For example, why do all food truck employees have to wear an ID badge with a passport-quality photo on it? Restaurant employees don’t have to do that. That regulation seems insane, and at least some members of the board of aldermen appear to agree. As a Riverfront Times (RIP) reporter described it:

Committee members were shocked. When it was time for questions, Ward 8 Alderwoman Cara Spencer began with this: “My first question is, are you — and then there’s an expletive — kidding me.”

Show-Me Institute analysts have been writing about food regulation issues for years. In fact, we may have done more videos on food trucks than any other topic. It’s a great topic for us because it perfectly encapsulates how entrenched interests (in this case, restaurants) and their allies in government have worked together to stop a popular new way of doing business.

But back to the city. I think one of the reasons why the aldermen were so surprised by the level of red tape food trucks deal with is that they didn’t intend for it to be this difficult. But when you read the current legislation, one thing jumps out at you. The current ordinance governing food trucks gives the street director, the parks director, and the license collector authority to institute further rules they deem necessary. Here is one example from the ordinance (section 5.M):

The Director of Streets shall formulate any additional rules and regulations necessary for the proper administration of this chapter. Rules and regulations shall be maintained in the office of the Director of Streets and shall be available for public inspection during ordinary business hours.

This isn’t a hypothetical issue. The question of how legislators grant authority to regulators to set law is the subject of a major supreme court case right now. President Eisenhower stated that engineers went far beyond his original intentions with the Interstate Highway System by including intra-city highways without his knowledge, as just one example of this problem.

It may sometimes be necessary for elected officials to trust regulators to set rules under wide authority. However, there is serious risk to this approach. The idea that regulators are setting these rules fairly outside of their own system of pressure, bias or favoritism is hard to believe.

I hope the city will address the overregulation of food trucks with this excellent, newly proposed bill. After, all, it’s probably time for us to make another video . . .

The post Why Exactly Do Food Truck Workers Need a Passport Photo? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now St. Louis faces a different proposal on building a soccer stadium. The exact details remain unknown, but according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it requires:

• $30 million in state tax credits
• A 3 percent sales tax on purchases at the stadium to back bonds for construction
• A full tax exemption on construction materials used to build the stadium
• A 50 percent break on ticket taxes

Danny Wicentowski at the Riverfront Times makes the Show-Me Institute’s point for us:

But the fact that this plan even exists should put to rest what critics considered the central deception of the 2017 push: That public money was the only way to get a professional sports team to consider St. Louis.

Indeed, the 2017 ownership group, helmed by [project partner David] Peacock, repeatedly emphasized that public buy-in was the only path forward, and maintained that $60 million in public funds were absolutely necessary to satisfy the league. The league’s commissioner, Don Garber, added to the pressure, remarking on a conference call that a public vote on the monetary outlay would represent a “referendum” on whether the city really wanted a team.

It may very well be the case that the deal before taxpayers now is better than the deal that was placed before them in 2017. It certainly seems so. But the new proposal still seeks public participation to the tune of tens of millions of dollars that will not go to the city and the state.

Maybe this is the best deal Missourians can get. But then we were told the same thing back in 2017, weren’t we?

The post Is This Really the Least Bad Deal to Build a Soccer Stadium? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The statement that the developer of the Argyle Building apartments in the Central West End applied for tax increment financing (TIF) from the city in order to build a parking garage is incorrect.

The property on which the parking garage now sits was sold to the City of Saint Louis by the developer. The City then publicly funded the construction of the parking garage. The developer did not apply for the TIF for the garage.

The Show Me Institute and the authors of the paper apologize for the error. The essay has been removed from publication in order that the authors can review and address errors in the essay.

The post Correction to Saint Louis TIF essay appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As reported in the Riverfront Times, four University of Missouri researchers blinded a half dozen beagles, who "were just nine to twelve months at the time they endured the experiment." The researchers then killed the dogs and harvested the eyes after the study (published this past April) proved inconclusive. While it seems like an open question in the media, why the researchers didn't try to adopt out the dogs seems pretty straightforward: that is, they probably couldn't have kept the dogs' eyes if the dogs were alive. Yes, explaining blind dogs to potential adopters isn’t easy, but it’s doable. Explaining dogs whose eyes have been surgically removed? That’s a public relations lift that the University probably wanted to avoid if it could. 

