Coal In The Stocking

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

During this time of year, no one wants to say “Bah, Humbug!” However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the state might run into a revenue shortfall (between $400 million and $600 million) next year. That can be troublesome, but it also presents an opportunity for the state to reexamine some of its questionable spending decisions. In previous posts, I have listed some areas where the state should reconsider spending money. However, for now, I will focus on the state’s support of the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority.

The mission of MASBDA is to make “capital available to Missouri farmers, particularly independent producers; agribusiness; and small business at competitive interest rates on a scale to make a major impact.” This raises a red flag for me. An entity that makes capital available to businesses at a “competitive” interest rate sounds an awful lot like a bank to me. In fact, a couple of the programs that the MASBDA administers include: Missouri Agribusiness Revolving Loan Fund, Alternative Loan Program, and Animal Waste Treatment Loan Program. The total state funds loaned to the Animal Waste Treatment Loan Program alone is close to $500,000 ($485,333.56 for fiscal year 2011, specifically).

Is anybody uncomfortable that a part of state government is acting like a bank? Why can’t the recipients of these loans get private financing? If they are great deals, why are private banks and/or financial institutions not jumping at the chance to invest in these projects? Farms already face lower property tax burdens compared to commercial businesses (farm property has an assessment ration of 12 percent compared to commercial at 32 percent and residential at 19 percent, and the soil quality grading system sets a very low appraised value already) so why do they need ADDITIONAL help with subsidized loans?

Also, how can a government and a private enterprise compete when it comes to financing? By issuing below market interest rates to different businesses, isn’t the state undercutting private financial institutions? Even if a state department/agency/program loses money, it can acquire new financing by compulsion with increased taxes. A private organization does not have that same power to tax (although with TDDs and CIDs, we are getting there). Thus, with the ability to achieve easier financing, what real incentive is there for the state to make wise spending decisions when it comes to these loans besides avoiding grief  from dedicated bloggers such as me? Isn’t it time for the state to get out of the business of lending with YOUR money and return to the basics? Just some food for thought.

Oh Well, It Will Be A Thin Report: The Mamtek Hearings

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

A Missouri House committee heard testimony Wednesday from the soon-to-be former director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED), David Kerr.

Kerr’s testimony follows testimony from Moberly officials on Tuesday. A key point of Kerr’s testimony was that it would be a poor use of time and effort for the DED to double check the claims that every business makes when seeking incentives. Kerr said that if every business seeking incentives is treated as a criminal, fewer businesses will come to Missouri. I think that if a background check would deter a CEO with a history of passing bad checks from applying for tax credits, it might be appropriate.

There are two broad issues that legislators and the general public should consider in light of Mamtek. The first is that government officials (and others) mistakenly believe that with the right subsidy package and safeguards, they can eliminate all or nearly all of the risk associated with using public dollars to subsidize a private business. Any business can fail, due to its own negligence, or due to factors beyond its control. Public financing for a project cannot guarantee success, though it may prop up a business that otherwise would not be profitable without taxpayer money. Furthermore, as we may see in Moberly, no matter how many safeguards are used, the result may be that taxpayers are left holding the bag.

The second issue that may be at the heart of the Mamtek debacle is the fact that people and businesses will strive to get the largest benefit for the least amount of effort. That behavior has been seen in Missouri with gaming the requirements of the Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits and the general tendency of companies trying to access as many subsidy programs with a single project. It also has happened in China, where shoddy construction work on a high-speed train may have resulted in at least 39 deaths, along with corruption charges and the misuse of public funds.

As an outside observer, I don’t know whether any of those involved (Mamtek, the DED, current and former top state officials, etc.) deliberately misled anyone. There are ongoing criminal and civil investigations that may determine that.

However, the testimony that the House committee has heard so far sounds bleak, particularly the state’s investigation of the Mamtek company. The Columbia Daily Tribune posted the House committee information packet on Mamtek, and portions of it are riveting.

