I will be discussing occupational licensing in Missouri this evening on KOPN 89.5 FM in Columbia. I am guesting on the News at Five program with Steve Spellman. Please listen in if you are able.
Should the Legislature Allow Four-Day School Weeks? Absolutely!
The comments on this article appear to be largely opposed, but I say, “By all means!” This proposal wouldn’t force all districts to switch to a four-day schedule. Probably only a few rural districts would make the change. Compared to urban districts, rural districts operate under vastly different conditions, and it doesn’t make sense for them to send out fleets of buses over every hill and dale so that kids can spend a few hours in school — before starting off again on the long trip home.
The article mentions a district in Kentucky that has implemented the policy. There, high schoolers were trained to work as babysitters, and some families hired them on the day off of school. This example shows that functions of the public school can be provided by other sources. The fact that schools now watch kids five days a week doesn’t mean that no one else could step up to the plate if district calendars were different.
It’s true that, as one commenter points out, students in other parts of the world attend school six or seven days a week. It doesn’t follow, though, that a long week of short school days is a better schedule. In fact, some other countries have both long school weeks and long school days. Perhaps their educational attainments can be attributed to the long days, rather than the long weeks. The only way to find out whether longer or shorter weeks are better is to try them and see, and districts should be free to experiment.
911 Emergency Centers Calling Out for Economies of Scale
One of the first issues we extensively wrote about here on the Show-Me Institute’s blog is in the news today. Sen. Jason Crowell is insisting that any additional funding for emergency call centers follow behind some much-needed consolidation of those same centers. The Southeast Missourian has the story, and we thank JC for the link.
There are some exciting quotes in this story from Sen. Crowell, and he is 100 percent right on all of them:
“You’re never, ever going to get the money until you consolidate,” Crowell said. “I’ll force you. I’ll starve you down to it, if you’re not going to do it of your own free will.”
He went on to say the state has 114 counties but 174 individual 911 call centers, including two across the street from one another in Chillicothe, Mo. In a world where all fast food orders for a chain restaurant go to one place, he said, and all North American service calls for Charter Communications go through Cape Girardeau, there has to be a way to streamline 911 services.
“I know how important it is,” Crowell said. “But by gosh we can do it more efficiently, and that’s what the taxpayers deserve and that’s what the taxpayers demand.”
He then cites some examples of inefficiency in his own area:
Cape Girardeau County has three 911 centers, one operated by Cape Girardeau, one by Jackson and one by the county. Scott County has five independent 911 centers.
As I said, we covered this back in early 2007 as some cities in St. Louis County were consolidating on their own and the state was debating a larger tax to fund them. We still have too many call centers in our area, which goes hand in hand with having 91 municipalities, but there are a couple of examples in which small cities have done a nice job of sharing resources and saving money.
We currently have 174 call centers, and Sen. Crowell said in the article that there should be five statewide. I don’t know what the most efficient and effective number would be, but I am sure it is a greal deal closer to Sen. Crowell’s number than to the current one. I really don’t care whether that final number is five or nine or 12, just that it is a lot lower than 174. It is heartening to see someone fight for efficient use of tax money, like Sen. Crowell is doing here.
Buy Here, There, and Everywhere
I enjoyed reading this column by David Nicklaus about the dangers of “Buy American” policies. He notes several drawbacks, such as the inevitable retaliation from trade partners.
I agree with Nicklaus’ argument. In addition to his points, I’d like to emphasize one aspect of trade policy that doesn’t get enough attention. Even if nobody were to mimic our policy and stop buying from us, restricting ourselves to spending locally would still be a bad idea. To understand why, imagine that the activists changed their minds and decided you should only buy in the state of Missouri. Or you could only buy in your city. Or only on your street.
That might sound good if you’re thinking about all the money that would stay on your particular street. You could eat fresh, homegrown tomatoes that your neighbor tended to in his backyard. But what about in the winter, when there aren’t any tomatoes growing on your street? And who would have time to grow tomatoes? After all, whenever someone on your street wanted a new computer, everyone would have to stop what they were doing and turn your neighborhood into a miniature computer factory.
Your money wouldn’t leave the street, but it would be less useful. You and your neighbors would spend every waking minute trying to produce an array of goods without proper training or equipment. Whenever you spent money, you would get one of those products made by amateurs.
The problem with “Buy American” is the same — only on a larger scale. It makes American currency less valuable and forces Americans to waste their time on things that other countries could do better.
The Spectre of Condemnation, Revisited
In 2007, the Show-Me Institute released a study discussing the negative impact that eminent domain has had on families and communities in Missouri. Today, the Post-Dispatch ran a story that functions well as a follow-up to that study.
The article presents a list of “redevelopment” projects that have loomed for years, leaving property owners helplessly wondering when (and if) the projects will go forward. Whether the owners would be happy to sell and move on with their lives, or whether they would rather chain themselves to their homes than lose them to developers, the lingering threat of redevelopment has helped to drive these neighborhoods into disrepair and decay.
SLPS Should Keep Community in Mind When Closing Schools
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
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
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
“Give Mary Lou A Hug For Me”
Dearest readers, commenters, fans, and freedom-lovers,
My opus hath been published: a comparative analysis of Missouri government through the lens of public choice economic theory. The first in a series. Enjoy. Call me if the Yanks trade Mantle.
