Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute Director of Municipal Policy David Stokes about his new paper in the Free-Market Guide to Missouri Municipalities series on planning and zoning. They discuss how fragmentation among local governments can limit overly strict zoning, how zoning rules affect housing affordability, and why “last house syndrome” poses risks for Missouri’s future growth. From accessory dwelling units and minimum parking requirements to the debate over multifamily housing, Stokes explains how smart reforms can protect property rights and keep housing costs down.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Planning and Zoning in Missouri
02:35 The Impact of Fragmentation on Zoning
05:24 Housing Affordability and Zoning Regulations
08:22 The Role of Municipalities in Housing Development
11:18 Challenges of NIMBYism and YIMBYism
14:21 Accessory Dwelling Units and Short-Term Rentals
17:00 Planning and Infrastructure in Missouri
19:57 Future Papers and Conclusion

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thank you, David Stokes, so much for being on the podcast this morning. You have a new paper out with the Show Me Institute. Well, it’s actually part three of an existing series on your free market guide to Missouri municipalities. And this one is on planning and zoning. So thanks for joining us to answer some questions about it. Great. I do have one question that I was just saying before we started recording. I’ve seen this paper a few times.

David Stokes (00:19)
Delighted to be here.

Susan Pendergrass (00:26)
And one thing that I noticed up front is that I complain about the number of school districts in St. Louis County and how fragmented it is. And other folks have also said similar things, too many small municipalities. But it seems to be the case that when we’re talking about things like planning and zoning and permitting and regulations, that can be a good thing. Is that right?

David Stokes (00:46)
Absolutely. Because it’s harder to enact comprehensive planning, zoning, major things like urban growth boundaries—the extreme things like an urban growth boundary that we don’t have in Missouri. But it’s harder to enact that the more governments you have to get in line to agree to it in the first place. So it’s definitely—I don’t want to say it’s a causation. I don’t think the data is there to—

Susan Pendergrass (00:47)
What?

David Stokes (01:14)
But it’s definitely a—I would say it’s a truism—that there’s a strong connection between the metropolitan areas that have less strict zoning around the country. And over the past decade, we’ve really changed a lot in American local public policy to realize the harms of overly strict zoning. Until the past decade or so, it was just sort of assumed that strict zoning was a good thing. So now that we recognize the harms of it, we see that the places like St. Louis—and to a lesser extent, Kansas City—that have more fragmentation. St. Louis by any measure nationally has extreme fragmentation, meaning a whole lot of local governments, be they cities or school districts or fire districts or streetlight districts. I mean, we can really get into the obscure ones here in Missouri, but the more you have of that, the less strict zoning you’re going to have. And then that results in lower housing prices.

Susan Pendergrass (02:00)
You—

David Stokes (02:10)
What is the good that comes from that in the end? I think there’s lots of goods that come from it and some harms too. But the real good—the point of this paper, and the good for somebody who doesn’t care about public policy or libertarian thoughts or anything and just wants to be able to buy a nice house at an affordable price—is: the less strict zoning you have, the more fragmentation you have, the more you see that in lower housing costs.

Susan Pendergrass (02:35)
Yeah, and if you were starting a business too and one municipality, let’s say Clayton, has really high restrictions on what you can build, where you can build a health office and be—I don’t know if they do or don’t—but then you could just simply go next door to the next place and pick a different place that has fewer restrictions.

David Stokes (02:52)
You can, and that does happen. One of the ways they’ve solved that dilemma in St. Louis County especially is they do a lot more code enforcement and permitting at the county level than at the municipal level. Because nobody wants to have to get—if I’m going to be a plumber—nobody wants to have a plumbing license in 88 different cities. So they do that at the county level. You get your county license and it’s good throughout all of St. Louis County. Now, there are good aspects of that—mostly that you have to get one license instead of 88, which is an obvious good—but it’s also subject to abuse as well. It’s sort of the counterargument to the benefits of fragmentation in that it’s easier for special interest groups, like in this case, say the plumbers union, to capture licensing in St. Louis County if they only have to dominate one board as opposed to 88 boards. So there are two different ways to go—there’s the good and then the part of it that might not be quite as good.

Susan Pendergrass (03:59)
Yeah, so you make the point in this paper that while St. Louis does not necessarily have a housing affordability issue—or maybe even Missouri—it’s still worthwhile for folks who are working at the municipal level, like if you’re working as a newly elected Board of Aldermen or newly elected county board official, to educate yourself on what is and isn’t possible to make sure that you avoid what you just described as the pitfalls of over-regulating.

