of Diamond
  • Cedar County
  • Caldwell County
  • McDonald County
  • Lake Lotawana Community Improvement District
  • Vernon County
  • Montgomery County
  • Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners
  • Clark County
  • Stone County
  • The School District of Springfield, R-XII
  • Monarch Fire Protection District
  • Natural Resources/Soil and Water Conservation Program
  • Higher Education/Southeast Missouri State University
  • Madison County

Most of the government bodies that failed to keep meetings open were cities and counties, but some of these bodies, including the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, the Department of Public Safety/State Emergency Management Agency, and the Southern Dallas County Fire Protection District, are charged with ensuring public safety. The Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, for example, failed to comply with the provisions of Missouri law that require a body in a closed meeting to properly document issues discussed, to discuss only authorized topics during the closed meeting, and to properly disclose the final disposition of matters discussed in closed sessions.

Government bodies have the power to deprive us of life, liberty, and property. They are charged with providing public safety and education services that Missourians depend on. They are given the power to extract payment for these services whether an individual wants them or not. The open government requirements of Missouri’s Sunshine Law are essential safeguards against abuse of government power.

Increasing the Health Care Supply to Meet Health Care Demand

Robert Graboyes is a senior research fellow for the Mercatus Center. Later this month Dr. Graboyes will release a report about health care innovation, which I intend to talk about at some length on this blog. In the meantime, I want to re-up the Reason video from earlier this year. The video features Dr. Graboyes talking about a wide array of reforms that would get care to the neediest among us. If you’ve read our work before, you’ve probably heard of many of the recommendations he talks about, including regulatory, Medicaid, certificate of need, and scope of practice reforms. I highly recommend the video, particularly the section about prosthetics and 3-D printing, which captures well how quickly the market for health care could change in the coming years.

Wastewater Privatization: Case Studies

As Arnold residents prepare to decide whether to sell wastewater facilities in their city to Missouri American Water, they should consider cases where privatizations of this type have already occurred. Water and wastewater privatization in Saint Louis County and Illinois provide some useful comparisons.

Increasing budget constraints and needed upgrades have pushed many cities to privatize public systems in recent decades. A Saint Louis-area example is the privatization of water services in Florissant in 2002. The city divested its water services to Missouri American Water for a total of $14.5 million. The results, as a Show-Me Institute case study on privatization in Missouri noted, were positive:

Florissant took its $14.5 million and immediately budgeted $2,758,000 for street repairs, police projects, and public works projects. It deposited $10 million into a newly created special reserve fund, which served the city for several years after the sale of the water division. The remainder was placed into the city’s existing reserve fund. According to a 2007 city memorandum, “The timing of the sale of the water distribution system was extremely fortuitous and gave the city the cushion necessary to work through the dramatic drop in revenue without correspondingly dramatic service cuts.”

Florissant officials have been satisfied with the service, and Missouri American Water continues to provide water services to large parts of Saint Louis County.

While a wastewater privatization deal has not occurred in the Saint Louis area, many cities nationally have privatized this type of utility. A nearby example is in Mount Vernon, Ill., which contracted with a private company to design, build, and operate a wastewater treatment plant for 20 years in 1986. At that time, Mount Vernon did not have the resources to upgrade its aging treatment plan, thereby running afoul of environmental protection laws and preventing new industry from locating in the city. Environmental Management Corporation (EMC) entered into a deal with the city to build a new treatment plant in return for operating the system for 20 years, retaining and even retraining the existing employees. The city has since extended the agreement to 2023.

As these cases show, privatization of water and wastewater systems can be an effective way of providing public services in fiscally constrained cities.

Free-Market Health Practitioners Get a Group

Late last month, supporters of the newly established Free Market Medical Association (FMMA) converged on Oklahoma City for the organization’s first ever annual conference. As the name suggests, the organization is intended to bring doctors and providers together to share ideas and defend “the practice of free market medicine without the intervention of government or other third parties.” Given the sorts of reforms American health care needs these days, the FMMA’s entry onto the national stage is a welcome one.

Along with noting the FMMA’s existence, there’s also a reason worth teasing out for why the FMMA held its first conference in Oklahoma City. The short answer is “it’s where the FMMA’s organizers are based,” but a more complete answer is it’s where some very interesting free-market business models are being put into practice.

Advocacy of free market health care is the longtime passion of Dr. Keith Smith, co-founder of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma [and the FMMA]. The center began to post fixed prices for common medical procedures years ago, and has provoked widespread admiration within the medical profession for efficiency, reasonable cost and frequent support for those who are less fortunate.

At the Surgery Center, Dr. Keith Smith and Dr. Steve Lantier have established an operational structure and market-oriented billing as explicit alternatives to the third-party payer systems that now dominate U.S. health care.

The center posts online an up-front price for medical procedures in diverse areas of practice, including orthopedics, ear/nose/throat, general surgery, urology, ophthalmology, foot and ankle, and reconstructive plastics. In all, a total of 112 procedures are listed.

