Columbia, IL, Does It Right!

In St. Louis and other cities and towns in Missouri, the use of TIFs and tax incentives to encourage development is rampant. In Columbia, Illinois, it is different. In the St. Louis Post Dispatch today an article discusses why the Columbia city council voted against two huge developments, one of which could have brought Legoland to the Midwest. One of the main reasons given by alderman Brad Oberkfell was that he wouldn’t support any project that would need tax incentives:

Previously, the council had supported exploring development opportunities involving Columbia Crossing. But that was before the April election. Three newly elected council members, including Oberkfell, ran on campaigns against using tax incentives for development purposes. And Oberkfell said the proposed theme park plan involved the potential use of tax incentives.

These leaders understand that economic growth happens when businesses see opportunities there, not because they receive tax incentives and TIFs. If businesses see potential profits in a certain area, they will come to cities to start businesses anyway. Congrats to Columbia on not giving away taxpayer dollars for private companies!

In Praise of MoDOT

I stand here today to praise MoDOT. These are words you do not often hear in Missouri, where attitudes toward our state department of transportation usually align closely with one’s attitude toward the Kansas Jayhawks or Chicago Cubs. The rural areas of our great state have been angry at MoDOT for years, ever since the broken promises of rural road improvements after the tax increases of the early 1990s. Anger toward MoDOT is a more recent development in the Saint Louis area, at least at its present high intensity. Perhaps this is because familiarity breeds contempt, and the people in Saint Louis are becoming very familiar with MoDOT.

All metropolitan areas have road construction to deal with, but MoDOT has been particularly active around Saint Louis recently. As the major I-64 renovations begin, MoDOT remains in heated discussions over a new Mississippi River bridge, and is conducting other major projects throughout our area. In recent years, road construction is to Saint Louisans what the small rain cloud was to unlucky cartoon characters of years past. It follows us everywhere we go, and will continue to go until at least 2010.

But I am not praising MoDOT because they are crushing lots of rocks or laying miles of new pavement. I am doing so because Missouri finally has a transportation agency that is trying to be innovative and creative in how it addresses the state’s significant transportation needs and goals. I was recently able to attend the Partnerships for Transportation conference in Kansas City. It was exciting to hear how MoDOT is giving consideration to modern funding methods, such as public-private partnerships, to fund its projects. PPPs are not an all-encompassing solution. To paraphrase a MoDOT official, they are a tool to solve a part of Missouri’s transportation problem.

MoDOT’s new usage of the “design-build” project model, including on its I-64 work, is further improving efficiency and saving taxpayers money. They have also been receptive to ideas such as truck-only lanes, as part of the much-needed improvements to our major cross-state highways. While every project is different, and in many cases the traditional financing and construction models will still best serve Missourians, the strong consideration given to new outlooks is exciting.

One of the leaders of the MoDOT bashing effort in Saint Louis has been Bill McClellan, the outstanding Post-Dispatch columnist. McClellan regularly points out, correctly in most regards, that we don’t have much of a traffic problem in Saint Louis. He wonders why we are spending $535 million to close down I-64 for a project we don’t need — and, no doubt, many Saint Louisans would agree with his assertions. The flaw in his argument is that MoDOT has never said that “The New I-64” project is primarily about reducing congestion. The project is about repairing old bridges, improving (or creating) the connection between I-170 and I-64, redoing entrance and exit ramps that are dangerously tight, and adding capacity in some places. Doing all of these things at once will save years of construction time and millions of dollars, even if that will be hard for people to appreciate during the inevitable, serious traffic delays. While the $535 million price tag is enormous, the resulting improvements to the transportation system in Saint Louis will make the project worth the money and effort.

MoDOT deserves even greater flexibility to build and maintain the roads we all use. Amending the state constitution to allow state highway toll roads and high-occupancy vehicle lanes would give MoDOT the ability to implement far-sighted, long-term improvements. Greater partnership by MoDOT with private entities to build and maintain our roads, including the consideration of private toll roads, should be encouraged by legislators and taxpayers. If Missouri is going to meet the transportation demands of the future for our residents and businesses, all options need to be available to MoDOT and local highway departments. This is why I stand in praise of the current version of MoDOT. It is a far cry from the 1990s agency that raised taxes to build roads that never got built. Missourians should support innovative thinking in transportation, even as hardships undoubtedly occur during major construction. I particularly hope Mr. McClellan would support these changes to MoDOT. After all, he’s a Cubs fan.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute.

 

More on the Wonderful Water of St. Louis

Mayor Slay wants to prohibit city government from buying bottled water:

Does that mean banning water coolers? “We’re looking at those types of things,” Slay said, emphasizing that the idea would be to replace jugs of bottled water with jugs filled from city taps.

At least he isn’t planning on naming St. Louis tap water the official water of the state of Missouri.

Stay Out of the Way

In a recent post, Sarah Brodsky commented on the Department of Energy’s decision to fund biofuels research centers in three other states — but not Missouri. Sarah pointed out that we don’t need government funding to support alternative fuel research, because "If biofuel is really a good idea, it’ll be profitable to invest in it even without government funds." Indeed. But there’s more to it than that. Government has a critical role in helping biofuel succeed — not more funding and largesse, but getting out of the way of real entrepreneurs.

