If you believe in the value of local food, this is the way to go. An Affton couple turned their suburban property into a farm, complete with crops, rabbits, chickens, and beehives. They harvest their own vegetables and slaughter their own livestock.

They aren’t asking for subsidies for their enterprise, and they don’t insist on free public land. They aren’t lobbying the state to impose their preferences on anyone else, either. While they would like more people to agree with them, they go about convincing people without coercion. They show their neighbors the benefits of their lifestyle — no local food mandates or preferential policies are involved.

Anyone who lives in an area that allows chickens can try this approach.

A judge refused to dismiss the state lawsuit against a family that was caught selling raw milk from its distribution stand in a parking lot. The state claims that it’s illegal for farmers to set up any raw milk pickup locations away from their farms.

In a Springfield News-Leader article, the assistant attorney general explains why selling milk “from a farm,” as state statute requires, should preclude off-site pickup spots:

“A farm is not anywhere defined in Missouri statutes as a vehicle in a parking lot away from the farm premises,” Blome argued.

Of course, no one would define a farm as a vehicle temporarily parked in a lot. But that isn’t a good definition of a food establishment, either — and the state, calling this family’s parked vehicle a food establishment, says it should be subject to the same regulations as a mini-mart or a grocery store.

If you can’t pick up raw milk from a farmer’s vehicle, what can you do with it? You can pick it up yourself at the farm. But suppose you drive your car to a parking lot, meet a friend there, and give him a gallon of the milk. Does your car now become a food establishment? Or maybe you bring your milk home, invite guests over, and serve them milk with dinner. Does your house turn into a restaurant?

The National Center for Health Statistics has released a report on out-of-hospital births. In 2006, 64.7 percent of such births occurred in homes. Another 28 percent took place in birthing centers.

The report includes a few maps that allow readers to compare states; one categorizes states according to percentage of home births in 2005 and 2006. Missouri’s percentage was above the national average, and ahead of all neighboring states’ percentages with the exception of Iowa. (Wisconsin and Oregon, two other states I’ve written about a lot, had higher percentages of home births than Missouri.)

The next map shows each state’s change in percentage of home births between 2003–2004 and 2005–2006. Missouri saw no significant change during this period. This is not surprising, considering that Missouri’s General Assembly didn’t pass a bill legalizing midwifery until 2007. I would expect to find an increase in Missouri’s percentage of home births after that bill’s midwifery provision finally became law in 2008.

Now that Columbia permits residents to own chickens, it’s a good time for the city to look into the next trend in urban agriculture — miniature goats:

The Carbondale, Ill., Planning Commission was debating this month whether to allow residents to keep chickens when Priscilla Pimentel, a member of the city’s Sustainability Commission, added goats to the mix.

“If you can have a 250-pound dog in town, why not a miniature goat that can produce milk?” she says. “It’s just common sense.”

Miniature goats are about as big as medium-sized dogs, and can be led around on leashes. Like chickens, they’re domesticated animals that don’t threaten anyone. People should be allowed to own them in cities.

The homeschooling family I wrote about here and here is now featured in the New York Times. The article recounts the events that led the family to leave Germany and seek political asylum in the United States:

Working with a curriculum from a private Christian correspondence school — one not recognized by the German government — they expected to be punished with moderate fines and otherwise left alone.

But they soon discovered differently, he said, facing fines eventually totaling over $11,000, threats that they would lose custody of their children and, one morning, a visit by the police, who took the children to school in a police van. Those were among the fines and potential penalties that Judge Burman said rose to the level of persecution.

Reading these details of their story reminds me how fortunate homeschooling families in the United States are today. Some states impose more regulations than others; depending on where they live, parents may need to hold college degrees, to submit their curriculum for approval, or to agree for their children to take standardized tests. But it’s unheard of for the government to remove children from their homes forcibly and send them to school.

A sign of U.S. homeschoolers’ freedom is that when legislation is introduced that would affect them, the right to homeschool is usually not at question. And, secure in their ability to homeschool, parents can ask states for more than the right to be left alone. For example, homeschooling parents in Utah are currently lobbying for public schools to include homeschoolers in extracurricular activities. In Germany, parents fight to take their children out of the public schools; permission to bring them back for activities is the least of their concerns.

