St. Louis County wants to follow the example of the City of St. Louis and create a land bank. This land bank will allow the county to become more aggressive about acquiring and selling property, primarily through tax auctions. If the examples in St. Louis and Kansas City are any indication, the land bank will fail in its goal of getting property back to the private sector. Creating a land bank will, however, increase opportunities for corruption and hold property off-market as a favor to politically influential developers. In case you have forgotten, here is the story on land bank corruption:

[Former Alderman] Boyd admitted accepting a total of $9,500 from Doe for his help convincing the city’s Land Reutilization Authority to accept a lower bid from Doe for a commercial property on Geraldine Avenue in Boyd’s ward. The LRA ultimately accepted Doe’s $14,000 bid. The LRA initially listed the property as worth $50,000. Boyd then worked to get a property tax abatement for Doe.

Inexplicably, the state authorized land bank expansion last year. St. Louis County is moving ahead with it. This is really the worst move the county could make and it isn’t going to end well for St. Louis County.

On the other side of the state, when St. Joseph created its land bank several years ago, the authorizing legislation included elements to help protect against corruption. It prevented people who might have a conflict of interest, such as anyone affiliated with St. Joseph city government, the land bank itself, or relatives of land bank staff or St. Joseph city government, from buying land from the land bank. Keep in mind that family members of the Jackson County Executive were able to purchase and flip land bank properties in Kansas City under questionable circumstances, to say the least. From the Kansas City Star:

No houses were built, and the company formed by Frank White’s stepsons Joseph, Darrel and Jordan Hurtt more than doubled its initial $3,700 investment by selling just four lots to a woman who lived near the properties on Montgall.

Now that it’s been several years since the St. Joe land bank was created and it has accomplished nothing, there is a bill in the legislature to remove those protections against corruption. It’s astonishing. What is the thought process here? Do St. Joseph city officials want to flip a few empty houses so badly that allowing those with inside information to profit is suddenly alright in St. Joseph? When something isn’t working under honest means, the answer is not to try it with dishonest means.  I hereby award House Bill 717 the title of the worst bill in Jefferson City this year.

The post An Update on Land Banks in Missouri: From Bad to Worse appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

allows City residents to take immediate ownership of LRA-owned parcels adjacent to their property for just $125 if the resident agrees to continually maintain the lot. The City will give away the land itself for free. The $125 covers the title transfer and lien, should the new owner fail to maintain his/her new property. After 24 months of regular maintenance, the lien will be lifted and the property granted free and clear to the new owner.

The city has no interest in paying to maintain these lots. Why not do whatever it takes to get them off the books and into private hands? This effort is similar to the Kansas City’s Land Bank Side Lot Program, where resident landowners may purchase adjacent vacant lots from the city for prices ranging from as little as $1 for lots under 2,500 square feet, to $.08 per square foot for lots between 6,000 and 6,500 square feet. The program has had some success. The city sold 50 side lots in 2014, 63 in 2015, and 9 so far in 2016.

The comparative strengths of the KC program, according to the Land Bank’s executive director, Ted Anderson, are that it does not require the program management of Mow to Own, and that liability insurance is less of an issue for the city because the buyers own the land outright. Furthermore, selling the land outright means there is less need to oversee the diligence of dozens of different people mowing city land.

The incentive to buy city land will still be affected by the distortionary effect taxes have on behavior. I know of one landowner in Kansas City whose office building, due to street layout, abuts a sizeable greenspace that is otherwise inaccessible. He maintains the space by cutting the grass. He’s aware of the Side Lot program, but he has no interest in assuming the additional property tax, especially when he currently has the option of enjoying the green space without being taxed on it. Saint Louis should expect to see cases like this on occasion, but to the extent that the Mow to Own program can relieve the city of unproductive property, it will be a step in the right direction. 

The post St Louis Rolls Out Mow to Own Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

                The problem with the city’s property tax collections is not the rate (around $7.5850 per $100 assessed value), but the fact that most of Saint Louis City is not actually paying the posted property tax rate. As this and future blog posts will detail, most of the city’s land area and much of the city’s properties either enjoy special property tax breaks or are exempt from property tax altogether.

