What Do You Get When More Than 70 Percent Of Voters Support Anti-TIF Candidates?

Apparently, you get a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) anyway. The Ellisville City Council appears to be going forward with a TIF plan despite the overwhelming opposition to it within the city. How can I say “overwhelming opposition”? Well, earlier this month, the two anti-TIF candidates for mayor received more than 70 percent of the total vote. Seems like strong evidence to me that the people of Ellisville do not want this tax giveaway. But city officials nevertheless are going forward with it. Last night, the TIF received preliminary approval, and it is set for final passage in another two weeks. If this passes, it would be one of the most appalling decisions by an elected body I have ever seen. “Let’s enact terrible economic policy AND ignore the will of the voters at the same time!”

The vote last night was 5-2, with the newly victorious anti-TIF mayor and one city councilmember (who also ran for mayor opposing the TIF) voting against it.

I predict the Ellisville charter rules on referendum and recall will quickly become very important in Ellisville if the TIF passes — along with Missouri TIF-related case law involving referendums from this lawsuit.

Missouri TIF Update

Tonight is the big night in Ellisville. The just-announced closure of the Best Buy in town should make the choice easier for the city to just join the county sales tax pool, as the difference between what Ellisville would get as an “A” (point-of-sale) city and a “B” (pool) city is now much closer.  It should not be used as an excuse to enter into the proposed Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Cities do not have to play this game. They have a way out – the sales tax pool.

A new Walmart is opening in Jefferson County. Yes, it got a TIF. The property taxes will now be frozen for all the other taxing districts. So, someone please explain to me how the school district is going to pay for educating the kids in the 180 new homes that are part of the project, when those homes will not be paying the necessary marginal taxes for the schools. Oh yeah, the school district will seek to raise taxes on everyone else . . .

Meanwhile, in more positive news, Florissant officials are set to vote next week on approving a development for a Walmart that is being built without a TIF. The Florissant City Council rejected a TIF last year, but the project is going forward because this particular plan makes economic sense. I commend Florissant officials for their discipline, and hope this serves as an example to cities throughout Missouri. This is a good opportunity to remind people that I have nothing against Walmart – just the subsidies that usually accompany it.

Finally, here is the Show-Me Institute’s latest study on the basic structure of TIF.

Richmond Heights: TIF Gone Bad

Richmond Heights is the latest city in Missouri to dangle Tax Increment Financing (TIF) incentives in front of hungry developers seeking taxpayer assistance. Well, not really the latest. You see, Menards and Pace Properties are just the most recent on a long list of suitors who tried to develop Hadley Township, east of Hanley Road between Dale Ave. and Bruno Ave.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Richmond Heights has been entertaining proposals since 2003. Things looked great back in 2006, when the Richmond Heights City Council found a serious suitor in Michelson Commercial Realty and Development. But three years later, Michelson still could not get the financing together even with Richmond Heights officials pledging $46.2 million in TIF. The project was scrapped and Michelson pulled out of the 86 contracts it had signed to purchase all the homes and businesses in the affected area. All told, four separate development plan proposals just like Michelson’s failed.

The (eternally) pending developments have sent the neighborhood into a state of disrepair. Richmond Heights City Manager Amy Hamilton told the Post-Dispatch prior to the City Council’s latest vote that more than 35 properties are in “poor or severely deteriorated condition, and the majority of these properties are owned by land speculators.” Hamilton blames speculators and absentee landlords for the degradation, but more likely, Hadley Township property owners are responding to the incentives the city has offered. Who would really invest significant time and money in home improvements while the city unsuccessfully plots deal after deal to snatch up their properties?

And what do Richmond Heights taxpayers get for all their trouble? With Menards, they get yet another big-box home improvement store on South Hanley Road. If the market really drives Menards, Lowe’s, and Home Depot to locate within a half mile of each other, that is great. But it should not be government’s role to plan the local economy. More importantly, however, taxpayers get to finance $19 million of Menards’ $56.1 million development and $26.6 million of Pace’s $125 million development. (Bonus!)

This really is TIF at its worst.

At Least We Are Transparent About Our Cronyism In Missouri!

The Pew Center on the States has published a review of the transparency of state tax incentive programs. Some Missouri legislators, of course, are big fans of tax credits — the Missouri government issued about $500 million last year, and during the 2011 legislative session, some legislators pushed very hard for legislation to create nearly another $400 million in tax credits.

