Schools Tell Kids That Local Hamburgers Are Best

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The Christian Science Monitor describes a Farm to School program in Vermont that encourages local meat consumption. This student has gotten the message (emphasis mine):

“I think it’s really good because we get healthier here than at my old school, and we get more fruits and vegetables and local meat,” says fourth grader Morgan Jones.

The district bought meat from a local farmer, spending an additional $1 per pound above the price it would normally pay.

As Farm to School expands to include products like meat or cheese, it gets harder for supporters to justify the program as anything but protectionism. The appeal of local fruits and vegetables is easier to relate to. Anyone’s who’s eaten delicious fruit right off the tree can sympathize with activists’ support for local produce. (At least, we can sympathize in the early fall and late spring. Activists still have to explain how local produce is superior during the rest of the school year, when very few fruits or vegetables are harvested. Many will say to preserve the local food in the fall — but is locally preserved food really better than food that was preserved somewhere else, or shipped in fresh?)

Meat, on the other hand, has no local advantage at any time of year. There’s no such thing as a hamburger picked fresh off the cow. Meat has to be preserved and prepared no matter where it comes from. Its quality depends on factors like the health of the animals and how safely the meat was handled.

It would be great if Missouri districts could resist this Farm to School trend and refrain from insisting on local meat. Districts should shop around for the safest meat at the best price — and not settle for whatever meat happens to be raised nearby.

I Guess This Is One Way to Deal With Teacher Union Issues

Posted on by David Stokes

This is probably a little more radical than most of us would hope for, but still quite interesting. The news of a school district in Rhode Island firing every teacher comes to us via a former intern, and (personally speaking) one of my favorite Democrats, Calvin H.

Needless to say, I think the changes we need in Missouri require less dramatic action than this, but if this is what they had to do in Rhode Island, I hope it works out. Improving the school, not protecting jobs, is the ultimate goal of sensible education policy — and, if you read the article carefully, it sounds like up to half of the staff will likely be hired back anyway.

WashU Economist Testifies NorthSide Forecasts “Made Out of Thin Air”

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

The first round of arguments against a projected $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side was made in court yesterday.

The bulk of the trial, which will continue on Feb. 25, was devoted to testimony by Washington University economist Michele Boldrin, who clearly doesn’t think much of the projections and forecasts developer Paul McKee used to persuade city officials that his development was viable and worthy of more than $390 million in tax increment financing (TIF).

“I find these numbers completely unbelievable,” Boldrin said. “Pie in the sky” was another frequent characterization.

And, later, “This is something that if an MBA student came up with this as a term paper, I’d throw him out of the office.”

Boldrin’s main argument, repeated many times, was that no justification was given for any of the especially rosy growth and employment estimates. For example, the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, estimates:

  1. That property value growth rates will be as high as 20 percent in 2010, and 15 percent in a number of following years.

  2. That more than 20,000 new, permanent jobs will be created as a result of this development.

  3. That there will be buyers for 6,000 new homes, valued at an average of more than $450,000.

Dave Roland, a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, testified briefly that the north side area, which you can explore here, is not as blighted as NorthSide asserts. He, and Terry Artis, the owner and founder of the River City Examiner, took video of some of the areas NorthSide had noted as being especially blighted. The video, which is a publicly available court record, is linked below.

Dave Roland – A Look at Purported Cases of North Side “Blight” in St. Louis from Audrey Spalding on Vimeo.

One District’s Competition Is Another District’s Poaching

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A member of a school board in Madison, Wis., has noticed that it pays for districts to set up online schools. The board member deplores the fact that these schools enroll students from outside districts (an act he refers to as “poaching”):

The legislature has created a system that sets up very strong incentives for a school district to contract with some corporate on-line operation, open up a virtual charter school, and set about trying to poach other districts’ students.

He then compares the ACT scores of his district’s students with the scores of an online school’s students. Fewer of the online school’s students took the ACT, and the average score of those who did was about one point lower than the district’s average.

The board member’s use of the word “poach” brings to mind hunters entering a forest illegally and shooting deer. That can’t be what he means, so lets look at the second definition. According to Dictionary.com, “poaching” can also mean “any encroachment on another’s property, rights, ideas, or the like.” Unless the board member has his own definition of the word, it seems that he views students as his district’s property and thinks other schools need permission to educate them anywhere else.

I’m sure the students who attend online schools don’t see themselves as being poached. They know they don’t belong to any school district. Taking online courses is their decision. And while the board member won’t acknowledge that online schools give students a choice, if it weren’t true, there would be no point in comparing test scores as he does in his essay. Telling people that your district has better scores than a competitor makes sense only if students can act on that knowledge and choose for themselves.

