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?

Truth in Tax Credit Advertising?

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

The St. Louis Business Journal reported that Post Holdings Inc. (the cereal company) would get millions in state and local tax incentives. The company could get up to $3.8 million in Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits, and another $20 million from the city of Saint Louis.

Look, we all know that tax credits have a bad track record of success. Quality Jobs tax credits are especially infamous in Saint Louis, because of Liberty Mutual. The company sent pink slips to many of its employees, and told those employees that they could apply for lower-paying jobs.  Surprisingly, the Missouri Department of Economic Development said that Liberty Mutual remained eligible for the tax credits.

Of course, Quality Jobs tax credits are supposed to go toward creating high-paying jobs.

But today, I’d like to commend the creative designer who created the Business Journal graphic below. At first, it may seem like an ordinary cereal box. But, instead of the usual commercial claims, this cereal box proclaims that it is “Packed with $20 million in industrial revenue bonds,” and “INSIDE: $3.8 million in tax credits.”

I only wish that the designer had incorporated some fine print. Perhaps: “Job creation numbers have not been verified. Up to $20 million in bonds may be used for the project, which may not be good for the city of Saint Louis’ financial health.”

Graphic by the St. Louis Business Journal.
Graphic by the St. Louis Business Journal.

Special Interests Inhibiting Joplin’s Recovery?

Posted on by Greg Aubuchon

Remember the May 22 tornado that ripped through Joplin? There were 161 people killed and more than 7,000 residences destroyed.  The Associated Press has reported a 17-fold increase in building permits for the city of Joplin since the tornado:

The city has issued an average of $35.4 million in permits per month since the tornado. Before the tornado, the city averaged just over $2.1 million a month in building permits.

Despite this evidence of a robust private market, the Missouri Housing Development Commission has:

. . . committed about $100 million in tax credits and loans over the coming decade to spark the construction of low-to-moderate income rental units and single-family, owner-occupied homes in the Joplin area.

At least two issues come to mind. First, are taxpayer-funded tax credits necessary to rebuild Joplin? After all, human history proves that individuals and private markets are more than capable of rebuilding housing and infrastructure following natural disasters. Second, even if one were to concede the efficacy of public subsidies, there is no doubt in my mind that public dollars, once committed to disaster relief, must be spent on behalf of the public in an efficient and responsible manner. That leads to the crux of the matter.

The housing commission will require contractors, as a condition of receiving rebuilding tax credits, to pay the federal prevailing wage to their construction workers. And the controlling federal pay scale for occupations has quadrupled in some cases, as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

[A] Sept. 30 revision of the federal wage rules significantly increased those amounts. For example, the federal prevailing wage for a carpenter in the Joplin area rose from $7.98 an hour to $21.47 an hour plus $12.65 in benefits. The federal prevailing wage for a roofer in the Joplin area rose from $7.25 an hour, which matches the general federal minimum wage, to $21.30 an hour plus $8.08 in benefits.

So what is the purpose of the tax credits? If it is to get the most bang for the buck in providing critical assistance to low- and middle-income residents, efficiency requires waiving the wage standard for this project. The $100 million only goes so far, and artificially elevated wages means fewer homes built under the tax credit program. On the other hand, the tax credits and prevailing wage changes may have mixed purposes, not all of which seek what truly is best for the displaced and less fortunate in Joplin.

Is Missouri Ready For Tolls?

Posted on by David Stokes

This Missouri News Horizon story has some updated information on the Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) proposal to institute tolling on I-70. The story has some good information about the plan; a plan that I enthusiastically support. I think this is an excellent plan from MoDOT.

MoDOT officials state that in order to pay to rebuild I-70 using gas taxes (and I have nothing against gas taxes; I just prefer tolls where feasible), they would have to impose a 15-cent per gallon state gas tax hike. I am going to do a follow-up post next week on costs after I have time to work through the numbers, but for now, realize that everyone in Missouri would pay that same extra 15 cents, including people who rarely use highways, particularly I-70. People in Kennett would pay the same as people in Kingdom City. People who drive primarily on local roads (paid for with local property and sales taxes as well as gas taxes) would pay the same as people who drive predominantly on highways (which gas taxes pay for almost entirely).

The Show-Me Institute released a terrific study on private financing of highways back in November 2008. The study was done by “distinguished urban economist” (Freakonomics’ words, not mine) Kenneth Small. It may be my favorite paper that we have released, and it has something important to say about this exchange in the hearing with MoDOT yesterday:

Committee chair, Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, said he was concerned that motorists may try to avoid I-70 if it became a toll road, pushing traffic onto smaller roads, such as Highway 36 and Highway 50.

Keith said the concern was valid, but it would be up to the toll road operator to make sure tolls aren’t excessive.

