The Fashion Police

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

It has been a little more than two months since Pine Lawn Police Chief Rickey Collins began enforcing the anti-sagging ordinance that the municipality’s aldermen passed. According to the Post-Dispatch, “The ordinance calls for fines of up to $100 for those 17 and older who wear pants below the waist that expose underwear or skin. […] Parents of those 16 and under face up to a $500 fine or 90 days in jail if they knowingly allow their children to wear pants in such a manner.”

Personally, I think sagging is uncongenial, representing the antithesis of a gentleman. Despite my views, I believe that government does not have the right to enforce family values by acting like the fashion police. Besides being difficult to implement and patrol, this policy is also unconstitutional. There are many forms of expression that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as fighting words, libel, commercial speech, and obscenity. While some try to place sagging under the umbrella of obscenity, it would be relevant to put it through the “Miller Test,” which is the standard for determining whether material is obscene. In the 1973 case of Miller v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that material is legally obscene if:

  1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would conclude that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests.

  2. It depicts sexually explicit conduct, specifically defined by law, in a patently offensive manner.

  3. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I believe tha sagging passes the ‘Miller Test’ with flying colors. For young people who are part of our country’s inner-city hip hop culture, it is a form of rebellion and identity. To some, it is just plain fashionable. This ordinance in Pine Lawn is just another example of how our liberty and freedom of expression are in danger today.

Other cities around the country, most recently Flint, Mich., are also taking stride to incorporate the same ordinance in their efforts to restore family values and ethics. I do applaud the importance of ethics in American society, but how ethical is it for government to deny our freedom of expression?

Saint Louis County Blue Ribbon Commission Issues Its Report

Posted on by David Stokes

The Commission that was charged with reviewing the capital needs of the county and recommending solutions has issued its final report. (My testimony about it begins on page 226.) The recommendations are a little long on tax increases, but I also recognize that, in the end, it is up to the voters of the county to decide. I like the commission’s recommendations to consider resources outside of central Clayton in certain situations (nobody wants to move the bulk of county facilities from Clayton), and, of course, I really like the support for public-private partnerships to meet some of these needs.

The list of final recommendations on page 14 is the key part of the report (aside from page 226, obviously). It is interesting that the County Council acted against the recommendations of the commission, and placed this use tax on the November, 2008, ballot instead of waiting for April 2009. No further comments — it’s just interesting.

As of right now, it appears that county voters will get to vote on three tax/bond issues this Novermber. As it stands right now, I am in favor of the bond issue, against the use tax, and undecided (leaning in favor) on the Metro tax increase. I live near MetroLink and use it, so a very careful cost-benefit analysis of the service probably benefits me. I have to doubt it would work out that way for most people.

Briefly back to the commission report: Every member of the volunteer commission deserves thanks for dedicating their time to it. Especially Skip Mange, the chairman, who took time away from his grandkids to once again serve the people of the county.

Crashing the Party

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

This week, I have been very intrigued by all of the coverage and media attention received by college and university administrators and their efforts to mitigate some of the behavioral issues on campuses throughout the country. Some of the most publicized attempts by groups such as the Amethyst Initiative, which consists of chancellors and presidents from universities and colleges, have been targeted at lowering the drinking age from 21 years of age to 18, to prevent the culture of binge drinking. While opening up debates about lowering the drinking age is fine and dandy, I must say that I was tickled pink when I read an AP article at the Post-Dispatch site titled “Universities try to control students off campus.”

Many campuses across the country are starting to monitor the off-campus activities of students much more closely, because of the large number of students that pursue off campus living arrangements. Large schools, such as the University of Washington, Penn State, and the University of Colorado–Boulder, have enforced such laws, and have seen progress. According to the article, “Being cited for breaking the city’s noise regulations is enough to score an invite to the [University of Washington’s] student conduct office.”

Granted, a college or university has the right to create a code of conduct that is conducive to the educational environment on campus. If colleges do not want noisy, disruptive students to attend their school, that is their right and academic freedom. The only concern I have is in how they would investigate these occurrences. If a student were to receive a citation for a noise violation, would the school wait to see if the ticket is actually challenged? At Duke University, for instance, the campus codes only require that a student report misbehavior to campus officials. This could easily represent another example of administrators punishing first and asking questions later. There is no liberty in just being accused of something and then reprimanded — there must be due process.

