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.

Despite spending more per student than all but two states, maintaining a 14:1 student-to-teacher ratio, and offering among the higher teacher salaries in the nation, Washington, D.C., has long had the absolute worst public school system in the nation. The District’s schools rank dead last in math and reading, as assessed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress evaluations. Washington has struggled for decades to change this culture of academic failure, but to no avail.

But, as Newsweek recently reported, the District is now in the midst of a paradigm-shift regarding the way that schooling is done. The first break from tradition came with the District’s successful introduction of dozens of charter schools. Shortly thereafter, Congress authorized a scholarship program that allows more than 1,800 low-income students (the program had four times that many applicants) to attend the best available schools, whether public or private. Then, shortly after his election in 2006, Mayor Adrian Fenty stripped authority from the school board and appointed Michelle Rhee as the chancellor of Washington’s public schools.

The article does an excellent job of highlighting how the city’s schools had been paralyzed by the teachers’ unions’ staunch opposition to any changes that would have made it easier to remove ineffective administrators and educators, and it gives a snapshot of how D.C.’s leadership is making its first concerted effort to transform the city’s public education landscape in a fundamental way. In addition to their willingness to consolidate underpopulated schools and fire ineffective-but-popular administrators, Rhee and Mayor Fenty have raised the possibility of nearly doubling the salaries of the city’s teachers, provided that they are willing to abandon the security of tenure. These changes are terrifying for the educational establishment, which has mobilized an enormous effort to try and maintain the status quo, but these are precisely the kinds of fundamental reforms necessary to ensure that public schools are more focused on meeting the needs of their children than they are on creating job security for education professionals.

Given that St. Louis shares many of the same challenges facing Washington, D.C., the city would be wise to watch Washington’s progress as we evaluate the future of our own school system.

It has been a little more than two months since Pine Lawn Police Chief Rickey Collins began enforcing the anti-sagging ordinance that the municipality’s aldermen passed. According to the Post-Dispatch, “The ordinance calls for fines of up to $100 for those 17 and older who wear pants below the waist that expose underwear or skin. [...] Parents of those 16 and under face up to a $500 fine or 90 days in jail if they knowingly allow their children to wear pants in such a manner.”

Personally, I think sagging is uncongenial, representing the antithesis of a gentleman. Despite my views, I believe that government does not have the right to enforce family values by acting like the fashion police. Besides being difficult to implement and patrol, this policy is also unconstitutional. There are many forms of expression that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as fighting words, libel, commercial speech, and obscenity. While some try to place sagging under the umbrella of obscenity, it would be relevant to put it through the “Miller Test,” which is the standard for determining whether material is obscene. In the 1973 case of Miller v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that material is legally obscene if:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would conclude that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests.
2. It depicts sexually explicit conduct, specifically defined by law, in a patently offensive manner.
3. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I believe tha sagging passes the ‘Miller Test’ with flying colors. For young people who are part of our country’s inner-city hip hop culture, it is a form of rebellion and identity. To some, it is just plain fashionable. This ordinance in Pine Lawn is just another example of how our liberty and freedom of expression are in danger today.

Other cities around the country, most recently Flint, Mich., are also taking stride to incorporate the same ordinance in their efforts to restore family values and ethics. I do applaud the importance of ethics in American society, but how ethical is it for government to deny our freedom of expression?

The Commission that was charged with reviewing the capital needs of the county and recommending solutions has issued its final report. (My testimony about it begins on page 226.) The recommendations are a little long on tax increases, but I also recognize that, in the end, it is up to the voters of the county to decide. I like the commission’s recommendations to consider resources outside of central Clayton in certain situations (nobody wants to move the bulk of county facilities from Clayton), and, of course, I really like the support for public-private partnerships to meet some of these needs.

The list of final recommendations on page 14 is the key part of the report (aside from page 226, obviously). It is interesting that the County Council acted against the recommendations of the commission, and placed this use tax on the November, 2008, ballot instead of waiting for April 2009. No further comments — it’s just interesting.

As of right now, it appears that county voters will get to vote on three tax/bond issues this Novermber. As it stands right now, I am in favor of the bond issue, against the use tax, and undecided (leaning in favor) on the Metro tax increase. I live near MetroLink and use it, so a very careful cost-benefit analysis of the service probably benefits me. I have to doubt it would work out that way for most people.

Briefly back to the commission report: Every member of the volunteer commission deserves thanks for dedicating their time to it. Especially Skip Mange, the chairman, who took time away from his grandkids to once again serve the people of the county.

