A Starry-Eyed Proposal To Rescue an Airport and Revitalize a Region

In 1998, the airport authority in St. Louis approved the construction of a third runway at its 70-year-old airfield (the first municipally-owned airport in the United States) – knowing that this would require the demolition of nearly 2,000 homes and the displacement of 5,000 people. The planners expected to reap large rewards in reduced flight delays and increased traffic that would offset the high cost of acquiring land and compensating home-owners.

To say that things have not gone according to plan at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport is a considerable understatement. During the 1980s and 90s, Lambert ranked as the nation’s ninth or tenth busiest airport. Today it is no longer among the top 30. Since the year 2000, it has experienced a 60 percent decline in enplanements. Lambert also went from debt-free to being saddled with $877 million in long-term debt when the third runway opened for public use in 2006.

Because of the adverse combination of reduced traffic and heavy debt (now equal to seven times annual revenues), Lambert has been forced to raise its landing fees to more than double or even quadruple those of competing airports, and that, in turn, has caused a number of carriers to vote with their wings in shunning the airport.

The third runway is seldom used. It isn’t needed at today’s traffic levels (less than one third of what the airport’s planners were anticipating), and remaining airlines avoid using it unless forced to do so by bad weather (the two pre-existing runways are too close together to permit simultaneous instrument landings) because it is farther away from passenger terminals. Even the “International” in airport’s formal name has become a misnomer, as St. Louis has the unenviable distinction of being the biggest metropolitan area in the nation with no direct scheduled air service outside of North America.

All of which has led to an improbable question as political and civic leaders in the St. Louis region ponder the future: Can the self-styled “Gateway to the (American) West” reinvent itself a futuristic, airport-centered Gateway to the Far East?

Joined by the Saint Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA), political leaders in St. Louis City and County have appealed to the state of Missouri for assistance in boosting the ailing airport. That is to be expected. What is remarkable, however, is the broad bipartisan support that has emerged at the state level for a hastily conceived plan – described by RCGA and others as “The Big Idea” – aimed at inducing the Chinese government and world air carriers to establish a major air cargo hub at the under-utilized Lambert-St. Louis airport.

The proposed legislation would dole out $360 million of state tax credits for the purpose of creating a “China Hub” or “Aerotropolis” at Lambert. And that in itself is a tell-tale sign of an“investment opportunity” that is an accident waiting to happen. As we have argued in number of commentaries, targeted tax credits are very similar to “earmarks” – narrow public subsidies handed out to powerful special interests. We have shown that several of the likely applicants for Aerotropolis tax credits are warehouse and real estate developers already eligible to receive millions of dollars of state and local tax incentives.

In truth, for all that it has been touted as the “Big Idea,” the Aerotropolis plan seems to consist of little more than a hope and a prayer, accompanied by a good deal of political grandstanding with unrealistic projections of massive job growth and economic stimulus. The RCGA produced an eight-page statement making the claim that $300 million in public incentives for the Aerotropolis – to facilitate the construction of new warehousing space – would pay for itself more than 100 times over in just two decades – leading to $34 billion in private economic activity. Saying little about the methodology that was used, the organization cited a single computer forecasting model to support this extraordinary claim.

Neither the RCGA nor any other organization has produced a detailed feasibility study. No one supporting the Aerotropolis has produced evidence that Chinese authorities and major carriers are contractually or otherwise committed to turning Lambert into a major air cargo hub – provided that the airport is able to meet certain conditions in the provision of additional warehousing space and other facilities. In fact, we have shown that St. Louis already has acres and acres of surplus warehousing space in the immediate vicinity of the airport – enough, according to Michael Webber, an international air cargo consultant, to provide for the projected traffic of eight weekly freighters cited by Aerotropolis supporters.

So where is the evidence that massive tax credits are the magic ingredient needed to turn St. Louis into one of principal caravansaries along the aerial Silk Road of the future – connecting China and other Asian nations to the American Midwest, with onward connections for air cargo to other parts of the world as well?

There is none that we found in months of diligent searching. Instead, proponents rally support by making it sound as though other airports – in Detroit, Chicago, Cincinnati, Indianapolis or other cities – will seize the gold ring for themselves if the city and state fail to take preemptive action. It’s the old argument – Build it and they will come.

At the Show-Me Institute, we have cited numerous instances, both in the St. Louis region and around the state, where targeted tax credits have failed to produce promised economic results. The list includes failed shopping centers, a stalled “Ballpark Village” in downtown St. Louis, and other supposed economic wonders that have turned sour.

