The post Default Rates among Missouri Colleges and Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A recent Columbia Daily Tribune article shed some light on the extent to which the administration in the UM system has grown to a quite complex and increasingly burdensome size. From the article:

“UM has a president; MU has a chancellor. UM has a vice president of academic affairs, MU has a provost in charge of academics. UM has a vice president of finance; MU has a budget director. UM has a vice president of research; MU has a vice chancellor of research. UM has a PR office as does MU.”

It is clear that there is significant overlap in duties, which adds to confusion in the system but, more importantly, accounts for unnecessary spending in a rapidly tightening budget. This example does not account for other administrations at state universities in Missouri, such as Northeast Missouri State and Truman State. If the UM system focused on cutting back on costly (not to mention superfluous) administrative expansion rather than chipping away at smaller expenditures such as the university press, they might find it easier to fit into a smaller budget in a much shorter time frame.

As I have said previously, less funding from the state government does not mean that educational quality at Missouri’s colleges and universities needs to suffer. Instead, universities should see it as an opportunity to address the bloated state of their administrations and to re-focus their goals as an educational community. Taking an ax to the beast that has become the oversized bureaucracy in the UM system may seem drastic. But it is far more effective in terms of budgetary savings than the wishy-washy goal of “focusing on strategic priorities” — a phrase that sounds as grossly bureaucratic as the board of administrators that produced it.

The post How Many Administrators Are Needed To Run One University System? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, the plan for obtaining a $107 million loan from state universities to help fund a department that gives a lot of money to . . . well, state universities, seems odd. If the state is facing a shortfall, it needs to make the tough decisions to balance the budget (i.e., cut spending and NOT raise taxes). What happens if the state faces a similar situation in fiscal year 2014? Will Nixon ask for ANOTHER loan?

There are other places in the budget that can be cut (granted, these cuts alone will not make up the amount of money needed, but they are a start) before even thinking about cutting money from the DHE, never mind resorting to this loan plan. However, that is not to say that cuts cannot be made in DHE. The DHE budget is not sacrosanct.

For example, in fiscal year 2012, the DHE gave more than $400 million ($366,765,401 from general revenue) to the University of Missouri system. If Gov. Nixon wants a $63 million loan from the University of Missouri-Columbia, why doesn’t he ask the legislature to cut $63 million from the University of Missouri system. Lawmakers can always appropriate more money in future fiscal years (not that they necessarily SHOULD). Why ask for a loan?
Prudence is a virtue for a reason. Before engaging in plans meant to avoid the task at hand, wouldn’t it be better if the state actually finds out what it is paying for and truly decide what it NEEDS to pay for, and what people can do without?

The post College Loans: It Seems We ALL Have Them Now appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In January of 2004, the city of Arnold unveiled a plan to re-develop a large chunk of Arnold commonly referred to as the Arnold Triangle. The plan envisioned 250,000 square feet of retail space, a Dierbergs Market and a Lowe’s store. Unfortunately, there were 52 homes and businesses already occupying the area. They don’t pay as much in taxes as the city expects to get from the big box retailers, and the city has decided to remove them in favor of wealthier businesses.

One of the property owners the city wants to displace is dentist Homer Tourkakis. He and his wife Julie have put down roots in Arnold. They’ve been in the city since 1985, when they started the practice in the Arnold Triangle. They’ve spent the last 21 years forging friendships and attracting clients from all over Jefferson County. They also raised two daughters, both of whom are now in Missouri colleges.

“When I heard about the city’s plans, I had a lot of concern and consternation,” Tourkakis said. “I was ignorant about eminent domain and all the ramifications, and the power that was available to the city. I still looked at the world through rose colored glasses. I thought the city council would be there to defend me. It didn’t take long for me and other business owners to realize that like it or not, this thing was going to happen.”

Business owner Homer Tourkakis in front of his “blighted” dental office.

