Until the last city council meeting, roll carts were banned in Columbia due to a poorly constructed public referendum on the issue. Thankfully, the council has changed those rules and now can restore sanity to the current system by instituting roll carts at some point in the (hopefully near) future.

The current, byzantine system of using only city-authorized trash bags taken by hand to the curb for personal collection by city employees is as outdated as a police call box. In addition to changing this rule, Columbia should strongly consider privatizing the entire trash system and using roll carts and automated collection trucks. This will, of course, be opposed by those who view local government as a job program first and foremost. From a Columbia Missourian story (emphasis added):

Although privatizing trash collection would relieve the city of its issues, the waste division claims it would eliminate city jobs, involve a difficult transition and likely not improve residents’ fees or quality of service.

City governments exist to serve the public in the most efficient way possible, not to put as many people as possible on the public payroll. My beloved Uncle Leo, who was a Chicago precinct captain for many years, would have hated privatization and roll carts. The jobs were what mattered to Leo and the Chicago machine. But trash privatization and the automated roll cart system (yes, you do have to roll it out once a week, as I do) is the system that best serves Missouri communities. Columbia has taken a key step to get there. Here’s hoping it keeps going forward.

The post Columbia Repeals Ban on Trash Roll Carts, Repeal of Ban on Dancing and Proms Is Next appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We do that by making smart financial and fiscal decisions . . . and being open and transparent in our spending and where the citizens’ tax dollars are going.

This commitment to good government is admirable. So why would the Columbia City Council vote 5-3 in favor of approving the Broadway TIF after the Columbia TIF Commission overwhelmingly voted 8-3 against the proposal?

For several months, a developer who owns The Broadway Columbia Hotel, has been trying to convince the TIF Commission to declare 1104 E. Walnut St. a redevelopment area so that he can qualify to receive $2 million in taxpayer subsidies to expand. To support this effort, the developer claimed in his development plan (pp. 4–5) that the building meets the “Conservation Area” criteria for TIF eligibility because it is 56 years old and “displays obsolescence due to age, ongoing vacancy, and deferred maintenance of external items like the roof and gutters.”

Furthermore, the developer claimed in testimony provided to the TIF council on October 30 that while not blighted yet, the redevelopment area may qualify due to excessive vacancies, litter, and alcohol containers on the grounds. Should taxpayers be asked to pick up the tab for cleaning the area up, or should it be the responsibility of the property owner?

The developer also noted that without TIF assistance, potential investors and lenders said they would not be willing to join the project because the financial risk would be too great. And yet, in a letter sent to the commission, the Boone County Auditor pointed out that “just a few blocks west of the parcel in question . . . a multi-story office building is currently under construction [and] is proceeding without TIF financing on a smaller lot than the subject lot, and at a significant investment … of several million dollars.” If similar projects can proceed without subsidy, then can’t this one as well?

Finally, the Boone County Assessor has warned that over its 23-year life, the TIF arrangement would divert $4.3 million away from schools, libraries, and municipal services—but the hotel expansion is projected to produce only $695,000 in tax revenue. Proponents say this diversion of money will lead to job growth. However, this argument is at odds with multiple studies that have concluded that TIF has no demonstrable effect on job creation. Is this the sort of smart fiscal decision-making that is supposed to regain the trust of the voters?

Last year, the Missouri Legislature passed a law stating that if a city passes a TIF over the objection of a TIF commission, then the money raised from it can only be used towards the demolition and clearing of the site. Unfortunately, the law only applies to Saint Louis County, Saint Charles County, and Jefferson County. Maybe it’s time to include Boone County—or the rest of Missouri—under the law. 

The post Is This How Trust Is Regained? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In March, the Columbia City Council withdrew a plan to ban plastic bags at “groceries, convenient stores, and pharmacies.” The proposal would have mandated that stores charge 10 cents per plastic bag. While supporters said the new policy would reduce waste and benefit the environment, it took a lot of heat from constituents and was withdrawn a month later.

A legislator said we are likely to see more municipalities pursuing plastic bag bans as they have become more popular nationwide, which is why lawmakers are considering legislation that would ban plastic bag bans. House Bill 722 would allow businesses a choice on what type of bag they provide customers.

Bag bans are meant to incentivize the use of other types of shopping bags such as reusable bags, but research regarding the use of reusable bags over plastic bags is mixed. In cities that have instituted plastic bag bans, people began to use more paper bags. Unlike plastic bags, paper bags are not often recycled or reused and come with their own set of environmental consequences.

While I believe that Missouri should promote environmentally responsible behavior, it’s unclear whether or not policies like the one Columbia proposed would actually help the environment. Though some might argue that a statewide ban on bans limits the power of local governments, the proposed legislation actually protects the rights of individuals.

The post Bag Ban Ban-Not a Tongue Twister, a Proposed Law appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Columbia city manager and mayor had proposed an enormous TIF district covering large areas of downtown. The idea was that the TIF on several new, very large student housing developments would pay for infrastructure improvements that most people seem to agree downtown Columbia needs. In general terms, this TIF proposal may have been better than most, but that is like saying Mao was better than Stalin. Just because this money would have — at least in the proposal — gone toward infrastructure does not justify passing a TIF that would have enormously changed the tax make-up of downtown Columbia for up to 23 years and put the other taxing districts at a severe disadvantage.

