Missouri Supreme Court to Decide Whether Cities May Continue to Abuse Eminent Domain

Posted on by Administrator

 

During the five years between December 2002 and November 2007, dozens of cities acting without a constitutional charter used bogus blight designations to threaten the use of eminent domain against more than 1,500 properties. Facing the threat of condemnation, many owners reluctantly sold their homes and businesses for less than they were worth.

The Missouri Bill of Rights contains some of the strongest property rights protections in the entire nation, said Jenifer Roland, the Show-Me Institute’s director of policy and a nationally respected expert in eminent domain law. It is appalling that this state’s cities have been given so much leeway to trample on their citizens’ freedoms.

Dr. Homer Tourkakis, a dentist who has practiced in Arnold, Mo., for two decades, chose to fight for his constitutional rights rather than accept a low-ball offer for his business. His resistance was vindicated last year when a judge ruled that the Missouri Constitution does not permit cities like Arnold to take properties based on claims of blight.

The Show-Me Institute submitted a brief to the Missouri Supreme Court in support of Dr. Tourkakis, arguing that the Court should stem the tide of eminent domain abuse by enforcing constitutional limitations on government authority to take citizens properties.

The Missouri Supreme Court has a golden opportunity to do the right thing by affirming the Constitution’s emphatic protection of individual liberties, said Dave Roland, a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute. A proper decision from the Court will reassure Missourians that they have a right to keep what belongs to them.

 

Related Links:

Show-Me Institute’s Brief of Amicus Curiae

Op-Ed: Will the Missouri Supreme Court Leave Your Home At Risk?

Policy Study: The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri

Missouri’s Eminent Domain Report Card (issued by the Castle Coalition and authored by Jenifer Zeigler Roland)

Previous Reports on Eminent Domain Abuse in Missouri:
Public Power, Private Gain: Missouri
Opening the Floodgates: Missouri

Live Streaming Audio of the City of Arnold v. Tourkakis Oral Argument (available Thursday from 9:30 – 10:15 a.m.)

 

 

Not Early to Bed, Not Likely to Rise

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

The New York Times ran an op-ed in yesterday’s edition describing the negative effects of increasingly earlier start times for students in secondary schools. Although a good deal of science and logic was presented over the course of the argument, the main point is thus:

[T]eenagers’ body clocks are set to a schedule that is different from that of younger children or adults. … The result is that the first class of the morning is often a waste,
with as many as 28 percent of students falling asleep, according to a
National Sleep Foundation poll. Some are so sleepy they don’t even show
up, contributing to failure and dropout rates.

Considering the state of the American education system, any bit of help goes a long way, and the circadian rhythms of the average American teenager cry out for relief every weekday from the grind of the early rise. Rested students perform better in class, are more competitive in athletics, and — according to one district in Kentucky — are involved in fewer early-morning automobile accidents.

According to the article, the National Sleep Foundation suggests that teenagers don’t reach their most functional state until after 8:00 a.m. However, only one major Missouri school district begins classes after this point. The Rockwood School District (which, in the interest of full disclosure, this author is an alumnus of) shifted its start time for high schools back to 8:28 A.M. at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year.

Could such a shift help disadvantaged schools in Missouri? If nothing else, the opportunity certainly seems to exist. St. Louis and Kansas City public high schools currently begin at 7:20, while the Wellston School District’s Eskridge High School starts classes at 7:45.

While such a shift will not cure everything that ails these districts, later classes could mean better attendance and more productivity from students. As I said before, every little bit counts.

Midwives at the Movies

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I see on the Ethical Society’s website that they just had a program presented by Free the Midwives and showed a new film about maternity care. You can follow that last link to see snippets from the documentary.

I agree with the director that the legal environment discourages choice. Doctors can charge their patients more because they don’t have to compete with the cheaper midwives. However, from the trailer, it looks like this film is less about extolling the benefits of competition and more about putting down the people who run and work at hospitals.

This strategy could backfire. The trailer says that hospitals just care about money. But most midwives aren’t volunteers, and they have to admit that women who give birth in hospitals enjoy extra security thanks to all the lifesaving equipment hospitals have ready — expensive equipment that patients have to pay for. And while many mothers have been satisfied with their experiences with midwives, there are some high-risk births that midwives will never be able to handle.