As a dog owner and supporter of a local rescue, I find the entire story gross and grotesque. But the problems don't stop there. A nonprofit that works on behalf of beagles like these wanted to get records related to the University's testing on these dogs and others, but the University wants to make that nearly impossible. 

Kolde had previously filed a lawsuit against Mizzou on behalf of the Beagle Freedom Project, seeking records relating to the university's care of beagles. The non-profit sought basic records that Mizzou is required by law to maintain. Yet the university sought to charge it $82,222 — as much as $7 a page. [Emphasis mine]

The University of Missouri is a public institution, so it should be easy for taxpayers to access both the details of courses the University teaches and the research its employees conduct. I appreciate the value that can come from research with live animals, and I am not suggesting that it all stop. But if the University is going to conduct this sort of research, it should be done transparently so that taxpayers can judge whether they think that money, spent in their name is being wisely and ethically invested. In this case, taxpayers have ample cause for concern, and Mizzou once again isn't helping its cause.

The post Mizzou Researchers Blind and Kill Puppies, University Demands Tens of Thousands for Related Records appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the past, when companies or individuals violated MTC policies, police in Saint Louis City and County enforced the commission’s rulings by ticketing drivers. That is, after all, how the region responded to Lyft in 2014. However, Saint Louis City has flatly refused to use its police to block Uber, and police in Saint Louis County haven’t done much either. While the MTC could have used its very limited law enforcement capacity to attack Uber in 2015, the commission found itself in the midst of a public relations nightmare, with the state legislature seemingly ready to step in and completely overhaul the MTC. As a result, Uber now operates in Saint Louis, the police do nothing, and the MTC (while reiterating that Uber is acting illegally) keeps its head down.

 Now that the state legislature has failed either to reform the MTC or implement statewide ridesharing regulations, and with the unprofessionalism of MTC commissioners fading into memory, the taxi commission is reportedly planning to remind everyone who runs this town. As the Riverfront Times reports, the commission will begin seeking out UberX drivers and citing them for operating without a commission license. If such an act does not prompt Uber to shut down its services in the region altogether, it may seriously diminish the number of people willing drive for the company.

Whether or not the MTC will follow through on its threats is an open question. But what Saint Louisans should recognize by this time is that Uber, operating outside the regulatory framework of the MTC, has provided an innovative new service for all Saint Louis residents for almost a year. Where is the evidence that Uber is dangerous? Where are the market failures that the MTC needs to correct? From what we’ve seen so far, it seems that the ridesharing market operates just fine without the MTC.       

The post Uber Under Threat in Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the 1990s, private developers partnered with members of the Olivette City Council to endorse the implementation of a $38 million in the area just west of the intersection of I-170 and Olive Blvd. Due to the threat of eminent domain and several years of unresolved negotiations, local homeowners were left in the lurch about the status of their property. Finally, in 2000, Olivette residents voted in a referendum against the project with a margin of 53.5 to 46.5 percent (absolute numbers are 1,656-1,435) to defeat the TIF proposal.

Supporters of the TIF proposal argued that it was the only way for Olivette to compete and generate new tax revenues. At the time, the
Riverfront Times reported on the debate about this tax subsidy. After the TIF was defeated, what happened? Were the TIF supporters correct? Was a taxpayer-subsidized mega-project the only way to save the area?

Not surprisingly, the TIF supporters were completely wrong. By letting the free market have control over real estate development, the area has experienced a period of sustainable economic progress and revitalization. A bustling Chevys Fresh Mex restaurant continues to thrive. A CVS Pharmacy that opened in 2009 was built without public subsidies. Most notably, the area’s previously existing homes are well maintained, and a new, post-TIF, housing development?— The Villas at Hilltop?— offers upscale townhome-style living. 

Rather than enduring the forfeiture of tax revenues, as would have occurred under the TIF proposal, these properties naturally generate income for local government services instead. The Chevys, CVS, and Villas together are appraised for a noteworthy $11,329,300 and paid $212,355.48 in property taxes in 2012. Additionally, between the years of 1993-1995 and 2005-2007, Olivette’s average sales tax receipts increased more than 143 percent ($1,022,382 to $2,487,038) and its total share of the state’s tax receipts largely stayed the same as well, at about 0.5 percent. The private land developers and their allies on the Olivette City Council warned that TIF funding was absolutely necessary in order to stimulate economic growth. But does this area look blighted to you?

