Page 569 – Show-Me Institute

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 Of course, the best victory for property owners would be for laws that allow eminent domain abuse to be repealed.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.

A Rebirth for Saint Louis? and When “Smart Growth” Isn’t

Posted on February 15, 2012May 5, 2026 by Wendell Cox

Saint Louis has been buffeted by some tough economic times over the past few years, but internationally known demographer and area resident Wendell Cox says better times may be on the way. The lack of excessive planning and regulation has kept housing affordable in Saint Louis, and that, Cox says, may trigger the area’s rebirth.

When it comes to housing, Saint Louis is one of the most affordable areas in the country. And that, says demographer and economist Wendell Cox, is why Saint Louis is poised to recover its competitiveness…as long as area planners stay away from so-called “smart growth” policies and too much regulation.

Why Does Kansas City Need a Land Bank?

Posted on February 15, 2012May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

The failed Citadel Development in Kansas City. What would such a development spearheaded by a land bank look like? Photo by Josh Smith.

On Feb. 8, I testified in Jefferson City before legislators who are considering a bill to create a land bank in Kansas City. I was there to talk about the track record of a land bank that we already have in Missouri. You may know it as the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). According to our research, the LRA has frequently rejected offers to buy vacant city property, and has practices that seem to invite political favoritism.

The bill being considered, House Bill 1659, would grant a Kansas City land bank the powers that the LRA currently enjoys, and more. I wonder why Kansas City needs a land bank, given the lack of successes that we have seen in Saint Louis. In fact, there already is a government entity that deals with vacant land in Kansas City. The Jackson County Land Trust currently takes ownership of tax-delinquent properties that fail to sell at tax auction, and works to sell them.

It may seem confusing, but the actions of a land trust can be drastically different than those of a land bank. A land trust generally does not attempt to acquire property for development nor does it take an active role in deciding what the best use of the property might be. A land bank can do both of those things.

As we have seen in Saint Louis and elsewhere, city government can do a very poor job when it comes to identifying successful future developments. The LRA is an example, as is Ballpark Village in Saint Louis. The failed Citadel Development in Kansas City (pictured above) provides perhaps the starkest, most recent example.

HB 1659 would require that all property the Jackson County Land Trust holds within Kansas City be transferred to the Kansas City Land Bank. During the House hearing of HB 1659, the bill’s co-sponsor, Missouri Rep. Michael Brown (D-Dist. 50), stated that this legislation would only involve property for which there are “plans.” Does Kansas City really have plans for all 2,800 parcels within its boundaries that the Land Trust currently holds?

Brown also noted that the Jackson County Land Trust is having difficulty returning property to private, productive use. Yet, in August 2003, the Kansas City Star reported that, since 2001, the Jackson County Land Trust had sold more than 1,100 properties for more than $1 million. This is a faster rate of sale than what we have seen in Saint Louis.

The land trust owns approximately 3,200 parcels, with approximately 2,800 in Kansas City. According to the last state audit that examined the Land Trust’s operations, the trust held 3,087 parcels in August 1999. By comparing that number to the land trust’s current holdings, it appears that, in the course of selling and acquiring properties by default, the land trust has added just a little more than 140 parcels to its inventory during the past decade.

For comparison purposes, the LRA has added more than 800 parcels to its inventory. The LRA has acquired about six times as much property as the Jackson County Land Trust, and from a parcel base less than half the size of Jackson County.

What evidence is there that the Land Trust is doing a poor job of getting property back into private ownership? It appears, purely from a numbers perspective, that the Land Trust has done an adequate job of selling property. And yet, based on our review of the past eight years of its operation, the Saint Louis LRA has struggled – due to political and structural issues – to get vacant property back into private, productive use.

Shouldn’t the Missouri Legislature require evidence showing that the Jackson County Land Trust is inadequate and that creating a land bank is in the best interests of state taxpayers and Kansas City residents before passing HB 1659?

Rep. Brown stated during the hearing that “We don’t know all the wonderful things that could happen with this land bank.” Perhaps we do have a glimpse, thanks to Saint Louis, of the failures that could occur.