The complaints about poaching make the district look defensive and vulnerable. Districts that are doing well don’t panic when someone else offers online education. St. Louis County districts aren’t accusing SLPS of foul play because it enrolls a few of their students in its Virtual School. It would be silly for the districts to get upset when the vast majority of families prefer their brick-and-mortar schools to the SLPS Virtual School.

The board member’s emotional response may indicate that his district is threatened by the online option. Instead of pointing fingers, the Madison Metropolitan School District should consider opening an online school of its own.

Two Subsidies Don’t Make a Free Market

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The billions of dollars that the federal government doles out in agricultural subsidies each year — most of which go to a few large corporations, influential politicians, and wealthy landowners — do a lot of damage to the economy. The subsidies insulate businesses from the market forces that would, if left unfettered, force them to innovate and improve. They encourage overproduction and irresponsible farming practices: As farmers try to increase their yields in reaction to artificially high crop prices, they expand their farms into less-fertile land that must be blasted with chemicals if it’s to grow anything at all. And the subsidies make it harder for small farmers to enter the market and compete against the corporations that are propped up by price supports and shielded from risk.

Agricultural subsidies are harmful, no doubt about it. But is there a way to mitigate them? Activists say yes. They contend that new laws would counter the subsidies’ damage. To open the agricultural sector to competition, activists suggest — among other ideas — enacting preferential food policies that require school districts to purchase a set percentage of their cafeteria food from local sources. This, it is argued, would take power away from the corporations and undo some of the subsidies’ bad effects.

As much as I oppose subsidizing corporate agriculture, I can’t support the local food mandates. Ordering schools to buy local food is a poor antidote to corporate subsidies, for these reasons:

  • There’s nothing to stop corporations from farming near school districts and touting their produce as “local.” Remember, a farm doesn’t have to be small or unsubsidized to count as local; it only has to be nearby. Just as agricultural corporations have stepped up to claim a large share of direct payments and other kinds of farm aid, they’ll also be eager to sell local food — at a premium, because districts won’t have the option to walk away from the sale and buy from businesses located farther away instead.

  • Preferential treatment for local farmers could cause as much environmental damage as traditional subsidies. It would lure farmers to grow food near school districts, whether or not the land is suitable for crops. A district’s closest farmer might not always be the most responsible with pesticides and fertilizers. Even if you look around and see that your local farmers are environmentally conscious today, the situation might change when new businesses move in to be near a school district and have a guaranteed customer.

  • Local food mandates place an unfair burden on school districts. District administrators didn’t engineer the mess in the agricultural sector, and fixing it shouldn’t be their job, either. They should be free to focus on their main goal — educating children. Let’s not take money that could go toward teachers’ salaries or building repairs and instead use it to pay a higher price for local food, when healthy food is available at a lesser expense from somewhere else.

Local food mandates, by guaranteeing customers for some farmers through public school policy, are themselves a form of subsidy. Neither the market nor the environment will be well served by adding yet another subsidy to the already over-subsidized farming sector. The real solution is to end government aid for agriculture. When farmers are free to compete on their own merits rather than on their political influence, we may see the market change in favor of farmers who were previously overlooked — including, possibly, farmers near your home or school.

The Jobs Fallacy

Posted on by John Payne

A number of people turned out in Columbia on Monday morning to call on Congress to pass a clean energy bill, which the activists claimed would create 36,000 jobs in Missouri. That sounds nice enough, but it would actually be a bad thing. Jobs are not goods; they are what people do to pay for goods. If people want work to do, they can come over to my apartment, and I can have them clean the place, cook meals, and start running errands for me. I’m not actually willing to pay more than, say, $5 an hour for those services, but it would be a job.

What these activists are saying is that with a clean energy bill, we will get the same amount of energy, but it will take 36,000 more workers to create it, which means much higher energy costs. An economy is more efficient when it employs fewer resources (e.g., energy, labor, and steel) to make the same amount of a good or service, but the economic argument these activists are trying to advance is that we can get rich by doing less with more.

There are environmental arguments for supporting clean energy, and some of those may have merit. If you want to advance those arguments, there is a productive discussion to be had, but this jobs argument is completely specious and should be buried once and for all.

Gridlock and the History of Light Rail in Saint Louis

Posted on by Christine Harbin

I’m currently reading Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It by Randal O’Toole, the Antiplanner. Although the book discusses the problems in America’s transportation system in general, certain parts of it are specific to light rail in Saint Louis and the debate surrounding the proposed MetroLink expansion. I’d like to share some passages from Gridlock that communicate why expanding MetroLink is unnecessary and cost-inefficient.

First, O’Toole provides evidence that expanding MetroLink hasn’t historically increased ridership in Saint Louis:

When St. Louis opened its first light-rail line in 1993, it was hailed as a great success because system ridership, which had shrunk by nearly 40 percent in the previous decade, started growing again. But when St. Louis opened a second line in 2001, doubling the length of the rail system, rail ridership remained flat and bus ridership declined. By 2007, total system ridership was no greater than it had been in 1998.