It’s also inconsistent to censure hospitals for moving women out of hospital beds too quickly, while praising midwives for helping women stay away from the hospital. Hospitals have good reason to try to get women to go home as soon as possible; there’s the risk of infection, for example.

And some of the complaints about what happens in delivery rooms could be more fairly directed at patients. Women have a responsibility to talk to their doctors about what medications they’ll take and what will be done in case of complications. If they don’t choose to inform themselves when they go to the doctor, they may make the same mistake even with a midwife.

Women should be able to choose midwives if they wish, so I’m rooting for the midwives. But I hope they’ll turn their PR efforts away from exaggerating the extent of their persecution and spreading fear about hospitals, where most babies will be delivered even under the freest laws. Even if hospitals do a good job, and I think most do, women should still have the choice to use a midwife.

New Study Examines Tuition Tax Credits

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Today, the Show-Me Institute released a new policy study, "The Fiscal Effects of a Tuition Tax Credit Program in Missouri," by University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor and Show-Me Institute board member Michael Podgursky, former Show-Me Institute policy analyst Sarah Brodsky, and current Show-Me Institute policy analyst Justin Hauke.

A tuition tax credits program would allow Missouri taxpayers to target their tax dollars towards meaningful educational reform by providing educational scholarships to low-income Missouri families. In the states where they have been adopted, such tax credits have allowed thousands of children to obtain quality educations in the schools of their choice. They have been a beacon of hope to families who otherwise would have few educational opportunities.

Not only would such a program offer new educational opportunities to thousands of students, it could well save taxpayers’ money. The study concludes:

Depending on the average scholarship size and low-income families’ responses to the change in tuition, the state could potentially save money from a tuition tax credit program. A partial credit offers the greatest opportunity for savings, but in all cases, the cost to the state will be far lower than the tax revenue loss. Most importantly, a tuition tax credit program would help to reduce the gap in educational opportunities between Missouri’s high- and low-income families, and would provide meaningful choices for students in school districts that have lost accreditation.

Steve Walsh of Missourinet has just posted a brief article accompanied by a 60-second radio spot featuring comments by Justin Hauke, coauthor of the study and regular Show-Me Daily blogger. During the interview, Justin said, "Wealther Missourians already have this opportunity. Families that can afford to send their children to private school, or whatever school they want — that’s already an option for them. We’re trying to reach the vast majority of families that don’t have that option. So we’re really just trying to level the playing field."

Ultimately, this is the most valuable aspect of school choice. It makes the best educational opportunities available to children from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

The Cussin’ Ban Lives!

Posted on by Dave Roland

I wrote last week about St. Charles’ proposed ban on "indecent, profane, or obscene language, song[s], entertainment, literature, or advertising." Yesterday, Rachel Kaatmann reported that the city had abandoned its effort to implement the cussin’ ban.

Not so!! Instead, the city has engaged in some legal sleight-of-hand. Richard Veit, the councilmember who was sponsoring the amendment that would have adopted the ban, has modified both his story and the proposed ordinance. He now says that the cussin’ ban was merely intended to formally adopt regulations that have long been promulgated at the state level. To satisfy objectors, he removed the (ironically) offending language from the ordinance.

Veit was correct in that state regulations — specifically, 11 CSR 70-2.130(13)(A) — already include the cussin’ ban. The trick is that these regulations are only enforceable by representatives of the state government, unless local authorities adopt ordinances that would allow local enforcement. So how did Veit make sure that he could still hang on to the cussin’ ban? When he took the ban out of the text of the ordinance, he added section 115.32(A)(2)(g), providing for the revocation of a business owner’s liquor license if a proprietor allows behavior that would constitute a violation of "state regulations." Thus, St. Charles still fully intends to have the legal ability to punish bar owners who allow language, music, entertainment, etc., that might offend the sensibilities of some.

Very sneaky, Councilmember Veit. But we’re on to you.

Regulating Fake Identities on the Internet

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Here’s an interesting twist in the Megan Meier case. Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles might charge the people who allegedly harassed Megan with defrauding MySpace, because they opened an account with a fake identity.

A law professor quoted in the article explains why prosecuting people for using fake identities on the Internet could lead to trouble:

Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said that if the grand jury brings an indictment, it could raise 1st Amendment issues and questions about how to fairly enforce such a law on the Internet, where pseudo-identities are common.