David Stokes (04:28)
Absolutely. A lot of this paper is about—in the not very scientific term—sort of low-hanging fruit. Just because zoning in Missouri may be less strict than in other states… there’s actually, I discovered in researching this paper—I’d always understood and known that zoning in Missouri and in St. Louis and Kansas City was less strict than in many other parts of the country—but then I discovered that there is actually an index out of the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania that ranks metropolitan areas by zoning strictness. And St. Louis is the least strict for zoning of any metropolitan area in the country in this ranking. And Kansas City is sort of in the middle. But then you see that Kansas City on the Missouri side is closer to St. Louis, and it’s the Kansas side that is more strict and puts them in the middle. So we really do have not-strict zoning.

Susan Pendergrass (05:05)
That’s hilarious.

David Stokes (05:24)
And that’s a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t mean that cities shouldn’t make some of these reforms that are coming nationwide that would still benefit Missouri, such as abolishing minimum parking requirements, allowing smaller lot sizes, allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their own property. It’s a great reform focus—from the Show Me Institute’s perspective—because these are changes that can be made that enhance people’s own property rights and what they can do with their own property, while at the same time giving people more choice. And in the long run, if you do more of these, you’ll help keep housing prices down even more for people. And in a good way—you’re not doing this through mandates or rules; you’re just saying we’re going to allow people to build even more. And I’m not against every limit on every property thing ever. There are some that are reasonable—particularly in Missouri we have floodplain limits on where you build that are very reasonable in many cases—but there’s still a lot of good stuff we can do.

Susan Pendergrass (06:33)
Yeah, I saw recently last week that in the upcoming election cycle, housing affordability is a top issue for folks. This is really bubbling up the list of priorities because it’s gotten so expensive and, you know, I keep reading about why people can’t afford to move, and they can’t afford to sell their home, or they can’t afford to buy a home. And certainly some markets—like you mentioned in the paper, like Portland—and you mentioned this briefly: Portland’s got a brown zone and a green zone, and you can’t build in the green zone. You have to stay in the brown zone, and it makes it very prohibitively expensive to build new housing stock in Portland, and the prices have gone up dramatically. We do not yet have that problem in St. Louis, but I know that it’s on a lot of people’s minds and certainly, statewide, we still have some concerns about having enough affordable housing for everybody. I do think it’s important to make sure that we don’t let regulation creep happen so that we find ourselves raising our prices artificially.

David Stokes (07:36)
And you see this in disputes in our exurban areas now in, say, St. Charles and Jefferson County—surrounding counties of St. Louis—and on the Kansas City side as well. Last year, for example, in St. Charles County, a big new subdivision was rejected in a wooded part of the county—I think it was near Weldon Spring. They’re also allowing some, but—

Susan Pendergrass (07:56)
Was it Weldon Spring, or what was that?

David Stokes (08:02)
And that’s the dilemma that people face: as places like St. Charles and Jefferson County grow and get more full, there’s going to be inevitable pressure from the people there now to stop new building. It’s called last-house syndrome: “Great, my new home here is great. Now don’t build any more because I got the house and it’s perfect.” You see that everywhere, and you understand the concerns. I try not to completely ignore the concerns of the folks, because they’re not always wrong—of course, we’ll go back to the floodplain issue—but you’ll have people worry. It’s the people there now: concerns about traffic and overbuilding and destruction of wooded areas and too dense and all those things. But you want people to realize that other people probably said the same thing before they built your house, and it was a good thing that people in most instances really said no to that, and it allowed that construction to continue. And I really want people to realize that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:34)
Yeah. That’s right. ⁓

David Stokes (09:00)
If we go—it’s not about any one subdivision, because look, there probably are certain instances in certain places where the new zoning is too dense, whatever it may be—it’s not that every rejection is always completely wrong. But if you start in Missouri making a pattern of this in the outer areas of Kansas City and St. Louis, where you start turning down a lot of these new subdivisions to preserve whatever it is that people moved out there for 20 years ago, then housing prices are going to increase in Missouri. They will increase substantially, and it won’t take that long if you really do stop the building. So that’s one of the takeaways from this paper: to the largest extent possible, we need to keep allowing the building of these new homes or apartments. And obviously a big part of the paper is that apartments should be generally allowed in more places too. That’s how we’re going to continue to have low housing costs, and that’s the benefit of it. It’s not about one subdivision in one space, but if it becomes a trend, it’s really going to be a problem—the trend being protecting it.

Susan Pendergrass (10:15)
Yeah, and the multifamily for sure. What are your findings around that? People don’t seem to want to have to look at apartment buildings. Is that right?