Supporters of homeschooling might point out that homeschooling can become an issue in divorce cases like this one in Missouri that Caitlin Hartsell discussed. It’s true; divorce courts do sometimes order a parent to send his or her children to school instead of teaching them at home. However, these decisions are not comparable to the harassment homeschoolers face in Germany and other countries. If divorced parents disagree about their children’s education, whatever the court ruling is, one parent will end up better satisfied and the other unhappy. Parents who want to send their children to public or private schools can be disappointed by these orders, and parents who want to homeschool are not immune from unfavorable divorce court rulings. What matters for homeschoolers in general is that divorce decisions apply only to individual families, and do not create new policies for everyone else.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in McDonald v. Chicago, otherwise known as the Chicago gun ban case. The court’s decision in this case will determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment means that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should prevent state and local governments from prohibiting citizens’ possession of functional firearms in their homes.

This is a very, very important case — but maybe not for readily apparent reasons. The central question is not so much the meaning of the Second Amendment — that was largely decided by last year’s D.C. gun ban case. Rather, this case concerns the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

When it was drafted and ratified, the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to do several things: First, to ensure that United States citizenship would be universal for those born within the country, and that no state could deny state citizenship to someone who is an American citizen; this was a pressing concern given that the recently Confederate states might well have denied citizenship to freed slaves. Second, to ensure that all citizens were assured of a certain baseline of liberty that could not be denied by any state or local government, because some state governments, when left to their own devices, had previously refused to offer the same protections for liberty enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Under the new amendment, states were required to afford all U.S. citizens the “privileges and immunities” protected under the U.S. Constitution — including a right to travel freely across state lines, a right to earn a living in a common profession, etc. And, finally, the amendment was intended to ensure that all citizens must be treated equally under the law, so that no state could fashion laws that would discriminate against newly freed slaves or other “outsiders.”

Very shortly after the amendment’s ratification, however, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down The Slaughterhouse Cases. At issue was a law in New Orleans that created a butchering cartel controlled by the city, limiting the number of people permitted to practice the profession. The law made it so that citizens could only practice the profession with the city’s permission, and then only at a time and place of the city’s choosing. The city’s butchers sued, claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment prevented a state or local government from infringing upon their right to practice their profession. The Supreme Court responded with a ruling that the vast majority of legal scholars now consider one of the least-defensible in the court’s history (see p. 11 of the brief in the preceding link).

The court couldn’t negate the provision establishing universal citizenship, but its decision in Slaughterhouse completely eviscerated (so to speak) the other provisions of the first section — leaving the states free to limit access to professions, set up sweetheart deals for favored business interests and industries, institute poll taxes or other requirements that disenfranchised targeted segments of the population, and pass the Jim Crow–era segregation laws. Had the Fourteenth Amendment been properly applied from the outset, there might have been no need for a civil rights movement because segregation would never have been permitted in the first place, and freed slaves (as well as new immigrants) would have had easier access to self employment in entry-level professions.

Over time, the Supreme Court realized the evils that states were perpetrating against their citizens and so they came up with the doctrine of “substantive due process” as a way of selectively applying the Bill of Rights to strike down illegitimate state laws. It’s an absolute legal fabrication, but it has allowed the court to address issues of constitutional freedom in the way it has seen fit, without admitting that the court got Slaughterhouse wrong. So, almost the entire Bill of Rights has now been “incorporated” into the idea of substantive due process (meaning that 140 years later, the court has almost completely accomplished the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment), but several of the most important “privileges and immunities” — such as the right to earn a living — remain on the outside looking in. For whatever reason, the court has continued to hesitate in taking the final, proper, liberty-respecting step.

Taking that step would mean that federal courts could strike down state laws in violation of the privileges and immunities that have been neglected for all this time – but that is not only what the Constitution requires, it is inherently a good thing for liberty! Getting the history and constitutional theory correct would simply re-anchor the methods of analysis to their historical underpinnings, instead of allowing the unprincipled free-for-all that sometimes becomes apparent in the way the court addresses constitutional freedoms. I can’t help but think it would be a good thing, both at the philosophical and the practical level.

