Controversy Over Veteran’s Program in Downtown St. Louis

Last night, KSDK Channel 5 in St. Louis ran a story about the controversy over a program to house veterans with problems like alcohol or drug dependency in a downtown apartment building. The Post-Dispatch has a story about it today. To sum it up in one sentence, downtown residents are concerned about housing veterans with these problems in their neighborhood, and angry that they were not consulted about it beforehand.

I have probably never sided with the government nearly as much as I have on this issue. Please tell me why the hell the residents of the area needed to be consulted before the program moved forward? Obviously, this use was within zoning rules for the area, so that argument is moot. Why should St. Patrick’s Center or City Hall need to ask permission or seek input before they move forward with a worthwhile program that is perfectly legal and completely normal for the area?

I like one particular speaker in the Channel 5 video who expresses concern about housing 45 or so veterans at 12th and Washington, because his grandkids visit him downtown. Where to begin on this insanity? There are two homeless shelters already there (Salvation Army and Larry Rice’s place), and a hotel on 9th St. that houses more sex offenders than any other place in Missouri. I would think they might want the veterans downtown; at least you know they can shoot.

I used to live in downtown St. Louis, from 1998 to 2002. I fully understand the residents’ concerns about the homeless, and I have no problem with efforts to move homeless shelters out of the area. I agree that the loft district will never fully succeed with two homeless shelters operating in its heart. But the veterans in this project are not homeless. They are given apartments and required to hold a job while they are enrolled in the St. Patrick’s Center program to help them overcome their issues. It is a terrific program for people who need and deserve help. I can’t fathom the opposition that is highlighted in these reports.

I think this might be another example of the harm that eminent domain and government-driven “economic development” have done to people’s minds. Some people think they have the right to tell other property owners what to do with their own property, even when it falls perfectly within the zoning codes.

Economic Stimulus for Stay-at-Home Moms

This article in the Post-Dispatch describes a proposal for the state to offer scholarships to stay-at-home moms. Here’s what Rep. Cynthia Davis (the bill’s sponsor) says in justification for the idea:

“Every rule we pass in this building either encourages or discourages a behavior,” Davis said, and added that this rule encouraged women to stay at home with their children. “When your child falls down and gets a boo-boo, you’re there to kiss it better.”

Davis said the bill would also help women re-enter the work force after their children were grown.

The thinking that federal or state government needs to pick winners and promote some economic choices at the expense of others has tremendous currency right now. Compared to all the other “stimulus” expenditures that are in the air, a scholarship of a few hundred dollars for some women isn’t going to be all that damaging. Still, we should consider whether this is really an equitable use of tax dollars. What about moms who don’t have the resources to stay at home? Or who can’t conceive? (Laws like this do “encourage” behaviors — like trying to have octuplets!) What about dads who stay at home? And then there are moms who already have Ph.D.s and are making sacrifices to stay home with their children, but have no use for further scholarships.

The $1,000 limit on mom’s earnings in order for her to qualify seems like it was pulled out of a hat. Maybe a woman who works for a couple hours a day while her children are in school earns $2,000 or $3,000 a year. There’s no big difference between her and someone who earns $999, but under this bill, she would be penalized.

The $600 scholarship amount is small, and it won’t change many people’s life decisions one way or another. It would basically give free money to people who have already done what Rep. Davis wants them to do. Not the worst possible use of resources, but not the best either.

More on Single-Sex Classrooms

The Parkway School District’s foray into single-sex education is steadily gaining popularity. What began as a tentative experiment with first-graders is now an established program at Carmen Trails Elementary School, set to include third-graders next year in response to parents’ demand.

This sentence caught my eye:

And even though the school doesn’t have test data to prove its success, the program is growing.

Critics of successful initiatives in education repeatedly make that charge — there’s no “research” or “data” to prove that a program is the best. A great example is the SLPS math teacher who developed an amazing new approach to teaching math, but was told that his work couldn’t be expanded because it wasn’t backed up by research.

Everyone would love to have vast stores of high-quality data on educational practices. But in our less-than perfect world, schools need to make decisions without it. One way to do that is to follow Parkway’s lead, expanding programs that parents want. Giving parents a choice between single-sex and coed classrooms lets people vote with their feet. And it makes it less likely that any child will be assigned to the wrong room. If some children do better in a single-sex environment and others fair poorly, you don’t want them all arbitrarily forced into one of the options.

Since children are different, more research might not even help much. A study that shows the average student improves in a single-sex classroom doesn’t guarantee that individual children will thrive under that policy. And while it’s true any particular program might not succeed if applied generally, working top-down from studies to practice has drawbacks too. A general trend identified in research might not be evident in the local public school.

Three Ideas for Smaller Government in Missouri

There are many potential ways to reduce the size and influence of government in Missouri. For each, at least one — and probably many more — entrenched interest stands in the way of implementation. Some of those interests genuinely believe that a larger role for government would benefit their communities — an unfortunate and erroneous, but at least honest, opinion. Others keenly wish to reduce government, except for the pet causes that are important to that particular interest. As interest groups accumulate, each with its own list of exceptions, it becomes difficult to reduce government at all. Building from this premise, following are three proposals to reduce the size and scope of Missouri government.

Missouri could stand to have fewer counties. We currently have 114, plus the independent city of Saint Louis. This is the fourth-highest total out of all 50 states. Sixty of these counties contain fewer than 20,000 residents, and 26 have fewer than 10,000. Analysis demonstrates that Missouri’s smaller counties spend more per resident in providing the same basic levels of service. The curve levels out at approximately 15,000 residents, as efficiencies of scale emerge. Missouri’s leaders and the citizens in smaller counties should strongly consider merging, in order to save taxpayer funds and reduce per-capita levels of government employment. I do not recommend that the state mandate consolidation, but officials could include incentives to promote county mergers when disbursing aid to local governments.