More from the Show-Me Institute on Tax Increment Financing:

• Stokes on KWMU – TIF Hurts Communities
• The Use of Tax Increment Financing in the City of Saint Louis
• Counties, Not Municipalities, Should Determine TIFs

•  (PDF)

The post The Tax Subsidy That Wasn’t appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Motorists driving along roadways maintained by the Missouri Department of Transportation could receive fewer red-light camera tickets if preliminary reports from Arnold ring true statewide.

Beginning in February, MoDOT began changing the yellow-light signal times throughout Arnold, where all the city’s red-light cameras happen to be along state-controlled roads. In general, the change to the signals has lengthened the amount of time for yellow lights.

For example, motorists traveling southbound through the intersection of Highway 141 and Astra Way now have 1.6 seconds more yellow time — from 4 seconds to 5.6 seconds. MoDOT has also changed the length of time that all signals at an intersection appear red, generally giving intersections a bit more time to clear all cars before changing lights.

In so doing, Arnold has experienced an unintended consequence — the number of red-light runners has plummeted since MoDOT made the changes.

In January, the city issued 691 red-light camera citations, according to information obtained from a city council member. By March, the number of citations had dropped to 263. Last month, the vendor that operates Arnold’s red-light cameras — American Traffic Solutions — confirms that it issued just 198 citations. That’s a drop of 72 percent from the number of citations issued in January.

The Show-Me Institute has a long history of opposing red light cameras, particularly given the cameras’ questionable effectiveness in preventing accidents yet prodigious aptitude for raising money for cities. Lately, though, Missouri’s red light camera industry has been traversing rocky judicial and legislative roads. Earlier this month, policy analyst David Stokes astutely reviewed one court ruling in Saint Louis that could very well cripple the use of red light camera systems in the city. His analysis:

It will probably take an act of the legislature to declare unequivocally that red light camera programs are invalid as a matter of state law, but the red light camera issue may, for all practical purposes, be resolved by adjusting the signals where the cameras sit. The roads in Missouri may be getting a great deal safer, just by adding a little more time to yellow lights — a simple, nearly costless solution to an important issue of public safety.

Cities must be elated. After all, “safety” was the driving purpose behind their use of these cameras anyway, right?

Right?

The post Could a Longer Yellow Mean Less Green in City Coffers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here’s the back story: Evidently, government officials decided that two runways weren’t enough for Lambert. Construction on the runway began in 1998, and it continued despite several setbacks. (As the Riverfront Times aptly put it, “Still, the bulldozers rolled on.”) Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Trans World Airlines went bankrupt and American Airlines bought it. In 2003, American Airlines cut its operations in half at Lambert, and revoked the airport’s hub status. In the meantime, people flew far less than projected.

Unfortunately for Missouri taxpayers, this story doesn’t have a happy ending. The new runway did not reduce delays. Plus, with each passing year, Lambert saw fewer takeoffs and landings. Just one year after the new runway was built, only 5 percent of flights used it. Several airlines asked to avoid using the new runway altogether. Because it was built so far away from the terminal, planes had to taxi as many as three miles to the terminal, burning more fuel.

Not only did the project fail to bring the traffic it promised, it tore apart the city of Bridgeton. Government officials used eminent domain to move seven major roads, kick 6,000 people out of their homes, and bulldoze six churches and four schools in order to make room for a third runway.

Government does not have a good track record in steering economic development — particularly in the Saint Louis area. Studies repeatedly show that they fail to produce the results that they promise. Most recently, the East-West Gateway Council of Governments concluded that the Saint Louis government has provided $5.8 billion in subsidies to private development in the city, but doesn’t have much to show for it.

Expanding the airport didn’t work then, and there’s no compelling reason to believe that it will work now. (Remember: No formal agreement has been signed, nor has any study been completed.) Lawmakers are in danger of repeating the same mistakes, so they should take a longer look at this.