From KMOX:

The Missouri House Budget Committee was told two Missouri prisons could close down if the House cuts funds by five percent.

The warning was delivered to the budget officials by Public Safety & Corrections Chairman Dwight Scharnhorst from St. Louis County.

A top official told Scharnhorst how losing nearly 20 million dollars would effect on the Department of Corrections.

“His statement at the time was, ‘I will definitely have to close one institution, possibly two.’ It would be minimum security, he designated that right away.” said Scharnhorst.

Adult Prison Director Tom Clements says non-violent prisoners and those eligible for parole could be released before the end of their sentences.

So, what’s the problem? The state would save money, and people who mostly should not have been in prison in the first place would be free. I suppose those who work in the closed prison(s) would be hurt in the short term, but this would be an improvement for the economy as a whole because the money formerly spent on incarceration would be available for more productive uses. The same applies to the former prisoners who just might be able to return to (or start) useful employment. I simply fail to see the danger in this “warning.”

Link via John Combest.

The home of Shirley Hamilton, in the 2200 block of Madison Street, in Saint Louis’ north side.

Although NorthSide redevelopment plans for her area indicate that Hamilton’s neighborhood is slated to be replaced, Hamilton said she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this. “It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said.

Another home on the 2200 block of Madison. Photos by Caitlin Hartsell.

Shirley Hamilton has been living at 2209 Madison since 1978. Her home is one of three houses on the 2220 block of Madison, all of which are small, but tidy. Between each house is a good amount of open space.

These three houses fall squarely within the boundaries of the recently approved $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Of course, about 4,600 other properties also fall within those boundaries, but in the case of the 2200 block of Madison, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind the development, may be endangering one of its most frequently invoked promises.

That promise concerns the use of eminent domain. Although eminent domain is constitutional, it can be very unpopular, especially if it appears that a government agency is using that power merely to help a private business.

Proponents of the development, including developer Paul McKee, NorthSide lawyer Paul Puricelli, Alderman April Ford-Griffin, and Alderman Marlene Davis, have said repeatedly that the city won’t use eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes, and that fears to the contrary are unfounded. In fact, the company went even further. When NorthSide applied for millions of dollars in tax credits from the state, the company submitted an affidavit stating, among other things, that “The Applicant has not identified any owner-occupied residences for acquisition under the Redevelopment Plan.” McKee, the chief manager of NorthSide, signed it.

Along with that affidavit, NorthSide submitted a list of about 260 owner-occupied residences to the state. Hamilton’s home and the house sitting the farthest west on her block were on that list.

NorthSide has also disclosed some of its preliminary plans for the area in its redevelopment plan, which was submitted to the city when the company applied for nearly $400 million in tax increment financing (it has been approved for up to $380 million). One of the more interesting pages of that plan is page 24, which is a map of “proposed open space” for the area.

According to that map, NorthSide plans to remake four city blocks into open space: the area lying between Madison Street and Maiden Lane, west of 22nd Street and extending a little past Jefferson Avenue. In other words, despite all the assurances about the limits on eminent domain for the NorthSide project — including the affidavit of its chief manager — Hamilton and her neighbor are two owners who may not have long to occupy their homes.

That’s not to say that the company didn’t try to purchase Hamilton’s home. About a year ago, she said, she got a letter from a lawyer, representing an anonymous buyer, looking to purchase her home. When Hamilton called the number listed, she said, she was quickly offered $60,000 for the property. But Hamilton, who is retired, wasn’t interested in searching for a new home, and asked instead if the buyer could offer her a deed to a different property, elsewhere in the city. The lawyer promised to check, Hamilton said, but never called back. A few months later, Hamilton said, she was sent the same form letter.

Hamilton said that her next door neighbor did sell. According to city property data, the second house on the block is owned by MLK 3000, one of the companies that NorthSide used to acquire properties under the radar. Hamilton said she isn’t interested in moving, but if the developer could offer a trade instead of money, she would consider it. She’d like to stay in the city.

