Moving in the Right Direction

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

Some good news on the property rights front (which, I assure you, is not an April Fool’s joke — although if you want to read one of those, try this).

According to an article in the Post-Dispatch, the St. Charles City Council has planned to vote tonight on whether or not to remove the "blighted" designation given to the city’s historic Frenchtown district. Justin blogged about this previously, but tonight, the protest mentioned before could lead to actual change.

The St. Charles City Council hasn’t always made the best decisions when it comes to protecting personal freedoms, but it’s good to know that members of the Council have caught wind of the political zeitgeist and are attempting to protect their citizens’ property rights. Missouri’s "blight" designation is one of the most permissive methods through which eminent domain can be exercised, and the more that individual municipalities crack down on its liberal use, the more effective they will be at protecting property and clearing actual blighted areas. Let’s hope that the vote tonight goes the right way.

Parents Are Enthusiastic About Charters

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Edspresso links to an interesting article about charter schools in Rhode Island:

Competition for Rhode Island’s charter schools is fierce. Nine of the state’s 11 charter schools are so popular, they conduct lotteries each spring to fill the few dozen places each has available. Hundreds of students languish on wait lists with little hope of ever getting in.

What sets this article apart from most of the press coverage of charter schools is that it focuses on the families that hope to send their children to charters. The Providence Journal interviewed some of these parents, who discuss their children’s unique characteristics and explain why the charter schools they’re interested in would be a good fit.

Charter school critics have argued that much of the charters’ success can be attributed to the parents who are involved and making choices for their kids. What they overlook is that the more options there are, the more likely parents are to become involved and to make choices. Some parents will research schools even if they’re very difficult to get into, like the Rhode Island charter schools. But if their kids have a more realistic chance of admission, if there are more charter schools and more open spaces, many more parents will take the time to learn about the available schools. So, if you want engaged parents, give them choices.

Location, Location, Location

Posted on by Justin Hauke

It seems that property tax reassessment reform is nearing final passage in the House (it’s already passed the Senate). I’ve written before about this bill, but here’s a reminder: It would mandate that local jurisdictions roll back property tax rates in response to higher assessments. Advocates argue that the rollback provision is necessary because it ensures that city officials approve tax increases by a vote, rather than by simply inflating property values.

The article has some pretty good coverage of the arguments. In addition, Dave Stokes wrote a fairly comprehensive review of property tax reform last December, and blogged about it here.

But I still don’t completely buy the whole “rollback” argument. While I recognize the potential for appraisal abuse, people certainly don’t feel upset when their house depreciates and they then pay less in taxes. So why should it work in reverse? And if we extend the argument further, why not mandate the same thing for sales tax rates? If the price of a good appreciates in value, should consumers pay a lower tax rate on that good so that the nominal amount of tax is the same as before? Certainly, that would seem silly. But maybe I’m just missing the point.

I definitely disagree with the recommendation that a fair compromise would involve simply adjusting property appraisals by a county average for a particular type of property. Property values are idiosyncratically determined by their specific locations, and it would be patently unfair (in my opinion) to subsidize booming neighborhoods at the expense of houses that have lost thousands of dollars in value.

The Cost of Good Schools

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Show-Me Institute, in conjunction with Saint Louis University, is sponsoring the second lecture in its Series on Economic policy on Thursday, April 17. The speaker, James Guthrie, will address the question, "How Much Money Will It Take to Give America Good Schools?" Here’s a snippet from Guthrie’s bio:

James Guthrie is a professor of public policy and education, chair of the Leadership, Policy, and Organizations department, and director of the Peabody Center for Education Policy at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. He instructs both undergraduate and graduate courses, and conducts research on education policy and finance. He is founder and chairman of the board of Management Analysis & Planning, Inc. (MAP), a private sector management consulting firm specializing in public finance and litigation support.

A pre-event reception will begin at 3:30 p.m. on April 17, with the lecture beginning at 4:00. If you, or anybody you know, may be interested in further examining the complex issues surrounding school finance, be sure to take a look at the event invitation, and then register online.

Bonuses for Teachers

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

There are pros and cons to this teacher pay proposal:

House Bill 2430, sponsored by Democrat Jason Holsman, would pay teachers a recruitment bonus of $5,000 to work in a small district. Math and science teachers would get $7,500.

After five, 10 and 20 years in the district, the teacher would receive a retention bonus of $2,500, $5,000 and $10,000 respectively.

Rewarding teaching just for sticking around is not the way to encourage innovation. If you’ll get a bonus after a certain number of years automatically, why strive to teach better? Current salary schedules already place too much emphasis on tenure and not enough on teaching quality.