For example, one point of contention is whether Mamtek ever had an operating plant in China, as the company claimed in its project summary. The company wrote:

As of December 2009, Mamtek had moved from development into manufacturing and sales. We have completed both an 18-ton pilot production line and a full-scale, fully-functional [sic] 60 ton line (metric tons per annum). Each step and detail in the manufacturing and operational processes have been verified independently by the international patent firm Perkins Cole (page 27 of the House committee packet).

And then, Michael Wise, the patent attorney of Perkins Cole, a company closely affiliated with Mamtek, allegedly told the Moberly Economic Development Corporation that he had seen the plant himself, and that it had been operational for several years (page 43).

But yet, in April 2010, attorney Edward Li, a Chinese trade consultant for the Missouri Department of Agriculture, wrote to state officials to say that construction of a plant in China began in 2008, but was never completed (page 5).

Greg Havener, at the DED, wrote in an email with the subject “RE: BUILD PROJECT RUSH”  that he couldn’t find much information about Mamtek. “There is little on Google, oh well it will be a ‘thin report,’ “ he wrote (page 41). That email was sent on June 3, 2010, days before state incentives for Mamtek were approved.

Oh well, indeed. It is my prediction that while the future of Mamtek is uncertain, and while the financial future of the city of Moberly and its 13,000 residents is uncertain, the future of the DED is not.

In the private sector, if a business makes a $40 million mistake, it suffers dire consequences. For many businesses, that kind of mistake can result in bankruptcy. If no substantive reform is implemented at the DED, its operations will continue as usual. In the past, that has meant tax credits awarded to voided projects, inflated job and investment numbers, and vast amounts of taxpayer dollars going to incredibly inefficient programs.

I hope this episode will lead to major changes at the DED. If a more thorough investigation on each development package leads to fewer development handouts, that is a good thing.

High-Speed Rail in Missouri Is Snapshot of Government Delusions

Posted on by David Stokes

Did you know that the building of a high-speed rail line across central Missouri will support more than 200,000 jobs, or roughly 800 jobs for every mile of track? That is right, more than 200,000 jobs. Don’t believe me? Well, it is right there on page 21 of the Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) application for $600 million in high-speed rail federal funding for the planning and engineering phase of what eventually will be an $8 billion project: “The construction phase is estimated to support over 208,674 direct, indirect, and induced jobs.”

If you think it is ludicrous that the construction of a single rail line across central Missouri could account for 7 percent of the state’s entire labor force, well, you are correct. But absurd estimates like this are typical for high-speed rail proposals. In 2008, California voters approved bonds to support a high-speed rail proposal that was estimated to cost $43 billion. Now, before any construction has started, the cost is estimated at $98 billion. Seriously, though, what is $55 billion when you are talking about the ability to ride a fast train?

But back to MoDOT. In their defense (although this hardly qualifies as a “defense”), MoDOT officials did not put much original thought into the 208,000 jobs projection. They just applied a federal transportation department formula to the estimated $8 billion cost of the project and came out with that figure. Never mind that the formula counts the same job multiple times, assumes that every job in transportation “induces” two jobs elsewhere, and has been thoroughly discredited. What matters is that the number sounds great.

There are other outlandish claims in the same document. On page 10, we learn that Missourians will use high-speed rail to commute to work. Even though the new system will just go 110 mph at its peak (not dramatically faster than the current system); will only stop in Saint Louis, Kansas City, and perhaps Jefferson City; and a trip across the state will still take four hours at best, Missourians will apparently use it to commute to work each day.

On page 21, we get a detailed account of the supposed environmental benefits of high-speed rail, but absolutely no consideration to the environmental harms of an unnecessary $8 billion construction project. This is an example of government seeing all benefits, and no costs.