                One type of entity that pays little or no property tax is government. This includes city, county, state, and federal government, but does not end there. In Saint Louis City, many properties are owned by other quasi-governmental bodies, including: the Bi-State Development Agency, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Great River Greenways, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), the Saint Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC), the Saint Louis Housing Authority, the St Louis Municipal Finance Corporation, and others. Altogether, government-owned properties make up almost 30% of all properties (by area) in the city, as the map below illustrates:

Large city parks are one reason governments own so much of Saint Louis City. But even if we take parks out of the equation, governments still own more than 23% of the city by land area and 12% of land by value. For instance, the city’s land bank, the LRA, owns more than 11,000 parcels of land, including the land on which Busch Stadium stands. Busch Stadium’s public connection is not an outlier. Many large entertainment venues in the city, including the Scott Trade Center and the Edward Jones Dome, are on public land. Different government organizations own housing complexes, office buildings, theatres, parking lots, and wharfs. Setting aside the question of whether or not all of this government ownership is justified, little if any property tax money can come from these parcels.

Check back for our next post on this issue, which will explore the prevalence of tax-exempt properties in Saint Louis City.  

The post Saint Louis Property Taxes, Part 1: This Land is Their Land appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The City of Saint Louis has an agency, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), which manages more than 10,000 of these vacant and abandoned properties. The LRA has an enormous responsibility. Its actions, past and present, can play a major role in determining the future of this city. In a 2011 Show-Me Institute Policy Study called “Standstill: How City Agencies Have Hindered Development In Saint Louis While Waiting For Large-Scale Miracles,” then-policy analyst Audrey Spalding examined the actions and decisions the LRA makes that heavily affect the city of Saint Louis. The study found that the LRA was not fulfilling the responsibilities of the organization as created and defined in Missouri statute.

The LRA has the ability to increase private investment in Saint Louis neighborhoods, which can help create a better Saint Louis. But it cannot do that if it does not sell properties.

By building on the work presented in “Standstill,” this case study will provide insight into how the LRA has changed over the last couple of years and whether it has started to achieve the original goals tasked to it more than 40 years ago.

Read the case study:

See also the Show-Me Institute’s previous research on land banks:

• Standstill: Is Saint Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles? — April 19, 2011
• Land Banking: An Old Idea With A Poor Track Record — March 26, 2012
• Kansas City Land Bank Proposal: Learning From Failures Of The Saint Louis Land Bank— March 05, 2012
• Land Banking Is No Miracle — February 29, 2012
• Land Bank Recommendations — February 28, 2012
• Legislators Should Seriously Consider the Failings of the Saint Louis Land Bank before Creating a Kansas City Land Bank — February 08, 2012
• What a Difference a Year Makes: Saint Louis City’s Land Bank, the LRA — October 03, 2011
• Why Is There So Much Vacant Land in Saint Louis? — February 22, 2011
• Paper Questions City Landholding Policy — February 21, 2011

The post Promoting Private Land Ownership In Saint Louis: A Data Update On The Land Reutilization Authority appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, this ease of regulation comes just a little late. The housing market crisis began years ago. Part of the federal government’s response was to throw hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money at the problem. In February 2010, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded more than $223 million to help establish land banks in Michigan. More than $40 million went to a land bank in Ohio. The Saint Louis land bank, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), has used federal money to acquire property.

It would have been nice if the federal government had eased this regulation earlier, and before so much money was dumped into a program that has not been proven successful. After all, the Saint Louis land bank, which is the oldest standing land bank in the U.S., has not succeeded in getting vacant property back into private, productive use. Since its creation, the land bank’s holdings have quintupled, and Show-Me Institute research found that the land bank had a habit of rejecting nearly half of all formal offers to purchase its property.

There is a real risk that land banks set up in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, New York, and other states will end up where the Saint Louis land bank has: Holding many properties indefinitely, and plagued by processes that favor political insiders. Much of the blame for this expensive and unproven expansion of land banking rests squarely with the federal programs and funding that encouraged it.

Reducing regulations associated with renting vacant, foreclosed homes is a good first step to dealing with the glut of foreclosed property. A next good step would be for the federal government to cease funding land banks.

