So, the question of the day for me is: Why did the proposed Franklin County Charter fail? Now that I’ve had a few days to think and talk about it, I think there are a number of reasons for its demise, all of which need to be addressed.

One of the most common sayings used by charter opponents was, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” I can understand that kind of thinking, because a lot of Franklin County is rural and we really enjoy life the way it is. There is also a natural human condition that resists change. Lots of people (my family included) still live on in a rural area, on 10 or more acres, and the last thing they want is more interference in their daily lives. My objection, however, is that by passing home rule, those who want to limit interference could have protected themselves from outside laws. Home rule can be a good insulator.

Some argued that the charter would increase the size of local government, but I think this was a misinterpretation of the charter — just because there’s greater representation doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be greater intrusion. Why expand the county council to seven members when you can stay with two associate commissioners? Well, when you’re debating a tax hike or deciding where to put a road, wouldn’t you want people from each of the the county’s seven regions to provide input, rather than just two people? Additionally, a seven-member council would better represent the county as a whole. While David Stokes and I were interviewed on KLPW AM radio in Franklin County, we heard multiple people call in with this sentiment: “This is just Washington trying to rule the rest of Franklin County.” I don’t think people realized, however, a seven-person council would have made Washington as equal as the county’s other regions — whereas it’s currently the biggest voting area.

Judging by our radio experience the other day, there had been a campaign of misinformation about the entire issue. For example, people thought that the new county council people could (and would) vote itself a raise as a first order of business. However, this would not have been possible because the charter froze salaries until 2014. After that, Missouri’s Constitution would prohibit a raise from taking effect till after there had been an election. So, even if the council would have voted itself a raise down the road, the members would have to get reelected after that vote. Something tells me that would be a hard campaign to win.

Overall, I think the charter proposal failed out of resistance to change, rather than a true understanding of what charter government is and how it can work either for or against the county’s residents. Hopefully, next time a charter is proposed people will have access to better information about what type of government a charter would really bring.

With 100 percent of the vote in, we have the results.

13,614 Total Votes Cast
13,424 people voted on Prop C

4,380 (32.63%) Voted For
9,044 (67.37%) Voted Against

It will be at least another two years till the issue can be revisited by the voters. I sincerely hope that both the opponents and proponents can come together on a compromise. This issue was surrounded with controversy, and hopefully next time (if there is a next time) it won’t be so heated.

See the results here.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an interesting story about property rights and annexation in O’Fallon, Mo. It focuses on residents of a mobile home park that fear they will be forced off their property if the annexation goes through. However, passage of the annexation proposal would require a simple majority vote by both the people getting annexed and by the people initiating the annexation. The story lays out an interesting set of scenarios.

People who don’t want to be annexed don’t usually get a chance to have their voices heard, but here in Missouri they are guaranteed that right. There is also an issue of renter v. owner at play here. While renters outnumber owners in this case, they both have an equal voice at the polls. It should be interesting to see how this plays out on election day.

A recent article by Jo Mannies in the St. Louis Beacon (link via John O’Combest) reports:

The executive board of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association says it has officially endorsed red-light cameras “as part of a comprehensive traffic safety enforcement toolbox that should remain available to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads.”

This stance runs counter to that of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, which came out earlier this month against the cameras.

I would really like to see why the state’s police chiefs believe red-light cameras are actually a safety tool, despite the contrary conclusions of several studies. Either way, it is a very interesting split among the people enforcing the tickets. We’ll be sure to keep you updated on any and all movement that we see on this issue.

Something fun for a Monday morning …

My buddy Mike Sweeney, over at STL Hops, is having a “Best Missouri Craft Beer Challenge.” It’s a bracketed tournament that is set up like much like the March Madness tournament, in which you vote for one beer over another and whichever one has the most votes moves on to the next round.  Currently, they are on Round 3, so get over there and vote.

My personal pick to go all the way is the O’Fallon 5-Day IPA. The site attracts a large proportion of hopheads (fans of the ingredient that bitters the beer — not dope smokers), so that bodes well for O’Fallon. Plus, I always favor the underdog, and since they are a 52 seed out of 64, you can’t get much more underdog than that.

As long as a pumpkin beer doesn’t win, I will consider it a valid tournament. Enjoy.

Our buddy Dave over at the Arch City Chronicle has a story up about how Reps. James Morris, Jamilah Nasheed, and Chris Carter will hold a town hall forum to let residents offer their opinions about whether the St. Louis Public Schools should sell their vacant school buildings to charter schools.

The event will be held this Friday, Feb. 27, at 6:30 p.m. in the Isom Community Center, 910 N. Newstead. I encourage all of you to attend and let your opinion be heard.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining why the SLPS wouldn’t want to sell to charter schools. The buildings would be vacant anyway. We’ll see whether residents would rather have dilapidated buildings, or places of learning that raise their community’s overall happiness and property value. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the meeting.