The proposed high-speed rail line will connect Chicago, Saint Louis, and Kansas City, and likely the two state capitals in between. Other than people who are terrified to fly, please find me someone in Kansas City who is going to take high-speed rail to Chicago — which will still take about 8 hours — when they can fly there on Southwest Airlines for approximately the same price in 1 hour and 20 minutes?

Megabus and similar companies are perfectly capable of serving existing inter-city travel needs without public tax dollars. Megabus will take you from Saint Louis to Kansas City in 4 1/2 hours, for $34 (often less via promotions). That $34 is less than Amtrak is likely to charge for high-speed rail service, and exists now without spending $8 billion on construction and millions more each year on subsidies. If your mission is to ensure people have safe and affordable travel options, mission accomplished. If your true mission is to spend government money in pursuit of political aims, I guess it isn’t.

High-speed rail is a high-cost luxury built to serve a demand that does not exist. Like many other large transit projects, the price for it is so high that advocates can only generate support by intentionally underestimating the cost and downplaying the future subsidies. California officials deserve credit for their more honest cost revision of $98 billion, but they are still claiming that high-speed rail will not require a subsidy once it is operating. The large majority of high-speed rail systems around the world require a subsidy, and California will not be any different. The few systems that do break even connect some of the most heavily populated parts of the world. Considering that California is intentionally starting its system by connecting Fresno and Bakersfield — some of the less-populated parts of the state — the assertion that it will break even is dizzying.

Missouri would be much better off sticking with its original plan to spend far less money making smart, engineering-based upgrades to our current passenger rail system. The market demand for high-speed rail is a myth. The private sector is perfectly capable of providing affordable and safe inter-city travel via buses. The amount of jobs high-speed rail creates is false and misleading. Saint Louis and Kansas City are not Tokyo or New York, and the $8 billion project would require enormous annual operating subsidies in the future. This proposal is a high-speed path to fiscal disaster.

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

The Not-So-Special Session: Lessons Learned From a Public Policy Viewpoint

Posted on by Andrew B. Wilson

Talk about laying an egg! Missouri lawmakers are going
home at the end of the 50-day special session of the legislature with
little to show for their exertions.

While that is not the worst of all possible outcomes, it
represents a failure of leadership on multiple levels. Missouri Gov.
Jay Nixon should not have called the session. Leaders of the
Missouri House and Senate are equally to blame. They should have
made it clear to the governor that he would be wasting their time –
and, more importantly, taxpayers’ money. In fact, they wrote a
public letter to the governor requesting that he call a special session.

Just as Missouri Sen. John T. Lamping (R-Dist. 24)
predicted at a public event at the Show-Me Institute on Tues., Oct.
4, the special session has foundered on the vain hope of a grand
compromise between two fundamentally-opposed viewpoints —
with leading figures in the Senate wanting to make major
reductions in Missouri’s sprawling and out-of-control tax credit
programs . . . and House leaders prepared to extend hundreds of
millions of dollars in new tax credits to support a “Midwest China
hub” or “Aerotropolis” at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

In Lamping’s analysis, there was never any real possibility
that Aerotropolis subsidies could win legislative approval on a
standalone basis. They were therefore tied to deep cuts in other
programs — including tax credits for low-income housing and
historic buildings, with strong support from special interests of their
own. Hence the deadlock.

What, then, are the lessons learned from this inconclusive
and not-so-special session of the legislature?

While Sen. Lamping may be right about the tactical reasons
for the impasse in the legislature, I would point to a deeper
underlying cause. Simply put, the China hub had a big credibility
problem. No one — even the supporters — seemed to believe the
extravagant promises that were made on its behalf.

St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA)
claimed that $360 million in tax credits and other subsidies for
Aerotropolis would create tens of thousands of new jobs and generate
nearly $34 billion in economic activity over a 20-year period — paying
back the original investment in taxpayers’ money more than 100 times
over.

