Crime And (Doggie) Punishment: A Tale (Or Tail) Of Lost Freedom

First appearing in the January 13, 2014, Weekly Standard:

On a beautiful day in late October, Gus and I were enjoying a rare moment when our only companions in the large and hilly park in front of St. Louis’s Concordia Seminary were nut-gathering squirrels and the birds in the trees.

I was sitting on a Coleman camping chair reading a book and Gus, a beautiful black-and-tan Gordon setter, was doing his favorite thing—chasing birds. This is something Gus does at high speed, in narrowly zig-zagging and broadly circling patterns. The chases go on for as long as eight or nine seconds. I have never seen him pluck a bird out of the air, but he is right on their tails the whole time—forcing many a low-flying wren or robin to go into a steep climb.

It is a sight to behold. People stop and stare in disbelief. The birds seem to enjoy the game as much as Gus. Why else would they be so willing to come out of the trees and play catch-me-if-you-can? Sometimes, Gus begs them to do it—in short, staccato steps under a tree. Nose down, he dances to the sight of moving shadows signaling movement above. On a good day, Gus has dozens of bird chases.

On this particular day, my sense of perfect contentment was broken when I looked up and saw Gus at the far end of the park in the company, but not the grasp, of a policeman. It looked as if my grand-dog thought he had found something rather interesting and was happily escorting the policeman into my presence. Gus was off leash, as, too, of course, was the policeman.

As Gus pranced about the policeman, I grew increasingly annoyed thinking about what was about to happen. Wherever you go in today’s America, the nanny state, in its all-encompassing wisdom, has declared there shall be no dogs off leash—anywhere and everywhere, with the possible exception of your own basement.

If people who were alive a hundred years ago were to return today to our parks and open spaces .??.??. and find that no one is allowed to let a dog run free because of a widespread horror of dog poo, and fears that house pets might turn into killers .??.??. they would be appalled at our conformity, timidity, and stupidity. They would feel sorry for the dogs and wonder why we as a people weren’t already extinct.

As my mood turned sour, I also wondered—as a legal point, and I am no lawyer—what gave the policeman the right to come marching up to me on a private college campus.

So I did not politely get out of my chair to greet the officer, or even look up from my book, until he was hovering over me.

“Do you know there’s a leash law?” he asked. I answered his question with one of my own:

“Do you know this is private property?”

“Is it your property?” he countered.

I know my dog and I are welcome here,” I answered. “My wife and I have been here many times. We have come to know several of the faculty members. No one has ever asked us to put this dog on a leash. In fact, our dog has played off leash with their dogs.”

At this point, the policeman claimed the school administration had asked the Clayton police department (Clayton being a close-in St. Louis suburb) to enforce Clayton’s leash law. He pulled out a pad and started to write a ticket—asking for particulars not just about me (my name and address) but also the dog (name, breed, and weight).

The policeman was not unpleasant. An older cop (55 or 60), he was probably assigned to the easiest duty, and what could be easier than sitting in a parking lot on a super-safe college campus and getting out of his car to write a ticket on a dog that befriended everyone, himself included? He sympathized with the fact that my wife and I had been keeping this very sporty dog, now three-and-a-half years old, for our daughter and her family ever since he had been a puppy, and this was a dog, as he could see, that should not be cooped up in an empty house for 10 hours a day while its parents were working. We keep Gus on weekdays and he goes back to Elizabeth’s house on weekends.

So the policeman and I talked a bit about what to do with a dog that really needs at least an hour of hard exercise a day to be fit and happy.

There were several dog parks in the area, he volunteered.

“And they’re all like prison yards,” I told him—places where the more aggressive dogs are forever preying on less aggressive. It’s hump-o-mania all the time in crowded dog parks. Gus could stand up to the aggressive dogs, and would often, good-heartedly, come to the protection of weaker ones, but he didn’t like dog parks. Birds don’t much like dog parks either.

Maybe you could buy a farm, the policeman weakly suggested. He left me with a ticket and summons to appear in court on December 4.