On September 16th, 2005 the city voted in favor of giving Overland-based developer THF Realty $24 million in tax breaks and the authority to condemn the homes and businesses of property owners who refused to sell.

Tourkakis and his neighbors protested the plan. “I didn’t want to be part of this development program,” said Tourkakis, “I didn’t want to have to dip into my savings and start all over again.”

In response to those protests, some influential property owners were spared. The city promised to give the Veterans of Foreign Wars land within the development area and build a new VFW hall. A UMB bank was also guaranteed a place in the new plans. And Norman Moss, who sits on the city’s Board of Adjustments, managed to get his business, Arnold Stove and Fireplace, spared from forced relocation outside of the development area.

But no such concessions were offered to small business owners like Tourkakis. Tourkakis thinks that the city is playing favorites. “It just seems really arbitrary,” said Tourkakis, “why do some get red-carpet treatment, while I get my life turned upside down so the city can pick up a few bucks?” Tourkakis says that the city council members of his ward, Phil Amato and Joyce Deckman, refused his requests for help.

Board of Adjusts member Norman Moss’s business, Arnold Stove and Fireplace, will not be forced to relocate outside the development area.

Tourkakis’ property, along with about 12 others, was declared blighted by the firm of Peckham, Guyton, Albers and Viets (PGAV), the same consulting company that made the blight determination in the infamous Sunset Hills redevelopment project. In one instance, PGAV cited broken pavement as evidence of blight–never mind that maintaining roads is a city responsibility.

“They say they offer fair market value, but my business has been established in this area for years. I’ll have costs that ‘fair market value’ simply won’t cover. What about my loss of highway traffic? What about the risks I incur?” Tourkakis asked. “The appraisals were a joke. They looked at property that was miles away from mine. Everybody knows they lowball you.”

The developer, THF, did go through the motions of negotiations. THF principal Allen Bornstein visited Tourkakis on three occasions. But Tourkakis charges that the relocation offers made to him were vague and inadequate. “They just wouldn’t talk seriously about a plan,” said Tourkakis. “At one point, Bornstein said to my attorney, ‘Look, I’m not in the dental building business.’ They all seemed pretty convinced that they could push me where they pleased. They were pretty arrogant.”

A “blighted” home a block away from Tourkakis’ dental practice.

The Tourkakis dental practice isn’t as large as Dierbergs or Lowe’s. He employs a staff of three full-time, fully health-insured persons, two of whom are Arnold residents. His practice is one of a handful which treats Medicaid patients, including the elderly and the developmentally disabled. Treating Medicaid patients who can’t pay their bills means operating at a loss. The government only reimburses Tourkakis ten cents for every dollar he spends treating those patients. “I see doing it as part of being a member of the community,” says Tourkakis, “helping out the community makes for a stronger community.” Tourkakis’s practice has treated Medicaid patients for 21 years.

In the coming weeks, the developer must make a final buyout offer to the remaining property owners, who number about 15. If they can’t get the contracts, they’ll ask the city to file a condemnation lasuit against the property owners.

“It kind of makes you wonder why you work so hard to build something,” said Tourkakis. “If they’re just going to take it away from you, why bother?”

Timothy B. Lee is an editor at the Show-Me Institute. Jonathon Burns is a student at Truman State University.

The post Homer Tourkakis: Victim of Eminent Domain Abuse appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The summer of 2005 was not a good one for Sharon Fitzgerald. On Memorial Day, she learned she had inoperable lung cancer. Three days later, she got a knock on her door.

It was Jonathan Browne, head of real estate developer Novus Equities. He wanted to buy her house. And he made it clear that this was an offer she couldn’t refuse.

Michael Fitzgerald outside his “blighted” home. Sharon was too ill to come outside for this picture.

“He told us that if we didn’t sell, he’d just use eminent domain and take our home anyway,” said Sharon, “What could we do? With my health and everything and the chance to lose our home anyway, we didn’t really have a choice.”