An email inquiring about how concrete the plans for open space are, and whether NorthSide would adjust its plans if property owners were unwilling to move, did not receive a response from Bill Laskowsky, NorthSide’s chief development officer, and a company representative.

Ultimately, Hamilton said, she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this.

“It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said. Laughing, she noted that when Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. was in office, her home was slated to become a golf course.

“I’ll deal with it when it comes,” she said.

According to NorthSide’s plans and its submitted list of owner occupied residences, two other homes appear to be slated for open space: one on the 2500 block of Madison, and one on the 2700 block of Glasgow Street.

Within other documents submitted by NorthSide, the company has designated the area surrounding Hamilton’s home as “mixed use,” which could indicate a different set of plans for the area.

Mr. Combest linked this morning to a story in the Jefferson City News-Tribune about a proposal to reduce the length of the legislative session in Missouri. To this I say, “Amen!” Just like the size of the legislature, the length of time in session is a factor in the logrolling potential that constantly builds pressure for more spending, more laws, more restrictions, etc. (Here is a link to a study demonstrating that professional legislatures — and length of time in session is one of the variables used to determine “professional” status — spend more money per person than citizen legislatures.)

So, I readily agree that Missouri should have a shorter session, because I basically agree with P.J. O’Rourke that preventing a politician from governing is like preventing a pit bull from eating your child. Anything that limits the ability of government to infringe on our freedoms is good by me. You can find a lot more on this subject in my paper about government in Missouri from the perspective of public choice economics.

I do wish someone would have called us to testify about this proposal, though. From the article:

No one spoke for or against the plan during Monday’s hearing.

Nobody ever said public choice economics was exciting. …

I’m quite a bit late on this one, but a couple of weeks ago, the Missouri Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill that would essentially shut down all strip clubs in Missouri. The bill would ban strippers from, well, stripping, because it would would require them to be at least partially clothed, and even when partially clothed, they must stay at least six feet away from customers. Oh, and they wouldn’t be able to serve liquor, either. I doubt many strip club patrons are going to want to go to a club where they can’t drink, and where the girls all have to walk around with tape measures to ensure they don’t get too close, so I suspect many of these businesses would likely close.

The most obvious consequence of these closings would be that people formerly employed in that segment of the adult business in Missouri would either seek new lines of work or move to other states that are more accommodating of their current professions. The supply of this good may diminish or even disappear, but the demand for it won’t go anywhere. This situation could easily lead to results that should give pause to the social conservatives who support this bill.

The increased hassle of the legislation might dissuade some people from consuming such lascivious services, but others will seek out substitutes. It would likely lead to an increase in the consumption of pornography and prostitution (and some unemployed strippers would probably enter the world of prostitution, as well). But that still may not be the worst of it.

A 2006 study by Clemson University economist Todd Kendall argued that greater access to Internet pornography helped drive down the incidence of rape during the prior two decades. In a Slate article, fellow economist Steven Landsburg summarized Kendall’s findings:

First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, “More Net access, less rape.” A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

OK, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that’s a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape. Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It’s hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it’s easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.

If not Wikipedia, then what? Maybe rape is down because former rapists have found their true loves on Match.com. But professor Kendall points out that the effects are strongest among 15-year-old to 19-year-old perpetrators—the group least likely to use such dating services.

Moreover, professor Kendall argues that those teenagers are precisely the group that (presumably) relies most heavily on the Internet for access to porn. When you’re living with your parents, it’s a lot easier to close your browser in a hurry than to hide a stash of magazines. So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn.

There are legitimate reasons to question such a strong conclusion on Kendall’s part, some of which were pointed out by Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame, but it cannot be easily dismissed. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to draw direct parallels between Kendall’s study and the strip club situation in Missouri, because they are not perfectly analogous. Most obviously, 15-year-old to 19-year-old boys are not likely to be found in strip clubs to begin with. Still, the general idea holds up. People seeking sexual gratification may turn to much worse alternatives in the absence of easy access to common consensual options like pornography and strip clubs.

