Page 567 – Show-Me Institute

Is This The Sort Of Development Missourians Expected?

Posted on February 27, 2012May 5, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Meet Norwood Hills Country Club. In 2006, the state issued more than $1.1 million in state Historic Preservation tax credits (HPTC) to the facility.

Norwood Overview from Norwood Hills CC on Vimeo.

Norwood Hills Country Club first opened in 1922. A successful private club in north Saint Louis, it hosted the PGA Championship in 1948. In 2005, the club sought and received designation as an historic landmark in the federal government’s National Register of Historic Places. As a designated historic landmark, it was eligible for Historic Preservation tax credits from Missouri, and the state issued credits to Norwood the next year, in 2006.

Whether credits for a country club are an appropriate use of taxpayer money is a question worth considering. The Missouri Department of Economic Development administers the Historic Preservation tax credit program, so tax credits in that program are imbued with a presumption that a fundamental objective of the credit is economic growth. Indeed, entire studies have been devoted to trying to measure the HPTC’s impact in terms of jobs and growth. But does granting historic preservation credits to a private country club that markets a $1,000 entry-level membership package really promote economic growth? Is that what Missourians thought they were paying for by offering these credits?

The HPTC is often defended as a way of correcting market failures and increasing positive externalities — that is, giving an intangible boost to the standard of living of those who can see and enjoy the property. Is it likely that there was a market failure at Norwood Hills that the state had to step in and correct? And is it reasonable to believe that Missourians will really be able to enjoy the externalities promoted as a result of sending their tax dollars to a private club?

To be clear, determining whether a building is “historic” is oftentimes in the eye of the beholder. But taxpayers have ample reason to question whether the state should be granting tax credits to country clubs, not only on grounds of whether an economic development objective is really being advanced, but also whether society is really getting a “positive externality” when it subsidizes an operational private club and golf course. And certainly, sometimes buildings are properly considered “historic” by virtue of their age alone, but if the “age” of a building is enough to get an HPTC, what should be the cut-off year? 1800? 1900? 1950? 1980? The later that date gets, the more important it is that the reverse of the question is asked: how many buildings would not be considered historic under the tax credit system?

Moreover, the proximity in time between historic designation and tax credit issuance is troubling. Did Missouri issue a tax credit to preserve an historic landmark, or was an historic landmark created to access Missouri tax credits?

Lastly and more generally, what has the state foregone – what “unseen” projects and tax cuts have gone by the wayside – because the state has been putting money into projects like Norwood Hills?

policy bfast clips

Posted on February 27, 2012May 5, 2026 by Administrator

At the Show-Me Institute’s policy breakfast on Feb. 8 titled “Rich State, Poor States”, Jonathan Williams of ALEC said people are voting with their feet in this country, and moving to states that have the lowest tax burdens. . . .

“Rich States, Poor States” was the theme of the Show-Me Institute policy breakfast on Feb. 8. Show-Me Institute chief economist Joe Haslag said the data is clear. Missouri is falling behind the country.

Missouri’s Budget Shortfall: Two Legislators’ Views

Posted on February 25, 2012May 5, 2026 by Kurt Schaefer

At the Show-Me Forum in Columbia on Monday, February 6, State Senator Kurt Schaefer and State Representative Chris Kelly discussed the state of the state. Both agreed Missouri doesn’t have enough revenues. Sen. Schaefer said one area to look to make up the shortfall is state tax credits.

State Representative Chris Kelly and State Senator Kurt Schaefer discussed the state of the state at the Show-Me Forum in Columbia on Monday, February 6. Both agree Missouri doesn’t have enough revenues, but Rep. Kelly insists the shortfall shouldn’t come from education.

Putting Land To Productive Use

Posted on February 23, 2012May 5, 2026 by Greg Aubuchon

In light of the problems Saint Louis faces with respect to land utilization (see my colleague Audrey Spalding’s investigative research into the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority – LRA – and land banking), it was refreshing to wake up this morning to the news that Saint Louis has reversed course and will now allow Saint Louis University to build an ambulatory care center at the old Pevely office site at Chouteau Ave. and Grand Blvd.

The Facebook page for Save The Historic Pevely Complex references numerous prior plans to rehab the complex using historic tax credits (emphasis mine):

The Pevely Dairy complex is on the National Register of Historic Places. Under our city’s preservation ordinance, such buildings should not be demolished if they are structurally stable and have rehabilitation potential. The Pevely buildings are both, as evidenced by the numerous plans to rehab them using historic tax credits prior to SLU’s purchasing the site in August 2011.

A search of the Missouri Accountability Portal and the Show-Me Living tax credit tool, however, indicates that no development tax credits have been issued to SLU for this project. Imagine that. A new development project in Saint Louis apparently not in need of state tax credits!

