Now there is one more “doom loop” article about the challenges facing St. Louis. Governing magazine wrote recently about how declining downtown activity leads to economic decline. Its observations are similar to those in the Journal. Cities like St. Louis, where vacant office spaces drive down property values, are experiencing a vicious cycle where diminished tax revenues lead to reduced public services, further pushing businesses and residents away. According to Jason Bram, an economist interviewed in the article, “It’s a very slow-moving, long-term trend that’s only gotten worse.”

This pattern of urban decline is related to the broader challenges facing cities that fail to address fundamental issues like public safety, infrastructure, and housing. St. Louis, already burdened by economic stagnation, could face further setbacks unless city leaders refocus on foundational public services.

Flashy developments like downtown stadia won’t cut it; St. Louis needs to avoid repeating those expensive mistakes. Instead, cities should prioritize core services. For St. Louis, that means investing in improving public safety, maintaining infrastructure, and focusing on policies that encourage growth.

Without addressing these fundamental issues, St. Louis risks being caught in a permanent cycle of decline. Other cities should also heed this warning and ensure that they focus on sustaining a healthy urban core before chasing grandiose development projects.

The post The Many Doom Loops of St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am confident that the media will get that information, and I am as interested as anyone to learn more. But let’s be honest here–what we already know about the program makes it clear that this “grant” program smells like a racket. Let’s look at what this program is giving away as part of this $32 million “grant” program.

A former state representative is getting $1.5 million to expand her consulting company to create more affordable housing and grow the economy by two—that’s right, two—new jobs.

A former mayor is getting two grants for a total of $125,000 to expand and improve the bar he owns in the city.

Sweetie Pie’s restaurant is getting $1.5 million to expand operations, despite some recent problems with management and operations at the restaurant.

Non-profits are included too, and perhaps that is more understandable, but one non-profit that was only created after the program was announced last year is in line for over $700,000. Surprisingly, the director of that non-profit is connected to a politically influential family. I know, you’re shocked . . .

The list goes on. When the program was announced, officials claimed it was a way to invest in North St. Louis. But it isn’t investing in infrastructure or things that can benefit the public. The program simply seems to be a way to give away tax dollars to North Side businesses. That’s it. There is no way this should be legal.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Consider the comments of one business owner who, admittedly, did not receive funding:

“The whole process has just been problematic from day one,” said Tameka Stigers, who applied unsuccessfully for a grant to expand her hair salon, Locs of Glory, on Delmar Boulevard and has been rallying other disgruntled business owners to lobby SLDC for reconsideration. “It’s a genuine money grab from the city to give the money to their friends.” [emphasis added]

I couldn’t have said it better myself. We will have more to come on this issue, I assure you.

The post The North Side “Grant” Program is a Racket appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The East-West Gateway Council of Government’s preliminary plan is to award a $1.3 million federal grant on October 27 to help restart the trolley (the East-West Gateway already has the federal grant money but is still making final decisions on how to spend it). The trolley has already received $51 million in taxpayer funding but didn’t even last two years because ridership and revenue were less than one-tenth of what was projected.

Members of the East-West Gateway board must remember that this is the same trolley organization that comes back to taxpayers in different costumes every year asking for more candy—er . . . money. Some years the disguise is construction delays; some years it’s money to get more cars on the tracks.

The costumes this year are congestion mitigation and air quality, but these new costumes aren’t any more convincing.

For the trolley to relieve traffic, Delmar Loop shoppers traveling from miles away must stop their cars just short of their destination and take the Loop Trolley for the final two miles of their trip rather than driving the last two miles and parking closer. Shoppers simply haven’t been willing to do this, as poor ridership numbers attest. More to the point, anyone who drove on Delmar Boulevard when the trolley was still running knows that a gigantic train car sharing the road with cars driving and parking only creates more confusion and congestion, not less.

Since the trolley runs on electricity it may in theory improve local air quality, and supposedly the trolley scored well on an East-West Gateway greenhouse gas emissions reductions test. But claiming that the trolley is going to significantly reduce emissions seems questionable. An electric trolley only reduces transportation emissions if it gets people out of their cars. Moreover, don’t forget how that electricity is generated—coal. Given that coal emits much more greenhouse gases than gasoline per unit of energy, the trolley would have to get a lot of people out of their cars to make even a slight difference.