This week, I have been very intrigued by all of the coverage and media attention received by college and university administrators and their efforts to mitigate some of the behavioral issues on campuses throughout the country. Some of the most publicized attempts by groups such as the Amethyst Initiative, which consists of chancellors and presidents from universities and colleges, have been targeted at lowering the drinking age from 21 years of age to 18, to prevent the culture of binge drinking. While opening up debates about lowering the drinking age is fine and dandy, I must say that I was tickled pink when I read an AP article at the Post-Dispatch site titled “Universities try to control students off campus.”

Many campuses across the country are starting to monitor the off-campus activities of students much more closely, because of the large number of students that pursue off campus living arrangements. Large schools, such as the University of Washington, Penn State, and the University of Colorado–Boulder, have enforced such laws, and have seen progress. According to the article, “Being cited for breaking the city’s noise regulations is enough to score an invite to the [University of Washington's] student conduct office.”

Granted, a college or university has the right to create a code of conduct that is conducive to the educational environment on campus. If colleges do not want noisy, disruptive students to attend their school, that is their right and academic freedom. The only concern I have is in how they would investigate these occurrences. If a student were to receive a citation for a noise violation, would the school wait to see if the ticket is actually challenged? At Duke University, for instance, the campus codes only require that a student report misbehavior to campus officials. This could easily represent another example of administrators punishing first and asking questions later. There is no liberty in just being accused of something and then reprimanded — there must be due process.

This only leaves a few choices for students in the future: accept these strict regulations; voice their concerns and seek change in the institution; or withdraw and attend a more lenient college or university. For the men in Old School and Animal House, this would be an easy decision.

One of the more radical (and controversial) ideas in education reform these days is to offer students cold, hard cash in exchange for performance. The idea is that, although some students might not be motivated by the sheer joy of learning, their priorities might change if they are offered concrete financial rewards for academic achievement.

The New York Times has a story today discussing the mixed results of a recent pilot program in New York City. The privately funded program, which included several thousand students in 31 high schools (25 public schools and six Catholic schools, all chosen based on criteria including minority enrollment and prior student test performance), sought to encourage students to take and pass Advanced Placement exams by offering them up to $1,000 for earning passing scores on those tests.

In 2007, 4,275 students from these schools took AP exams, which are graded on a 1–5 scale with 1 being worst and 5 being the best. Of those students, 174 (4.1 percent) attained the highest score, while 403 (9.4 percent) scored 4, and 904 (21.1 percent) scored 3, the lowest passing grade. Overall, 34.6 percent of the test takers in 2007 earned passing grades.

In 2008, knowing that a good score could mean a lot of money, 4,620 students took the exams. Of those, 207 (4.5 percent) scored 5, 398 (8.6 percent) scored 4, and 871 (18.9 percent) scored 3. So, just on the surface — and in the absence of any additional information — the monetary incentive seems to have encouraged an additional 345 students to take the test, as well as spurring a slight increase in the percentage of test takers earning the highest possible score. But the rest of the story is that a smaller percentage of these schools’ 2008 test takers (32 percent) performed well enough to pass.

This was just the first year for this incentive program, and the monetary incentives were announced after the school year had already begun and class assignments were set, so it’s hard to say whether we can learn much of anything from these results. While I know that the idea of paying students for academic performance is somewhat controversial, as a matter of theory I do believe that these sorts of financial incentives are likely to lead to improved student performance. I am also aware that theory does not always translate into reality, so I will be very interested to see future studies assessing the impact of this and similar programs.

What do you think about rewarding students for academic performance?

My heart sank when I read this story from the Post-Dispatch today. A commercial developer has targeted a neighborhood in Affton for a new development and has started contacting the area’s property owners with offers. The area’s elected representative on the County Council is already talking about creating a TIF district to subsidize the developer’s efforts. Of course, creating a TIF district also opens the door to eminent domain. This is a textbook example of how eminent domain abuse begins, all over the country.

My advice to the good folks in Affton (and anywhere else where a developer is looking to assemble property) is to immediately read the Eminent Domain Survival Guide offered by the Institute for Justice. It offers invaluable information for those who find themselves in a situation where the government might take away their property. Second, I urge you to contact Anthony Martin, Missouri’s Property Rights Ombudsman. His job is to help Missourians understand the way that eminent domain is pursued in this state. And, finally, contact us at the Show-Me Institute so we can help tell your story and, hopefully, help save your home or business.

Famed Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt will be giving a free public lecture next month, co-sponsored by Saint Louis University and the Show-Me Institute. From the press release:

Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? What makes a perfect parent? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? These are questions that Steven D. Levitt asks in his controversial, critically acclaimed book FREAKONOMICS: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. Levitt will expand on his book’s inquisitive premise during an address on Tuesday, Sept. 23, at Saint Louis University.