Missouri could also reduce the number of state representatives, which, at 163 members in its lower body, is again the fourth highest in the country. The economic research does not conclusively show that larger numbers lead to greater spending levels, but state representatives themselves are not inexpensive. If 46 other states function effectively with fewer legislators, so can Missouri. Lowering the number of state representatives to 101 — about average for our bordering states — and slightly increasing staffing levels to accommodate the larger districts, would significantly reduce salary and benefit expenditures. Eliminating 62 representative positions would also dramatically reduce the meaningless legislation introduced each year — a good thing, unless you want an official symbol for every taxonomic classification on the planet.

Finally, Missouri could eliminate the township option for the 22 third-class counties that further subdivide themselves. My research has not found significant spending differences between counties with or without townships, and township officials receive small stipends, so this is not a financial argument. Rather, limiting the number of officials and government entities limits the overall power of government in our day-to-day lives. Too few officials might lead to disproportionate power for any single person or office, but a preponderance of officials can have negative effects as well, making it very difficult for the public and press to monitor their use of tax dollars. Unsurprisingly, a 2003 report by the state auditor documented numerous instances in which townships failed to follow proper financial reporting procedures. Two years prior, Wright County’s townships performed so poorly that voters abolished them. Voters in the other 22 counties should consider the same thing, and lawmakers would serve their constituents well by discontinuing the township option altogether.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but financed and appropriated through busybody legislation. Too many offices and officials leads to saggy pants bans, burdensome property regulations, fee increases, or tax exemptions for favored businesses rather than a reduction for all. This slowly but surely reduces our own freedoms — death by a thousand cuts from land use regulations, tax increases, safety mandates, awareness and sensitivity training, etc. The reforms I’ve suggested would slow that process and provide a tourniquet for liberty.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

 

Private Colleges in Missouri May Become Less Competitive

Gov. Jay Nixon intends to increase funding to the Access Missouri grant program by $2.5 million. In addition to the funding increase, the governor wants to significantly decrease the amount of grant money that students attending private colleges are eligible to receive (by as much as $1,750 per student per year). Currently, private college students are eligible for grants up to $4,600 each, while public college students may receive a maximum of $2,150 each.

While Gov. Nixon’s plan to redistribute the grants more evenly between private and public institutions seems logical, economic implications tell another story. Generally, private colleges tend to be more expensive than public schools, so the higher grant money available to private school students is in actuality the same amount (or at least similar) offered to public school students in relative terms. If grants for both are relatively the same, then reducing the private school grant money would cause a disparity in competitiveness between public and private colleges, tipping the scale in favor of public colleges.

Furthermore, private colleges tend to provide more specialized degrees than the typical public college, so reducing grant money to private school students would have a negative effect on the diversity of the labor force.

KMOX Visits the Red Light District

I greatly enjoyed the discussion a short time ago on KMOX’s Mark Reardon Show about red light cameras. The host had Senator Jim Lembke on to talk about his bill before the legislature to outlaw red light cameras in Missouri. I attended a rally a few months back protesting these cameras that was sponsored by a new group dedicated to outlawing them in Missouri. (Intern Phil recently posted a nice summary of our writings on this subject.)

Red light cameras are a violation of our constitutional rights. They violate the 4th, 6th, and — most importantly — the 9th amendments. The 9th amendment involves your right not to be videotaped by a camera every moment of your life. They are nothing more than a scam to get more money for municipalities. I hope Sen. Lembke’s bill passes unanimously as part of a statement by Missouri legislators that they’re willing to defend liberty. (I know, however, that will not actually happen.)

Kansas City Regional Jail Is a Terrific Idea

I have written about this before, and I look forward to a regional jail shared by the cities and Jackson County becoming reality. The Star has the update.

This is an excellent example of the type of regional cooperation that will save taxpayers money. The only thing I can add to this discussion is the perspective of history, and to remind people still undecided on this in the western part of the state that St. Louis County did this in the 1990s. The St. Louis county jail, which is used by all of the municipalities, has worked out great for everyone. I am sure it will work for KC, too, especially if they build it art deco–style right by city hall and the courthouse.

Alternative Teacher Certification

Thank you, Missouri State Teachers Association, for linking to this article about a new route to teacher certification through the Denver Public Schools. Prospective teachers can spend 10 months in the classroom working under a mentor teacher, complete coursework for a master’s degree, and receive certification — provided they agree to work for the district for five years.

This doesn’t look that far removed from traditional certification, because of the coursework requirement, but I do think it’s a step in the right direction. Working in a classroom from the very start of the certification process will give people a better idea of whether teaching is the right job for them. And it will add a practical dimension to the training process, providing balance to the theoretical education courses. It may even introduce some competition into the profession, if more people are attracted to the apprenticeship than to traditional routes.

Why We Don’t Need an Ethanol Mandate

The Post-Dispatch has a quick-hitter about a rebuilt gas station in Brentwood that is now offering E-85 gasoline. (I used to fill up at this station all the time when I lived in Brentwood Forest.) Because there is no mandate to sell E-85, the station owners have to include the reduced energy output of ethanol gas in their pricing. According to the story, they are selling it for 20 cents less per gallon.

This is how markets are supposed to work. Our new SUV (just doing my part to get the economy moving) is a flex fuel vehicle. I honestly didn’t think much about that when we bought it, I was much more concerned with making sure my wife and I had the ultimate set of rims. But if a station gives me enough of a price reduction on the E-85 gas, I will certainly consider buying it. This is the nature of capitalism: The government does not tell me what I have to buy; businesses give me a choice. Recent events have probably made people forget about that.

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