Urban Chicken Victory in Columbia

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Last night, the Columbia City Council passed its urban chicken measure by a 4-3 vote. The meeting was well-attended, and spirited public comments preceded the decision. If you missed it, you might want to watch the archived video here.

Opponents of the proposal brought up two arguments against urban chickens: First, that chickens would be dirty, noisy, and wild; and second, that chickens would lower property values. Urban chicken supporters answered both objections very well.

Opponents told horror stories about disgusting chickens, but they failed to show that chickens are any worse than the birds that already live in Columbia. If chickens harbor pestilence and filth, then so do all the sparrows and pigeons that fly around unmolested. Chicken supporters pointed out that other pets like dogs can carry disease or leave waste, and Columbia has no trouble regulating dog ownership so that most people are satisfied. No one is asking the city to ban all dogs for sanitation reasons; chickens should be equally tolerable.

The Columbia ordinance prohibits roosters, which should go a long way toward preventing noise disturbances. One Realtor who spoke predicted that wild roosters will find a way into the coops despite the owners’ best intentions. I find it hard to believe a rooster could break into a coop that, by law, is made of sturdy fencing with a wire net on top — unless the rooster had access to power tools.

Then there’s the possibility that escaped chickens will flock in the streets. Again, the opponents haven’t shown that chickens are more likely than other animals to cause problems; owners of any kind of pets can be irresponsible. As one councilman said, chickens aren’t the nuisance — people are. Those people are the exception, and Columbia can deal with them on an individual basis. Urban chicken supporters have lots of ideas for reducing the number of wild chickens: A private organization has offered to teach people how to care for chickens, and it’s volunteered to help place abandoned birds in new homes. One graduate student pointed out that unwanted chickens can be sold on Craigslist.

It’s clear that chickens are no more of a nuisance than dogs or cats. However, some Columbia residents — namely, Realtors — say that chickens are uniquely harmful because people think of them as farm animals. They claim that the chicken ordinance will lower property values, and that chickens next door to homes on the market could quash sales. These Realtors overlook the fact that the ordinance doesn’t override neighborhood associations’ covenants or landlords’ policies, which can exclude chickens. Chickens are not about to move into a community of mansions and destroy the value of the surrounding estates. And, as several commenters indicated, some people would actually prefer to buy a house in a city that allows chickens.

The only time chicken enthusiasts lost me was when they appealed to “sustainability” and “food security.” I can’t imagine how building a chicken coop could be fun, either. But whether I agree with the chicken owners’ ideology is not the point. People should be free to pursue their ideals and passions so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. Chicken raising meets that criterion.

Smoke ’em While You Can

Posted on by John Payne

Although both Saint Louis City and County have recently passed a smoking ban (albeit a relatively mild one in the city), this has not placated anti-smoking crusaders in Missouri. Instead they are emboldened, now proposing a statewide ban on smoking in almost all public places. From the Saint Louis Beacon:

State Rep. Walt Bivins, R-Oakville, is leading a bipartisan cadre of at least 20 legislators who’d like to see smoking banned from most public places by next year.

In an announcement this week, Bivins and co-sponsor Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, say their aim is to create “uniform statewide smoke-free standards in bars and restaurants.”

But the bill, HB 1766, is generating lots of attention because it goes much further.

The measure also would outlaw smoking at public “aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums,” as well as sports arenas, convention halls, bingo facilities and “At least eighty percent of hotel and motel rooms that are rented to guests;”

The few exemptions include private residents not used for day-care facilities, tobacco stores, those 20 percent of hotel/motel rooms and “outdoor areas of places of employment.”

Public smoking is already banned in some form in 23 localities in Missouri, including Saint Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, and Springfield. Furthermore, even in places with no smoking ban, many businesses either forbid smoking completely or offer patrons a nonsmoking option. So, what is the necessity of this bill?

The irony, of course, is that if smoking were so widespread that no nonsmoking options existed for drinkers and diners, a smoking ban could never get a hearing in the first place. It is only when there are already many nonsmoking businesses, and smokers are a small group, that the majority can impose its will upon them so thoroughly.

I am a smoker, but I have been trying to quit lately. However, if this bill passes, I think I might have to start smoking two packs of Pall Malls a day … out of spite.

The Tragic Ironies of Capitalism: A Love Story

Posted on by Christine Harbin

I am delighted to discover that my favorite source for celebrity news, Perez Hilton, is also a source for state public policy. Yesterday on his blog, he reported that Michael Moore had been approved to receive a taxpayer subsidy for his 2009 film about the financial crises, Capitalism: A Love Story, through Michigan’s production incentives program.

