Court Fee Increase Would Negatively Impact St. Louis County

Posted on by David Stokes

A version of the following commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Among the many things that Missourians will vote on in November is Amendment 6, which if passed would reinstitute a fee on court filings in Missouri to fund a larger pension for sheriffs and prosecutors in Missouri. (The fee was previously $3 before it was overturned by Missouri courts.) There are many troubling aspects of Amendment 6 that I hope Missourians consider before they vote, because the proposed amendment would have effects that go beyond the understandable desire to support law enforcement.

Locally, this amendment is especially bad public policy for St. Louis County residents. St. Louis County has by far the largest number of court filings due to its status as the largest county by population in Missouri and the presence of CT Corporation Systems in Clayton, which is the largest registered agent company in Missouri. What’s more, the St. Louis County sheriff is not a law enforcement agent and is therefore the only sheriff in Missouri who does not participate in the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System in the first place. So, to be clear, St. Louis County residents would pay the largest amount of fees into the fund—probably several hundred thousand dollars a year—while at the same time receiving the least benefit of any county. Coincidence? Perhaps. Fair? Definitely not.

Every person in St. Louis County who seeks redress in court, who files for a domestic order of protection, who has to pay a traffic fine, or is in court for any other reason, would have to pay this reinstituted fee to increase the pensions of primarily rural sheriffs and prosecutors. (The St. Louis County prosecutor might be included in this plan, so that’s one person in a million, for a position that is already well-compensated with a generous pension.)

The ballot language for Amendment 6, as is so often the case, is highly misleading. A typical voter will read the language proposing to “levy costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for current and former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys . . .” and understand that to include the many dedicated deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors around the state. It doesn’t. This new fee will only benefit the elected sheriff and prosecutor in each county (and not even the sheriff in St. Louis County). That’s two people per county. Deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors have their pensions funded separately and are not affected by this proposal.

As if the misleading language and targeting of one county wasn’t enough to object to, the fact is that funding pensions by court fees is a bad policy. That is why previous attempts to fund a sheriff’s pension in this manner were thrown out as unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. Imposing court fees that make it harder to seek justice in court, or harder to pay fines ordered by court—especially when those fees financially benefit the law enforcement officials who impose some of them—creates a perverse incentive. Funding for the salaries and benefits of sheriffs and prosecutors should come from general local taxation, and there should be no financial incentive for increased fines, arrests, and so on. But instead of trying change their proposals to address these constitutional objections by judges and others, supporters of Amendment 6 are attempting to do an end-run around the law by changing the constitution. Supporting law enforcement by going around the law is an ironic way to accomplish their goals.

Furthermore, any increase in the retirement benefits of elected sheriffs and prosecutors should be accomplished by an expansion of defined-contribution plans available to them rather than an increase in their defined-benefit pensions. Expanding the opportunities for these well-compensated elected officials to participate in 457 retirement plans [which are like 401(k) accounts but for public employees] or similar alternatives is a better way to allow them to save for retirement without further burdening taxpayers.

Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors deserve our support, but Amendment 6 is not the way to show it. There are several good reasons for all Missourians to reconsider their typical support for law enforcement in this case, and for the people of St. Louis County, this choice should be easier than rooting against Stan Kroenke’s Rams in the Super Bowl.

High Hopes for a New Committee at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen

Posted on by David Stokes

On Wednesday, October 9, a new committee of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen is holding its first hearing. The Special Committee on Special Taxing Districts was formed to look into how the city can provide better oversight of the many community improvement districts (CIDs), transportation development districts (TDDs), and other such entities in the city.

CIDs, TDDs, and other districts undoubtedly need better public oversight. There also needs to simply be fewer of them, oversight or not. Hopefully the second part will be as important as the first part for the committee. An audit of CIDs by the Kansas City auditor in 2021 detailed the many issues with them in Kansas City, and a similar report from this committee would be beneficial.

I will be at this first committee meeting to enter into the record the  2019 report on special taxing districts published by the Show-Me Institute. It is great that the city has formed this committee, and hopefully both better oversight and reduced usage of special taxing districts will be the result.

(As a child of the 80’s, the hardest part of writing this blog post about a special committee studying special taxing districts was avoiding making a bunch of church lady references.)

POSTPONED: Charles C. W. Cooke on October 9

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

The event featuring Charles C. W. Cooke, scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, has been postponed. Due to travel complications related to Hurricane Milton, we are unable to proceed with the event as planned.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We are working on scheduling a new date for the event and updates will be posted here. Thank you for your understanding.

Missouri Shows that More Government Doesn’t Equal More Housing

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Housing is an important issue. Many people, myself included, believe it is a cornerstone issue for so much of what ails America. If we can solve housing, many other solutions would be within our grasp. Yet so many policy proposals seek only to address the secondary effects of housing rather than the core problem itself.

The fundamental issue here is supply and demand. There is a tight housing market in many places in the country where supply is already constrained—though that is generally not the case in Kansas City or St. Louis. Housing policies that focus on boosting demand rather than increasing supply tend to backfire. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and the Clinton administration’s National Homeownership Strategy both drove temporary housing booms followed by market crashes. These policies didn’t solve affordability; they exacerbated it.