There may be a new unforeseen benefit stemming from the AB-InBev deal. Jeremiah McWilliams over at Lager Heads is reporting that our new Brazillian neighbors may be pushing to end the 1-percent city earnings tax. McWilliams quotes from a Post-Dispatch business column by Joe Whittington:

Anheuser-Busch InBev has on tap an effort to lessen the burden of the city’s earnings tax, according to knowledgeable sources.

One source said the brewery has talked with the Bryan Cave law firm about representing them in the effort. Bryan Cave cited client confidentiality when questioned about the subject.

A call to acting City Counselor Steve Kovac, whose office would handle the matter for the city, has not been returned.

One source said the brewery is trying to “avoid a pay cut for the Brazilians coming to town.” InBev, which bought the brewery, is based in Belgium, but many of its top executives are from Brazil.

The 1 percent tax, which affects those who work in the city, represents a big lug for the city, and the brewery was identified in a financial report for fiscal 2008 as the No. 1 source of this tax in the city. Its payment totaled $7.39 million, or 4.2 percent of all earnings and payroll tax collected by the city.

Now, I’m sure that the chances of actually overturning the tax are fairly slim, but I love their ambition of lowering taxes for everyone. Of course, I say this without having read any of the legal theory underpinning the firm’s purported argument, because Bryan Cave is doing its proper legal duty and keeping its mouth shut. I’ll just have to wait with baited breath. There are, however, a few pieces on the Show-Me Institute’s website demonstrating that eliminating the earnings tax makes good economic sense.

Even if the 1-percent tax were struck down, though, I’m sure city officials would try to find another way to get “their” money.

In an effort to better gauge and understand the desires of our readers, we are attempt the first-ever “Show-Me Daily Open Thread.” This is your opportunity to tell us what you want to see more of and/or if we missed a story that you would like to see analyzed from a free-market perspective and opened for discussion.

So, let’s hear it. What would you like to see?

There is a letter in the Post-Dispatch today about Jim Roos’ sign advocating the end of eminent domain abuse. It is kind of buried within the other letters, so I wanted to make sure our readers would have a chance to see it. Enjoy.

No apology necessary

Jim Roos owes no apology for the “End Eminent Domain Abuse” mural, which protests the use of eminent domain for private (rather than public) use (”Sign of the times,” Feb. 2). The editorial failed to acknowledge that St. Louis has taken 24 properties from Mr. Roos’ non-profit housing ministry to make way for private development.

The editorial also omitted the fact that the building on which Mr. Roos had the mural painted is itself threatened with eminent domain abuse. Posting the protest at the site of the government’s wrong was the one way to effectively voice dissent.

The editorial got one thing right: Content neutrality is a prerequisite for a constitutionally valid sign code. Yet St. Louis’s code is anything but neutral; it allows signs concerning a host of other topics. It is disconcerting that the Post-Dispatch believes Mr. Roos should apologize for wanting the same protection for a political protest.

If St. Louis doesn’t want citizens conspicuously protesting eminent domain abuse, the city simply should stop engaging in it.

Michael Bindas | Seattle, Wash.

Staff attorney, Institute for Justice

Great commentary by Capitol Calling (Jason Rosenbaum’s new blog) (link via John Boy). The bill to allow senators to have laptops at their desk on the Senate floor was indefinitely tabled (read: the bill is dead). The discussion between the senators is passionate at times, and at other times it is slightly mocking. I will again say that there is no better place for laptops than on the Senate floor. I should point out that Blackberries are allowed, however, and are constantly used to move debate forward. There seems to be little difference between the two types of devices other than size. I know I can watch videos, check email, surf the web, work on Excel and Word documents, and everything else on my phone, but if I had the choice I would prefer a laptop if I were going to be working for long period of time. We all know the Senate is never short on topics to talk about.

BTW, I would like to point out that I linked to Rosenbaum’s article on this subject and excluded others because he embraced new media technology in his blog entry — which, in turn, gave the most authentic and unbiased report. Good to have you back, Jason.

I want to just take a minute to thank and applaud North Dakota for being on the cutting edge of technology and tax policy. A CNET article talks about how a North Dakota state legislator filed a bill that would specifically exempt digital downloads from taxation. The article touches on a few of the issues that I previously mentioned, like how a state government can’t be a nexus for external taxation, and how this proposed taxation of digital products is a short-sighted and foolhardy expedition. The article also talks about the states (17 of them) that are already taxing digital downloads, and two more that are going to try: Mississippi and New York. Despite failing previously, New York is yet again trying to kill business and growth.

I know this is not a Missouri issue yet, but I would really love to see someone who has a great record of being in touch with the people and populist issues take it up here in Missouri. Any suggestions?

An article in the Post-Dispatch (link via Combest) reports that Jim “70 votes” Lembke (R-1), narrow victor of the race for his state Senate seat, has filed a bill to ban red light cameras (full text of the bill here).

This blog has not exactly been quiet about red-light cameras. Enough has been said about the issue before, but I just wanted to keep our loyal readers up to date with some new movement.