Lower Housing Costs, Less Urban Planning, and the Positives of 90 Municipalities in Saint Louis County

Posted on February 15, 2012May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

The Show-Me Institute is proud to release a new policy study by Wendell Cox, one of America’s foremost demographers and a leading voice against government land use regulations. In the new study, Cox focuses on how Saint Louis can position itself for future growth by maximizing two of its assets – a low cost of living and low housing prices. One way to keep housing and living costs low is to refuse to implement the types of urban planning strategies many planners would like us to enact: “smart growth” policies like urban growth boundaries and higher density zoning mandates. The lack of those requirements in the Saint Louis area is one thing that has kept our cost of living low. On the other hand, the enactment of such things on the coasts, particularly the West Coast, is one of the reasons a substantial number of people are leaving California. Those land use rules put the price of housing and the cost of living beyond the reach of many people.

People in the Saint Louis area often talk about the problems associated with so many different governments and so many types. Those problems are real, but there are positive aspects of having a large number of small governments, too. One of the best aspects of having a high number of smaller governments (such as the 90 different municipalities in Saint Louis County) is the inability to enact comprehensive planning in the area. Government-directed urban planning is too often just an excuse for others to tell you how to live. We do not need growth boundaries in Saint Louis. We do not need higher density zoning (which should be allowed, of course, if that is what people want; it just should not be mandated by government). We do not need excessive impact fees for construction. We do not need — and more importantly, do not have — any number of other examples of land use rules governing our lives. What does that lack of mandated planning give us? More freedom and lower housing costs; two wonderful things.

Wendell Cox is uniquely qualified to comment on the affairs of Saint Louis. While his writings and lectures are international in scope, he resides in the Saint Louis area. The Show-Me Institute is excited to have him writing for us, and you can view his full policy study here. You can also enjoy a conversation between Wendell and Rick Edlund, Show-Me Institute’s director of communications, here.

Donnybrook: Audrey Spalding Once Again on KETC

Posted on February 14, 2012May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Audrey Spalding returned to Saint Louis local roundtable discussion show Donnybrook on February 9, 2012. Among the topics covered this time were: Missouri’s recent and expensive “beauty contest” presidential primary, the federal-level employer contraception mandate, potentially eliminating Missouri’s income tax, and Kansas City’s proposed new land bank.

Click here to watch the video of the event.

Privatization of Parking Meter Collecting was Worthwhile Change for Saint Louis

Posted on February 14, 2012May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

Saint Louis Alderman Fred Wessels has filed a lawsuit regarding Saint Louis City Treasurer Larry Williams’ privatization of the city’s parking meter operations. One may certainly wonder if this lawsuit is political? Mr. Williams made the change to privatize the parking meter collections three years ago and the lawsuit was just filed now, two months before the two men (and several others) face off in an election for the city treasurer position.

There are some public services that should never be privatized, some that should always be privatized, and some that depend on certain factors. Parking enforcement is in the “always” category. Contracting out the enforcement of parking meters is something that the private sector can easily do, and should do. There is no reason parking enforcement jobs should be on the public dime, with the benefits, pensions, etc., that are included in government jobs. Mr. Williams deserves a great deal of credit for making this change and reducing the political imprint of his office to save taxpayer dollars. If Alderman Wessels was really so offended by the manner in which the privatization occurred, I think he should have contested the move long ago.

The Reason Foundation has done some excellent work on all types of parking privatization. To be clear, Mr. Williams has not gone nearly as far with this privatization effort as Chicago did – where the entire city street parking operations were contracted out. All Williams did was contract out the collection of money from meters – the city still controls the rates, meter placement, etc. I do not support privatization law enforcement functions, but meter enforcement is hardly that. I view meter collection as a support service to law enforcement, like the mechanics who work on the police cars or the clerks who manage the department documents. You do not need a police officer to do it, and you do not need a government employee to do it.

Now, if Mr. Wessels wants something to legitimately criticize Mr. Williams for, how about the dearth of readily available data on the city treasurer’s office? This post would have been a longer and more detailed defense of the city treasurer’s privatization effort if I had easy access to the budget data from the office. (This is a blog post, not a policy study, so I do not have the time to gather data which should be up on the city website.) The city’s budget division only has very cursory information available on the treasurer’s office and the parking meter fund. So, whomever among the five candidates for the office wins in April, I hope they improve the available information for the office.

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.