Page 621 – Show-Me Institute

A Couple Thousand for Lapel Pins? Is That All?

Posted on February 24, 2011May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

Have you seen the “You Paid For It” series on Fox 2 news? In this series, a reporter highlights examples of wasteful government spending. The latest installment showed how the state spent thousands of taxpayer dollars on gold lapel pins for lawmakers.

Is that all? When you consider the big picture, a couple thousand dollars is not a big expenditure for taxpayers.

There are things that lawmakers can do that would save taxpayers billions of dollars — not just a few thousand dollars here or there. For example, if the government didn’t provide subsidies to private industries, whether direct or indirect, Missourians would have saved themselves $6.476 billion in subsidies since 1997. That would be a much more substantial cut!

If lawmakers were serious about saving taxpayers money, eliminating under-performing programs would be a good way to start. For example, if the state government had eliminated the E-10 Ethanol Mandate in 2008, Missourians would have saved more than $285 million through ethanol-induced fuel cost reductions that year and nearly $2 billion in present value during the following decade. Additionally, if the state government were to eliminate targeted tax credits, it would save at least half a billion dollars per year.

To find evidence of waste in Missouri government for yourself, I encourage Show-Me Daily readers to check out the Show-Me Institute’s Show-Me Living web tools. These are a great resource for accessing public information about Missouri government expenditures. Show-Me Living has answers to your questions about tax credits and tax dollars. As an example of what you can do with the site, Tom Duda used the Show-Me Living Tax Credit tool to find that the state spent more than $973 million through the low-income housing tax credit program from 2000 to the present.

A New Hope

Posted on February 24, 2011May 5, 2026 by John Payne

Over the weekend, I attended the 2011 International Students for Liberty (SFL) conference in Washington, D.C. Although I have participated in a number of similar conferences over the past decade, I found this one the most inspiring. That’s not primarily because of the speeches from figures like television host John Stossel, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and George Mason University economist and polymath Tyler Cowen. As impressive as most of the speakers were, I have seen their equals before. I was inspired by the 500-plus students that gladly gave up a weekend to spend hours in lecture halls in the hopes of advancing liberty.

Several of the speakers have since noted the growth in both the quantity and quality of young liberty activists over the last few decades. In his Washington Examiner column, Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy recollects that when he founded a college libertarian group in the early 1990s, “we considered ourselves lucky when we could get a couple of dozen socially awkward malcontents together to grumble about the government.”

But economist Bryan Caplan probably summed it up best: “Twenty years ago, a pack of libertarian students would have been roughly as awkward and freakish as attendees at Comic-Con … or, say, me. Now I see hundreds of students who aren’t just smart, but smooth.”

My college experience was not nearly as benighted as Healy’s or Caplan’s. I helped lead a libertarian group at Washington University in Saint Louis from 2001 to 2005, and we were extremely active: holding weekly meetings, bringing speakers to campus (sometimes multiple times per semester), debating other student groups, helping to publish a biweekly conservative-libertarian student newspaper, etc. The group was a major force in campus political life, but we were still outnumbered and isolated. There were only a few other large and active libertarian college groups across the country (Loyola New Orleans, Hillsdale College, and George Mason University spring to mind), so we felt like the last of a dying breed, a remnant of brighter days.

At one point, we tried to launch a national libertarian student group, much like what SFL has become. When we started planning for a conference, we thought 100–200 student attendees would be phenomenal, but we never achieved that because there wasn’t a great deal of interest in the idea outside of those few groups. If someone told us that, less than 10 years later, there would be a pro-liberty student group hosting a convention with more than 500 attendees (and many others turned away because of a lack of space), we would have laughed in his face.

I don’t think it has ever felt this good to be wrong. (Maybe in 2006, when the Cardinals surprised even me by beating the Tigers and winning the World Series, but I’m pretty sure this is better.) Students and young people in general are listening to the message of freedom being articulated by talented writers, filmmakers, artists, etc. — and by groups like the Show-Me Institute. I get dispirited on an almost daily basis when I see the government grow and grow, seemingly without end, but I have seen real changes in people’s beliefs since I first started tilting at these government windmills. That’s no guarantee that things will change for the better, but it is something. It’s hope.

The Time for Wishful Thinking Is Over

Posted on February 24, 2011May 5, 2026 by Rick Edlund

For years, Saint Louis officials have engaged in virtual hand-to-hand combat with the U.S. Census Bureau over the city’s population. In six of the last 10 years, the city challenged the bureau’s figures. The city was gaining people, they insisted, not losing them as the bureau estimates indicated.

Now the bureau’s official count is out … and the numbers are daunting. The city of Saint Louis has lost 8 percent of its population since 2000. As recently as 2008, the city had claimed to have a little more than 356,000 residents. That appears to have been wishful thinking. The true figure is lower — much lower: 319,000, according to the Census.

