Any time people actively discuss the Missouri budget, I get excited. When it happens to be the editorial board of the biggest newspaper in Missouri and the governor himself — well, it just doesn’t get any better than that. In an article yesterday (link via Combest) Gov. Matt Blunt responded to the Post-Dispatch’s recent editorial criticizing his handling of the Missouri budget. While I’ve accepted the fact that both camps are probably manipulating some numbers to make their case, the article still makes for an interesting read. I encourage everyone to check out the linked article and make the decision for themselves.

I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that the governor probably has a better understanding of the state budget than the Post-Dispatch editorial board does. To me, it appears that he does an excellent job of explaining the budget and what the numbers actually mean. Particularly, he is right to point out that using 2001 as a base year to explain K–12 education funding is extremely misleading. As most Missourians are aware, former Gov. Bob Holden had just come into office in 2001 — which has nothing to do with current funding for education. Gov. Blunt goes on to explain that since he came in to office, K-12 education funding has actually increased by 17.2 percent.

In this editorial war of words, the Post-Dispatch fired the first shot — but the governor stood his ground and fired right back, explaining the state budget in-depth and providing a level of analysis that the Post-Dispatch was lacking. In my humble opinion, I think Gov. Blunt deserves some credit for what he has been able to do with the the state budget during the past four years. Some people may not agree with me, but, hey — that’s all right. At least people are talking about the budget.

As noted in an earlier post by David Stokes, Bradley Ferguson just can’t seem to catch a break these days. His latest, and presumably one of his last, attempts to develop his property into a residential development on the outskirts of Washington, Mo., was recently rebuffed by a judge. Apparently, by not granting a writ of mandamus, the county is not forced to place the village law issue on the ballot.

As a lifelong resident of Washington, I have taken particular interest in the unspooling of this whole ordeal. Long before anyone even knew about the village law, this issue was hotly debated in Washington. Although I live across town from the property in question, I have spent a considerable amount of time near the proposed development (family-owned property) — at least enough to offer some insight, hopefully.

In a general sense, I am in the camp that landowners should be able to do with their land as they please — with some exceptions. I do believe that there should be some “soft” planning and zoning laws on the books, to ensure that surrounding landowners are not adversely affected by the actions of their neighbor. For this reason, I am opposed to the village law as a way to completely get around the system and do with your land as you wish. However, I do think that — as a happy medium — some planning and zoning laws do need to be toned down a bit, and not represent the be-all-end-all of property usage. To me, it appears that the village law was a potentially dangerous and extreme way to make a compromise between land owners and planning and zoning commissions.

To illustrate my point above, I believe that a perfect example can be found in Mr. Ferguson’s hard-fought battle to develop a subdivision, against the wishes of the planning and zoning commission. The commission cited traffic safety as a major reason for not allowing the proposed development. Whether or not this concern was legitimate doesn’t really matter here — the subdivision request was denied.

Under the soon-to-expire village law, one form of recourse would be to petition to incorporate the land as a village, and build the subdivision anyway. This may seem like a good alternative, but the village law could also produce very bad results. For example, if someone wanted to building a shooting range in their backyard, in the middle of a subdivision, they could declare their property a village, vote on it, accept it, and build a shooting range. Although the neighbors could try to protect their safety by taking the matter to court after the fact, that course of action isn’t particularly comforting if a bunch of gun-wielding four-year olds are running around the neighborhood in the meantime.

Planning and zoning laws exist for a good reason. These laws are in place to ensure that complete chaos does not erupt. Are some of these laws arbitrary and overbearing? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we would be better-served by a free-for-all, where people exercise their Second Amendment rights in the stomping grounds of suburbia.

For those in Missouri, it’s that time of year again. The Cardinals are fighting for the playoffs, the Royals are fighting to stay out of last place, the temperature and humidity are becoming too high, and it’s a tax holiday weekend! Yes, this is the weekend where all parents with school aged children will flock to the nearest big box store, desperate to cash in on the no-sales-tax weekend during which they will probably end up spending more money then they intended. But who cares? NO TAXES!