As discussed in my previous post on this topic, the goals of social progress and economic growth direct our attention to the future. While a healthy respect for the past is not a bad thing, given the current state of the city’s economy, a new ambulatory care center is more important than a brick smokestack and a declining building. The sentimental value of the Pevely site and its smokestack, while endearing, pales in comparison to the value of a modern medical facility to the Saint Louis community.

So let’s continue to train our sights on the future, and leave the image of the Pevely site to scrapbook photo montages and warm reminisces.

Adios, MOSIRA?

Posted on February 21, 2012May 5, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

That is the word on the street. This morning, news broke that a Cole County circuit judge had ruled that the 2011 MOSIRA law, an incentive program passed to promote bioscience research in Missouri, was unconstitutional as written, and to the chagrin of MOSIRA supporters, it does not look like a legislative fix will be coming this year (emphasis mine):

The reason, Mayer said, is many in the Senate will demand comprehensive tax credit reform — an idea that died twice last year over difference between Republican leaders — before signing off on the fund, known as the Missouri Science and Innovation Reinvestment Act (MOSIRA).

“I don’t think the Senate can pass MOSIRA without comprehensive reforms to our state tax credits,” Mayer said. “That was true during the special session and that’s true now.”

The Senate passed the MOSIRA bill with a contingency clause that said it couldn’t go into effect unless a separate tax credit bill also won approval. Even though the House didn’t approve of the contingency clause it passed the bill anyway in the hope that it would hold up in court.

In a ruling Tuesday morning, Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green concluded that the contingency clause was unconstitutional, and because he believes it was vital for the legislation to pass and “may well have been a last-ditch attempt to garner enough votes,” the entire fund is unconstitutional.

The “separate tax credit bill” referenced here originally included the Aerotropolis credits, but when the Missouri Senate largely removed those credits from the bill, the Missouri House declined to pass the tax credit bill in any form. That decision, it appears, has sealed MOSIRA’s fate, at least for now; everyone expects that the case will be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, and there always is the possibility that Judge Green’s decision could be overruled. That said, it is very good to see legislators recognizing the gravity of the tax credit problem. Legislators should not be resurrecting the same sorts of failed tax credit ideas and tax incentive policies over and over again: abetting a tax incentive system that, particularly since the late 1970s, has grown fatter and fatter as the decades have passed.

Try something new: reduce taxes for everyone. Missouri can be more competitive, and it can start by eschewing opportunities to constantly pick and choose who benefits from the state’s largesse.

A Free Speech Win In Saint Louis

Posted on February 21, 2012May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

St. Louis resident Jim Roos, in front of the offending sign. Photo by the Institute for Justice.

Good news for Saint Louisans: That “End Eminent Domain Abuse” sign that you can see at the intersection of Hwys. 44 and 55 is here to stay. In a partial free speech victory, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a circuit court ruling that struck down portions of Saint Louis City’s sign code for violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

For those of us in the Midwest, this is great news. This means that government cannot regulate signs and murals based on their content. And, as a result, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the offending portion of the city’s zoning code may have to be rewritten.

This is also a meaningful victory for anti-eminent domain activists in Saint Louis. Jim Roos, the plaintiff (pictured above), has had more than his fair share of struggles with city government. Using eminent domain, the city took 24 different properties from Sanctuary in the Ordinary, or managed by Neighborhood Enterprises, a nonprofit that provides low-income housing that Roos founded.

In protest, Roos painted the large “End Eminent Domain Abuse” sign on another property threatened with eminent domain. As a result, the city hit Roos with a citation, and said that a permit was required. He applied for a permit, only to be denied. We wrote about this issue in 2011, in a post aptly titled, “Using Your Property to Criticize Us for Taking Your Property? You’d Better Believe That’s Illegal.”

Fortunately, Roos and the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian public interest law firm, continued to challenge the city’s zoning code, leading to the partial free speech victory today.

Those of us in the 8th Circuit (Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) can take solace in knowing that our First Amendment rights are a little more secure. However, as Michael Bindas, the Institute for Justice attorney who represents Roos, pointed out, “Unfortunately, citizens in some other federal circuits do not enjoy the same protections that Jim’s case secured.”

Hopefully this case will help give victims of eminent domain abuse the courage to stand up and complain about it. Of course, the best victory for property owners would be for laws that allow eminent domain abuse to be repealed.

You can learn more about Jim Roos and the Institute for Justice here.

Not All Ideas Are Bad Ideas

Posted on February 20, 2012May 5, 2026 by Michael Rathbone

It seems that the Show-Me Institute can be pretty hard on the state government sometimes. For that, we make no apologies (it is in fact one of our Prime Directives). However, while we may be tough, we also strive to be fair. That is why I must commend the effort currently underway in the Missouri Legislature to reform our tax structure. Senate Bill 472, sponsored by Missouri Sen. Will Kraus (R-Dist. 8), would modify various tax credit programs and require the Missouri Department of Revenue to apply any increase in revenue generated from these modifications to a decrease in the corporate income tax rate.

