Does Ballpark Village Really Need Subsidies?

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

We are two months into the baseball season and while the Cardinals might be off to a slower start than many had hoped, people’s reception of Ballpark Village has been positive. From what I have seen, the place looks amazing and I can’t wait to visit. However, does this popularity mean that it was correct to award Ballpark Village substantial tax subsides? Scott Beyer, writing in the American Spectator, doesn’t think so, and neither do I.

Beyer contends that public subsidies to developments such as Ballpark Village mean that there wasn’t enough demand in the first place in order to justify investing in them. I agree. I also believe that using subsidies to finance these projects will be of limited economic benefit because they will just shift spending from other local establishments. A waitress who works at one area restaurant told me that her co-workers in Kiener Plaza are expecting a permanent 10 percent reduction in revenue now that Ballpark Village has opened. This example is only anecdotal, but it falls in line with what economists find when they examine public subsidies for similar types of developments, such as sports stadiums. They find that a lot of the economic benefit these developments bring to cities comes at the expense of spending elsewhere in the economy. Little to no actual wealth is created.

The government should not be picking which development gets public money and which does not. Instead, it should be focused on providing public goods such as basic infrastructure and public safety. Ballpark Village looks like it is going to be a great success, as most people thought it would be. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the development, however, is not justified and is improper.

An Authentic, Sustainable Blog Post That Creates A Strong Physical Connection Between Streetcars And Facts

Posted on by Joseph Miller

To coincide with the groundbreaking of the Downtown Streetcar, Kansas City released a “Downtown Streetcar Development and Investment Guide” to tout what residents can expect for $50 million a mile. But much like the streetcar plan itself, the “Guide” makes unsupported claims based on unscientific and unproven concepts.

One such claim is on page three, where the “Guide” suggests that the streetcar will:

Develop a transit spine around which existing transit can be more effectively organized.

What’s a transit spine? The term usually refers to bus rapid transit or rail corridors from which bus routes radiate. In a sense, the model works like highways and local streets. A driver takes a local road to the highway, which allows him/her to move quickly across the city, and then transfers to another local road to get to his/her destination. In transit, a resident would take a local bus to a light rail or BRT line, which moves him/her across the city quickly, then he/she would transfer to a local route for his/her destination. Of course, this concept only works if the transit spine: 1) spans a significant area of the city and 2) is significantly faster than local routes. The Downtown Streetcar is neither of those things. Using the streetcar as a transit spine would be like routing local roads to a highway that only went a couple miles and had a 30 mph speed limit and traffic lights.

There are many other examples of questionable claims in the “Guide,” but what perhaps goes unnoticed is the consistent use of unscientific, usually values-laden, urban planning concepts. These include:

  • Livable communities. What, one might ask, is an unlivable community? Of course, planners have a definition that fits what they think a community should look like, but it is a subjective concept.

  • Strong physical connection. A streetcar is supposed to create this between communities. It is a very soft concept that streetcars are simply defined as achieving. I know of no way this is testable.

  • Expanding the cultural environment. Again, a strange concept that is only subject to highly dubious measurement.

  • Authentic experience and authentic place. I find it hard to think of what an inauthentic experience or place is. Perhaps the Tokyo Dining Restaurant at Epcot Center? Or maybe the little Potemkin Villages that urban planners call transit-oriented development?

The “Guide” has little to be taken seriously, full of propaganda and values-charged language as it is. Unfortunately, this white noise is the basis of plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on streetcars and urban development subsidies.

Normandy Schools Collaborative Offers Hope

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Normandy

Yesterday, the Missouri State Board of Education voted to lapse the Normandy School District. What exactly this means for the district and students, especially transfer students, remains to be seen. What we know at this point is that the district boundaries will stay the same, the district will be known as the Normandy Schools Collaborative, an appointed board will replace the elected board, and all contracts will be void.

Some have asked me if this is a good move. I have to say, “Compared to what?”

Let’s consider two scenarios.

Scenario 1: The Transfer Law Never Went Into Effect

The problems in the Normandy School District did not begin when a quarter of the students abandoned ship last fall. The district received its first accreditation designation in 1996 – provisional. For the past 18 years, the district has never been fully accredited. The four-year graduation rate for males is less than 50 percent.  In 2013, the district received an 11.1 percent on the Missouri School Improvement Program Annual Report (MSIP 5).