We have a shared goal: an economy that is thriving and attractive to new businesses. Lawmakers are sticking the same old policies (tax credits!) — even though they have been shown to fail. If lawmakers in Missouri were serious about growing the economy, they would abandon the failed policies of the past and take a different strategy.

The post Airport Expansion Failed in the Past; Why Will This Time Be Any Different? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I thought of this movie when I read a blog post that tells the very personal story of an inspiring small business owner. Without government grants, tax credits, or artificial incentives of any kind, David “Cranky Dave” Wolk saved his money and built up, ex nihilo, his own business — a gathering place and venue for artists and their creations. Like the vigilante HVAC man, Cranky Dave filled a niche for artists and the community and apparently did at least well enough to keep the doors open. Now things are getting difficult for him as Saint Louis city chases after his unpaid earnings tax bill (when he says he had no earnings) and simultaneously cites him for not having a separate trash bin for his business (he says he was using the one for his residence, which is in the same building and that he upcycles much of the trash produced by his business, incorporating it into art and craft projects).

As if this one-two punch of local government interventions on his business weren’t enough, the Riverfront Times reports that he is also being pursued for back taxes at the state level. Cranky Dave wants to make things right with the law, but he didn’t even know that the things he’s being cited for were problems. Will Cranky Dave be devoured by government paperwork like Harry Tuttle literally was at the end of Brazil? Is there room for honest, hardworking small businessmen in the city of Saint Louis?

Of course, Cranky Dave’s blog tells his side of the story, and perhaps the people he’s dealing with at city hall would tell another. The RFT found in their inquiries nothing remarkably different from the picture that Cranky Dave painted. Be sure to check out their blog post for more details.

What makes a business work? What grows an economy? These are not easy questions, although lawmakers and thoughtful people have struggled for easy answers almost as far back as historical records go. One thing that most can agree on is that healthy businesses grow the economy and serve the community. Most can also agree that it takes dedication and drive on the part of an entrepreneur to make their business reach and stay in the black.

Cranky Dave’s struggle is only one example, but it’s representative of an important principle. Bold, entrepreneurial individuals and hardworking community folks are what put products in the hands of customers and serve the people around them. The more that lawmakers do to get in the way, even with simple-sounding things like “you need a separate, commercial trash bin,” the more strain it places on fragile new businesses. To encourage local community and business growth, this is one time that a hands-off government attitude would clearly benefit not only Cranky Dave or the folks who are helping to keep Cranky Yellow alive, but anyone else with a dream and the will to make it happen. We’re pretty far from the world depicted in the film Brazil, but it still wouldn’t hurt to make things easier on the very people who are trying to make a difference.

The post Cranky Yellow Quaffs Bitter Bureaucracy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I recently highlighted how government can get in the way of a person and her pizza slice. A couple of Show-Me Daily commenters said that the food truck wasn’t banned from Edwardsville — its operators simply failed to apply for a permit.

According to a Riverfront Times article about the incident:

Reached for comment, Pi co-owner Chris Sommers forwarded us along to Fond owner and chef Amy Zupanci, who’d invited the pizza truck to park outside her restaurant. In return for her Welcome Wagon treatment, Zupanci received a call from the health department yesterday, and an in-person visit from an Edwardsville police captain.

“The Madison County Health Department says they don’t allow trucks of any kind to serve food,” Zupanci writes in an e-mail. “However, they also have a policy of no inspection necessary as long as you have a health certificate for ‘non-consecutive food events.’ This would include festivals, farmers’ markets, etc., which may happen once a week, but not back-to-back days.”

Reasoning that under that definition the Pi truck is an “event,” Zupanci inquired about a so-called Transient Merchant permit but hit a dead end: The health department directed her to the police department, which informed her that permits involving food must be approved by…the health department.

This doesn’t tell us that the truck is de jure banned, but it can be interpreted as a de facto bureaucratic ban if public officials refuse to award the certificate required to conduct business.

Enforcing food safety is the ostensible goal of requiring permits. Nobody’s arguing against food safety — I’m certainly not. I’ve contracted food poisoning before, and I felt like I was going to die. I wouldn’t wish food poisoning on anyone — not even on a Keynesian.

