With 100 percent of the vote in, we have the results.
13,614 Total Votes Cast
13,424 people voted on Prop C
4,380 (32.63%) Voted For
9,044 (67.37%) Voted Against
It will be at least another two years till the issue can be revisited by the voters. I sincerely hope that both the opponents and proponents can come together on a compromise. This issue was surrounded with controversy, and hopefully next time (if there is a next time) it won’t be so heated.
See the results here.
First, at least one school district is encouraging parents to give their kids bananas to improve their MAP test scores:
Other schools base their test motivators on scientific research. At Hanna Woods Elementary in the Parkway district, for example, students taking the test will get goody bags from younger students that include No. 2 pencils and mints. Peppermint, according to research from the University of Cincinnati, can help increase concentration.
At Kennerly Elementary in the Lindbergh School District, the parent association encouraged parents to donate bananas, which are rich in mind-boosting potassium.
Does anybody seriously believe that students’ scores are low because they have a potassium deficiency? Bananas won’t have any effect on test scores, but they do provide a distraction from the things that do determine achievement, like quality of curriculum and teaching. It’s not entirely the districts’ fault, though. There are so many constraints on the hiring, firing, and rewarding of teachers that it’s easier to turn to bananas, despite the minuscule marginal returns.
And now for the second banana story: “fair-trade” bananas are available at Wash U. The bananas come with certification that the farmers who grew them were compensated appropriately. This is basically an extension of the locavore idea. All the bananas in a market are going to be priced about the same, because if one brand were much more expensive, it wouldn’t sell. So in order to pay farmers a lot more, you have to cut back on some other cost of bringing the bananas to market — like transportation costs. So, you buy more from farmers who are close by, and less from farmers who are farther away (and who are so in need of money that they offer bananas very cheaply). Transportation is just one example; there are other costs you can cut back on. You can work only with farmers you already know, and avoid spending money on finding new people to exchange with. The point is, there will always be some farmers out there who are farther away or harder to find, who will be hurt by “fair trade.”
My list is mainly focused on St. Louis County, but you are encouraged to add other important races around the state to the comments section. I am definitely watching the Town and Country mayor’s race, to see whether that community wants to stay with the tried and true or go with the “maverick.” My bet is on tried and true.
Also of interest are the charter votes in the area. Franklin County, as we have discussed in depth, is deciding on a new county charter, while O’Fallon voters are choosing whether to amend theirs.
There are little-known but very important votes going down in the Mehlville and Monarch (Chesterfield) Fire Protection District. The decision that residents in those places have to make is how much influence the union should have over the fire board. On top of that, they have a first-of-its-kind vote in Mehlville to lower the tax rate ceiling, an issue we blogged about previously. If this succeeds, I predict other similar measures in taxing districts around the county.
And, finally, I understand there is some type of a mayor’s race in the city of St. Louis, and I know everyone will be on pins and needles as that one goes down to the wire. I think we will all have to stay up well past 7:10 p.m. before we know whether the incumbent has been reelected. Hey, when you do a good job, voters usually reward it.
The above song title (switching out “Springfield” and “D.C. Property Tax” for “Mobile” and “Memphis,” of course) was the answer to one of the trivia questions Saturday night, when we won the annual Soulard Restoration Group trivia night for the fifth time in the five-year history of the event. This is close to our record of winning the Boys Hope Girls Hope trivia night eight times in nine years (we sat out the only year we didn’t win). So far, we are four for four in 2009 trivia nights, with the season coming to a close. What does all this have to do with the review of Rep. Roy Blunt’s property tax records, as reported in the Kansas City Star this morning? Nothing! I just wanted to brag. …
Which gets us into the debate over whether it is a big deal that Rep. Blunt and his wife may have received an undeserved property tax break for the past few years. Not surprisingly, some people think this is a very big deal. I tend to disagree, while also certainly feeling that if any back taxes are due — and it seems likely there will be some — that all those back taxes, including penalties and interest, must be paid as soon as possible (I hate stating the obvious, but sometimes you have to).
The almost-certain reason for the confusion is that Ms. Blunt used to live at the D.C. home as her primary residence, so she rightfully claimed the credit. At some point after her marriage, though, she started claiming Missouri as her primary residence, so she should have lost the credit. The Blunts asked a D.C. official to see that the credit was discontinued, but it wasn’t (emphasis added):
“The Blunts asked my office to see that the exemption … was removed,” wrote Councilman Jack Evans. “Both the Blunts and I were assured this has been done. I deeply regret that the assurances to the Blunts were not followed up on correctly.”
If the Missouri Highway Patrol can mistakenly forget to file charges against a potential DWI offender until after the statute of limitations runs, then I have no problem believing that some civil servant in D.C.’s city hall (or would that be “district hall”?) might tell someone the credit had been changed when it had not been, and then completely forgotten about it.
This is all about a very small amount of money, no more than $3,000 over five years. I find it impossible to believe that the congressman would have risked a scandal over five hundred bucks a year. I put this squarely in the same box as the back taxes due by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. It is a small amount of money. Somebody made an honest mistake (in the Blunts’ case, the error was in failing to confirm the credit had been discontinued). Fix the mistake, pay the back taxes, and move on. No big deal. (I don’t necessarily feel this way about all the back-tax issues in the Obama administration confirmation process, however. Knowing that you have to pay both sides of SS and Medicare, a situation I have experienced, is neither hard nor complicated.)