If backers of the trolley really want to start the party again, securing funding from private investors would be much better than handing out tax dollars this Halloween.

Until this happens, however, maybe the most appropriate costume for the trolley is a zombie.

The post Here’s a Scary Halloween Idea: Restarting the Trolley appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kingsway Commercial Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan involves developing multiple projects where the Central West End meets Delmar Boulevard. But perhaps more importantly, a big chunk of funding for these projects would come via a tax-increment financing (TIF) district that would raise $6.2 million. This project will also be financed by a mixture of state and federal tax credits. There are additional plans to create a community improvement district (adding to Missouri’s growing special taxing district problem).

These economic development tools would help to finance this project at the expense of taxpayers; they give developers cash, reduce their tax burdens, and could increase sales taxes in the area. North of the “Delmar Divide” is generally a low-income area, so should we really be redistributing tax dollars from low-income residents to developers instead of using these dollars for public services? Especially when other publicly funded ventures like the Cerner headquarters in Kansas City or the Loop Trolley right down the street from this project haven’t delivered on their promises?

While I’m sure most can appreciate the “bridging the gap” intention of this project, TIF is a flawed economic development tool that often gives no benefit to taxpayers. TIF requires that an area be blighted (for which Missouri has a very broad definition), and that the development would not happen without the public funding. With the thriving Central West End neighborhood just steps from this development, it’s hard to believe that development in this area would not occur without millions of public dollars. Moreover, even if this area were blighted, does it really need these perks for the next 23 years? Is diverting tax dollars to a private development project really the best way to develop this area of St. Louis?

The post Fixing the “Delmar Divide” with a TIF? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since moving to Missouri, I’ve (reluctantly) become accustomed to high sales tax rates that vary from city to city, and even from street to street. Special taxing districts, political subdivisions that can impose taxes, are often to blame for these high sales tax rates, as they add additional taxes on top of state, county, and city taxes. As we work through this economic downturn, many will feel the burden of these high sales taxes.

The chart below shows the highest general sales tax rates in select cities according to Missouri’s Department of Revenue. As you can see, general sales taxes can get pretty high all over the state, peaking at 11.679% in several areas of St. Louis City (specific sales taxes, such as hotel room rates, can get even higher). Even in places with smaller populations like Joplin, there are enough special taxing districts to push sales tax rates up to nearly double digits.

With little oversight and a flawed implementation system, special taxing districts have taken over Missouri. While these districts have been a growing problem for years, the poor state of the economy underscores how little we can afford more special taxing districts right now. Isn’t it time for Missouri to stop taking money out of the pockets of regular citizens and giving it away to wealthy developers?

The post The Burden of Special Taxing Districts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It was recently announced that the opening of the over-budget historic streetcar line will be delayed yet again. This is, by our estimates, at least the fifth time the project’s opening has been delayed. Besides these delays, other snags have caught the project up along the way too.

The trolley line, which will run between University City Hall and the Missouri History Museum on Delmar Blvd and DeBaliviere Ave, was originally slated to begin operations in mid-2016. Since then, it’s been bailed out by taxpayers and private firms, threatened by the Federal Transit Administration, and under such financial strain it had to reduce its planned operating hours. It’s become increasingly hard to see the project as anything besides a policy and infrastructure disaster.

Whether you ultimately think the trolley will be a welcome addition to the Loop or just an eyesore and a money pit, all parties can agree the process of getting it up and running has been slow, painful, and embarrassing. This just doesn’t seem like how good policy is rolled out.

St. Louis, University City, County, and federal taxpayers deserve far better.

The post (Yet) Another Chapter in the Loop Trolley Bungle appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Op-Ed About Loop Trolley In Post-Dispatch appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Issue: Light rail would be dangerous for riders because it attracts criminals and would lead to a wave of crime.

Fact or myth: Big myth.

Earlier this year, consultants for Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser raised a “concern over crime” on light rail. Then Randal O’Toole, working for Missouri’s libertarian-leaning Show-Me Institute, called light rail dangerous and said it “has by far the worst crime record in the transit industry.”