This only leaves a few choices for students in the future: accept these strict regulations; voice their concerns and seek change in the institution; or withdraw and attend a more lenient college or university. For the men in Old School and Animal House, this would be an easy decision.

Assessing Incentives for Academic Performance

Posted on by Dave Roland

One of the more radical (and controversial) ideas in education reform these days is to offer students cold, hard cash in exchange for performance. The idea is that, although some students might not be motivated by the sheer joy of learning, their priorities might change if they are offered concrete financial rewards for academic achievement.

The New York Times has a story today discussing the mixed results of a recent pilot program in New York City. The privately funded program, which included several thousand students in 31 high schools (25 public schools and six Catholic schools, all chosen based on criteria including minority enrollment and prior student test performance), sought to encourage students to take and pass Advanced Placement exams by offering them up to $1,000 for earning passing scores on those tests.

In 2007, 4,275 students from these schools took AP exams, which are graded on a 1–5 scale with 1 being worst and 5 being the best. Of those students, 174 (4.1 percent) attained the highest score, while 403 (9.4 percent) scored 4, and 904 (21.1 percent) scored 3, the lowest passing grade. Overall, 34.6 percent of the test takers in 2007 earned passing grades.

In 2008, knowing that a good score could mean a lot of money, 4,620 students took the exams. Of those, 207 (4.5 percent) scored 5, 398 (8.6 percent) scored 4, and 871 (18.9 percent) scored 3. So, just on the surface — and in the absence of any additional information — the monetary incentive seems to have encouraged an additional 345 students to take the test, as well as spurring a slight increase in the percentage of test takers earning the highest possible score. But the rest of the story is that a smaller percentage of these schools’ 2008 test takers (32 percent) performed well enough to pass.

This was just the first year for this incentive program, and the monetary incentives were announced after the school year had already begun and class assignments were set, so it’s hard to say whether we can learn much of anything from these results. While I know that the idea of paying students for academic performance is somewhat controversial, as a matter of theory I do believe that these sorts of financial incentives are likely to lead to improved student performance. I am also aware that theory does not always translate into reality, so I will be very interested to see future studies assessing the impact of this and similar programs.

What do you think about rewarding students for academic performance?

Textbook

Posted on by Dave Roland

My heart sank when I read this story from the Post-Dispatch today. A commercial developer has targeted a neighborhood in Affton for a new development and has started contacting the area’s property owners with offers. The area’s elected representative on the County Council is already talking about creating a TIF district to subsidize the developer’s efforts. Of course, creating a TIF district also opens the door to eminent domain. This is a textbook example of how eminent domain abuse begins, all over the country.

My advice to the good folks in Affton (and anywhere else where a developer is looking to assemble property) is to immediately read the Eminent Domain Survival Guide offered by the Institute for Justice. It offers invaluable information for those who find themselves in a situation where the government might take away their property. Second, I urge you to contact Anthony Martin, Missouri’s Property Rights Ombudsman. His job is to help Missourians understand the way that eminent domain is pursued in this state. And, finally, contact us at the Show-Me Institute so we can help tell your story and, hopefully, help save your home or business.

Beyond Freakonomics: Steven Levitt to Speak in St. Louis

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Famed Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt will be giving a free public lecture next month, co-sponsored by Saint Louis University and the Show-Me Institute. From the press release:

Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? What makes a perfect parent? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? These are questions that Steven D. Levitt asks in his controversial, critically acclaimed book FREAKONOMICS: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. Levitt will expand on his book’s inquisitive premise during an address on Tuesday, Sept. 23, at Saint Louis University.

Levitt’s speech is part of the economic policy series presented by the Show-Me Institute in conjunction with Saint Louis University and its John Cook School of Business. He will be the third lecturer in the series, which began earlier this year.

If you, or anybody you know, is interested in attending, be sure to register sooner rather than later. Seating is limited, and we expect that demand will likely exceed supply.

The Municipal League Is on a Roll

Posted on by David Stokes

Not content with the Missouri Municipal League putting the good of government over the good of the people by trying to block much-needed reforms to our eminent domain laws (yeah, yeah, I know that the “government” is “us” — would somebody please tell the muny league that?), the St. Louis County Municipal League is attempting to pass a use tax on county citizens and businesses. From the article in the Post-Dispatch:

Dooley said he was acting on behalf of the St. Louis County Municipal League, which wrote to Dooley last week seeking his support of the tax.