My wife and I always do our own taxes, which get somewhat complicated, because she is a partner in her law firm and has income from multiple states, so we owe returns for more than just Missouri. We work our tails off each year trying to get it exactly right, and believe that we succeed. We have probably spent 20 hours in the past week working on them. Part of me hates it, but a bigger part of me likes doing it so we get a clear sense of how much we pay to the government every year. The bottom line is that many people make small mistakes when the tax system gets complicated, and maintaining multiple homes — as just about everyone in Congress does — can be confusing. So, while the Star story is interesting and certainly a legitimate story, I don’t think it is that big a deal.
With more than 100,000 people, Franklin County is the only large county in the Saint Louis metropolitan area lacking a form of self-government. Last April, however, residents gave the green light to a constitutional charter draft for county government. The 14-person commission created for this task — equally split along partisan lines — did an admirable job. Although there are some drawbacks that need to be addressed, the charter draft as it stands would largely be a positive step forward.
To be clear, this new charter would not create a new level of government. Rather, it would simply switch one form of county government for a better one. As someone who was raised in Franklin County, I’ve seen firsthand how the community’s needs have changed over time. Population growth naturally entails additional challenges, and as we now face increasing taxes and declining economic growth, the people of Franklin County need a more direct voice in their government. The proposed charter would entail minimal cost in relation to its benefits. It would bring true representation to unincorporated areas, and it wouldn’t drastically expand the number of county offices. Despite the county’s current executive and commissioners, we are still largely governed by Missouri rules and regulations. Franklin County has grown to the point where it makes sense to become a self-governing entity with rules determined in the county seat — not the state capital.
The new format would add seven county council members, each with a $10,000 annual salary, replacing the two current associate commissioners who make $64,000 apiece. Essentially, the county would trade one commissioner for seven councilors, and although a seven-member council may seem like a high number, it would allow for population growth. The charter specifies that county council lines would be drawn according to population, which would allow for greater representation of the people, especially for those who don’t live in a municipality.
Counties have to strike a balance when deciding how many elected officials to have. Although the charter would wisely maintain a number of offices as elected positions, which is positive for good government, the proposed number does not create an overly cumbersome bureaucracy.
Aside from these positive aspects, one part of the charter is particularly disagreeable. While it does not worsen the county’s property rights situation, the charter commission missed a real opportunity to be a leader in the fight against eminent domain abuse. The proposed charter outlines at great length the situations in which officials might use eminent domain, when it should have simply said, “Franklin County will not take private property from one party to give to another private party for any reason.” The charter language contains elaborate posturing, to give the appearance of real eminent domain protection. As it stands, however, it would still give officials the opportunity to redistribute land between private parties simply by making capricious “blight” designations, if a majority of the council so votes. The county merely adopted the same weak standard that the state has already implemented.
There are a couple more potential problems. The charter would give officials the power to hire consultants or lobbyists, which could lead to undue influence and corruption during the lawmaking process. It would also give the council power to create laws for the “public health and welfare,” and allow them to make rules and regulations that are “necessary and proper.” These phrases are both standard constitutional language, but are still worrisome because they have been abused at both federal and state levels to expand the size and role of government in Americans’ daily lives. Franklin County won’t grow into the behemoth that the federal government has become, but it’s crucial for citizens to continue taking an active role in their communities and keep government unobtrusive and small. The direct and personal connection that comes along with such a small county council will help ensure that citizens respond to official wrongdoing.
Considered in total, though, the charter would establish more local control — the most important and effective form of government — which can bring protection and insulation from bad laws. The charter’s apportionment of a council member for each 14,285 people would also provide a focused and influential representative voice for the people, contrasted with the two current commissioners who must try to listen to and advocate for all 100,000. Franklin County has an active citizenry, with many people who would make great council members or county executives. The charter draft’s missed opportunities and troublesome aspects can always be amended, but the overall proposal would be largely a positive step forward.
Phil Eckelkamp is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He is currently pursuing a degree at Saint Louis University School of Law.
There have been two recent examples of significant government employee layoffs in the Saint Louis area — if you count Metro employees as government workers, which in many ways they are. The Post-Dispatch‘s transportation blog has a report about Metro staff getting their last paychecks as part of the agency’s budget cuts.
Contrast this with the Post story the other day about private business trying to fill the needs created by the budget cuts. If Metro, St. Louis County, and St. Louis city would all work together to eliminate many existing restrictions on the activities of private businesses in the transit sector, perhaps some of the laid-off employees would be hired. The Show-Me Institute will release more about this issue soon.
The other item is the very surprising news that the city treasurer’s office is laying off 70 (!) people. Here is the story in the Beacon, via Combest. That is rather amazing. I was told by a reliable source that most of the people being fired have already vested in the pension system, so it is not like anybody is being kicked out with nothing coming to them, which sounds fair. However, it is surprising that the treasurer, Larry Williams, has made this decision, and he deserves great credit for it. I have no doubt that for years, under all prior Treasurers, that office has been a hotbed of patronage — as the state auditor’s office discussed recently. But Williams deserves praise for making the difficult decision to place taxpayer dollars over political favoritism.
I think this is a really good idea. Not only could a reality show defray the costs of caring for the octuplets, but it would solve the problem of monitoring their well-being. There’s less need for state employees to go to Nadya Suleman’s home and observe her if she already has several cameramen doing just that (plus broadcasting the scene to the rest of the world).
Please be sure to check out this awesome video about unnecessary interior design restrictions. It focuses on Florida, but Missouri regulates this occupation, too. For more information on why these types of laws are so harmful, please review our work on the issue.