The same flawed logic has shaped housing markets in Kansas City and St. Louis, where misguided interventions have made housing less affordable. Kansas City’s adoption of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) stifled new home construction by inflating costs. Builders, facing steep regulatory burdens, simply stopped building. In St. Louis, a reliance on tax credits and incentives for flashy developments has left vast swaths of the city with vacant lots and dilapidated buildings. In both cities, the results are clear: policies that ignore basic market principles fail to deliver desired results.

Kansas City and St. Louis offer cautionary tales. We don’t need more interventions that drive prices higher. We need policies that foster more housing construction, deregulate land use, and let the market work. Housing affordability won’t improve with more government spending—it will improve when we stop putting obstacles in the way.

Missouri Ballot Issues and the Return of Three Mile Island

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss: Missouri’s Amendment 6, the Kirkwood sales tax vote, the state’s minimum wage proposition, the return of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Federalism and The Founders’ Vision with Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

See Charles C.W. Cooke live on October 9 in St. Charles, MO
Tickets and Details Here

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Charles C. W. Cooke, senior editor at National Review, about the growing trend of federal centralization and its threat to the U.S. federalist system.

They discuss how the founders intended for states and local communities to have control over their governance, and why the push to consolidate power in Washington undermines American principles of liberty and self-governance. Charles explains why this centralization is antithetical to the country’s founding ideals, the consequences of this shift, and why it’s essential to reverse course.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

It Has Been a Great Week for Economic Development Agencies in Missouri

Posted on by David Stokes

This has been a fun week for those of us who feel that economic development agencies in Missouri are the equivalent of Churchill’s famous description of Russia. Our local economic development agencies are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

North Side Grant Project Is a Disaster

The revelations about the North St. Louis Small Business & Non-Profit Grant Program being managed by the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) keep coming. The entire grant program is rife with political favoritism, but at least the places connected to politicians actually exist! It turns out some of the other recipients of the grants are not, shall we say, real entities, like this “museum” just north of the Central West End:

The museum’s website advertises a facility, historical exhibits and a passion for illustrating the history of the Mississippi River and the people who have lived on its banks. But its address leads to a brick four-family structure in a neighborhood just north of the Central West End. No one answers the door, even during advertised business hours. And the building itself is surrounded by weeds and overgrowth.

“I’ve never heard anything about that place being a museum,” said Ray Sims, a longtime neighbor of the building. “How do I get the money?”

It’s almost like word got out that the SLDC was just giving away free money and, shockingly, people started making up reasons to get free money.

Recipients of Large Tax Subsidies Under Indictment

Does the SLDC make better decisions when dealing with big-time developers instead of ordinary people? Apparently not. Last week, the heads of a major St. Louis and Kansas City development firm were indicted in St. Louis for allegedly submitting false documents regarding minority-hiring rules. While this is the first indictment of these men (everyone is, of course, innocent until proven otherwise), their questionable business practices have been well known. Yet they have consistently received massive tax subsidies for work in St. Louis and Kansas City: particularly the latter in recent years.

Five Lux Living projects in Kansas City have been approved for incentives since 2021, including a $200 million apartment/hotel at 14th and Wyandotte streets.

Is it fair of me to blame the SLDC for an act  by private citizens or companies seeking subsidies? Perhaps not, but when politicians and bureaucrats choose who gets subsidies, don’t be surprised when unpleasant actors start circling. After all, political donations and tax subsidies have a strong connection:

For instance, around the country, politicians who make these deals are more likely to receive campaign donations, and they’re more likely to be re-elected. On the flip side, companies that make political donations to relevant officials are four times more likely to enjoy subsidy deals than those that don’t, and their deals are more than 60% bigger, to boot.

Again, it’s shocking, I know . . .

Maryland Heights Uses General Taxes to Make up for Failures

It isn’t just large cities that abuse economic development policy. Suburbs do it all the time, and they don’t always do it with misplaced tax subsidies. Sometimes, cities make the mistakes all on their own.

Several years ago, Maryland Heights decided to get into the ice arena business. Not a normal ice rink for its residents, mind you; that would have been understandable. City leaders apparently wanted to act like private developers and build a massive hockey and skating complex to make money for the city. This is, usually, a big mistake for cities.

It definitely was a big mistake for Maryland Heights. The city has announced that it has again been forced to tap into general tax revenues to fund the bond payments after its predicted ice complex revenues have continued to fall short. Part of the reason revenues fell short is that both Maryland Heights and the ice complex failed to collect a sales tax for several years that was implemented to pay for the bonds. I don’t know if that is funny, sad, or both.

Cities do not have to engage in economic development schemes to succeed. Unilateral disarmament is the best option all around. Until that happens, expect stories like these to be a regular occurrence.

Real-Time Crime Data with Jeff Asher

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jeff Asher, data analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics, about the Real-Time Crime Index (RTCI).

They discuss how the RTCI provides a near real-time look at crime trends across the U.S. by sampling data from hundreds of law enforcement agencies. Jeff explains the challenges of working with incomplete and imprecise data, the methodology for standardizing crime statistics across different agencies, the importance of real-time data for informed decision-making, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

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