I respectfully, yet strongly, disagree with my colleague Dave Roland’s post yesterday on changes to the initiative petition/constitutional amendment rules in Missouri. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. We elect people to make laws and decisions. If they are not doing a good job, then we should elect different people. These petition-gathering amendment drives have led to some terrible legislation, in my opinion, such as the recent minimum-wage increase. They have also led to some excellent legislation, such as the Hancock Amendment. However, as more people and organizations become willing to pay people to gather signatures for pet causes, I believe it is reasonable to increase the amount of signatures required.

I disagree with some of the suggested changes, particularly the requirement that petition gatherers must be residents of Missouri. That is just silly. I support the increase in signatures required and the restriction on paying people by the signature, which is just an open invitation to fraud.

The Kansas City Star’s Prime Buzz blog yesterday had a couple of posts criticizing our recent light rail study’s use of crime statistics. While the statistics used by Randal O’Toole, the study’s author, are correct — as O’Toole points out at the end of the second part of the blog entry, the correct comparison is between types of transit — it’s misleading to suggest that O’Toole’s study has "characterized crime as one of the major reasons why Kansas City should not pursue light rail."

Crime on light rail systems is touched on only briefly in the full Show-Me Institute light rail study. Out of approximately 150 paragraphs of text (not including endnotes, pull quotes, etc.), I count seven that mention crime at all — one paragraph in the executive summary, five paragraphs on page 5, and one paragraph on page 23. In fact, the one mention of crime in the executive summary comes toward the end of a litany of reasons why light rail isn’t a worthwhile investment. In that list, O’Toole mentions crime 9th out of a list of 11 reasons — and even then, only after first mentioning safety statistics. Clearly, while light rail’s crime level in relation to buses is worth mentioning, it’s not one of the study’s primary arguments.

It’s true, I focused on the crime statistics myself during my response to the original Star piece covering the Show-Me Institute study, but that’s because O’Toole’s brief mention of light rail crime was the only aspect of the study that Mr. Spivak actually critiqued. If Mr. Spivak had criticized any of O’Toole’s economic or efficiency arguments, I would have responded to those instead.

Make no mistake, the study’s points about the high costs and low efficiency of light rail in relation to other forms of transit are O’Toole’s primary arguments — points which remain unchallenged by the Star. The only real "ado" about light rail crime was spurred by the selective coverage of Mr. Spivak’s original article.

Apart from O’Toole’s brief mentions of crime in the study, these are his primary arguments:

• Light rail is expensive, typically experiencing high cost overruns;
• Light rail has a much lower ridership capacity than freeway lanes;
• Light rail costs much more to operate than buses;
• Light rail requires years of advance planning, with no guarantee that transit needs or preferences will remain static during that time;
• Few regions have actually seen increases in per-capita ridership after constructing light-rail lines;
• Most regions see the share of riders using transit for travel actually decline after constructing light-rail lines;
• Light-rail lines that operate in city streets significantly increase traffic congestion;
• Light rail is particularly ineffective in municipalities without high concentrations of downtown jobs — like Kansas City;
• Light rail is usually less energy efficient per passenger mile than passenger cars;
• Light rail does not stimulate urban development without huge additional government subsidies.

The crime statistics O’Toole used are correct, but still only a small part of this analysis.

Some Missouri legislators apparently think that the citizens of this state have too much say in the laws that govern us.

One of the best features of Missouri’s political scheme is that if enough citizens see that the General Assembly is failing to pass certain desirable laws, they can follow established procedures that allow the voters to act where the Legislature will not. The initiative process ensures that regular citizens have a direct way to enact legislation that, for whatever reason, our elected officials would prefer to avoid.

Five bills were filed recently in Jefferson City that would make it more difficult for Missouri citizens to place initiatives on the ballot for a direct vote of the people. Some of those bills are not so bad — such as proposals that would impose harsher penalties on those who commit fraud in collecting signatures, or prohibit those convicted of forgery offenses from collecting signatures. But others are plainly attempts to prevent Missourians from having a direct say in passing laws that they might find favorable. For example, one bill would nearly double the number of signatures required to place an initiative petition on the ballot. A couple of others would require those gathering signatures to be residents of Missouri — because, apparently, we can’t trust Kansans or
Illinoisans to hold the clipboards on which Missourians express their
support for a proposed initiative — and would prohibit petitioners who have hired help in collecting the necessary signatures to compensate their workers based on how well they do their job.

The only purpose for these changes is to make it more difficult for regular citizens to ensure that our interests are being protected by legislation approved by a majority of Missouri voters. The initiative process is especially important when, as is the case with this state’s horrendous eminent domain laws, the legislators have a better ear for the ringing of cash registers than for the voice of the people.

There’s a discussion of KIPP’s drawbacks and merits in the comments section of the Talk of the Day blog. One of the comments links to a San Francisco education blog, which criticizes KIPP on three points:

1. Attrition, especially among male students. In other words, some students try KIPP and then find it’s not for them. KIPP requires long hours in school and a tremendous commitment, so it’s not surprising that some students choose not to stay. In general, boys have fallen behind girls academically and are dropping out at higher rates. So, KIPP isn’t immune to that problem. But the fact that KIPP isn’t for everyone doesn’t mean that no one should be able to choose KIPP. 

