“Nothing in the World Is More Dangerous Than Sincere Ignorance and Conscientious Stupidity.”

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Supporters of Ward Connerly’s Civil Rights Initiative — which would end race-based affirmative action programs in Missouri — are increasing their efforts to solicit the 140,000 signatures necessary for a November ballot position.

The Kansas City Star blogs on the topic here. It’s amazing how much liberty they take in editorializing their coverage, by the way.

My favorite sentence: “Programs that could disappear include race-specific scholarships at public universities such as the University of Missouri-Kansas City […]”

Reread that sentence again. Was a society that judged people based on the color of their skin one of the goals of Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement? Imagine if the University of Missouri offered scholarships to white students only. Or, if the University offers race-specific scholarships, then why not create race-specific bathrooms as well? How far we’ve fallen from the original ideals of civil rights.

And, of course, the thing that is most ironic about affirmative action to me is that its strongest supporters are often upper-middle-class families with “white guilt” — the same class of people that affirmative action programs are supposed to, in theory, protect minorities from in the first place.

Personally, I think that this comment on the Star’s blog says it best.

Justin’s Post About Property Assessments and the Three L’s

Posted on by David Stokes

Justin blogged last week about the property assessment and tax changes coming from the general assembly. Reading it was the the only three minutes of vacation that made me wish I was back at work in order to respond more quickly. Justin’s post is rife with an error that is, not surprisingly, fairly common at a think tank such as this: too much theory and not enough practicality. To his credit, he does wonder that he may be missing the point, to which I will respond (in all caps, to emphasize the seriousness of it, but without any anger) that PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO LEAD TO TAX INCREASES. The system is supposed to use assessments as a method to allow local governments to set the proper and necessary rate — not to set a rate and then let the tax money roll in through assessment increases, which is what has happened.

It might be reasonable in theory to say that because people don’t complain when their assessments and taxes go down, they shouldn’t complain when they go up — but because the former happens so rarely in Missouri, it is not a practical argument. Furthermore, taxing districts are protected from a decrease in assessments in those rare cases (which we may actually see in the 2009 reassessment, because of the terrible real estate market we are in) so that’s just further proof that it does not happen both ways.

As to less prosperous neighborhoods subsidizing booming neighborhoods with an average system as I have proposed, all I can say is I only wish the system was so consistent as to make that a legitimate concern. The problem people have is with the herky-jerky nature of the comparable sales system, where there is absolutely no consistency between homes in an area. The St. Louis County assessor’s office does a good job of getting the numbers right, for the most part, in the countywide aggregate, but everyone involved with the process knows there is a tremendous amount of variance at the smaller levels of blocks and neighborhoods. Outstate, where they have elected assessors and don’t have certificate-of-value filings, the same thing works in reverse and leads to inconsistently lower property values. My average-based proposal addresses the inconsistency within the entire process, which is one of the primary problems people have with the entire system. And I would keep the appeal process, precisely to avoid homes that have not increased in value from subsidizing those that have.

The reforms coming out of the general assemply are long overdue, and I commend the assembly for taking on this issue.

How Free Are We? Part Three

Posted on by David Stokes

Third in a series, after a long break. Having just returned from vacation, I have a lot to blog about, so I am going to keep this post short. I ask you to read this article in the Post-Dispatch about proposed restaurant outdoor seating legislation in St. Charles County, and think to yourself just how nuts it is that something as simple as a restaurant serving food and drinks outside requires this much work and effort from government. Maybe I’m crazy here, but the never-ending expansion of planning and zoning requirements strikes me as lunacy. Yet we all accept it in the name of standardizing services and regulating all aspects of life.

I just want to highlight the comments of one control-freak busybody in the article (emphasis added):

Last week, Veit modified his bill to impose a closing time for sidewalk
tables of 11 p.m. or 30 minutes after the end of food service,
whichever is earlier.

Dan Satterfield, who lives on South Main, said that wasn’t early enough. He suggested 10 p.m.

He said his concerns were about people who were exclusively drinking, and not having dinner.

"Drinks that can be served outside during dinner — there’s no opposition to that," he said.

God forbid you just want to have a drink outside at night right along the wall of a restaurant. We certainly can’t have that, now …

Tuition Tax Credit Proposals Are Alive and Well

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

So much for Sol Stern’s contention that parental choice is dying if not dead already. The Washington Times reports that tuition tax credits are gaining traction in Maryland. One supporter sums up the plan in a nutshell:

"The bill is a way of providing increased tax incentives for business to invest in education," said Mary Ellen Russell, deputy director of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

Stern argued that parental choice policies are too controversial; according to him, they’re just too far out to be accepted by mainstream Americans. But as the above quote makes clear, some parental choice proposals — such as tuition tax credits — are quite similar to existing policies. States provide tax incentives for all kinds of charitable and for-profit enterprises. Any tax credit or holiday means that the state gives up tax revenue, which could have gone to the public schools instead. But when officials suggest a sales tax holiday to help people buy environmentally friendly products, nobody claims that the money should go to the public schools. We accept that the state will forego tax revenue in some cases, and we just argue about which cases deserve exceptions.

