How has the project worked out? Did the promises of redevelopment of this part of the city and a great return on the public tax investment pan out? Or did the warnings and concerns of people like Institute analyst Audrey Spalding prove correct?

Of course, Northside has been a total failure, and Audrey and others were correct.

The latest update on almost 20 years of policy failure is that a batch of McKee’s properties (which taxpayers bought for him) is being seized by the city via eminent domain. More of his properties may face the same fate soon. In this particular case, the properties are needed for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) project, so the eminent domain seizures are for legitimate public use. The city tried to buy these properties from McKee, but no agreement could be reached on price, so the city is taking them. The final price paid for them will almost certainly be determined by a court.

Everything you need to know about why economic development using subsidies is a road to failure is wrapped up in this story. The entire project began not based on market forces, but on the forces of lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians. It was sold as a way to save parts of north St. Louis from decades of poverty and blight—conditions that were created in part by government policy in the first place. The entire Northside redevelopment project has been a colossal failure from the start, and the city and state should never have authorized tax subsidies for it. In the state’s case, it created a brand new law just for McKee to do this.

I would hope the city and state would learn a lesson from the failures of tax incentives and subsidies from this project. I doubt very much that they will. As Orwell said, to see the things in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle—a struggle that politicians rarely have any incentive to engage in.

The post Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post House Bill 2155: Reimbursement for Telecom Companies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Right-of-Way Compensation for Telecom Companies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First Ward Councilman Tom Oldham commented that he feels that Chapter 353 is a great tool, as evidenced by his visits to Elm Springs, a community that also took advantage of the Chapter 353 program. Elm Springs went from blight to beauty as a result, Oldham said.

(Note: I assume he meant Excelsior Springs, which has a 353 plan, and not Elm Springs—I can find no municipality in Missouri with that name.)

Did a 353 urban redevelopment plan really turn Excelsior Springs (or Elm Springs?) from blight to beauty? Of course not. Granting some properties in a designated area a tax abatement if they undergo the required legal process isn’t going to grow the economy. If you want to cut taxes, great—cut taxes for everyone, not just a designated few. The idea that politicians are qualified to pick the right companies or properties is absurd.

Economist Dick Netzer once mocked the exaggerated claims of success by economic development officials and politicians by writing, “Who needs oil wells, when a state can be another Kuwait just by increasing the budget of a tiny agency?” Those claims of subsidy success often border on the absurd. I once heard a Clay County economic development official claim that “all of the growth” in the town of Liberty—a fast growing, exurban community north of Kansas City the likes of which have been growing across the nation for decades—was due to a tax increment financing (TIF) package. All of it, he stated with certainty, as if suburbanization didn’t exist until Missouri’s TIF law was passed in the late 1980s.

Economists Alan Peters and Peter Fisher studied tax incentives closely and concluded that they work about ten percent of the time (as measured by job creation), and the other 90 percent are simply a waste of money. They added that, like the Clay County official mentioned above, economic development officials often credit all new employment and growth to tax subsidies.

The City of Saint Louis has been using tax incentives like 353 urban redevelopment plans, Enterprise Zones (EZs), TIF, and other subsidies as redevelopment tools for over half a century. How has it worked out? Colin Gordon, in his 2008 book Mapping Decline, documents the decline of the City of Saint Louis. The book’s research is exhaustive. The dominant theme of the book is the use of urban renewal tools and tax subsidies—and their absolute, total failure. From his 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.

The dirty little secret that nobody seems to want to recognize is that 353 Plans, EZs, TIF projects, , tax abatements, and other subsidies do not work. They don’t succeed in growing the local economy, be it urban, suburban, or rural. The panoply of subsidies that come into play when a large area is declared blighted can have a number of adverse side effects. They shrink the local tax base, introduce more cronyism and favoritism into the economy, encourage more government planning of the economy, and increase the chances of eminent domain abuse. 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 Chapter 353 urban redevelopment plan didn’t help grow Excelsior Springs. It didn’t help grow St. Louis, nor any of the other cities that have such a plan. It won’t help grow Sedalia, either, but it will be great for the politically connected parties who get the tax subsidies they are after.

The post Sedalia Doesn’t Need a 353 Redevelopment Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Welfare Cliffs, Special Elections, and Nuclear Reactors appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The fact that the developers have requested eminent domain should disqualify it from the start. From the article about the proposal (emphasis added):

The developers have asked the city for the power to use eminent domain to force property owners to sell, but said they are not considering it now.

