When elected officials intentionally ignore the law, we often react with a mixture of anger and helplessness. Abetted by their government lawyers, whose jobs exist at the pleasure of their only client, elected officials invent arguments to justify going around the plain meaning of ordinary words. It’s enough to make the most moderate of political hearts jump online and order home-delivery of pitchforks in bulk.

We have seen too many examples of this recently in St. Louis. For example, the statutory definition of the earnings tax for the City of St. Louis states that it can be collected “. . . for work done or services performed or rendered in the city.” [emphasis added throughout] Yet city Collector of Revenue Gregory F. X. Daly has interpreted those words during the pandemic to include people working remotely from their homes outside of the city for businesses within the city. Such a determination is preposterous.

You don’t like it? You have the audacity to think people should enforce the laws as written? Tough luck. Sue him. War is Peace.

The legislature has failed in an effort to further tighten the law to clarify that it does not include remote workers. That is unfortunate, as it will embolden Daly and others to engage in more of this, and it should not have been necessary in the first place.

St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page is getting a Ph.D. in this line of governing. He took the position knowing the county charter states that “the county executive’s entire time shall be devoted to the duties of the office.” In the vernacular of 1950, when it was written, that passage clearly meant that the county executive could not have a second job, but Page kept practicing medicine part-time anyway. As admirable a profession as medicine is, the charter did not include an exception for admirable work.

Going from the sublime to the absurd, Dr. Page later attempted to appoint former County Executive Charlie Dooley to the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority. The governing statutes for that board state that nominees “may be appointed by the chief executive of the county with the advice and consent of the county council.” Dooley’s appointment was rejected by the council. (I think he should have been appointed, but that’s another issue.) Page appointed Dooley to the board anyway, with Page’s county counselor justifying it all with legal gymnastics that would have made Simone Biles beam.

You don’t like it? You think the county executive should follow the charter and laws? Tough luck. Sue him (which the council did, in a legislative fashion). Ignorance is Strength.

The county council and county voters have addressed these issues with charter changes, both past and upcoming. But it should not have to come to that.

During his brief time as Governor, Eric Greitens attempted to pay some of his cabinet members more than allowed by state law by quietly funneling the additional salaries through other departments. This was blatantly illegal, but the Greitens administration did it anyway until the legislature caught on and put a stop to it. Until then, it was two plus two equals five.

You think the Governor should follow the law and pay his people within the legal range? Tough luck. Impeach him (which the legislature did, albeit for other, more salacious actions).

President Trump routinely ignored the law to do whatever he wished. Spending money on his ballyhooed border wall without congressional approval and imposing a 25 percent steel tariff without any legal authority are just two examples out of many.

You don’t like it? Tough luck. Impeach him (which they also did, twice). Freedom is slavery.

It’s bad enough when the government lies. It’s worse when elected officials demonstrate how little they think of our democracy and the rule of law by flouting the very laws they are supposed to enforce or enact. The regrettable actions described here are part of a process that is degrading trust in our institutions and our democratic process. As a philosophical libertarian, I appreciate a healthy skepticism of government. Seeing government for what it is instead of taking its benevolent facade at face value is fine by me. But we should all be concerned about the breakdown of the basic regard for the law as it is written. If you don’t like the law, don’t ignore it. Change it by engaging in the hard work of democracy.

But while we are doing that, is it too much to ask that we all agree two plus two equals four?

The post “Stop,” or I’ll Yell “Stop” Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The idea of building new soccer venues in Saint Louis County is not a new one. Multiple projects were in the works during Charlie Dooley’s term as County Executive. But there’s always been the question, which has yet to be satisfactorily answered, of whether Saint Louis County ought to be getting into the soccer business. The new agreement with the city will allow some of the hotel/motel tax revenue the county uses to support the convention center and stadiums downtown to fund soccer fields in the County. Officials claim this will allow the County to get the fields without using any “new” taxes.

For anyone who reads this blog, alarm bells should be going off with any mention of the hotel/motel tax. The fact is, the hotel/motel tax revenue stream drives the most expensive shell game in the Saint Louis region. These taxes supposedly support the America Center, the Edward Jones Dome, the Convention Center Hotel, and Busch Stadium, among others. But the yearly revenue stream from both the city and county’s hotel taxes (less than $20 million) is nowhere near enough to cover annual cost of all these projects (more than $30 million). And that’s before considering the estimated costs of rehabbing the Dome, renovating the convention center, and improving the Scottrade Center. Restaurant tax and general revenue in the city, along with sizable state subsidies, cover the funding gap.