The validity of these types of tax holidays has long been debated on this blog, with both sides offering convincing arguments. Personally, I don’t mind the tax holidays. I don’t like taxes in any form, and any time I can get rid of them, I am happy. I know some people will take a more complicated viewpoint that the tax holiday is just distorting regular consumer behavior, and I agree, but I just don’t mind it happening this weekend. The net effects, one way or another, will probably be so minuscule that there will be no real impact on the economy.

Of course, I would favor lower taxes year-round, but for now, I will take what I can get. This argument has sparked uproar in the office, and I suspect several related blog posts will follow this one. I realize that this sales tax holiday is really nothing more than a gimmick conjured up by legislatures, and I guess they found a sucker.

Those of you who read this blog for in-depth analysis and riveting commentary, I’m sure you haven’t noticed my absence, but for everyone else: I HAVE RETURNED! After a wonderful week in San Diego, I have returned to my cubicle and have resumed normal intern duties. St. Louis is just as I remember — hot, humid, and no beaches.

The past week was an awesome experience. For those of you who don’t know, my fellow intern Dan Grana and I were Bastiat scholars at Cato University, which is a weeklong seminar organized by the Cato Institute that focuses on enhancing freedom and liberty through lectures and discussions. It is a great experience, and I recommend it to any libertarian — or anyone who is just generally interested in promoting freedom. Although the days were somewhat long (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.), it was completely worth it. The days were filled with incredible speakers, ranging from Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute to Rejoice Ngwenya, who is a leader against Zimbabwe’s corrupt president, Robert Mugabe. Even after the daily lectures were finished, the conversation continued. We spent most nights at the Veranda Grill discussing liberty and other issues with like-minded individuals.

The entire week was a first-class experience. The food and hotel were awesome, and the speakers were even better. Before I arrived in San Diego, I was a little apprehensive about the trip. I was worried that the speakers would not be entertaining, or the days would be too long, but it turned out that my notions were unwarranted. Again, if anyone ever has the opportunity to go to Cato University, I highly recommend it. I’m even thinking about going again next year.

You will have to excuse the title- I just watched Karate Kid.

Today’s Kansas City Star has an editorial (link via Combest) discussing Missouri’s judicial selection process. Luckily for us, some think tank in Missouri has already issued a study about the judicial selection process and its superiority to other forms of judicial selection.

KY3 News has a story (link via Combest) discussing MoDOT’s expected budget shortfall, because of the rapid increase in gas prices. The piece includes some commentary from Missouri’s three gubernatorial candidates, all three of whom agree that raising the gas tax is off the table and that other solutions must be found. While the articles does not explicitly state the candidates’ ideas, it does mention one solution offered by Rep. Kenny Hulshof:

Hulshof called the public private partnership idea (also known as some type of toll road) intriguing. “Imagine a parallel truck lane along Interstate 44 with just truck traffic that’s built with private funds,” Hulshof asked attendees during his hour session with the Chamber.

Here at the Show-Me Institute, we couldn’t be happier. David Stokes, an expert of sorts on public-private partnerships, has been advocating this type of solution for a long time, and recently gave a presentation in Mexico, Mo., discussing alternative ways to fund and fix the state’s roads. His policy study highlights the benefits of this type of partnership, and outlines the ways in which it can alleviate MoDOT’s budget problems. Although Hulshof stopped short of advocating public-private partnerships, it is good to hear that the idea is at least garnering some discussion.

One of America’s oldest pastimes is coming under attack, and possibly for good reason. According to an article in today’s Post Dispatch, St. Louis is considering an ordinance that would curtail “cruising” in and around Fairground Park, especially during the weekends. City officials cite a spike in violence and congestion on Sundays as reasons why a new ordinance is needed:

Over the last two summers, Saturday has proved to be the most dangerous day of the week in the area. Every Saturday, an average of eight to nine violent crimes were reported. But this May, Sundays were the most violent day of the week there, with an average of about 11 violent crimes.

Normally, I would be against city ordinances restricting seemingly harmless activities such as cruising, but — assuming that there really are legitimate safety concerns — I have to side with the city. Granted, I’ve never before thought of cruising as a real threat to safety, so I am taking their word for it in this particular case. As much as it pains me to agree with limiting the activities of individuals, as soon as they infringe upon the safety of others, it is no longer their right to continue that specific activity.

