The Mayor, the County Executive, and the RCGA All Likely Have Vested Interests in the ‘Aerotropolis’ Legislation: It Could Enhance Their Power

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

If the Missouri legislature calls a special session and passes the so-called “Aerotropolis” legislation, it will award a great deal of power to the Saint Louis mayor and the nearby county executives. It should come as small surprise that some of the strongest voices arguing for the Aerotropolis legislation come from the very individuals who stand to benefit from it.

The Aerotropolis bill (as written during the 2011 legislative session — we’re still waiting on updated text for the special session) would give the authority to the mayor of St. Louis or the executive officers of nearby counties the power to designate “gateway zones.” While this power sounds innocuous, it has important ramifications.

First, those chief executives would become gatekeepers in the distribution of millions of taxpayer dollars. The Aerotropolis legislation would create $300 million in tax credits that would subsidize warehouse construction. That tax credit money could only be awarded only to warehouses built in gateway zones.

Even if motives are pure, the ability to determine which areas are eligible for hundreds of millions in tax credits would be an incredible power. The legislation does not say anything about monitoring such designations. Nothing in the legislation would prevent one of these chief executives from using such power as an indirect way to acquire campaign contributions or other untoward benefits.

A simple way to stop any such abuse of power would be to take the city and county chief executives out of the equation. If legislators — despite a lack of substantive empirical evidence that these tax credits will do any economic good — really want to subsidize warehouse construction, at least let all owners of vacant land compete equally for tax credits. There is no need to give special powers to city and county executives to achieve this (questionable) goal.

Second, this legislation would allow city and county executives appoint a three-person board to oversee millions in special tax revenues. That board could impose a special tax on the warehouses receiving the Aerotropolis subsidies, and then would oversee how those tax revenues are spent. Of those special tax revenues, 50 percent would go to the St. Louis airport. But the other 50 percent would be given to a “tax-exempt regional economic development association or associations…” The three-person board would select which association(s) would receive the money.

This, too, represents increased political power. The chief executives of Saint Louis and nearby counties will be in a position  to appoint the people who determine what agency gets part of those special tax revenues. Nothing in the Aerotropolis legislation would prevent them from appointing individuals who have a vested interest in where those special tax revenues go.

Interestingly, it seems that the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA), the organization that pushed hard for the Aerotropolis tax credits, is a “tax-exempt regional economic development association.” There are others, such as the St. Louis County Economic Council. It appears that these organizations could qualify for the Aerotropolis special tax revenues. Awarding a steady stream of tax revenue to organizations that argued for the legislation that created that tax revenue is exceptionally poor public policy.

There’s a simple answer to all of these problems. Remove the possibility, however remote, of using the Aerotropolis subsidies and tax revenue as a political tool. There doesn’t seem to be a practical reason to include these mechanisms in the Aerotropolis legislation. They do, however, invite corruption into the process. The economic merits of the Aerotropolis tax credits are questionable as it is, but if the legislature insists on enacting them, they should not allow that money to be controlled by political figures.

Republic, Missouri Has Come Unstuck in Time

Posted on by John Payne

When I was a freshman in high school, I read Kurt Vonnegut’s classic novel Slaughterhouse Five. I didn’t fully understand the book at the time, but it introduced me to non-linear narrative and opened me up creatively to more innovative fiction. Pretty soon, I was devouring Catch-22, On the Road, and One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest (among others), and it was Vonnegut who first set me on the path to my favorite writers, without whom I doubt I would be where I am today.

So I was distressed to hear that the school board of Republic R-III in Republic, Missouri voted unanimously to remove Slaughterhouse Five from its curriculum. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the decision was “based on the complaints of Republic resident Wesley Scroggins, a professor of management at Missouri State University, and the father of several home-schooled children,” who “complained that the books advocate principles contrary to the Bible.”

This is paradoxical. Scroggins home-schools his children, presumably because his values conflict with those he believes the public school instills. He is exercising his right to choose how his children are educated. I’m sure he would object if the state board of education told him what books were suitable for his children to read. How then can he justify restricting what other students can study in school?

The real solution to this problem is more choice, not less. If we had a real market in education, parents who disapprove of Vonnegut and other authors like him could send their children to schools that don’t teach their works, while other schools could offer a more contemporary curriculum.