So why would the Saint Louis Visitors and Convention Commission (CVC), which coordinates these expenditures, allow money it does not have to go toward new fields in the County? According to the Post-Dispatch, this may be part of a larger deal. About half of the County’s hotel taxes currently go to pay debt on the Dome. Both that debt and the tax that supports it are set to retire in the next few years. The idea is that promising money for something the County government wants may induce County officials to keep the hotel tax in place—and its revenue flowing to the CVC. In essence, spending money on soccer fields is about being able to spend more money on convention centers.

While the idea of the County going all in on soccer and convention center gambits is unappetizing enough, it gets worse. According to the manager of a similar set of soccer fields in Kansas City, the County’s $14 million cost estimate is much too low, and the plan is “a drag-a-long, tag-a-long boondoggle that will end with county taxpayers funding the difference between the projected and real cost.” Not like we haven’t seen that before.

The post Soccer Mania Strikes Saint Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2010, Walmart announced that it would close a store located in both Saint Ann and Bridgeton (two suburbs of Saint Louis), and open another store 2 miles away, located solely in Bridgeton. The move seemed, in part, to be an attempt to capture more than $7 million in public subsidies. Even though the Bridgeton City Council approved the subsidy, the $7 million will come primarily from public schools and other taxing districts.

Of course, the subsidy at fault is TIF, which allows cities like Bridgeton to capture money that would have gone to other taxing entities and use it how the city desires — in this case, to subsidize a Walmart that replaced an existing Walmart. Cities gain sales tax dollars right away, while all the other taxing districts bear the burden of having the tax base of the property held steady — while expenses increase — for the next 23 years. Oftentimes, this results in tax increases on the rest of the community. In Liberty, Mo., earlier this year, the superintendent and school board were forced to campaign (unsuccessfully) for a tax increase that they said was necessary due to the harms that heavy use of TIF caused in that community.

TIF allows local government to reimburse developers for some of the project’s costs. With TIF, if a property generates $50,000 in property taxes before it is developed but generates $75,000 after being constructed, the developer gets to keep the $25,000 difference to pay for certain development costs. Fifty percent of sales and other taxes can be diverted as well.

In theory, TIF encourages developers to undertake projects in areas in dire need of economic growth. In reality, TIF is used to subsidize politically-connected developers, to help cities lure chosen businesses from other cities, and to fund an entire cottage industry of urban planners, lawyers, and bankers. There is so little accountability that even if the TIF commissions that are supposed to govern the process reject a proposal, a city can override that determination and go ahead with the project. That is exactly what happened with the Bridgeton Walmart.

TIF has had numerous negative economic effects in Missouri, and in particular in the Saint Louis area. TIF has increased government involvement in the economy, sparked abuse of eminent domain, shrunk the tax base, and made subsidies a permanent fixture of development. Furthermore, TIF has failed at its main purpose: economic growth. The East-West Gateway Council of Governments (the major government planning organization in Saint Louis) concluded that TIFs and other incentives have created jobs at the rate of one retail job for every $370,000 in taxpayer subsidies. That is not a road to growth — it is a road to ruin.

It is a fact that the use of TIF is often accompanied by the abuse of eminent domain. With Enhanced Enterprise Zones (EEZ), the threat of eminent domain abuse may be small, but with TIF, it is very real. Many — if not most — of the examples of eminent domain abuse in Missouri have involved TIF. This includes instances in Sunset Hills, Arnold, Sugar Creek, Rock Hill, and more.

An Iowa study of TIF usage concluded that, “On net . . . there is no evidence of economy-wide benefits, fiscal benefits, or population gains.” Another study from Illinois found that economic growth in cities that did not use TIF was stronger than in cities that did, because TIF subsidies caused an inefficient allocation of resources.

A recent study by Washburn University Professor Paul Byrne for the Show-Me Institute documents how TIF is used in Missouri. Byrne shows that the ability of cities to implement a TIF unilaterally leads to cities making decisions that benefit the city, at the expense of other public agencies. Cities that are authorized to enact sales taxes might push for TIF projects that will generate new sales tax dollars without caring about the property tax dollars that the local school district will have to do without. As a result, public tax dollars can end up funding economically inefficient projects. This is what has happened in the large urban areas of the state, and what will happen in Columbia and Boone County if the use of local tax incentives keeps increasing.