David Stokes (10:25)
They don’t—there’s just some natural rejection against it. And it’s frustrating to see. In some spots—I remember in the City of St. Louis; this is one where, when you lived in St. Louis, you lived near there—at the corner of Skinker and Delmar there was a proposal for a large apartment building right there, and it got a lot of opposition, and it has not moved forward. It was stopped. I hope it comes back because it’s a perfect lot for an apartment building. It’s just an empty lot—it was a chicken restaurant for many, many years and a popular one—but it’s been vacant forever. And it’s right near public transit. So it’s the perfect idea where you should be able to build there, and you shouldn’t have generous or extensive—

Susan Pendergrass (10:59)
An abandoned empty lot, right?

David Stokes (11:18)
—parking requirements for those buildings, because one of the projects—

Susan Pendergrass (11:21)
That’s what people were kind of freaking out about though, was the parking. Like, where are all these cars going to go? And there was one across the street and they had only put in like one parking space for every two units or something, and they figured that people would use public transport. Anyway, I remember the pushback on that. And it’s this NIMBYism–YIMBYism thing, right? It’s so hard to push people to YIMBYism—yes in my backyard—because of things they don’t… I don’t… These same people often talk a lot about housing affordability, so I don’t mean to overgeneralize, but there are some of the very same people who are so concerned about it who don’t want to look at apartment buildings.

David Stokes (11:50)
Right, don’t want to—and you understand. That’s a very liberal area that we’re talking about. If you were to define the politics of that area, you’re right: many of the residents of those communities in both the city and in University City right there would, in theory, in the big picture, probably agree, but then, “Oh, we don’t want this development here.” And it was a perfect place for a new apartment. Again, of all the St. Louis area, it’s one of the best areas served by public transit—

Susan Pendergrass (12:06)
Yes.

David Stokes (12:31)
—with buses and MetroLink and the WashU shuttles, because so many people who would be in those apartments would be WashU students. They’ve got that extensive shuttle system. But it was rejected, and I hope it comes back. And that’s just one of many, many examples of it.

Susan Pendergrass (12:31)
Yeah, yeah. What about the—what part of zoning and planning is this push in the City of St. Louis, anyway, to try to get people to move downtown? Is that something that’s coded in? I feel like they’re trying to get people to go downtown.

David Stokes (13:03)
They are. And thankfully, I don’t think zoning is preventing that. Of all the reasons people may or may not be choosing to move downtown—fear of crime and businesses leaving downtown, the jobs—as somebody who lived downtown in the late 1990s and early 2000s, to move down there when many of the jobs have left—fear—it’s a harder thing to convince. But I don’t think there’s— I don’t think it’s difficult or has ever been difficult for the loft developers of the ’90s to get permission to take an empty commercial building and turn it into lofts. There might have been a lot of issues they had to deal with, but zoning—I don’t believe—was one of them. Thankfully that’s a very good thing. But it’s one of the fun parts about this paper, right? We’re talking in the other papers and in the ones to come about the best ways to do public safety and public works and a lot of things. In most of these instances we all agree somebody has to do this service, and it’s just a question of: does the city provide it themselves? Do they contract with a neighboring municipality to do it—such as a small city contracting with a neighboring city to do police service? Should you let the private sector do it in a regulated manner, like utilities? But we can all agree it has to be done. Whereas I started this paper saying: despite the fact that it may be incredibly common, cities don’t actually need planning or zoning—life can exist without it. And that’s where the current HOA options come into play. And the history of HOAs in St. Louis, in the private place model, is such an interesting part of that. So there’s a little bit of the historic discussion of all of this in the paper too.

Susan Pendergrass (14:53)
So where do Missouri municipalities for the most part right now stand on things like—two questions I’m going to ask you—accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals or Airbnbs? Where do they stand on ADUs?

David Stokes (15:06)
Well, slowly but surely, we’re starting to permit ADUs. We haven’t had any sort of statewide, to my knowledge, overarching legislation. And that’s where the fact that we have low housing costs in Missouri matters. I don’t think we’re going to see the California situation that had to go statewide because none of the municipalities would agree to it. I don’t think we’ll see that here because there’s not the tremendous high-cost-of-housing crisis to push that. But slowly but surely, cities are starting to allow more ADUs, and that’s a very good thing. When you get out into rural areas—and in some places that don’t even have zoning in the first place—you can do any ADU you want to, or the zoning is so loose that of course you can build an apartment above your garage if you’d like to. Why are you even asking? But the cities have the rules against it.