Meanwhile, the cost of this misguided corporate welfare has mounted. Over the past 12 years, tax credit redemptions in the state of Missouri have quintupled – growing from $103 million to $522 million per year. Every time our lawmakers pass out more “gifts” to some businesses, they are forced to dig deeper into the pockets of other taxpayers – both businesses and individuals.

That is not fair. And it is not smart public policy either.

More than a decade ago, Lambert-St. Louis International Airport rolled the dice on an ill-advised gamble on future growth that wasn’t there. Let’s hope it’s not about to repeat the same mistake.

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

Shockingly, Volunteers Not Happy With City Management of KC Animal Shelter Either!

Now that the city has taken over the operation of the Kansas City animal shelter, from a private operator who was failing miserably, and is saving money and increasing pet adoptions, how do the dedicated volunteers think the city is doing?

Not so well.  As I wrote here on March 15:

I have suspicions from reading these articles that there is a core group of animal rights activists involved who will never be satisfied until they get a no-kill shelter, either publicly- or privately-operated — no matter how well it is run.

Sure enough, at the end of the interview in this news story on the KC animal shelter, one of the volunteers (who the city told not to return after she complained about the quality of treatment at the shelter) states that she hopes the city moves in a no-kill direction for the shelter.  No matter who is operating the shelter, it seems clear there is a core group of activists who are going to “volunteer” at the shelter and complain about the care  – no matter how well it is run – until they get a no-kill shelter.

Whoever is bidding on taking over the shelter operations from the city next month probably is taking this into consideration.

Wow: RCGA Suggests “Aerotropolis” New Warehouse Building Requirement May Go Bye-Bye

We’ve talked about how an Aerotropolis “new building” doesn’t actually have to be “new” to get tax credits. Now, Steve Johnson of the RCGA says there currently are discussions of explicitly removing the “build” requirement entirely. Amazing.

So where are these supposed 20,000 construction jobs coming from again?

The whole segment is worth hearing. The relevant part starts in at around 12:15.

Johnson also told Charlie Brennan that “freight forwarders would have to become members of the RCGA” to receive their credits — a requirement which isn’t in the legislation and would have utterly no policy value. Maybe Johnson was joking or misunderstood what seemed to be Brennan’s core question — how do you get these tax credits? — but given that the “joke” was interwoven into what sounded like a serious answer, Johnson should clarify.

Pettis County Guest Tax Overhaul Would Benefit From Tax Rollback Provisions

Early next year, voters in Pettis County will decide whether or not the current $2 tax on hotel rooms should change to a tax of 5 percent on the room rate.

If the vote passes, Pettis County expects to net an additional $100,000 in tax revenues. As a result of this increase, Pettis County will assume the City of Sedalia’s current obligation to pay $72,000 annually to fund the Convention and Visitors Bureau (“CVB”).

That raises the question: what should Sedalia do with the money it no longer needs to spend on the convention bureau? The city could spend more on tourism or other pressing government services. It could also pass those savings along to taxpayers by reducing sales tax or property tax rates.

Spending additional resources on tourism would not benefit the city. People who attend the Missouri State Fair have to go to Sedalia anyway. Cyclists who bike that end of the Katy Trail are highly likely to stop there as well. Most tourists will visit and spend in Sedalia regardless of how much, or how little, the city spends on advertising. Additional dollars spent promoting tourism will have limited benefits for the city’s economy.

The second option is applying the $72,000 to other government services. If there is a widely agreed-upon public good the city needs to address, perhaps moving the money toward that need is its best use. But lacking a widely agreed-upon need, the city should not just spend the $72,000 because it has it. Returning the money to the taxpayers has benefits that might be hard to immediately quantify, but they absolutely exist.

The third option — decreasing the sales tax — would benefit tourists as much as residents and produce little overall benefit. Sales taxes relating to tourist attractions result in less economic distortion than other types of taxes. If the sales tax is successfully raising tax revenues without distorting the local economy, it should be low on the list of things to cut.

Which brings us to our final option — reducing property taxes in Sedalia. Businesses in Sedalia suffer from the high commercial property tax surcharge imposed by Pettis County. According to research done at the Show-Me Institute, Pettis County has a significantly higher surcharge than its neighboring counties. In order to alleviate this burden, the city should reduce property tax rates to make their businesses more competitive and give their residents additional purchasing power.

Reducing the property tax would increase expendable incomes for both businesses and homeowners. Businesses may use that additional money to expand or to create new jobs. Homeowners will increase consumer spending or savings rates. These benefits are not as easily seen as additional billboards along I-70 or radio ads, but in the long run, they attract, retain, and promote economic growth.

According to economic theory, taxing inelastic goods (which are less sensitive to price) is preferable to taxing elastic goods (which are more price sensitive). So, taxing hotel rooms in a tourist location like Sedalia is preferable to taxes on business property. But, Sedalia should not use this change to justify increased government spending.