The dirty little secret that Regional Economic Development, Inc. (REDI), the local media, and Columbia city officials do not want you to know is that EEZ, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Community Improvement Districts (CID), and other subsidies do not work. They do not succeed in growing the local economy. As a famous Swedish economist once said, “It is not by planting trees or subsidizing tree planting in a desert created by politicians that the government can promote . . . industry, but by refraining from measures that create a desert environment.”

The Columbia supporters of increased use of incentives within the city say that other cities have used these tools with great success (for example, an editorial in the Columbia Daily Tribune, Aug. 13, 2009). In this, they are completely wrong. The City of Saint Louis has been using urban redevelopment tools such as TIF and many others for half a century. How has it worked out? Mapping Decline, a 2008 book by Colin Gordon, documents the decline of the city of Saint Louis. The book’s research is exhaustive. The dominant theme is the use of urban renewal tools and tax subsidies — and their absolute, total failure. From the conclusion:

The overarching irony, in Saint Louis and elsewhere, is that efforts to save the city from such practices and patterns almost always made things worse. In setting after setting, both the diagnosis (blight) and its prescription (urban renewal) were shaped by — and compromised by — the same assumptions and expectations and prejudices that had created the condition in the first place.

I can already hear readers in Columbia saying, “But we’re not Saint Louis.” You are right, you are not; so do not follow a path that will make your city repeat Saint Louis’ mistakes. It is one thing for Saint Louis to try to these projects and have them fail. It would be even worse for a city like Columbia to follow that example with the knowledge that the entire process has failed. At least the trailblazer who takes the wrong path has an excuse.

Missouri should dramatically tighten its TIF laws. At a minimum, TIF should be decided at the county level, and the ability of cities to override rejections from TIF commissions should be eliminated. I hope that Columbia can lead the way to a new realization for our state, where economic development works for everyone when governments do not play favorites and businesses succeed or fail on their own merits.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Tax Increment Financing and Columbia, Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tax increment financing (TIF) is the Rasputin of Saint Louis County – the bad idea that keeps coming back and refuses to die. Despite TIF’s documented failures, Ellisville and interested developers are considering the establishment of a new TIF district in the southwest quadrant of Clarkson and Manchester Roads. The TIF district would take the tax dollars generated by the development and divert them back to the developer. County leaders from both parties, including Steve Ehlmann in Saint Charles and Charlie Dooley in Saint Louis, have seen the harm that TIF is causing our region. The TIF commission and the city council should reject this proposal.

TIF has had numerous negative economic effects in Saint Louis County. TIF has increased government involvement in the economy, sparked abuse of eminent domain, and made subsidies a permanent fixture of development. Furthermore, TIF has failed at its main purpose: economic growth. The East-West Gateway Council of Governments concluded that TIFs and other incentives have created jobs at the rate of one retail job for every $370,000 in taxpayer subsidies. That is not a road to growth – it is a road to ruin.

An Iowa study of TIF usage concluded that, “On net (…) there is no evidence of economy-wide benefits, fiscal benefits, or population gains.” Another study from Illinois found that economic growth in cities that did not use TIF was stronger than in cities that did, because TIF subsidies caused an inefficient allocation of resources.

Consistent with those findings, cities’ heavy use of TIF has distorted economic growth and subsidized less efficient, politically-favored developments in Saint Louis County. Citizens are free to choose between shopping at Walmart or mom-and-pop stores, but cities should not give Walmart an advantage over their competition through subsidies.

Everyone wants a “do-something” leader. So, even though the evidence says TIF is bad for the region’s economy, municipal leaders support TIFs within their city. They can claim political credit for the “new” businesses, while playing kick-the-can with the adverse consequences for the other taxing districts, like the schools. Most residents of the Rockwood School District do not live in Ellisville; they have no way of voicing their opposition.

I urge this TIF commission and Ellisville to recognize that the constant quest for retail tax incentives is harming the region’s economic base. By passing this TIF, Ellisville might gain in the short term, but at the expense of other taxing districts that also serve its citizens. More importantly, it will continue the downward spiral of incentive-based retail developments that shrinks our region’s tax base to benefit private developers.