Sometimes it takes political leadership to argue for tax and fee increases. In following this debate, it seemed as if just giving the new developments a subsidy and then using that subsidy for infrastructure was the easy way out. That is how warped we have become in Missouri. Subsidies such as TIF, Enhanced Enterprise Zones (EEZ), etc. are so common that they have become the rule, not the exception. Let there be no doubt about it: If this TIF proposal had passed, then subsidies like it would have become standard for everything in Columbia. And heavy use of TIF and other subsidies would be very bad in the long run for Columbia, just like it has been for the Saint Louis and Kansas City areas.

If there are infrastructure needs in downtown Columbia, they can fund improvements the same way they were funded for a century: bond issues and fee increases, with any new developments paying the full share of tapping into the system. Better yet, privatize the water and electric utilities and use that money to fund necessary improvements. Whatever you do, don’t count on subsidies to do the work that leadership should do.

The post Columbia Says No To A TIF appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here is a quick recap of recent events. This past year the airport enjoyed service from American Airlines, Delta, and Frontier Airlines. But American Airlines is now the only commercial airline staying in Columbia, as Delta already left the market, and Frontier exits in May.

Consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff will provide design services for the new terminal for $38,000. In a recent press release, Parsons Brinckerhoff hypes the new terminal and defends the need, stating that “Columbia Regional Airport has been experiencing growth and has seen an increase in the number of commercial airline service offerings.”

After reading that, I literally double-checked the date of the press release to confirm that it indeed said March, 28, 2013, and not 2012. While it is technically true that the airport has increased commercial airline service offerings, the statement leaves off the very important second half of that statement — the growth has stopped, and service offerings are much lower than they were a year ago.  It is like saying George Bush is president. It was true, at one point in time, but you are not going to find him at the White House today.

Still, city leaders seem confident with their multi-million dollar plan. The Columbia City Council decided on Monday to transfer $1.2 million away from other city projects to fund the terminal, and plan to allot another $18.7 million to the project in the 2014 Capital Improvement Plan, in hopes that the federal government will agree to contribute a large portion of the total cost.

The post Funny-But-Not-So-Funny Update On Columbia Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In stark contrast to the study’s claims, official state figures actually show that historic preservation credits return 23 cents for each dollar the state spends. These tax dollars are often used on dubious projects of little or no public use, such as private mansions and at least one country club.

The main point I would like to highlight, however, is that the Columbia study was written explicitly to pump an agenda, a point that may not be immediately evident if casual newspaper readers just saw the headlines. The study’s authors were (refreshingly) transparent about this in the text of the study itself. Goal one on the study’s first page explicitly says that the report “will promote the economic development benefits of historic preservation to an expanded audience.” Goal two makes the study’s goals even clearer (emphasis mine): “This report will encourage tax credit eligible projects to homeowners and developers by promoting visible local examples.” And the “Vision Impact” outlined at the bottom of that page is clear that the objective sought is to preserve “historic areas” through “education, enforcement, and incentives” (emphasis mine) — namely, the HPTC. This is more about marketing than good policy, and should be understood as such.

We at the Show-Me Institute have seen this sort of report before, of course. Back when Aerotropolis was still a thing, I wrote about the National Center for Beef Excellence‘s “report” on whether it was “feasible” to “ship meat to China.” One would think that a state-funded group with “beef” in the name would make it clear that American beef was actually, er, banned in China. Alas, the NCBE attempted to pass off the study as objective when its only goal was to pump Aerotropolis.

That is, in the end, what is going on in Columbia, albeit with laudable transparency. There should be a vigorous debate about the merits of tax credits generally and particularly the historic preservation tax credit, but this report is only one especially biased side of that conversation. There should be no misconceptions about that fact.

The post Columbia’s Historic Preservation Study Should Be Understood As PR, Not Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The demolition of the Regency Hotel site. Photo by Timmy Huynh of the Columbia Missourian.

Since 2005, the City of Columbia has entered into the business of subsidizing development in a big way. The Columbia City Council approved its first Tax Increment Financing (TIF) project in 2009 and is considering another one.

In 2010, the city actually bought property for $3 million in order to lease it to IBM for $1 (yes, just a dollar) for at least 10 years. In fall 2011, the Columbia Missourian reported that IBM had hired just 101 full-time employees, far short of the 800 jobs promised.

It may not be a tax subsidy, but it is certainly a failed bet: The city has also built a very expensive parking garage that garishly lights up downtown Columbia in the evenings. The Missourian has reported that it costs more than $3,000 each month to keep the lights on in that garage. Of course, the cost of the parking lot is $21 million, and its parking revenue appears to have been paltry.

To this former Columbia resident, the city’s development bets seem contrived. The City Council, hoping for a better hotel, approved a large TIF for the Regency Hotel site on Broadway (demolition site pictured above). In my humble opinion, if the replacement of any hotel in Columbia could merit subsidy, I would nominate the Arrow Head Motel, which looks a little worse for the wear.

