Almost certainly. (And I’m only adding the “almost” because it is being litigated over and you never know how it will turn out.)

This isn’t the first time grocery stores have been targeted by special taxing districts simply because developers want the significant money they generate. In Wentzville, a Schnucks store was forcibly included in a CID that was used to help fund a Walmart development. If that sounds insane, it is. One grocery company, Schnucks, was forced to levy a special tax against its will to benefit one of its main competitors.

In St. Louis, an existing CID board tried to expand the CID’s boundaries to include another  Schnucks, primarily to get access to all of the money it generated. Schnucks opposed that one, too, and good for the company. As the company explained in a letter to elected officials:

It is our position that addressing the problem goes beyond additional cleaning, and we would encourage the City to tap into funds available to address these issues, rather than institute an additional tax on citizens who are buying their needed groceries for their families.

Grocery stores are not large ATMs with food in them that special taxing districts can extort whenever they feel like it. Good for Hy-Vee for fighting back in Lee’s Summit, and good for Schnucks to have opposed these ideas previously. Special taxing districts like CIDs and TDDs are, in the vast majority of cases, nothing more than vehicles for corporate welfare. They are bad enough even when all the property owners agree. But compelling grocery chains to participate in them against the will of the stores is just the sour cherry on top.

The post Hy-Vee Wants to Give the Heave-Ho to a CID appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The impact and effectiveness of school choice programs and policies vary based on multiple factors. What does a theoretical “good version” of legislation related to school choice look like? Are there specific examples you can point to?

Well, if you listened to my opening remarks, it may not be hard to guess what I am going to suggest. Choice is good and we need more of it.

After more than two decades, we don’t have charter schools outside of St. Louis and Kansas City. Why is that? Because our current policy requires charters to seek school district approval if they want to open in a district that is fully accredited. This is like allowing Wal-Mart to decide whether a Dierbergs or a Schnucks can open in its town. When it comes to charter school policy, we must, first off, allow charters to open throughout the state under the sponsorship of a university or the State Charter Commission.

Second, we must allow charter schools to enroll students across district boundaries. The average school district in Missouri has something like 1,500 kids. Part of the challenge with opening a new charter school is attracting students—this is particularly challenging when you are limited to a pool of 1,500. Students should be allowed to move across district lines to attend a charter school.

In fact, all kids should be allowed to move across district lines to attend another public school. This is especially true if your local school district moves to a four-day school week. Did you know that roughly a third of all Missouri school districts are now four-day districts? We have some new research coming out at the Show-Me Institute that you might be interested in. We surveyed 1,200 Missouri parents. You know which group was the most opposed to the four-day school week? Parents who cannot provide reliable childcare for their children—the people who will be most impacted by these decisions. I suggest full open enrollment, but at the very least, moving to a four-day school week should be an automatic trigger for open enrollment.

Close to 70% of Republicans and Democrats alike supported the idea of giving parents the right to transfer to another school district if their school moves to a four-day week. More than 60% supported offering a private school voucher.

When it comes to private school choice, again, we need more of it. Our current tax credit education savings account (ESA) program should be expanded. Now, I’m in favor of the state funding these accounts and providing every family with access to at least the state adequacy amount. We can look to Arizona and Florida as models. But I understand expansion is often incremental and there are incremental changes we can make with our current program. Here, the state needs to do three things:

First, remove all geographic limitations. There is no reason a student should be denied access to a scholarship account because they live just over a county line.

Second, increase eligibility. The program should be as near to universal as possible. Every parent should have the ability to send their children to the school of their choice.

I suppose those first two are really the same thing—increase access.

Third, we should increase the average scholarship amount. Opponents of school choice are funny in this regard. They remind me of that old quote by Woody Allen, “The food is bad and the portions are small.” They say “vouchers are bad . . . and the voucher amounts are too small.” Well, I may not be able to change their opinion on vouchers, but we can work to increase the amount!

Currently, we peg the scholarship amount to the state adequacy target, which is approaching $7,000. Yet, in public schools we weight the funding formula. We provide additional funds for special needs students, students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. We even weight the formula for places with higher cost of living. The ESA program should be allowed to do the same thing. A student with special needs or a student from a poor family should be eligible for more funds in this program, just as they are in public schools.

The bottom line is this—we should continue to push for expansion of school choice programs until every child in this state has multiple educational options. No child should have to attend their local public school because they cannot access another school. They should attend their local public school only if it is the right choice for them.

