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!

St. Louis May Get KIPP Schools!

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

"KIPP" stands for "Knowledge Is Power Program." Read all about it here in the Post-Dispatch.

The article mentions KIPP’s great track record in improving test scores, and brings up the usual objections: KIPP schools take the cream of the crop; not everyone is able to spend 10 hours a day in school; it won’t work everywhere.

I hope those arguments won’t stop the mayor from bringing in KIPP. After all, KIPP schools are free public charter schools that specifically target poor urban areas. They can’t be accused of admitting only wealthy, ready-for-school students. And if they accept a lot of motivated students who want to work hard, is that really a problem? Kids go to school to learn, not to be a good influence on everyone else. When you look at the before-and-after test scores of KIPP students, it doesn’t make sense that these kids would have done well anyway, because they weren’t doing well in their traditional public schools before they came to KIPP. So much for the "cream of the crop."

The KIPP school day is longer than many kids can tolerate, but we have other charter schools with shorter school days. I hope Mayor Slay’s plan goes through — then we’ll have even more charter schools to choose from. That’s not a reason to keep out KIPP.

"Policy leaders have said the schools are great but can’t be widely replicated," according to the article. But the vast majority of KIPP schools have done very well, as the article reports. We can’t predict for certain whether the model will work in St. Louis. But you never know until you try.

Taxes From the Kelley Blue Book

Posted on by Justin Hauke

I was in a particularly bitter mood this morning after mailing off my personal property tax bill for my car. It will never cease to amaze me that Missouri taxes me for owning something that depreciates in value each year. That’s just adding insult to injury. In addition, more than 60 percent of the revenue from personal property taxes goes toward supporting the local school district, which has absolutely no connection to my car’s value. Put differently, it makes sense to me that revenue from residential and commercial property taxes goes towards supporting local school districts because the value of the property is indirectly tied to the quality of the school system. But personal property taxes on cars should be used to finance general city government, or, preferably, road maintenance/infrastructure. In my opinion, the closer you can get to a user tax, the better.

That’s a rant, but it prompted me to comment on an even greater source of property tax abuse in Missouri — the practice of increasing tax revenue through reassessment.

An article in this morning’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch draws attention to this abuse, and the outrage local property owners are expressing. Essentially, Missouri’s two-year reassessment statute allows local governments to raise property taxes indirectly by keeping the tax rate the same, but overvaluing individual property values. This has become an all-too-common problem in the state.

One solution that has been proposed is to introduce legislation which would require local jurisdictions to reduce property tax rates in tandem with any increase in assessed value, so that the actual revenue remains constant. This would require local governments to approve tax increases through a vote, rather than through the current back-end approach.

I think this is a great idea. Of course, it still doesn’t help me with my particular tax irritation …

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