Translation? Transparent pricing plus direct pay works out to a pretty good business model premised on competition and service. Price transparency is huge because it’s generally pretty difficult to price shop in the U.S. health market, in part because the third-party payer system disincentivizes it, and because many providers aren’t willing to publish those prices. That makes it difficult to force prices down through competition. Posting prices should be common practice in the industry; unfortunately, it’s not.

It’s good to see folks in the movement getting organized when it comes to demonstrating that, yes, free-market reforms to health care do exist and can work. In the coming months, Show-Me readers will hear a lot more about free-market health care alternatives. Stay tuned.

Debate: Does More Government Help Or Hurt?

This debate hosted at the Kansas City Library and sponsored by the Show-Me Institute addressed the question: does more government help or hurt? Stephanie Kelton, Ph.D., chair of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Department of Economics, and Joseph Haslag, Ph.D., Show-Me Institute Chief Economist and University of Missouri economics professor debated the government’s role in the economy. Following the debate, moderator Mike Shanin of KCPT-TV’s Ruckus, led a question and answer session with the audience.

 

Arnold Wastewater Privatization: Don’t Waste the Opportunity

There’s “gold in them thar hills,” to quote a popular expression, which dates back to Mark Twain and the California Gold Rush in 1849, “millions of dollars of it.”

Believe it or not, the same may be said of the sewers serving the 20,000-plus residents of Arnold, Missouri, located on the southern edge of the Saint Louis Metropolitan Area at the confluence of the Meramec and Mississippi rivers.

Missouri American Water has offered to purchase the Arnold sewer system for a total of $13.2 million. This is a win-win proposition for the city and its residents.

The deal not only would provide Arnold with the funds to pay off $8 million in sewer bonds, but it also would supply $5 million in additional revenue. At the same time, the arrangement with Missouri American Water would guarantee timely improvements to the sewer system and lower utility costs for residents.

Arnold currently operates its sewer system as a public utility and charges residents $24.33 per month for up to 5,000 gallons of wastewater. However, like many municipalities around the country, Arnold is not charging residents what it needs to keep the system up to date, especially with increasingly stringent EPA and Clean Water Act requirements coming into force. According to one report, by 2016 the city would need to charge $34.50 per month to provide the same services.

Facing very similar pressures, cities across the country have turned to partial or full privatization of their water and wastewater systems. Deals with private companies typically result in an upfront payment to the city, a commitment by the company to make investments in the water or sewer system, agreement on pricing, and often a stipulation that the private company must retain the existing utility staff. The vast majority of these privatizations have been successful, with more than 90 percent of cities renewing privatization contracts and 94 percent recommending privatization as a method of water and sewer system management.

To cite one example, the city of Florissant in Saint Louis County sold its municipal water utility to Missouri American Water for $14.5 million in 2002. The city spent part of the proceeds on immediate needs and put the rest in a reserve fund. More than a decade later, the privatization is still a success. The lesson from Florissant and other cities is clear: When governments set the standards and carefully manage the privatization process, private operators deliver better, cost-effective service.

If Arnold accepts the deal with Missouri American, it will reap other benefits as well. Public services, like the school district, will benefit from this proposal via the expansion of the property tax base when the assets of the sewer system go on the tax rolls after Missouri American takes control. Residents will benefit from low utility fees, as Missouri American Water has stated that they will not increase rates until 2016. Even after that date, they project they will only charge residents $30 a month, which is less than what the city is likely to charge absent privatization.

While privatization of the sewer system makes sense, Arnold must be cautious on how it crafts and implements a final deal. The city must hold Missouri American Water accountable for the quality of service and the implementation of agreed-upon improvements. Furthermore, Arnold would be wise to follow the example of Florissant by carefully spending its windfall profits.

As long as local officials perform their due diligence, Arnold has much to gain and little to lose from privatizing its sewer system. Come November, residents should not let this opportunity slip down the drain.

 

Uber Arrives in Columbia

Last Thursday, Uber launched its service in Columbia, Missouri. The innovative and rapidly expanding ridesharing company will start by offering free rides to residents while the company works out regulatory issues with the city government.

Uber and other similar ridesharing companies have the potential to efficiently improve transportation options in midsize cities like Columbia. Low population densities and dispersed development can make it difficult to provide useful transit options without wasting public resources on underutilized routes. But with market-based ridesharing companies like Uber, Columbia residents will have more ways to get around without owning a car simply through the increased utilization of the cars they already own.

As we noted in a previous blog post, Columbia’s antiquated for-hire vehicle ordinances were written to deal with taxis, limousines, and buses; how Uber would be classified is difficult to determine, much as was the case in Saint Louis and Kansas City. But while regulators in Missouri’s two largest cities have fought tenaciously to make ridesharing expensive or illegal, Columbia’s government seems to be interested in carving out a place for Uber, with some stipulations. One city official stated:

My main concerns are the insurance that Uber drivers carry, background checks conducted by Uber and the condition of the vehicles. . . . We are going to include regulations about those aspects in the agreement.

The same official indicated that regulatory changes would be ready in November.

If Columbia’s government can limit its regulations to safety concerns, and not control pricing and entry, residents will be able to benefit from the increased transportation options Uber and other ridesharing companies can provide. Whether Columbia ultimately will follow through, and choose innovation over regulation, remains to be seen.

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