Now, the Columbia City Council is moving aggressively forward to allow for the awarding of Enhanced Enterprise Zone (EEZ) subsidies. The City Council voted 7-0 on Monday to set up an EEZ board, the first step needed to hand out EEZ development subsidies, despite the fact that many people showed up to protest that move.

What, exactly, is wrong with Columbia? The unemployment rate in the Columbia metropolitan statistical area is lower than the rest of Missouri. Columbia has a large college campus that guarantees a certain level of sales tax revenue and occupied apartments. It hosts football games that draw even more commercial activity to the city.

And yet, Columbia officials argue that a large swath of their downtown should be considered “blighted” and that the city needs development subsidies.

I wonder, to what success are those officials looking? I have pointed out before (in a Columbia newspaper) that TIF has a very poor track record on both sides of the state when it comes to creating long-term growth.

The Wall Street Journal just highlighted Kansas City’s bad development bets. The Saint Louis area’s use of development incentives has been so inefficient that we have spent more than $370,000 per job created. And the Associated Press just reported that the Kansas City development incentive border war has resulted in $750 million in incentives spent to move jobs across state lines.

Development subsidies that taxpayers fund are no way to provide long-term economic growth. But if Columbia’s city officials are itching to get into the development game, they should do so with their own money, and on their own time.

The post What Is The Matter With Columbia? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week, the Columbia City Council attempted to assuage fears of eminent domain. An advisory board:

recommended an ordinance that would safeguard against the use of eminent domain as part of the program by preventing the EEZ-related blight designation from being used to meet blight requirements for other laws.

Unfortunately, the recommendation does not provide full protection for Columbia residents. Other definitions of blight are exactly the same as the one the board used to blight half the city. What is to stop the city from blighting areas using statutes that expressly permit eminent domain?

The real problem Columbia residents face is the unconstrained use of blight. As long as the definitions of blight remain so broad, any property can be blighted and seized (except farmland). No residential or commercial property is safe. The definition of blight must be reformed.

The post What Cannot Be Blighted? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Opponents of the proposal brought up two arguments against urban chickens: First, that chickens would be dirty, noisy, and wild; and second, that chickens would lower property values. Urban chicken supporters answered both objections very well.

Opponents told horror stories about disgusting chickens, but they failed to show that chickens are any worse than the birds that already live in Columbia. If chickens harbor pestilence and filth, then so do all the sparrows and pigeons that fly around unmolested. Chicken supporters pointed out that other pets like dogs can carry disease or leave waste, and Columbia has no trouble regulating dog ownership so that most people are satisfied. No one is asking the city to ban all dogs for sanitation reasons; chickens should be equally tolerable.

The Columbia ordinance prohibits roosters, which should go a long way toward preventing noise disturbances. One Realtor who spoke predicted that wild roosters will find a way into the coops despite the owners’ best intentions. I find it hard to believe a rooster could break into a coop that, by law, is made of sturdy fencing with a wire net on top — unless the rooster had access to power tools.

Then there’s the possibility that escaped chickens will flock in the streets. Again, the opponents haven’t shown that chickens are more likely than other animals to cause problems; owners of any kind of pets can be irresponsible. As one councilman said, chickens aren’t the nuisance — people are. Those people are the exception, and Columbia can deal with them on an individual basis. Urban chicken supporters have lots of ideas for reducing the number of wild chickens: A private organization has offered to teach people how to care for chickens, and it’s volunteered to help place abandoned birds in new homes. One graduate student pointed out that unwanted chickens can be sold on Craigslist.

It’s clear that chickens are no more of a nuisance than dogs or cats. However, some Columbia residents — namely, Realtors — say that chickens are uniquely harmful because people think of them as farm animals. They claim that the chicken ordinance will lower property values, and that chickens next door to homes on the market could quash sales. These Realtors overlook the fact that the ordinance doesn’t override neighborhood associations’ covenants or landlords’ policies, which can exclude chickens. Chickens are not about to move into a community of mansions and destroy the value of the surrounding estates. And, as several commenters indicated, some people would actually prefer to buy a house in a city that allows chickens.

The only time chicken enthusiasts lost me was when they appealed to “sustainability” and “food security.” I can’t imagine how building a chicken coop could be fun, either. But whether I agree with the chicken owners’ ideology is not the point. People should be free to pursue their ideals and passions so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. Chicken raising meets that criterion.

The post Urban Chicken Victory in Columbia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The text of the proposed ordinance anticipates concerns about sanitation and possible nuisances, and it includes regulations to prevent problems. I hope that those clauses satisfy the critics. Cities like Columbia should not allow anyone to pack unsanitary numbers of poultry into city plots, but residents who raise a few hens in their backyards without harming their neighbors should be left alone.

If you’d like to learn more about urban chickens in Columbia, supporters have created a blog and a series of YouTube videos.

The post Urban Chicken Vote Is Here appeared first on Show-Me Institute.