Ellisville can address long-term revenue issues by switching to pool sales tax status. The city, its residents, and its taxpayers would then benefit from development throughout the county. I hope the TIF commission and Ellisville can lead the way to a new realization for our region, where economic development works for everyone when governments do not play favorites and businesses succeed or fail on their own merits.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Related Links

‘Sometimes Nothing Can Be A Real Cool Hand’ Saint Louis County TIF Policy, Punting, And Cool Hand Luke

The post TIF Is A Bad Idea That Refuses To Die appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ehlmann gave an excellent talk at the TIF hearing last month. Here is his stated opposition to the TIF:

However, he said a city tax-increment financing subsidy would be “bad public policy” because it would channel into the project some of the new property tax revenue generated that would otherwise go to the St. Charles School District and other governments.

“If the city can do a TIF to make others pay for what is their responsibility, when are we going to start using city money for schools?” Ehlmann said.

Ehlmann and his predecessor, Joe Ortwerth, have been leaders in calling out the fact that these TIFs do not do anything for our economy. They inefficiently redirect activity based on who is giving out the most tax dollars. Saint Charles County has put its money where its mouth is regarding TIF, and actively fought prior TIFs in court, although the rulings have always favored the cities. It is great to see Ehlmann is still fighting that fight against these abuses.

Charlie Dooley has also been leading the fight against these TIFs in Saint Louis County. He has not made a statement directly on the Shrewsbury TIF, so I do not know exactly how he feels about it. But based on his opposition to the last Walmart TIF in Bridgeton, and the comments of the county reps on the current TIF commission, I think he likely is opposed to this one as well. (Someone should feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) Dooley made public comments about the Bridgeton TIF between the TIF commission process and the city council decision. I think that is perfectly appropriate, and I hope he leads the opposition should the Shrewsbury City Council attempt to override the decision of the county TIF commission.

One of the most important legislative changes we need in Missouri is eliminating the ability of cities to override TIF commissions. Cities can approve a TIF even if the commission defeats it. That is an atrocious law that empowers small groups to abuse the tax system at the expense of many other people and entities (such as school districts). Both county executives – Ehlmann and Dooley – deserve great credit for thinking about their whole county (and region) first, and opposing these types of tax abuses.

The post A Tale Of Two County Executives (More Similar Than Different) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nixon said that he had offered assistance to [Saint Louis County Executive Charlie] Dooley. In particular, the governor mentioned Lone Elk Park, which is adjacent to Castlewood State Park. Nixon said such a state-county operation there would save money.

Lone Elk Park is adjacent to Castlewood State Park and a previous article states that the county was considering transferring Lone Elk Park to the Missouri Department of Conservation. The governor claims that a shared management operation would save money. I haven’t seen any data to support this claim, but IF it is true, then the idea can be viewed as having some merit.

However, it seems odd that in this article, the topic of privatization was barely mentioned, except in this brief statement:

[Saint Louis County Chief Operating Officer Garry] Earls initially said that some of the parks, including Lone Elk, could be sold. However, Dooley dismissed that possibility at a special budget meeting Tuesday night.

Prudence would suggest that the county not dismiss privatization (or ANY potential solution) out of hand. Shouldn’t the county consider privatization as a possible course of action before sharing park management with the state? If there ARE obstacles to privatization, what are they? The only obstacle I could find is in this piece of information from the Southeast Missourian:

Officials said deed restrictions and covenants would prohibit the sale of most of the parks to private individuals.

However, Lone Elk Park does NOT have a deed restriction on its sale so the above restriction would not be applicable. Are there any other reasons the county would not consider privatization of Lone Elk Park?

As David mentioned in his post, the Reason Foundation has done a good analysis of park privatization, and the conservancy model of non-profit, public-private partnerships operating a park has been tried successfully in Tower Grove Park. County officials have not given a reason why following the Tower Grove example would be a bad idea, and unless there is a deterioration of Tower Grove’s situation, shouldn’t Saint Louis County investigate privatization of Lone Elk Park if a private operator can be found to manage it?

The post Public Parks Problem, Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“I don’t think it’s up to those guys to make that decision,” said Walter Crawford, executive director of the World Bird Sanctuary, which borders Lone Elk Park. “That park belongs to you and me.”

If it is not up to county officials to determine how to raise and spend tax dollars, whose job is it? Not surprisingly, the hipster urbanists are all a-twitter:

Parks represent a community’s shared aspirations and values. Our St. Louis County Park system is a national treasure.