As proof, O’Toole and other light rail opponents cited some fights and stabbings on the Portland, Ore., MAX system, including one story that quoted a police sergeant saying “the MAX has been a living nightmare for us.”

Yet those critics can’t name another city where crime has been a problem on light rail besides one section of Portland’s system.

Overall, light rail’s crime threat is inflated because few crimes occur on mass transit systems.

After another Star piece made a similar argument earlier this year, I first responded by pointing out that comparing the statistics only makes sense if you do so in comparable terms:

Just looking at the robbery statistics for 2005, there were 535 incidents reported on buses and 377 on light rail. When considered in terms of robberies per passenger mile, it’s as though there were nearly 4,840 robberies on light rail in comparison to those 535 on buses. (Or, alternatively, it’s like there were about 42 robberies on buses in comparison to those 377 on light rail.) I could show similar comparisons for almost any of those measurements of transit crime.

In other words, the rates of violent crime, in general, only seem lower for light rail because there are far fewer miles of light rail track than there are miles of bus routes. But if both are considered in comparable terms, light rail is far riskier.

Focusing on homicides doesn’t get you much in the way of meaningful statistics, true, but as we’ve seen recently in St. Louis, the relatively unrestricted access to MetroLink trains and stations makes it a more attractive target for those looking to cause trouble. From the Riverfront Times:

In recent weeks dozens of those same teens have been implicated in violent attacks that have hospitalized people working and living near the light rail stations in the Loop and the nearby DeBaliviere neighborhood. On July 26 a group of at least twenty teens assailed a family as they left the platform at the Forest Park-DeBaliviere station. That same night another group, according to police, attacked a person at the Delmar station.

MetroLink officials contend that the same group of teens was involved in both attacks. Moreover, the transit agency vigorously denies that the commuter train has anything to do with the assaults in the Loop or the spike in shoplifting and juvenile misconduct at the Galleria.

“What we do for the Galleria is take them their employees and shoppers,” stresses Metro spokeswoman Dianne Williams. “With the Loop incidents, we and our passengers were the victims. These kids aren’t traveling there by Metro. They’re coming by car or walking. They’re not coming by Metro.”

Police testimony, however, tells a different story. The two seventeen-year-olds implicated in the group assault of the family were apprehended on the MetroLink platform. The teens told police they were on their way to their homes in Jennings and St. Louis City after spending the night hanging out near Loop restaurants and bars.

Several teenagers who gather at the Galleria and in University City connect MetroLink with the rowdy behavior. “We used to hang out in the Galleria, but when MetroLink opened it got too crazy there,” notes Johnnie Fields, a senior at Gateway High School who met with friends on the sidewalk of Delmar Boulevard on a recent weekend.

Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that light rail is causing crime — rather, crime that might have occurred elsewhere migrates to areas with rail stations because they can make easy targets. Or, in other words, the potential costs involved in committing crime are lower than they might be somewhere else. As the economist David Friedman points out in his work on the economics of crime:

Economists approach the analysis of crime with one simple assumption—that criminals are rational. A mugger is a mugger for the same reason I am an economist—because it is the most attractive alternative available to him. The decision to commit a crime, like any other economic decision, can be analyzed as a choice among alternative combinations of costs and benefits.

Light rail stations generally have easier access and less oversight than buses; you don’t have to pay the driver. Fare inspectors and a stronger police presence can help combat that problem for rail, but that can amount to a cost that isn’t generally tallied by rail supporters.

At any rate, as I argued in a later blog entry, Randal O’Toole’s study for the Show-Me Institute didn’t focus on crime:

Crime on light rail systems is touched on only briefly in the full Show-Me Institute light rail study. Out of approximately 150 paragraphs of text (not including endnotes, pull quotes, etc.), I count seven that mention crime at all — one paragraph in the executive summary, five paragraphs on page 5, and one paragraph on page 23. In fact, the one mention of crime in the executive summary comes toward the end of a litany of reasons why light rail isn’t a worthwhile investment. In that list, O’Toole mentions crime 9th out of a list of 11 reasons — and even then, only after first mentioning safety statistics. Clearly, while light rail’s crime level in relation to buses is worth mentioning, it’s not one of the study’s primary arguments.