The post Too Little, Too Late? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This land bank, if Kansas City officials decide to create it, will have the power to bid against private buyers for vacant property, make expensive development bets, and have the ability to turn down offers from would-be buyers for arbitrary reasons.

We already know that land banking can have disastrous consequences. In my review of the Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), I found that the LRA rejected almost half of all formal offers it considered, and allows local officials to have substantial and inappropriate power over who can buy land bank property.

Other land banks in other states do this as well. Consider this Michigan Ingham County Land Bank rejection: An offer to purchase vacant property from the land bank was rejected because “. . . the [land bank] wants to have a home on the vacant property.”

I still do not understand why Missouri legislators want to follow the 40-year history of the LRA. Saint Louis’ land bank began its life with about 2,000 parcels, and now has amassed more than 10,000 parcels of vacant property. The land bank that the Kansas City legislation hopes to replicate also continues to amass vacant property, and helps funnel tax subsidies to private developers. Where exactly is the land banking success that Kansas City hopes to replicate?

During discussion of an amendment that was added to the land bank bill yesterday, the Senate sponsor stated: “Might be a terrible idea. But two years from now they can address that problem.”

I hope so, but I am skeptical. Our legislature passed land banking legislation for Saint Louis in 1971, and it has been an abysmal failure. Instead of addressing that problem, legislators passed a similar bill for Kansas City.

The post Ignoring 40 Years Of Failure, Legislature Passes Land Bank Legislation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The legislation has out-of-state advocates. Dan Kildee, the head of a nonprofit that has advocated for land bank legislation in numerous states, is quoted in the Star extensively. Kildee told the Star that a land bank could acquire abandoned property in order to keep it out of the hands of private speculators. This statement ignores the fact that if a land bank is acquiring property because it thinks a better buyer will come along in the future, then the land bank itself will be acting as a speculator.

We have seen this model fail in Saint Louis. The Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority, has existed for more than 40 years. In that time, it has amassed about 10,000 parcels of vacant land. My research showed that during the past eight years, the Saint Louis land bank rejected almost half of all formal offers to purchase its property. The most common reason for rejection was that the property was being “held for future development.” Sadly, the hoped-for development rarely materializes.

Instead of taking heed of the 40-year-old failure in our own state, legislators are willing to bet Kansas City’s future on glorified accounts of a land bank’s operations in Michigan. That land bank, the Genesee County Land Bank, has been trying to sell vacant property for less than a decade. When I have testified about the failure in Saint Louis, legislators and lobbyists quickly state that Saint Louis is “different” than Kansas City. Why, exactly, is the short-term record of a land bank that is more than 500 miles away more relevant than the long-term failure of a land bank in our own state?

The post Legislators Are Ignoring 40 Years Of Failure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, Porter fails to consider the 40-year-old land bank in her home state. Saint Louis has had a land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), since 1972. The LRA owns about 10,000 parcels, making it the largest land holder in the City of Saint Louis. The Saint Louis land bank’s track record should be considered before creating a similar entity in Kansas City.

Show-Me Institute research has found that for eight years, from 2003 through 2010, the Saint Louis land bank authority rejected almost half of all formal offers to purchase its property. The most frequent reason for rejection was that the property was being “held for future development.” Sadly, the hoped-for future development rarely materializes, and in just eight years, the Saint Louis land bank has turned down offers to purchase more than 2,200 different parcels.

Porter also fails to mention that there already is a government entity that deals with vacant land in Kansas City. The Jackson County Land Trust currently takes ownership of tax-delinquent properties that fail to sell at tax auction, and works to sell them.

There does not appear to be any evidence that the Jackson County Land Trust is doing a poor job of getting vacant property back into private, productive use. In fact, it seems to be doing quite well. During the past decade, in the course of acquiring property by default and trying to sell it, the land trust has added about 140 parcels to its inventory. The Saint Louis land bank has added 800.

However, the land bank bill, Missouri House Bill 1659, would be a land and money grab: All land trust properties in Kansas City would be transferred to the land bank, and it could take on an unlimited amount of debt.

Though Porter warns against private speculators, this bill would allow the Kansas City land bank to act as a speculator. The city would establish priorities for vacant land and use those to determine when to sell property. While this may sound innocuous, that is how Saint Louis was able to turn down so many offers to buy vacant property.