The post School Choice is Good – Part 2   appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2016, $25 million in government assistance (including TIF and special taxing districts) was approved for this site but the developers never moved forward with the plans. It’s not yet clear exactly what developers will be asking for this time, but whatever it is, it’s too much. Crestwood is not a blighted community and even if the property is an eyesore, there is no reason for government to be giving out incentives for this property. There’s already a Schnucks and an Aldi right across the street. Do we really need subsidies to build another grocery store in this area? And is it fair to the existing stores to have the government subsidizing their competition?

Using taxpayer dollars to fund private projects isn’t a good idea. Developers aren’t going to quit asking for these unfair advantages, but lawmakers need to stop giving them out

The post If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Maryland Heights-based Schnuck Markets, which operates 100 stores in five states, on Monday will begin testing its first Tally at its store at 6600 Clayton Road in Richmond Heights. The pilot test is expected to last six weeks. A second Tally will appear in coming weeks at Schnucks stores at 1060 Woods Mill Road in Town and Country and at 10233 Manchester Road in Kirkwood.

The race between man and machine is a fixture of popular culture, from John Henry to Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots. In most stories, robots represent the movement of technology replacing man: of cheaper, stronger, more efficient labor. It’s not surprising then that in most folklore, the machines are depicted as sinister. But that isn’t the case for consumers.

All of this is an effort by producers to provide better, faster and cheaper service, and to that end it is a good thing because it drives down prices for everyone. It should be a wake-up call to activists who think they can affect positive social change merely by increasing the minimum wage—in which only a few benefit at the cost of many. Making labor more expensive not only makes technology more attractive, but it puts smaller businesses who cannot afford the investment in technology at a competitive disadvantage.

The post Man versus Machine in Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is an example of market forces lowering health care costs. Schnucks wants to draw people to its stores, and to do that it has to stand out from its competitors. Other pharmacies will probably follow suit — if not with the same promotions as Schnucks, then with discounts on other medical services or products.

In the policy debate over the cost of care in hospitals, much of the discussion deals with putting medicine under regulatory control. Instead, we should be asking: How can we make hospitals operate more like Schnucks?

The post Health Care Gets a Little Less Expensive appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The noise disturbance, the rezoning, and the (at least temporary) loss of property value are certainly among the reasons that residents might choose to protest, even though these reasons might be counterbalanced by the long-term growth in economic activity that would occur as a result of such a store opening. Today’s protesters could be tomorrow’s shoppers. As Nobel laureate economist Ronald Coase observed, projects of this type would have a much smoother process if developers could focus on economic factors like compensation for property owners with legitimate complaints, rather than having to jump through political hoops.

The post The Schnucks Challenge appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Commercial farms, in a lot of ways, are like Walmart (yeah, they got rid of the dash). A lot of people have a problem with Walmart, whether it be the low wages or the way they treat their employees, many people opt out and choose to shop at other, smaller, local places — like, say Schnucks. But, on the other hand, there is also that large portion of people who choose to shop at Walmart regardless of what they hear. The externality costs, to them, are outweighed by Walmart’s low prices.

Now, large commercial farms, like those described in the article, are a lot like Walmart. They are good at what they do, raising healthy animals to slaughter. And lots of them, too. Just like some people have a problem with the way Walmart treats its employees, many have a problem with how these farms treat the animals they raise. Yet, for many people, these costs are still offset by the cheaper price of meat. Going to Sam’s Club and buying your own weight in ground beef at a low price sounds very appealing to many people.

Now, I’m not saying these commercial farms are wrong or evil, or what-have-you. Heck, I’m an econ major. I’m always the unpopular guy in the argument, defending Walmart and outsourcing. Economics, after all, is the study of choices. People always have a choice. If you don’t agree with commercial farms, there are always smaller options, such as Williams Brothers. While the prices sometimes don’t match Wally-World, you know the cow or hog you are eating was raised locally and as humanely as possible.

It’s all about choices. You have to weigh the costs and benefits and decide which is best for you.

I think the difference between commercial farms and Walmart is fairly obvious: people vs. animals. Walmart employees have people to speak out for them, whether they be unions or lawyers, these people have a voice. With the animals being raised at these farms, it almost seems like people are waiting for some sort of Lorax-type character to appear and speak for the animals. On the other hand, I’m sure the commercial farm industry would love to find an animal like the Dish of the Day from Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe — a cow that not only wants to be eaten, but is vocal about which parts of his body taste the best, and which sauces go well with them.