The concern about traffic being pushed onto other roads because of high tolls is legitimate. Prof. Small states on page 23 of the study: 

The best results occur when the objective for awarding the franchise takes into account a combination of all three forms of payment by users and taxpayers: their own costs of congestion, toll payments, and the subsidy required. This is a highly stylized model not suited for designing a franchise for a specific road, but it does highlight the importance of considering not only toll payments and subsidies but also congestion costs incurred by users of both roads. 

In the simplest terms, the eventual toll rate need not be 100 percent of cost or 0 percent of cost. It may be desirable to continue some subsidy of I-70 through gas taxes to keep the toll rate low enough to maximize use of I-70 and limit spillover traffic. The fact that I-70 is a major, heavily-traveled road means that such a subsidy would likely be small, and it is entirely possible that a toll rate can be set that covers all costs and return on investment and requires no subsidy. That is my hope, but if a small subsidy going forward means that the new I-70 would reach its uncongested capacity (the toll should be set high enough to discourage congestion), and thereby limit the unnecessary usage of alternate roads and the costs that could be incurred in that situation, then I do not see anything wrong with a limited subsidy of a toll road.

I have one minor critisicm of the proposal. I do not think this should be required:

After the project is complete, the contractors would operate the toll plazas for a period of years until the contractor’s investment has been repaid.

I say just toll it now and forever. After the investment is repaid, there will still be maintenance costs. It may be reasonable to require that the toll be lowered at that point in time (when the debt is gone and MoDOT faces just upkeep), but doing away with toll at that point is not necessary, in my opinion. However, that point is minor, and I think MoDOT deserves great credit for this proposal.

Good Faith – Bad Result

Posted on by Greg Aubuchon

The Missouri Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in American Federation of Teachers v. Ledbetter. At issue is whether a public school district has a legal “duty” to collectively bargain in “good faith” with a teachers’ union. Currently, districts typically recognize and meet with their teachers’ designated representative, but are under no legal obligation to agree to specific proposals that the union proffers.

In its opinion leading to the supreme court hearing, the intermediate court of appeals noted the following:

. . . no Missouri court has expressly interpreted Article I, section 29 [of the Missouri Constitution] to contain a duty of good faith . . .

If the Court, in a fit of judicial activism, writes a “duty to bargain in good faith” standard into the state constitution, school districts, once vested with substantial discretion from the legislature to manage their affairs, will suffer tremendously. For example, rejections of union proposals will now spawn threats of lawsuits. Districts will hire attorneys to assess the liability risks of decisions once left to the discretion of the districts’ officials. Good faith, in this context, is an invitation to litigate. And litigation diverts scarce resources and money from the districts’ core mission: to educate our children.

Interestingly, the Missouri Legislature has rejected five attempts to statutorily adopt a good faith standard (see footnote 4 in court’s decision). Haven’t the people spoken through their elected representatives? The Court should heed this message and reject a duty to bargain in good faith standard for Missouri’s public school districts.

High-Speed Rail Supporters Are Just Making Things Up

Posted on by David Stokes

Over at the St. Louis Beacon, high-speed spending (and rail) enthusiast Rick Harnish is just flat-out misleading people to get his beloved waste-of-money concept going. Throughout the article, he keeps referring to trips between Saint Louis and Chicago taking 3, or perhaps down to 2, hours.

But the core of it is getting major cities within two or three hours of each other. So, St. Louis to Chicago within three hours — with completely new infrastructure the entire way, it’s possible you get it down under two.

But you know what? The entire project currently underway in Illinois is based on implementing a 4-hour trip each way (at best). We are spending billions to knock a little more than an hour off of the current Amtrak route, and supporters of it are intentionally downplaying that.

Later in the interview, Harnish gives a great little aside downplaying safety of cars and claiming, by insinuation, that trains are safer.

. . . if you believe that our strength and unique identity is tied to the ability to risk your life everyday in a car . . .

OK, so we risk our lives everyday in a car. Would we not risk them in a train? Now, I am not saying passenger trains are unsafe — they are indeed safe. But if you compare them to cars, there are more fatalities on passenger rail than in motor vehicles per passenger mile. According to the latest data, passenger cars have 0.9 fatalities and 83 injuries per 100 million passenger miles. Passenger rail has 2.9 fatalities and 1,226 injuries per 100 million passenger miles. So they are both safe, but let’s not pretend passenger rail is safer.

High-speed rail is to transportation policy what ethanol is to agriculture policy. They are both high-cost jokes designed to please limited constituent groups (corn farmers, unions, Keynesian economists) which would not exist if markets made these choices instead of politicians. (High-speed rail on the eastern seaboard may pass the market test, and thanks to John Combest for the link.)

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