Perhaps because these handouts consume so much of our state budget, our government does pay some attention to where the money is going. As such, Missouri ranked high as one of the states that is “leading the way” in the Pew Center’s study.

While tax credit transparency is a laudable goal, it has accomplished little. Many of our state politicians call for tax credit reform, and then support tax credit programs soon thereafter. Consider Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who made news last year when he told journalists that it was time for tax credit reform. And yet later that year, he urged legislators to pass expansive tax credit legislation.

Our state may have a somewhat transparent tax credit system, but taxpayer dollars continue to be misused. Just last week, Missouri Journal reported that Brown Shoe received $2.4 million in jobs training tax credits this year — and is laying off 132 workers. Missouri Journal has also reported that Ford Motor Co. received $1.85 million in job training tax incentives, despite plans to lay off more than 1,000 Missouri workers temporarily. This would have been surprising, if it had not happened before: Despite issuing many of its employees pink slips, Liberty Mutual remained eligible for job creation tax credits.

And, regular Show-Me Daily readers certainly are familiar with the state-level reviews of tax credits with a 2010 audit report that found that the state Department of Economic Development had inflated some job creation numbers associated with tax credit awards, and another 2010 state audit report that found that tax credits are more expensive than advertised. The Governor’s Tax Credit Review Commission report had all kinds of strong recommendations for tax credit reform, but those have, perhaps predictably, not been implemented.

I wonder, if Missouri is considered to be “leading the way,” what is going on in states that Pew considers to be “trailing behind”? It seems we have all kinds of accountability problems with our tax credit programs.  Sadly, transparency seems to have given our politicians enough information to provide tough talk about reform, but not the gumption to implement it.

More Than A Third Of Missouri Is Blighted

More than a third of the state of Missouri — 24,870 square miles — is in enhanced enterprise zones (EEZ), areas that must be declared blighted in order to be created. The enhanced enterprise zones cover an area the size of West Virginia. These zones are appealing to local governments because businesses in the area become eligible for certain state and local tax incentives. But regardless of the desirability of enhanced enterprise zones, the notion of blight has lost substantial meaning when it characterizes a third of the state.

Blight is not benign. It can lead to eminent domain abuse. As long as it is this easy to blight a property, no home or business is safe. This is the fear of CiViC, the citizen group that has arisen in Columbia, Mo., to resist the EEZ being considered there. The group fears the city’s blight declaration will lead to eminent domain abuse.

EEZs are in red (map as of 2011)
EEZs are in red (zone boundaries as of 2011)

Consider: the definition of blight for the purpose of establishing an EEZ is exactly the same as the definition of blight for statutes explicitly granting eminent domain privileges. The implication is it can be just as easy to declare blight for eminent domain as it has been to declare enhanced enterprise zones in more than a third of the state.

Clearly, it is time to reform the definition of blight and separate it from the use of eminent domain. This separation has been granted to farmland, and it should be extended to all types of property.

Beer Wars

The future of the state’s beer market potentially is about to change, and not for the better. That is, if some legislators in Jefferson City get their way. The Missouri Senate is considering Senate Bill 876, in which the main provision states that no brewer, brewer employee, nor brewer affiliates “may have any financial interest in a beer wholesaler, or serve as a director, manager, employee, or agent of a beer wholesaler.”

There is an exception for small breweries (those that produce less than 10,000 barrels a year) owning wholesalers that sell only those breweries’ beers. My question is, why is the state interfering in beer distribution in the first place? Is there a great harm that the state needs to address? Is there anti-competitive behavior occurring? I have not seen an argument being made for this bill on its merits. However, I can see a potential negative. Middlemen, such as beer distributors, succeed when they add value to the process. Such middlemen can be important components of economic organization, but that is only if they add value to the process; state officials should not mandate them into existence.

While there are some legitimate roles for the government in regulating alcohol sales (i.e., age restrictions), the provision that would be created in this proposal is not one of them. If brewery officials do not think it is to their benefit to own or have a financial interest in wholesalers, they will make that decision. However, I do not see why the state should involve itself even more in the market with a mandate for the distribution system of a certain product. SB 876 is another example of the state meddling in areas that are best left to the market.

