While we would argue that municipality size is certainly not everything, it is undeniable that many cities in Saint Louis County rely heavily on fines and court fees. One way of curtailing this sort of abuse is the rigorous implementation (or strengthening) of the Macks Creek law, which caps the amount of income a city can receive from traffic fines to 30 percent.

Missouri is preparing to audit some North Saint Louis County municipalities (along with cities in other counties) to ensure that they are not violating this law. However, the enforcement (or reform) of the Macks Creek law is up to statewide officials and voters. What’s more, if the law is vigorously enforced tiny municipalities might be forced to turn to large property tax increases or face insolvency. But local residents do not have to wait on statewide actions or accept a parasitic government. Voters can, and in the past did, disincorporate a city.

Under Missouri law, the residents can disincorporate their municipality if they: a. Gather 50 percent of residents’ signatures calling for an election on disincorporation; and b. 60 percent vote for disincorporation. At that point, the city would receive its basic services (including police and courts) from the county, unless they decide to join with another municipality.

Cities in Saint Louis County have disincorporated before, and recently. Just a few years ago, the poster child for a dysfunctional, traffic ticket-financed municipality was actually a middle-class, 95 percent white city in South Saint Louis County named Saint George. Major police scandals resulted in the city disbanding its police force, and residents ultimately voted to disincorporate in 2011. In 2013, the tiny (pop. 447) city of Uplands Park also held a vote on disincorporation, but that bid failed to reach the 60 percent mark.

The strategy of disincorporation is not without controversy. Loss of local representation, especially in areas with high minority populations, might be more worrying to some residents than fine-seeking officers. The approach also has limitations, as a municipality that funds decent public services mostly by fining pass-through traffic may serve voters’ interests while causing wider harm to the metropolitan area.

Most municipalities in Saint Louis County, including smaller ones, do not attempt to run their governments through aggressive police citations and court fees. However, residents should know that a local government that fails to provide for the common welfare (or openly harasses the poor) can be removed. A wider knowledge, if not actual use, of that option may result in more responsible city governance in Saint Louis County.

The post Saint Louis County Municipalities: Should More Consider Disincorporation? 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.

These arrests raise interesting questions of privacy expectations, free speech, differing state laws, and, as Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko has noted, your right to petition the government. This panel discussion is our attempt to explore the issues of liberty at stake, as well as provide the opportunity for anyone who is interested to meet the panelists and to ask questions.

The discussion will begin at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, August 20, at the Show-Me Institute’s office at 4512 W. Pine Blvd in the Central West End of Saint Louis. Please RSVP either by email to info@showmeinstitute.org, by phone to (314) 454-0647, or by commenting on this blog entry.

The event is free and snacks will be provided. However, because Liberty on Tour is traveling across the country, we suggest a $5 to $10 donation to help pay for the group’s travel costs.

Our star-studded panel includes:

• Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre of Liberty on Tour, a project to tour 13 cities in 13 weeks to talk about the principles of voluntaryism. Adam is also a founder of Cop Block, an organization devoted to watchdogging police officers who break the law. Pete Eyre currently works for the Future of Freedom Foundation, which advocates for individual liberty, free markets, private property rights, and limited government. Both Adam and Pete were part of the Motorhome Diaries project.
• Redditt Hudson, of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Redditt is a former Saint Louis police officer, and part of his work at the ACLU is to lead workshops that educate people about their rights under the law, including practical advice about how to interact with the police.
• John Payne, a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, will be moderating the discussion. John has argued for greater transparency and recording of SWAT raids in Missouri, and follows issues of civil asset forfeiture closely.

If you have the time, please drop by, and don’t hesitate to bring questions! The panelists will speak briefly about their perspectives on recording the police, and then we will open up the discussion for questions from the general public. After about an hour of discussion, we will move the group to Sasha’s on Shaw for dinner and drinks.

If you can’t make it, you can send questions you’d like asked to info@showmeinstitute.org, tweet them to @showmeinstitute, or post questions on the event’s Facebook wall. Finally, we will film the discussion and post it online for those who cannot attend.

The post Recording the Police and Your Rights: A Panel Discussion With Liberty on Tour and the ACLU appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As Radley Balko puts it, “this wasn’t a ‘botched raid.’ It was a routine raid. The police got the correct house. They found the guy they were after. They arrested him. No one was killed. Most of these raids don’t turn up huge stashes of drugs or weapons. Most result in misdemeanor charges.”

