The language in the bill is admirably simple, maybe too simple. Clever lawyers will have little difficulty in getting around the caps and what I hope is the plain intent of the law. With that in mind, I hope the Missouri General Assembly strongly considers some of the language changes we suggested in the testimony. Those changes are not designed to change the bill, but simply to buttress the limits from the inevitable municipal end-runs.

The Missouri Municipal League (MML) testified against the TIF reforms, which restored order to the universe after the incident the previous week when the MML and I actually agreed on something.

The post New Strategy On TIF Reform In Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The practice is called intergovernmental lobbying, or taxpayer-funded lobbying. Local government entities like cities, counties, and fire districts hire lobbyists to represent them in Congress and the state legislature. Those lobbyists then vie for a bigger piece of the government’s pie. As the pie grows, however, so do the taxes needed to pay for it.

In the past 18 months, 53 local entities spent more than $2.6 million on contracts with outside lobbyists. This is just a small sample of the hundreds of publicly funded local institutions that can contract lobbyists. This number does not include the lobbyist’s expenses (such as hotel rooms and dinners out with lawmakers) that are paid for with taxpayer money. It also does not include dues paid to lobbying associations, such as the Missouri Municipal League or Association of Police Chiefs, which receive taxpayer funds from member cities or police districts. These associations have been known to lobby for legislation that would close various public records, such as property tax records or police investigation records. So, in that case, Missourians are paying more to know less.

Clearly, this is a problem. So what can Missourians do about it?

In 2010, Missouri Rep. Shane Schoeller (R-Willard) proposed House Bill 1872 that would have banned lobbyists who receive taxpayer money from “advocating” a position while educating lawmakers and monitoring the legislative session. While the intentions were good, the ban would have been difficult to enforce because lobbyists are constantly doing both. The legislation, predictably, stalled in committee.

Because bans have been relatively unsuccessful here and in other states, perhaps a better start would be increasing transparency when it comes to publicly funded lobbying in the state. The Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) is charged with monitoring and reporting lobbying activity in the state. However, the data available are incomplete. It tells Missourians little about the entities that hire lobbyists, does not include salaries that those entities pay, and does not make a distinction between private and public employers of lobbyists.

The next option is to go to the local government’s website. This can prove fruitless as well. For example, there are 114 counties in Missouri: 54 of them have websites. None of the 54 provides lobbying information online. In reality, if Missourians want to know exactly how much taxpayer money is going to lobbyists, they would have to send hundreds of Sunshine Law requests, some of which would inevitably go unanswered or remain incomplete. The Show-Me Institute collected its information on the subject in this manner and, speaking from personal experience, the process is far from efficient.

The simple step of requiring the MEC or individual public entity to disclose information about lobbying expenses online would help address the problem in a few ways. First, it would improve Missouri’s overall transparency, which is clouded by minimal lobbying disclosure requirements. Second, it would put the power back in the taxpayers’ hands; no more closed-door deals and secret contracts. Everything would be out in the open. Taxpayers would have access to the information they need to make a decision about whether they support contracting with an outside lobbyist or not.

The issue of intergovernmental lobbying cannot begin to be addressed until the taxpayers are made aware of how their tax dollars are being spent. If local governments continue to keep citizens in the dark about lobbying expenses, the state government will only continue to expand. It is a vicious cycle, with lobbyists advocating increased spending year after year all over the state and no one stopping to think who is footing the bill. Spoiler alert: we are. Taxpayers need to embrace Missouri’s motto when dealing with local governments and say “Show me!” regarding lobbying expenses.

Mary Kate Hopkins is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Missouri’s Taxpayers Lobbying To Pay More Taxes? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Tax Credit Review Commission held its regional meeting in a veritable monument to the tax credit programs they review: the Old Post Office building in downtown Saint Louis. It’s borderline poetic. From an article by Brian Hook in the Missouri Watchdog:

The DESCO Group and DFC Group developed a plan, using tax credits, to restore the [Old Post Office] building in 2000. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, moved into the building in 2006.

Steve Stogel, co-chair of the Tax Credit Review Commission, is president of DFC Group in St. Louis.