Consider this line from a letter of rejection from the Saint Louis land bank: “…her intended use is as rental property, and the alderman has indicated verbally that he will only support the sale to an owner occupant…” Years later, the property remains vacant, and the LRA still owns the land.

This bill would also let a Kansas City land bank bid directly against people who want to purchase vacant property. That certainly would go against the ostensible goal of alleviating vacancy in the city. The land bank would, when bidding against private buyers, be working directly to keep property vacant, and in government ownership.

HB 1659 creates an unnecessary expansion of government power. No strong evidence has been provided to show that the Jackson County Land Trust has failed, nor that a land bank could do a better job of getting vacant, city-owned property back into private, productive use. In fact, if Saint Louis is any example, the contrary will occur.

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

The post Land Banking Is No Miracle appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some might say that the agreement is a validation of the city’s strategy to hold property for development. But even though political points may be gained by trumpeting development before it occurs, development of these parcels has not actually happened.  As one writer put it, “…until development occurs on a large portion of the land, the strategy will only have proven that after three decades, the city has found someone else to mow the yard.”

Indeed, while the prospect of selling 1,200 city-owned properties is great news for the city and its residents, this single development will not remake Saint Louis, even if successful. The city has dug itself into an incredible vacancy hole that would require almost another nine developments like the NorthSide one — just to take care of the vacant property that the Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), owns. And this proposed development took years to come about.

According to St. Louis Magazine, the NorthSide development was in the works since at least 2003, and no comparable large-scale development has taken place in Saint Louis. If we are pinning our hopes on more developments like NorthSide, we have to wait another 40 years. How much land will the city have amassed by then?

As part of the Show-Me Institute’s review of the operations of the LRA, we collected a great deal of data to see how frequently the agency was accepting and rejecting offers to buy its vacant property. We found that the LRA rejected formal offers to purchase more than 2,200 different parcels between the years 2003 and 2010. That is certainly a larger number than the 1,200 parcels being discussed as part of the NorthSide deal.

Some may be curious as to whether offers in recent years to purchase LRA property were rejected in the NorthSide footprint.

The map below shows all offers to purchase LRA property, with larger marks indicating higher-value offers. Between 2003 and 2010, offers to purchase more than 300 different properties within the NorthSide boundary were rejected.

However, to make the situation complicated, offers to purchase more than 280 properties in the area were accepted. While some offers were rejected because the agency was holding the property for “planned unified development,” others were accepted.

What I find more troubling is the city’s bad (but recently abandoned) habit of holding property off of its public for-sale list. Up until the publication of Show-Me Institute research, almost half of LRA property was not advertised for sale. This was due in part to agency staff members and area aldermen designating property as “Class C,” meaning that it was not “suitable for public or private use.” In practice, that designation made it more difficult, if not impossible in some cases, for people to purchase vacant property. Below is a map showing parcels not advertised for sale in red, with LRA parcels advertised for sale in green. The NorthSide boundary is included for reference.

We only have records for formal, written offers to purchase LRA property. It is impossible to know how many would-be buyers were discouraged from buying property in the NorthSide footprint as a result of the LRA’s practices.

The post NorthSide Development is Complicated, But No Validation of Land Banking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state legislature is currently considering legislation that would create a land bank in Kansas City with much the same power and authority as the Saint Louis land bank, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). Audrey’s policy study on the LRA, “Standstill: Is Saint Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles?” (published last April) provides important insight into the potential pitfalls of a land bank with expansive authority to acquire and hold property.

The lessons of the LRA are well worth considering for any proposed land bank. Lofty public policy dreams often run afoul of the law of unintended consequences, and the long history of the LRA may serve better as a cautionary tale than an achievement to be repeated.

The post Standstill Part Two? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Legislators Should Seriously Consider the Failings of the Saint Louis Land Bank before Creating a Kansas City Land Bank appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post What a Difference a Year Makes: Saint Louis City’s Land Bank, the LRA appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, I was happily surprised to see at the LRA’s monthly meeting today that the agency did not reject a single offer of the 25 it considered. (The agency did reject half of one man’s offer: He offered to purchase two properties, and the LRA voted to accept his offer for only one of those properties.)