But did anyone believe that? It is a tell-tale sign of weakness that
some of the strongest supporters of Aerotropolis subsidies framed their
arguments almost as if they were buying a ticket for Powerball. While
freely admitting to considerable skepticism about whether “Missouri can
or will pull off the China hub deal,” they insisted that it was worth taking
a shot anyway — given a huge potential payout.

President Barack Obama, it may be noted, has used similar
language in talking about placing “bets” and being prepared to “double
down” in spending on clean energy, electric cars and other politically favored
enterprises or industries.

Sorry, Gov. Nixon and Mr. President, but few taxpayers these days
like the idea of political leaders playing hunches with hundreds of
millions or even billions of tax dollars. To the contrary, more and more
people are inclined to blame excessive government spending and
interference in the marketplace for the sorry state of the economy.

Over the past few years, policy analysts at the Show-Me Institute
have cited numerous instances, in St. Louis, Kansas City and other places
around the state, where targeted tax credits have failed to produce
promised economic results. The list includes failed shopping centers, the
stalled “Ballpark Village” in downtown St. Louis, and other economic
wonders that turned sour. And this is a lengthening list as we have seen
recently with other tax-favored enterprises defaulting on debts in Moberly
(Mamtek) and in Kirksville (Wi-Fi Sensors).

When the legislature reconvenes in January, let us hope that our
lawmakers realize their own limitations when it comes to picking winners
and losers. That is a task best left to the marketplace. The government
may have a role in creating infrastructure that can be used by anyone, but
targeted tax abatements are a form of corporate welfare — favoring one
group of businesses over others.

In 2012, the governor and the legislature should conduct a
thorough reexamination of the state’s 61 different tax credit programs,
with the objective of channeling the savings from those that are
terminated to all Missourians – through permanent reductions in taxation.

Andrew Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me
Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

Making a Good System Better: Suggestions for Kansas City Government

Posted on by David Stokes

All politics, as they say, is local. But the politics in some
places (think St. Louis and St. Louis County) are much more local
than in other places that have a smaller number of elected officials
and governmental entities serving larger populations (think Kansas
City and Jackson County).

As a policy analyst who has studied local and municipal
government for many years, I know there is solid economic
evidence that having too many elected officials often leads to higher
levels of spending. On balance, therefore, I prefer the Kansas
City/Jackson County system to that of its eastern Missouri rival.

However, that is not to say that Kansas City — or any other
metro area — has devised the perfect system. The following are three
suggestions for changes to government in Kansas City and Jackson
County that I believe would benefit the citizens.


First, at-large elected officials should be truly at-large.

Both Kansas City and Jackson County should do what
Independence does, and have their at-large elected officials
represent the entire city, or county, without being expected to partly
represent districts or wards as well. There are economic studies that
demonstrate lower spending in cities with true at-large elected
officials.

Though Kansas City and Jackson County councils both elect
councilmembers at-large, those at-large officials are also designated
to represent certain areas. This mitigates one of the major benefits
of electing officials at-large, which is to avoid a situation in which
politicians compete to bring home the most pork for their districts.
For at-large officials who are truly at-large, every spending decision
presents a cost that the entire population bears.

Last year, Kansas City’s The Pitch documented how one
district’s at-large councilmembers wanted to spend more than $1
million acquiring new parkland within their district even though
(according to the Pitch) the city is having trouble maintaining the
parks it already operates.


Second, Kansas City municipalities should privatize their local
utilities.

Unlike many of parts of Missouri, most cities in the Kansas City
area have municipal water utilities. Independence even has a municipal
electric utility. The private sector is entirely capable of providing those
services to the public in a more efficient manner than local governments.
These municipal utilities should be auctioned off to private companies.
That would raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the Kansas City area.
At the same time, it would expand the property tax base by putting those
assets on the tax rolls; shrink the public-sector workforce; and relieve
fiscal pressures on local governments.


Third and finally, Kansas City should reform the manner in which
it makes tax incentive decisions such as tax increment financing (TIF).