On the other hand, higher pay for math and science teachers is a good idea. Districts have trouble holding on to math and science teachers when they have to pay them the same as English and history teachers. In general, districts should be free to offer more money to teachers they want to retain — whether that’s because they teach hard-to-staff subjects or because they’re exceptional teachers.

The Proper Role of the Judiciary

Posted on by Dave Roland

John Stoeffler has a column today in the South Side Journal, in which he quotes the famed constitutional scholar Joseph Story in support of his argument that each branch of government should be its own "final arbiter when it comes to deciding upon the constitutionality of the powers the Constitution authorizes and delegates to it."  If Congress or the president overstep their proper constitutional authority, Stoeffler says, the only legitimate remedy is to vote the bums out — the courts should have nothing to say on the matter. Stoeffler, who apparently operates a "constitutional think tank" called the Madison Forum, makes this notion of limited judicial authority the basis of his support for a proposed constitutional amendment before the General Assembly that would prohibit Missouri’s courts from ordering any increase of taxes or any expenditure of public funds unless they have been specifically authorized by the legislature or a vote of the people.

Stoeffler’s reasoning is flawed, even though the idea behind the constitutional amendment itself has some value. Federalist 78 explains that the judiciary is the proper branch of government to keep the other branches of government within their constitutional boundaries. Alexander Hamilton’s explanation of the judicial authority is directly contrary to that adopted by Story (and now, apparently, Mr. Stoeffler):

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. [… T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.

Hamilton also opined on the limitations imposed on the judiciary itself. In contrast to the executive branch, which "holds the sword of the community," and the legislative branch, which "commands the purse" of the community, the judicial branch "has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend on the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." (Emphasis in original.)

So, as described by the authoritative statement on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, the proper role of courts is to rule upon the constitutionality of the acts of the other branches of government — but they are only empowered to strike down violations, not to refashion the laws so they will conform to the judiciary’s notions of what is proper. For example, school finance cases have been raging for years in Texas, but (despite the intense efforts of the school districts) the Texas Supreme Court recognizes that even when it has held the financing program unconstitutional, it is not permitted to compel the legislature to adopt a specific scheme. Instead, while the unconstitutional system may be enjoined, the legislature has full discretion as to how it will remedy the deficiency. And, of course, even the judiciary’s decisions are subject to checks and balances, in that the executive branch must agree to enforce the courts’ judgments.

The Mess That Missouri Made

Posted on by Justin Hauke

An economics blog I frequently visit scours the Internet for “Greenspan mess” sitings — articles in which the words “Greenspan” and “mess” are mentioned in the same paragraph (this occurs much more frequently as of late).

I think we could do the same thing in Missouri with the words “developer” and “blight.”

On today’s list: O’Fallon.

“City officials late Thursday night were debating whether to declare blighted the site of a proposed eco-friendly housing development to allow a developer to receive a tax break over 20 years.”

Missouri newspapers should just hotkey this sentence. It could read something like this:

“[State, County, City] officials [insert time] were debating whether to declare blighted the site of [insert property or district here] to allow a developer to receive a tax break over [enter years here] years.”

Terrific Quote From Mayor Funkhouser

Posted on by David Stokes

The funky mayor of Kansas City appears to understand that political patronage and city hall featherbedding are the ways of political machines, not responsible government. I absolutely love this quote from him in today’s Prime Buzz blog, by the Kansas City Star:

"My job is not save someone’s job," he said. "My job is to exercise leadership."

He said his responsibility is to ensure city workers are doing their jobs well on behalf of citizens.

The above quote gives me hope, which is of course all the rage in fashionable American politics these days. But I digress. The mayor’s response was to a question about whether he is going to fill two openings on his staff. He said yes, and left himself open to criticism (already appearing in the article’s comments section) about "not caring" or "being a meany" or some such crap.

The key question should not be whether the mayor is going to fill his two positions. The question should be: Are they truly needed, and is there enough to do for the new hires to work an honest 40-hour week (or more)? If the answer to those questions is yes, then the mayor should fill the spots. One of the openings is for a policy analyst, and I can assure you that nobody in American business or government has a more demanding job or works harder than policy analysts. …

I shall close in all seriousness. Government is not a jobs program, and taxpayers should not have to fund city workers just because they have been there awhile, or they have good political connections, or because it would be cruel to let them go, or whatever. It is terrific that Mayor Funkhouser understands this, and is leading by making the hard but necessary decisions. Saint Louis City Hall could take a lesson from this. And as I now await the angry phone call, I should clarify that I am referring to Saint Louis city government as a whole — not just one office or leader.

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