When the problems from Normandy began to spill into other districts, the public began to take notice.

If the transfer law had not taken effect, Normandy would probably continue to trudge along unaffected for another decade without any significant reforms.

Scenario 2: Normandy School District Remains Unchanged

Whether Missouri Senate Bill 493 passes or not, the Normandy School District must continue to make adjustments, especially in regards to staffing. This has been a tough year for the district financially. The transfer program came as a sudden shock and the district did not have time to prepare. Normally, a business losing a quarter of its customers would make immediate and deep cuts. This was problematic for a district locked into long-term contracts and collective bargaining agreements.

If the district were to continue to operate under the current or SB 493 version of the transfer law, they would still have to deal with these realities. Essentially, they would be forced to adapt without having the freedom to adapt.

Conclusion

We still do not know all the details of the new Normandy Schools Collaborative plan; but given these two alternative scenarios, the new plan looks immeasurably better. If the State Board of Education appoints a board that is willing to make substantial changes to the way the district operates, this could be a very positive reform.

Useless Taxi Regulation In Saint Louis

Posted on by Joseph Miller

The recent conflict between Lyft and the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) adds even more credence to the argument that the MTC should not exist. Under the guise of protecting public safety, the MTC controls market entry for taxis in Saint Louis, sets prices, and needlessly regulates the for-hire vehicle market in favor of large taxi companies. There are many examples of these types of competition stifling regulations in the MTC’s For Hire Vehicle Code, including:

Regulations that restrict market entry:

  • Section 203: All For Hire Vehicle Owners require a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) from the MTC. The MTC, staffed by taxi industry players, gets to decide if there is enough demand for more cabs. (The MTC has frozen CCN issuances for taxis until they finish a study on taxi demand, because apparently the job of the MTC should be to centrally plan taxi supply).

  • 202: Transfer or sale of a CCN must be accompanied by a $2,500 application fee.

  • 210: All CCNs must retain and maintain a non-residential office address with a business telephone number that is staffed 24 hours a day.

  • 301: All for-hire vehicles require a permit (airport taxi, premium sedan, etc.). Vehicles can only receive one type of permit.

  • 602: Taxis cannot be older than nine model years and premium sedans cannot be older than five model years. Taxis that are more than six model years cannot enter service and premium sedans more than two model years cannot enter service.

  • 604: All new premium sedan CCNs require at least three sedans at the time of permit issuance.

Regulations that restrict competition:

  • 501: Taxi meter rates are controlled.

  • 301: For-hire vehicles can only receive one type of permit; hence, airport cabs cannot compete with normal taxis which cannot become premium sedans.

  • 604: Premium sedans cannot be stationed within 2,500 feet of a hotel or business property.

  • 604: Premium sedans must contract for passengers at least 60 minutes before pickup.

Regulations that are needless or simply ridiculous:

  • 501: Taxis must have printed, in colors contrasting to that of the vehicle surface to which affixed, on the outside of one door, the name of the vehicle license holder in letters at least 2.5 inches high.

  • 504: Drivers are required to wear a uniform of black slacks and a solid, button-up shirt.

  • 701: All on-call taxicabs should arrive at a hotel with heat or air conditioning running, set between 65-75 degrees.

  • 304: Vehicles cannot have spinning wheels or covers.

  • 304: Bumper paint must match vehicle paint unless paint is not required, then it must be factory black.

You are free to believe these and many other MTC regulations have some tangential connection to keeping passengers safe. But the simplest explanation is that the purpose of these rules is the same as their result: to limit market entry and control competition. Equally simple is the method for improving taxi service in Saint Louis: shutting down the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission.

Useless Taxi Regulation In Kansas City

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Kansas City’s attack on Lyft has been a reminder to many residents of the city’s excessively regulated for-hire vehicle market. City officials have long claimed that these regulations are all about safety. But any cursory inspection of Kansas City taxicab code reveals provisions that are clearly designed to limit competition and have nothing to do with passenger safety. Here are just some examples from the city’s taxicab code:

Ordinances that limit market entry:

  • Section 76-43 prohibits jitneys (private vehicles operating fixed routes within the city).

  • 76-73 (a). Caps taxi permits to 500.

