Across Missouri, there are about twenty private schools offering single-sex education. On average, these schools cost $12,320 per year. Aside from alleviating opposite gender social pressures, single sex education can offer many benefits for students in need of an alternative environment. Unfortunately, students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds do not often have access.

Because of school choice, adolescent girls from low-income backgrounds in Saint Louis now have access to the option for the first time. This fall, the state’s first all-girls public charter school – the Hawthorn Leadership School for Girls – will open its doors. An affiliate of the Young Women’s Leadership Network, which boasts 100 percent college acceptance rates, Hawthorne will focus on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).

Founder Mary Stillman fondly remembers her experience at Holten-Arms, an all-girls college prep school in Bethesda, Maryland. Stillman founded Hawthorn to provide low-income, urban students with the joy and rigorous academic focus associated with private same-sex education. According to the charter’s brochure, young girls should expect a sisterhood with traditions, celebrations, and strong relationships, as well as 1 to 2 hours of homework per night.

Though Hawthorn will be the first public school option of its kind, it won’t be the first public school to use a gender-specific educational approach. Woerner, an elementary school in St. Louis Public Schools, adopted a gender-sensitive model four years ago. According to a recent article in St. Louis Magazine, the school divided students by sex, giving boys more hands-on learning, while instilling more confidence in girls in math and science. The school has moved from provisional to full accreditation.

This isn’t to say that single-sex education is the right choice for every student, but the option, if it’s a better fit, should be available to every student. In the absence of a private school choice program, charter schools are one way to expand the option which previously was experienced only by students whose parents had the financial means to afford private school tuition.

The post A Public School and a Private School Experience appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Do you think that pumping hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to one developer is the key to successful North Side revitalization? I would love to be wrong on this, but can someone please give me evidence (economic, historic, etc.) where this type of huge subsidy to one developer working hand-in-hand with government planners has managed to successfully revitalize a community? Some say that McKee’s dream is worth a shot despite a high uncertainty that it will work; I obviously do not agree in this case. But who knows, maybe McKee will be to Saint Louis what Baron Haussmann was to the rebuilding of Paris.

If you are not familiar with the NorthSide project saga, I recommend reading this short article in St. Louis Magazine to get the Cliff’s Notes version.

The post NorthSide Receives State’s Largest TIF appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some might say that the agreement is a validation of the city’s strategy to hold property for development. But even though political points may be gained by trumpeting development before it occurs, development of these parcels has not actually happened.  As one writer put it, “…until development occurs on a large portion of the land, the strategy will only have proven that after three decades, the city has found someone else to mow the yard.”

Indeed, while the prospect of selling 1,200 city-owned properties is great news for the city and its residents, this single development will not remake Saint Louis, even if successful. The city has dug itself into an incredible vacancy hole that would require almost another nine developments like the NorthSide one — just to take care of the vacant property that the Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), owns. And this proposed development took years to come about.

According to St. Louis Magazine, the NorthSide development was in the works since at least 2003, and no comparable large-scale development has taken place in Saint Louis. If we are pinning our hopes on more developments like NorthSide, we have to wait another 40 years. How much land will the city have amassed by then?

As part of the Show-Me Institute’s review of the operations of the LRA, we collected a great deal of data to see how frequently the agency was accepting and rejecting offers to buy its vacant property. We found that the LRA rejected formal offers to purchase more than 2,200 different parcels between the years 2003 and 2010. That is certainly a larger number than the 1,200 parcels being discussed as part of the NorthSide deal.

Some may be curious as to whether offers in recent years to purchase LRA property were rejected in the NorthSide footprint.

The map below shows all offers to purchase LRA property, with larger marks indicating higher-value offers. Between 2003 and 2010, offers to purchase more than 300 different properties within the NorthSide boundary were rejected.

However, to make the situation complicated, offers to purchase more than 280 properties in the area were accepted. While some offers were rejected because the agency was holding the property for “planned unified development,” others were accepted.

