I didn’t care for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s article on eminent domain activist Jim Roos. I have to admit I take the article personally because I’ve known Roos for two years and have found him to be one of the hardest-working advocates for the rights of ordinary people I’ve ever met.

The story is a “he said, she said” story in which city officials’ trumped-up allegations against Roos are reported alongside Roos’s responses. Since most readers don’t know any of the parties and aren’t going to do research for themselves, this gives the (erroneous, in my view) impression that there must be something shady about Roos or the Post wouldn’t have published such a critical article. Here’s an example:

Roos’ properties have drawn complaints for graffiti and trash buildup. This year alone, city inspectors cited Roos’ properties for several infractions, including broken or missing window panes, a collapsed fence, a collapsed porch, a partly collapsed wall and improper display of address numbers.

Even the “End Eminent Domain Abuse” mural, which can be seen heading north where Gravois Avenue becomes Tucker Boulevard, has been cited. Last month, the Department of Public Safety issued Roos a notice for having an “illegal sign” and ordered it removed.

Other than the mural, Roos says that the buildings cited by the city had the violations before he purchased them. Roos says his rental units are “decent,” though not glamorous.

“It’s ordinary housing,” Roos said. “But durable, safe.”

Is Roos is telling the truth that his citations are only for buildings he’s recently purchased? I’m willing to bet he is (which would be an effective rebuttal to Roddy’s insinuation that he’s a slumlord) but the reporter didn’t check, something I expect he could have done fairly easily. Instead, he just repeated Roddy’s allegations and left the reader with the impression that Roos is probably up to something shady.

The story also glosses over why Roos is running housing in slums in the first place. Like most cities, Saint Louis has a shortage of affordable housing. Low income people have difficulty finding housing that’s “durable, safe”—and affordable. Roos provides such housing. And having seen both his office and his home, I can say with confidence he’s not getting rich in the process.

So what does the city do to help out?

A city-backed commission, led by the Missouri Botanical Garden, used eminent domain to acquire nearly two dozen buildings Roos owned or managed in the McRee Town neighborhood.

That’s when Roos said he first became a “victim.” To hear him tell it, McRee Town, left alone, would have been the next Soulard.

Not so, says veteran Alderman Joe Roddy.

“It was a neighborhood in a free fall,” said Roddy, who cited the area’s high crime rate.

Today, the neighborhood is home to a suburban-style subdivision — Botanical Heights, with homes listing for more than $300,000 — which Roddy points to as evidence that eminent domain can work.

That sounds lovely except for one little detail: poor people can’t afford $300,000 homes. The city has “solved” the problem of poverty in McRee town by forcing the poor to move to a different neighborhood. I’m sure that counts as “progress” for Mr. Roddy, because now they’re probably out of his ward and no longer his problem. But it’s not progress for the city as a whole. In fact it’s the opposite of progress, because what affordable housing remains will be more expensive and more crowded than ever.

I’m pleased to announce that the Show-Me Institute has a new editor. Eric Dixon joins us from Idaho, where he worked at the Idaho Press-Tribune, as well as doing freelance work for the Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free-market think tank. He’s got a degree in journalism from Brigham Young University, and he’s got nearly a decade of experience with a variety of public policy organizations, including the Cato Institute, US Term Limits, and Liberty magazine.

As the Show-Me Institute’s editor, Eric will be in charge of maintaining the high quality of all of the Show-Me Institute’s publications, including our website and blog, our Policy Studies, and Show-Me Quarterly. He’ll also be writing op-eds and contributing to the weblog.

Where am I going? I’ll be doing technology policy research from home in Saint Louis as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. I’ll also be helping out part time at the Show-Me Institute for the next few months to make sure the transition to the new editor goes smoothly. I’m also working on a study on eminent domain abuse in Missouri, which I hope to finish in the not-too-distant future. If you’d like to read more of my tech policy work, please check out my contributions to Cato’s blog and the Technology Liberation Front.