This is big news! During an eight-year period, the LRA rejected more than 42 percent of the offers it formally considered. It now appears that the agency is working to accept or counter more offers to purchase vacant property in the city. In the entire eight years surveyed for our study, there was only one month during which the agency rejected zero offers — and that was after we started taking a close look at the agency’s operations.

The LRA’s lack of rejections this month is just the latest sign that the agency is thinking about ways to improve its operations. In March, the agency accepted more offers than it previously had been accepting, and lowered the price of some of its properties.  The agency also tweaked its policy to allow more individuals to purchase side lots.

I hope these changes are all signals that the LRA is working to sell more properties so they can be put back into private, productive use. Accepting and countering more offers is the latest development, and it certainly is a step in the right direction.

The post A Sign of Hope? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I know that there’s no simple solution to the city’s budgetary situation. If Saint Louis needs more money for building demolition and grass-cutting on vacant lots, though, perhaps the city should step up its efforts to sell its vacant property.

The city owns more than 10,000 vacant properties, and most of them are owned by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), an agency tasked with getting that property back into private productive use. Yet we found that the LRA had been rejecting roughly one out of every two offers to purchase vacant city property. Why? The most common reason was that the property was being held for “future development.” Unfortunately, the future development would frequently fail to materialize, and the city continues to hold these vacant lots (and pay to cut the grass).

Please, city aldermen, let’s try something different. If the city sells more of its vacant property, it will collect more in sales revenue, and more in property tax revenue. Additionally, the city won’t have to pay to cut the grass on the lots sold. Why not try? Why not take a chance on individuals with offers today instead of waiting for something “better” in the distant future?

“Speculating” is a dirty word in Saint Louis city. There is a fear that people will buy up city property and hold it vacant for many years. Unfortunately, though, when the city turns down offers today in the hope for something “better,” it is acting as a speculator itself. But a government speculator is worse — government employees deciding to hold land vacant for years don’t feel the financial consequences the way a private investor would, and so have much less incentive to find a productive use for the land. It’s time the city stopped speculating and instead let private individuals take on the risks and rewards of city development.

The post Try Selling More Vacant City Property appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After all, the LRA had rejected Anthony Barber’s offer to purchase the property in 2010 because, the agency said, “the parcel is being held as part of a larger development site.” The LRA did not specify exactly what the larger development site was. Barber had plans to build a barbeque restaurant at 1252 Academy, he had the support of his alderman and neighborhood association, and he even had the menus for his restaurant planned out. But, in 2010, that apparently wasn’t enough for the LRA.

Nearly a year later, after the publication of Show-Me Institute research showing that the agency rejected almost one out of every two offers to purchase vacant city property, a few months after the head LRA commissioner resigned from his post, after an LRA commissioner met with the Show-Me Institute to discuss ways to change the LRA process, and soon after the LRA began to make positive changes to its administrative policies, the LRA accepted Barber’s offer.

By accepting Anthony Barber’s offer, the agency has broken its nearly decade-long track record of rejecting offers to purchase 1252 Academy. As detailed in my study of the LRA’s practices during the past eight years, the agency began rejecting offers on the property in 2001. Again and again, the LRA said that the property was “being held for development.”

Hopefully, the LRA will continue on its path of accepting more offers to purchase property. Only by doing so does the city have a chance at returning the more than 9,000 vacant properties owned by the LRA back into private, productive use.

The post 1252 Academy Is Approved for Sale! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The problem is, the LRA seems to have done more to thwart development than to encourage it. During the past four decades, the LRA has accumulated a larger and larger inventory of vacant properties in Saint Louis, while rejecting many offers from private individuals and small businesses to purchase selected properties from the agency.

The agency’s most frequently stated reason for turning down so many offers has been that the property in question is “being held for future development” — as if some unknown savior will come along at a future date to undertake a massive development that will require scores of vacant parcels in a single swoop.

In acting in this way, the agency has ignored a basic rule of thumb: When you are in a hole, stop digging. The LRA’s holdings of vacant properties have climbed from 2,000 in the early 1970s to more than 9,000 today. It has turned the derelict status of much of the city’s housing stock into an unchanging and seemingly permanent condition. Remarkably, more than half of the parcels that are now owned by the LRA have been in the agency’s possession for well over a decade.