It’s true that tuition tax credits haven’t been embraced everywhere immediately. They’ve come up for debate a few times in Missouri without making it into law yet. But as a long-term strategy, Stern doesn’t give them enough credit.

Show-Me Distortion

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Sales tax holidays are bad enough, but sales tax holidays that apply only to things people wouldn’t normally buy are even worse:

The [Show-Me Green Tax Holiday] plan calls for a weeklong elimination of state sales tax on Energy Star-designated appliances each year.

The idea is that people will have greater incentive to purchase "energy-efficient products," but it’s not the state’s job to adjust people’s incentives the way a puppeteer lifts the strings of a marionette. Of course, the state should protect the environment by regulating the disposal of toxic waste, controlling dangerous substances, etc. But a weeklong sales tax holiday won’t have any noticeable effect on the environment, and it will cause harmful economic distortion.

Nap Rights

Posted on by Justin Hauke

On Wednesday, the Missouri House passed a bill establishing a "Children’s Bill of Courtroom Rights." The bill outlines the rights of minors testifying in courtroom proceedings, including the right to a stuffed animal and a nap (I’m not making this up). Florida recently passed a bill allowing children to bring their pets to court as a "comfort item."

Don’t worry, I’m not going to throw a fit (or should we say tantrum?) about how this is an example of interest-group politics. I realize these are children, and it’s terrible that children should have to be witnesses in the first place. The courts should be as protective as possible for the children under their care.

But there are problems with the bill, and I’m not the only one who’s noticed them (in fact, the bill passed amid major opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike). Legislation like this, although well-intentioned, is dangerously broad.

It allows 17-year-olds tried as minors (with slick defense attorneys) to exploit child protection provisions. And it also sets a precedent for additional "courtroom rights" legislation, bogging down and undermining the judicial system.

In short, do we really need this legislation? Aren’t things like this better handled on a case-by-case basis? Are there really judges out there that would prevent 6-year-old children from holding teddy bears if they wanted to when testifying?

Even lawyers aren’t that heartless … 🙂

Former Site for Centene Plaza Sells After All

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Our former editor, Tim Lee, recently pointed me to this article that ran a couple weeks ago in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. From the article:

The Centene Plaza project in downtown Clayton, proposed in 2005, promised a world-class retail and office development designed by a world-renowned architect.

It was derailed last June when protracted legal fighting over the city’s attempt to take parcels by eminent domain ended with a Missouri Supreme Court ruling in favor of the defiant owners. The court ruled 6-1 that the parcels were not blighted and were beyond the reach of condemnation for a private purpose.

Sheehan disclosed this week that about three months after that ruling, the city of Clayton quietly arranged for all three landowners to sign sales contracts with the city, contingent upon Centene’s development’s moving forward. A city official confirmed that the sales were arranged.

But shortly after, Centene committed to Ballpark Village, beside Busch Stadium.

The Centene development would have worked out just fine if officials hadn’t first tried to pretend that the area was "blighted." Apparently, property development is possible even without forcible eminent domain seizures! Who’d have thunk it?

Any of you who have yet to read Tim’s excellent eminent domain study should be sure to check it out.

Missouri … We Have a Problem

Posted on by Justin Hauke

A new study by the EPE Research Center and the America’s Promise Alliance finds that three out of every 10 public school students in the United States do not graduate high school. The numbers are even worse in urban districts, falling to near 50 percent on average. In some cities, the numbers are as low as 25 percent — like Detroit.

We have a real problem with public education in this country, and some form of change is necessary. So even if you’re not a converted school choice supporter, the dramatic decline in education quality around the country should at the very least leave you considering it as an option on the table.

Or we can take the teachers’ unions side and say that everything is hunky-dory.

For example, consider this gem from the Missouri State Teachers Association (emphasis added):

[No Child Left Behind] generated doomsday headlines […] last fall that were a slap in the face to the professional pride of educators around the state. "State districts get failing grade," declared the Kansas City Star. "Many area schools fail test," announced the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The bad press engendered the wrath of educators and a big yawn from the public, basically for the same reason: The headlines were at odds with the real story of what’s going on in schools today. […]

"By just about any standard you care to name, Missouri compares favorably with other states," agrees Assistant Commissioner Bert Schulte.

Yeah … except by just about any standard you care to name, it doesn’t. And even if it were the case, that’s not saying much anyway.

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