What I find more troubling is the city’s bad (but recently abandoned) habit of holding property off of its public for-sale list. Up until the publication of Show-Me Institute research, almost half of LRA property was not advertised for sale. This was due in part to agency staff members and area aldermen designating property as “Class C,” meaning that it was not “suitable for public or private use.” In practice, that designation made it more difficult, if not impossible in some cases, for people to purchase vacant property. Below is a map showing parcels not advertised for sale in red, with LRA parcels advertised for sale in green. The NorthSide boundary is included for reference.

We only have records for formal, written offers to purchase LRA property. It is impossible to know how many would-be buyers were discouraged from buying property in the NorthSide footprint as a result of the LRA’s practices.

The post NorthSide Development is Complicated, But No Validation of Land Banking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As the policy analyst leading the Show-Me Institute’s research of the Aerotropolis proposal, I would like to respond to Hartmann’s allegations.

I have never worked on a Republican campaign, in any way, for pay or otherwise. Nor have I worked on a Democratic campaign, in any way, for pay or otherwise. But, in case Hartmann is curious, I have made informational presentations to both Democrats and Republicans who are concerned about the Aerotropolis tax credits.

In fact, this issue is very bipartisan. For example, Rep. Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coer, has voiced concerns about the tax credits, and said that she is working with a group of more than a dozen other democrats on ways to change the bill. On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, has written scathing missives about the tax credits.

As a staff member at the Show-Me Institute, I am thrilled that one of our founders chose to publish an op-ed calling out Republicans who say that they are for fiscal responsibility, but then work to create handouts for a small group of developers and warehouse owners in the St. Louis area. Accountability is needed in state politics, and for members of both political parties.

Hartmann searched the Show-Me Institute website for “tea party” and found three references. I am not sure, but from his writing it seems that Hartmann was looking to find a relationship between the Show-Me Institute and a political party. A search of the St. Louis Magazine website results in many more references to the tea party, but any attempt to tie that finding to a relationship between the magazine and the tea party would be similarly as absurd.

Hartmann also seemed intent on denigrating Rex Sinquefield, co-founder of the Show-Me Institute. For the record, the Show-Me Institute has hundreds of donors. We are more than a single board member or co-founder. Staff members choose what public policies to take on, and what projects to pursue. That all being said, I don’t understand how Hartmann could take offense at an active-minded citizen advocating for more effective government. What exactly is wrong with that?

Finally, I would like to extend an offer to Hartmann: I am happy to meet him at any time to provide an information briefing about the Aerotropolis legislation. The Aerotropolis tax credits — from an economics and corporate welfare perspective — are clearly problematic. Hartmann himself, in an earlier column, wrote that he too has misgivings about the Aerotropolis proposal. The only reason he supports these credits is:

Aerotropolis backers claim that the way the state program is structured, not a dime of Missouri tax credits will be given out on the come. Tax credits will only flow after the Chinese planes start landing, and the revenues (and presumably jobs) actually arrive.

This statement is demonstrably false. Under the legislation, tax credits could be awarded if no increased international trade occurs, and in fact could go toward subsidizing business as usual. Proponents have not fixed this loophole, and have not responded to this point.

Considering the facts, perhaps Hartmann might find himself agreeing with the Show-Me Institute.

The post An Open Response to St. Louis Magazine Co-Owner Ray Hartmann appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

He makes a great point regarding this latter topic, stating:

Simply put, St. Louis’ cultural institutions need to do what almost all of their counterparts across the country do: Tap into the tens of millions of tourist dollars that are annually unrealized here because the institutions are free to all visitors.

In his article about red light cameras, Hartmann highlights three separate studies that found an increase in crashes stemming from red light cameras, as opposed to the decrease in accidents that might be expected. He also brings up another interesting point: In Dallas, Texas, red light cameras were forced to cease operation because they weren’t generating enough revenue to sustain themselves. Hartmann asks, “If one assumes the cameras were there to promote safety, wouldn’t operating at a deficit be worthwhile if the cameras were ‘working’ so well that citizens were obeying the law?”

The post Ray Hartmann appeared first on Show-Me Institute.