Consequently, a reduction in property taxes to offset the new hotel tax revenue is the best option. The proposed guest tax overhaul in Pettis County is a good idea only if the savings are passed along to all voters and taxpayers.

Aerotropolis: Special Session Draft Legislation (August 31, 2011)

 

Fact Check: There is No Protection For Taxpayers In Aerotropolis Legislation

On Tuesday, I participated in a panel discussion with Missouri Rep. Sylvester Taylor (D-Black Jack) and Dave Roland, executive director of the Freedom Center of Missouri, during the Saint Louis Aerotropolis Forum at the St. Louis County library headquarters.

Taylor asked me during the discussion whether subsidized warehouses and facilities would have to be in operation for a number of years prior to receiving the Aerotropolis tax credits. I said, “I think so,” and the discussion continued.

In fact, having re-read the most recent available version of the legislation, there is no such protection. None. According to the legislation, a warehouse or facility could be built (or not?), receive the credits, and then cease to exist. There is no requirement that the warehouse or facility exist for a period of years prior to receiving the benefit.

Apparently, this is a common misconception. Missouri Rep. Donna Lichtenegger (R-Jackson), told the Southeast Missourian, “The good thing is they don’t get any of this tax credit money unless they perform.”

Again, this is not the case. From a standpoint of accountability and fiscal responsibility, I wish the legislation contained such a provision. However, as it stands, it appears that no stipulation exists.

Who Gets Tax Credits? Distribution of Tax Credits Issued by the Department of Economic Development Since 1999

Over the last few months, Bruce Stahl and I have been compiling data from the Department of Economic Development (DED) to determine how economic development tax dollars managed by the Department are distributed geographically in Missouri. A full case study is forthcoming on the topic, including regional, city, and city class breakdowns, as well as relevant tax data.

Until then, a preview: the county-by-county breakdown of DED tax credit issuances since 1999. The chart encompasses over $2.3 billion in taxpayer money. Population numbers are taken from the 2010 U.S. Census.

Had tax credits been distributed in line with population, each resident would have received the equivalent of $392.53 in tax credit issuances over that time. Six of Missouri’s 115 counties (114+St. Louis city) received at or above this amount. Saint Louis city projects were issued the greatest number of these tax credit dollars, coming in at $1,075,720,353.70. Several counties received none of these tax credits.

More to come.

(To find your county, hold CTRL-F, then type the name into the dialog box.)

And the Job Guesstimates Resume: RCGA Now Says Aerotropolis Will Bring 32,000 Jobs to Saint Louis

Let me take you back in time for just a moment.

On October 27, 2006, the RCGA released a study by Bryan Bezold, the organization’s then-chief economist, telling Saint Louisans that (emphasis mine):

The total, indirect and direct, employment impact of the Ball Park Village Project will thus be

approximately 3,040 jobs.

Phase I of the Ballpark Village project will provide an annual $273 million economic benefit to the St. Louis region when completed; in the interim, construction of the initial phase of the project will generate an economic impact of $724 million. Further, the first phase of the development will have a total employment impact of 3,040 permanent jobs, and there will be another 3,000 construction jobs throughout the course of the total development. Estimated net fiscal benefit to the City of St. Louis is $291 million, with $142 million to the St. Louis Public Schools.”

On July 28, 2008, new RCGA chief economist Ruth Sergenian found that (emphasis mine):

Upon completion of Phase 1 construction and full leasing of the space, the St. Louis region will realize an additional annual economic benefit of approximately $476 million.

Regarding jobs, the construction process of Phase 1 is estimated to employ some 2,900 area workers, and those jobs will indirectly support approximately 2,300 other jobs throughout the region. The RCGA also projects that the project when fully leased will employ more than 2,000 people on an ongoing basis.

And Ballpark Village today? It’s a softball field and a parking lot.

So, let’s recap the RCGA job scenarios with Aerotropolis/China Hub to date.

And these predictions are all based on…? (And by the way, what happened between June and now that goosed the employment numbers by 3000+ jobs?)

Can someone from the RCGA please tell us where their numbers are coming from, other than from the ether? Better yet, can it please explain why taxpayers should believe any of these predictions given its track record?

A Conversation with SLU Professor Douglas Rush About Aerotropolis

In this video, SLU Professor Douglas Rush talks about an op-ed he wrote for the St. Louis-Post Dispatch that critized creating $360 million in tax credits. Rush explains that he thinks tax credits for building warehouses could come at the expense of state funding for higher education. Furthermore, he says he thinks that higher education is a better investment than construction subsidies.

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