Additionally, some individuals cited in their testimonies a recent study from Saint Louis University that evaluates the historic preservation tax credit program. After I delivered my testimony, co-chair Chuck Gross even handed me a paper copy.

The SLU study has a peculiar list of financial supporters:

DFC Group
Downtown Council of Kansas City
Kansas City Port Authority
Missouri Growth Association
Missouri Municipal League
Partnership for Downtown St. Louis
Urban District Alliance of Springfield

Listed first is DFC Group, which is co-chair Stogel’s company. The other organizations are groups that receive direct, concentrated benefits from tax credit programs. The Missouri Growth Association, for instance, is a trade association of commercial property owners, managers and developers. Also well represented in this list are city bureaucrats, a group with incentives to grow the size of government.

Isn’t this the very definition of a conflict of interest? How can the Tax Credit Commission evaluate the effectiveness of these programs objectively and fairly if its leadership uses tax credits to earn a living? How can the commission have sound judgment if it bases its decisions on studies for which the leadership paid?

The post The Definition of a Conflict of Interest appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Lowery sets his own work schedule, often not getting to City Hall until midafternoon.

I think I have to side with the mayor, here, and not just because I’d like that schedule, too. I have been active in local politics, and I have no doubt that the mayor goes to innumerable nightly meetings of neighborhood associations, community groups, etc. I also believe him when he says that many of his lunch meetings are work-related. His job involves city management, various methods of civic boosterism, and sometimes just returning a bunch of phone calls. If he can do the job successfully from home, work, and the car, then I really don’t think the amount of time he spends in the office is an important measure.

Without going into detail, I think the article’s criticisms of using city workers for campaign purposes are much more valid. But onto the system debate.

Most cities like Florissant have a city manager. There are only two really comparable cities to Florissant in St. Louis County: Chesterfield and University City (where I live). Both of them use a full-time city manager or administrator. If Florissant were to choose such a system, the mayor could focus on the civic and political leadership aspect of the mayor’s office, a set of responsibilities that he is very good at performing, according to everything I have heard.

If the people of Florissant want the mayor to keep some role in daily city operations, they could choose the city administrator form of local government. If they want the mayor to have a very limited role in daily operations, they could choose the city manager form. In both instances, though, the role of the hired professional is to manage day-to-day government operations. The mayor would become more focused on the leadership aspects of the job, and less on the management aspects.

Obviously, the salary of the mayor would likely be cut significantly if either of those options were chosen, but the city manager form of government might be the proper compromise for Florissant. It would entail a limited role in daily operations for the mayor, and — considering the experience he has had as mayor and a police chief — the people might want to continue making use of that value. Here is the Missouri Municipal League’s description of the city administrator position:

The city administrator is employed by the governing body with the approval of the mayor. The administrator serves as the chief administrative assistant to the mayor and has general superintending control of the administration and management of city business and municipal employees, subject to the direction and supervision of the mayor. When the governing body adopts a city administrator ordinance, they may provide that all other officers and employees of the city, except elected officers, may be appointed and discharged by the city administrator, subject to reasonable rules and regulations of the governing body. However, the ordinance may provide that such powers are to be retained by the mayor.

Florissant is a charter city, so it has some latitute in establishing a government that works best for its residents. I think that the city administrator form might be a good compromise for Florissant.

The post Should Florissant Keep Its Strong Mayor System? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The irony, of course, is that nothing demonstrates “the will of the citizens” more than, say, letting them vote for themselves!

This is yet another example of a problem I have noted several times before: Powerful interests can (and do) game the system to prevent Missouri citizens from voting on issues of great importance. The most prominent example is the way that the Missouri Municipal League has for years been engaging in litigation strategically calculated to keep eminent domain reform off of the ballot. The most damning element, in my mind, is that at least in the case of the Missouri Municipal League, the opponents acknowledge the virtual certainty that eminent domain reform would be approved if the citizens were allowed to vote on it.

If an organization or some other group of citizens is concerned about the wisdom of any given ballot initiative, they are well within their rights to communicate their concerns to voters and to try to persuade Missourians not to approve the proposition. But to manipulate the system in such a way that citizens are denied the opportunity to adopt what they believe to be valuable changes to their laws is reprehensible.

The post The Will of the People, Revisited appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Folks, they’re at it again.