The district model for schooling is outdated. If it was ever a sensible model for educating students (I have my doubts), it was when the country was primarily rural and the technology to deliver the world’s information to every household did not exist. We have long since progressed past the need for these archaic bureaucracies that limit parental, student, and teacher choice. One district removing a single book from its curriculum may seem insignificant, but it illustrates how the current educational system limits rather than facilitates access to knowledge.

For any Republic High School students who want to understand the headline — or just spite their board of education — click here.

The Future is Here Today

Posted on by Josh Smith

Computer-based education is the wave of the future. Virtual schooling offers a suite of options for students not fully served by traditional, brick-and-mortar public schools. Students can access lectures and course materials online from anywhere with internet access and learn on their own time. Missouri public schools offer a number of virtual schooling options for interested students, some of which are discussed in this video.

 

 

Related Links

Show-Me Institute case study on virtual schools.

‘Where’s the Beef?’ A Reminder That American Beef Products Are Ineligible for Export to China

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

It seems that a bipartisan set of politicians are set on pumping this “send more beef to China” theme in the media. Gov. Jay Nixon did it last week (emphasis mine):

“If we want to sell more beef to Asia, we need more refrigerated warehouses. If we want to sell more pharmaceuticals and aerospace equipment, we need safe and secure transport facilities,” he said. “I am a strong supporter of this initiative.”

Missouri Speaker of the House Steven Tilley did it (emphasis mine):

Tilley said while the cargo hub would bring in planes filled with imports, the returning flights will open new markets for Missouri agricultural exports, specifically beef.

And former U.S. Senator Kit Bond did it, too. (Audio: Fast-forward to 14:45.)

Yet no matter which way you cut it, beef is — according to the Department of Agriculture — ineligible for export to China. If you loaded American beef onto an airplane tomorrow, it seems pretty clear that it could not go to China under these regulations. So every time a politician touts this beef angle, taxpayers should keep this important fact in mind.

We noted the beef prohibition in our Aerotropolis case study, specifically citing internal emails from Jason Van Eaton, the current China Hub executive director and a former high-level staffer to Sen. Bond. The relevant part (emphasis mine):

Bottom line, pork is officially open between the US and China. Beef is not but the word is that it will open soon … but that’s been the word for months. Many other trade issues keeping this tied up right now.

“Beef is not.”

Kudos to Sen. Jason Crowell, then, for telling his constituents in southeast Missouri how the beef export aspect really plays out (emphasis mine.):

“It will help the job market in St. Louis and our neck of the woods as well,” [Speaker] Tilley said, noting that many people in Perryville, Farmington and Cape Girardeau County drive to work in the St. Louis area. The increased tax revenue from about 20,000 jobs created by the Aerotropolis project would also provide more money for schools and transportation statewide, he said.

“Things that make St. Louis thrive spill over to help the rest of Missouri,” Brandom said.

But Crowell called Aerotropolis a “boondoggle for St. Louis” and said it will not help Southeast Missouri cattle producers because China has a ban on imported beef.

“We’re not stupid down here,” Crowell said. “We can see when politicians who want to take St. Louis money speak down to their constituents.”

As the old Wendy’s ad asks, “Where’s the Beef?”

Much more soon.

Veto by Nixon Secures Transparency of MO Government

Posted on by Alex Bluestone

Early in July, amidst a much cooler climate, Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a measure that sought to limit the openness and transparency of public and governmental entities.

Specifically, the vetoed legislation aimed to shelter public entities from disclosing minutes, votes, and records; it also allowed for closed meetings.

Without public access to important information — whether it is school district board minutes or the budget of fire protection districts — injustices may go unnoticed and our public officials may be tempted to act in unethical and elusive ways.

Take, for example, a recent embezzlement scandal in Brentwood. As Chad Carson reported, the city administrator of the suburban municipality was found to have stolen nearly $30,000 of city funds. That money, largely from tax receipts, was thrown away at a riverboat casino. Increased government accountability is the only effective solution Missouri citizens have to prevent such abuses in the future.

It is improbable to assume that the general public will suddenly besiege public entities with information requests — commonly known as Sunshine Law Requests. Therefore, the protection of this right is critical to policy analysts and journalists statewide who, in their endeavor for truth, rely on accountability. After all, your government cannot be accountable without transparency.

We often chastise our elected officials’ performance — ironic, since we elect them. However, when they strive to bolster the sense of public duty, as Gov. Nixon illustrated here, some praise and an attaboy are due.