Kansas City citizens and officials should work with state
legislatures to alter how TIF decisions are made in Kansas City. Cities
currently dominate TIF commissions, and are generally focused on their
own well-being with little thought given to schools and other independent
taxing districts. Cities can even override a TIF commission’s rejection of
a plan with a simple super-majority vote of the city council. Counties are
far better able to look at the big picture, and county officials are
responsible to all of the citizens that a TIF affects. Local TIF commissions
should be changed and the statewide rules amended so that only counties
may enact TIFs. This includes ending the ability of cities to override the
TIF commission. This change would likely result in fewer TIFs, with a
greater appreciation for their effects on the entire community when they
are enacted. In essence, Jackson County, not Missouri’s TIF capitol,
Sugar Creek, would be making tax decisions that affect all of Jackson
County.

The Kansas City region has generally chosen a government system
with fewer elected officials and larger, more efficient governments. That
system has served the area well, but these changes could make it even
more cost-effective and responsible to the citizens.


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

A Streetcar Too Far: Vanity Rail Lines Are a Waste of Kansas City Tax Dollars

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The first line of The Associated Press article said it all: “The trolley
is making a comeback.”

Sure, the article conceded, trolleys had been falling out of favor
with the public for years, but “[n]ow gas prices, air pollutants and
spiffy promotional campaigns are making people more aware of the
trolley as mass transit.” One trolley company even said that at least
10 cities were “studying or planning or requesting funding for new
light rail vehicles.” On that list: Kansas City.

Sounds like trolleys are the fresh, happening thing these days when
it comes to municipal development, except for one important thing:
The article quoted here is from 1975. As long-time residents can tell
you, Kansas City does not have a streetcar today, and it’s hard to
argue that streetcars made a substantive “comeback” in the 1970s,
or since.

But will Kansas City soon bring streetcars back to its Main Street?

Maybe, if the city has its way. Last month, the Parking and
Transportation Commission and the Kansas City Council approved
a plan to install $100 million worth of trolley lines following a 2-
mile route running from the River Market to Crown Center.

That’s $50 million per mile; a ludicrous expense, and that’s in the
context of a city that has seen its share of ridiculous rail proposals
over the years.

Indeed, the idea of bringing rail lines in one form or another has
been kicked around exhaustively for the last two decades, and there
are, in fact, two competing passenger rail proposals in Kansas City:
the Main Street trolley and, no joke, yet another $1 billion-plus rail
project that perpetual rail proponent Clay Chastain has proposed.

But even Chastain, the name and face behind KC rail for years, won’t
rally behind a trolley project.

“You’re not going to take a streetcar to the airport,” Chastain told The
Kansas City Star. “This is not the major response we need to build a
world-class transit system.”

When Clay Chastain says your project is impractical, it just might be
impractical.

Missing in all of the streetcar talk is any substantive discussion of why
these projects are necessary, or even desirable, especially in today’s
economic circumstances. Kansas City and other cities removed their
trolley lines decades ago in no small part because trolleys were
impractical for their times, and the impracticality problems of trolleys
remain to this day. The Parking and Transportation Commission’s own
report puts the expense of trolleys at five times what a comparable bus
costs, and that’s assuming there are no cost overruns in the trolley line’s
construction.

But let’s break this municipal issue down to its most salient and important
question: Is a trolley project really the best use of already-depleted
taxpayer dollars? The money Kansas City would spend on these projects
couldn’t be spent on other pressing municipal matters. What would the
city forgo if it rebuilds rail lines that were torn out long ago?

In this economy, Kansas City needs… trolleys?

Really?


Patrick Ishmael is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which
promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

The Job-Killing Effect of the ‘Do Something’ Mentality

Posted on by Andrew B. Wilson

The big news last week was a dismal national jobs report.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, there was zero job
creation in August. But hang onto your hats. This week, the call will
go out for “bold” and “innovative” counter-offensives on the jobs
front at both the state and national levels.
The real question is whether either of the proposed
government-funded and government-led counter-offensives stands
any real chance of success.