If you want to know the full story of how this happened, I urge you to visit showmeinstitute.org and read our study of the LRA, “Standstill: Is St. Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles?” It illustrates the fallacy that a public agency can work miracles by substituting its judgment for the far more detailed knowledge of the marketplace.

The LRA now works in relative obscurity, seldom attracting much attention. Still, though, it wields the same extraordinary powers originally granted to it by the Missouri legislature 40 years ago. We believe that a review of both the practices of the LRA and the authorizing statute are in order.

The LRA’s actions spring from the same impulse that has led to the abuse of eminent domain laws: a lack of regard for the rights and interests of small landowners, and the assumption that government officials know better than private citizens how best to use or dispose of their property. Action by the Legislature is needed to help address this problem, with a view toward reversing the LRA’s longstanding practice of hoarding land and toward establishing standards for disposal of property that will ensure its availability for private use.

To better serve the public interest, the LRA should stop trying to pick winners and losers in the market for vacant land. It should accelerate the sale of tax-delinquent properties to private individuals and businesses who are willing to purchase it.

By making it more difficult for people to buy land in the city, the government discourages city living. It is little wonder that the city is still hemorrhaging residents.

Brenda Talent is the executive director for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Saint Louis Agency May Be Hindering Development by Hoarding Vacant Land appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is general agreement and understanding that the earnings tax hurts jobs and business in the city, although no consensus on the extent of that pain. Organizations that claim the tax does not matter often act differently than their statements might suggest. Peabody Energy donated to the campaign to retain the earnings tax, and the company’s CEO told the Post-Dispatch that the earnings tax was “not a factor” in its commendable decision to remain downtown. However, its decision to stay put involved tax abatements on future earnings and payroll taxes. If the expense of the earnings tax is not a factor, why does the city have to give some of it back to Peabody?

Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay has said that retaining the tax now is an important step toward changing the way the city funds its services, and the way the region is governed. Other city officials have said similar things, and the Post-Dispatch reported that city officials are planning ways to replace the tax eventually. If city officials in Saint Louis truly want to seek out ways to eliminate the earnings tax — and I believe that many of them, including Mayor Slay, do — the biggest danger lies in continuing to pass millions of dollars of tax increment financing (TIF) and other tax abatements each year. The primary reason that it would require such a large property tax increase to replace the earnings tax is because such an enormous amount of city property is not on the tax rolls. City voters recognized this, and voted accordingly.

According to a 2009 study by the PFM Group, the city of Saint Louis depends on property taxes for less of its general revenue than any other comparable city. The city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) holds 9,000 pieces of property — all off the tax rolls, under city ownership. Another $683 million dollars is off the tax rolls because of TIF and other abatement programs. Finally, 22 percent of the city’s assessed value in real property is held by nonprofit organizations and is, as such, tax exempt.

The city of Saint Louis cannot be blamed for all of the above — particularly the tax exemption of nonprofits. The use of tax credits to lure businesses to relocate from one city or municipality to another within the greater Saint Louis area constitutes a devastating circular firing squad. This is a regional problem, not just a city problem.

Moreover, if the city greatly reduced its use of tax incentives, combined with a more aggressive approach to selling LRA property and an appeal to nonprofits to pick up a share of the burden for the city services they receive, property taxes could be a much more viable alternative to the earnings tax. An expanded tax base would then allow for smaller, and more evenly distributed, tax increases to make up for the loss of earnings tax revenues. If the city truly wants to move away from the earnings tax, it is imperative to grow the potential property tax base by ending policies that restrict its growth.

Many of the other suggestions made by opponents of the earnings tax, such as increasing privatization and shared government services, would work just as well in an environment with the earnings tax as without. Kansas City has had success with its privatized animal shelter — costs are down and adoptions are up. Saint Louis can do the same thing. The “Yellow Pages Test,” the idea that government should not provide the types of services that private companies offer in the Yellow Pages, is ripe for enactment in Saint Louis. We don’t need to get rid of the earnings tax to encourage private incentives in the provision of public goods.