So now, even as the mercury seems to higher and higher each day, Missourians can feel good about greater openness, transparency, and accountability in government.

Local Government Strikes Down Yet Another Tasty Innovation

Posted on by Turner Trapp

Working at the Show-Me Institute, located in the highly walkable Central West End, my colleagues and I often take short walks to lunch. Recently, food trucks have entered the competition for our dining dollars.

Given the large crowds that form around these trucks, they seem to be a hit, but apparently this is not the case for everyone. This week, police have cracked down on food trucks in the area — allegedly in response to a complaint.

A regulation in the city code forbids street vending within the Central West End, but until recently the restriction had not been enforced. Earlier this week, officers and inspectors issued warnings to multiple food trucks asking them to leave the area or face fines for violating vending regulations.

Christine Harbin, a former SMI policy analyst, wrote numerous times on these restrictions on private enterprise. First spotting food trucks in the Central West End back in March, she later followed up on the issue in a video interviewing both food truck owners and their customers. The verdict is still clear: there exists a strong consumer demand for these food trucks. Why should government inhibit healthy competition and growth of consumer choices?

Some people worry about the safety and health concerns associated with food trucks, but like any other restaurant or food provider, they must undergo government health and safety inspections to obtain permits for legally selling their goods.

Another common concern is the potential increase in street congestion. In Dr. Donald Shoup’s book, The High Cost of Free Parking, he explains the best way to manage street traffic is to introduce market determined parking fees.  Parking is not a free good, and should not be treated as one. Busy streets with more traffic and higher demand would have higher parking fees, while quiet less crowded streets with lower demand would cost less. This would force food trucks to internalize the externality of over consuming street parking.  If the trucks wanted prime location they would have to pay extra for it.

These trucks may be “technically illegal” in the area, but clearly there is a demand here that the government is barring. Originally, the downtown area had this same restriction, but now it benefits from many popular street vendors and food trucks. Why should the Central West End or any other area be treated differently?

Consumers would benefit if this restrictive ordinance was repealed throughout St. Louis, allowing their preferences — not the preferences of bureaucrats — to dictate food trucks’ placement and success.

To follow this issue further, watch Christine’s other video on the subject in which food truck owner Jeff Pupillo and a number of customers weigh in on food trucks and the unwanted competition they provide for some local restaurants.

Where Not to Go on the Sales Tax Holiday

Posted on by Charles Carson

This time last year I was considering buying a laptop for my first year at college. I decided to wait until the sales tax holiday. Normally, I would have purchased the laptop at Best Buy in St. Peters. Because St. Peters opted out of the holiday and charged the full local sales tax, I decided to cross the river and purchase my laptop in Saint Louis.

The Department of Revenue (DOR) announced that 169 cities, 50 counties, and 62 special districts will opt out of the sales tax holiday this August 5-7. The opt-out will require consumers to pay local sales taxes as enacted by the municipality or county but will leave the exemption on the 4.225 percent state sales tax in place.

But what’s the point of a sales tax holiday if municipalities can opt out?

The resulting dissimilarity in tax rates among Missouri’s municipalities distorts consumer behavior and impacts local vendors unequally. For example, vendors in municipalities that have enacted local sales taxes and have opted out will suffer because local consumers will purchase goods in neighboring municipalities that offer the full exemption. In my case, the local Best Buy lost my business due to no fault of its own.

For all price-conscious college students, we offer the following lists of cities, counties, and special districts to avoid.

Be sure to check out previous Show-Me Institute opinions about the sales tax holiday.

Mitigating the Harmful Effects of the ‘Aerotropolis’ Legislation

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Audrey Spalding was contacted by Missouri legislators concerned with modifying the “Aerotropolis” bill to mitigate the possible harms of the proposed legislation. What follows is her response.

Legislators are considering moving forward with the so-called “Aerotropolis” legislation, a bill that would create $360 million in tax credits. Of that total, $300 million would go toward subsidizing warehouses, and $60 million would go toward subsidizing cargo flights from Saint Louis to international destinations. The bill’s proponents promise that these tax incentives will increase air cargo traffic to the region and boost the state and local economy.

Policy analysts at the Show-Me Institute have researched this proposal extensively. Based on a thorough review of the legislation, we believe that the proposal is a raw deal for Missouri taxpayers, and that certain provisions are indistinguishable from the cronyism often seen at the federal level.