Let me be very clear: I am not predicting that this law would result in a measureable uptick in rapes in Missouri. In fact, absent a good control group, it would be hard to establish statistical correlation, let alone causation. What we do have is some very suggestive evidence that the law of unintended consequences may apply to this law in a fierce way, and it is something that the law’s supporters should think carefully about.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch covers both sides of the urban chicken controversy in this article. In the paragraphs that deal with complaints about unwanted chickens, you could replace the word “chicken” with the name of any other pet. When you allow people to keep animals, some owners will be irresponsible and some will abandon their pets. This is no more reason to outlaw urban chickens than the glut of chihuahuas in California animal shelters is reason to forbid chihuahua ownership.

Unwanted chickens will be kept to a minimum if the birds go to people who seek them out of their own volition. Foisting chickens on reluctant citizens will result in abandoned animals. With that in mind, I’m not in favor of the Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District’s plan to encourage chicken ownership. The district has a goal of convincing 50 families to keep chickens. I’m afraid that if it offers too much encouragement, people who aren’t so excited about chickens are going to give in and adopt them, only to abandon them later. A better goal would be to provide information about chickens to anyone who’s interested, without setting a lower bound for the number of chicken owners.

The district’s on-site chicken coop is a good idea; children can learn a lot about animal life cycles from watching chickens. When I was in elementary school, individual classrooms raised chicks. Building one coop for the whole school might allow for more efficient maintenance, and classes could come one at a time to observe the birds. It also could be more practical to keep chickens on a permanent basis than to order new chicks each year and give them away when school’s out.

Writing in the Missouri Record, Mizzou political science professor David Webber highlights some of the hard numbers behind Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price’s call to lessen the criminal sanctions on nonviolent offenders:

Missouri has twice the number of nonviolent offenders in prison [as] it did in 1994. The number of new inmates in 1994 was 4,857; in 2009 it was 7,220. The cost per inmate is now $16,456 per year or about $45.00 per day. The total appropriation to the Department of Corrections in 1994 was $216 million now it is over $670 million—an increase of over 300 percent[.] Worse yet, Missouri’s recidivism rate is 41.4 percent within two years.

Price is also concerned with inconsistencies in sentencing across the state’s judicial circuits. The average sentence for the lowest sentencing circuit is 4.5 years and for the highest circuit is 9 years.

The Chief Justice shares the same opinion that most citizens have about crime—violent, dangerous criminals need to be incarcerated—but he doubts the effectiveness of locking up first-time offending drug and alcohol addicts. Price states boldly: “We also know that simple incarceration, no matter how expensive, does not cure addiction. Treatment with strict judicial oversight does.”

If newspaper editorials are any kind of indication, the idea that we need a cheaper and more humane way of dealing with drug offenders and the like is extremely popular. Hopefully, political inertia will not doom such a worthy cause.

Wisconsin is debating another proposal involving milk. The Wisconsin raw milk bill I wrote about yesterday would put Wisconsin’s policy ahead of Missouri’s, but on this issue, Missouri already guarantees its citizens greater freedom. The matter I’m referring to is breastfeeding in public.

Breastfeeding in public places is protected by Missouri law. In fact, you can print out your own “license” featuring a quote from the statute, and show it to anyone who challenges your right to breastfeed.

Yesterday in St. Louis, opponents of the payday loan industry held a hearing, which was covered by the Post-Dispatch and linked to by Combest.

Here is my advice to every person in Missouri: Stay away from the payday loan industry; the vast majority of the time, it is a terrible financial decision to make use of it. Here is my advice to the government: Stay away from the payday loan industry; it is not your role to interfere in private contracts and prevent people from making poor financial decisions.

Then there are the unintended consequences that would result from eliminating, or severely restricting, the industry. It is not as though the people who now use payday loans would suddenly no longer have any need for a loan. Some would move into receiving loan services from the banking system (a good result), some would entirely lose the ability to obtain credit (a mixture of both positive and negative results), and some would turn to the loan shark industry with all of its attendant risks, violence, etc. So, if you want to improve the climate for loan sharking and enforcing collections with baseball bats, then by all means legislate the payday loan industry out of existence.

