Far from it. Of the 77 U.S. cities that KPMG ranked (which was not exhaustive of all major metros), Saint Louis ranked 45th and Kansas City ranked 46th. Among the cities cheaper than Saint Louis (and Kansas City) are regional competitors like Nashville, Omaha, Cincinnati, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Oklahoma City, to name a few. Worse yet, Saint Louis was more expensive than all 18 Southeastern cities KPMG looked at, from Atlanta to New Orleans.

So where did the Post-Dispatch get a top ten ranking for Saint Louis? If we only consider regions with populations greater than two million (of which KPMG ranked 31), Saint Louis is the 9th cheapest. I will leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Saint Louis should pat itself on back for being cheaper than New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, when it has higher costs for businesses than Nashville, Memphis, and just about every other regional competitor. But if we do decide to use population as criteria, it seems more justified to look at metros with populations similar to those of Saint Louis and Kansas City (between two and three million residents). When we do that, Saint Louis is 7th and Kansas City is 8th out of 14 such cities. That seems awfully middling.

That’s probably why, if one reads the study that the Post-Dispatch reports on, they’ll find that it does not claim that Saint Louis is among the most competitive cities in the country. KPMG didn’t even break down cities by population in the study, choosing instead to do so by region.  The Post-Dispatch story (while citing the study) is actually based on an ancillary KPMG press release, which lauds Cincinnati, and is careful to note context.

Titling an article “St. Louis among most cost-competitive cities for business, report says” when the report in question says no such thing is a questionable decision for a newspaper of record. But this is not just a problem with the headline. The article itself is equally misleading, and it was not a headline writer who placed this story front and center on the Post-Dispatch’s website less than a week before a vote on multiple tax issues (where the city’s business climate is an issue). 

The post Report: Saint Louis, Kansas City *Not* Among Most Cost-Friendly Cities for Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I taught at an urban, historically African-American Catholic school, St. Jude Educational Institute on the west side of Montgomery, Alabama. After 76 years of operation it closed its doors 2014, following the path of many other inner-city Catholic schools. 

You should be worried about urban Catholic schools closing, as they have for decades succeeded where other schools have failed.  Surveying the research, economist Derek Neal wrote, “Although many questions remain unanswered, one result seems clear. Black and Hispanic students in large cities often have the most to gain from private schooling, in particular, Catholic schooling.”

But the story of Catholic schools in America today is not all doom and gloom. Echoing what my good friend Andy Smarick wrote in National Review earlier this week, there are in fact, several promising trends in contemporary Catholic education. I’d like to highlight three:

1. Innovative management strategies. Many dioceses have not kept up with the changing times. Some still rely on parish-based schools tied to neighborhoods whose demographics of both children and parishioners are changing. Others have decided to keep open a large number of under-enrolled schools rather than consolidate resources into a smaller number of more viable schools. Our Lady Queen of Angels is a great example of a school under creative leadership. It is part of the Partnership for Inner City Education, a management consortium of 6 urban Catholic schools in New York. The partnership has a laser-like focus on providing a great education for low-income students, and supplements the Archdiocese, which already has its hands full managing its diverse portfolio of schools. Organizations like this (which already exist in Washington DC, Philadelphia, and elsewhere) can help bring a much more coherent strategy to urban Catholic education and stretch limited dollars the furthest.
2. Blended Learning. Multiple Catholic-school organizations have been working on blended learning models, which can help schools control personnel costs, a huge driver in the increase in the cost of Catholic schooling as the teacher workforce has shifted from priests and religious sisters to lay men and women. Seton Education Partners has implemented a blended learning model at six Catholic schools in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. The University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education has piloted a blended learning school in Seattle. Even the much-vaunted Cristo Rey network has started a blended learning school in San Jose, California. These could change the delivery model of Catholic education, lower its cost, and make it available for more and more students.
3. School Choice. Probably the single most promising development in Catholic education over the past two decades has been the emergence and growth of private school choice programs. Catholic schools in Indiana, Florida, and Wisconsin have swelled with students attending with state support in the form of a school voucher, tuition tax credit scholarship, or education savings account. Nationwide, enrollment in school choice programs has grown from less than 30,000 students in 2000 to over 300,000 today. That said, if more low- and middle-income students are going to be able to take advantage of a Catholic school education, more states will need to create or expand these programs.

It was the prophet Jeremiah who said “in this place of which you say it is a waste, there will be heard again the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness. The voices of those who sing.” For years now, many observers have written off Catholic schools as dying institutions that had failed to keep up with the changing times. But across America, voices are singing.

The post Pope Francis Is Visiting a Catholic School. Maybe You Should, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, in February 2011, Wyandotte County and a wrecking company destroyed the property. Munoz is suing for damages.

The story seems like a shocking outlier. But, just months ago, there was a similar demolition east across the state line, in Missouri.

Show-Me Daily readers may already be familiar with the Jackson County Land Trust, the government entity that deals with vacant land in Kansas City. State legislators have criticized the Land Trust for not selling much property. But, in at least one case, the Land Trust sold a property to a buyer, only to have to deal with the consequences when Kansas City accidentally demolished the property.