With the state legislature meeting in a special session this
week, lawmakers from both parties are prepared to argue in favoring
of extending $360 million in proposed tax credits to support the
creation of a “Midwest China hub” or “Aerotropolis” at Lambert-St.
Louis International Airport. Based on previous comments, some of
them will admit to a large degree of skepticism about the possibility
that Lambert will evolve into a major cargo hub, but they will go on
to say it is still worth taking a shot at making it happen — given a
huge potential payoff in jobs and increased economic activity.

And on Thursday evening, President Barack Obama will no
doubt echo some of the same sentiments when he addresses a joint
session of Congress on the subject of job creation. We can’t afford to
stand around and “do nothing,” he or his supporters will suggest.
But there is nothing in the history of our state or nation that
suggests government intervention in the marketplace is an effective
tool for job creation. Indeed, when governments use taxpayers’
money in trying to pick economic winners and losers, they almost
invariably pick losers and compound failure.

Milton Friedman, the great economist, observed that people
have every incentive to economize and to get as much value as they
can for each dollar they spend when they are shopping for
themselves, but they are far more likely to be careless or wasteful
when they are spending someone else’s money for the benefit of
others. This is the case when you use an expense account to pay for
someone else’s lunch.

It is also the case when politicians or lawmakers pretend to have the
needed knowledge and expertise to channel a large sum of taxpayers’ money
to selected businesses or industries on the theory that these politically favored
and politically-dependent enterprises will do a bang-up job of
promoting the public good.

Politicians often argue that even one job created through tax credits or
subsidies is better than none. But this ignores the opportunity cost of
expending large amounts of taxpayers’ dollars for little economic benefit. If
the government takes a million dollars to create one job, that’s a million
dollars that could have gone to more efficient and productive ventures in the
private sector — creating stronger and better jobs for more people.

If Missouri lawmakers have some $360 million to spare and want to
put it to good use, they should return the money to all of the citizens of this
state through tax cuts or refunds. As Friedman pointed out, they will know
how to get the most bang for the buck.

The federal government should heed the same advice when it comes
to making a choice between expanded public works or reducing taxation,
leaving people free to choose how to spend a greater share of their own
income.


Andrew B. Wilson is a fellow at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market
solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

Occupation as Aggression – And Public Theater

Posted on by Andrew B. Wilson

What does it mean to ‘occupy Wall Street,’ “occupy KC,” or occupy any one of dozens of other cities.

Plainly, it is more than the exercise of peaceful assembly and free speech. The protesters have had almost two months to express their complaints about corporate greed, income inequalities, and the whole notion that life isn’t nearly as fair as it ought to be. What more can they possibly say that they haven’t already said (however obtusely) a hundred times?

In the root sense of the word, to ‘occupy’ a place is to seize it from someone else. In just that sense, the Soviet Union ‘occupied’ Poland in September of 1939.

In the public theater going on in our cities today, the occupiers lay claim to the ground that they occupy — chanting “Whose Streets? Our Streets” and refusing to leave, regardless of city ordinances forbidding the pitching of tents in public places and regardless of the entreaties of elected officials asking them to leave.

According to their argument, the occupiers have reclaimed public space for the “99%” — meaning everyone outside the tiny group of people (the richest “1 percent”) who supposedly control almost all wealth and power. Of course, it is preposterous for the protesters to claim that they speak for 99% of the country — or, indeed, for anyone other than themselves.

Nevertheless, in cities across the country, mayors and other public officials have gone along with this fiction and bent over backwards in trying to accommodate the occupiers.

That was the case in my home city of Saint Louis, where 60 or so protesters were camped at Kiener Plaza, two blocks away from the city’s baseball stadium. At first, Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay, a Democrat, went out of his way to welcome the “Occupy residents,” as he called them. He offered the occupiers a free permit to gather at the plaza and openly expressed his willingness to overlook the violation of various city ordinances.