However, excessive permit requirements can create a barrier to entry in the market, and keeping a number of competitors out of the market may be the unstated goal of the regulation. My friend and colleague Josh Smith explains the negative effects of this in a comment on my previous blog post:

When a local government requires some level of oversight for vendors, can it be called a “ban”? Perhaps not. If it is the case, however, that the Pi truck is not allowed to sell food in Edwardsville without the approval (through a form, or some other process) of the government, this constitutes an infringement on the right of the Pi truck to sell and the Edwardsville pizza customers to buy.

Even if this layer of bureaucracy seems small, it’s often small changes that have unfortunate marginal effects on markets. What seems like a simple matter to some may be not worth it to others.

Reputation capital can serve as an alternative (and perhaps more reliable) means of signaling quality and safety than a certificate from a local health board — a certificate that likely doesn’t signal much of anything in the way of rigorous investigation of potential health hazards. Dan Klein at the Cato Institute has published a good piece on the subject, “How Trust Is Achieved in Free Markets.”

The post Which Is Government Protecting: Consumers From Food Poisoning, or Existing Businesses From Competition? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This one rule encompasses the worst of all worlds: an overbearing nanny state, the belief that the government has the right to dictate such rules to families and private businesses, and legislation that now makes it even easier for young people out of college to further delay adulthood.

The post The Riverfront Times Nails It on Health Care appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The discussion will begin at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 9,
at the Show-Me Institute Office at 4512 W. Pine.
Please RSVP either by email, to info@showmeinstitute.org,
or by phone at (314) 454-0647,
or by commenting on this blog post.

Sen. Lembke, who represents part of the city of Saint Louis and Saint Louis County, has spoken out against the use of red light cameras, on the grounds that they entail the presumption of guilt. As he said in a Post-Dispatch article, “[the use of red light cameras] takes liberty away in that there’s no other crime that I know of on the books where I as a citizen am guilty until I prove my innocence.”

Alderman French, who represents the 21st ward, has been campaigning hard to have surveillance cameras set up near high-crime areas in his ward. In the Riverfront Times blog, French explained that the crime is coming from a small group of people, and that surveillance cameras might deter that activity. From the RFT:

“It’s the same group of bad guys doing bad things,” French says. “We’ll advertise the hell out if it, that there’s cameras. One of reason people do things is because they think that can get away with it. If they know somebody is watching it’s very likely they’ll go somewhere else to do drug activity and violence.”

One of the most interesting aspects about the use of both red light and surveillance cameras is that the cameras will likely soon be able to identify, without a doubt, the individual committing a crime. At that point, although camera surveillance seems to be a particularly un-American activity, is there any constitutional argument against it? Do cameras really infringe upon our liberties if they are placed in public places where any police officer could also be placed?

French and Lembke will have the opportunity to answer these questions, and others, on June 9. If you are free, please drop by. The discussion will be informal; it our hope that attendees can ask the elected officials questions directly, and be part of an engaging conversation about the trade-offs between liberty and security.

Liberty on the Rocks is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, social organization that seeks to unite individuals, regardless of political affiliation, who desire liberty. With the goal of facilitating networks, friendships, and intelligent conversation, Liberty on the Rocks seeks to initiate the energy and dialogue necessary to move America from the grassroots up, toward the constitutional principles of freedom used to found this nation.

The post Policing By Camera: A Discussion of Red Light and Surveillance Cameras as a Tool of Law Enforcement appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The parking meters in Grand Center that used to shut down at 7 p.m. each night (allowing free parking to theater-goers and gallery patrons) have been dialed back to 10 p.m.
[…]
Since April 1, drivers who don’t feed the meter after 7 p.m. have been issued a warning and served with a flier alerting them to the change. The grace period ends May 1. After that, parking scofflaws will get a $10 ticket. Parking rates for the meters are 25 cents per 20 minutes.

As KSDK reporte[d] earlier this spring, Grand Center Inc. is partnering with the city in the new parking policy and will get a portion of the revenues from the meters. Grand Center Inc. wants to use that money to build a new parking garage in the district, according to the television station.
[…]
“We’re happy that some of the parking meters will allow you to park for four hours instead of 90 minutes,” says Pinmann. “That would give people enough time to see a show and stay longer.”

In January Grand Center began a $10 valet service that offers people a $5 discount if they get their ticket validated after dining at a restaurant.