No, it isn’t. It is a wonderful local park system, but “national treasure” is a fair bit of hyperbole.

I think the real opportunity is for cities to take over some of the parks that are within their borders. Many of the parks in question were county parks before these cities, such as Wildwood, incorporated. County government officials are correct to propose changing that model now. Residents in the newly-formed cities gain the benefits of the local park without the marginal tax burden. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch explains further:

The possible transfers: Lone Elk Park to the Missouri Department of Conservation; Greensfelder to the city of Wildwood; George Winter to Fenton; and Bon Oak to Dellwood.

Officials said that they had not yet contacted the state or municipalities to discuss that prospect.

However, Wildwood Mayor Tim Woerther said on Tuesday that he would be open to the idea of taking over the 1,734-acre Greensfelder.

“We would certainly be receptive,” he said. “But obviously, the devil is in the details.”

I commend Mayor Woerther for his openness to the idea. I would add Tilles Park in Ladue to the list; perhaps the cities of Ladue, Brentwood, and Rock Hill could take over the park in a cost-sharing arrangement. (Tilles is in Ladue, but on the border of Brentwood and Rock Hill, and residents of all three cities use the park extensively.)

Another possibility for some of these parks is to deed them to neighboring subdivisions as common ground. This is an option for the smaller, neighborhood parks on the list, such as Mathilda-Welmering. Maybe they would be well-maintained in that situation and maybe they wouldn’t, but the choice, and cost, would be up to the local residents who use the park. 

And, not surprisingly to regular readers, I think privatization should be considered for some of these parks. The Reason Foundation has covered the issue of park privatization at length. The conservancy model of non-profit public-private partnerships operating a park has been used successfully in some Saint Louis city parks, such as Tower Grove Park. Private supporters also have played a role in the success of some destination parks in the area, including Forest Park and Faust Park. (Nextstl.com has good detail on this in its story.)

The privatization model will, in my opinion, work better for destination parks. But, I think Lone Elk is such a destination park, and because it is one of the parks without a deed restriction on its sale, I hope the county gives that option strong consideration if a private operator can be found to manage it.

I don’t agree with every idea that the county executive proposes here, but I don’t think he deserves the criticism from all sides that he is receiving. Some of these cuts are tough choices that have to be made. I believe that the government is too large and too costly at every level. So, my axiom to that rule is that I don’t criticize elected officials — of either party — when they propose budget cuts, especially in tough economic times. (I think the closest I came to breaking that principle was in defense of Parents As Teachers. But, I only argued against its elimination; I supported cutting its budget.)  

If cities can take control of some of these parks, if privatization (including non-profit control) can be applied to the facilities where it may be best suited, if the more obvious cuts and changes can be applied (like closing minimally-used pools and expensive community centers), then I believe these changes can be implemented and, in the end, most St. Louisans would barely notice.

The post Where Will Nannies And Chimney Sweeps Sing Songs And Fly Kites If St. Louis County Closes Parks? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One thing on which we rank very high is the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). This excellent paper on TIF, by Randal O’Toole with the CATO Institute, ranks Missouri third in total and fourth per capita in the sale of TIF bonds from 2005 to 2010. (See page 12 of the paper for the table.) This is not something of which to be proud.

TIF is common in Missouri. Right now, we have more ongoing applications than I can keep track of. The city of Columbia wants a giant TIF for its downtown area.  A TIF is being sought for a section of St. Charles, even though the main landowner of the area in question is a tax-exempt educational institution. Just a few months ago, Kansas City approved a gigantic TIF for the city. Developers are seeking a TIF in Shrewsbury that will do nothing but continue the rearranging of the deck chairs for retail in Saint Louis County. From the Patch story on that proposal, if I may be so bold as to quote myself:

David Stokes, a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, said what he heard was “just a terrible economic fallacy.”

“Of course it’s just preliminary, but from what I can tell it is just another example of the economic issues the East-West Council of Governments supported in their report two months ago, which is that every city is doing something to support their own little city, but it’s killing our county’s economic base, and it’s hurting the region,” Stokes said. “It might benefit Shrewsbury in the short run but seems it’s just going to be another type of TIF development that’s going to hurt our region.”

“Maybe if it can’t be done without public dollars, maybe it just shouldn’t be done,” he said.