2. Discipline. When KIPP students act out, they have to sit on a special bench away from their group and then write a letter of apology. (At least, that’s the policy at the particular KIPP school the blogger is writing about.) That might seem harsh, but KIPP schools accept kids who have failed in inner-city schools and may have behavior problems. Ideally, kids will behave and won’t need discipline. But if they’re disruptive, separating them temporarily could be a reasonable way to teach them which actions won’t be tolerated while maintaining an orderly learning environment for their classmates. Most importantly, KIPP schools are up-front about classroom procedures and make both students and parents sign contracts that they will abide by the rules. Families that want a softer discipline system don’t need to send their kids to KIPP.

3. Lack of mindless adherence to arbitrary grade levels. OK, that’s not exactly what the blogger says, but that’s the gist of it. KIPP schools assign students to grade levels based on academic achievement, so a student who enters KIPP in seventh grade could be assigned to a sixth-grade class. In other words, kids study in groups of students with similar abilities, and aren’t forced to struggle in classrooms where everyone else’s achievement level is a grade or more ahead. I don’t see the problem. If grade level is important to parents, they won’t choose KIPP. 

No one is suggesting that all students should attend KIPP, or that KIPP’s unique educational approach is right for everyone. But SLPS isn’t right for everyone either. St. Louis students should be able to choose.

Normally, if you had a sentence that contained the words, "Bridges," "score," "(MS)NBC"and "high(ly)," one would assume you were talking about Todd, not MoDOT. Luckily for us, though, we are indeed talking about MoDOT and Missouri bridges — to answer Arnold’s presumptive question before it is even asked.

MSNBC has today released a report documenting that thousands of bridges around the country have not received their two-year inspections, as required by federal law. The report is alarming, which was probably the point. But from our perspective, I would like to point out just how well Missouri scored, with only 19 out of 23,694 bridges that have missed their two-year inspection points. This ranks Missouri at 41st among the states. The states that rank above us, which have from 0 to 4 bridges beyond that schedule, all have far fewer bridges.

MoDOT deserves a great deal of credit for sticking to this important inspection schedule. County road departments deserve credit, too, as many of these bridges are locally maintained. This, along with the early success of the New I-64 project, is making my op-ed of last year look rather insightful!

This issue of Forbes examines education reform, and KIPP charter schools make a prominent appearance with an essay by Mike Feinberg:

In 1994, Dave Levin and I started KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) with 50 students in Houston after completing our two-year commitment to Teach for America. Our first year in Houston, two-thirds of students came to KIPP with a "bilingual" label. By the end of the first year, two-thirds were "gifted and talented."

Feinberg explains that KIPP schools, rather than skimming the cream from diverse traditional public schools, cater specifically to students who have fallen behind:

We are not achieving results by "cherry-picking" students. All schools are open-enrollment public schools. There is no admissions test. The average student enters KIPP two years below grade level in fifth grade, and leaves KIPP in eighth grade achieving at a ninth-grade level. Over 80% of KIPP students nationwide are low income, and 95% are African-American or Hispanic/Latino.

Feinberg also writes about KIPP’s projected expansion in Houston, where it hopes to capture 10% of the public school market and thereby pressure the traditional public schools to shape up.

I doubt KIPP will cause any improvement in the stagnant St. Louis public schools, which have proved themselves resistant to change from all quarters. But KIPP will provide some students who are currently trapped in SLPS with an attractive alternative. And it may pave the way for other charters and more choices for students.

By the way, I should mention that Kansas City already has a KIPP charter school, the KIPP Endeavor Academy. Here you can learn more about the school and see cute pictures of students and teachers working hard.

Since the Regional Economist is one of my favorite publications, I wanted to add my own two cents on Eric Dixon’s recent digression on Michael Pakko’s article on smoking bans.

Mr. Dixon focuses on the vague benefits of smoker vs. non-smoker “utility,” a value that Dr. Pakko’s article avoids entirely. Instead, Dr. Pakko focuses on the tangible negative costs of smoking bans, providing a counter-argument to recent papers.

So while I agree with Mr. Dixon’s opposition to smoking bans, I disagree with his focus on aggregate utility as a value judgment. As he argues:

“Markets, though still far from perfect, ultimately do a better job of maximizing aggregate utility because each individual market participant is able to estimate his or her own utility in a way that no legislator can, and then act accordingly”

That statement is misleading. I don’t oppose smoking bans (and support the market) because I believe that non-smokers derive less “happiness” from them than smokers do without them. I oppose smoking bans because they are a direct infringement upon personal liberty.

Maximizing aggregate utility is not necessarily a good thing. Abusing certain minority groups might “maximize aggregate utility” if the benefits to the aggregate abusers outweigh the negatives of the abused. That’s why utilitarianism is a dangerous value judgment, especially for governments.

The government’s objective should be to maximize personal freedom to the extent that those freedoms don’t infringe upon the rights of others. And before you say, “But what about the non-smokers? Aren’t their rights being violated?” remember that the non-smokers are in smoking environments voluntarily. Going to a bar is a choice. Attending jury duty is compulsory. I have no problem with a smoking ban in a courtroom.

It’s official: Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools are coming to St. Louis:

The announcement today from the San Francisco-based Knowledge is Power Program makes Washington University the sponsor a cluster of five tuition-free, hard-work public schools, aimed at serving roughly 1,500 St. Louis students over the next 10 years. The first, a middle school, would open in the fall of 2009.

This is great news for children in the city, although they’ll have to wait until 2009 to attend. Here’s a map of KIPP schools already operating. These schools share a rigorous academic program and have been very successful. Now some students in St. Louis will have the opportunity to benefit from KIPP.