Kudos to Grand Center Inc. for implementing a policy that both efficiently rations parking spaces in midtown and will allow them to improve the area. A shortage of parking spaces is not a problem that most areas in the Saint Louis region face on a regular basis, but let’s hope it becomes one — and that, when it does, area leaders will have the wisdom to charge for the spots.

The post Getting It Right appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The court ruled today that the government does, in fact, get to choose which messages citizens can communicate. In the words of Michael Bindas, one of the attorneys from the Institute for Justice representing Roos in his lawsuit, “The court’s decision gets it precisely backwards.” Fortunately, IJ and Roos intend to keep fighting, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will have the chance to correct the lower court’s mistake.

The post Your Government, Your Editor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Should we expect another fight over this unnecessary, anti-competitive, and simply appalling use of government to restrict competition? Well, given that one of the people who led the fight against this same effort in 2000 — and who was partly successful in that effort — is now a cosigner on the letter requesting the expansion of licensing authority in the county, I don’t have much hope.

My initial post on this HVAC licensing issue last month has all the links you need to find media stories on this subject. I once again recommend the Riverfront Times story from 2000. I basically feel like a boxer who is still standing, but has been hit so many times that he can’t respond. (And, yes, I have boxed and know what it’s like to be hit really hard in the face.) These proposals are coming, they are a perversion of capitalism, and they will raise costs for St. Louis consumers, yet there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening. The capacity to fight back that existed in 2000 just does not appear to be extant right now (as I am sure the licensing proponents are well aware).

The post The Attack of the Rent-Seeking HVAC Contractors Has Begun! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For more information about St. Louis transit, read Payne’s recent op-ed about MetroLink, which also ran on the Riverfront Times blog and in the St. Louis Business Journal. His commentary attracted some attention from a Metro board member, who responded on our blog, followed by a short rejoinder by Payne.

The Show-Me Institute ran a trio of pieces in October 2008 about transit funding in St. Louis, considering the problem from different angles. We’ve also been fortunate enough to publish a few pieces analyzing Kansas City light rail plans, by transit scholar Randal O’Toole and policy analyst David Stokes. Although these latter pieces considered the issue specifically as it relates to the Kansas City area, many of the broad observations about light rail costs and efficiency apply just as well to St. Louis.

The post SMI Research Assistant John Payne on FOX 2 tonight at 10:00 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We recently received a thoughtful response from Hugh Scott, III, who has been a member of Metro’s Board of Commissioners for nearly five years, commenting on Payne’s op-ed. In the interest of furthering dialogue about important issues like public transit funding, his entire letter appears unedited below:

As even noted anti-tax advocate Glenn Beck acknowledged on his show yesterday, (2/22/10) some taxes are necessary. In the case of public transit, I would maintain that taxes supporting these systems inure to the economic benefit of metropolitan areas. Public transit enables people to commute to jobs and transit centers provide a critical mass of customers for businesses located near them. Not only does Metro employ 2000 St. Louisans but it assists countless thousands of workers to get to jobs in healthcare, retail, manufacturing and distribution. For many of these commuters, no public transit would mean no job.

Show-Me Research Assistant John Payne misses the mark in his article, “Adding New MetroLink Lines Too Costly, Inefficient.” While he tacitly agrees that public transit is important for our community, he advocates opposition to the proposed referendum for a ½ cent sales tax on the April ballot. The focus of his criticism is on the part of the proposal which suggests some the addition of light rail corridors. Extending light rail is however, not the major thrust of the proposal.

Throughout its history, BiState (Metro) has not had sufficient dedicated taxes to support its operations. It has relied on the beneficence of the City of St. Louis and the adjoining Missouri and Illinois counties, the States of Missouri and Illinois, and the Federal government to provide operating subsidies. Some of these entities have been generous over the years. Others have been quite parsimonious. In all cases, awarding of funds is arbitrary and Metro must beg for money from its stakeholders on an annual basis. If Metro is expected to operate in a business-like manner, it must have a stable reliable source of revenue. This, in fact, is what the April 6 ballot proposal is really all about.