So they want the power of eminent domain, but as of now they say they don’t plan to use it. Until they deal with a property owner who does not feel like selling, of course. Just the threat of eminent domain impacts the entire process negatively.

They also want tax subsidies:

They need approval for $35 million in tax incentives, plus an extra sales tax.

So, a big TIF, plus a CID or TDD (to be determined), so that average people throughout the region can subsidize this development.

I don’t know if there is a real market for new apartments, condos, shops, etc. in this part of Webster Groves. There may well be. But if the project has to have huge tax subsidies and the threat of eminent domain, then I would doubt it.

The TIF commission should deny the TIF and the Webster Groves City Council should refuse the eminent domain and oppose any CID, TDD, etc. Then the developer can talk with the property owners and move forward or not.

The post Webster Groves Has Some Decisions to Make appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen to the full segment:

An overview of the University City project:

More on the Maryland Heights ruling: A Big Win for Taxpayers in Maryland Heights

The paper referenced by David: The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri

The post An Update on the University City Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tax-increment financing (TIF) is Missouri’s bad idea that refuses to die. Now it is Boonville’s turn to face off against the TIF zombie. Developers have proposed a new, 400-home subdivision in Boonville. Great news, right? Well, there is a catch. The developers want a massive TIF subsidy to fund the project. Residents and taxpayers in Boonville should reject this horror show of a proposal.

TIF is a type of tax subsidy that allows developers to keep the taxes they would otherwise pay to fund some of a project’s costs. With TIF, if a property generated $100 in property taxes before it was developed but generates $200 after improvements are made, the developer gets to keep the $100 difference.

Of course, the actual numbers in this proposal for Boonville will dwarf our little example. As best we can tell, the current property pays $1,176 per year in taxes based on its current appraised value (as farmland) of $116,300. The new subdivision, based on stated goals of 400 homes at an average of $200,000 each, would, if not for the TIF, pay $1,026,912 in property taxes, based on an assessment of $15.2 million at the current area tax rate. With TIF, that would result in an annual subsidy—once the project is fully built—of approximately $1,025,736. For the life of the TIF (23 years is standard), that would be an estimated $23,591,930 maximum subsidy. That is outrageous. Even if the city council were to consider a smaller subsidy, any tax incentive would be a needless giveaway to the developer.

While the people of Boonville may want more housing opportunities for the area, using TIF for residential projects would benefit only the developer. If the city’s population grows as the TIF proposal assumes, and people currently living in Columbia or elsewhere move in to fill the 400 new homes, it is certain that at least some of them will have school-aged children. Boonville will have hundreds of new children in the school district without the expanded tax base to pay for them. Of course, a likely scenario is that some of the home purchasers will come from other parts of Boonville. Local families will move from houses where their property taxes fund the schools to new homes where they do not. How do you think the Boonville R-1 school district is going to pay to educate the children in this subdivision with 400 homes not paying taxes to the schools? There is only one answer: they are going to raise taxes on everyone else.

TIF has had numerous negative economic effects in Missouri. It has increased government involvement in the economy, subsidized politically connected developers, sparked abuse of eminent domain, shrunk the tax base, and made corporate welfare a permanent fixture of development. Furthermore, TIF has failed at its main purpose: economic growth. An Iowa study of TIF usage concluded that, “On net (…) there is no evidence of economy-wide benefits, fiscal benefits, or population gains.” Other studies across the country have found similar results.

The dirty little secret that economic development officials in Boonville and around the state don’t want you to know is that subsidies like TIFs and Enterprise Zones do not work. They do not succeed in growing the local economy. St. Louis and Kansas City have tried using generous taxpayer subsidies to revive their local economies for decades. It has not worked. I can already hear readers in Boonville saying, “But we’re not Saint Louis or Kansas City.” That’s absolutely right—you are not. And there is no reason for you to imitate their mistakes. It is one thing for Saint Louis or Kansas City to try these projects and have them fail. It would be even worse for a city like Boonville to follow that example with the knowledge that the entire process has consistently failed. At least the trailblazer who takes the wrong path has an excuse.

The post Will Boonville Repeat the Mistakes of St. Louis and Kansas City? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A study released earlier this year from the Brookings Institute drew attention to an often-overlooked aspect of electricity generation—land use.

