SLPS Should Keep Community in Mind When Closing Schools

Posted on by Clovis Ouangraoua

Hundreds gathered in a recent meeting, in an attempt to voice their opinions against this measure, which would result in the closing of about 30 public schools in the St. Louis area because budget shortfalls and declining student population. However, questions remain regarding what will happen to the properties after they close.

Ironically, charter schools — along with several other categories of institutions — are to be banned from acquiring any of the properties, according to the measure’s deed restrictions. Some officials have even considered selling buildings for a symbolic $1, and leaving the renovation to purchasing companies. Many think that the measure fails to consider the community’s needs by artificially reducing available options.

I just can’t comprehend why charter schools would not be allowed to acquire property that was previously owned by SLPS. Some might point out that charter schools are in competition with the district, but is this competition really a factor if those buildings can no longer fulfill their educational purposes? One might assume that schools of all types should “cooperate” with each other, for the betterment of all the city’s children, but the reality is quite different.

Any opinions about this? Why do you think charter schools are being excluded?

First Weekend Open Thread

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

In an effort to better gauge and understand the desires of our readers, we are attempt the first-ever “Show-Me Daily Open Thread.” This is your opportunity to tell us what you want to see more of and/or if we missed a story that you would like to see analyzed from a free-market perspective and opened for discussion.

So, let’s hear it. What would you like to see?

Ending Eminent Domain Abuse

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

There is a letter in the Post-Dispatch today about Jim Roos’ sign advocating the end of eminent domain abuse. It is kind of buried within the other letters, so I wanted to make sure our readers would have a chance to see it. Enjoy.

No apology necessary

Jim Roos owes no apology for the “End Eminent Domain Abuse” mural, which protests the use of eminent domain for private (rather than public) use (“Sign of the times,” Feb. 2). The editorial failed to acknowledge that St. Louis has taken 24 properties from Mr. Roos’ non-profit housing ministry to make way for private development.

The editorial also omitted the fact that the building on which Mr. Roos had the mural painted is itself threatened with eminent domain abuse. Posting the protest at the site of the government’s wrong was the one way to effectively voice dissent.

The editorial got one thing right: Content neutrality is a prerequisite for a constitutionally valid sign code. Yet St. Louis’s code is anything but neutral; it allows signs concerning a host of other topics. It is disconcerting that the Post-Dispatch believes Mr. Roos should apologize for wanting the same protection for a political protest.

If St. Louis doesn’t want citizens conspicuously protesting eminent domain abuse, the city simply should stop engaging in it.

Michael Bindas | Seattle, Wash.

Staff attorney, Institute for Justice

Tradition Beats Technology

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

Great commentary by Capitol Calling (Jason Rosenbaum’s new blog) (link via John Boy). The bill to allow senators to have laptops at their desk on the Senate floor was indefinitely tabled (read: the bill is dead). The discussion between the senators is passionate at times, and at other times it is slightly mocking. I will again say that there is no better place for laptops than on the Senate floor. I should point out that Blackberries are allowed, however, and are constantly used to move debate forward. There seems to be little difference between the two types of devices other than size. I know I can watch videos, check email, surf the web, work on Excel and Word documents, and everything else on my phone, but if I had the choice I would prefer a laptop if I were going to be working for long period of time. We all know the Senate is never short on topics to talk about.

BTW, I would like to point out that I linked to Rosenbaum’s article on this subject and excluded others because he embraced new media technology in his blog entry — which, in turn, gave the most authentic and unbiased report. Good to have you back, Jason.

It Is Time for Education Reform

Posted on by Clovis Ouangraoua

The Columbia Daily Tribune reported early last month that Education Week‘s annual “Quality Counts” report on public education found that Missouri’s performance has a particularly low ranking. In fact, the study found that “Only 10 other states and the District of Columbia scored as low or lower than Missouri; and Nebraska is the only bordering state to earn a lower grade.”

The State registered C’s and D’s on important matters, such as children’s chances of success, transitions and alignment from early childhood to post-secondary education, and teaching. In addition, according to the study, Missouri is not offering incentives to highly qualified teachers, and has among the lowest teacher salaries. This should be a wake up call for improvement. So many solutions could be proposed to improve the quality of education we are giving to our children — our future. Many of these solutions can be found in the Show-Me Institute’s studies and articles about education policy.

Bartle’s Second Reply to Stouffer

Posted on by David Stokes

Yesterday, I was privileged to testify at a hearing on Senate Bill 11, proposed legislation that would discontinue Missouri’s ethanol gasoline mandate. If you are wondering why I use the term “privileged” here, I assure you that it has nothing to do with what I said — although I was definitely honored to be invited to testify by Sen. Bartle’s office. For a journalist’s take on the hearing, the News-Leader has the story (link via Combest).