The city’s mayor, Francis Slay, didn’t try to sugarcoat what he called “absolutely bad news.” It will, he said, “require an urgent and thorough rethinking of how we do almost everything.”

The Show-Me Institute has been doing just that. From our first policy study on the Saint Louis earnings tax, to a look at tax credits, to the most recent examination of the city’s land use policy, we have focused on ways in which the city can grow instead of shrink.

One can assume that the city’s unaccredited school system has also played a factor in the ongoing exodus from Saint Louis. Parents want to live in communities with good school systems. The Show-Me Institute has published several studies and papers outlining the benefits of educational choice — i.e., letting parents decide where their children will go to school.

In short, wishing and hoping for better numbers is no longer enough. For years, the city has effectively chased people and businesses out of town with policies like the earnings tax and the issuance of tax credits that only favor certain businesses. This downward trend won’t be stopped until city leaders adopt free-market policies that encourage growth instead of discouraging it.

Privatization in Jefferson City

Posted on February 23, 2011May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

The other day, Combest linked to an AP story about added privatization opportunities in state government. The story focused on state building infrastructure:

Money also was a motivator as a Senate committee heard testimony last week on the possibility of privatizing the maintenance and operation of state buildings. Missouri faces a maintenance backlog estimated by a legislative panel at nearly $1 billion.

I hope that the House and Senate can reach an agreement and move forward with this idea. This is just one example of the opportunities that privatization provides to save money, improve services, or sometimes both. (This particular example would fall under the “save money” category.) Short of law enforcement, you can basically privatize any public service, and probably find examples somewhere of the private sector providing just about every type of public service. That does not mean that every single aspect of government services is right for privatization in Missouri. For example, I don’t see any chance of private fire departments coming to Missouri, although they have a number of them in our border state of Tennessee.

What it does mean is that as government services go through reviews and reauthorizations, the option of privatization should be considered for each of them. Sometimes it will be the best option, sometimes it won’t. I think that managing state buildings is absolutely something a private commercial property management company can do, and it would be great for them to be given the opportunity to do it.

Is Saint Louis Now Open to All Development?

Posted on February 23, 2011May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

Last night, Channel 4 aired reporter Craig Cheatham’s investigation into why the city of Saint Louis was rejecting offers to purchase some of its vacant land. The station’s investigation was spurred by Show-Me Institute research.

As I’ve written previously, the city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) owns more than 9,000 parcels of vacant land, and isn’t selling most of it. Cheatham investigated two properties where the LRA had turned down great offers, for no apparent reason. To my (happy) surprise, Cheatham’s investigation led to the LRA re-evaluating its rejection of one offer to buy property: Anthony Barber’s offer to purchase 1252 Academy Ave. in order to develop the property into a restaurant. You can see 1252 Academy in the photo below.

Photo by Thomas Duda

According to Cheatham’s report, the LRA met with Barber today to reconsider his offer. The agency may, facing public scrutiny, accept Barber’s offer.

This is great news! If the LRA sells 1252 Academy, that is one less vacant eyesore, and one less property the city has to spend money maintaining — and those costs can add up. Furthermore, I am sure the neighbors of 1252 Academy will prefer living next to a restaurant rather than a vacant, boarded-up city property.

But the LRA’s decision to reconsider its decision on 1252 Academy makes me wonder whether the agency is open to reconsidering other offers it has rejected. According to Show-Me Institute research, the agency has rejected offers to purchase more than 2,200 of its properties. Only about a quarter of them were rejected because the agency thought the would-be buyer didn’t have the means to complete the project. The most common reason for rejection was that the agency was holding property for “future development.”

Of course, in most cases, that future development has yet to materialize.

Is the LRA open to taking a fresh look at some of the other offers it has rejected? As part of my research into the city’s landholding policies, I’ve worked to collect the data necessary to put together a list of other offers that might be worth reconsidering. It would be wonderful if the agency would seriously consider recanting some of its past rejections.

Why Is There So Much Vacant Land in Saint Louis?

Posted on February 23, 2011May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

The Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) owns more than 9,000 parcels of land, and the agency’s purpose, according to state statute, is to get that vacant land back into private hands so that it can be developed into new homes and businesses. Yet the city’s largest landholder isn’t selling much of its property. In an interview with McGraw Milhaven on KTRS AM, Audrey Spalding, a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, talks about her research into how the LRA has rejected offers to purchase more than 2,250 different properties from 2003 through 2010.

Full Interview (MP3)

Making Sense of the Midterm Elections

Posted on February 23, 2011May 5, 2026 by Bob Roper

At the Show-Me Forum in Columbia on Feb. 7, political columnist Bob Roper gave his assessment of the 2010 midterm elections. Roper, who writes a twice a month column for the Columbia Daily Tribune, told the crowd Republicans shouldn’t get too cocky over their big gains in November. As he said in this clip, the real winner may have been the tea party.

