An Eminent Domain Story With a Happy Ending

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

In reading through the transcript of yesterday’s eminent domain discussion with Tim, I was glad to see he points out one case I especially enjoyed hearing about:

One of the buildings in the footprint of the proposed Wal-Mart was the law firm of King Krehbiel, Hellmich, and Borbonus. They didn’t want to move, and unlike most eminent domain targets, they actually had the legal firepower to make the developer’s life miserable. So the developer re-configured the project to make room for KKHB in the middle of Wal-Mart’s parking lot.

Confiscating somebody else’s building suddenly looks less attractive when you learn it’s full of lawyers.

English Stays Strong

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I’m always amused by fears that English is about to die out. I don’t see any need for an English-language amendment to the Missouri Constitution, because official proceedings are conducted in English anyway. But there’s a growing movement to teach foreign languages to little kids. Could that change our country’s linguistic landscape? The New York Times reports:

Seven-year-old Cooper Van Der Meer is learning Spanish as a second language.

That’s right. This American native is lucky enough to be in a school system that considers the acquisition of languages so important in today’s polyglot, globally entwined America that students start learning a foreign language in kindergarten.

If a generation of kids is  comfortable with languages other than English, they might consent to holding legislative debates and judicial hearings in a foreign language — after they’ve grown up and become lawyers, that is. But after reading the rest of the article, I remain convinced that English is going to be dominant here for a long time to come. Here’s why: the celebrated language program at Cooper’s school teaches Spanish for 40 minutes, once or twice a week. That’s just not enough time to become anywhere near fluent. And spending more time on foreign language for all students would impose a huge cost on districts. Right now, immersion in the primary grades is limited to a few private schools and charter schools that specialize in languages. Cooper’s Hispanic friends will learn English much more quickly than he’s learning Spanish.

Transcript of Eminent Domain Discussion

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

As I pointed out yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today at noon hosted an online discussion about eminent domain, featuring former Show-Me Institute editor Tim Lee. The full transcript of that discussion is now on the Post-Dispatch site. Here’s an excerpt that gets to the heart of the issue:

I believe that the best solution is a constitutional ban on the taking of private property for private development. I think the last 50 years have demonstrated that other proposed solutions, such as tightening the definition of "blight," still leaves too many peoples’ homes and businesses vulnerable. The main problem is the Missouri constitution’s Article VI, Section 21, which was enacted in 1945 and gives chartered cities broad authority to seize "blighted, substandard, and insanitary areas." Peoples’ property rights won’t be protected in Missouri until this provision of the constitution is changed.

For more information about eminent domain in Missouri, be sure to read Tim Lee’s study on the subject: "The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri."

I Call Shotgun!

Posted on by Dave Roland

I spotted Kevin Horrigan‘s fantastic article on Amtrak subsidies last week when it was published in the Post-Dispatch, but somehow I neglected to post about it. Horrigan points out that Amtrak survives only because it receives billions of dollars in federal subsidies. He further notes that in the last year alone, Missouri taxpayers were forced to pay an additional $6.3 million to support folks taking the train between Kansas City and Saint Louis. He then exposes the inanity of Amtrak’s self-justifying arguments by showing that they could just as easily support the use of tax dollars to bring back stagecoaches. If you haven’t read it yet, it’s well worth a few minutes of your time.

Design-Build Comes to Kansas City

Posted on by David Stokes

Later today, MoDOT is going to announce the team to rebuild/replace the historic Paseo Bridge in Kansas City. MoDOT will be using the design-build project model for this, just as they are using design-build — with a great deal of early success — for the New I-64 project in St. Louis. I was wondering whether a public-private partnership had been considered for this project, but at just $245 million, it is probably a little too small a bridge project for a PPP. They would probably have the same issue with a PPP and tolls that St. Louis had when considering tolls for the new Mississippi River bridge: With many other free bridges so close by, it would not be economically feasible for a private entity to construct a toll bridge. Anyway, the expansion of design-build, with all its resultant cost savings, is exciting in and of itself.

I also want to highlight one of the great lines in this article from the Kansas City Star. I like bike lanes and pedestrian access. The redone Eads Bridge over the Mississippi has great access for both, along with light rail, and it’s wonderful. Same with the Old Chain of Rocks bridge in north St. Louis County. However, sometimes the bike crowd does not know when to stop — for its own good. Contrast this line:

Brent Hugh, executive director of the Missouri Bicycle Federation, sent a last-ditch letter to the highway commission last week, yet again pleading for consideration of a bike and pedestrian lane.

With this line:

Cutting through an industrial area served by rail, barges and trucks, this stretch of highway […]

Perhaps the bicyclists would be better served by NOT being routed right through the heart of a major industrial traffic area. I don’t think helmets do much good when you are confronted with 18-wheelers all around you. Perhaps there is a better place in Kansas City for bike and pedestrian lanes? Just a suggestion …   

Online Eminent Domain Discussion

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

I didn’t find out until after my last post about eminent domain abuse, but it turns out that Tim Lee, our very own former editor and author of the eminent domain study "The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri," will be featured in an online eminent domain discussion sponsored by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and facilitated by business columnist David Nicklaus.