One of our scholars, Michael Pakko, has a piece looking at the economic effects of smoking bans in this month’s issue of The Regional Economist, a quarterly journal published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. He’s written a few other pieces about smoking bans during the past few years, and this new article (which has been spotlighted by the Kansas City Star, the Post-Dispatch, and KWMU) brings a considerable amount of fresh research to the table, much of which "suggests that at least some businesses do suffer costs." Pakko concludes that, "When they consider passing smoking bans, policymakers should study evidence both from public health professionals and from economists."

Pakko’s conclusion supports a crucial insight about smoking bans — they’re not just a matter of public health. Any general health benefits that may be gained from blanket anti-smoking laws have to be weighed against other measures of human welfare and happiness.

I’ve never smoked, but during the course of my life there have been many occasions that I’ve decided it’s worth the small health risks of some amount of exposure to secondhand smoke in order to, say, see live music (or, when I was much younger, earn money by working at fast food restaurants). In every one of those instances, I would have preferred a non-smoking environment, and I’m sure some other people shared my preference. But all the smokers, had they been forced by a blanket law to cease puffing away, would have enjoyed themselves less, to varying degrees.

Economists have a broadly-defined word for happiness, or satisfaction: utility. Although a mandated non-smoking environment increases my own utility, it simultaneously decreases utility for those who are barred from smoking. I can probably estimate my own utility in general terms, by using thought experiments: For instance, I would put up with a smoke-heavy environment to see King Crimson, but the smoke would probably edge out my desire to see Ben Harper, a performer I enjoy to a significantly lesser extent; so if I consider the amounts I’d be willing to pay for tickets to see each band under ordinary non-smoking conditions, I can roughly calculate the amount of utility I’d lose if a smoky environment made me miss out on music I’d otherwise enjoy.

But I can’t calculate the aggregate utility that all the smokers at an event would lose if a law prevented them from smoking, because they would each have a different marginal utility for the value of smoking at a given concert. Absent the actual observation of each smoker’s preferences over time, there’s no way to measure that aggregate utility — and, so, no way to measure the amount of happiness or satisfaction they lose after a smoking ban is passed, or weigh it against the increased happiness of non-smokers.

This is one reason economists tend to be suspicious of regulation — because centralized authorities have no mechanism to measure the aggregate utility of the people their laws will impact. The economic effect of a regulation on specific businesses is an important subsidiary measurement, but it’s only the tip of the full utility iceberg. Markets, though still far from perfect, ultimately do a better job of maximizing aggregate utility because each individual market participant is able to estimate his or her own utility in a way that no legislator can, and then act accordingly — either buying a product, attending a concert, patronizing a bar, or not.

If a large enough number of other people enjoy smoking, and accept its long-term health risks, I have no place denying them the opportunity to do so. If a privately-owned "public" establishment decides it wants to cater to smokers, I can choose to patronize a different business — or put up with the smoke, if the other aspects of a given opportunity set outweigh my loss of utility from the smoke itself.

At the very least, if the public-health mavens are resolute in their insistence that a regulatory solution is necessary, there are options other than blanket prohibition that at least acknowledge the existence of varying individual preferences, such as proposals to provide incentives for businesses to go smoke-free, or allowing some establishments to opt out of a ban, if they and their customer base want it badly enough. Markets don’t provide results that are good for all people, all the time, but at least markets aim to please large segments of the population, most of the time, by catering to decentralized, individual needs and wants.

Last year we released a case study on the privatization of the county’s pharmacy services. With the release of the 2008 county budget at the end of last year, we have been able to update and correct come of the information it contains. Here is the original study. Here is a statement explaining the updates and corrections in detail. Finally, here are some things to keep in mind about the update and corrections:

• Nobody called us on this. Our own follow-up research led to the corrections, and we are making these changes in the interest of accuracy.
• The error in the 2007 data was not our fault. We used a number provided to us by Saint Louis County. I am certain that nobody intentionally gave us a lower-than-accurate number. It was just an error. These things happen; you correct them and move on.
• Most importantly, the essential point of the case study, and its conclusions, remain exactly the same: that privatization has been great for county government, patients, and taxpayers. The only change is that the new numbers show lower savings — but there are still savings. If you adjust for inflation, the new numbers still show substantial cost savings. The improvements to patient services brought about by privatization remain a primary argument for the benefits of privatization, and are not changed by these new numbers.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a very thoughtful editorial this morning (link via Combest) about the Bellefontaine Habilitation Center in north Saint Louis County. The problems there are heartbreaking and long documented. There have been cases of abuse, neglect, and patient death both at the center and among patients who have been moved to private facilities for care. Each case is awful. The Post states, "As it turns out, privatization is no magic bullet."

Indeed, privatization is not necessarily the best choice for circumstances such as this, which deal with the absolute neediest members of our society. If I may digress a bit, one of larger problems I have with the welfare state is how quickly and easily the definition of "needy" gets expanded to include a very large number of people. You expand Medicare to serve anyone who wants it, and then when the governor merely tightens the eligibility requirements, to try to focus more resources on those who truly deserve it, he gets ripped for destroying families — regardless of whether that actually happened. So, yes, I clearly favor substantial reductions in the welfare state at the state and federal levels.

But that is not really an issue here, because everyone can agree that the patients at Bellefontaine clearly deserve state care if their own families are unable to provide it. And I don’t mean financially unable — the level and difficulty of care required for many of these patients is beyond what most families can perform. The state has a role in providing for these citizens, and the question is whether the state or the private sector should actually perform the job.

As for these patients who require lower levels of care, I don’t see anything wrong with allowing qualified private facilities, with appropriate state oversight, to provide that care. And I certainly see nothing wrong with firing 125 employees who are no longer needed because the patients have been moved. However, for the remaining 160 or so patients who need the greatest level of attention, the state should continue to provide the highest level of care possible. Only after private facilities have proven they can handle the most demanding patients, which may never happen, should the state consider moving them out of Bellefontaine. Until then, resources must be directed to provide for those patients.

