Today, the Eighth Circuit held that St. Louis’ Land Clearance Redevelopment Authority must face the music for attempting to shut down Jim Roos’ very public protest of eminent domain abuse. As you may recall from an earlier post, LCRA officials first told Roos that he had to get their approval before he put up his anti–eminent domain sign, then tried to argue that Roos couldn’t sue them because the agency never really possessed the authority it had claimed when it tried to squelch Roos’ right to political expression. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and the judges have sent this matter back to the trial court to determine whether Roos’ protest is, in fact, entitled to constitutional protection.

This week’s edition of the St. Louis Business Journal contained an interesting, “Political Pull,” naming and discussing some of Missouri’s biggest contributors to the Obama and McCain campaigns. Between the two candidates, they amassed a combined $4,075,353. Missouri is not only a bellwether state, but also a crucial tossup state for the 2008 presidential election.

Reading this article, and thinking about the colossal figures being given to both campaigns, I could not help but remember some of the campaign finance reform that had occurred in Missouri. In their final hour of session back in May, Missouri lawmakers passed legislation repealing Missouri’s campaign contribution limits. Just in the governor’s race alone, candidates are expected to raise between $8 and $12 million. This law, which was went into effect on August 28, could leave many state candidates screaming “Show me the money!”

There is much dissonance within political ideologies when it comes to campaign finance. Just last February, two Missouri state senators each wrote completely opposite bills — one throwing out campaign contribution limits, another pushing a plan for public campaign financing. Does this cross the lines of our First Amendment, or do limits really clean up our government? I would love for you to post your ideas.

An essay in today’s Wall Street Journal makes the case that education depends on parents. Daniel Akst argues that parents should make their kids read and do homework — and if schools don’t assign much, they’re just responding to parental attitudes. He backs up this claim with research:

A study of elementary-school families last year in the Quarterly Journal of Economics bears this out. Researchers at Brigham Young and the University of Michigan found that parents preferred teachers who make their children happy over those who emphasize academic achievement.

In fact, that’s only half the story. The study did find that some parents prefer teachers who make kids happy; but that result was limited to parents in high-income areas. In schools with high poverty levels, parents are more concerned about a teacher’s ability to raise academic achievement. (You can read a summary of the study here.) So, by Akst’s reasoning, we should see better schools in high-poverty neighborhoods as a response to parental demand. Of course, we don’t.

Akst is on the right track; parental preferences are important, but they’re not enough. Parents also must be able to act on them. In wealthy areas, schools respond to what the parents want because parents can make a credible threat to pull their children out if the schools disappoint. In inner cities, schools can ignore the parents because their children aren’t going anywhere.

In those rare cases when the poor can choose schools, they do get what they want. That’s why some of the most popular charter schools, like KIPP, have extra-long school days and a strict focus on academics. I predict we’ll see inner-city public schools adopting some of those methods once choice programs and charters are large enough to threaten their survival.

The Post-Dispatch reports on the new alternative route to teacher certification. Now that the law is in effect, there are many happy districts and prospective teachers out there. Here’s a sample:

“We intend to recognize teacher candidates with ABCTE certification as we would any other certified teacher candidate,” said Kelvin McMillin, who oversees human resources for the Rockwood district. “Our selection and hiring process focuses upon finding the most talented teacher for our classroom openings.”

Districts have a lot to gain from the alternative teacher certification. They’re free to choose from more applicants, so they can raise their standards if they find better-qualified applicants. And they’ll have an easier time filling advanced math and science teaching positions — in fact, they’ll be able to hire former scientists and mathematicians for those classes.

The decision of whom to hire is still up to districts, so critics needn’t worry that under-qualified teachers will be forced on classrooms. Districts will just have more hiring options.

As fans of the Little House series will undoubtedly remember, Laura Ingalls Wilder moved again and again as a child. Each time, the family struck out on its own, relying on its own resources and the help of a few far-away neighbors. Whenever a town sprung up or the surrounding land attracted too many other settlers, Laura’s Pa moved the family and its few belongings to another sparsely populated area farther west.