When the last tax measure failed in a very close vote in November of 2008, Metro was forced to cut 40% of its bus and train service and 400 staff members. This resulted in the loss of at least 5000 jobs in our community. While half of these cuts were quickly restored due to the receipt of emergency funds from St. Clair County and the State of Missouri, deeper cuts will be necessary if the proposed tax is not approved by the voters. With the approval of the new tax, pre-2009 service will be restored and the current system will be able to operate on a stable financial footing for the first time in memory.

Other short term (1-5 year) priorities include implementation of a bus rapid transit system similar to the “higher speed bus routes” advocated by Payne, adding amenities such as a “smart card” fare system, and beginning planning for more light rail. These programs will be implemented only after the pre 2009 service is in place and only when funds are available. The five year plan does not call for construction of new light rail corridors.

Putting a light rail extension in service will take a minimum of ten years. It will also require large amounts of federal funds in order to build. Metro does not believe that the community should “foot the bill” for any Metrolink expansions without the majority of the funds being provided by the federal government. Instead Metro is asking for funds to begin the planning process so that when federal funds become available for light rail expansion, St. Louis will be in line. It only makes good sense to spend some money on planning. Otherwise, federal money for light rail will go to other cities and St. Louis will be left out.

Payne tries to make a case for increased bus service as opposed to more light rail. He asserts that buses are a better form of transit because they are cheaper and provide more flexible route opportunities. This was precisely the argument made by former BiState CEO, Col. Rudolph Smyser in the 1960’s when he ordered the shutdown of the last of the street car lines in St. Louis.

While it may be argued that buses are superior to light rail from an economic standpoint, flexibility of routes is precisely the problem with buses. Businesses which might prosper by being near a transit stop do not locate near bus stops because a bus stop might easily move to another street or corner. Many non-transit dependent customers will not ride buses because it is often difficult to know where the bus is going. With streetcars, subways and light rail, one need only look at a map showing landmarks or look down the track to know where the car is headed.

In some ways, Metro has successfully mitigated the confusion caused by changing bus routes by creating a hub and spoke system integrating buses and light rail. Thus a person who boards a bus that says “Clayton Station” can expect to travel to the Clayton Metrolink station. Similarly, a passenger who boards our most heavily traveled bus route, Grand Avenue, can be confident the bus will travel north or south on Grand without deviating. In a sense, our increased market share in buses may be in part attributed to our lack of flexibility with routes not the reverse.

In conclusion, Metro has built a world class transit system which integrates bus and rail service quite successfully. While our population density might be low for light rail travel our market share compared to peer group cities is very high. Light rail continues to gain popularity from non-transit dependent riders and nationally, our market share is in the top three cities in our ten city peer group. The April ballot proposal is about preserving this fine system. Our first priority must be to stabilize the existing system. Future planning is always important but it comes further down the list of priorities.

The post Metro Board Member Responds to Show-Me Institute Op-Ed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1. Although the campaign message focuses on strengthening current lines that have had service cuts, the proposition would focus appropriated funds on expansion to less populated areas. MetroLink already has trouble paying for its current infrastructure; expansion would only create the need to use even more tax dollars in the future, or cut existing lines still further.
2. MetroLink has a poor track record of correctly forecasting its costs. (Payne cites as an example the Cross-Country MetroLink Extension, which cost upwards of $676.8 million after an initial projection of $550 million.) If it had been constructed through a public-private partnership (like in Denver), the contractor would have been accountable to spend more responsibly, without repeatedly asking for tax increases. In contrast, MetroLink’s need for a tax increase is written into its 2009 fiscal budget.
3. Expansion of bus routes is much more cost-effective than expanding light rail. From the op-ed:
   

   We would obtain a much greater benefit at a significantly lower cost if we instead focused our public transportation dollars on new, higher-speed bus lines, which are cheaper and far more adaptable than light rail. Although the expansion of light rail into every reach of suburbia may promise an end to traffic congestion and the revitalization of the city, it will ultimately entail spending huge amounts of money in order to transport far fewer additional passengers than are served by the lines already in existence.

4. Some, like the members of this Facebook group supporting the measure, argue that additional public transit services are necessary in order to help the city’s low-income residents. Many advocates of Proposition A don’t realize that the tax increase it would bring is regressive, because it offers no rebates or exemptions based on income level, so it would disproportionately hurt the poor. It would be used to expand services past the city and county, so the people paying the taxes won’t benefit directly from the expansion.