The determining factor for the amount of land an energy source needs for its operations is power density. Power density measures the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of energy. Each energy source has its own power density. Fossil fuels are quite power-dense by nature, whereas wind and solar power are less dense by several orders of magnitude. In fact, wind and solar energy can require up to 100 times more space than a natural gas plant to generate an equivalent amount of electricity.

The power densities of several forms of electricity generation can be seen below. The higher the median power density (red dot) is, the less space it takes to generate electricity.

These results have important implications for Missouri. Land use for energy purposes was a contentious topic this past legislative session, with overt and covert attempts to block the developers of a wind energy transmission line from using eminent domain to acquire land.

Land is scarce and has competing uses. Currently, however, Missouri’s Renewable Energy Standard mandates an increasing amount of electricity be generated by the least power-dense sources. The Standard requires 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by next year, and an initiative petition circulating proposes to increase that number to 50 percent by 2040. Meeting these mandates would require either a significant buildout or utilities buying power from out of state.

The scholars who created the above graph note that “increasing the U.S. renewable energy portfolio will increase land-use, presenting challenges for other sectors such as agriculture.” This concern is especially relevant for Missouri, as agriculture, forestry, and related industries are among Missouri’s top industries and constitute 10 percent of the state’s employment. Missouri is one of the top states in the country for farm operations, soybean production, and beef cattle production, with farmland constituting two-thirds of state land area.

Missourians should be wary of green energy mandates that require massive land use. Shouldn’t land use  be driven by fair competition and markets, not government mandates?

The post Is This Town Big Enough for the Two of Us? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Skeptics of a massive taxpayer-subsidized redevelopment project in University City were right to trust their guts. While the City’s website says that “The City will not use eminent domain under the tax-increment financing (TIF) law to condemn owner-occupied residential property,” now it sounds as if that might be an option. In a recent interview, City Manager Gregory Rose said “there may be an option that the developer says ‘we understand what council’s position has been regarding the use of eminent domain but we’d like you to take a look at this’ . . . and so the council will end up making that decision at that time.”

Why might eminent domain be on the table now? Well, my gut is telling me this: City officials have a lot to gain (in terms of sales tax revenue) from the development going through, and now, given that some homeowners don’t want to sell for the price being offered to them by the developer, city officials might be starting to worry. And if they have convinced themselves that this development must happen, no matter the cost to taxpayers, then kicking property owners out of their homes might be a price they are willing to pay.

This is worrisome for several reasons. First, the economic renaissance promised by development proponents, which is the main justification for the project, is unlikely to occur. Unfortunately, TIF—the subsidy mechanism the development most heavily relies on—just hasn’t been shown to increase surrounding property values. Trust me, a part of me wishes TIF did this, as I live just a few minutes from the redevelopment area. Unfortunately as the economic research suggests, TIF projects don’t make the neighborhoods surrounding them more valuable. If the ends justifying a blunt tool like eminent domain aren’t likely to materialize, we might not want to incur the costs of using that tool.

Second and most important is the fact that property owners—especially owner-occupied residential property owners—simply shouldn’t be forced out of their homes for the benefit of a private developer. Perhaps certain public projects, such as interstates and railroads, can justify the coercive removal of property owners from their property, but it is far from clear that homeowners should be ousted from their homes so that a politically-favored big-box store can make a nice profit. We’ve seen how these things can go.

But if you wonder why you, perhaps someone living far away from University City, should care about this, just keep in mind that your local government body is populated by the same sorts of people that populate University City government. If we are to learn anything from public choice theory, it’s that institutions—such as local governments—have values and goals of their own, and that the people behind local institutions are as fallible and greedy as everyone else. This isn’t to cast a blanket of doubt on all institutions, but rather to make clear that the violation of property rights in some areas of Missouri is a threat to the property rights everyone in the state.

In the end, University City officials should get over their infatuation with the I-170 & Olive redevelopment and abandon their apparent “any means necessary” strategy for ensuring its materialization. The threat of use of eminent domain is politically and morally disturbing, and would signal to University City residents and others that their homes and lives are for sale, so long as city hall thinks that the price is right. 

The post Is U City Considering Eminent Domain After All? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Developers and officials in University City are pushing for a $70.5 million subsidy to help fund a $190-million development at Olive Blvd. and Interstate 170. The project is slated to include a Costco, apartments, restaurants and retail space. The taxpayer money would come via tax-increment financing (TIF), which captures increased sales, property and other taxes generated by a development to cover some of its costs. In this case, taxpayers would cover nearly 40 percent of the project’s costs!