Almost as soon as Missouri Citizens for Property Rights got a ballot title from the Secretary of State, the Missouri Municipal League sued in an attempt to make the ballot title recite a parade of imaginary horrors that they claim would follow the end of eminent domain abuse. A couple of weeks ago, Judge Richard Callahan ruled that the Secretary of State’s ballot title could go forward with only one insubstantial adjustment.

The Missouri Municipal League has appealed that ruling, continuing to insist that the restoration of property rights should be described as nothing less than the death knell for America. And, again, they’re calling on your elected officials to pony up your money in order to prevent you from having a say in the matter.

As a “Red Alert” sent out by the Municipal League states:

[A]lthough cities cannot directly contribute to support or oppose any ballot measure, cities may fund public informational campaigns. The City of Springfield has already committed $5,000 to this effort. Other cities are following suit. City contributions should generally reflect the size and financial capacity of the participating city. The League will also continue to coordinate these efforts with private sector “partner organizations” such as the Missouri Chamber of Commerce.

Of course, other cities have a more direct means of trying to prevent your participation in the political process. The city government of Slater, Mo., passed a resolution last week that “urges the citizens of [that] community to refrain from signing a CPR constitutional initiative petition because doing so would be contrary to the best interest of most property owners within the State of Missouri.”

When I used the Sunshine Law to compel the city to produce all documents its officials considered before adopting this resolution, all they could provide was a PowerPoint presentation created by the Missouri Municipal League — meaning, apparently, that city officials did not even consider the actual text of the proposed amendment, much less seek out any alternative interpretations. Instead, they resorted to the Orwellian suggestion that a constitutional amendment designed to protect the property rights of all Missourians would somehow be bad for property owners.

This should not be tolerated. Fortunately, it seems that some people have recognized this and are taking action. The Post-Dispatch reported just the other day that some citizens in Pacific, Mo., have demanded that their city withdraw from the Missouri Municipal League.

If enough people put pressure on their city governments to do the same, the Municipal League may have no other choice but to start respecting property rights instead of continuing their defense of eminent domain abuse.

The post Turning Your Money Against You, Part II appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week, MO-CPR filed a lawsuit challenging the secretary of state’s decision and asking the court to allow citizens to have their say on the issue. And, yesterday, the Missouri Municipal League — an organization that collects taxpayer dollars and purports to advance the interests of Missouri’s local governments — moved to block MO-CPR’s lawsuit.

A few choice tidbits from the Municipal League’s filing should allow citizens to evaluate the merits of its “concerns”:

• The league’s members argue that they should be allowed to intervene because they “have exercised the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for conveyance to private entities for commercial or other development to fight blight and other decay, and it is anticipated that they will continue to do so in the future.”
• The league opposes the amendments because they might require local governments to pay “just compensation for local land use regulations.” In other words, the cities would have to pay you if they passed a regulation that decreased the value of your property. While not included in their filing, a previous Municipal League analysis of the proposed amendments also worried that they would “significantly increase the amounts of condemnation awards” to citizens being dispossessed of their homes and businesses.
• The league is concerned that the amendments would require cities to get a court order before they destroyed or condemned property that they thought was a nuisance. While not mentioned in the league’s filing, the amendment would also require cities to give owners an opportunity to fix the problems themselves. I mean, why in the world should cities allow property owners the chance to remove the government’s pretext for giving their property to someone else? Honestly.
• The league doesn’t like that the amendments would “limit the use of eminent domain to the State or political subdivisions whose officials are directly responsible to elected officials.” This would, of course, allow voters to hold those responsible for using eminent domain accountable for their actions — a radical departure from current law, which allows many unelected, unaccountable organizations to take away private property.
• Despite justifying its involvement in part by complaining that confirming the number of proper signatures will be expensive, the league calls for the court to recount all 400,000+ signatures, not just the ones challenged by MO-CPR.

MO-CPR issued a press release in response to the Municipal League’s filing. Among the excellent points made in the release, my favorite is where Bevis Shock (a member of the Show-Me Institute’s board of directors) asks, “I wonder if the politicians who approved this legal action have considered how many residents of their cities signed our petition?”

The post “… and it is anticipated that they will continue to do so in the future.” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.