This Land Is My Land

Posted on by Kacie Barnes (Galbraith)

Where I grew up, private neighborhood streets were rare. None of my friends lived on gated streets, and city plows did not pass over anyone’s street during storms. But in Saint Louis, private streets seem to be more common. Some Sunset Hills residents living on private streets want to keep them that way.

Alwal Moore owns a 10-acre property near Tapawingo National Golf Course. He had plans to construct a private library on the property that would offer cultural classes such as violin and yoga. But the streets leading to his property are privately owned, and homeowners were not happy with his plans.

Resident Chris Rothrock said the library “will be nothing short of disruptive to all of our lives and it presents a significant safety threat to all of the children in our neighborhood.”

Overwhelming opposition to the project, including a petition that 68 percent of residents on surrounding streets signed, prompted the Sunset Hills Board of Aldermen to reject Moore’s private library proposal. But why was the government involved in the first place?

As a private neighborhood, these homeowners have a right to stipulate how their streets will be used and who will use them. Moore, as a private property owner (not part of the surrounding neighborhood associations), has a right to do what he wants, to a certain extent, with his property.

Zoning laws already allow the construction of a library in a residential neighborhood. I do not see a need for additional government approval here.  If private property owners oppose the project,  that is a matter for them to take up with Moore without government involvement.

Moore should be able to work out a deal with area residents to get them on board, such as contributing toward their annual maintenance fees. Because, what good would the library be if homeowners decided to close their streets to public traffic?

No, A Medicaid Expansion Would Not Be ‘Medicaid Reform’

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

On Wednesday, the Missouri Hospital Association (MHA) and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce held a press conference touting a report which portrays the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act as a “reform.” It is not, as I have reiterated time and time again. It is not “a jobs program.” Other states will not “get Missouri’s money.” It is a fiscal sinkhole that is not funded, but the MHA and Chamber are OK saddling taxpayers with the cost.

Let me briefly set the rhetorical stage on the Missouri Medicaid news of the last couple weeks that these two groups, in large part, have driven. First, hospital groups favored the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and the Missouri Hospital Association even went so far as to oppose Proposition C, the Health Care Freedom Act, later that summer. Hospitals want, and have wanted, the Affordable Care Act for some time; it is not surprising that they would demand that the state expand Medicaid under that program.

Second, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce has supported pricey government programs in the past, and the Medicaid expansion is a doozy. Readers may remember that the Missouri Chamber was a key supporter of one of the biggest proposed boondoggles of the last decade, the Aerotropolis project, and that project was “only” a half billion dollars. The Medicaid expansion? The cost is upwards of $3 billion to the state, and billions more to the federal government (a government which we, of course, also fund.)

Lastly — and tying this all together — that MHA poll from last week was “reviewed” for an organization I cannot find by a lobbyist for a Medicaid managed-care provider, a lobbyist who worked side-by-side with the Chamber two years ago on . . . the Aerotropolis legislation.

We have seen this all before, and around we go yet again.

Stated simply: expansion is not reform. The tactics being used to re-package and re-message the issue are about as predictable as those used to promote Aerotropolis. Indeed, some of the same parties involved in Aerotropolis are involved in the Medicaid expansion. That fact should give us all some pause.

Saint Louis Earnings Tax Is Bad for Our Health – But Do We Care?

Posted on by David Stokes

Listen online here:

Call it “the smoker’s dilemma”: Everyone knows that smoking kills, but a habitual smoker may be convinced that he needs the steadying effect of cigarettes. When voters in Saint Louis go to the polls on April 5, they will confront a similar dilemma in deciding whether to maintain the current earnings tax.

Show-Me Institute research has established that the 1-percent earnings tax hurts economic growth in our state’s largest cities. But many officials think that their budgets will collapse without the revenues they receive from it.

If voters decide to rescind the earnings tax, would Saint Louis city government collapse? No, but there is no magic bullet for replacing the revenue it generates. If the earnings tax is eliminated, it would be phased out over a 10-year period. During that time, Saint Louis could adjust to the new realities through a combination of changes.

The city of St. Louis could follow the county’s example by selling its municipal water utility to a private company. That could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It would give the city a quick infusion of money that would more than offset the initial hit without the earnings tax.

There are many opportunities for Saint Louis to consolidate services. During the 10-year phase out, city officials can work to re-enter Saint Louis County. Consolidating certain government functions along with a county takeover of some things like highways and bridges could save the city millions of dollars.

All taxes are not equal. As the earnings tax is phased out, it could be replaced by less harmful taxes. For years, Kansas City has charged a land tax to fund parts of its transportation system. Land taxes are property taxes based only on the value of the land rather than the building. Many economists think they are among the least harmful methods of taxation. This type of tax system could be adopted in Saint Louis.

All budgets can be cut. Saint Louis should embrace this opportunity to cut unnecessary services. For instance, the city already has both the Police and Sheriff’s Departments, so why does it need a third law enforcement agency, the City Marshal? Every duty of that office can be transferred to the police or sheriff, and that department can be eliminated entirely, saving the city more than a million dollars a year.