Second, O’Toole describes how Saint Louis experienced a reduction in energy efficiency after launching a light-rail line. He explains that this is because the city ultimately uses more fuel on buses that carry smaller average loads than it did before building the line.

For example, in 1991, before Saint Louis built its first light-rail line, St. Louis buses averaged for than 10 riders and consumed 4,600 BTUs per passenger mile. In 1995, after opening the light-rail line, average bus loads declined to less than 7 and energy consumption by bus and light rail together increased to 5,300 BTUs per passenger mile. CO2 emissions also climbed, from 0.75 pounds to 0.88 pounds per passenger mile.

Third, MetroLink’s revenues add up to less than its expenses, and an expansion would exacerbate this deficit:

The transportation plan for St. Louis […] notes that the transit agency’s projected revenues could not even cover its operating costs, much less the cost of light-rail expansion. The plan adds that county voters rejected a tax increase needed to support transit operations and that, even with that tax, the agency’s revenues would be insufficient to support the proposed expansions.

O’Toole has written several pieces on the subject of high-speed rail for the Show-Me Institute. His most recent study for the Show-Me Institute, “Why Missouri Taxpayers Should Not Build High-Speed Rail,” was published in September.

Adding New MetroLink Lines Too Costly, Inefficient

Posted on by John Payne

It is odd to hear serious discussion of expanding MetroLink when the Metro system faces a $50 million shortfall and has been forced to cut back on existing services. Nevertheless, Metro is pressing ahead with a plan to expand services dramatically in the long term, including new light rail lines that would span Saint Louis city from north to south and reach all the way to Interstate 270 at four different points. Although the expansions would no doubt benefit some commuters, they would also prove exorbitantly expensive and likely attract few new riders. Rather than planning fanciful new light rail lines, Metro should implement more fiscally sound solutions to the area’s mass transit woes, such as expanded and improved bus service.

When Metro began planning the Cross-County MetroLink Extension in November 2001, it projected the cost at $550 million, with $43 million included for contingencies. However, according to a state auditor’s report in 2008, by that point the expansion had already cost $676.8 million, with total expenses expected to reach as high as $686 million. Although some of these extra costs were unique to the project — such as the extraordinary expense of building rail lines underground near Washington University — government projects are incessantly dogged by these kinds of unexpected expenses. It would be nearly miraculous if such a large undertaking as the proposed expansion were completed on budget.

Furthermore, the expanded lines will likely have lower rates of ridership than those serving the central city. In his groundbreaking 2005 book Sprawl, the historian Robert Bruegmann estimated that in order for public transportation to be used extensively, a city needs a population density of at least 10,000 people per square mile. Saint Louis city is well below that mark, with fewer than 6,000 people per square mile, but at least at this density, the MetroLink can operate at a manageable loss. Saint Louis County is barely a third as dense as Saint Louis city, at 1,950 people per square mile. With ridership levels roughly correlating with population density, we can expect to see far fewer passengers on the new lines than those serving the central city. This will force down the percentage of Metro’s operating expenses paid through fares, which already stands at a dismally low 25 percent, according to the auditor’s report, and will increase the system’s dependence on tax dollars.

In the heyday of urban Saint Louis in the 1920s through the early 1950s, the city boasted an impressive network of streetcars that ran all the way from downtown to Clayton and Washington University. The city was still very densely packed — almost 13,000 people per square mile at its height — so the streetcars provided an efficient means of getting around, and the system even turned a profit most years. However, as every level of government called for the construction of an increasing number of parkways and highways, the population of the city spread into the suburbs, and private automobiles and buses replaced the streetcar. It might be possible to make convincing counterfactual arguments that the political and business leaders of the past should have pursued a more balanced approach to transportation, instead of one that focused almost entirely on automobiles. Regardless of the virtue of those decisions, however, we must now live with the city and infrastructure that they left us, and no matter how much money is poured into new light rail lines, the population densities necessary to support them are not coming back.

The question then becomes: What is the best method of serving the transportation needs of area residents, given area dynamics as they already exist? Light rail suffers from high construction and maintenance expenses without the flexibility of automobiles or buses. Light rail is well-suited as a method of transport for traveling to large attractions such as Busch Stadium and the airport, but it will never be able to serve efficiently the multitude of smaller locations found throughout such a sprawling metropolitan area as Saint Louis. We would obtain a much greater benefit at a significantly lower cost if we instead focused our public transportation dollars on new, higher-speed bus lines, which are cheaper and far more adaptable than light rail. Although the expansion of light rail into every reach of suburbia may promise an end to traffic congestion and the revitalization of the city, it will ultimately entail spending huge amounts of money in order to transport far fewer additional passengers than are served by the lines already in existence.

John Payne is a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

 

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