"This may be a net that catches a lot of people," she said.

Levenson is right — so many people have fake identities on the internet that enforcement would have to be selective.

Most people are aware that Internet appearances can be deceiving, and they discount information from anonymous sources. If a major news website reports on social trends, you might give it some consideration. But if someone identifying himself only as "Josh" says he doesn’t like you anymore, you probably wouldn’t consider that credible. Teenagers with fragile self-esteem approach the situation in an entirely different way, and can feel devastated after whoever happens to be online expresses disapproval.

That’s a good reason for parents of teens to be careful in monitoring their online activities. It’s not a good reason to prosecute people for using fake identities on the Internet. Anonymous communication online is usually not harmful, and it can be beneficial. In other media, people publish letters to the editor, op-eds, or books anonymously. That allows anyone to safely express unpopular opinions. We should have the same freedom of speech online.

The Bandwagon Just Got Fangs

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

After the General Assembly last week introduced legislation to prevent another sub-prime mortgage crisis in Missouri, the Kansas City Business Journal is reporting that Gov. Matt Blunt has introduced proposals to strengthen said bill, which would include creating the crime of "Mortgage Fraud," a class-C felony.

Wow, that escalated quickly.

Now, I really have no problem with the establishment of criminal statutes for the prevention of obviously criminal activity. What I have a problem with is this (emphasis added):

"A trade group for bankers has said that most of the state’s regulated
financial institutions — such as neighborhood banks and credit unions ?
aren’t deeply involved in sub-prime loans. But the leader of a trade
group for mortgage bankers warned that going too far with penalties on
lenders could make it more difficult to get credit in Missouri."

Ignoring the obvious criticism of a mortgage banker protesting actions targeted specifically against members of his industry, do we really think that a state response to a national credit crisis is going to be the biggest threat against the financial security of Missourians?

Heck, I’d probably be more worried about this guy.

Jumping on the Sub-Prime Bandwagon

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The General Assembly is out to "protect" consumers once again, this time from unscrupulous mortgage brokers.

I’ve written before about why usury laws are a bad idea. While I sympathize with what legislators are trying to do (I like to believe that most of them are well-intentioned), regulating mortgage brokers is not going to help sub-prime borrowers or protect home ownership rates.

The Post-Dispatch’s coverage of the bill has one particularly revealing quote about the motivations behind such legislative "protection":

Rep. David Pearce, R-Warrensburg, a banker and the bill’s co-sponsor, said most subprime loans are not offered by local banks or credit unions.

"It’s from out-of-state firms that are coming into Missouri and preying on our consumers," he said.

Wow, talk about playing up the "us and them" fallacy. Now, from my cynical point of view, here’s how I interpret that sentence (emphasis obviously added):

"It’s from out-of-state firms that are coming into Missouri and preying on our consumers. And because they offer more competitive rates, I have been unable to compete and am losing business. Therefore, we need to pass legislation that will ensure Missourians face stricter lending limits that will insulate me from competition, at the expense of consumers."

Good, I feel safer.

Amazing Statement From a Federal Judge

Posted on by David Stokes

I usually leave comments about the educational field to the other bloggers, what with their ivory-tower smarts and all, while I had to complete my GED during a stint in prison for a crime I didn’t commit in the manner the cops said I did. But that is another story entirely…

Today’s Post-Dispatch has an article on a ruling in a case of "educational larceny", which is, simply put, attending public school in a district you don’t live in. Now, while I, along with the others here at SMI, favor complete school choice, until that is implemented I understand that the rules of residency are going to be enforced. I don’t disagree with the ruling in favor of the district, per se, but I just wish to point out some of the over-the-top language the judge uses in his opinion. Do you think this judge supports the status quo in education? (Emphasis added, as usual.)

He added: "Were each child entitled to choose where to go to school, regardless of where that child lives, the structure of the public school system of the State would collapse into chaos, thereby resulting in an actual deprivation of the right to a free public education."

Imagine substituting words live "work" or "live" for "go to school" and see how that sounds. "Were each person allowed to choose where to work," or "Were each person allowed to move to wherever they wanted." One of the nice things about not being a lawyer is that you get to criticize judges when they say absurd things like this without worrying about ethical violations. Does Judge Autrey really believe that if people were given more freedom for their own lives that our entire school system would descend into chaos? Unbelievable.

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