Here’s a funny excerpt from the legislative report of the Missouri Medical Association, the cartel professional association that believes expectant mothers shouldn’t have the option of utilizing the services of a midwife:

At press time this afternoon, there isn’t much to report from the lay midwifery front. Senate Bill 303, which would legalize the practice, did not come up this week for the final Senate vote it needs before it can advance to the House.

However, late this afternoon, while the Senate was hotly debating a pivotal piece of legislation to name the crawfish as the official state invertebrate, Senator John Loudon, the author of the midwifery bill, offered this substitute version: “The Missouri Medical Society shall be known as the official invertebrate of the state of Missouri due to their unwillingness to compete with a bunch of midwives.” (We couldn’t make this up.)

Regrettably, Senator Loudon withdrew the amendment before the Senate could approve it. Even though he didn’t quite have our name right, we were this close to forever being a question on grade school civics tests in classrooms across the state. Rats!

Of course, we at the Show-Me Institute would never stoop to this kind of name-calling, but I have to admit that it made me chuckle.

We’ve just released the application for our fall internship program. If you’re a college student, I hope you’ll apply. If you’re not a college student, I hope you’ll pass the application on to someone who is.

In a lot of organizations, the interns are treated like slave labor. They’re chained to a photocopier, and they get little or no contact with the real decision-makers in the organization. The Show-Me Institute is different. Our interns spend the vast majority of their time doing research and writing. Our current intern, Steve Bernstetter, had no less than three op-eds in the Saint Louis Business Journal this semester, as well as the opportunity to do an in-depth research project. Because there are fewer than a dozen people in the office, our interns get the opportunity to work closely with almost everyone on staff. That means you get an in-depth understanding of how a think tank works, including editing and publishing, event planning, and travel around the state.

More information and the application form is available in PDF form here. Please help us spread the word!

Regular visitors to our website might notice that it looks a little different today. That’s because we’ve upgraded to a new and better content management system that will allow us to put more content on our site more easily, and with better organization. If you notice any problems with the site, please shoot and email to info@showmeinstitute.org and let us know about them!

We’ve also belated posted the Winter issue of Show-Me Quarterly, which went out to our sponsors last month. Click here to read about our recent studies on the income and earnings taxes, our various events on education policy, and a profile of the late, great, Milton Friedman.

I have to disagree a bit with Steve’s assertion that doling out state money will “drive Missouri’s budding biotech industry.” I don’t know if Missouri’s biotech industry is budding, or if it will thrive in the future. But I rather doubt that a few million dollars of state largesse is going to make the difference. If biotech is economically viable in the Saint Louis area, no subsidies are necessary. And if it’s not economically viable, subsidies aren’t likely to make it so.

No doubt spending more on life sciences will lead to some beneficial science being done, and it may very well lead to important breakthroughs. But by itself, spending more money on biotech research isn’t likely to make the broader Saint Louis area a biotech hub. Carnegie Mellon is one of the best computer science schools in the country, but Pittsburgh isn’t known as a hotbed for tech startups. Nor are subsidies from the state of Pennsylvania likely to make it a hot technology area.

If government wants to make Saint Louis the home of the biotech industry, the best way to do that is to make it hospitable to industry in general: cut taxes and red tape, provide good infrastructure, and then get out of the way. That might spur the growth of the biotech industry here in Saint Louis. But it might also spur the growth of all sorts of other industries as well. After all, the whole reason we have a market economy rather than running our economy using Soviet five-year plans is that government officials don’t know what’s needed and where the economy is headed. If they can’t run the economy as a whole, why should we expect they’d be any better at picking what Saint Louis’s next hot industry is going to be?

The reason, I suspect, is that when you cut taxes and thereby spur the creation of a lot of small businesses, you don’t necessarily get to attend a big ribbon-cutting ceremony and take credit for it on the evening news. So even if tax cuts and deregulation are better for the state’s economy than “targeted” economic programs, they’re not as good for the career of the politician in question. So instead, politicians focus on high-profile projects that make good photo-ops, regardless of whether they’re good policy or not.