Perhaps the most important thing that Saint Louis can do is eliminate tax subsidies. As of 2009, Saint Louis had $683 million in tax-abated property. If the city stopped issuing abatements, a large percentage of that property would return to the tax rolls during the following 10 years.

Quitting smoking may be hard, but doing so is in any smoker’s long-term interest. A 10-year phase-out period allows plenty of time for Saint Louis to kick its habit and make the changes needed to continue providing necessary services without relying on the earnings tax.


What Can Starbucks Tell Us About Kansas City?

Posted on by Alex Schroeder

Starbucks is one of the most ubiquitous brands on the planet: Since its founding in 1971, the upscale coffee chain has expanded rapidly to more than 20,000 stores worldwide. Many American urbanites have probably grown accustomed to passing one regularly, if not frequently dropping in themselves. The company has arguably saturated the U.S. market, making its weak presence in Kansas City proper a curious anomaly. This prompted me to delve deeper into potential reasons for Starbucks’ tepid growth in Missouri’s largest city.

A book co-authored by Arthur Rubinfeld, known as the “architect behind Starbucks’ expansion,” outlines the logic underlying the company’s growth strategy. With a target market comprised of “urban professionals, high-income individuals from the age of 18 to 45,” Starbucks sought to conquer the country’s major metropolitan areas. Demographic considerations, the intensity of competition, city-specific macroeconomic conditions, and a number of other factors, determined the pattern of expansion.

The areas surrounding Kansas City are home to a multitude of Starbucks coffee shops, which form something of a ring around the city itself. This same distribution is not evident in other Midwestern cities such as Saint Louis, Oklahoma City, Omaha, and Indianapolis. We can learn a lot about certain areas from the behavior of private enterprise.

My colleague Patrick Ishmael and I intend to explore this phenomenon in greater detail. We wish to better understand why Starbucks has chosen to focus disproportionately on Kansas City’s peripheral markets. As Rubinfeld’s volume makes clear, a substantial amount of research goes into determining how capital can be most profitably distributed. Accordingly, there is almost certainly a strong rationale under-girding Starbucks’ behavior in Kansas City. Perhaps further investigation can teach us some important lessons about the business climate in the City of Fountains.

Note: The green circles with white numbers simply represent areas with such a high density of Starbucks stores that individual emblems cannot be displayed. A circle with a number, n, corresponds to an area with a concentration of n stores.
Note: The green circles with white numbers simply represent areas with such a high density of Starbucks stores that individual emblems cannot be displayed. A circle with a number, n, corresponds to an area with a concentration of n stores.

TIF Reform Stalled In State Legislature

Posted on by David Stokes

There are definitely some good things happening in the Missouri Legislature. There are, as always, plenty of bad ideas, too. Unfortunately, this session appears to be missing an opportunity (again) to reform the rampant abuse of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in Missouri. There are several very good bills in the Missouri House that appear to be stalled. I would love to be wrong. I would be delighted to eat crow on this, but everything I see and hear tells me TIF reform is not getting out of the House of Representatives despite substantial support for reform from the rank-and-file of both parties.

TIF reform can be accomplished if voting from all taxing districts that the TIF affects is required, as the above linked bills propose, or if the ability for cities to override a county TIF commission is eliminated. Both would be excellent. Neither plan would eliminate TIF in Missouri, though both would heavily reduce its use, in my opinion. The overuse of TIF is empowering local governments to plan our economy, pitting city against city (willingly, too often) in a property tax base race to the bottom, increasing the use of eminent domain, and is violating tax fairness because it allows cities to decide on tax exemptions that affect all levels of government.

Of course, there are many good aspects of TIF, but our word count limit will not allow me to go into them. That is a joke. There is absolutely nothing worthwhile about how we administer TIF in Missouri. (Other states use it more wisely, mostly because they focus TIF only on property taxes and do not include sales or income/earnings taxes.)

The focus for TIF reform is on the House because it pretty clearly will pass the Senate. (Last year, a major reform bill passed 34-0 in the Senate.) I think the governor would sign a good reform bill if it makes it to his desk. I am fairly certain that a substantial majority of House members would vote in favor of reform if it makes it to the floor. I think it is imperative that key House leaders allow TIF reform to get on that floor for a vote. Otherwise, this would be a tremendous lost opportunity for important changes in Missouri.

Ray County Does Not Need Enhanced Enterprise Zones

Posted on by David Stokes

Let the citizens of Ray County beware: You may think that a nice little sprinkling of government subsidies — done through something called an Enhanced Enterprise Zone (EEZ) — will be a painless and effective way of promoting economic growth and prosperity in your county. However, EEZs and other similar mechanisms have a long and sorry history of producing poor results. This lack of success has not discouraged the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) and the Mid-American Regional Council (MARC) from actively promoting them around the state. The DED and MARC’s goal is to start as many programs as possible: whether they work is beside the point. Like gunslingers in old-fashioned Westerns, all they care about is putting more notches on their belts.

