Anything Can Be Replaced With Something “Better”
Show-Me Daily writers have complained repeatedly about Saint Louis paying companies to move into the city. But in a new and extremely backward twist, Saint Louis is paying a scrap yard business $1.75 million to leave the city. Why? It’s not because the scrap yard is operated by an irresponsible owner — the family-owned company has been in Saint Louis for nearly four generations. By asking the scrap yard, Becker Iron & Metal, to leave, the city is giving up tax revenues and eliminating existing Saint Louis–based jobs.
No, the reasoning of city officials is that the effort is to replace the scrap yard with something “better.” As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch puts it, this will “[clear] the area of a necessarily ugly industrial site and [open] it to redevelopment.”
I wrote only a day ago about how governments keep realizing that they can’t successfully plan development and yet continue to try, so I won’t waste your time repeating that post. But I am curious: What have Saint Louis officials decided would be a “better” use of the Becker Iron & Metal property?
From the Post-Dispatch:
Once the Beckers depart, a multi-purpose truck stop accessed by Interstate 70 will occupy most of the site where the scrap facility has operated for 13 years. The transformation is part of an effort by the St. Louis Development Corp. to locate more light industry and service-oriented businesses along 3,000 acres on the North Riverfront. Deputy Director Otis Williams said the goal was to upgrade a major “entry point” to the city now populated with heavy industry — including several other metal recycling yards.
So, is it worth $1.75 million to replace something that looks this:
With something that looks like this?
I don’t understand how either one is better than the other, except that one is a successful family-owned business, while the other comes with a very hefty price tag — at the expense of taxpayers.
Furthermore, anything can be replaced with something “better.” The mayor’s home could be improved, I am sure, with some addition. The White House could increase in value if we added some gold leaf details. It is no real justification to say that an existing structure, home, or business isn’t good enough, and that taxpayer money is needed to improve it.
Not only have government officials repeatedly demonstrated that they are unable to make such judgments, but such a justification opens the door for government to take or “improve” anything. In this case, and in all other situations like this, it is better not to spend taxpayer money, and instead leave success undisturbed.
The price tag is way higher than 1.75 million. From the article, this business seems pretty successful. It should be generating a fair amount of sales tax for the city, and income tax, and whatever else.
The city should never pay a successful business to leave. After all, as you well know and point out daily, the city and state regularly pay for unsuccessful business to come into the city and state.
Also, given that the city owns so much land near this scrap yard on the north side, why would the city be choosing to basically buy more? cant the proposed truck stop go elsewhere?
This story was just a very impressive showing of how poorly run the city is. It really never stops to amaze.
Comment by Adam Lodes — February 4, 2011 @ 5:49 p.m.
Will this truck stop be visible from the gondola that will be built next to the arch? Will the truck stop eventually be considered to be an eyesore also? Will the city pay the truck stop to leave next?
Will the city pay me to leave?
Comment by Christine Harbin — February 5, 2011 @ 8:19 a.m.
If its a “multi-purpose truck stop,” I assume there will be some sort of commercial enterprise involved. If the merits of that enterprise are worthwhile on any level other than aethetics couldn’t the operator of the new venture buy the owner out? Of is this a business venture for the city where it is buying the scrap yard and then intends to lease it to a commercial operator as a high enough rental rate to justify its investment. Could we see some more details and some numbers please. If they do not have specific projections at this point, the absence may speak volumes. That has been my experience with the City of St. Louis. They seldom document disasters via forecasts and projections in advance, so no standard to measure against later. This might be a good place to change that practice. If it a park or community project where return cannot be measured in gate fees, that is different. I do not suspect this falls anywhere near that, although before its over it might be an amusement park. So let the city approach as profitable business or let private industry think its a good enough deal to make it happen. Does anyone else see my point, or I am I speaking a foreign language in St. Louis City? They teach french, spanish, english, etc. in our schools. Might we delete “double talk,” “blue smoke,” “CYA,” and “hide the ball,” and “BS?”
Comment by r.l. garms — February 5, 2011 @ 12:34 p.m.
@r.l.garms: The city is actually planning on subsidizing the truck stop further. http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/bbDetail.cfm?BBId=6836
Comment by Audrey — February 7, 2011 @ 10:25 a.m.