The discussion begins at noon, so be sure to stop by and submit your own questions. It should turn out to be a lively exchange.

Progress We Can All Support

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Show Me Progress blog had an excellent post yesterday about Arnold dentist Homer Tourkakis and his ongoing fight to keep his dental practice from being seized by the city using eminent domain, then handed over to a private developer. From the piece:

The basis of Tourkakis’ legal challenge was that the state constitution allows only cities with a constitutional charter (that’s only the biggest cities: St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield) to take land by eminent domain. The circuit court found that a convincing argument and ruled in his favor last May. Circuit judge M. Edward Williams ruled that a third class city did not have the constitutional authority to take the property even if it had been blighted–which, of course, it wasn’t.

[…] Unfortunately, that ruling was not the final word.

In late October, the city of Arnold appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. It will argue that the constitution allows the taking of property for redevelopment and will cite a state law that allows even municipalities without a constitutional charter to take land.

Tourkakis’ lawyers will argue that any state law that contradicts the constitutional provision that only constitutionally chartered cities have the power to take land is itself unconstitutional.

Each side avows its confidence that it will prevail. There will be much perusing of the fine print in the constitutional amendment and in the statute in question–much perusing and much speculating about the intent of the legislators who wrote them.

Not being a legal scholar, I leave those speculations to the court, but I hope the law will allow the best man (Tourkakis) to win.

We’ve been rooting for Tourkakis for a long time now. We first spotlighted his eminent domain plight a year and a half ago, and he featured most recently in our work as one of the many eminent domain victims spotlighted in Tim Lee’s October 17 policy study, "The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri."

I’m glad to see that Show Me Progress is on Tourkakis’ side. Missouri has a chance to halt this egregious type of corporate welfare, and that’s the kind of progress we can all support.

Charter Schools Expand Opportunities

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The Post-Dispatch regards charter schools cautiously:

It would be a tragedy if, in offering opportunity to thousands of kids, a single-minded focus on charter schools helped drown thousands of others.

It’s hard to imagine any policy helping SLPS fail. It seems to have no trouble doing that on its own.

Are new charter schools a risky proposition? I don’t think so. Charter schools are succeeding all over the country. Here’s an article about a charter school in Utah that specialized in the arts. Here’s an article about charter schools in New Jersey that focus on theater. My alma mater sponsors several charters that prepare inner-city youth for top colleges, some with distinct themes like technology.

St. Louis already has a few magnet schools that specialize in similar subjects. But magnets are often designated for "gifted" students only, and are selective about whom they admit. Charter schools would bring these opportunities to many more — in the words of the Post-Dispatch, to "thousands of kids."

Final Word on Kirkwood Utilities

Posted on by David Stokes

I hope some of you were able to catch the dueling commentaries in the Post-Dispatch over the weekend debating Kirkwood’s municipal utilities. If you read it online, great, but only in the dead-tree version did you get to fully appreciate the gigantic head shots that accompanied the articles. It’s hard for my mere words to describe the size — it’s as if the Post realized at the last minute that their Sunday edition had some empty copy space, and they just decided to fill it by making my photo 10 times larger. I would go on, but in the same way that the dwarves in Spinal Tap failed to underscore the enormousness of Stonehenge, I fear further explanation would have the same effect.

My op-ed is here. The full version of it is here — we had to edit it down for the Post. Kirkwood’s response is here. They had the debating advantage, in that their article was written in response to mine, whereas I had not seen theirs. As such, I would like to address a few of their points, in the same respectful, courteous manner and tone in which they addressed mine.

Judging by their response, I believe they thought I was being flippant when I wrote:

And, although it’s hard to measure, having your city provide utilities can generate civic pride, much like community pride in a high school football team.

They responded:

And while, as David Stokes of the Show-Me Institute notes, we are indeed proud of our high school football team, pride is not the reason to run a business.

I want to be clear that I was not being cavalier there. I was just trying to note that there are hard-to-measure reasons for maintaining the system, and I tried to point out that a reason such as community pride is legitimate and worthwhile, while indeed being hard for either side of an argument to quantify.

Kirkwood also just had one flat-out error in their article. They write:

And consider this: As a country founded on the ideals of freedom of choice, there seems little benefit to a society served by only one bank, one grocer, one electric utility or one water utility. Ideally, choice spurs a healthy competition of alternatives. We are proud to provide Kirkwood citizens with just that.

The idea that somehow Kirkwood residents have "choice" is not accurate. You do not get to move into Kirkwood and then decide whether you want Kirkwood or AmerenUE to sell you your electricity. If you live in most of Kirkwood, you get the municipal utilities; if you live in parts of Kirkwood not served by the municipal utilities (I assume these are more recently annexed areas), you deal directly with AmerenUE or Missouri-America Water. That amounts to no more choice than the rest of us have in utilities.

Well, those two points are pretty much it for my additions. I thank Kirkwood for taking the time to respond, and for their professional tone in doing so. And thanks to the Post for the head shot!

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