Now, I look foward to discussing the SCHIP program and wondering why the hell families at 300 percent of the poverty level deserve to have the taxpayers pay for their kids’ health care, so I can return to being a tightwad.

Missouri Sen. Scott Rupp, for his recently introduced bill that seeks to end cyberbullying in the wake of the tragic "MySpace suicide" of Megan Meier, the Dardenne Prairie girl who hanged herself after being the target of hateful messages on the popular social networking website.

First, the details of this case are harrowing, and should provide an excellent cautionary tale to parents in the age of Web 2.0. Now, more than ever, it is essential that attention be paid to what children do and have access to online (the Washington Post has an excellent discussion about this topic).

The problem I have with Sen. Rupp’s bill, though, is that it sets a dangerous precedent for online regulation. The Internet is an entity that has grown and changed lives largely because of anonymity. This anonymity brings freedom in cyberspace, allows a shield of privacy to protect users from having their lives put on display for the entire world, and protects online residents from the actions of others. After all, a law that punishes a "cyberbully" could be applied to the wrong user of a guilty account, because it’s difficult — if not impossible, in many cases — to prove whether a given users was the one at the keyboard, or whether it was a bystander unaware of the harm being done.

Sen. Rupp’s bill has the good intention of attempting to right a new and unfamiliar wrong, but I cannot agree with his remedy. The Internet may be the greatest common good that the modern economy has ever seen, and any attempt to manage it with a political agenda will bring far more harm than benefit.

In the latest proof that foolishness knows no party, Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger have teamed up to write about payday loans in the Wall Street Journal:

Imagine the economic and social benefits of putting more than $8 billion in the hands of low- and middle-income Americans. That is the amount millions of people now spend each year at check-cashing outlets, payday lenders and pawnshops on basic financial services that most Americans receive for free — or very little cost — at their local bank or credit union.

The high interest rates charged on payday loans reflect how much riskier those loans are than the typical transactions higher-income people handle at full-service banks. When a mainstream bank lends money, the borrower is typically someone who has deposited money there and who has a relationship with the bank. Payday lenders don’t have that security.

Payday lenders’ high charges and fees reflect a cost, and that cost won’t go away just because people switch to full-service banks. Someone has to pay for risky loans, and if the lenders don’t, someone else — probably taxpayers — will have to. Or, as a result of usury laws, poor people won’t be able to borrow money at all.

Clinton and Schwarzenegger suggest that their plan won’t be costly because it will just encourage people to use cheap services that are already there. But switching risky loans from one kind of bank to another won’t make the cost go away.

Poor people can escape payday loans if they earn more than they spend, save enough to deposit money in an account, gain financial literacy and form relationships with mainstream banks. That’s a worthwhile goal, but we can’t achieve it with a quick fix.

The Kansas City Star has a preview of tonight’s State of the Union speech, which I will tune in to only by default, because nothing else is on — if I watch at all. That bit of honestly aside, some parts of it have my tongue wagging, although I have no faith whatsoever that these things will pass Congress — and I have to ask why the President didn’t attempt to do these things earlier in his administration:

Offering modest new plans, Bush proposed a $300 million "Pell Grants
for Kids" program to help poor children in struggling public schools
pay for the cost of attending a private school or a better public
school outside their district.

I love this idea, although as I think about it I don’t know how much I like it as a Federal program…

Bush also was to urge elimination of 150 federal programs that [White House counselor Ed] Gillespie called "wasteful or bloated."

Dare to dream for this to actually happen. Again, why wasn’t this proposed earlier in this administration?

The president will issue an executive order Tuesday ordering federal
agencies to ignore "earmarks" that aren’t explicitly enacted into law,
erasing a common practice in which lawmakers’ projects are outlined in
nonbinding documents that accompany legislation. The move is aimed at
making doubly sure that lawmakers have the opportunity to strike
earmarks during floor debates.

However, Bush’s plan leaves untouched the more than 11,700 earmarks totaling $16.9 billion that Congress approved last year.

If the earmarks from last year are not legally required to be spent, then why on earth is the money going to be spent? Who cares when they were passed? I guess it’s better late than never, but this is awfully damned late.

This is the type of thing one can get very excited about — but this is just a speech, not a piece of legislation. When the latter succeeds in doing these things, then I will get REALLY excited.

The Kansas City School District is (once again) stumbling down the path (recently blazed by the Saint Louis School District) toward unaccreditation. Because of the district’s continuing struggles, Superintendent Anthony Amato — who was earning a cool $220,000 per year — has been pressured into stepping down into a "consulting role."

So now that the district is in the market for its 10th superintendent in 30 years, to whom could the Kansas City schools look for "interim" leadership? None other than Dr. John Martin, the deputy superintendent who helped oversee the Saint Louis schools’ descent into unaccreditation. To be fair, my knowledge of Dr. Martin is largely limited to his heated opposition to charter schools, and he surely cannot be blamed for the sorry state the Saint Louis school system was in when he arrived. But if his presence as an administrator has done anything to help that district, I am not aware of it. Martin will reportedly receive compensation on the order of "$20,000 a month" in his new position.

Really, Kansas City School District? There were no other potential interim superintendents out there who, say, hadn’t recently failed to help a district avoid loss of accreditation?

For the sake of the children in those failing schools, I certainly hope that Dr. Martin proves to be more effective in Kansas City than he was in Saint Louis. But if I were a parent in that district, I would be very concerned about this choice of interim superintendent.