Levitt’s speech is part of the economic policy series presented by the Show-Me Institute in conjunction with Saint Louis University and its John Cook School of Business. He will be the third lecturer in the series, which began earlier this year.

If you, or anybody you know, is interested in attending, be sure to register sooner rather than later. Seating is limited, and we expect that demand will likely exceed supply.

Not content with the Missouri Municipal League putting the good of government over the good of the people by trying to block much-needed reforms to our eminent domain laws (yeah, yeah, I know that the “government” is “us” — would somebody please tell the muny league that?), the St. Louis County Municipal League is attempting to pass a use tax on county citizens and businesses. From the article in the Post-Dispatch:

Dooley said he was acting on behalf of the St. Louis County Municipal League, which wrote to Dooley last week seeking his support of the tax.

Here is my testimony on the subject, which I gave in June to the county commission considering these issues. The imposition of a use tax on county businesses will wipe out one of the competitive advantages that St. Louis County has, and just add incentives for businesses to move to St. Charles. Perhaps I shouldn’t care. The county (and, even more so, the cities within it) can always just give away more tax breaks to favored businesses once they pass the higher taxes on to all of them. That certainly sounds like the basis for good policy …

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that cities across the state were creating a war chest to try to prevent Missouri’s voters from ending the eminent domain abuse that currently threatens our right to keep what rightfully belongs to us. Shortly thereafter, the secretary of state ruled that, despite the hundreds of thousands of signatures turned in by Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (MO-CPR) in support of their proposed constitutional amendments, the issue would not be on the November ballot.

Last week, MO-CPR filed a lawsuit challenging the secretary of state’s decision and asking the court to allow citizens to have their say on the issue. And, yesterday, the Missouri Municipal League — an organization that collects taxpayer dollars and purports to advance the interests of Missouri’s local governments — moved to block MO-CPR’s lawsuit.

A few choice tidbits from the Municipal League’s filing should allow citizens to evaluate the merits of its “concerns”:

• The league’s members argue that they should be allowed to intervene because they “have exercised the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for conveyance to private entities for commercial or other development to fight blight and other decay, and it is anticipated that they will continue to do so in the future.”
• The league opposes the amendments because they might require local governments to pay “just compensation for local land use regulations.” In other words, the cities would have to pay you if they passed a regulation that decreased the value of your property. While not included in their filing, a previous Municipal League analysis of the proposed amendments also worried that they would “significantly increase the amounts of condemnation awards” to citizens being dispossessed of their homes and businesses.
• The league is concerned that the amendments would require cities to get a court order before they destroyed or condemned property that they thought was a nuisance. While not mentioned in the league’s filing, the amendment would also require cities to give owners an opportunity to fix the problems themselves. I mean, why in the world should cities allow property owners the chance to remove the government’s pretext for giving their property to someone else? Honestly.
• The league doesn’t like that the amendments would “limit the use of eminent domain to the State or political subdivisions whose officials are directly responsible to elected officials.” This would, of course, allow voters to hold those responsible for using eminent domain accountable for their actions — a radical departure from current law, which allows many unelected, unaccountable organizations to take away private property.
• Despite justifying its involvement in part by complaining that confirming the number of proper signatures will be expensive, the league calls for the court to recount all 400,000+ signatures, not just the ones challenged by MO-CPR.

MO-CPR issued a press release in response to the Municipal League’s filing. Among the excellent points made in the release, my favorite is where Bevis Shock (a member of the Show-Me Institute’s board of directors) asks, “I wonder if the politicians who approved this legal action have considered how many residents of their cities signed our petition?”

For all of you Mizzou Tiger fans, please don’t get your hopes up. This No. 1 ranking has nothing to do with college football. According to an article in the Southeast Missourian, a Ball State University study has ranked Missouri as the No. 1 state for manufacturing in the country. Of the 20 categories that the 2008 National Manufacturing and Logistics Report Card took into account, Missouri was placed at the top for low long-term health care costs, health care premiums, and property taxes.

These high marks in health care costs and premiums can be attributed in part to the passage of HB 818, which helped the Show-Me State show the rest of the nation how free-market health insurance reform is done. This bipartisan solution to the state’s health policy dilemma helps put employees in charge, freeing them to choose their own insurance policies, and puts employers in positions where they can now contribute directly to employees’ plans without the burden of mandated contribution amounts. Furthermore, health savings accounts and individual health plans are portable, so employees are protected even in case of employment changes.