Susan Pendergrass (15:52)
That’s where I live.

David Stokes (16:03)
Slowly but surely moving in the right direction there. And then it’s going in the opposite way with short-term rentals. Slowly but surely most cities are instituting short-term rental limitations. I’m not automatically opposed to that in every case. I get it: if you have a neighborhood and all of a sudden there’s a house where big parties are being thrown every weekend because they’re renting it out to different groups of people to throw parties, you’re going to hate that, and that’s going to impact the quality of your life. So I’ve been saying for a few years now that the short-term rental regulations I support would generally be things that don’t go to a blanket prohibition. I think that’s too far—and most cities aren’t doing that—but rather really focus on punishment of the property owner for repeated rule-breaking. One party is maybe one party, but if there’s a trend where you own the property and the people you’re renting to are consistently out of control, then the fines should be increased. I wouldn’t be opposed to them getting fairly steep up to a point too—that if it happens too often, you would lose your business license to operate that short-term rental. Because I do think that if you’re doing it a lot—if you’re routinely renting it out—you should be treated a little more like a hotel. We don’t want to give short-term rentals an advantage over the hotel-motel industry. You want that playing field to be as level as possible, especially for people who are renting their houses or condos or whatever out a lot. So then pull that license if it’s an abuse that’s happening consistently. But let’s try to—

Susan Pendergrass (17:55)
Well, I had that on my street.

David Stokes (17:56)
—go to a method through crackdown on rule-breaking, not blanket prohibitions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:00)
Yeah, we had that on my street in St. Louis, and it was a street of, I don’t know, three- or four-bedroom houses, and they somehow had eight bedrooms and a pool, which was very rare in my neighborhood. So they mostly just rented it out to college students and got called all the time—the police got brought in all the time for noise complaints. And there wasn’t really a good mechanism in place at the time to prevent it from happening. So I agree that there should be some limitations around them, but not to make it so strict that people can’t use it as intended. I mean, I stay in Airbnbs all the time. I like having them, but—

David Stokes (18:36)
Now, that police dilemma—that’s something in St. Louis and probably Kansas City, a few big cities, where the cops just have better things to do than break up parties. I mean, they’ve got violent crimes to address. That’s an issue: how are they going to take it seriously enough? In the average Missouri suburb or mid-sized cities, the police are going to take that a little more seriously, I would think. And a good comparison I like is in Lake of the Ozarks, where some cities have instituted strict rules against short-term rentals, while others, like Osage Beach—at least as of our research—hadn’t instituted anything and took a much more free-market approach: “We’re a tourist area; we want tourists to come here.” So it’ll be a good natural experiment over time to see how it affects property values, how growth is affected, as different comparable cities in the Lake of the Ozarks region choose different paths to move forward. So I definitely look forward to following that.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37)
Well, then I’ll know—another component to this paper is on planning. I think you just said a city doesn’t have to do planning if they don’t choose to, but are Missouri cities or municipalities planners? I mean, is that a planned thing, or are we more like anything goes?

David Stokes (19:56)
Most Missouri cities have plans. Right?

Susan Pendergrass (19:57)
I’ve been to New Town, by the way. I just want to say I have visited New Town, so—before you start talking.

David Stokes (20:03)
Well, that’s the architectural planning—how do we want to design it? Then there’s the legal, defined planning. And luckily, again, I really don’t think Missouri cities need to do any planning outside of general infrastructure planning. So I shouldn’t say they don’t need to do any planning—there’s the general infrastructure planning that pretty much everybody supports, meaning you should have an idea of how growth is going to go in your city and where you’re going to put sewers and sidewalks and streets. You want a general long-term plan for that, even if that plan is—as it should be—thoroughly adjustable and can be changed as growth happens naturally. But then you get into planning like we mentioned with Portland earlier—urban growth boundaries—where the planners really start to say, “You can live here; you cannot live here; you can build here; you cannot build here,” and it gets to be really extreme. We don’t really have that in Missouri. Thankfully, the plans that cities do adopt can be easily amended by any city council. They can be changed. When I worked at St. Louis County, we dealt with the county planning commission for the parts of the council district I worked in that were unincorporated, where the planning commission had a lot to say on that. So elected officials can and should be able to change that plan as they go. And then the biggest—let’s say you permitted a development that’s against your plan, but the elected officials want to do it anyway—I usually don’t have a problem with that. The fact that it’s inconsistent with your plan would generally be something that, if locals want to sue to stop the development, they would cite in the lawsuit—that it was inconsistent with your process and your plan—and then it would be determined by judges and the whole legal process. But planning in Missouri is something that, outside of basic infrastructure planning, cities shouldn’t really do. And to the extent that they do it, it’s easily amended and changed. And that’s a good thing.