During its January 2012 meeting, the Land Trust noted that:

. . . an elderly non-English speaking gentleman purchased 3914 E. 46^th Street from Land Trust. Unbeknownst to the buyer, about 30 days subsequent to his purchase, the city demolished the structure on the property. . . . the buyer is interested in 3227 Garfield as a potential alternative and that the buyer may be approaching Land Trust for resolution.

Sadly, when local government gets enthusiastic about demolishing properties in an attempt to mitigate “blight,” property owners can lose their homes. An example in Montgomery, Ala., provides another cautionary tale. There, homes were bulldozed for ordinance violations. To add insult to injury, property owners were then billed for the cost of the demolition.

Is it too much to ask for local government to do a little more due diligence before knocking down someone’s property?

The post Oops! Sorry About Demolishing Your Property appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kansas City Star’s editorial board wrote recently that the city should deal with vacant houses and buildings more aggressively, by putting vacant properties that are deemed a nuisance into new hands (“To protect neighborhoods, KC must enforce law on vacant properties,” Sept. 22). By turning to such extreme measures, the city runs the risk of implementing a policy that will push people out of their homes or deprive them of their property so that others of the government’s choosing can take over. In Montgomery, Ala., a city with a similar policy, property owners found their homes bulldozed. In one instance, a construction site was razed.

The Kansas City ordinance in question is designed to deal with a large number of vacant properties in the city, and it leaves a great deal of discretion in the hands of city’s Neighborhood and Community Services Department. Under this law, the department is responsible for recommending properties to take over, and can even suggest a new city-appointed caretaker. The department effectively has the power to take property from one person and give it to someone else.

Awarding this power to the department will enable special interests to mold the process in their favor. The law could be manipulated in a number of ways, starting with the definition of vacancy. This “vacant” property law specifically notes, for example, that apartment buildings with five or more units can be considered vacant if a majority of the units are unoccupied — meaning that a building may be deemed vacant despite having residents. This strange definition of vacancy means that apartment residents can be caught up in the process and find themselves without a home.

Furthermore, the structure of the ordinance lends itself to selective enforcement. It is inconceivable that the department has the time to file the necessary paperwork to transfer ownership of all vacant properties in Kansas City. Instead, it is likely that the department will start to enforce this ordinance against properties that are particularly desirable to well-connected developers. Despite the requirement that the city notify property owners at least 60 days before beginning the taking process, property owners may not receive notice of the impending confiscation — a common oversight in Montgomery.

Finally, it’s not guaranteed that that the city will be successful in transferring property to owners that are more responsible. The ordinance only guarantees that someone will attempt to match properties with “better” owners. No person is so omniscient that she can predict accurately who will be a better, more successful property owner. Similar attempts to predict future success have resulted in both a vacant property logjam and unused luxury office space in the city of Saint Louis.

There are good ways to fight vacancy. Taking on additional power to seize land from private owners isn’t one of them.

Audrey Spalding is the public information specialist for the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

The post Blighting and Taking Private Property Not the Right Fix for Vacancies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Radley Balko, of Reason magazine, recently wrote about the reprehensible actions of Montgomery officials in Slate. From the article:

Over the last decade or so, dozens—perhaps hundreds—of homes in Montgomery have been declared blighted and razed in a similar manner. The owners tend to be disproportionately poor and black, and with little means to fight back. […]

Alabama state law actually forbids the use of eminent domain for private development. Instead, Montgomery deems property blighted based on a section of state law that gives code inspectors wide leeway. The owner must then correct the problem to the satisfaction of the inspectors, or the city will […] [r]aze the property, bill the owner for the demolition, and then sell the property off to developers if the owner doesn’t pay. If you can’t afford repairs, you may well lose your home.

Terrifying. Not only will the city bulldoze your home for ordinance violations, but you will then have to pay for the destruction, and try to figure out what to do with your newly vacant land. As Balko points out in the article, this is actually worse than eminent domain. If the city takes your property through eminent domain, it at least has to pay for it.

The city of Montgomery has the power to do this by first issuing an ordinance violation citation, and then blighting the property, which enables the city to begin the condemnation process. That blight designation is key. Unfortunately, vague statutory language can enable overzealous city officials to blight property otherwise in good condition.

I used to think of “blight” as a word reserved for the very worst properties — those that are falling down, or, in the case of the city of Saint Louis, buildings that have been hollowed out by brick thieves. However, the city of Saint Louis recently demonstrated that a property can be blighted for any number of reasons. My favorite example, from the massive blighting done to enable the award of $400 million in tax increment financing for a large development project,  is that of New Roots, an urban farm in north Saint Louis that was deemed blighted because of “excessive vegetation.” Also on the egregious blighting list is the ABC news station on 13th Street, which was blighted because the building is more than 30 years old, though the property is appraised at nearly $700,000.

Missouri state statute defines a blighted area as an area which may have:

[…] predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use;

Some of the above definitions of blight are fairly concrete, but others are excessively vague. For example, what exactly “constitutes an economic or social liability”? What is a “menace” to “morals”? The vagueness in the referenced statute allows for the blighting of property such as the ABC news station for something pervasive in an old city — older buildings.

Bottom line: The city of Montgomery is a perfect illustration of the fact that a blight designation is not harmless. It can be a step in the direction of taking, or even bulldozing, a person’s home.

The post Yikes! Blight! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.