Hilton asks, “Greedy Or A Coincidence?”

I respond “hypocritical,” largely for the following two reasons:

(1) Moore is doing exactly what he is condemning in his film: accepting taxpayer money.

In the film, he assails Wall Street executives for their greed and for accepting bailout cash, but apparently he is not opposed to accepting tax credits himself. From a Fox News article on the subject:

Any amount of taxpayer subsidy is a potential black eye for Moore, who argued emphatically in “Capitalism: A Love Story” that Wall Street banks and other big companies didn’t deserve the bailout money they received from the federal government as the economy was tanking.

(2) Moore was vehemently opposed to film production incentives such as tax credits before he was a recipient.

At a conference in July 2008, Moore said what I’ve been saying all along on this blog:

“These are large multinational corporations — Viacom, GE, Rupert Murdoch — that own these studios,” said Moore at the Traverse City event. “Why do they need our money, from Michigan, from our taxpayers, when we’re already broke here? I mean, they play one state against another, and so they get all this free cash when they’re making billions already in profits. What’s the thinking behind that?”

Urban Chicken Vote Is Here

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Tonight, the Columbia City Council will vote on an urban chicken proposal. If it passes, Columbia residents will be free to keep up to six hens on each property.

The text of the proposed ordinance anticipates concerns about sanitation and possible nuisances, and it includes regulations to prevent problems. I hope that those clauses satisfy the critics. Cities like Columbia should not allow anyone to pack unsanitary numbers of poultry into city plots, but residents who raise a few hens in their backyards without harming their neighbors should be left alone.

If you’d like to learn more about urban chickens in Columbia, supporters have created a blog and a series of YouTube videos.

A Rising Tide Floats All Boats

Posted on by Christine Harbin

Many critics of the “Fair Tax” argue that it would hurt people who have lower incomes. This is not completely true. For many reasons, the Fair Tax proposal would have many positive consequences for low-income individuals and families.

First, low-income individuals and families would see an automatic increase in their take-home income that is equal to the amount that they currently pay in income tax. They would be able to take home 100 percent of their earnings, because there would be no income tax withheld if the Fair Tax were implemented. This would be a tremendous benefit for those who live from paycheck to paycheck. In their recent policy study for the Show-Me Institute, “Previous Estimates Overstate ‘Fair Tax’ Rates, Harms,” Prof. Joseph Haslag and Abhi Sivasailam note the following:

In Missouri, the personal income tax rate is 6 percent; if this tax were repealed, consumers would be richer by that same amount.

In addition to having more money in their bank accounts, low-income individuals and families would also benefit from a personal exemption that would help them pay for the increase in sales tax. Like most Fair Tax proposals, the Missouri bill includes a “prebate” check system that is based on federal poverty guidelines and the number of people in each family.

Plus, eliminating corporate income taxes would place downward pressure on consumer prices and increase individual income even further. This is because businesses pay for corporate income taxes by passing them onto their consumers, employees, and shareholders. They do this by increasing the price that they charge for their products and services, reducing the amount that they pay their employees, and/or by eliminating or reducing dividends to shareholders.

States that have zero income taxes experience higher rates of growth as a consequence. For example, as Jenifer Zeigler Roland and Dave Roland recently demonstrated, the absence of an income tax caused Tennessee to outgrow Missouri. And, as the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. The status quo hurts low-income individuals and families because income taxes discourage economic progress and because this population is disproportionately impacted by periods of slow economic growth. Low-income individuals and families are more likely to lose their jobs, possess fewer resources to endure periods of financial hardship, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a healthy economy provides.

As another benefit of the Fair Tax, low-income individuals and families would benefit from increased employment opportunities. Eliminating the income tax would attract new businesses to Missouri, and they in turn would increase employment opportunities and broaden the tax base. Missouri needs all the help that it can get right now — the state’s unemployment rate was 9.5 percent in December.

Something that critics of the Fair Tax don’t address is that it eliminates loopholes and income tax exemptions in the existing income tax system that favor some businesses and individuals over others. High income individuals and corporations would no longer be able to use such loopholes to their advantage. As a consequence, the proposal would eliminate the mechanisms that are built into current tax law that send income tax revenues toward earmarks and special interests.