Let’s Face It: Federal Money Being Used To Lobby Saint Louis County

I do not smoke. But I am curious about radio ads that are advocating for stronger anti-smoking laws in Saint Louis County. The ads, which come from a group called Let’s Face It, are creative – and alarming. Consider this line from one of the ads:

There are still workplaces in St. Louis County that legally allow smoking. . . . let’s truly eliminate second-hand smoke in the workplace. It’s better for all of us.

Saint Louis County recently passed an expansive anti-smoking ordinancethe law includes exemptions for bars and casinos. The owners of those establishments felt that if smoking was not permitted, they would go out of business. I attended one of the hearings when the Saint Louis County Council was considering the partial ban. Several bar and restaurant owners told officials they feared their businesses would close or they would have to lay off employees if customers were not allowed to smoke.

Well, it turns out that more than $7.5 million in federal stimulus money is funding those radio ads and advocacy efforts to eliminate exemptions. According to the Recovery.gov website, federal stimulus money has gone to Let’s Face It’s anti-exemption campaign. In its report to the federal government, Let’s Face It noted that it hopes to “place amendment on council agenda,” “remove exemptions from current ordinance,” and  “increase the number of County municipalities that enact smokefree [sic] policies that exceed the comprehensive County-wide policy. . .”

The group has also partnered with the St. Louis Rams, and ran anti-smoking advertisements during the Rams’ Dec. 18, 2011, home game. In its report to the federal government, Let’s Face It claims to have created 38.16 jobs associated with this campaign. Some of those jobs are associated with $2 million that went to Fleishman-Hillard (four jobs) and $175,000 that went to the St. Louis Cardinals (actually, no jobs are claimed to be created with the money directed to the Cardinals).

The Show-Me Institute has made the case that customers (and employees) have the freedom to choose what bars and restaurants they frequent. The argument that customers or employees are somehow trapped at a venue that allows smoking is a smokescreen, at best.

But federal funding of advocacy efforts goes even further. If the anti-second-hand smoking argument is a good one, then why aren’t private associations and nonprofits stepping up to make the case? Why does the federal government have to fund an advocacy campaign?

What is next, Fannie Mae funding an organization that advocates for land banking legislation? Or federal stimulus money being used to fund similar advocacy campaigns throughout the United States against soda?

School Choice by Mortgage

I recently accepted an offer to join the Show-Me Institute. This means my family and I will be relocating from northwest Arkansas. Among the highest priorities for my wife and me is to find our new home. With two school-age children and another on the way, the quality of local schools is of the utmost importance when making this decision. Saint Louis City has school choice available via public charter schools; the surrounding areas do not. Though we will not be living in the city, we will be expressing school choice, choice by mortgage.

We are not alone. The quality of local schools is often one of the highest considerations for home buyers. Parents want what is best for their children. My wife and I are both traditionally certified teachers, with bachelor’s degrees in education. I taught elementary school for four years in southwest Missouri. My wife has taught high school Spanish for eight years, five in Missouri and three in Arkansas. As teachers, we know the importance of a quality education. When looking for houses, our first step was to identify the best school districts, then the best schools within those districts. Unfortunately, in many of the areas with high-performing schools, we were unable to find a home that fit our search criteria within the school boundaries. Though we are a middle class family, even we have been priced out of some great schools. Our plight is really not all that bad; luckily, there are plenty of great options which we can afford.

School choice by mortgage is the current system of choice in most of Missouri and has been around for decades. Parents with the financial means can move their families to neighborhoods with good schools or they can afford private school tuition. The problem with our current system of school choice is that it leaves many parents with no options. The wealthier a family is the more choices they have, while the most disadvantaged are left with little or no choice.

When we finally buy a house, we will pay the tuition embedded in the cost of our home for the high-performing local public school, and our kids will attend the school to which they are residentially assigned. Hopefully, we will make a good decision and our children will be well served; but if they are not, what then? It seems a sad state when a decision as important as how our children are educated comes down to where we buy our home. School choice by mortgage should not be the default system of Missouri. Instead, all parents should have access to a variety of options regardless of their ZIP code; whether they are traditional public, public charter, private, or digital.

James V. Shuls is an education policy consultant for the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy, and a Doctoral Academy Fellow at the University of Arkansas.

 

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