Were Pa alive today, he would probably try to use zoning restrictions to keep the new people out. That’s what’s happening in Jefferson County, where residents want to prevent the building of a Hindu education center and about 100 houses (which would not all be occupied on most days). No one suggests that the Hindu retreat would be disruptive or dangerous, but it wouldn’t be “rural” enough for the tastes of some Jefferson County residents. Here’s what one man said about the plan:

“What’s being proposed is anything but rural,” Fogarty said. “It’s going to create a significant amount of new traffic. And people like me and my family moved out here to get away from the city.”

Maybe it’s time to get out the covered wagon.

David Nicklaus at the Post-Dispatch has a great find with the recent warning from Fitch about the Lake Ozark Community Bridge’s rating. Because I have probably written and spoken about this bridge as much as anyone in Missouri during the past two years, I’d like to share some thoughts. For one, the issue of increasing toll charges is similar to the issue of raising fares on mass transit, in that $3.50-a-gallon gas is changing the equation.

The first commenter over at Mound City Money stated that if the toll is raised, he will avoid the bridge. Really? So, if the toll is raised to, say, $3.50 from $2.50, that extra buck will cause you to add 45 minutes to your trip? Really? Even if we take out the value of your time, the added driving will at a minimum use up an extra gallon of gas, at an extra price equal to the toll. So you’d be at best dead even (and worse-off in many cars) without considering the value of the 45 minutes you previously saved. I have to think that it sounds perfectly reasonable to increase the toll to the level that the ratings agency is calling for.

The decrease in Lake Ozark bridge traffic can pretty clearly be attributed to the decrease in overall traffic at the lake, as the second Mound City Money commenter notes, and as we saw earlier this year in articles about sales tax collections in the Lake Ozark area (I remember reading them, but am unable to locate them online right now). To find someone who has chosen to reduce his time boating at the Lake this year because of high gas prices, I only have to walk down the hall to my boss’ office.

I say they should raise the bridge toll by $1 in season and 25 cents out of season. I doubt that would have any serious effect on traffic. Or, better yet, just lease the entire thing to a private company and make the bonds an entirely private matter …

“When it comes to your child’s education, one size definitely doesn’t fit all.” That’s a quote from Milton Friedman, right? Wrong. (Although he did say things along those lines.)

I found that quote on the St. Louis Public Schools’ website, in the magnet schools brochure. The brochure lauds magnets for their diversity (because enrollment isn’t limited to a particular neighborhood), unique academics, and specialized instruction. And you’ve got to hand it to them: One of the top public high schools in the St. Louis area — Metro Academic & Classical High School — is a magnet.

So, my question is, if one size doesn’t fit all, why not run the rest of the district on the same model? Under the current system, only a select few have access to magnet school education. Enrollment in the magnets is strictly limited. Although the brochure describes the application process as “simple” and “fair,” it looks anything but. Classes are populated according to a list of four different priority tiers, and African-American city residents are in the lowest tier of all. African-Americans in the county are not even eligible to apply, unlike their white, Asian, or Hispanic neighbors. Even after limiting eligibility by race and residence, applications are entered in a lottery. If you get an unlucky number, you’re stuck in your one-size-fits-all traditional public school.

SLPS seems to recognize that students aren’t all the same. I hope they’ll act on that knowledge and give residents educational choices — or, at least, open a few more magnet schools to meet demand.

Figures from the U.S. Census Bureau were released yesterday, leaving us with good news and bad news. First, the good news: Across America, median household incomes rose by 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, creating a median income of $50,740. The great state of Missouri saw a 1-percent increase, moving our median household income to $45,114.

The bad news: Poverty rates increased drastically nationwide. Between 2001 and 2007, Missouri saw its overall poverty rate jump from 11.7 to 13 percent. More alarming is the 2.1-percent increase in Missouri’s child poverty rate, which means an estimated 240,671 kids are living below the poverty level.

With the price of food and gas going through the roof, it may well get worse. The city of St. Louis alone has seen its highest unemployment rates in 16 years. “Working class families are at a tipping point,” an observation that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch attributes to an area United Way researcher. There are many place we can point fingers, such as the poor economic climate and recent cutbacks in various plants. Nonetheless, something needs to be done.

There are some very intriguing discussions about school choice going on in Denver, among participants at some sort of a convention that is, apparently, being held there right now. Honestly, the write-ups I have read about this event’s school choice discussions have been very exciting. You can find articles and discussion about them here at Education Week, and here at Kausfiles.