Also, by congregating in large masses, these cruisers have made it almost impossible for other city dwellers to enjoy the benefits of Fairgrounds Park:

Antionette Bullay, who lives in the area, said the weekly caravan has grown so large and rowdy that all other activity comes to a standstill. It’s like a Mardi Gras every Sunday.

Considering that the park is public grounds owned by the city, everyone should have equal rights when it comes to utilizing this particular public good. These cruisers are infringing on the rights of others, therefore the city is acting within its realm of responsibility by limiting their ability to cruise. However, having never visited Fairgrounds Park or possessing any statistics on increased crime due to cruising, my position on this issue is based solely on the information contained within the Post-Dispatch article.

Our own David Stokes had an interview yesterday with KQTV Channel 2, based in St. Joesph, discussing the institute’s newly released ethanol study. Here is a synopsis of the the interview; in the meantime, we are working on getting a video link.

The answer is corn, which makes ethanol, which leads me to my post, which suggests that gubernatorial candidate Sarah Steelman was listening to the Show-Me Institute …

Yesterday, Steelman held a press conference calling for an end to the notoriously bad ethanol mandate. She cited the mandate as one of the reasons that food and gas prices are at all-time highs, and that it must be repealed because of these unintended consequences. As many of you know, the Show-Me Institute recently produced a case study highlighting the negative effects of the mandate and its cost to Missourians. Initially, Steelman supported the mandate, but thanks to our study (at least, I’d like to think so) Steelman is among the growing list of officials who realize that the mandate was a mistake and have lobbied for its repeal.

Although our study does not focus on food prices, this effect is mentioned — along with the additional taxpayer costs that government subsidies bring. I commend Ms. Steelman for recognizing that the ethanol mandate is a bad deal for taxpayers, and I hope that her fellow politicians follow suit.

The failure of this regulation provides further evidence that such mandates are almost never a good deal for taxpayers, and shouldn’t be implemented in the first place. However, that’s a broader topic for a different day.

In November, St. Louis County voters likely will decide whether to enact a half-cent sales tax increase for the expansion and upkeep of Metro. Passage of this increase will also result in a one-fourth-cent tax hike in St. Louis city, which was approved several years ago, but never actually implemented in the city because county voters rejected the same proposal. Now, with Metro wanting to expand and increase
its budget, it’s again under consideration.

Those who support the increase cite its relatively low cost, while those who oppose it label it as unfair. Other revenue-generating possibilities are also being discussed, such as a transit ticket price increase and a crackdown on free riders — both of which may be viable options. For the purpose of this post, I will only focus on the proposed tax increase and its expected revenue.

As a disclaimer, I am not a frequent MetroLink rider, only using it when attending various events downtown. I grew up in a rural area where there was no public transportation, so I am not accustomed to using MetroLink as a primary mode of transportation. With that said, my own experience has no bearing on my conclusions about the tax increase.

The proposed increase, assuming that the demand for goods is completely inelastic, would generate around $87 million annually in additional funding for the expansion and operation of Metro. The majority of this funding, around $78 million, will come from St. Louis County because of its larger half-cent increase, and because of its much larger tax base. St. Louis city would generate around $9 million from its one-fourth-cent increase. While it is true that demand is most likely not completely inelastic, these numbers give us a general idea of how much revenue could be generated.

As I said earlier, I’m not a frequent MetroLink rider and I don’t know whether a tax increase is the best way to fund an expansion. Some people are advocating a use tax (taking the form of increased ticket prices), while some of my coworkers have suggested a sales tax specifically for business areas that benefit from mass transit. One point of contention about increasing ticket prices is that those who use mass transit the most have no other means of transportation. They depend on transit for their everyday travel and have no other alternatives. Also, higher ticket prices may decrease the number of riders, negating the need for an expansion in the first place. However, a sales tax increase has its own faults — not everyone who shops in targeted areas uses mass transit, so why should they have to pay for something they don’t use? This is a valid point, worthy of consideration.

Mass transit is a useful tool that can further enhance a city’s development. There is little doubt that public transportation is a key component to boosting growth, but the best means of funding that transportation is open to debate.