Susan Pendergrass (21:55)
Mm-hmm. So the first two papers in your series were taxation, right?

David Stokes (22:20)
Taxation was number two, and the first one was just sort of the structure of municipal government in Missouri. It had a lot to do with city managers. And then the fragmentation issue was addressed as well in the first one that we discussed here, because that’s a part of that, obviously.

Susan Pendergrass (22:23)
Introductory. Okay. And taxation. And this is zoning and planning. Right. And then what’s on deck? What’s the next one?

David Stokes (22:41)
We don’t actually know yet what number four will be—germinating. Most of them are ready to go pretty quickly, so I think the next one will be released within the next two months—certainly this year. And I think it’s going to be on public works. But we have papers coming on public works, public safety, parks and recreation—which is one I’m really going to enjoy. You go to Forest Park and there’s all the great things in St. Louis’s Forest Park, and then you realize that many of the wonderful things there are actually done under contract with the private sector, either for-profit businesses like the Boathouse and the ice rink that pay the city to operate, or nonprofit businesses like the Muni that have been in the park for a long time. So it’s a great option to talk about all the different ways to provide parks and recreation services.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18)
Yeah.

David Stokes (23:35)
But those are at least three of the upcoming ones. And then there’ll be a concluding, summarize-it-all-up section as well.

Susan Pendergrass (23:41)
I look forward to hearing more about those, and thanks for coming on to talk about planning and zoning. It’s going to be a great series when it all gets put together. Thanks.

David Stokes (23:48)
Thank you very much, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A Free-Market Guide to Zoning with David Stokes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are many successful examples of outsourcing in local government in Missouri. A lot of my work at the Institute has focused on park and recreation outsourcing, so those are the examples I’ll give. Privatizing park services is obviously unpopular with residents, as few wish to sell their parks. But outsourcing park operations is more common than people may realize.

In 2021, the St. Louis suburb of Des Peres outsourced the management and lifeguard services for its swimming facilities to Midwest Pool Management (MPM). Des Peres estimated it would save between $60,000 and $80,000 per year by outsourcing the operations.  MPM operates aquatic centers for numerous cities in the St. Louis region, as well as the Springs at Tiffany Hills in Kansas City. Other recreational facilities that are ripe for contracting and outsourcing management of include (actual examples in parenthesis): tennis centers (Shaw tennis center in Clayton), ice rinks (Steinberg rink in St. Louis City), golf courses (many locations, including Forest Park in the City of St. Louis ), and restaurant facilities within parks (Creve Coeur Lakehouse restaurant in St. Louis County).

Assets such as municipal golf courses, skating rinks, and tennis centers can be primarily funded by user fees instead of general taxes. Instead of spending tax dollars to operate these amenities, cities can enhance revenue and focus on core services by outsourcing recreational assets to companies that specialize in those areas. For example, the City of St. Louis received $402,260 in 2021 in lease payments from private operators to operate the golf courses in Forest Park (page 21 in link document).  Similarly, St. Louis leased out its Forest Park ice rink for $45,000 per year to a private operator. These arrangements provide better services for customers and a better result for taxpayers. In every example I’ve given above, local government still owns and is ultimately responsible for the asset.

According to the primary survey on this subject, about 25 percent of local governments outsource their facilities management operations. So, while it may not be standard, it isn’t rare. St. Louis County has a responsibility to negotiate hard for the taxpayers and be sure the contract isn’t too long. While the article on the deal makes it seem that the county is paying more in outsourcing, the numbers in it don’t include the long-term pension and health-care costs for government employees, and that is where savings from outsourcing really come in. As one guide on this topic put it:

Outsourcing can mitigate the long-term structural challenges faced by governments with regard to health care and retirement benefits.

In this particular instance, the county is simply having trouble filling these jobs as it is, so this outsourcing example is as much out of necessity as a choice. (It is hard for the county just to give its facilities employees a raise without giving all county employees larger raises, and that would really hit taxpayers hard.)

Local governments should privatize, outsource, or share services with other governments as much as they can. Residents, taxpayers, and voters (most people are all three, of course) all benefit from it.

The post Outsourcing Is Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Any real estate, now or hereafter owned by the City of Olivette or any agency or instrumentality of the City, which is principally used or held out for use as a public park, shall not be sold, leased, given away or otherwise disposed of, and shall be used only as a public park, nor shall any structure be built in any such park to accommodate activities not customarily associated with park use or outdoor recreation, unless such sale, lease, disposal, gift or structure is approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon.