The controversial project has raised a number of concerns. Some worry about gentrification, neighborhood and cultural disruption and the possible use of eminent domain to force out longstanding businesses. These topics are serious and ought to be debated at the June 22 public hearing on the potential development. But a fundamental problem with the project deserves more attention: the fact TIF is unnecessary and fails to deliver on its proponents’ promises.

First, TIF was intended to encourage development in areas where no one wants to invest money, which hardly describes the area under consideration. The developer’s proposal cites (see pp. 6–10) conditions such as cracked sidewalks, overgrown grass and overflowing dumpsters as evidence that the area is “blighted.” These conditions, though less than ideal, surely don’t make development so unappealing as to require $70.5 million in taxpayer assistance. The area surrounds a busy interstate interchange and is flanked by Olivette, Ladue, and Clayton—there’s a reason current businesses don’t want to leave!

More importantly, proponents are promising the public higher property values, increased tax revenue for city services, and a bustling, inclusive neighborhood should the subsidy be approved, but decades of research shows these promises are rarely kept. It was just in 2016 that the City of St. Louis released a mammoth report detailing the near-total failure of its incentive programs. From 2000 to 2014, St. Louis lost out on more than $700 million in revenue because of TIF and related programs for naught. “[W]hile there may be disagreement about the value of some [incentive] packages,” the report concluded, “it is clear that the City gains no net benefit from an extremely costly program with no real economic development impact” (p. 6).

The study also failed to find a significant connection between TIF and job creation or increased property values outside parcels directly benefiting from subsidies. “[T]here is little evidence of significance [sic] spillover effects around incentivized parcels after the use of incentives. Across most project types,” the report continues, “there is no significant change in the trajectory of assessed value, permit investments or jobs” (p. 5). Economists from across the country have found almost exactly the same thing. In short, there is little evidence to support claims that handing out taxpayer cash will usher in an urban renaissance in University City, or anywhere else for that matter.

If officials and residents want to invest in University City’s third ward (where the proposed development would be located), there are other, more prudent ways to scratch cash together. Businesses and residents could form a community improvement district to collect property taxes—authorized by a public vote—to fund improvements. The “blight” designation assigned to the area as part of the TIF application would mean that those revenues could even be used to help fix up private residences. Before officials needlessly forego tens of millions in revenue over the next two decades, they owe it to University City residents to consider other options for improving the third ward.

The post Taxpayer Largesse Unnecessary, Wasteful in U City Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As with any action from the Saint Louis city government, there are winners and losers. The obvious winner here is the land developer behind the NorthSide Regeneration project, which will get what amounts to a bailout with this deal. The city as a whole? Saint Louis will pay for the land it will turn over (at no charge) to the NGA. Because the NGA was already located in Saint Louis, the effect on the city economy will be minimal. The NGA may add more jobs, but nothing that one could expect to reverse Saint Louis’s long decline.

The families who will be forced out of their homes are the ones losing out. They face an uncertain future, and if the NGA’s decision is finalized, they’ll need to navigate the eminent domain process and find new places to live.

In Saint Louis, political officials seem to prefer looking for shortcuts to development and lack enthusiasm for pursuing the hard but boring path to civic success: low taxes, a level economic playing field, and quality essential services. Meanwhile, those without political connections or wealth are swept aside.

Will things ever change for this city?

The post Who Really Wins or Loses with NGA Deal? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

McKee is asking the city for handouts to complete this new project: at least $5 million in new market tax credits. To date, the city has authorized McKee to take almost $400 million dollars in TIF handouts. McKee’s promises for the north side go back at least to 2009 and include plans to build a hospital, office buildings, retail stores, and homes.

Rather than start any of these projects, McKee’s regeneration project has stalled and held out for more and more tax incentives. In the past two years the regeneration project has been delinquent paying taxes and has had financial problems resulting in foreclosures.

Shelia Rendon, a homeowner who lives in the community Paul McKee has made so many promises to, questions why the city continues to work with Paul McKee. “The community lost faith in him a long time ago,” she told me. Sheila would like to see development in her neighborhood, but not at the expense of the people who already live there.

Unfortunately, the only north side development project associated with McKee that seems to have made any progress, relocating National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to north St. Louis, would come at the expense of the existing community. Relocating the NGA to the north side would require using eminent domain to kick St. Louis residents like Sheila out of their homes. This is something members of the community strongly oppose.