Free Market for Farmers’ Markets

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

There’s an interesting editorial in the Kansas City Star written by somebody who was revolted by a front page photo of pigs in a modern factory farm. Instead of rallying her readers to implore government action on the matter, the author encouraged them to “vote with your wallet each time you eat.” She specifically mentioned the Kansas City Food Circle as a resource for finding “responsible” food; the group describes itself as “an all-volunteer, grassroots organization created to promote the development of a permanently sustainable local food system.”

The power of consumers to influence producers with their money is something we’ve discussed before on Show-Me Daily. It is not a pipe dream, either, considering that companies like McDonald’s are listening.  Entire businesses (like Whole Foods) have sprung up around the environmentally-conscious consumer.

Last semester, as a final project for my research methods class, my group conducted a survey about people’s meat-buying habits and their knowledge of farm conditions. Although I can’t mention specific results — we conducted the project for educational purposes only — we generally observed that most people claimed price to be the biggest factor when they bought meat. After we showed them pictures and information about industrial farms, a significant percentage said that knowledge of farming practices and conditions would affect their future purchasing decisions.

If these sort of things are important to you, voting with your wallet — and encouraging your friends to do the same — is the best way for the market to select for companies that most closely align with societal norms. One common misperception about free markets is that profit is the only important factor, and that the only way for a company to survive is for it to offer the lowest prices — and cut quality accordingly. But that’s merely a straw man: Product quality and any number of social considerations, including “eco-consciousness,” can have value for consumers.

Price is a limiting factor for some people, and they may not be willing or able to pay a higher price in order to make purchases that satisfy whatever environmental concerns they may have — and that should be their prerogative. Many people say they want environmental concessions, but they may not be willing to pay the difference in price that those concessions would require. Government regulations can therefore harm some number people by increasing compliance costs and therefore raising the price of food. By using the market as a tool to affect change instead, people can make their own cost/environmental-consciousness trade-offs. Voting with money allows companies with successful business plans — for some, that will mean alternative production methods or types of food — to succeed. It is the most democratic of processes, because each person is able to decide where they wish to draw the line.

Missouri Can Be Proud of Its High-Speed Rail Allocation

Posted on by David Stokes

Here are some things to be happy about! Missouri ranks last among the 50 states in the number of professions subject to occupational licensing; we have generally low excise taxes; and, (in all likelihood) the way the state will use rail stimulus funds is probably best use we could have hoped for. Before everyone jumps all over me, let me explain why it is the best we could have reasonably hoped for:

  1. Missouri’s portion of the rail stimulus is a (comparatively) small amount of tax dollars that DOES NOT commit Missouri to building some new high-speed rail system.

  2. The dollars will likely be used in a manner that will bring demonstrable and measurable improvements to our current rail system. Or maybe they won’t, but at least we’ll know if that’s the case and have the ability to test and measure results before we commit to spending more money. So far, the first of these projects (undertaken without stimulus money) has had measurable success in reducing delays and allowing for increased traffic. (I believe strongly that eliminating delays is more important than speeding up the trip.)

  3. If the state spends a reasonable amount of money making demonstrable improvements to our current system, that will increase voluntary ridership (it already has) — which will (presumably and hopefully) decrease the required subsidy amount.

It is theoretically sound, but practically unrealistic, to expect that MoDOT would not have applied for stimulus funds and that the state would not have have received any for high-speed rail. MoDOT deserves credit for applying for shovel-ready projects that will improve our current Amtrak service rather than reaching for the fantasy world of bullet trains to Ballwin.

The projects that MoDOT will undertake with this money, and the project they already completed without stimulus funds, are based on engineering — not on delusions of taking the Orient Express at 250 mph. A study completed in 2007 by Mizzou engineers listed the most cost effective ways for MoDOT to improve existing rail service. The study recommended projects, such as the recently completed California (Mo.) rail-siding extension (scroll about two-thirds down the page) that would immediately improve rail service. Those are the projects for which MoDOT received funding, not pie-in-the-sky projects requiring newer, larger, and interminable subsidies.

The nationwide high-speed rail plan as a whole, announced last week, is a sad joke, as aptly described by Chrissy in her recent post. However, Missouri’s part in it is a relative bright spot, and MoDOT deserves commendation for keeping its plans focused — almost as much commendation as that candidate in Illinois who made the Simpsons monorail reference before I did:

“All this money to get from Chicago to St. Louis 45 minutes faster? This isn’t informed public policy, it’s a ‘Simpsons’ episode,” gubernatorial candidate Dan Proft said in a statement.

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