Ray County is in the process of establishing eight different EEZ districts under one county umbrella. This is a massive bet government planners make that they know what, where, and how economic growth will occur in the county over the next two decades. I have studied the results of Enterprise Zones (EZs, the very similar precursors to EEZs in Missouri) in counties that adopted large EZs in the 1980s in Missouri. The economic data shows that the counties that adopted these zones did no better than neighboring counties that did not. Government planners cannot see the future, and they should not be empowered to use tax dollars to bet on it.

The dirty little secret that the DED, MARC, and the Ray County EEZ proponents do not want you to know is that EEZ, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Transportation Development Districts (TDD), and other similar subsidies do not work. They do not succeed in growing the local economy. All this myriad of subsidies does is shrink the local tax base, encourage more government planning of the economy, and increase the chances of eminent domain abuse. As a famous Swedish economist once said, “It is not by planting trees or subsidizing tree planting in a desert created by politicians that the government can promote . . . industry, but by refraining from measures that create a desert environment.”

If you ask a DED or MARC official how effective EEZs are, they will tell you how much investment has occurred within EEZs over the past decade. Their hope is that you will assume all the investment is because of the EEZ. Their lie-by-omission is that they have no idea how much the EEZ aided that investment and how much would have occurred anyway. The consensus among economists is that special tax incentives such as EEZs matter little, and only a very small portion, if any, of investments within a zone can be credited to the subsidies. Yet government planners will happily let people assume the incentives make all the difference while hoping nobody asks any follow-up questions.

Most people would claim to oppose corporate welfare, but that is exactly what is being hoisted upon us in Missouri; one special taxing district at a time. This is all being done under the cover of fixing blight, without any real definition of what that means. But the word “blight” is not empty talk. It means many things. One thing it means is that Ray County is taking a major step toward much heavier use of taxpayer subsidies for all types of commercial activity. Once you have blighted a major portion of the county, it is but a short walk to the point where almost every development in the area has some type of subsidy. That is not a “maybe.” That is the current reality in Kansas City and Saint Louis.

Tools such as EEZs fail because politicians cannot see the future better than markets can. Ray County should focus on low taxes for all businesses, not special incentives for a few. It already has the lowest commercial property tax surcharge in the region. Ray County should trumpet that loudly. It does not need a massive implementation of Enhanced Enterprise Zones.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Public Pension Panic

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

Missouri’s public pensions are in trouble. However, you might not have known that if you just reviewed official reports. Andrew Biggs’ new policy study for the Show-Me Institute illustrates just how much the state’s public pensions are truly in the hole. According to Biggs, Missouri’s total unfunded liabilities for its five largest public pensions is nearly $54 billion. This amount is close to five times higher than the officially reported sum of $11.1 billion.

The reason for the large discrepancy between Biggs’ numbers and those of the state’s pensions is the discount rate. A discount rate is basically compound interest working in reverse. If, for instance, I owed someone $10,000 five years from now, the discount rate tells me how much I would need to invest to ensure I can make that payment. The higher the rate, the lower the amount I need to invest.

The state’s public pension plans use discount rates between 7.25-8.25 percent. This enables them to assume their current assets will be worth more in order to pay off their liabilities. Biggs uses a lower rate that better accounts for the risks inherent in a portfolio with risky assets and guaranteed liabilities.

We, as taxpayers, are responsible for these obligations. If the state does not have enough money in these pensions to make the necessary payments to beneficiaries, it will have to resort to massive tax increases and/or deep cuts to services. The first thing the state should do to prevent this from happening is shift our public pensions to a defined contribution plan. This would prevent any new liabilities from accruing and give the state breathing room so that it can deal with its existing liabilities.

Missouri’s public pensions might appear to be relatively healthy to the casual observer. However, there is something rotten in the state of Missouri. Its public pensions are seriously underfunded and changes need to be made today. We cannot afford to wait.

You Are Now Free To Move About The Country Without Subsidies

Posted on by Kacie Barnes (Galbraith)

When I hear “Branson” and “airport,” I typically think of Richard Branson (of Virgin Atlantic Airways) and how I will never be as cool as him. Not only does he frequently make all sorts of world record attempts, but more importantly, he got to appear on an episode of Friends.

But today we are talking about a different Branson. You may have heard that Saturday marked the beginning of Southwest Airlines service to Branson, Mo. There will now be daily flights to Chicago, Dallas, and Houston, and one flight a week to Orlando. This news comes on the heels of a decrease in flights to Columbia, Mo.

There is obviously a lot that contributes to the decision for an airline to begin or increase service. But it is worth noting two things. One, Branson is the only privately owned and operated commercial airport in the country. Many were skeptical that it would succeed. Industry expert Mike Boyd predicted when the airport opened that “the local population is too small, and the region’s attractions aren’t sufficient to consistently generate sufficient traffic for profitable air service.” Branson may be small, but the area has generated enough demand to keep air service over the past few years.

And, they have done it without major subsidization. This airport does not rely on taxpayers to operate (but it does receive $8 from the city for each arriving visitor). Nor does it rely on taxpayer money to attract business. Columbia ran into trouble when it offered subsidies to one airline but not the others; the others are now gone. Subsidies may help attract an airline in the short term. But Delta official Trebor Banstetter reinforced that subsidies such as revenue guarantees will not keep an airline around if the flight does not prove to be successful without that guarantee.

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