The Show-Me Institute’s study on light rail proposals for Kansas City certainly received a good deal of attention yesterday. Many in the KC media, but certainly not all, seemed to focus on the crime aspect of the study, which was a small part of the overall study. Our editor, Eric, previously posted a rebuttal to some of the criticisms of Randal O’Toole’s use of crime stats. I am going to leave that aside, as there are much more important reasons why Kansas City should give very serious thought to reconsider moving forward with light rail, such as the small proportion of jobs downtown in comparison to other downtowns, and the fact that the much-desired new development along light rail lines almost never occurs without additional subsidies. Yes, when I ride MetroLink, I feel very safe — but, then again, I am a total badass …

A quick note to commentators and blog posters everywhere: It is not sufficient to say that Randal O’Toole is simply opposed to light rail, and as such this study should be discounted. You have to actually read the study and then document where you think he may be wrong. So far, after reading various blog comments and news articles, I have not seen anyone do the latter.

So here goes the media roundup, if you are interested — as I am sure you are. The Kansas City Star published a solid article on the study, and linked to the full document as well, so readers can judge the arguments on their own — which we appreciate. Randal O’Toole and Crosby Kemper appeared live on two radio shows yesterday. The podcast of the "Chris Stigall Show" on KCMO AM 710 is here, and we’ll provide a link to the "Shanin and Parks Show" interview on KMBZ AM 980 when we have it.

I can only find one streaming video online for the TV station interviews. The video of the NBC Action News report is embedded here. Two TV stations, Fox 4 and KMBC-9, only have the online text versions of their stories online. KCTV-5 also appeared at the press conference, but I can’t locate the story on their website. We appreciate the coverage from all of these stations!

We will link to additional stories about the study as they appear. We are pleased to be a part of the discussion about this issue in Kansas City. Our primary goal was to give the people of Kansas City additional information about the other options they have for mass transit. If they choose to pay the higher taxes that will be required to move ahead with light rail, that is entirely up to them.

A front-page story in this morning’s Post-Dispatch details the delays that have plagued the Ballpark Village development in downtown St. Louis. At the center of the trouble, ironically, is a rather familiar name (emphasis added):

[Director of Development Chase Martin] attributed the delay to negotiations with Clayton-based Centene Corp.
after the company announced in September it would relocate its
headquarters to the Ballpark Village site.

This being the same Centene that wowed downtown officials in September with the announcement that they would be moving their headquarters and employees into the city to anchor the new development. This also being the same Centene that, four months prior, lost a judgment at the Missouri Supreme Court that prevented them from seizing "blighted" land in downtown Clayton through the power of eminent domain.

Any chance those two were related?

Now, however, negotiations between Centene, the Cardinals, the city, and Cordish Co. (the developer) are threatening to delay the project even further, to the point where completion is not expected until the beginning of the 2014 season, and officials are worried that the project may not even be under way when Busch Stadium hosts the Major League Baseball All-Star Game in July, 2009.

On one hand, this story brings up the positive side of what can happen when property owners stand up for their rights. Centene, which almost certainly would have built its new headquarters in Clayton had it been given the approval, will act as a major cornerstone in the continued revival of downtown St. Louis.

On the other hand, the last thing that I want to hear over the loudspeakers when I’m standing on the street outside the left-field fence during the Home Run Derby is Joe Morgan telling Chris Berman, "Hey, look at that big vacant lot across the street. That coulda been something really nice, but these people wouldn’t let a company build a building for some reason and they had to move and now it’s just a big ol’ pit. SWING AND A FLY!!!"

Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

Today, the Show-Me Institute released a new policy study, "Review of Kansas City Transit Plans," by Randal O’Toole. The study takes a look at recent light-rail proposals in Kansas City proposals and weighs their costs and benefits, looking at statistics and case studies from light-rail projects in other municipalities throughout the United States.

O’Toole documents:

• the typical high cost overruns of other light-rail implementations;
• the low ridership capacity of light-rail and streetcars;
• the increased operating costs over more flexible forms of transit;
• the years of advance planning required, and the accompanying uncertainty about future transit needs or preferences;
• the decrease in per-capita transit ridership that most other regions have experienced after building light-rail lines;
• the ways in which light rail increases traffic congestion;
• the unsuitability of light rail for municipalities without high concentrations of downtown jobs;
• the increased crime statistics correlated with light rail;
• the fact that most light-rail lines consume more energy and emit more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than the average passenger car;
• and the fact that light rail has not spurred urban development in other cities without huge additional subsidies from the government.

In short:

This information suggests that light rail and streetcars would not be a good fit for Kansas City. Instead, this study recommends that the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority contract out bus operations to private companies, which is likely to save 30 to 40 percent of costs. This, in turn, will allow a 50- to 60-percent increase in bus services, including several new bus–rapid transit routes. These improvements should result in far more new riders using public transit than would be gained from light rail — without increasing the cost to taxpayers.

We’ve already received coverage from the Kansas City Star about this study. The Star’s article is generally fair, allowing O’Toole and Show-Me Institute Chairman Crosby Kemper III to make brief arguments, but the piece is misleading in places. For instance, in this section:

The author is Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington D.C. He has written several papers and books denouncing light rail, and national pro-rail groups such as the Center for Transportation Excellence have accused him of presenting flawed and inaccurate arguments about this increasingly popular form of mass transit. Some of those arguments — such as associating light rail with crime — appear in the Kansas City study.