Said the mayor in a blog post on Nov. 4:

During the weeks it has been camped here, Occupy St. Louis has had the opportunity to make its points heard during some very high profile events, including a presidential visit (on Oct. 5) and the World Series.

I emphatically disagree with those who say that allowing the encampment to remain during those events showed St. Louis in a bad light . . . Moving the Occupy residents simply to deny them a chance to tell their story to a large audience would have been wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.

But with the Christmas season drawing near (a big event at Kiener Plaza), the mayor wearied of the street theater. He announced that he would put an end to the occupation — promising only to give the group 24 hours’ notice before police would be called. In response, the Occupy St. Louis group accused the mayor of bending to the will of corporate leaders — the dreaded 1 percent. At a meeting with the mayor’s staff, occupiers expressed their outrage by showing up with money taped to their mouths.

The drama ended in the early morning hours of Nov. 12. That is when Saint Louis police arrested 27 remaining protesters and cleared the plaza of tents and signage.

If any moral may be drawn from the “big-hearted” mayor’s falling out with those he so recently lauded as having “important things to say about the direction of the country,” it is this: You can please professional agitators and self-proclaimed victims some of the time, but you will never be able to please them all of the time.

In truth, the protesters in Saint Louis and other cities have no claim to special treatment in the use of parks and other public places — apart from their willingness to flout the law.

The violation of city ordinances may sound like no big thing — against the immensity of the First Amendment guarantees of free assembly and free speech.

But no one ever denied free speech to the protesters. It is they who put the liberty of others in jeopardy. City ordinances that prohibit the pitching of tents in public places ensure that no one group can seize these places and deny or inhibit others in the use and enjoyment of the same space.

In other places around the country, city officials should follow the Saint Louis mayor’s example: They should strike the tents and stop coddling the occupiers.

Andrew Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

Public Parks Problem, Part 2

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

I want to keep our loyal readers informed on the latest developments regarding the Saint Louis County park budget issue. David Stokes, a Show-Me Institute policy analyst, gave a great rundown about Saint Louis County officials considering closing some county parks because of budget problems. Apparently, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is offering assistance to the county in managing some parks:

Nixon said that he had offered assistance to [Saint Louis County Executive Charlie] Dooley. In particular, the governor mentioned Lone Elk Park, which is adjacent to Castlewood State Park. Nixon said such a state-county operation there would save money.

Lone Elk Park is adjacent to Castlewood State Park and a previous article states that the county was considering transferring Lone Elk Park to the Missouri Department of Conservation. The governor claims that a shared management operation would save money. I haven’t seen any data to support this claim, but IF it is true, then the idea can be viewed as having some merit.

However, it seems odd that in this article, the topic of privatization was barely mentioned, except in this brief statement:

[Saint Louis County Chief Operating Officer Garry] Earls initially said that some of the parks, including Lone Elk, could be sold. However, Dooley dismissed that possibility at a special budget meeting Tuesday night.

Prudence would suggest that the county not dismiss privatization (or ANY potential solution) out of hand. Shouldn’t the county consider privatization as a possible course of action before sharing park management with the state? If there ARE obstacles to privatization, what are they? The only obstacle I could find is in this piece of information from the Southeast Missourian:

Officials said deed restrictions and covenants would prohibit the sale of most of the parks to private individuals.

However, Lone Elk Park does NOT have a deed restriction on its sale so the above restriction would not be applicable. Are there any other reasons the county would not consider privatization of Lone Elk Park?

As David mentioned in his post, the Reason Foundation has done a good analysis of park privatization, and the conservancy model of non-profit, public-private partnerships operating a park has been tried successfully in Tower Grove Park. County officials have not given a reason why following the Tower Grove example would be a bad idea, and unless there is a deterioration of Tower Grove’s situation, shouldn’t Saint Louis County investigate privatization of Lone Elk Park if a private operator can be found to manage it?

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