The Philadelphia LandCare (PLC) program was started when residents of a particularly bad-off neighborhood team up with the state horticultural society to clean up vacant and trashy lots. The article reveals:

PLC is simple and was designed to be applied across the neighborhood. Trash and debris are removed from a vacant lot. The land is then graded, and grass and a few trees are planted. A low wooden post-and-rail fence is installed with openings to permit residents access to the newly greened spaces. The fence prevents illegal dumping of garbage and construction debris; it is also a visual sign that someone is maintaining the property. The result is a small “pocket park.” The rehabilitation of such lots takes less than a week to clean and green. The lots are maintained through twice-monthly cleaning, weeding, and mowing during the growing season (April through October). The cost to clean and green a typical lot is roughly $1,000–$1,300, along with $150 per year to stabilize the lot through biweekly cleaning and mowing.

The maintenance costs are higher in Missouri. St. Louis City’s Forestry Division (yes, St. Louis has a Forestry Division!) bills $108 per property per time they mow, and try to visit each property (there are 11,000) only 3 or 4 times each year instead of biweekly. As for Kansas City, a few weeks of calls and emails to various city departments and individuals have yielded no results on the costs of maintenance.

Kansas City is slowly making good on its promise to demolish dangerous structures, an important part of blight remediation. Addressing blight requires more. Churches, community groups, and charities of all kinds need to work together to address blight just like the people of Philadelphia. We clearly cannot expect government to do it for us.

The post Fighting Blight Can Help Address Crime appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One reform that might make a great deal of difference is in the state’s legislative definition of blight. For the purposes of tax-increment financing, the blight definition is so broad as to be meaningless. One library executive said that under the existing definition, the governor’s mansion could be blighted. There are opportunities for improvement, and we need not look far.

The easiest option is to look at previously considered reforms. In 2002, Missouri Senator Wayne Goode introduced a bill that would have gone a long way in curbing abuses in blight findings. Specifically, Goode’s bill would require that any area subject to a redevelopment plan could only qualify if:

1. The host municipality—or, for unincorporated areas, the host school district—has low fiscal capacity; or
2. The census block group or groups (as defined in the most recent decennial census) containing the proposed redevelopment area had high unemployment; or
3. The municipality, census block group or groups, as defined in the most recent decennial census, containing the proposed redevelopment area was characterized by moderate income.

Goode’s bill defined such terms as “low fiscal capacity,” “high unemployment,” and “moderate income” in ways that were aimed at making sure that development projects only took place in the communities requiring taxpayer assistance and that effectively placed limits on crony capitalism.

Earlier, in January 1999, the Washington University Law Review published a piece by Julie A. Goshorn titled “In a TIF: Why Missouri Needs Tax Increment Financing Reform.” At the end Goshorn advocated for a new definition of blight that, like Goode’s, incorporated requirements for unemployment and poverty. While Goshorn’s reform dealt specifically with the definition of blight—a move favored by this author—she allowed wiggle room by permitting a blight finding if a building in the area was merely unsanitary. Given the lengths that developers, economic development staffers, TIF commissions, and city leaders have gone to broaden the standards of blight, it is likely that they will continue doing so in the future. Based on Goshorn’s original suggestion, the following terms and definitions might be considered for use in statutes and regulations:

(1) “Blighted area,” is an area that satisfies both (a) and (b) below:

(a) Buildings in the area are:

1. Unsanitary, unsafe for living or working;

2. Substantially vacant; or

3. Subject to a crime rate significantly higher than that in other surrounding areas; and

(b) The area in general is characterized by:

1. Pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general distress, as evidenced by

a. At least seventy-five percent of the residents living in the area have incomes below eighty percent of the median income of all residents within the state of Missouri; and,

b. The level of unemployment of persons within the area exceeds one and one-half times the average rate of unemployment for the state of Missouri over the previous twelve months.

Legislators will undoubtedly wrangle over definitions and thresholds for income and unemployment. That debate is welcome. But legislators, whether conservative or liberal, urban or out-state, should recognize by now that the lax language in Missouri statutes regarding blight is draining municipalities of much-needed resources and providing little if any economic benefit.

The post Fixing a Blight on Missouri Statutes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Ridesharing in Springfield  
• The disappearance of recess  
• Mizzou's future  
• Interstate physician licensing  
• Blight (?) in Clayton  
• Kansas City's identity  

Click on the link below to read it all.

The post Show-Me Institute’s October 2016 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, a St. Louis County Republican, is sponsoring the legislation capping municipal court fines.

“We’re trying to prevent cities from using this as a revenue-generating opportunity and we’re trying to protect individuals who are primarily poor,” Schmitt told The Star. “People ought to obey the law, but we shouldn’t treat our citizens like ATMs.”

In a more recent story, the Star features various Jackson County and Kansas City leaders bristling at the idea of having court fines and fees reduced. Specifically they point to the impact this might have on addressing blight:

Deb Hermann, chief executive officer of Northland Neighborhoods Inc., said Kansas City is already planning to spend $10 million to tear down 800 dangerous buildings over the next two years, illustrating the level of blight in the city.

She said that for too many irresponsible property owners, $450 is just the cost of doing business.

“The city does not need to lose any tools it has to encourage people to take care of their properties,” she said.

Here is the problem: the City of Kansas City is the largest owner of blighted properties in the city. About 200 of the 800 dangerous vacant buildings that Kansas City is finally tearing down are its own. As several residents pointed out in the KCPT documentary, “Our Divided City,” the City can be quick to levy fines on private owners while letting their own properties languish.

This all reminds me of my father’s favorite example of chutzpah: a defendant convicted of killing his parents asking the court for leniency because he is an orphan.

No one should be surprised that local governments do not want the legislature restricting their ability to levy fines and fees. Claiming that they are motivated by addressing blight is just not supported by the facts. 

The post Kansas City’s Crocodile Tears over Blight appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The flying saucer–shaped property seems fine to us. It has an operating business, with many customers. Are city officials just blighting Del Taco in order to award tax subsidy?

The post Where’s the Blight? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Where’s the Blight? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.