“I think it’s important to look at this study in the context of its author,” said Mark Huffer, executive director of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, which is leading Kansas City’s light-rail planning. “I think the conclusions Â… were a foregone conclusion before he (O’Toole) started.”

O’Toole doesn’t disagree. In an interview, he said: “Generally, light rail is not a good fit anywhere. … It doesn’t carry as many people as buses but it costs a lot more.”

The only argument of O’Toole’s that the Star piece makes any effort to discredit is the study’s use of crime statistics, which is mentioned in the first paragraph quoted above. But this is juxtaposed with the second paragraph, where a critic suggests that O’Toole’s conclusions were "foregone," followed by a third paragraph with O’Toole agreeing — but only about the economic cost/benefit portions of his argument. The way these paragraphs flow, it makes it appear as though O’Toole is agreeing that his interpretation of crime statistics was also "foregone," which is not the case. O’Toole was certainly familiar with these statistics before he began the Show-Me Institute study, but his interpretation of them is accurate.

The Star piece elaborates on its statistical quibble later:

However, O’Toole’s Kansas City study includes some methodologies and arguments he’s been criticized for elsewhere, such as drawing sweeping conclusions from small samples of statistics.

Take crime. O’Toole wrote that light rail has “by far the worst crime record in the transit industry” and cited a decade worth of federal statistics for crimes such as homicide. However, those statistics show all light-rail lines across the country were associated with just two homicides in the last seven years of federal data.

It’s true that the statistics show a marked decline in homicides in recent years — for all forms of transit alike. While this is good news — and some might consider those two deaths an outlier — O’Toole’s study uses statistics "between 1996 and 2005," which goes back a little further than the years considered by the Star. Although light-rail homicides weren’t too much higher in raw numbers in the late 1990s, they still outstripped buses by a huge margin, when considered in terms of per-capita passenger miles. For instance, in 1998, buses had 40 homicides — the highest raw number by far for buses in any of the years O’Toole’s study considers. The homicide count for light rail saw an uptick to 4 for that same year, which seems insignificant until you consider that U.S. transit riders only logged 1,128 passenger miles for light rail in 1998, compared to 20,360 for bus. If we compare the homicide rate per passenger mile, it’s as though there were about 72 homicides on light rail in comparison to those 40 on buses.

Even if we were to consider the homicide rate for light rail to be too low for a meaningful statistical comparison, it’s much easier to see the crime trend when looking at robbery, theft, and burglary. While homicides have fallen off on light rail since the ’90s, other types of crime (including rapes) have increased on light rail — especially in these categories. Just looking at the robbery statistics for 2005, there were 535 incidents reported on buses and 377 on light rail. When considered in terms of robberies per passenger mile, it’s as though there were nearly 4,840 robberies on light rail in comparison to those 535 on buses. (Or, alternatively, it’s like there were about 42 robberies on buses in comparison to those 377 on light rail.) I could show similar comparisons for almost any of those measurements of transit crime.

In other words, the rates of violent crime, in general, only seem lower for light rail because there are far fewer miles of light rail track than there are miles of bus routes. But if both are considered in comparable terms, light rail is far riskier.

Do we need to panic about Chinese education? This organization thinks so:

The message is clear: While Americans are partying, Asian students are playing the violin, learning math, and preparing to take over the world economy.

I’ve commented on the difference between U.S. test scores and those of other countries, because the gap shows that we could be doing better. However, I do not think that Asian education systems have no problems and we should try to be just like them. With all the recent talk about national standards and tests, we should keep in mind a few reasons not to panic and become just like China or India:

1. In some countries with rigid public education systems, poor children do better in private schools. Their test scores are better, and they’re more likely to have access to a sufficient number of computers, drinking fountains, and bathrooms. That’s right, bathrooms. If we really wanted a public education system just like the ones in Asia, we would need to scale back on our plumbing for the poor.
2. State-run education systems are unjust. For example, in Singapore students are segregated by ability into different tracks in seventh grade. Which track you’re in determines where you’ll go to high school and college, and what kind of job you’ll eventually get. Students who start out behind aren’t given a chance to catch up.
3. Some Asian students get burned out by intense competition as kids, then do nothing when they go to college. Gary Becker notes that this is a problem in Japan.
4. The global economy opens the world to competition, but it also means that the relative position of your country matters less. In every country, good students and hard workers will be rewarded. It’s true that foreign countries can be expected to keep catching up with the U.S. economically. It’s called convergence, and it happens naturally in the absence of wars and other trade barriers. This will happen no matter what our education system is like.

We should improve our education system because we’re not as good as we could be, not because we need to be a certain distance ahead of the rest of the world.

A Georgia public school district has implemented the “Learn and Earn” program, a program which pays students approximately $8/hour to attend after-school tutoring programs.

The program is funded by the Learning Makes A Difference Foundation, a local non-profit.

Being only somewhat facetious, I wonder how this program circumvents child labor laws, since the students are only in the 8th grade (which makes them, what, 13 or 14?). The program’s guidelines appear to violate existing federal laws, at least from a cursory glance.

Sol Stern writes in the City Journal that school choice is dead and we should focus on instructional reform. Basically, Stern complains that school choice hasn’t been implemented anywhere, than argues that it’s ineffective because New York City’s system of rewards and punishments for students within the monopoly public district hasn’t worked. Neal McCluskey points out this non-sequitur and refutes much of Stern’s argument here.

Stern is right that it takes a long, long time to change the education system. Although parental choice supporters have been around for 50 years, it’s only recently that a few limited voucher and tax-credit programs have sprung up. That’s just the nature of entrenched monopolies. It’s hard to change them, and they don’t always improve when they first encounter competition.