This set of arguments about payday loans has also been covered by Show-Me Institute op-eds superior to this blog post.

A proposal in Wisconsin would allow dairy farmers to sell raw milk, with a few conditions:

Under the bill, farmers with a grade ‘A’ dairy farm permit would be allowed to buy a permit to sell raw milk.  They would have to meet certain sanitary conditions for bottling milk and have a sign to let consumers know raw milk doesn’t provide the same protection of pasteurized milk.

The proposed change in law would give farmers greater freedom to sell their milk. And consumers would be able to make their own decisions about whether to purchase unpasteurized dairy products. Everybody would win.

The bill’s restrictions should be enough to protect the public. We don’t station a policeman by every cow to prevent farmers from drinking raw milk, and we needn’t impose that level of surveillance on other people, either. Regulators ought to concentrate on stopping fraud and deceptive advertising, like if a farmer were to display a sign saying “Buy pasteurized milk here!” when he’s really selling raw milk.

If Missouri adopted a similarly free milk policy, it would be a welcome end to the bizarre law that says exchanging cash for milk in a barn is legal, but the same transaction in a parking lot is prohibited.

The first round of arguments against a projected $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side was made in court yesterday.

The bulk of the trial, which will continue on Feb. 25, was devoted to testimony by Washington University economist Michele Boldrin, who clearly doesn’t think much of the projections and forecasts developer Paul McKee used to persuade city officials that his development was viable and worthy of more than $390 million in tax increment financing (TIF).

“I find these numbers completely unbelievable,” Boldrin said. “Pie in the sky” was another frequent characterization.

And, later, “This is something that if an MBA student came up with this as a term paper, I’d throw him out of the office.”

Boldrin’s main argument, repeated many times, was that no justification was given for any of the especially rosy growth and employment estimates. For example, the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, estimates:

1. That property value growth rates will be as high as 20 percent in 2010, and 15 percent in a number of following years.
2. That more than 20,000 new, permanent jobs will be created as a result of this development.
3. That there will be buyers for 6,000 new homes, valued at an average of more than $450,000.

Dave Roland, a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, testified briefly that the north side area, which you can explore here, is not as blighted as NorthSide asserts. He, and Terry Artis, the owner and founder of the River City Examiner, took video of some of the areas NorthSide had noted as being especially blighted. The video, which is a publicly available court record, is linked below.

Dave Roland – A Look at Purported Cases of North Side “Blight” in St. Louis from Audrey Spalding on Vimeo.

Click to Enlarge

Interactive NorthSide Map

Another round of challenges to the $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side will be heard in court tomorrow.

If you’re about to skip reading this post because the word “development” seems boring, hold on a moment. The project, put forward by developer Paul McKee, is contentious because it’s enormous — about two square miles — and because it has been approved for a large amount of public financing. McKee has asked for about $380 million in city tax increment financing (TIF), received approval for more than half, and will likely receive the rest in a few years. In late December, the state granted the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, more than $19 million in tax credits (which can be used dollar-for-dollar to pay off taxes). Interestingly, the Department of Economic Development did not issue a press release, which it generally does when it issues tax credits.

One of the issues that will likely be raised at trial tomorrow is whether NorthSide unfairly characterized the area as being blighted. In its TIF application, NorthSide submitted a blighting study that systematically categorized more than 4,600 properties within the redevelopment boundary as being blighted. Along with its classification of properties as blighted for being dilapidated, unsafe, or unsanitary, the company also included blighting factors for properties with excessive vegetation, properties that had neither increased or declined in assessed value between 2003 and 2005, and properties with an increase in assessed value that totaled less than the city average from 2003 to 2008.

Another issue that could be raised at trial is that of eminent domain. McKee, along with the city aldermen who backed the project and pretty much every other public proponent of the project, have sworn repeatedly that eminent domain will not be used on owner-occupied property. What that means for the fate of non-owner-occupied properties within the boundary is less than clear.