Beth Ann, my wife, wanted to be there—with Gus. She is planning to write a children’s book about our several encounters with the law on this issue—and also our more numerous encounters with other dog-owners who scrupulously obey the leash laws and shout out enviously to outliers like us: Don’t you know there’s a leash law? For the purposes of the book, she wanted Gus to have his day in court.

I didn’t think Beth Ann had a chance of getting through security with a dog—even with such a beautiful and noble-looking dog as Gus. But I am never surprised by my wife’s inventiveness.

I had been sitting in the Clayton municipal courthouse for about an hour—along with about 100 other miscreants waiting their turn before the judge—when she and Gus (on a leash) came sweeping down the aisle. Beth Ann stopped to talk to a lawyer friend who was just leaving the court. Then, just as suddenly, she and Gus were gone.

To skip ahead to what would seem to be the end, when I was called to go before the judge, he told me that I had two options: I could plead not guilty and face a quick trial with the possibility of a fine of $300 or more; or I could talk to the person on the same dais seated to his left, who was the prosecutor and who had the discretion to negotiate a settlement. Naturally, I took the second option.

In a brief conference that took less than a minute, I told the prosecutor that Gus was not my dog, but my grand-dog, and that I had not known that I was violating any leash law at Concordia Seminary. He seemed faintly amused. Here was the deal, which I quickly accepted: If I agreed to pay court costs ($26.50), there would be no fine and, as the prosecutor put it, both Gus and I would be on six-month probation.

I won’t tell you what Gus and I might or might not do between now and next May. But I will tell you how Beth Ann and Gus got into the Clayton municipal courtroom.

As Beth Ann tells the story—

In her first approach to the courtroom door with Gus in tow, she was stopped and told she had to sign in first. Patrolman Karl pointed to an open ledger along the wall on the other side of the anteroom. She signed the ledger. When she returned to the big courtroom door, Patrolman Karl stopped her a second time.

“Dogs aren’t allowed in the courtroom,” he said.

“But he’s the perpetrator. He’s asked to appear in court.”

“I don’t think he has to be present in court.”

“Are you sure?”

“I’ll go ask the judge.”

With that, Patrolman Karl went through the door and Beth Ann and Gus followed a moment or two later. Having determined in private discussion with the judge or prosecutor that Gus’s presence in court was not an absolute requirement, Patrolman Karl duly shushed Beth Ann and Gus out of the courtroom.

So Gus really did have his day in court.

I wish the moral to this story was that you can’t keep a good dog down. But I fear the reality is that the nanny state and its obedient servants will keep any number of good dogs down for a long time to come. We are witnessing the death of common sense as a substitute for rules and regulations.

Life is less fun, with less freedom.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, a free-market think tank in St. Louis.

 

In Education, Money Itself Is Not The Answer

Money is not the answer

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s State of the State address correctly identified education as a key policy area this year. This is due to the fact that Missouri’s educational record to date is middling at best. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek and his co-authors in a 2012 study compared gains in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test scores for math, reading, and science across states. Out of the 41 states for which assessment results are available, Missouri ranks 27th.

Gov. Nixon called upon the legislature to increase spending on K-12 education in Missouri by $278 million in 2014. Will spending more money on educating Missouri children push us to the head of the class? The chart above, taken from the Hanushek study, does not support the governor’s claim. As shown by the experience of many states over the past 20 years, spending more money on education does not guarantee marked improvements in student achievement.

The chart above indicates no reliable relationship between spending on education and educational success across states. The correlation is 0.12. In other words, the correlation between spending and student outcomes is essentially zero.

Streetcars Will Waste Your Money And Your Time

Paul Jacob writes in his blog This is Common Sense:

Transportation scholar Randal O’Toole regales us with the fix that California’s overlords have put themselves in. Merely assuming that dense city living decreases commuting, California’s legislators cooked up a law requiring local governments to increase population density.

But it turns out “transportation models reveal that increased densities actually increase congestion, as measured by ‘level of service,’ which,” O’Toole informs us, “measures traffic as a percent of a roadway’s capacity and which in turn can be used to estimate the hours of delay people suffer.”

This should be no surprise to Kansas Citians, who are familiar with official calls for increased urban density and the streetcar system that they believe will bring it. An effort to raise private money for the streetcar (so far, $3,775 of their $10 million goal) says that streetcars:

. . . provide high-quality transit service that promotes compact, walkable, higher-density development.