Instructional reform would take a long time to implement, too. And most people would be unhappy with the results. There are big battles within individual districts about new math versus old math, and how best to teach first-grade reading. Deciding on one standard K-12 curriculum would be harder — and the stakes would be much higher. Right now, if one district adopts an ineffective curriculum, some people may be able to move out of the area. If a state or the federal government enforced a national curriculum, a bad decision would affect students everywhere in the state or the country.

We won’t get a system of parental choice overnight. We won’t have a "rich" national curriculum tomorrow, either. Given that reforming education is a long-term process, let’s go about it the right way rather than looking for quick fixes that will cause more problems.

While today’s news is mostly dominated by depression, in the form of finances, film, and the city of St. Charles doing its best to ban fun (no low-cost drink specials … seriously?), a particular event following a holiday meal with the family last night begs for comment.

In my family, dinners in January and October have long been interrupted by calls from news organizations or interest groups seeking to test the opinions of white, middle-class, Midwestern America. Traditionally, these calls are met with a stern rebuke by one of my parents, angry that family time is being interrupted, but last night, en route to a biscuit, I got to the phone first.

Most of the six questions were fairly straightforward inquiries relating to the upcoming November election between Gov. Matt Blunt and Attorney General Jay Nixon, but one in particular caught my fancy (emphasis added):

"Do you support the right of law-abiding Missourians to purchase and carry concealed weapons?"

I asked the pollster to rephrase the question and she repeated it directly off her sheet. Shame. Such a question, immediately following the questions that asked about my party affiliation and opinion on abortion, couldn’t possibly have had the intention of pushing me towards one particular response. After all, what if I say no? Am I supporting the rights of non-law-abiding Missourians to carry concealed weapons? Because I don’t think anybody is such a big fan of that.

It would be stupid of me to believe that every opinion poll provides an accurate description of how the electorate feels about any issue. I just hope that everybody else who was up getting a biscuit at the same time recognizes where their responses go, and where those numbers end up.

There is nothing on earth better than Rocky Mountain skiing in enormous amounts of fresh snow. But now that I have had my yearly ski renewal, it’s time to get back to work and jump into whatever debate I feel like jumping into.

I see that Clay Chastain has filed a lawsuit to enforce the voter-approved referendum on light rail in Kansas City. I am not going to say anything on this now, but check out the main SMI web page on Wednesday, January 23, and you will see something very big on this exact issue. 

As discussed elsewhere on this blog by our intrepid intern, Nick, mandatory steroid testing of high school athletes has been proposed by the state legislature. There is nothing I loathe more than drug testing for any but the most sensitive of jobs, safety-wise (i.e., school bus drivers) — so, as you can imagine, I think this is an absolutely atrocious idea. Hey, kids! If you want to run cross-country, you first have to piss in a cup and prove your innocence! I am usually pretty good at understanding the reasons why people disagree with me on various issues, but I have never been able to remotely fathom the enthusiasm many people have for drug testing.

The Riverfront Times has a well-done story (link via Missouri Political News Service) on the similarly terrible decisions to install red-light cameras throughout the city of Saint Louis. The article in question focuses on a new camera at the intersection of Skinker and Delmar, a location I know very well. As teenagers, we used to buy beer at the J & W Liquor store two blocks east of there, until the whole area up and got gentrified. Anyway, there is absolutely no "safety" reason to have a red-light camera there. The reason there is a no-right-turn-on-red sign from eastbound Delmar to southbound Skinker is so residents of Parkview will have easier openings in and out of their subdivision. (I am certain of this, by the way, based on knowledge from a former job.) While that may well be a legitimate reason for the ban, it serves the convenience of the residents rather than any "safety" issue. The normal reason for such right-turn-on-red bans is a lack of visibility at certain intersections — but the visibility at this intersection is absolutely fine. Saint Louis city is doing absolutely nothing more than using cameras to raise money.

I think this is enough for today. Damn, the skiing was great! 

The Post-Dispatch ran a two-part article this this weekend (and this morning) on Missouri’s midwifery battle. The casual reader may find our preoccupation with this issue bizarre. But it’s not the midwife focus per se that we care about — it’s the Show-Me Institute’s staunch opposition to most occupational licensing regulations.

Advocates of midwife-assisted deliveries argue that the experience is more natural, offering new mothers the opportunity to experience the miracle of childbirth in a relaxed, conscious setting. Dr. Laurel Walter-Baumstark, a family physician on the board of the National Association of Birthing Centers, argues that "there is just no better model of preventive maternity care than the midwifery model."

But opponents counter that their opposition to legalized midwifery is focused on pre- and post-natal safety concerns, not money. For example, Dr. David Redfern, an obstetrician in Springfield, Mo., who testified against midwife legislation last year, argues, "[H]ow we [deliver babies] is very important, and we have to take patient safety into consideration."

But the doctor’s opposition misses the point. Eliminating occupational licensing requirements doesn’t mean an end to medical safety. The state is free to continue to sanction doctors (and other professionals) who properly meet their standards. What’s more, the state should set medical standards, as a way for consumers to ensure the quality of their medical practitioners. But it is not the state’s role to tell people how to live their lives. If a new mother wants to use a midwife to assist in childbirth, that’s her decision — a decision that no one is better-equipped to make than her.

And as the Post documents, doctor-assisted births aren’t necessarily qualitatively better than midwife deliveries (emphasis added):

“Medical interventions are on the rise. The rate of labor inductions in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1990 to 22 percent. The 2006 rate of births by C-section has reached 31 percent, the highest ever. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it can find no medical reason to justify the increases and says the interventions are not producing better maternal or infant health outcomes."