The fact that the city government keeps awarding tax incentives to these development projects leaves residents like Sheila shaking their heads, “The city does not need to keep pouring money into projects for Paul McKee. It needs to invest in the existing community.”

The post More Corporate Welfare for St. Louis Land Developer? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Eminent Domain and Uncertainty in North Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As reported earlier, St. Louis officials are considering using eminent domain to clear out a neighborhood on the north side. They’ve begun eminent domain proceedings, but are waiting on the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the federal agency they’re clearing the land for, to decide whether it even wants to relocate to North St. Louis. Is it worth it putting property owners in limbo like this for a development project that might not even happen?

Alderwoman Sharon Tyus doesn’t think so. Tyus is not opposed to the use of eminent domain, but when it comes to using eminent domain on homeowner occupied land, she says “you’ve got to really step lightly.”

In this case, the need for eminent domain is in question because there are three other tracts of land in the region where NGA might choose to relocate instead of Gustavo’s neighborhood. Tyus believes one tract, right by Scott Airforce Base, makes the most sense. “It’s got everything. I think it’s a no-brainer.”

“I’m not trying to lose business for the city.” Tyus told me. “I just don’t think you need to decimate a neighborhood.”

Homeowners like Gustavo and Joyce Cooks don’t think you need to destroy a neighborhood either. “They say they’re trying to revitalize the community,” Gustavo tells me, commenting on the irony of the situation. “They’re killing the community.”

The post Why Is Saint Louis Using Eminent Domain “On Spec”? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, currently in South City, is considering moving to a new location in the region. In order to keep the NGA within St. Louis City, city officials are considering using eminent domain to clear out a neighborhood on the north side. It goes without saying that the people who would lose their homes in the deal are unhappy about it.

Joyce lives in a three-story brick Victorian house built in 1893. Her mother bought the house in the 1960s and she grew up in the neighborhood. “I love my home,” she tells me. If the city uses eminent domain, that home would be bulldozed.

One would hope that city leaders would resort to eminent domain—the power of government to remove a person from their land—only when there’s a very clear public benefit and no clear alternatives.

But in the case of the NGA, there are alternatives. In fact, there are three of them. One in particular, a parcel of land in St. Clair County, would have the advantage of being adjacent to an existing Department of Defense campus at Scott Air Force Base. Of the four proposals the NGA is considering, only the one in St. Louis City requires the use of eminent domain to raze an entire neighborhood.

When I asked Joyce what she’ll do if the city is successful in forcing her to move, she was despondent. “That’s my biggest fear,” she admitted. Joyce still has no idea where she’ll go if it comes to that. “What will I do?”

I have my own questions: Why is the city serving as an agent of the federal government and using eminent domain to clear a tract for a federal agency that may not even locate within the city of St. Louis? Is keeping the NGA within the city worth keeping property owners in limbo while the NGA decides where to relocate? And if the city does use eminent domain to clear out this neighborhood on the north side, where will its residents go?

The post Eminent Domain Puts St. Louis Homeowners in Jeopardy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When we discussed the buyback plans last week, we asked whether the city would be able to buy back the land at the price they sold it for, or whether McKee would profit. Now, shockingly, we are learning that McKee indeed intends to profit. The developer expects to receive $17 million for land that he bought for $3 million. That’s a gain of more than 400 percent.

There’s nothing wrong with a developer buying land from the city and selling it back for a profit if the city decides it needs the property back. But in this case, Northside did not just buy land at a fair price; the city sold it a large number of properties at fire sale prices, and the state reimbursed most of the cost of the private land McKee bought. Northside then failed to pay property taxes on nearly all that land. All this special treatment and public support was supposed to come in exchange for new property and business developments, none of which have happened. Far from a property owner getting lucky from a change in government policy, McKee is expecting to profit from a city policy he helped create and for whose failure he is responsible.

The city has not yet decided whether it will pay the price McKee is asking. If it does, I think state taxpayers should be asking if they get back the $3.5 million in state tax credits McKee received to buy those properties. As for the city, I’d sarcastically ask where eminent domain is when you need it. 

The post McKee Wants to Flip Northside Properties at Taxpayers’ Expense appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Six years have passed without even the initial parts of the plan coming to fruition. With Paul McKee encountering legal issues it was doubtful whether it ever would. And now, finally, it seems that the city is giving up on McKee. Unfortunately, they’re not giving up by withdrawing the promise of further tax incentives, but by buying many of Northside’s properties to give to a federal agency.