A firm hired to help build the streetcar system offers as a potential benefit, “Increase[d] population and economic density to the urban core.” Streetcar booster and former Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser claimed that a rail system “produces density, which is key to efficient land and resource use.”

We know from previous studies that rail transit does not remove cars from the road. And we know that it is not the rail lines themselves that drive economic development but rather the additional tax incentives that governments hand out along rail lines. We know that the people of Kansas City have voted down streetcars every time a legitimate election has been held. And judging by the effort to raise private funds yielding only three-ten-thousandths of 1 percent of their goal, Kansas Citians still don’t support it.

But just as in Kansas City, California politicians continue undaunted. O’Toole writes:

The gist of the new standards of “regulation”? “[T]hey ignore the impact on people’s time and lives: if densification reduces per capita vehicle miles traveled by 1 percent, planners will regard it as a victory even if the other 99 percent of travel is slowed by millions of hours per year.”

If you doubt that city leaders care more about spending taxpayer money than respecting taxpayer time and convenience, consider the plans to build a $1.2 billion airport terminal.

Spending Money Kansas City Doesn’t Have On Streetcars It Doesn’t Need

Optimistically anticipating that their initial 2.2-mile downtown streetcar line will be a resounding success, Kansas City planners are proposing a Transportation Development District (TDD) to fund a $500 million streetcar system. This move is a blatant bid to get federal dollars to pay for an expensive and outmoded transportation device.

The Show-Me Institute policy staff has argued numerous times that streetcars do not improve mobility or connectivity. Development along streetcar lines is likely due more to tax incentives and other government investment that diverts development to the favored corridor. Even researchers who do not oppose streetcars point out that there is a lack of proper research on a streetcar line’s effect on regional development.

However, backers of the streetcar in Kansas City are not content to wait for real, rigorous studies on the success or failure of the streetcar fad before charging ahead. That is because streetcars are too expensive to build without matching federal dollars, at more than $50 million per mile, and federal policy can change quickly.

For instance, during the Bush administration, streetcars received little federal dollars. The department at the time focused on transit projects that were cost-effective and promoted congestion relief. But those guidelines changed under the Obama administration to favor “livability.” This change in policy, coupled with the stimulus, made billions of dollars available for streetcars in Kansas City and across the country, mostly in the form of TIGER and MAP-21 grants. However, the federal favor shown streetcars may not outlive the Obama administration, which would effectively kill any attempt to expand the streetcar in Kansas City. There is little wonder that there seems to be a race to lock up federal dollars.

Funding expensive and inefficient transportation options with money that falls from the sky is a short-cited policy for Kansas City. Federal grants may fund new transit infrastructure or increased capacity, but grants for repair and maintenance are rare. This means that the costs of the proposed $500 million streetcar system will continuously rise for Kansas City, likely beyond what the initial TDD will support.

And as the experience of Portland has shown, streetcar users will not be willing to pay anything like the full cost of their ride. After years of “free zones” (free streetcar rides in many areas of the city), tax breaks, corridor improvements, and high-density zoning, passengers using the existing streetcar lines declined following the imposition of a $1 fare. That fare, enough to deter ridership, only generates an insignificant percentage of the Portland streetcar’s $251 million capital or $8.2 operating budget, all for 7.3 miles of track.

If Kansas City cannot afford to build the streetcar without federal aid, it cannot afford a streetcar with federal aid either. If Kansas City residents approve the TDD and the proposed system is built, it virtually guarantees that, like Portland, everyone in the city, region, state, and country will pay for a mode of transportation whose sole purpose is to divert development to favored sections of downtown Kansas City.