Some (but by no means all — Historic Preservation and Low-Income Housing are capped, but not eliminated) of the various tax credits that will be repealed include the rolling stock tax credit, the charcoal producers tax credit, and my favorite (not really), the wine and grape production tax credit. The money saved if the state abolished these tax credits would go toward offsetting revenue lost if the corporate income tax is reduced. In fact, the fiscal note for this bill states that there will probably be little to no net impact on general and total state revenue. However, I would caution that estimating the fiscal impact when it comes to tax credits is difficult, because it is difficult to determine when or if tax credits will be redeemed.

I have made the case before about why corporate income taxes should be cut (or eliminated), but I want to summarize the benefits of a lower corporate income tax. Lower corporate income taxes are fair because they apply to all corporations and not favored industries. Lower corporate income taxes also allow a company to reinvest more of its money into the company, and they can make a company more competitive compared to companies in other states, without having to resort to corporate handouts like tax credits. Combined with the elimination of some tax credits, which have a record of not being successful in generating economic development, SB 472 has potential to do some good for a state that ranks 49th in job creation.

Do Missouri Legislators Hate Snooki?

Posted on February 18, 2012May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

As a sunburn-prone person who rarely watches MTV, I am not exactly a big fan of Jersey Shore. But, I am a big fan of personal liberty, and if Snooki and her friends choose to tan themselves to an unnaturally orange hue, I will not try to stop them. After all, they are not trying to prevent me from slathering on sunscreen.

But, concerns about personal liberty do not appear to be stopping the Missouri Legislature from taking a stand against fake tans.

Missouri House Bill 1283, sponsored by Rep. Jay Barnes (R-Dist. 114), would make it a crime for anyone under the age of 15 to use a tanning bed. This legislation is not just about commercial tanning beds: The way the bill currently reads, it would be a Class C misdemeanor for a 14-year-old to use her parents’ tanning bed. If she tanned at a commercial tanning facility, the company would be subject to a $1,000 fine.

But wait. What if she has her parents’ permission to tan at a tanning facility? According to Barnes’ anti-tanning bill, her parents could be charged with a crime.

There are many things we do that are hazardous to our health, with and without our parents’ permission. The Missouri Legislature should not be preoccupied with trying to write laws to force us to do whatever they think is “right.”

NorthSide Development is Complicated, But No Validation of Land Banking

Posted on February 17, 2012May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has reported that the City of Saint Louis will be entering into an agreement to sell 1,200 parcels to NorthSide Regeneration, a company that has proposed an enormous development of the city.

Some might say that the agreement is a validation of the city’s strategy to hold property for development. But even though political points may be gained by trumpeting development before it occurs, development of these parcels has not actually happened. As one writer put it, “…until development occurs on a large portion of the land, the strategy will only have proven that after three decades, the city has found someone else to mow the yard.”

Indeed, while the prospect of selling 1,200 city-owned properties is great news for the city and its residents, this single development will not remake Saint Louis, even if successful. The city has dug itself into an incredible vacancy hole that would require almost another nine developments like the NorthSide one — just to take care of the vacant property that the Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), owns. And this proposed development took years to come about.

According to St. Louis Magazine, the NorthSide development was in the works since at least 2003, and no comparable large-scale development has taken place in Saint Louis. If we are pinning our hopes on more developments like NorthSide, we have to wait another 40 years. How much land will the city have amassed by then?

As part of the Show-Me Institute’s review of the operations of the LRA, we collected a great deal of data to see how frequently the agency was accepting and rejecting offers to buy its vacant property. We found that the LRA rejected formal offers to purchase more than 2,200 different parcels between the years 2003 and 2010. That is certainly a larger number than the 1,200 parcels being discussed as part of the NorthSide deal.

Some may be curious as to whether offers in recent years to purchase LRA property were rejected in the NorthSide footprint.

The map below shows all offers to purchase LRA property, with larger marks indicating higher-value offers. Between 2003 and 2010, offers to purchase more than 300 different properties within the NorthSide boundary were rejected.

However, to make the situation complicated, offers to purchase more than 280 properties in the area were accepted. While some offers were rejected because the agency was holding the property for “planned unified development,” others were accepted.

What I find more troubling is the city’s bad (but recently abandoned) habit of holding property off of its public for-sale list. Up until the publication of Show-Me Institute research, almost half of LRA property was not advertised for sale. This was due in part to agency staff members and area aldermen designating property as “Class C,” meaning that it was not “suitable for public or private use.” In practice, that designation made it more difficult, if not impossible in some cases, for people to purchase vacant property. Below is a map showing parcels not advertised for sale in red, with LRA parcels advertised for sale in green. The NorthSide boundary is included for reference.

We only have records for formal, written offers to purchase LRA property. It is impossible to know how many would-be buyers were discouraged from buying property in the NorthSide footprint as a result of the LRA’s practices.

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.