Watch the entire speech, including Roper’s warnings about government spending and the federal deficit.

Why Not Sell City-Owned Vacant Property?

Posted on February 22, 2011May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

I appeared on the McGraw Milhaven show on KTRS AM this morning, discussing my research on the city of Saint Louis’ Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). The LRA owns more than 9,000 parcels, and its purpose, according to state statute, is to get that vacant land back into private hands so that it can be developed into new homes and businesses. Yet the city’s largest landholder isn’t selling much of its property. According to my research, the LRA has rejected offers to purchase more than 2,250 different properties from 2003 through 2010.

KMOV reporter Craig Cheatham has also looked into this issue and you can watch his investigation tonight at 10 p.m.

Ultimately, this research leads to the question of whether holding property is really the best development policy for Saint Louis. It isn’t the case that all of the LRA’s rejections involve people who try to buy properties without sufficient funds — only about a quarter of the LRA’s rejections cite “insufficient financial resources” as the reason for rejection. Instead, the most frequent reason for rejection is that the property in question is “being held for future development.” Yet, in its rejection letters to would-be buyers, and in its minutes, the LRA does not state what that future development is or when it will take place.

From 2003 through 2010, the LRA has rejected roughly one out of every two offers it has considered. This doesn’t mean that the agency has accepted the other offers. In fact, the LRA has accepted fewer than 25 percent of the offers it has considered, meaning that the agency rejects two offers for every offer it accepts. The rest are counter-offers, which frequently do not result in a sale.

So, why not let more people who are trying to buy LRA property purchase it?

Moving properties off of the LRA’s rolls will, at minimum, mean that the city will spend less in taxpayer funds maintaining these properties, and can collect more property tax revenue. Furthermore, rejecting an offer today in favor of a hoped-for offer in the future entails taking on a great deal of risk. It is likely that the hoped-for development will take years, if not decades, to materialize … or may never come about at all.

Otis Williams, deputy director of development at the Saint Louis Development Corporation (which oversees the LRA), made a revealing comment when talking to Milhaven today (after my appearance). Milhaven asked what was so bad about selling LRA property, even if it isn’t developed. After all, LRA properties are vacant. In the case of a privately held vacant property, at least the city would no longer be paying to maintain it (cutting the grass on these properties alone costs about $1 million per year). Williams responded:

When we sell it, it is a real estate transaction, at that point, and they own it. Unless they don’t pay the taxes, or we pursue them in court through right of reentry … once you sell it, you’ve pretty much lost control.

If the city were to focus on encouraging all development, not just development that matched its overarching plan, there wouldn’t be concern about losing control of a particular property. However, Williams’ statement makes sense in light of the fact that the city focuses on encouraging only its notion of the right kinds of development.

Does this top-down development approach work? It doesn’t seem to. The LRA owns more property today than it has in the past, and is still trying to control exactly who can buy property and what they can do with it. Perhaps it is time to take a different approach.

Let the Free Market Turn Missouri Green!

Posted on February 22, 2011May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

Gov. Jay Nixon wants to make Missouri a green state. According to an article in the Missouri Watchdog, the governor sent a letter to the leaders of the Missouri General Assembly encouraging them to pass legislation that supports the development of energy alternatives. From the letter (emphasis in the original):

My administration looks forward to working with the General Assembly to determine where those sources of renewable energy must be located in order to carry out the will of the people and promote a renewable energy economy in Missouri.

Sounds good, huh? Greener energy is a good thing for Missouri, right? Unfortunately, this is a problematic way to get to that goal. I strongly support the development of renewable energy, but I do not want the state to subsidize it!

The free market and basic economic forces, not government programs, will determine the development of alternative fuels. When the government enacts policies that impose higher mandates for alternative energy, such as the 2008 Missouri Renewable Energy Initiative referenced in the letter, it imposes high hidden costs and defeats its ostensible goal of helping the environment.

Just as government officials don’t know the socially optimal mix of any set of products and services, they do not have special predictive power, nor do they have access to perfect information. Politicians can’t identify new technologies and business opportunities as well as the unrestricted market can, because they are too far removed from the science of energy technologies to know the optimal state of the market. Plus, government is slow to react to changes in the economic environment because it is bogged down in bureaucracy.

Furthermore, when lawmakers in Jeff City roll out proposals for encouraging the development of alternative energies, Missourians would be wise to question whose interests their elected officials actually have in mind. Policymakers often bend the truth to promote their own political agenda, under the guise of helping the environment. Corn ethanol, which we discuss frequently on Show-Me Daily, is a classic example. Al Gore touted the corn ethanol industry with the ostensible goal of helping the environment. Last November, he changed his position on ethanol, admitting that he had previously supported ethanol as a means of pandering to Iowa voters. Gore had the interests of his political career—not the environment—in mind.

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.