Sharon and her husband Michael reluctantly agreed to sell. They wanted to get the issue behind them so they could concentrate on dealing with her illness. But when the time came to close on the house, they were dealt another blow: “It turned out that Browne didn’t have enough money from the banks to close,” said Sharon.

Residents say that Browne misled them and the city council about his capacity to complete the project. In reality, he didn’t have the money he needed to buy out the properties, and he was having trouble recruiting tenants for the shopping mall he wanted to build. When those facts came to light, the project collapsed.

Another Sunset Hills home condemned for “blight.”

That has put many Sunset Hills residents in a bind. Some of them had already entered into agreements with Browne to sell their homes to him, and they had made plans to move on the assumption that the contracts would be honored.

Even worse, some property owners have already moved, leaving their previous homes in a state of disrepair. There wasn’t much blight in Sunset Hills at the start of the process, but there is plenty now. Some of the most neglected homes in the neighborhood are owned by Browne, who has not kept them in good repair.

One Sunset Hills resident died without bequeathing his house to anyone, leaving the house abandoned. Sunset Hills doesn’t have any legal provision for handling abandoned property, and neighbors say that the city council hasn’t made any effort to address the problem, choosing instead to let the property deteriorate.

With the collapse of Browne’s development plan, the uncertainty faced by Sharon and Michael has only increased. There is talk of finding another developer, but that will take time. In the meantime, property values have begun to decline as the looming threat of condemnation discourages anyone from purchasing property in the area.

The home of Sharon’s parents, also condemned for blight.

Sharon and her husband weren’t the only ones whose lives were put on hold by Browne’s actions. Sharon’s parents live just down the street from her in the house they’ve owned since 1954. When Browne came to the door with threats of eminent domain, Sharon’s parents became quite frightened. “They were scared out of their minds,” said Sharon. “They’ve lived in that house for decades and they can’t afford house payments now, with their medical bills and other expenses. The entire experience has had a terrible effect on their health.”

Not all of Sharon’s neighbors were so easily intimidated. Resident Kathy Tripp decided to tell Mayor Hobbs about Browne’s strong-arm tactics. She got nowhere. “He assured me everything would be fine, but then he didn’t do anything at all,” said Kathy.

But Kathy isn’t easily deterred. She recently filed suit against Novus and Browne for fraud. The suit details Browne’s extensive harassment of residents.

This neglected property is owned by developer Jonathan Browne.

Kathy says that Browne’s harassment campaign was made possible by the city’s decision to use the power of eminent domain. When Browne approached the city with his development proposal, the city enthusiastically agreed to help him get the land he wanted. They commissioned a blight study from Peckham, Guyton, Albers, and Viets (PGAV), a consulting firm notorious for finding blighted conditions everywhere they look. After inspecting only 42 of the 262 homes, PGAV concluded the neighborhood was blighted, citing such problems as a broken rainspout, an unsettled concrete porch, and a family of four living in a 2-bedroom house. With the blight study in hand, Browne had a credible threat to use against residents who didn’t want to sell their homes.

Residents say that eminent domain has pitted neighbor against neighbor, as those who want to move blame those who want to stay, and vice versa. “I’ve been called every name in the book by some neighbors,” said Kathy. “Some people don’t like me standing up for my rights.”

But both Sharon, who signed a contract with Browne, and Kathy, who refused to do so, agree on this much: it’s not right to use eminent domain for private profit.

“It’s not right what Browne has done, or what the city has done.” Sharon said. “People’s homes shouldn’t be taken away just because the city can pocket some extra money. A hospital is one thing, but profit is different. And Brown has nearly destroyed our neighborhood, pitting one against the other. The hardest ones hit are the elderly.”

Timothy B. Lee is an editor at the Show-Me Institute. Jonathon Burns is a student at Truman State University.

The post Sharon Fitzgerald: Victim of Eminent Domain Abuse appeared first on Show-Me Institute.