The Cascade Policy Institute in Portland, OR, last year reported on how government regulations squelch the efforts of the best biofuel research team the nation has — farmers:

In order to sell biodiesel one must register with, and make regular reports to, the EPA and either pay $2,500 to the National Biodiesel Board or spend millions of dollars to re-prove its environmental health safety. Otherwise one faces $25,000 daily fines.

The stifling effect of these obstacles can’t be overestimated. If it weren’t for the EPA, our family would have started a biodiesel business long ago, and so would many of the farmers I’ve spoken with. Making your own fuel is a financial solution. The incentives to plant are already there and the entire process can be done on a small-scale.

Farmers know it’s a bum deal to work through a middleman to reach customers. Fuel is sure to bring in a good price, but who can say what processors will pay for oil seed stock? If farmers can’t profit directly from biodiesel they will never plant enough crops to make a dent in America’s fuel demands and the price of biodiesel will remain too high for widespread adoption.

Biodiesel represents an enormous opportunity, not only for its environmental and economic benefits, but for its liberating potential. There is a reason the terms “fuel” and “power” also have political application. Petroleum can’t be obtained by just anyone so it is ripe for control. Biodiesel can literally put power into the hands of every person.

The biodiesel opportunity has been suppressed for over a century. Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on a variety of vegetable oils and thought the technology would be a boon to farmers.

Now that biofuels have finally regained the national spotlight, America is at a crossroads. We can pursue subsidies and use mandates to build on the petroleum fuel model, with large-scale agribusiness supplying a few giant processors. Or we can we remove counterproductive laws for a paradigm shift to an agrarian fuel model, where local farmers grow the industry from the ground up and reap the profits.

One of the most basic truths of government intervention in the economy is that intervention begets intervention, as the unintended consequences of government action become apparent, and then have to be "fixed" through more government action, spawning still more unintended consequences that require still more intervention, etc.

Sometimes the government’s best course of action is to stay out of the way and let the market do its work, without obtrusive regulations that kill alternative energy innovations before they have a chance to blossom.

I Met a Water Patrol Officer and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt

That’s right, a new program is giving kids T-shirts as a reward for wearing life jackets:

Water Patrol officers and Corps rangers on Table Rock Lake will reward children wearing jackets on boats, beaches and docks by giving them a T-shirt with the message, “I got caught wearing my life jacket.” The program will continue throughout the summer.

Why don’t they hand out life jackets or flotation devices to the kids who aren’t wearing them? I doubt anybody would put on a life jacket for the chance to win one of those T-shirts. And a T-shirt never saved anyone’s life.

Biofuel Funding Goes Elsewhere

Missouri was not selected to be the site of a federally-funded biofuels research center:

The Department of Energy announced Tuesday it will fund three biofuels research centers in Oak Ridge, Tenn., Madison, Wis., and near Berkeley, Calif.

I, for one, am not sorry. Economic growth happens when entrepreneurs work to satisfy consumers’ needs, not when established organizations vie for federal dollars. If biofuel is really a good idea, it’ll be profitable to invest in it even without government funds.

Northwest Missourians Have Better Stuff to Do

The St. Joseph News-Press complains that not enough Missourians from the northwest part of the state are serving on boards and commissions:

The new Seismic Safety Commission will always come from Cape Girardeau. And the governor can find a nominee for the Board of Examiners for Cosmetology and Barbers from anywhere in the state. It just seems that anywhere is rarely St. Joseph.

Gov. Blunt encourages everyone to serve on state boards:

"I encourage Missourians to explore our state’s boards and commissions and apply for an appointment that allows them to use their God-given talents to help enhance the services we deliver to Missourians each and every day," the governor said in a prepared release.

So there is the challenge. If Northwest Missouri wants someone on the lead poisoning committee or the Hispanic Business Trade and Culture Committee, we are going to need volunteers to step up to the plate.

It looks like northwest Missourians just prefer to use their God-given talents to do something productive themselves rather than to patrol other people.

Virtual School Enrollment

Missouri’s virtual school has filled almost all of the available spaces:

Missouri’s new virtual school has only a few free slots still open, but more students can still take classes if they pay tuition, says the director of the online education program.

It’s interesting that almost no one protests the virtual school. The only complaint I’ve heard is that it doesn’t yet offer middle school courses. On the other hand, charter schools, tuition tax credits proposals, and busing programs are accused of hurting the traditional public schools.

Maybe this is because students have the option of taking one or two online courses while remaining in a public school. Other choice options like charter schools might be more popular if they offered individual courses or after-school tutoring to supplement traditional schools.

Hurray for Free Speech

Jo Mannies blogs about the Supreme Court ruling against some of the McCain-Feingold speech restrictions. The decision was popular with some of her readers, who commented:

    1. I just LOVE that part of McCain/Feingold went down today?

      Comment by tsquare — June 25, 2007 @ 2:27 pm

    2. You mean that citizens of the USA are now permitted to express themselves freely even within 2 months of an election?

      What a country!!!

      Comment by chris d — June 25, 2007 @ 4:54 pm

Hear, hear. Mannies notes:

Until McCain-Feingold, such ads have had a strong presence on Missouri TV stations. They were a major presence in the 2002 U.S. Senate contest between Democratic incumbent Jean Carnahan and Republican Jim Talent.

In close races like the ones we often see in Missouri, it’s as important as ever that people be allowed to air ads about political issues.

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