Before you dismiss this issue (or dismiss consideration of the role of occupational licensing in general), think of it this way: Are you really comfortable with surrendering your freedom to make your own decisions about your body? We shouldn’t be afraid of this type of choice; we should embrace it.

I wrote last month about a school district that rewards good grades with meals from McDonald’s. Now McDonald’s has ended the program. I guess they decided they would lose more from the negative publicity than they would gain from the few additional customers the program attracted.

This is an excellent example of how for-profit firms respond to customer feedback. When complaints about the program grew, McDonald’s — not the district — ended the program. In contrast, parents in Columbia are protesting new math all over the place, but the district just holds some meetings and avoids making changes.

The Post-Dispatch ran a human interest piece this morning on Eric Johnson, an elementary math teacher in the St. Louis Public Schools who spent three years developing what his students have dubbed "the program." From its description in the piece, "the program" sounds like an innovative mix of motivation and reward that could do a great deal to improve both math skills and test scores for students in St. Louis city.

So why is it being met with such a lukewarm response from administrators (emphasis added)?

Though district officials subscribe to the theory that the achievement
gap needs to be erased one classroom at a time, they say educational
practices must first undergo rigorous research and academic review.

"He knows what works for him. That’s not to say he doesn’t have a
program that works well for his students. But he doesn’t have the
research base yet to implement what he is doing on a larger scale,"
said William Parker, an assistant superintendent for elementary
education.

I understand the value of researching educational methods in order to ascertain their efficiency and develop a method for rolling them out, but attitudes such as this one are part of the reason that the St. Louis Public Schools face the crisis they do today.

Innovative classroom ideas need to be met with equally innovative support by school officials, or their benefits will never move past the 30 children that a teacher like Eric Johnson has in his class at any given time.

With all the work that is being done to try wholesale approaches to fix the crisis of public education in this country, it’d be interesting to see what would happen if individual results were fostered, bit by bit.

A bill which would offer a sales tax exemption for energy-efficient appliances has been proposed in the General Assembly. The bill would designate April 19-29, 2009 (in commemoration of Earth Day), as a “Tax Holiday” in which the state would exempt certain consumer appliances designated as Energy Star–compliant as tax-exempt. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that consumers who use Energy Star products can reduce their energy use and save up to $600 in utility costs annually.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, encouraging energy conservation is a good thing, particularly through voluntary incentives such as the proposed bill. But on the other hand, this bill will have absolutely no impact on overall Missouri energy usage unless everyone goes out that week and buys new appliances.

Ideally, tax credits should not only have broad applicability (which this one has), but also be revenue-neutral (which this one isn’t). Clearly, the state will lose (some) money on such a tax credit, not only from the loss of sales tax, but also from the future loss of utility tax revenue — if the EPA report can be believed. I suspect the fiscal effect would be minimal, but if the state is going to lose revenue, presumably there should be a tangible accounting benefit. For example, tax credits such as those detailed in our tuition tax credit proposal (you knew this was coming) offset the loss in tax revenue by reducing state spending, actually netting annual fiscal savings. If tax credits aren’t revenue-neutral, they run the risk of being used as a political tool.

So I guess I’ll leave it at this. My feelings on a “green” sales tax exemption?

EhhÂ…

Edudiva discovers compensating wage differentials:

I wondered if the maximum salary was tied to the median income level of the district. Seemed reasonable that the districts in wealthier areas would pay more. With a correlation number of -.26 though, that’s not the case.

Districts with lower income levels (and, presumably, harder-to-teach kids) offer teachers a little extra to make up for the more challenging working conditions. It’s easy to imagine what would happen if all districts had to pay teachers the same. Faced with a choice between earning $34,000 a year in an affluent district, or $34,000 a year in the inner city, almost every teacher would choose the affluent district. Same pay, better environment. A few dedicated people would still teach in the poorer districts, but it would nearly impossible for those districts to attract enough teachers.

Different districts don’t all have to pay teachers the same. But within districts, we do have that problem. Rigid salary schedules treat all teachers in a district the same, regardless of suject area or special circumstances. So new teachers are faced with a choice: earn $34,000 a year teaching special education, a difficult job that requires extensive training, or earn $34,000 a year teaching elementary language arts, which is not nearly so demanding. Consequently, there’s a teacher shortage in the most difficult subject areas. There are also shortages in math and science, because people with that knowledge could earn a lot more in industry.

This morning, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, an eminent domain case that’s been ongoing for a few years now. We’ve profiled Homer Tourkakis and his "blighted" dental practice before, and his case was one of the many featured in our former editor Tim Lee’s eminent domain study, "The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri."

Last night, I posted a press release on our website that gives some background on the case, along with several links to other eminent domain resources, including the brief of amicus curiae filed by the Show-Me Institute, making an argument for strong property rights for Missourians.

This is a pivotal case. As the press release says, "This case will decide whether the Missouri Constitution still offers property owners any meaningful protection against municipalities seeking to give their homes, businesses, or houses of worship to commercial developers." The rights of ordinary homeowners and small business proprietors hang in the balance.

We’ve seen that cruel people can use the Internet to harass others. It turns out that stupid people even use the Internet to harass themselves. That’s right, two men who are "alleged" gang members waved weapons in the air and threatened police officers for a YouTube video. (Because one of them says "Metro Dade Gang Unit, here I am baby" on the video, the allegation sounds reasonable.) Police promptly arrested them.

I can’t think of any changes we should make to our laws as a result of this, but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to link to an Internet harassment story with a happy ending.