City officials are already fighting the hard, yet necessary, battles to control public pension growth, and they are moving toward a user fee system in trash collection. Choosing to eliminate the earnings tax eventually, even without the legal mandate, may be the best of all possible worlds. It would give Saint Louis the proper time for necessary diligence in making a change that would benefit the city substantially in the long run.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post A Five-Year Plan for the Earnings Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a letter obtained by the Show-Me Institute yesterday, we learned the identity of the district’s next appointee to LRA — Roger CayCe, executive director of operations for SLPS. Rick Sullivan, president and CEO of the school district, wrote, “We are sure Mr. CayCe will depict the same labor as a board member as he does in his position with SLPS.”

June 30, 2010, LRA Commission Meeting

We look forward to presenting our ongoing research about the agency to CayCe in the hope that the LRA will continue its recent positive momentum.

CayCe’s first regular meeting as a member of the LRA Commission will take place at 8:30 a.m. on April 27, 2011, in Suite 1200 at 1015 Locust St. in downtown St. Louis. Mark your calendars; we will be there to keep you up-to-date.

The post Saint Louis Public Schools Special Administrative Board Names New LRA Commissioner appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The LRA side lot. Photo by Alex Ihnen of nextSTL.com

The lot, owned by the city’s largest landholder, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), is a small one: It measures 27 feet wide, which, according to LRA policy at the time, made it just a bit too large to sell it as a side lot. Side lots are just that — lots that are combined with an adjacent building in order to create a garden or yard.

The would-be buyer, Ihnen writes, is an exceptional developer with a history of quality renovations in the neighborhood:

The possible purchaser today is Grove Properties, LLC. Grove Properties has been completing high-quality gut renovations in FPSE for several years. Some properties have sold pre-completion and sales have continued to raise the ceiling on home prices in the neighborhood.

However, under the LRA’s policy at the time, the agency wouldn’t sell this lot to Grove Properties because it was two feet wider than the 25-foot maximum that the LRA had imposed.

This is not uncommon. A good example of this policy in action is that of Landy Cauley. Cauley, who owned property adjacent to 4233 West Belle Pl., attempted to purchase the lot in July 2006. The LRA turned him down, according to the agency’s minutes, “because the parcel does not meet the side lot policy of 25 front feet or less. The parcel is being held for infill development.”

Today, the property is still vacant and owned by the LRA. The lot, to the right-hand side of the building below, looks like it would be a great addition to Cauley’s current property (but I’m no city planner).

4233 West Belle Place. Image by Google Maps.

All that being said, it seems as though the LRA may be once again changing its side lot policy, slightly, for the better. Otis Williams, deputy director of the Saint Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) told Ihnen that the agency has now changed its side lot limit from 25 feet to 30 feet. This, combined with the LRA’s recent vote to reduce side lot prices, certainly could free up more of Saint Louis’ vacant city property for purchase.

Even better news is the possibility that the LRA will lessen its restrictions on who is allowed to purchase side lots. Under current policy, the LRA will sell side lots only to residential owner-occupants. As Ihnen reports, the LRA may vote to allow more people, such as apartment building owners and developers, to purchase side lots.

We shall see. If you are interested in seeing the LRA in action — perhaps in the process of making another policy change, in the direction of freeing up vacant city property for purchase — I encourage you to attend the agency’s next public meeting on April 27.

The post More Good News for People Who Want to Buy Vacant City Property appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In an interview, SAB President Sullivan said, “I would expect an appointment to be imminent. The board discussed it today.” He continued, “I need to confirm qualifications and willingness of some people we’re considering.”

Although Sullivan did not name any potential candidates for appointment to the LRA Commission, he elaborated on the SAB’s selection criteria: “[W]e want somebody who understands all of the issues related to LRA, familiarity with real estate or otherwise.”

When asked whose interests the new appointee will represent, the school district or residents, Sullivan said that the appointee “[has] a responsibility to represent the interests of the city and take into consideration how they’re appointed. So, first and foremost are the residents of the city, city interests, and then keeping in mind where that appointment came from.”‘

Sullivan hinted strongly that the SAB hopes to have its appointment in place by the March 30, 2011, meeting of the LRA Commission.

The Show-Me Institute will continue to follow these developments closely. Stay tuned to Show-Me Daily for the latest on this story.

The post Appointment of New LRA Commissioner “Imminent” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.