Another key factor associated with our manufacturing job growth (which might easily be overlooked) was the massive tort reform legislation that was passed in 2005. The Ball State rankings represent tangible evidence that good things happen when states reform and alter legal systems in an effort to shut down abuses that lead to “jackpot justice.”

In the midst of a poor economic climate and recent cutbacks in various plants, the great state of Missouri still prevails. Great job, Missouri … let’s keep up the good work!

With all due respect to my colleague, Sarah, the most ridiculous regulation imposed on the food industry comes from the recent decision by the Los Angeles city government to ban new fast-food restaurants from opening in poor neighborhoods. There was an excellent piece on this regulatory nightmare written by William Saletan at Slate.com, and another for the Los Angeles Times by Joe Hicks, but I want to reiterate several of the reasons why this is such a terrible idea:

• The fast-food ban assumes that poor people can’t be trusted (and therefore have no right) to make decisions for themselves. This is paternalism at its ugliest, because it says that people’s freedom can and should be stripped from them if the majority believes their choices might prove to be unwise.
• The ban ignores the realities of these communities. As unhealthy as fast food can be, it is the most convenient, most affordable way for many people to get a meal. Even if someone in a poor community had the time to shop at a grocery store and fashion home-cooked meals, it is far more expensive to purchase fresh foods and the means to prepare them than it is to swing by a local fast-food restaurant. Especially with the escalating cost of food, families worried about day-to-day survival can’t always afford the luxury of securing the most nutritious meals.
• Fast-food restaurants provide jobs for unskilled workers. While, as Dave Chapelle’s satirical take on this issue points out, these sorts of jobs aren’t likely to end poverty, they do bring money into the community and offer a first step toward more profitable types of employment. The fewer fast-food restaurants in the community, the higher that area’s unemployment level will be.
• The ban prevents competition in the fast-food market. Los Angeles has only banned new fast food restaurants, insulating the existing businesses from competition. Not only does this alleviate some of the pressure to keep menu prices down, it also allows the existing companies to pay rock-bottom wages because workers have fewer alternative employers.

Unfortunately, as with many ill-advised government schemes, this one seems to be catching on.

Being an environmentalist opposed to nuclear power is like being a vegetarian who is starving but still refuses meat. The solution to all your primary goals and needs is right in front of your face, but you still refuse to alter your mindset to see it. Let’s see here: Fewer carbon emissions? Check. Clearner burning energy? Check. Reduced use of fossil fuels? Check. Add in the benefits of more affordable energy and a decreased use of foreign energy sources, and I have never understood the opposition to nuclear power.

A short time ago I half-jokingly wrote about how the disaster movies of the 1970s helped fuel the safety-obsessed society we now live in. Smarter people than I have already constructed this equation: One overrated movie + one poorly timed, frightening, but ultimately minor accident + an enormous amount of activism from certain types opposed to nuclear power = a halt on expanded nuclear power in America + more dependence on the exact thing (oil) that environmentalists don’t like in the first place + higher energy costs for everyone.

What is the point of all this? AmerenUE wants to expand its nuclear plant in Cab Callaway County. The Fulton Sun has the story here, about a recent public hearing on the proposal. One of my neighbors showed up to oppose it:

Drey claimed that a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a terrorist attack would cause massive ecological and health problems for a very large area.

“Someone could get in with a plastic explosive through a metal detector and drop it into the plant and that would be the end of Callaway County and the rest of us,” she said.

Where to begin? First of all, the plant is already there (thankfully). It’s not like a terrorist is going to say, “Well, now they have two reactors instead of just one, so let’s target it. Why would we have wasted our time trying to detonate just one nuclear reactor? But now that there are two, it is worth our efforts!” The same goes for earthquakes, but I trust that the engineers who built it — and will build it — have, you know, considered that.

Everything has a cost and a risk. The extensive use of nuclear power has shown that it is safe — except, perhaps, when you let it be run by communists. Congressman Todd Akin (definitely not a communist, but an engineer) has proposed major revisions to American’s energy policy that include expanding the use the nuclear power:

“I have always been a supporter of nuclear energy,” Akin said. “The rewards are substantive as far as its low cost energy and its cleaner.” He noted that nuclear power becomes a more attractive energy source in the context of global warming.

I could not agree with him more.

I frequently run into critics of parental choice in education who oppose tuition tax credits, charter schools, and other alternatives to the traditional public schools. They argue that these alternatives won’t meet expectations, haven’t succeeded in the past, or perhaps that they’ll even have harmful effects on society. For example, a comment on this post I wrote earlier in the month suggests that charter schools shouldn’t be expanded because not all such schools have a proven track record.