The problems in these cases is the cities, not the counties. In fact, St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann, along with his predecessor, Joe Ortwerth, have been strident in opposition to TIF in that county, to their great credit. Also to his credit, Saint Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley has recently taken the lead in opposition to these TIFs – he really gets it that a few cities are helped but the entire county is hurt. And Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders at least sued to get more equal representation on the Kansas City TIF commission.

But, even though they have instituted county TIF commissions in Saint Louis and its currounding counties, the insane rule still applies that city councils can override the TIF commission with a supermajority vote. So, the city council for the 15,000 people of Bridgeton gets to override the Saint Louis County TIF Commission and determine tax policy that will affect the one million people of Saint Louis County. I totally support county TIF commissions, but the part of the law that allows city councils to override the TIF commission with just a supermajority vote is insane. They should not be allowed to override it at all. Lot’s more to come on this issue in the coming weeks and months. And this time, I mean it.

The post Missouri’s TIF Infestation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, the following statement in the article concerns me:

[Garry Earls, Dooley’s chief of staff and chief operating officer of the county,] pledged “the county will help Bridgeton find a better deal.”

The government should not be in the business of “finding a better deal” or picking economic winners and losers. The free market does this fairly and more efficiently — and at zero cost to taxpayers. Instead of getting involved, local and county governments should allow development to happen naturally in an unrestricted market. Having general low-tax and pro-business policies is the most efficient way to attract businesses to an area and incite economic growth. Developments that use TIF are not guaranteed success, and those that are successful may have been successful independently.

If there is a sufficient level of consumer demand for the new Walmart, then the company will decide to move to the location independent of government assistance. If there is not enough demand in the area, then Walmart will decide to move elsewhere, and local governments would not have to forfeit revenues in the short term to pay for the project.

The post “The County Will Help Bridgeton Find a Better Deal.” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a former St. Louis County deputy sheriff, I am uniquely qualified to comment on this story. The Political Fix has a post here about the decision in a lawsuit brought by St. Charles and St. Louis counties. Now, my own post is not a comment on the decision in the lawsuit. I have no idea whether the specific legal claims have merit. I just know that this is one more example in which the taxpayers in our larger counties have to pay higher taxes (or, in this case, a higher fee) for something because the smaller counties refuse to tax themselves enough.

I have absolutely no problem with smaller counties choosing to tax themselves less, but I do have a problem with taxing the larger counties more in order to pay employees in smaller counties more. I do not know whether this could be considered “socialism” or not, as County Executive Steve Ehlmann said, but I do know that it is terrible public policy, and blatantly biased as well.  Both county executives Ehlmann and Charlie Dooley deserve credit for fighting this new law.

The post How Is Service of Process Fees Like the School Funding Formula? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

And I can praise Mark without appearing too partisan, because last night, while speaking to the West County (St. Louis) Republican Club about property taxes and assessments, I actually defended County Executive Charlie Dooley’s (D) tax cut plan. I was wearing my Show-Me Institute hat and was on the proverbial “clock,” and while I also voiced some criticism of county government (i.e., they should have rolled back the rates in 2007), I praised this year’s tax cut plan. So, basically, I’m even. …

The post Rep. Mark Parkinson Is Awesome appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• You want to at least be on the average for your area. That way you will not see any tax increases when various taxing districts roll up their rates to guarantee at least the same amount of revenue as last year. Since right now we only have the countywide average, you at least want to see a 9-percent decrease.
• The real winners in the assessment lottery are going to be the people whose assessments decrease more than the average for their school district. They are the ones who will see actual tax decreases.
• With the coming tax roll-ups, anyone who sees an assessment increase, no matter how small, is in for a tax wallop when the bills come. One of my neighbors saw a 12-percent increase. When the taxes roll up, I assume by roughly 9 percent, the rate increase plus the assessment increase is going to give those people one hell of a tax hike.
• It still feels like a lottery, no matter how much the assessor says it isn’t. My house and the houses belonging to my two neighbors received three very different assessments. Our home’s assessment decreased right on the average (and we’re very happy about that), one neighbor’s assessment decreased only slightly (like 2 percent), and the other neighbor’s assessment rose by 12 percent. Don’t tell me is isn’t a lottery.
• I don’t blame anyone in particular for bringing about this lottery impression. With 360,000 parcels, it’s probably impossible to avoid, unless you abandon individual assessments in favor of area averages, which I proposed in 2007.
• St. Louis County itself has decreased its tax rate, for which County Executive Charlie Dooley and the council should be commended. Now it is up to the school districts, etc., to hold their rates down. If they all automatically roll up by the full amount of the assessment loss, which they are legally entitled to do, then people are barely going to see any tax cuts at all. It is simply that the county makes up a small part of the overall tax rates.
• Should the county average have decreased by more than 9 percent? Perhaps, but I really don’t know. Councilman Greg Quinn thinks they should have fallen much further, and he may well be right.