Three Recommended Reforms For Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

As Missouri’s General Assembly gets underway in 2014, they should move to reform Tax Increment Financing (TIF). David Stokes suggests three reforms that the legislature should enact this session:

  1. Prohibit elected city officials from overriding county TIF commissions
  2. Focus TIF subsidies on returning property to greenfield status
  3. Prohibit TIFs from being awarded in floodplains statewide

 

CEE-Trust Study: Something For Everyone To Love…And Hate

Any plan that offers a solution to the persistent problem of failing inner-city schools is bound to receive some pushback. As Joe Robertson, of the Kansas City Star, warns, “History tells us to expect a fight.” That is especially true when the plan entails completely restructuring how schools are governed and operated. On Monday, CEE-Trust presented to the Missouri Board of Education a draft of its highly anticipated, and highly controversial, plan to improve Kansas City Public Schools. The plan argues “that it is not the people in the system that is the problem; it is the system itself.” The solution: transition from a school system to a system of schools.

Like other school districts in Missouri, a central office and a school board directly run the Kansas City Public Schools. This governance has left very little decision-making power to the local schools. CEE-Trust’s plan would shift governance to a “Community Schools Office” (CSO). The CSO would not seek to run schools, as central offices have; instead, it would manage a portfolio of independent, locally run schools. These schools would be given greater control over their budgets and greater flexibility to develop programs that meet the needs of their students.

A key element in the CEE-Trust proposal is choice. The authors note that “A system that is driven by parent and student choice will create more diverse options to appeal to students’ varying needs, and those schools that fail to attract enough students will be replaced by other schools with a better chance of success.” Indeed, it is choice that has led to the creation of language immersion, STEM-focused, performing arts, and a host of other types of schools.

In addition to choice, there are many other ideas contained within the 78-page report. The proposal calls for improving teacher pay, maintaining the right of teachers to unionize and collectively bargain, and universal pre-kindergarten. There is indeed something for everyone to love, and hate, in the CEE-Trust proposal.

The proposal is intriguing. Indeed, I have argued for many of the ideas presented in the proposal (also here and here). Most importantly, CEE-Trust calls on us to “re-imagine” how we operate public education. I could not agree more.

Listen as I discuss the CEE-Trust proposal on KCMO Talk Radio.

Missouri Leading On At Least One Health Care Reform

Earlier this month, I had the honor of presenting at this year’s State Health Policy Summit, a meeting that the Cato Institute annually hosts to bring together health policy experts from around the country. The topic of my presentation was last year’s passage of the Volunteer Health Services Act (VHSA), a medical licensing reform which I often pointed out was needed in Missouri. Reforms such as the VHSA have been discussed at free-market events like this for a while, but it was great to be able to speak about something that actually went from just talk to action. One Missouri health care reform down, many more Missouri health care reforms to go.

Many thanks to Cato for the invite and continued support. And if you’re not familiar with Cato, check out the institute here.

Taxicab Reforms In Missouri

Kansas City officials are considering changes to the taxicab licensing ordinance that would make it easier for non-profits and churches to offer rides around the city. Tony’s Kansas City has the story here. I support the changes, even though I understand the concerns about treating non-profits differently than regular cab companies. It is a difficult call. If you support treating all companies the same (I do), but the treatment, a.k.a. the local regulations, is awful, do you force everyone to suffer from the same awful rules? In this case, I do not, and I hope loosening up the regulations for some will lead to less restrictive rules for all.

It is the same story of awful taxicab regulations in Saint Louis. Here is Uber, the nationwide, web-based private car service, explaining why they won’t enter the Saint Louis market. The same basic explanation applies to Kansas City, which means they are not giving consumers more choice in Missouri, while they do in many other parts of the nation. Are the safety and regulatory concerns in Missouri substantially greater than all those other cities? Of course not.

I know a little about taxicab licensing. I once opened a bribe for a county councilman from a taxicab operator looking for stricter regulations to protect his company from competition. That councilman and I reported the bribe to police instantly, but another councilman who had been taking bribes went to prison.

Taxicab licensing is there to protect the interests of the cab companies, not the public. Consumers now are more empowered by knowledge when dealing with cabs, like your cell phone and GPS telling you if a cabbie is taking you on a long route. Old rules such as uniforms, regulated fares, limits on cab licenses, and restricted areas (i.e., the airport) are no longer necessary. All that is needed is a basic cab registration with the city or county (for the protection of both the driver and passengers), driving record checks on the drivers, and inspecting meters (but not rates) to make sure they are accurate and properly posted. That’s all.

With these changes, maybe people in Saint Louis would be able to get a cab on New Year’s Eve.

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