I’ve long been waiting for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to catch up with the Columbia newspapers and start an education blog. I am happy to announce that they now have: The Grade promises to be an interesting source of commentary on education news both in and out of the state. Current topics of discussion include: a new policy in Texas allowing teachers to carry handguns; enrollment numbers at local universities; and districts’ efforts to involve parents as they try to hold on to accreditation.

I hope some of the writers there will weigh in on the charter school debate. Charter school expansion is taking off across the country, and I was pleasantly surprised to hear a mention of charters during the Democratic National Convention last night (Maya Soetoro-Ng has taught in one).

Back in April, I noted that the Foundry Art Centre in St. Charles exercised “good fiscal planning” by asking the city (which the head of the Foundry’s board referred to as “daddy”) to give the Centre $100,000 to help them meet their budget of $645,000. It seems that this effort paid off, at least to an extent, as seven members of the City Council have advanced legislation that would donate $30,000 to the centre. This payment would be on top of the $2 million of taxpayers’ money that the city has already dedicated to the development of this organization. The city government is also planning to pay up to $10,000 to hire a consulting firm that would “recommend ways to improve the 4-year-old artist studio and exhibition facility’s operations.”

St. Charles has about 63,000 residents. Assuming that the city approves the $30,000 subsidy and the $10,000 consultation fee, it would mean that, on average, the city government has forced local taxpayers to contribute more than $32 for every man, woman, and child in the city in order to subsidize the Foundry’s presence in their community. In the meantime, the Foundry claims to draw more than 90,000 visitors per year, charging an admission fee of $2 per adult and $1 per student or senior citizen. It also hosts events, for which it charges rental and use fees. The rest of its operating budget seems to be drawn from private donations.

To be sure, I am all in favor of the fine arts. But it is exceedingly poor policy for a local government to force taxpayers to support businesses — even non-profit businesses — that otherwise could not support themselves. If an organization’s presence in the community is truly valuable, the market will provide the means for it to sustain itself. If the visitors to the centre are really impressed with what the Foundry has to offer, they should be willing to pay an additional dollar each in order to make sure that the organization can meet its budget.

Similarly, if the 90,000 annual visitors to the Foundry bring additional customers to nearby businesses, the benefited businesses should be willing to make donations that will keep the centre viable. But if the Foundry’s presence isn’t valuable enough to patrons or nearby businesses to warrant an additional dollar in admission price or additional donations, why in the world should taxpayers be forced to pick up the slack?

Most cities in urban areas strictly limit the number and types of animals you can own. You know what, I’ll take back the “strictly” adjective. How they enforce the laws generally depends on how well you get along with your neighbors. Most people, who might have one more dog or cat than allowed, or may have a ferret or chicken or pig, are violating some sort of ordinance — but nobody cares or reports it, so everything is fine … until you get that one neighbor who doesn’t like you and actually bothers to call the inspectors. This is occurring in St. Charles right now, with one family struggling to keep its family pig. The Post-Dispatch has the story here, but this question applies to every suburb and big city in Missouri. For pretty obvious reasons, this is not much of an issue in the rural parts of the state.

What limits should a city have on the type of pet you can own? In my opinion, this issue relates to property regulation or occupational licensing, in that it deserves a strict reading of the phrase “health, safety, and welfare” to justify government action. That pretty much takes care of the whole argument for me. The cities have a right to regulate poisonous snakes, large predators, or hordes of animals so large they clearly become a nuisance. I support laws against owning 12-foot pythons (which are normally owned by hard-drinking fraternity members — not a good combination). I support regulations of or bans on tigers, or wolf half-breeds, or scorpions, or 15 dogs at once. But that same interpretation would not ban a pot-bellied pig, or a few chickens, or two dogs and two cats in the same house.

I have said before that the best part of local government is watching dedicated citizens try to make their community a better place. The worst part is when citizens with little grounding in history, economics, or political theory try to solve every minor problem with a new law, as though the family with a pot-bellied pig were actually harming the rest of the neighborhood. Now, I realize that most of these types of animal regulations are actually very old, rather than a new, unconstitutional craze like red-light cameras. In days past, it might even have been necessary to enforce these laws strictly in order to differentiate between what was a farming area and what was not. But nowadays, these limits mostly just serve to increase the petty powers of government, and the annoying neighbors who enable them.