To say this language is broad is like saying the Great Wall of China is long. True, but it is also kind of an understatement.

I get why people would be in favor of this measure. They want to have a say in case the city wants to do something drastic, like sell a public park. However, the problem with this amendment covers more than just selling a park. If passed it would require the city to seek voter approval if the city wanted to lease park management to private operators for a whole assortment of activities.

For example, if Olivette wanted to let a private operator open a restaurant on park grounds, like Saint Louis does for the Boathouse in Forest Park, then it would have to be approved by the voters. If Olivette wanted to let a private company open an ice rink in one of their parks, like Saint Louis does with Steinberg Skating Rink, then it would have to go to the voters. There are other successful examples of  private groups operating recreational services,  like Saint Louis does with the golf courses in Forest Park. Olivette residents won’t have to worry about golf courses, but they just go to show that if Proposition 1 is passed then any lease or contract will have to go to the voters.

The ultimate decision on whether to adopt the charter amendment is up to the residents of Olivette. I believe that voters should have a direct say if, for instance, a city decides to sell their municipal parks. However, I also think that city officials should have more leeway when it comes to leasing the park or contracting for services.

The post Some Thoughts on the Proposed Olivette Charter Amendment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Like a mischievous Leprechaun sporting a four-leaf clover, the city of Clayton is proposing four new tax increases on its April municipal ballot. That is right, four tax increases at one time: two sales tax increases and two bond proposals involving property tax increases. If they all pass, Clayton will “boast” the second-highest baseline city sales tax rate in Saint Louis County, along with one of the highest property tax rates. What kind of luck would that be for Clayton residents and businesses? The answer can only be very bad luck, indeed.

In order for Clayton to continue in its position as Saint Louis County’s economic downtown, it needs to maintain low commercial taxes. The April ballot proposals represent three or four steps in the wrong direction. Having the highest city sales tax rate in the county is hardly going to encourage people to shop in Clayton. High commercial property taxes will also discourage some business investment and give businesses reasons to locate elsewhere.

One of the two new sales taxes is for “economic development” efforts. Please do not let the positive name fool you. Raising taxes to fund government “economic development” is to modern communities what bloodletting was to 16th-century medicine. Whatever the sickness (and Clayton is definitely not sick), economic development taxes, like bloodletting, are best avoided. Clayton has, to its credit, been more disciplined than most other cities in its use of harmful tax subsidies such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and other giveaways. Hopefully that fiscal discipline will continue, so why would Clayton want to raise taxes to fund “economic development” programs that do more harm than good?

The other sales tax would be dedicated to emergency services: police, fire, and ambulances. General taxes already fund that city priority at a very effective level, with no plan to lower those general taxes if a new, special sales tax is added. Nobody disputes the importance of emergency services, but this tax increase is more about bookkeeping and higher city revenues than improving service quality.

The first property tax proposal is probably the most defensible spending. It would finance an overhaul of the city’s residential streets, many of which are legitimately due for replacement. Good roads are a necessary function of local government, and this bond issue is a reasonable way to accomplish that. However, it is fair to point out that the commercial sector already pays a targeted, extra property tax for the downtown area, which can include street and parking improvements. Under this proposal, it would face the same tax increase for neighborhood roads as the residents of those neighborhoods.

The other property tax increase is less necessary. It would fund a bond issue for Shaw Park, especially the ice rink. Instead of raising taxes to fund improvements to the ice rink, Clayton should follow the lead of the City of Saint Louis and outsource it to private operators. Steinberg Ice Rink in Forest Park is privately managed, and the city earns rental income each year without having to operate the rink. Taxpayers and customers all benefit from a well-maintained, privately run ice rink such as Steinberg, and Clayton should revisit that option instead of asking for a tax increase.

This four-leaf clover of tax increases goes in the wrong direction for Clayton residents and businesses, and would be very unlucky for them indeed.

David Stokes is the director of local government policy at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Clayton Seeks Four-Leaf Clover Of Tax Increases appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I was a little girl growing up in rural Southern Illinois, my parents often piled my sister and me into the car, packed a cooler full of our favorite foods, and headed across the bridge toward Saint Louis. Our destination: Forest Park. We spent our morning running around the park, ate our picnic lunch, and then strolled through the Saint Louis Zoo. My parents did this quite often, and for good reason: it did not cost them anything more than the gas in the car and food in the cooler.