This buyback is part of the city’s efforts to retain the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which is considering leaving Saint Louis City. To keep the agency, the city plans to gift it a new site in North Saint Louis City, an area where Northside LLC was supposed to bring new development. According to St. Louis Public Radio, the proposed NGA site contains 360 Northside-owned properties. Northside LLC purchased 260 of those properties from the city for a total of $600,000 between 2009 and 2011. The rest were bought from private owners, but Northside LLC received reimbursement from the state to the tune of $3.5 million.

To assemble the land for the NGA site, the city plans to mortgage existing city property to purchase the aforementioned Northside properties for $20 million. Perhaps relieving Paul McKee and Northside LLC of a large chunk of the city will be good for the region in the long run, but all these actions leave a number of important questions unanswered:

1. With much of the property originally slated for the Northside Redevelopment Plan now being bought back, what is the status of the remaining properties and tax subsidies?
2. Will the city be able to buy back the land at the price they sold it, or will McKee (or his creditors) profit from the transaction?
3. Will Northside LLC be forced to return the state tax subsidies it received to buy private land?

More on this to come. 

The post McKee’s Northside Plans Fail, City to Buy Land for NGA appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Originally, the plan was for the state, the city, and the county to extend bonds meant for the Edward Jones Dome to raise about $350 million to fund a new stadium, with an additional $50 million in state tax credits making up the rest of the public support. This changed when Saint Louis County, which was threatening a public vote on the issue, was dropped from the funding plan. Peacock confirmed that with the county out it will be left to taxpayers statewide to pick up the $100 million bill—a bill unlikely to be offset by any economic activity generated by the team.

In a sense, the new funding plan is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; large public subsidies for sports stadiums do not make economic sense regardless of the city/state/county funding ratio. The growing list of contingencies—none of which local governments control—that Peacock’s plan relies on for everything from stadium funding to economic development is getting more preposterous. These include:

1. Getting a team owner and the NFL to cover $450 million in costs for a new stadium. No team owner, especially the Rams’ owner, has expressed any inclination to do this.
2. As things stand, a plan to fund a new stadium needs to go to a public vote in the city. Residents might vote no.
3. Getting an MLS soccer team in Saint Louis.
4. After getting an MLS soccer team, getting (and funding) a soccer hall of fame.
5. Funding an entertainment center at the Union Electric Light and Power Company building.
6. And finally, because Peacock thinks the Rams owner is committed to relocating to L.A., getting Kroenke to sell the Rams to another owner who will keep the team in Saint Louis.

You got all that? If city residents and the state government agree, against the advice of economists, to publicly fund a new stadium, and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) uses eminent domain to bulldoze the North Riverfront, we can then hope the NFL will force/convince Kroenke to sell the Rams to an owner who, along with the NFL, may decide to fund half the costs of a new stadium, which in turn might just convince an MLS team to move to Saint Louis, which then might prompt the MLS (no doubt with some tax dollars) to locate their hall of fame at a new entertainment complex (funded by…someone) at the old power building. That’s some plan.

The post If the Riverfront Stadium Plan Had Two Wheels, It’d Be a Bicycle appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you are a Saint Louis City alderman who wants to keep the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) from moving to Fenton or Mehlville or even possibly Scott Air Force Base, there is a good chance that you’d say yes. That’s why plans to use eminent domain to seize property as part of the plan to keep the NGA in Saint Louis are moving forward. Yet despite this “progress,” that doesn’t mean the aldermen are correct. For the people of North Saint Louis, the abuse of eminent domain is imminent.

Eminent domain has a legitimate purpose. Sometimes it is necessary to seize property to use for the public good, such as highways or sewers. Yet, there is no reason in this case to think that using eminent domain would serve as a public good. Unlike highways, which must go more-or-less in a straight line, the new NGA headquarters is flexible in how it is laid out and where it can locate. Even if the NGA moves to the county or to Scott Air Force Base, NGA employees living in the city are unlikely to move. Why violate somebody’s private property rights when it is not necessary?

The truth is that the city stands to lose millions in earnings taxes if the NGA moves out. It’s understandable, especially when budgets are tight, that the city would want to try anything to avoid losing even more revenue. However, people’s homes matter more than extra tax revenue. Being hard up for money doesn’t give the city a valid reason to take people’s homes.

The post An Imminent Eminent Domain Case appeared first on Show-Me Institute.