Now, hopefully, I have plugged Williams Brothers enough so that I can score some free pulled pork sandwiches next time I stop by.

The post ‘I Speak for the Meats’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Schnucks pharmacies on Monday will be the first in the region to offer a selection of antibiotics for free. Customers can receive up to a 21-day supply of any one of more than 54 generic, oral antibiotics at no charge.

Schnucks will offer the program at all 100 of its pharmacies across seven states.

Why is Schnucks doing this? The article discussed two main reasons. First, the owner cares about helping people get medicines they need. Second, cutting health care costs and filling some prescriptions for free is good business. Free antibiotics will draw new customers to Schnucks and allow it to compete with other stores that offer low-price prescription drugs.

Unfettered competition can help patients by driving costs down to zero. Of course, this won’t fix all health care problems. Antibiotics are so cheap that it’s feasible for a store to offer them for free. Schnucks won’t be giving out free brain surgeries. There’s still a need for good health care policy, but we should take note of what the private sector can contribute.

The post Competition to the Rescue appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

"The impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters on the local grocery industry is
an insidious attack on the region’s economy," Jim Dougherty, president
of Local 655 of the United Food & Commercial Workers, said Monday.
"Over the years, we’ve lost several thousand good-paying jobs because
Wal-Mart has siphoned off part of that business."

Yet grocers are taking steps to remain competitive with the coming Supercenters:

Among their moves: upscaling, in which the supermarkets have been
adding in-store gourmet coffee bars with Wi-Fi access; expanding
take-out food selections and areas; boosting the selection of organic
produce and natural foods; and upgrading wine and liquor departments.

Wal-Mart has been the recipient of both affection and hatred in the many years it has been a widespread chain store. One effect that cannot be denied, though, is the effect its competition has on prices — lowering them across the board when it opens a new store. And as difficult as competition can be for smaller competitors, in most cases this process doesn’t cause all the other grocery owners to shutter their stores.

In a free-market economy, people have the choice of where to shop, and that decision is based on individual tastes and preferences. For example, I go to Target frequently because I have a better shopping
experience there than at Wal-Mart, even though it’s a little more expensive. Businesses have survived competition with Wal-Mart because they have adapted — and continued to make a profit. I’m sure local grocers will do this even with Wal-Mart in town.

It’s the free market at work. Some people even enjoy it.

The post Big Bad Wal-Mart is Coming … Watch Out appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Allowing children to transfer between school districts would only leave the neediest students behind in struggling districts, veteran Columbia Board of Education member Chuck Headley told Missouri lawmakers yesterday.
 

Headley and Columbia Public Schools Superintendent Phyllis Chase were among about a dozen education officials who testified against an open enrollment proposal at a hearing of a special House committee on student achievement. A bill, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baker, R-Belton, would allow students in unaccredited or partly accredited school districts to enroll in neighboring districts.

“My experience in intra-district transfers is that it is the students whose parents are the most informed about school policy or involved in their student’s life that ask to transfer to what they believe – and I emphasize ?believe’ – to be a better school to serve their child,” Headley testified. “The ones behind get left behind.”

Headly gets the effects of school choice precisely backwards: the prospect of losing students (and with them, funding), would spur failing districts to improve the quality of instruction. Hence, not only would this plan benefit the kids who are able to transfer to a better district, but it would also benefit the kids who are “left behind,” as the old district will redouble its efforts to improve its services to ensure that they don’t lose any more children.

We all know that competition benefits customers in other areas of the economy. Dierbergs and Schnucks work hard to provide the best food at the lowest prices, because they know that if they don’t, their customers will switch to a competitor. If a new grocery store wanted to come to town, would it make any sense to complain that customers who continue to shop at Schnucks or Dierbergs would be “left behind” by customers who patronized the new grocery store? Of course not. More competition means that each grocery store needs to work even harder to keep their customers happy.

Right now, public schools don’t have to work very hard at all to keep their “customers.” Some parents are wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, but for the rest of the parents, they’re stuck with a single option. Allowing parents to switch between public schools would be a much-needed step toward increasing competition in education. To paraphrase a widely-aired commercial, “when schools compete, kids win.”

The post Customers Benefit from Competition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.