The post It’s Assessment Day in St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I don’t care if it is just a small tax rate cut, it’s still a cut. During prior years, like 2005, the cuts were needed to offset tax increases in part that were brought about by reassessment. This year, when that rate cut is combined with an assessment decrease (even if that decrease is smaller than expected), the actual money total could be higher than the press is predicting. If it saves my family $25, then my response is to be glad it saves me $25. I am certainly not of the opinion that the government is able to make better use of that money by pooling it for the public good better than individuals are, via private decisions — rather, that is the belief of statists everywhere.

What about the idea that the cut should be greater? Well, I agree with Councilman Quinn that there should have been a rate cut back during 2007, too, but I think the one for 2009 is terrific. The fact is, there is only so much that St. Louis County can do. Its current tax rate is far lower than those of most other taxing entities. For real tax relief to come to the people of St. Louis County, that has to come at the state and county level via reforming the assessment process.

For the actual money you pay based on those assessments, the rates set by schools and cities and fire districts generally dwarf the county rate. If your school district increases its rate by 5 percent to make up for the assessment decrease, that will eat up any savings (and more) you’ll see from the county tax cut, and there is nothing Charlie Dooley or the county council can do about that. St. Louis–area residents have chosen to have a large number of fragmented governments, and both good and bad comes with that. If the county cuts taxes, but everyone else were to raise them, that would be an example of the bad — and that is not Charlie Dooley’s fault.

I commend the county executive for removing the bond issue from the ballot and seeking to lower the tax rate.

The post “Taxes Go Up Incrementally; Why Shouldn’t They Come Down Incrementally?” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As your intrepid blogger has been playing fantasy football much longer than anybody who reads this (since 1991, way before most people had ever heard of it), and as I furthermore spent six years as an aide in the St. Louis County Council, I am uniquely qualified to comment here. I shall put on my best Captain Renault mask and clearly state that I find the thought of managing one’s fantasy football team while using taxpayer computers and while on taxpayer time to be something I did almost every day between August and December each year a blatant misuse of trust and one that I would never even have considered doing. I assure you all that the management of the Mid-County Mounties, the only three-time champion of the HBFL (Half-Baked Football League) at no time ever changed players, proposed trades, bid on free agents, or did any such things while I was at work. Oh yeah, I also never read a football season preview magazine in my office. Not once right around Labor Day each year. Never.

Although, let’s be honest here — 44 sports web sites in one day is an awful lot:

That same day, [Cline] visited 44 sports related sites including his fantasy football team called the Vegas Midget Pimps.

As a taxpayer, I find this very troubling. Perhaps Cline is the living embodiment of this classic Onion article, which you will note is set right here in The Lou. When I worked for the county, I am certain that I never visited more than 20 sports sites in one day. You have to have some standards.

The post I’m Shocked – Shocked! – to Find That Fantasy Football Is Going On in St. Louis County Government! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you are wondering why St. Louis County is not legally required, like many other governmental entities, to roll back its rates, it is because the county’s tax rates are so far below the authorized maximum that the Hancock provisions do not apply. Now, that, of course, is a good thing, and many county leaders, past and present — including Charlie Dooley — deserve a great deal of credit for maintaining that low tax rate. However, as Senator Mike Gibbons has repeatedly said for several years now, just because you are not required to roll back rates doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. (How is that for a triple negative?)

Even a slight rollback of the county property tax rates would send an important message to county property owners that St. Louis County is not going to just take the extra money and keep all of it. Some of it must be sent back to property owners in the form of a tax cut. The county council did just that in 2005, led by Kurt Odenwald, and Charlie Dooley signed that legislation. The public would be well served if the council did so again, and Mr. Dooley signed it again.

The post Tax Rollback Right Thing to Do appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now all we have to do is expand MetroLink to Madison and St. Charles Counties, paid for by local taxpyers only, and we will be in good shape.   

The post Bridge compromise? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.