Every time I hear these arguments, I’m reminded of a post Megan McArdle wrote last year. She presents 11 of the most common criticisms of parental choice, and debunks them all. Although she refers specifically to voucher programs, I think her reasoning applies to all the other choice initiatives that are on the table. Here’s how she responds to the oft-heard statement, “Vouchers don’t work”:

Vouchers are no panacea, and they may not work at all. But we know that what we’re doing now isn’t working, and moreover, hasn’t worked for going on fifty years. Unless you’ve got compelling evidence that your plan will overcome all the barriers that have doomed urban school reform for decades, and actually succeed in educating more children (rather than enriching the lives of teachers, administrators, and curriculum salesmen, who certainly have been helped by the many failed educational overhauls), why not let a thousand points of light bloom?

Read the whole thing!

There are myriad proposals out there to create onerous new regulations, but this one takes the cake:

:In New York City this summer, a law kicked in requiring chain restaurants — from Starbucks to Burger King — to display on menus and menu boards the caloric content of the food they serve. In five other cities and counties elsewhere, similar labeling laws will take effect in coming months.

If the regulators’ goal is to help people make healthier choices, these regulations will probably do just the opposite of what they intend. Collecting information on calories is expensive, and the cost of complying with these laws will be most easily borne by the big fast-food chains. Small restaurants with potentially healthier fare will face this huge obstacle to setting up business. So we could end up with a situation where people know exactly how many calories are in each hamburger at McDonald’s but don’t care because that’s the only place to eat out.

(Not that they care so much now. Everybody knows that fast food isn’t good for you, even if they don’t have the exact calorie count in front of them when they order. It sells anyway.)

Fortunately, this concept hasn’t caught on in Missouri. Let’s hope things stay that way.

We are a little late putting this up, but you can listen in to the second half of our appearance on the Gary Nolan Show in Columbia on August 6. They only have the second hour up online, which featured Dave Roland talking about property rights and then a round robin with all three of us to close it out. I can’t think of a more productive way to spend an hour while you watch the Olympics tonight than to listen to it!

Congrats to Gary on his marriage; we thank him again for inviting us to appear while he was on vacation.

And so goes the circle of life. With all the recent crossover between the Show-Me Institute, Reason, MoDOT rankings, etc., I feel the need to at least point out that Reason has released a new piece about the ethanol industry in America. Now, we didn’t have anything to do with this study, although we did release our own case study two months ago.

Dave over at the Arch City Chronicle was kind enough to note the work we have done with Reason, and the work of ours that they have carried in their 2008 privatization report. But back to ethanol.

The relevant Reason TV episode is very powerful. Please take a few minutes and watch it. The undeniable truth of the ethanol scam is that the entire industry would collapse if not for the subsidies and tariffs that prop it up. And, by the way, with gas prices as high as they are, this is the perfect time to find out: If an unsubsidized and unmandated ethanol product can’t succeed now, then when will it?

The Friedman Foundation has graded all 50 states on how they regulate private schools. The states with the highest grades have clear regulations to protect health and safety, but don’t set up barriers to entry or stifle innovation. Missouri did very well, with a grade of A-.

I’m sure the good regulatory environment in Missouri has contributed to its flourishing market for private education. There are many successful private schools throughout the state; GreatSchools lists 187 in St. Louis, 65 in Kansas City, 14 in Columbia, and 13 in Springfield.

The Secretary of State recently approved Proposition A for inclusion on the November ballot. While I express no opinion as to whether this measure should pass or fail, I think it is important to point out that one of the effects of this proposition, if passed, would be to impose a cap on the number of casinos in the state, prohibiting the state from issuing permits to any potential competitors in the gaming market.

This is not a new strategy. In many industries, most notably the taxi and limousine industry, entrenched businesses try to block competition by establishing a licensing system that prevents new businesses from cutting in on their action. This sort of anti-competitive action harms consumers by removing all incentives for the companies in the restricted market to keep prices low or focus on providing excellent customer service. It also harms entrepreneurs willing to provide those services in a more affordable, more customer-friendly way because it erects enormous barriers to their entry into the market. The only way these newcomers can pursue their business is to purchase a permit from an existing company, and those permits (which cost their original recipients almost nothing) don’t come cheap. In some cities, the right just to operate a taxi company can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In Missouri, if Proposition A is adopted by voters, it will likely mean that the currently existing casinos are insulated against new competitors, and the existing casinos will gain the right both to choose who will be allowed to replace any failing operations, and to claim millions of dollars in exchange for that right. It is not likely that this will directly affect those who choose not to patronize casinos, but anyone who enjoys gaming needs to be aware of the potential consequences of this proposition.