There is some reason to hope that — in Columbia, at least — using SWAT teams for nonviolent crimes will become the exception rather than the rule. Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton concedes that the department has “utilized SWAT routinely in circumstances and situations where we should not,” and promises that new reforms should cause the number of SWAT raids to “plummet.” Those reforms should be strengthened and expanded statewide to help ensure that SWAT teams are used for the intended purposes and not to shock and awe nonviolent people.

The post Columbia SWAT Officers Cleared appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am a US Army officer, currently serving in Afghanistan. My first thought on reading this story is this: Most American police SWAT teams probably have fewer restrictions on conducting forced entry raids than do US forces in Afghanistan.

For our troops over here to conduct any kind of forced entry, day or night, they have to meet one of two conditions: have a bad guy (or guys) inside actively shooting at them; or obtain permission from a 2-star general, who must be convinced by available intelligence (evidence) that the person or persons they’re after is present at the location, and that it’s too dangerous to try less coercive methods. The general can be pretty tough to convince, too. (I’m a staff liason, and one of my jobs is to present these briefings to obtain the required permission.)

Generally, our troops, including the special ops guys, use what we call “cordon and knock”: they set up a perimeter around the target location to keep people from moving in or out,and then announce their presence and give the target an opportunity to surrender. In the majority of cases, even if the perimeter is established at night, the call out or knock on the gate doesn’t happen until after the sun comes up.

Oh, and all of the bad guys we’re going after are closely tied to killing and maiming people.

What might be amazing to American cops is that the vast majority of our targets surrender when called out.

I don’t have a clear picture of the resources available to most police departments, but even so, I don’t see any reason why they can’t use similar methods.

I can’t personally vouch for anything this officer claims about Army protocol, but if what he claims is true, it’s very disturbing.

The post SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A recent demonstration by the Missouri State Highway Patrol SWAT team had students ducking for cover and later upset at least one parent.

On April 8, about 27 students — mostly high school juniors and seniors — were taking part in a Student Alliance Program course in the highway patrol hangar at the Jefferson City airport. As part of a demonstration by Troop F, a SWAT officer rolled a “flashbang” grenade under the seats of the students without their knowledge.

The grenade, a non-lethal weapon used to stun or divert the attention of criminals when tactical teams enter a building, went off, emitting a loud noise, a burst of light and smoke.

Thankfully, no one was seriously injured, but if police officers have become so desensitized to flashbangs that this can be considered normal behavior, the SWAT team is raiding far too many houses.

Via Radley Balko.

The post In Their Defense, Kids Do Love Explosions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We have all undoubtedly felt overworked and underpaid, and during a recession, the proportion of the labor force feeling this way has surely increased. As Judge Price pointed out, those who make some of the most important decisions throughout the entire criminal justice system — state prosecutors — are being spread thin. This is a worrying state of affairs if we want prosecutors to make well-considered decisions. People work better when they are happier — it’s as simple as that.

One of the most pressing issues mentioned in Judge Price’s address is the state’s overspending on the incarceration of nonviolent criminals, something that Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne mentioned in an earlier blog post. This is a situation resulting from too many restrictive laws that have resulted in the criminalization of nonviolent offenses, such as transactions involving drugs, alcohol, and even prostitution. Regardless of how one feels about the morality of such activities, it’s hard to justify expending so many resources on their prosecution when the core functions of the judicial system — protecting life, liberty, and property from actual direct, measurable harm — is suffering from a lack of resources.

Too many people are being arrested and tried for crimes that have no complaining victim. As Reason editor Radley Balko has observed, “Because there is almost never a complaining victim in vice crimes, law enforcement officers must go to extraordinary lengths to investigate and prosecute these crimes. This leads to all sorts of other problems, including invasions of privacy, entrapment, and police corruption.” The situation has also led to inconsistency in prosecution throughout Missouri. The toughest counties are prosecuting five times as many offenders as the most lenient counties.