We’ve got a new article up by Steve Bernstetter about a promising bill by two Saint Louis-area Democrats to implement some common-sense education reform ideas:

The proposal would offer incentives for teachers to specialize in the most needed areas, particularly science, math, special education, and English as a Second Language. It would also offer bonuses to teachers for student performance. By the same token, those teachers that do not meet performance standards would receive professional development training; those failing more than once would be fired. Setting benchmarks that reflect a teacher’s performance and are not tied solely to the performance of each individual student is the key to making this system of compensation work. Such a rubric would reflect the unfortunate reality that some students simply don’t want to learn, and avoid blaming the teachers for those student’s failures. This will create a pay structure that acknowledges the reality faced by teachers in the public system; a structure that encourages innovation and emphasizes performance.

The plan also calls for state-funded pre-kindergarten education for all children between the ages of three and five, as well as tax credits to private donors who fund after-school enrichment programs. Both of these ideas are good on the surface, but the devil is in the details. A robust pre-school market already exists, and any attempt to require such additional schooling should take advantage of that market. It would be highly inefficient to build separate infrastructure for a network of new, state-funded, state-administered preschools. Rather, a practical approach would be to give every child a voucher to attend the existing preschool of their parents’ choosing. This method would place responsibility for kids’ educations squarely on the shoulders of parents, getting them involved in the education process early and hopefully keeping them involved throughout. If necessary, minimum performance standards could insure that preschools are optimally preparing student to enter kindergarten in the public system.

The Post has an update on one of the most outrageous abuses of eminent domain in recent years: the blighting of a block of prosperous businesses in downtown Clayton:

On Jan. 19, St. Louis County Circuit Judge James R. Hartenbach agreed to allow Centene to use condemnation to acquire the properties. The owners say their properties are not blighted and should not be condemned. In a nonbinding referendum, Clayton voters expressed opposition to the use of eminent domain to benefit a private development.

Robert J. Schenk, a spokesman for Centene, said, “The properties that are the subject of litigation are still a critical part of the overall project. Without those properties, the project will not occur.”

Schenk said, “The developers are busy working to ensure that the project can move forward as quickly as possible as soon as the litigation question has been addressed.”

The properties in question are just a couple of blocks from our offices, and I’ve walked by them numerous time over the last two years. If they’re “blighted,” then every neighborhood in the state is blighted. Even more outrageous, these properties aren’t even essential to Centene’s new headquarters, they’re slated to be used for upscale retail establishments. Apparently Centene simply didn’t feel that the businesses currently occupying the space were high-class enough for its employees and clients to patronize, so they asked the city to bring in new, ritzier businesses.

In short, what is happening is precisely what Justice O’Connor predicted in her dissent in Kelo:

The logic of today’s decision is that eminent domain may only be used to upgrade–not downgrade–property. At best this makes the Public Use Clause redundant with the Due Process Clause, which already prohibits irrational government action. The Court rightfully admits, however, that the judiciary cannot get bogged down in predictive judgments about whether the public will actually be better off after a property transfer. In any event, this constraint has no realistic import. For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

But what about last year’s eminent domain legislation? Wasn’t it supposed to protect property owners? The legislation did substantially increase protection for farmers. But for the rest of us, all it had to offer was modest increases in compensation. The legislation left in place the absurdly lax standards for “blight” that essentially allows municipalities to condemn any property they want.

The Arizona Republic, the state’s largest paper, has a great editorial defending Arizona’s new scholarship tax credit program, which is quite similar to the proposals that we’ve been considering here in Missouri:

This myopic battle is anchored in fear. Its proponents fear that perfectly defensible programs for poor kids may metastasize into something bigger. But dread of what the future may hold is a mighty poor argument for denying a quality education to kids right now. It is not just the corporate tax credit they are fighting against. Last year, the state Legislature approved, and Napolitano signed, bills creating education voucher programs for disabled kids and children in foster programs. Those programs also are tied up in court by many of the same opponents.