  • 76-73 (b). All new applicants to operate taxicabs must permit at least 10 vehicles.

  • 76-75: Cab and livery vehicle owners must pay $300 per year for every permitted vehicle (in addition to a $50 application fee, driver’s fees, and inspections fees).

  • 76-191 Holder of taxicab permits have to provide on demand service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

  • 76-191 (b). All taxicab companies must maintain a non-residential place of business that is staffed 24 hours a day.

  • 76-212 Taxis cannot be more than eight years old and must have a luggage capacity of 15 cubic feet or greater.

Ordinances that set prices and reduce competition:

  • 76-192 (a) requires all taxis to use a meter.

  • Section 76-43 prohibits jitneys (private vehicles operating fixed routes within the city).

  • 76-192 (b) sets fares for meters.

  • 76-236 Livery vehicles cannot solicit passengers on any public way or airport or cruise in search of patronage. They cannot park for any time longer than picking up passengers and cannot accept any fare that has not been previously arranged.

Ordinances that are ridiculous, needless, and/or outdated:

  • 76-203 Taxi drivers cannot sleep in their vehicles or play loud music.

  • 76-203 (1) Taxi drivers cannot wear jogging suits or shorts from October 1 to April 30.

  • 76-207 All taxis are required to have at all times detailed street map.

  • 76-210 Taxicabs must have a top light visible from all directions.

  • 76-210 Taxis must have the company name of vehicle written in letters not less than two inches or more than six inches in height.

These are just a few of the many questionable regulations that have nothing to do with customer safety and everything to do with controlling the market and reducing competition for large taxi companies. Needless to say, transportation options in Kansas City would greatly improve if these and other sections of the taxicab code were repealed.

MetroLink: The Great Race – Part Deux

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

On Friday, May 9, Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT) held a race between the MetroLink, cars, and bikers from one metro stop to another one. That seemed rigged in favor of the MetroLink to us, so we held our own race from our office in the Central West End to BARcelona in Clayton.

St. Louis’s light rail, MetroLink, has been built on press events and promises. The CMT made-for-media race earlier this month is a great example of the former, but consider some of the promises made to sell MetroLink:

* “…some of Metro Link’s heaviest use could come from lunch-hour passengers moving among downtown, Union Station and the Central West End.” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/26/1988

* “The city is talking with investors and developers about building a golf course just north of the King Bridge, an area of abandoned rail lines… City planners picture light industry around the golf course.

“Conventioneers, just five minutes from East St. Louis by rail, offer a natural market for a golf course…” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/17/1993

During our race, Joseph Miller provides the numbers behind MetroLink. It’s incredibly expensive and there are better ways to improve public transportation. For example, money used on MetroLink would be better spent improving bus service.

Note 1: When Joseph Miller refers to “city” and “city planners” he means the “St. Louis region” and “regional planners”.

Reflecting On 2014 Education Legislation

Posted on by James V. Shuls

CB104936

As I reflect on the 2014 Missouri legislative session, it is easy to get caught up in what could have been. I would have loved for the transfer fix to have resulted in a school choice law that significantly expanded opportunities for students. That was not to be the case. Still, the Missouri Legislature did do some good things.

Last year, opponents of Common Core were not able to get any legislation passed. Not even a bill requiring public meetings on the matter. This year, lawmakers passed a Common Core bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill does not repeal Common Core, but does make the repeal possible. The bill calls for convening work groups to evaluate Missouri’s education standards. The result could be a new set of standards or the groups could end up adopting Common Core. More importantly, the bill will make it impossible for a new set of learning standards to be foisted upon Missourians without the public’s knowledge.

The legislature also took a small step in the right direction on teacher licensing. With the passage of Senate Bill 782, the legislature created a new pathway to the classroom for prospective elementary school teachers. Now, individuals can obtain certification to teach elementary school from the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE). ABCTE already offers teacher certification in several middle and high school subjects. This reduces barriers to entering the teaching profession, making it easier for mid-career professionals to switch careers. Thus far, studies of ABCTE teachers have been pretty positive.

This simple expansion of pathways to the classroom will not lead to a systematic change, but it is a great piece of legislation. It is simple, to the point (about four lines of text), and reduces unnecessary barriers to entering the teaching profession.

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