I did not realize it at the time, but we were “free riders,” meaning we benefitted from public goods without paying for them. Free riders place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. To reduce this burden, Saint Louisans need to consider long-term funding options to support the institutions like the zoo within Forest Park.

In 1972, Saint Louis City and County passed a property tax to fund the operation of the area’s cultural institutions. The Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District (ZMD) was created and initially funded the Saint Louis Zoo, Art Museum, and Science Center. Later, voters included the Missouri Botanical Garden and the Missouri History Museum in the taxing district. Today, a variety of sources fund the institutions, with the ZMD property tax as the primary source.

At the time Saint Louis City and County levied the tax, the residential taxpayers accounted for 62 percent of the population of the greater Saint Louis area. The majority of the typical ZMD customers were contributing to its funding. Conversely, in 2010, Saint Louis City and County represented only 47 percent of the metro area. Therefore, less than half of the expected patrons were funding the District.

The Zoo Museum District originally was established to help local institutions and residents enrich the area and draw individuals from around the country to experience the cultural wealth located in Saint Louis. The initiative did just that, but many years have passed. Why are the minority of typical patrons paying for the whole? It is time to re-examine the Zoo Museum Taxing District.

Providing neighboring counties in both Missouri and Illinois with the option to join the Zoo Museum Taxing District is a good place to start. If the counties choose not to participate, it may be worth considering admission fees.

The bottom line is that Saint Louis City and County need to strongly consider a more efficient funding strategy for these institutions. Many families like mine make the short trip into Saint Louis to make priceless memories. However, we should not expect Saint Louis City and County taxpayers to bear the entire cost of paying for those memories.

Haleigh Albers is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Free Rides In The Zoo Museum District? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you want to travel from the Loop to Forest Park in Saint Louis, there is no shortage of options: You can walk, bike, drive, take the bus, or ride the Metrolink. As if that were not enough, government planners, who are more than happy to spend your tax money for services you never even thought you needed, have dreamt up yet another alternative.

The Federal Transit Administration recently approved a $25 million grant to develop a trolley system running from the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park to the University City Library on Delmar, a distance of 2.2 miles. The total construction cost will reach close to $45 million — almost $20 million per mile of track. Private donations will pay for just a small portion (less than 12 percent) of this exorbitant cost; taxpayers will finance most of the project’s construction and operational costs. Local sales taxes, federal grants, and rider fares will pay for the trolley. However, fares will only cover 30 percent of annual costs. A meager 6 percent will come from advertising and sponsorship from private funds, with sales taxes funding 64 percent.

What is wrong with simply expanding bus service, which could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost? The government estimated rubber tire trolley (buses disguised as trolleys) capital costs to be $4.5 million, about 10 percent of the cost to build a fixed track trolley. Expanding bus service, without purchasing new buses that look like trolleys, would cost even less to start up and maintain.

Believe it or not, a 2011 environmental assessment explained that a fixed track system was chosen not just in spite of, but because of, the high cost, which supposedly proves the government’s commitment to revitalizing the area. According to the report that the Federal Transit Administration and the East-West Gateway Council of Governments prepared, a rail system “cannot be removed without substantial expense and time,” whereas rubber tire options “can be cancelled or rerouted with little expense or effort.” By this logic, the planners of the system are bound to create a white elephant — defined as a burdensome possession whose cost is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth.

There is no evidence to suggest that building a streetcar along Delmar will result in an economic windfall to the area. The plan’s proponents have not presented any kind of cost-benefit analysis to the public.

Proponents of the Loop Trolley like to throw around the term “economic development” as if it is an automatic result of spending lots of money. They assume that the creation of a streetcar will magically revitalize the less desirable areas of the neighborhood between the Loop and Forest Park. If that is the case, then why is it so difficult to obtain private financing for this system? Many of the trolley’s supporters are Loop business owners. If they believe in the project so strongly, why don’t they fund it? Instead, government is using money that could otherwise be spent on education or public safety — or remain in taxpayers’ pockets.

Supporters of the Loop Trolley may point to other streetcar projects, such as the one in Portland, Ore., as purported evidence that the Trolley will generate millions of dollars of economic development. What they do not mention, however, is the hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives Portland gave to developers to entice them to build in the streetcar corridor. Former Portland Transportation Commissioner Charlie Hales even admitted that rail transit alone will not stimulate development along transit corridors.

Saint Louis does not need another white elephant conjured up through the misdirection of taxpayer money.

Kacie Galbraith is a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post The Loopy Rationale For A Loop Trolley 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.

On Tuesday, a key Kansas City transit group unanimously endorsed a plan that would put the downtown route primarily down Main, not Grand Boulevard.