The post MetroLink Expansion a Bad Idea appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you are not familiar with the story of how the pipefitters union and their allied contractors tried to knock non-union contractors out of the HVAC business 10 years ago, then you just have to read this awesome Riverfront Times story about the pipefitters plan. To paraphrase Berkely Breathed’s comment about how Caspar Weinberger’s poetic request to him provided a template for how to “get something from someone who is not inclined to give it to you,” if you are interested in knowing the real reasons that occupational licensing laws are passed, “all you need to know is here.”

Needless to say, the proposal for new restrictions on HVAC contractors is a sick twist on capitalism. It is just a joke to hear that the supporters of licensing requirements for residential work are once again promoting their arguments as increasing “safety.” As my friend, “D” (I’ll err on the side of caution and not use his name — he can claim credit in the comment section if he so chooses), who sent me the link to the Post-Dispatch article, said:

Isn’t the more likely story that the bad economy has created a greater incentive for established contractors to try to protect their territory by establishing barriers to entry?

My friend has hit the true story on the head. It would be shameful if this were passed by the various local governments to which the proposal is being brought. I hope to be a part of the fight against it.

The post Ridiculous Licensing Proposal in St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

No one can deny that meth production and use has a serious economic, legal, and social impact on communities. But the nasal congestion that drugs like Sudafed treat has an impact as well. Acute rhinosinusitis (or ARS, the technical term for nasal congestion lasting less than four weeks) affects approximately 32 million adults annually in the United States, or about 16 percent of the population older than 18. The effect on work and school absenteeism is predictably large, with 98 percent of workers citing minor illness such as colds and allergies (the primary causes of ARS) as a major cause of short-term absence.

ARS results in approximately $6 billion in annual costs, nearly 90 percent of which are associated with doctor or emergency room visits. In fact, ARS and other upper-respiratory illnesses are the leading cause of primary care visits after hypertension and routine checkups. Unfortunately, there is little that primary care providers can do for ARS, with treatment generally combining symptom control through over-the-counter decongestants with prescription antibiotics. Yet a recent study found that antibiotics provided little benefits for ARS, because bacterial infection complicates only 13–38% of ARS cases (compared to the 85–98 percent of cases in which antibiotics are prescribed; why doctors continue to prescribe a clearly ineffectual course of treatment is a topic for a separate post altogether).

Indeed, it appears that the only effective treatment is symptom management with decongestants, and currently decongestants containing pseudoephedrine remain the clear winner in terms of efficacy. Studies have failed to prove the efficacy of phenylephrin, the main alternative to pseudoephedrine that is used in formulations such as Sudafed PE.

So, with no effective alternative to treat nasal congestion, mandating a prescription for pseudoephedrine-based decongestants would leave ARS sufferers in a tight spot. Sufferers must opt to call out sick and stay home, find time to go to the doctor’s office (if you can get an appointment) or the emergency room, or just push through it and go to work unmedicated — and I hardly need to tell an allergy sufferer how little work generally gets done in that state.

The end results of this regulation are all unappealing: increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, or increased primary or emergency care visits. The last may not seem like such a bad thing, but hospitals and doctors, who are currently slammed by increased volume because of influenza, might have a different opinion. Increased volume leads to increased wait times for patients, keeping those with minor illnesses away from their jobs and lives (and in close proximity to contagious patients) and keeping those with serious illness from getting the treatment they need, especially since emergency rooms may be tied up by people with minor illnesses when primary care providers are booked up. And, as mentioned above, these visits already account for $5.4 billion of the $6 billion in annual costs associated with ARS; increasing the number of visits would cause those costs to balloon.

With the contagious illness season coinciding with the ARS season, we need to be empowering patients to manage their own symptoms whenever possible, rather than restricting that capability. Meth production and use certainly has its costs, but so does an overly restrictive regulation, such as Union’s. Balancing the benefits and the dangers of drugs such as pseudoephedrine is not an easy task, but an “easy,” all-or-nothing solution such as this one amounts to taking the easy way out.

The post Pseudoephedrine and Meth: No Easy Solution appeared first on Show-Me Institute.