Today’s Springfield News-Leader has an article by columnist Sarah Overstreet that highlights an ongoing battle about city codes between Springfield and an area business owner. Tom Ray put up a fence around his property after leasing the space from businessman Jim Morris, and this has caused quite an uproar. By putting up this fence — on his property, mind you — he apparently has turned everyone in Springfield against him. See, Ray has the unfortunate circumstance of being located in the same shopping complex as a favorite local restaurant, The Pizza House, and apparently customers don’t like to see a fence when they are eating their pizza. The article points out that customers "found it forbidding, ruining the friendly feeling they’d grown accustomed to," and notes that the parking lot is now shorted a few extra spaces because of the fence. The article also recognizes, though, that those missing sparking spaces belonged to Morris, and were not intended for the use of visitors to nearby establishments.

City officials investigated and initially found that Morris and Ray were within their legal rights to build the fence. However, after public outcry following an earlier column, city officials investigated the matter again and this time found several obscure ordinances forbidding the fence. I’d argue that these ordinances tend to trample property rights and hinder personal freedom, and it would be nice if city officials seemed more concerned about these business owners’ property rights rather than appeasing the adjacent owners who find the fence "forbidding."

After his second review, the Springfield code administrator declared the fence a public nuisance. The article summarizes one of his findings this way: "the structure is built or used in violation of the building, plumbing, electrical, fuel gas or zoning ordinances of the city."

I am struggling to understand how a fence on one’s own personal property can be declared a public nuisance. Is it because it doesn’t allow for visitors to nearby businesses to park on Morris’ property anymore? Or is it because nearby business owners don’t want to look at a fence that they think is "forbidding"? It could be mere resistance to a change in the status quo. None of these reasons, though, are viable enough to deem a fence a "public nuisance" when it does nothing but protect property. As landlord, ideally Morris should be able to do whatever he pleases with his property, as long it does not affect the safety or rights of other individuals. But city officials also rattled off several other ordinances (found in the article) that state Mr. Morris is in clear violation of city codes.

I understand that some regulations are needed to prevent total chaos (I tend to side with David Stokes and Justin Hauke on the "Village Law" debate), but something as simple as adding a fence to a piece of property should not be in the control of city officials — really, they should have bigger issues to worry about. Alas, the government never ceases to amaze me. Classifying a fence on private property as a "public nuisance" is something I cannot fathom.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a public nuisance is, "something that
unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, comfort, morals, or
convenience of the community and that is treated as a criminal violation". Clearly, building a fence on your own property does need meet any of the criteria here needed to classify it as a public nuisance. The only term that the city might successfully argue is "comfort." This is an ambiguous and subjective term, though — almost any action can interfere with the comfort of some individual.

Instead, the city’s rationale for its second judgment should have been "making your neighbors mad, because they don’t like your taste."

In case anyone in Missouri has been living under a rock recently, let me bring you up to speed. European beer giant InBev has made an unsolicited bid to buy St. Louis icon Anheuser-Busch for the small sum of $46.3 billion. As a native St. Louisian, and also a believer in free markets, my heart is really torn. As is the case with most Missourians, I believe St. Louis and Anheuser-Busch should and will be forever linked, but ultimately I trust in the free market and concede that a buyout may be in the best interest of both corporations. However, there has been some chatter that local and federal government officials may try to intervene to stop a local landmark from entering foreign hands.

Although I can understand where they are coming from (securing local jobs, pandering to voters, etc.) this blatant act of government interference is unnecessary and quite ridiculous. This is a possible acquisition between two publicly traded companies, and for government officials to even suggest impeding the process is outlandish. Officials even acknowledge there is nothing they can lawfully do, yet they insist on causing a commotion in hopes that InBev will retract its offer and ride off into the figurative sunset. There is no doubt that Anheuser-Busch has played an influential and charitable role in the development of St. Louis, but after all, it is a private corporation and if it decides selling to InBev is in the best interest of shareholders, no government official should try to obstruct the process. It is not the responsibility of government officials to determine what is best for a private entity, and they are grossly overstepping their boundaries in attempting to influence the outcome of this particular situation.

Personally, I hope the shareholders of Anheuser-Busch reject the offer and the organization remains a pillar of stability in St. Louis and throughout Missouri. After all, InBev Stadium just doesn’t have the same ring. With that said, if stockholders agree to a sale and the government continues to try invoking its (phantom) power to affect the outcome, it will just be another case of the government acting inappropriately and out of its realm of authority.

Ah … the politicking that takes place during an election year.