Furthermore, the use of tax credits to encourage economic development has a poor track record, both in Missouri and nationwide. Our case study detailing the most serious problems with the bill, and with tax credits in general, is available online. We encourage all who are interested in good government to read that paper.

Without endorsing the use of any tax credits in this case, changes to the legislation might mitigate the harmful effects on the state economy and taxpayers. Below are revisions that we believe should be considered if the legislation moves forward despite a lack of substantive empirical support.

Allow all new warehouse owners to compete for the tax credits
All arbitrary limits on Aerotropolis eligibility should be removed.

The Aerotropolis tax credits would subsidize warehouse construction, as well as cargo flights from Saint Louis to international destinations. Up to $300 million in tax credits — more than 80 percent of the bill’s tax breaks — would be made available for the construction of new warehouses around the airport. Those tax credits could be used to pay up to 30 percent of a warehouse owner’s demolition, construction, and equipment costs.

The bill requires that warehouses qualifying for those incentives must be built on 100 contiguous acres of land or in specially designated areas. There does not seem to be any practical reason for the “100 acre” requirement contained within the Aerotropolis tax credit bill. The requirement seems to serve only to restrict who could draw upon such tax credits, narrowing the field to a small pool of large-scale developers.

This restriction should be removed. If the state is determined to subsidize warehouse construction — without any substantive empirical evidence that such subsidy would lead to increased economic growth and international trade — such subsidies should at least be made available as broadly as possible.

Accountability measures
Include clawback provisions and reporting requirements in the legislation.

In its current form, the Aerotropolis legislation does not include any sort of clawback provisions or reporting requirements. Accountability provisions should be added. If claims of job creation and investment are used to sell the creation of $360 million in state tax credits, then those credits should be evaluated objectively on the merits of job creation and investment.

In 2010, Gov. Jay Nixon tasked the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission with reviewing the state’s tax credit programs. The commission recommended that:

…strict statutory clawbacks to be enforced by the State in cases of non-compliance with program requirements be included in all tax credit programs currently lacking such provisions.

And that:

…all applicants for state incentives be required to enter into a contract with the agency administering the tax credit specifying standards of performance, program requirements, and penalties in the issue event of non-compliance.

The commission’s recommendations are sensible, and should be extended to all prospective tax credit programs, including the Aerotropolis legislation.

As written, the legislation requires that new warehouses be built, and little else. If the state subsidizes warehouse construction, but there is no increase in demand for warehouse space, the state will be either subsidizing the construction of vacant warehouses, or helping owners of new warehouses drive owners of older warehouses out of business. Either case is not a desirable outcome for the state or for the area economy.

If legislators move forward with the Aerotropolis bill, a provision that would require an objective evaluation of the tax credit program — that is neither conducted by nor commissioned by an organization receiving any benefit from the Aerotropolis legislation — should be added.

Such an evaluation could be made three years after the inception of the tax credit program. It could include a comparison of the level of international cargo processed at area warehouses, employment numbers at area warehouses, and area warehouse vacancy rates before and after the creation of the tax credit program. If that objective review finds that the Aerotropolis program has not delivered on its promises, then the state should cease authorizing tax credits under the legislation.

In line with the Tax Credit Review Commission’s recommendations, the Aerotropolis legislation should also include clawback provisions. If warehouse owners receive Aerotropolis tax credits, and are found not to be in compliance with its requirements, or are not processing any level of international cargo, then the state should have a mechanism to recover the tax credits awarded to such noncompliant owners.

Furthermore, the Show-Me Institute has highlighted the fact that, despite proponents’ statements to the contrary, the Aerotropolis legislation would allow tax credits to be issued to owners of warehouses that do not process any international cargo. Since the primary argument for the Aerotropolis tax credits is that the incentives would promote international trade, the definitions within the Aerotropolis bill should be revised so that only warehouses processing international cargo may receive the credits.

Grants of Extensive Political Power (135.1503)
Remove the provision that would grant power to the mayor and county executives to determine who could receive the warehouse tax credits.

The Aerotropolis bill gives the authority to the mayor of Saint Louis or the executive officers of nearby counties the power to designate “gateway zones.” While this power sounds innocuous, it has important ramifications.

Those chief executives would become gatekeepers in the distribution of millions of taxpayer dollars. The Aerotropolis legislation would create $300 million in tax credits that would subsidize warehouse construction. That tax credit money may be awarded only to warehouses built in gateway zones.