Here is my testimony on the subject, which I gave in June to the county commission considering these issues. The imposition of a use tax on county businesses will wipe out one of the competitive advantages that St. Louis County has, and just add incentives for businesses to move to St. Charles. Perhaps I shouldn’t care. The county (and, even more so, the cities within it) can always just give away more tax breaks to favored businesses once they pass the higher taxes on to all of them. That certainly sounds like the basis for good policy …

“… and it is anticipated that they will continue to do so in the future.”

Posted on by Dave Roland

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that cities across the state were creating a war chest to try to prevent Missouri’s voters from ending the eminent domain abuse that currently threatens our right to keep what rightfully belongs to us. Shortly thereafter, the secretary of state ruled that, despite the hundreds of thousands of signatures turned in by Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (MO-CPR) in support of their proposed constitutional amendments, the issue would not be on the November ballot.

Last week, MO-CPR filed a lawsuit challenging the secretary of state’s decision and asking the court to allow citizens to have their say on the issue. And, yesterday, the Missouri Municipal League — an organization that collects taxpayer dollars and purports to advance the interests of Missouri’s local governments — moved to block MO-CPR’s lawsuit.

A few choice tidbits from the Municipal League’s filing should allow citizens to evaluate the merits of its “concerns”:

  • The league’s members argue that they should be allowed to intervene because they “have exercised the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for conveyance to private entities for commercial or other development to fight blight and other decay, and it is anticipated that they will continue to do so in the future.”

  • The league opposes the amendments because they might require local governments to pay “just compensation for local land use regulations.” In other words, the cities would have to pay you if they passed a regulation that decreased the value of your property. While not included in their filing, a previous Municipal League analysis of the proposed amendments also worried that they would “significantly increase the amounts of condemnation awards” to citizens being dispossessed of their homes and businesses.

  • The league is concerned that the amendments would require cities to get a court order before they destroyed or condemned property that they thought was a nuisance. While not mentioned in the league’s filing, the amendment would also require cities to give owners an opportunity to fix the problems themselves. I mean, why in the world should cities allow property owners the chance to remove the government’s pretext for giving their property to someone else? Honestly.

  • The league doesn’t like that the amendments would “limit the use of eminent domain to the State or political subdivisions whose officials are directly responsible to elected officials.” This would, of course, allow voters to hold those responsible for using eminent domain accountable for their actions — a radical departure from current law, which allows many unelected, unaccountable organizations to take away private property.

  • Despite justifying its involvement in part by complaining that confirming the number of proper signatures will be expensive, the league calls for the court to recount all 400,000+ signatures, not just the ones challenged by MO-CPR.

MO-CPR issued a press release in response to the Municipal League’s filing. Among the excellent points made in the release, my favorite is where Bevis Shock (a member of the Show-Me Institute’s board of directors) asks, “I wonder if the politicians who approved this legal action have considered how many residents of their cities signed our petition?”

Missouri Ranked No. 1!

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

For all of you Mizzou Tiger fans, please don’t get your hopes up. This No. 1 ranking has nothing to do with college football. According to an article in the Southeast Missourian, a Ball State University study has ranked Missouri as the No. 1 state for manufacturing in the country. Of the 20 categories that the 2008 National Manufacturing and Logistics Report Card took into account, Missouri was placed at the top for low long-term health care costs, health care premiums, and property taxes.

These high marks in health care costs and premiums can be attributed in part to the passage of HB 818, which helped the Show-Me State show the rest of the nation how free-market health insurance reform is done. This bipartisan solution to the state’s health policy dilemma helps put employees in charge, freeing them to choose their own insurance policies, and puts employers in positions where they can now contribute directly to employees’ plans without the burden of mandated contribution amounts. Furthermore, health savings accounts and individual health plans are portable, so employees are protected even in case of employment changes.

Another key factor associated with our manufacturing job growth (which might easily be overlooked) was the massive tort reform legislation that was passed in 2005. The Ball State rankings represent tangible evidence that good things happen when states reform and alter legal systems in an effort to shut down abuses that lead to “jackpot justice.”

In the midst of a poor economic climate and recent cutbacks in various plants, the great state of Missouri still prevails. Great job, Missouri … let’s keep up the good work!

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