The city’s Parking and Transportation Commission approved a consultants’ recommendation, which favored streetcars over rapid buses on a two-mile route from the River Market to Crown Center.

“A Main Street streetcar is the superior alternative,” project manager Charlie Hales, with HDR Engineering, told the commission.

This calls for a Kansas City trolley soundtrack. Hit it, Johnny!

For those unfamiliar with Kansas City’s politics, the idea of bringing rail lines in one form or another has been kicked around exhaustively for the last two decades, to the point where currently there are actually two competing passenger rail proposals: the Main Street trolley and, no joke, a $1 billion-plus rail project that perpetual rail proponent Clay Chastain has put forth. While the prospects of Chastain’s proposal (again) look bleak, supporters of the trolley project are pumping theirs up at a fraction of that price — a cool $100 million.

But even Chastain, of billion dollar rail fame, won’t rally behind a trolley project:

One outspoken opponent [of the trolley project] is Clay Chastain, who has mounted numerous unsuccessful attempts to bring light rail to Kansas City. Chastain has once again gathered sufficient signatures to place a $1.4 billion light rail system before voters next year, but the City Council has not yet approved it for an election.

“You’re not going to take a streetcar to the airport,” Chastain said Tuesday when told about the commission’s recommendation. “This is not the major response we need to build a world-class transit system.”

When Clay Chastain says your project is impractical, that’s saying something.

Of course, Kansas City’s not the only major metropolitan area in Missouri that might put hundreds of millions of quarters on municipal rails. St. Louis is putting together a trolley project that would run from Forest Park to the Delmar Loop — locations that Metrolink already serves, and within walking distance of the #1 Metro bus.

To give you an idea of the sort of distance we’re talking about here:

View Larger Map

The estimated cost for the roughly 2-mile line? About $50 million.

Are these projects really the best use of taxpayer dollars? At least one form of public transit already serves both areas, and in the case of St. Louis’ proposed line, there are two. The money the respective cities would spend on these projects couldn’t be spent on other pressing municipal matters. What would the cities forgo by rebuilding rail lines that were torn out long ago?

In this economy, Kansas City and St. Louis need…trolleys? Really?

The post Nothing Says ‘Progress’ Like a Vanity Trolley Project appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

[A] federal grant […] could finally make a long-sought streetcar route a reality.

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced today a $293 million investment in transportation projects around the country, including $24 million for a two-mile trolley line that would run between Forest Park and the University City Loop. […]

Supporters of the Loop trolley have said it could cost between $45 million and $55 million, with private donations covering the portion not covered by public funds.

I think it’s laudable that a great deal of the trolley’s expenses will be paid for with private funds, but I’m still suspicious of anything that requires federal funds. If it’s such a great idea for everyone involved, why can’t all the money be raised from Loop merchants and other donations — or, if a government entity has to be involved, University City? Costs aside, I have a number of other reservations about the project.

Driving on Delmar between Skinker and Kingsland is already a nightmare, and I’m pretty sure a slow-moving trolley would make matters even worse. If the trolley only ran in the Loop itself, that wouldn’t be such a huge issue because people wishing to bypass the area already know how, but it will also be running up Delmar to DeBaliviere and from there to the art museum. Those are both pretty major thoroughfares, so the trolley could cause traffic to pile up, which will cut into any environmental benefit it might have.

Furthermore, this area is already overserved by rail. Anyone wishing to travel from Forest Park to the Loop can do so quite easily by hopping on the MetroLink, as the Loop Trolley Project’s own website shows.  Granted, MetroLink can’t drop you off every block, but the entire Loop is only about seven blocks long, which is hardly a long walk from one end to another.

Finally, if trolley riders aren’t brought to the area by other forms of mass transit, they will have to park and ride. The Loop has a large parking lot, which is often near capacity as it is, but I am not sure where people wishing to ride from Forest Park are supposed to park their cars. Without more parking capacity, I don’t see how the line can attract enough riders to make it worthwhile, but I don’t know where they will put more parking.

I don’t think any of these points show definitively that the Loop Trolley is a bad idea, but they are questions that should be addressed before we start lavishing tax dollars on the plan.

The post Saint Louis Streetcars Making a Comeback? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The other article is from the Washington Post on judicial elections. While changes may indeed be necessary for our own Missouri Plan, this article clearly shows the problems that come from large-scale judicial elections. I hope we make needed improvements to our judicial selection system, but I in no way want to move toward the elections we see over in Illinois that are described in this article.

The post Judicial Elections and Parkland Sales appeared first on Show-Me Institute.