Even if motives are pure, the ability to pick what areas could be eligible for hundreds of millions in tax credits would be an incredible power. The legislation does not say anything about monitoring such designations. Nothing in the legislation would prevent one of these chief executives from using such power as an indirect way to acquire campaign contributions or other untoward benefits.

A simple way to stop any such potential abuse of power would be to take the city and county chief executives out of the equation. If the state — despite a lack of substantive empirical evidence that these tax credits will do any economic good — really wants to subsidize warehouse construction, then all vacant land owners should be able to compete equally for the tax credits. There is no need to give special power to city and county executives. The language creating this power should be removed.

If this delegation of power is kept in the Aerotropolis legislation, then the Mayor and county executives should be required to make their gateway designations at a public meeting, with any and all applications and correspondence to the mayor or county executives requesting such a designation treated as public information.

Restrict the ability to layer tax credits with other tax incentives
It is fiscally irresponsible for the state to heavily subsidize projects under certain programs.

It is no secret that the state heavily subsidizes some projects through a myriad of its tax incentive programs. The level of subsidy for those projects can reach absurd heights. According to an analysis of state tax credit data, Missouri’s fifth Senate District – which includes downtown Saint Louis – was the recipient of nearly $1 billion in state tax credits between 2000 and 2010. This total does not include local tax subsidies, such as property tax abatement and tax increment financing (TIF), which likely are substantial. The Aerotropolis tax credits, as proposed, could easily be layered on top of existing tax incentives already offered by the state or local government.

In fact, in an internal review of the Aerotropolis legislation, Saint Louis County identified five areas near the airport that would likely be eligible for Aerotropolis tax credits. According to the county’s analysis, those areas had already been authorized to receive or were eligible to receive almost $300 million in state and local tax incentives, including Brownfield and Enhanced Enterprise Zone tax credits, as well as tax increment financing, property tax abatement, sales tax exemption, and state tax increment financing.

Some existing Missouri tax credit programs place restrictions on the layering of tax credits. For example, the Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits explicitly prohibit recipients from also receiving Enterprise Zone or Enhanced Enterprise Zone tax credits, Business Facility Program tax credits, Rebuilding Communities tax credits, or Brownfield Jobs and Investment tax credits.

It would be prudent to add similar restrictions to the Aerotropolis tax credit legislation. Similar tax incentive programs that should not be combined with the proposed Aerotropolis program include: Distressed Areas Land Assemblage tax credits, tax increment financing, state tax increment financing, Enhanced Enterprise Zone tax credits, and Brownfield tax credits. Those tax incentive programs are designed to encourage similar activity – construction – that the Aerotropolis legislation is designed to encourage. The state should not award redundant incentives.

Final thoughts

The proposed Aerotropolis legislation is problematic, especially in light of questionable jobs claims and the expansion of power for local government executives contained within the bill. There appears to be an incredible amount of political pressure attempting to push the tax credit measures forward, despite a lack of substantive empirical study. Moreover, China, the country cited by proponents as the source for increased international cargo traffic, has not stated publicly that warehouse construction tax credits are necessary before it will consider sending more cargo flights to the Lambert Airport.

All of the above facts should give legislators pause. But, if the state legislature is prepared to go forward and pass the Aerotropolis tax credits despite those concerns, then provisions designed to protect Missouri taxpayers should be added to the bill.

Two Bad Transportation Vetoes

Posted on by David Stokes

I wish Missouri had a line-item veto for more than just budget bills. That way, Governor Nixon could have vetoed the part of HB 430 he didn’t like concerning billboard laws, and leave intact the other good parts of the bill. Especially — and if you visit here much you probably know where this is going — the parts of the bill that substantially changed and reduced Missouri’s ridiculous requirements for mover company licensing.

The other veto is just strange. It is not that I support the bill as much as I find the reason for the veto perplexing. The Governor vetoed HB 1008 because he felt it might authorize toll roads in Missouri. Of course, I want more toll roads in Missouri. But the legislation says nothing about tolling, and the author of the bill, Rep. Thomas Long, says it has nothing to do with tolls. But even if it did have something to do with tolls, allowing private parties to finance and operate highways and bridges would be good for Missouri’s economy, not harmful.

I repeat that I think Missouri should allow line-item vetoes for more than just budget bills.

And a hat tip to Combest for the original link to the story.

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