It was a privilege because being at the committee hearing allowed me to listen to a truly wonderful debate among the seven senators involved in the ethanol issue, and larger issues of free markets versus government investment. Sen. Bartle was truly amazing. He expressed the power and beauty of free-market ideals with clarity and passion. One of his best lines was when he said, “This used to be an argument that Republicans had with Democrats. Now it’s an argument a small group of Republicans has with everyone else.” (The only thing I might add to that would be to say, “… a small group of Republicans, and an even smaller group of libertarians …”) It was inspiring to hear his arguments, which I obviously agreed with completely.

Just like the famous series of debates referenced in the title of this blog entry, though, all the senators involved did a great job of arguing their points. Having just read the new Andrew Jackson biography, I am aware that while history has glorified Daniel Webster for his speeches, the other participants (Benton, Livingston, and Hayne) all acquitted themselves well as a new nation tried to determine its future course. In the same way, the members of the committee that supported the ethanol mandate (i.e., all of them) made excellent arguments about how the mandate supports Missouri business, benefits drivers with competition, and more. I don’t agree with those arguments, but Sen. Stouffer and others, from both parties, did a fine job in making them.

While the outcome failure of this bill is essentially preordained, Sen. Bartle had the courage to bring it up, and demonstrated intensity in debating it. The members of the committee also skillfully argued for their constituencies. I think many of them agreed with much of what Sen. Bartle said, but decided that an exception should be made for ethanol. If this is an indication of the quality of debate we are getting in Jefferson City now, I may have to reverse my support for term limits. …

Economics Forum 1: Public Goods

Posted on by Josh Smith

Todays blog post from me will be the first in what I hope to make a series of open dialogues with the readers of Show-Me Daily on economic topics. Today’s topic is public goods.

There are many misconceptions about what constitutes a public good. It seems like state parks, public schools, roads, and many other things currently provided by the government are public goods. In a sense, they are. They are what economists call “goods”: people would pay to use them if they weren’t free(as opposed to “bads,” which people pay to get rid of; garbage is an example). And they are publicly owned — that is, owned by the state — which ostensibly means that every person has an equal claim to them, and that no one can forbid anyone else from using them.

Economists, however, are very specific when they speak of public goods. A public good is any good which is non-rival and non-excludable. Don’t get scared by the terms. A rival good is one where my using or consuming it prevents you from using or consuming it, like a bike, an apple, or a particular seat at a concert. So a non-rival good is something that, if consumed or used by one doesn’t diminish anyone else’s ability to use or consume it, like listening to a concert (on the radio, or a recording, or from your own house if you live next to the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater (formerly Riverport).

Another example of something non-rival is … this blog. When you read it, this doesn’t diminish anyone else’s ability to read it (the bandwidth of our server is rival, of course, but thankfully Google creates backup locations where websites can be found when their bandwidth is exceeded). The air is often cited as an example of something non-rival, but some economists dispute this. National Defense is also a commonly cited non-rival good. No matter who pays to defend our borders, everyone inside gets protected.

Excludability is a bit tougher to pin down. Simply put, a good is excludable if it is possible to prevent someone who didn’t pay for it from consuming it. So, it seems that the air is non-excludable, and big screen TVs are excludable. The tricky part comes in realizing that excludability is actually a range of values, not just yes or no. Anything can be excludable, depending on how much you are willing to pay to stop particular people, or people in general, from consuming it. And anything can be non-excludable: you could consume anything you want, as long as no one were to stop you.

There is a modicum of security in place at most businesses designed to prevent people from treating their goods as non-excludable, but these systems are not perfect. Excludability for any item exists on a continuum from cheap to exclude (bus riders who don’t want to pay) to expensive to exclude (people who live next to Riverport; the amphitheater’s owners could build a soundproof dome around the place, but why would they?).

I’ve gone on long enough. A public good is that which is non-rival and non-excludable. Think about it and comment away! What surprising results does this lead to? Is fire protection service a public good? Which public goods do you think the government should or should not provide? I am eager to hear what everyone thinks. Expect my next Econ Forum post soon.

The Possible Diminishing Returns of Government Transparency

Posted on by Ryan Davisson

When looking at the changes to the Sunshine Laws (link via Combest) that have been proposed in Missouri House Bill 316, it brings to mind Harry S. Truman, who once jested about his desire for a one-armed economist.

I’m referring to the trade-off that one must face when looking at an expanded transparency in government, and how far it can go before excessive red tape leads to a decreased efficiency of government officials that outweighs the value of another marginal increase in transparency. Don’t get me wrong, I am an avid supporter of government transparency and accountability.  At the same time, I think that there is a very fine balance between the level of transparency within a government agency and its ability to operate efficiently.

One alternative to the proposed public meeting rules that could satisfy both worlds could be the use of web broadcasts, which would allow municipalities more freedom when scheduling meetings, while still making the content of these meetings available to the public eye.

I don’t think that this particular bill is pushing government transparency too far — in fact, I think the bill is a step in the right direction — but efficiency is definitely a factor to consider in our new age of government transparency. While everyone can agree that increased transparency has positive returns, one has to keep in mind that it is possible — if not likely — that at some point, these returns diminish marginally. It’s just difficult to tell where that point may lie.

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