The real arguments against light rail are much more concrete and practical in nature. I’ll list them again here, because they deserve repeated exposure:

• Light rail is expensive, typically experiencing high cost overruns;
• Light rail has a much lower ridership capacity than freeway lanes;
• Light rail costs much more to operate than buses;
• Light rail requires years of advance planning, with no guarantee that transit needs or preferences will remain static during that time;
• Few regions have actually seen increases in per-capita ridership after constructing light-rail lines;
• Most regions see the share of riders using transit for travel actually decline after constructing light-rail lines;
• Light-rail lines that operate in city streets significantly increase traffic congestion;
• Light rail is particularly ineffective in municipalities without high concentrations of downtown jobs — like Kansas City;
• Light rail is usually less energy efficient per passenger mile than passenger cars;
• Light rail does not stimulate urban development without huge additional government subsidies.

I haven’t seen any of the anti–light rail ads that have been produced as part of the new campaign in Kansas City, but I hope they include some of these compelling reasons to reject rail as an urban transit solution.

The post Anti-Light Rail Campaign in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The ordinance forces you to come forward and "basically declare your
innocence," says Washington University law school professor Peter Joy, who reviewed the suit at the request of the Post-Dispatch.

"In essence, it sort of compels you to finger your wife or child or someone else you loaned the car to," he said.

Additionally, the plaintiff in the suit has alleged that the city of Arnold has gone as far as committing mail fraud by attempting to extort money from innocent citizens victimized by the cameras.

With red-light cameras spreading as a method of traffic control (the attorney for the plaintiff indicated that he may be interested in expanding the lawsuit to include more of the 20 communities in Missouri and Illinois that use red-light cameras) it will be interesting to track the progress of this case on a federal level. In line with some opinions expressed here before, the plaintiffs are to be commended for attempting to highlight an injustice that Missouri municipalities were presumably planning on expanding until someone called them on it, but it will be interesting to see if their line of reasoning stands up inside the Eagleton.

Either way, it gives me some ammunition with which to complain the next time I get angry at the "No Right on Red" sign at Delmar and Skinker.

The post Put on the Red Light (Camera) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The vibrant area the Loop as it exists now developed thanks to the lack of an overriding government plan, not because of one. Urban planners didn’t sit down with investors 30 years ago and say, "Hey, here’s $30 million in tax credits, now go build a hotel here and a restaurant here, and make everything look like such and such, and so on and so forth."

University City, where I very proudly live, has played a role in the success of the Loop, often by just staying out of the way. The city deserves praise for that. Joe Edwards credits the city’s ordinance mandating first floor retail for all buildings in the Loop, so I guess that does constitute planning, in a minor way. Tight control of the liquor license laws by the city has also been good for the Loop, making sure it did not go the way of Gaslight Square.

No doubt that U. City also does a good job in responding to the needs of the Loop businesses when necessary. The U. City police do a particularly good job of patrolling the area, in my opinion. I think that the magnificent City Hall and the library play an important role in bookending the Loop, but that is not because of modern urban planning. (Old planning by E.G. Lewis, maybe.)

The partnership U. City government has with the Loop is not about planning the area out, in the manner of Boulevard-St. Louis or New Town in St. Charles. I think U. City’s own planning director recognizes this, as he takes no credit for the award in his newspaper quote:

Lehman Walker, University City’s director of planning, said the award recognized the Delmar Loop as "one of the outstanding pedestrian streets in the country."

I love the Delmar Loop. I met my wife there. I will be there tonight playing darts at Blueberry Hill, just as I have almost every Wednesday for the past 12 years. I make no claims of knowing anything about urban planning. If you want someone who does, go to Steve Patterson’s website. If you want someone who knows a lot about planning and doesn’t like it, go here. I just know what I like, and in the case of the Loop, what a lot of people like. Urban planning didn’t make the Loop; capitalism and entrepreneurship did. And beer. Lots and lots of beer.

The post Urban Planners Give Award for Something They Had Nothing to Do With appeared first on Show-Me Institute.