Judge Price has has offered a rather convincing reason to change these policies, and to decrease the rate of prosecution and incarceration of nonviolent criminals — because we can’t pay for it. What’s even more convincing is that we cannot afford to pay for the proper treatment and rehabilitation for these offenders. Price outlines how poorly the system treats people who haven’t directly harmed anybody else, by tearing them from their lives, throwing them in a “concrete box with very expensive guards, feeding them, providing them with expensive medical care, surrounding them with hardened criminals for long periods of time, and separating them from their families who need them and could otherwise help them[.]” What’s worse, while in prison, some of them are being trained by full-fledged violent criminals on how to further divide themselves from mainstream society. These people are also citizens, and deserve to be given a chance to reintegrate into society.

Price provides some sobering numbers:

In 1994, shortly after I came to the Court, the number of nonviolent offenders in Missouri prisons was 7,461. Today it’s 14,204. That’s almost double. In 1994, the number of new commitments for nonviolent offenses was 4,857. Last year, it was 7,220 — again, almost double. At a rate of $16,432 per offender, we currently are spending $233.4 million a year to incarcerate nonviolent offenders … not counting the investment in the 10 prisons it takes to hold these individuals at $100 million per prison. In 1994, appropriations to the Department of Corrections totaled $216,753,472. Today, it’s $670,079,452. The amount has tripled. And the recidivism rate for these individuals, who are returned to prison within just two years, is 41.6 percent.

Price observes that if the state government were run like a business, these wasteful practices would have been done away with years ago. “Business” may not be the most convincing metaphor to use, because one of the classic economic justifications of government action, particularly the justice system, is that public goods are not optimally provided by markets. Some economists, however, have suggested that many aspects of government action that are commonly justified in terms of their status as public goods, including some within the justice system, can’t correctly be considered public goods:

The standard economics approach to delineating the optimal set of the state’s functions is unsatisfactory.² In particular, when economists such as Joseph Stiglitz (1988: 24) indicate that “a primary role of government” is to provide the legal framework “within which all economic transactions occur,” not much is said about the desired content of the laws, and how it might affect the desirability or efficiency of their enforcement. Besides, there is typically no mention of nonstate enforcement mechanisms and their relationship to those of the state. The impression is created that all conflict resolution in economic life is in the unavoidable domain of the state. That impression is in contrast with the empirical evidence (see, e.g., Greif 1997, Gow and Swinnen 2001, and Waldmeir 2001).

This confusion is related to the use that is made of the concept of public goods as being nonrival in consumption and nonexclusive (Samuelson 1954: 387–89). If these goods are to be provided at all, taxes and the related state’s coercion are necessary. However, which goods are truly public? Is the justice system the domain of the state because the relevant services are a public good? Clearly, that cannot be said of all such services. Then, which “justice services” constitute a public good? Is the lighthouse, the favorite textbook example of a public good, a public good? Ronald Coase (1974) has shown that lighthouses in 19th century Britain were operated and financed privately. This finding, however, has not prevented the lighthouse to continue serving as the primary example of a public good in many textbooks (e.g., Stiglitz 1988: 75).

There may be fewer public goods in real life than typically assumed. As a result, the necessary (or desirable) scope of the state’s activity may be narrower, too. Some of the goods declared “public” may in fact be private goods, pushed into the state’s domain by public intervention that has eliminated or undercut the possibility of voluntary private financing of these goods. In other words, some uses of the theoretical concept of public goods may inadvertently constitute ex post justifications for the results of previous expansion of state activity.

Judge Price is not an economist, but by questioning whether the routine prosecution and incarceration of nonviolent offenders for committing consensual crimes actually provides more value than cost for the people of Missouri, this may well be the type of argument he was trying to make, using different terminology. Price is suggesting that it’s time for a more thorough analysis of which interests are truly being served by prosecuting many types of nonviolent offenders, and whether such prosecution actually provides results that could be considered a public good. His address doesn’t contain all the answers, but it’s the starting point for a worthy debate.

In times of fiscal crisis, it sometimes becomes necessary to embark upon a new policy path, and welcome changes that we might otherwise avoid. Whether Judge Price’s recommendations are inspired by a concern for justice or for more practical financial reasons, this would be a positive step for the government to take. The judiciary appears to be willing to do its part in order to withstand the jolts of the recession, but are the other branches of government also up to the task?

The post Judge Suggests That Missouri Should Be Run Like a Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.