Voucher programs traditionally have had a tougher time in the courts than tax-credit programs, so the future of these valuable tools may be more in doubt.

It would be a shame to see such programs flounder on the specious fear that if you give vouchers to disabled kids, or to kids at the rocky bottom of life’s well, that public education itself will crumble.

Simply put, it won’t. Education choice strengthens the underlying system. Someday, with luck, opponents of reform will figure that out.

Sadly, defenders of the status quo here in Missouri seem to be even more entrenched than they are in Arizona.

Hat tip: Cato

My latest article points out that mayoral control of the Saint Louis school districts could be a good way to put control over our schools back in the hands of an official who is directly elected by Saint Louis voters, while still giving the district the stable, coherent leadership it so desperately needs. However, I also emphasize that mayoral control will only work if the mayor and other civic leaders are committed to making it work:

Critics point out that Sullivan is not a city resident, and that the new governance arrangement will provide parents with little influence over the direction of the district. Moreover, there is no guarantee that this three-person governance panel will show more leadership coherence than the school board it replaces. In 2000, the Washington, DC, school board was re-shuffled to include four members appointed by the mayor and five members directly elected by voters. This fractured leadership structure has not worked very well. DC Mayor Anthony Williams described it as “trying to drive a car with one pedal.” Similarly, under the state take-over plan now under way, control over the district will be fractured among the governor, the mayor, and the president of the board of aldermen—three politicians who may have divergent views on how the district should be governed. Mayoral control could address both of those concerns, giving the district unified, coherent, and stable leadership under an elected official chosen by Saint Louis voters.

However, mayoral control will only make sense if Mayor Slay is willing to step up to the plate and make education reform a focus of his administration. And given the structural limitations on the power of the mayor in Saint Louis, the business community and other civic leaders must be willing to provide strong backing for the mayor’s reform efforts as well.

Here is the PDF of our recent study on mayoral control by Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute.

MODOT engineer Judy Wagner thinks that police have nothing better to do than harass motorists about wearing their seat belts. She claims that “wouldn’t cost anything.” It “doesn’t cost anything” in precisely the same way it “wouldn’t cost anything” to pass a law requiring the St. Louis police to clean my bathroom. The cost is in the form of police time, time they could be spending dealing with actual crimes like speeding, drunk driving, or murder.

Beyond the waste of police resources, the proposal also worries me because it gives undue discretion to police officers. There are far more people not wearing seat belts than the police could possibly pull over, so the police would have a great deal of discretion about who to target. Moreover, even if someone is wearing a seatbelt, it’s not that easy to see it in a moving car, so a police officer could easily claim he thought someone wasn’t wearing a seat belt and pulled them over to check. That, in effect, means that the police would have an excuse to pull over anyone they like. That kind of arbitrary discretion in the hands of government officials is worrisome because it opens the door to abuses of power like racial profiling.

The Springfield News-Leader has an insightful editorial arguing that Missouri should be allowed to opt out of No Child Left Behind. They correctly point out that the law puts too much power over the education of our kids in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

But for some reason, they still insist that the federal government should continue providing funding to the states even after the other red tape is repealed. This doesn’t make any sense to me. The money came from Missouri taxpayers in the first place. What’s the point of sending it to Washington, where the federal bureaucracy can skim off a share, before sending it back here? That doesn’t make sense. Instead, Congress should repeal NCLB entirely—funding included. It can use the savings to cut taxes or reduce the deficit. And then, if Missouri policymakers decide that Missouri’s schools need more money, we can levy taxes here at the state level for that purpose. That way, every dime will stay here in Missouri, and Missourians will have complete control over how it’s spent.

As the editorial puts it:

Next week, voters all over the Ozarks will practice the ultimate in accountability when they go to the polls and elect school board members and say yes or no on various bond issues. Some school districts and school boards will get a pat on the back for a job well done. Others will be told to go back to the drawing board.

It’s a system that puts accountability in the hands of those who know the most about what’s really going on in schools.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. Congress should cut the federal education budget so that Missourians will have full control over education spending in Missouri.