Publicly available court documents also reveal some interesting details:

• NorthSide is curious about how the plaintiffs’ court costs are being financed, and requested that Sheryl Nelson and Elke McIntosh (two of the plaintiffs) reveal how they’re paying for litigation. Judge Robert Dierker did not grant the request.
• Both sides have taken deposition from Michele Boldrin, an economics professor at Washington University.
• NorthSide submitted a letter of interest from the Bank of Washington (in Missouri) as evidence of financial backing of the development. However, NorthSide has not submitted evidence of a contract with the bank, which has less than $800 million in total assets.
• According to NorthSide’s application for state tax credits, the company has spent about $25 million to purchase property in the redevelopment area.

The trial will start at 11 a.m. in Division 18 of the city’s Circuit Court. Judge Dierker, who quoted economist F.A. Hayek when rejecting the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, will hear the case. You can read that ruling here.

Last week, Judge William Price, the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, delivered the State of the Judiciary address. He made one thing clear: The judiciary is tasked to protect the people of the state, but they cannot carry out this commitment successfully without sufficient resources. Missouri’s essential government services must be carried out even in the worst of economic times. The Missouri judiciary is doing its part to be fiscally responsible, returning millions of dollars of appropriated funds even though their own budgets are tight. They feel the same economic pressure that other government agencies are experiencing, but they are making an attempt to keep the interest of the public at the forefront.

We have all undoubtedly felt overworked and underpaid, and during a recession, the proportion of the labor force feeling this way has surely increased. As Judge Price pointed out, those who make some of the most important decisions throughout the entire criminal justice system — state prosecutors — are being spread thin. This is a worrying state of affairs if we want prosecutors to make well-considered decisions. People work better when they are happier — it’s as simple as that.

One of the most pressing issues mentioned in Judge Price’s address is the state’s overspending on the incarceration of nonviolent criminals, something that Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne mentioned in an earlier blog post. This is a situation resulting from too many restrictive laws that have resulted in the criminalization of nonviolent offenses, such as transactions involving drugs, alcohol, and even prostitution. Regardless of how one feels about the morality of such activities, it’s hard to justify expending so many resources on their prosecution when the core functions of the judicial system — protecting life, liberty, and property from actual direct, measurable harm — is suffering from a lack of resources.

Too many people are being arrested and tried for crimes that have no complaining victim. As Reason editor Radley Balko has observed, “Because there is almost never a complaining victim in vice crimes, law enforcement officers must go to extraordinary lengths to investigate and prosecute these crimes. This leads to all sorts of other problems, including invasions of privacy, entrapment, and police corruption.” The situation has also led to inconsistency in prosecution throughout Missouri. The toughest counties are prosecuting five times as many offenders as the most lenient counties.

Judge Price has has offered a rather convincing reason to change these policies, and to decrease the rate of prosecution and incarceration of nonviolent criminals — because we can’t pay for it. What’s even more convincing is that we cannot afford to pay for the proper treatment and rehabilitation for these offenders. Price outlines how poorly the system treats people who haven’t directly harmed anybody else, by tearing them from their lives, throwing them in a “concrete box with very expensive guards, feeding them, providing them with expensive medical care, surrounding them with hardened criminals for long periods of time, and separating them from their families who need them and could otherwise help them[.]” What’s worse, while in prison, some of them are being trained by full-fledged violent criminals on how to further divide themselves from mainstream society. These people are also citizens, and deserve to be given a chance to reintegrate into society.

Price provides some sobering numbers:

In 1994, shortly after I came to the Court, the number of nonviolent offenders in Missouri prisons was 7,461. Today it’s 14,204. That’s almost double. In 1994, the number of new commitments for nonviolent offenses was 4,857. Last year, it was 7,220 — again, almost double. At a rate of $16,432 per offender, we currently are spending $233.4 million a year to incarcerate nonviolent offenders … not counting the investment in the 10 prisons it takes to hold these individuals at $100 million per prison. In 1994, appropriations to the Department of Corrections totaled $216,753,472. Today, it’s $670,079,452. The amount has tripled. And the recidivism rate for these individuals, who are returned to prison within just two years, is 41.6 percent.

Price observes that if the state government were run like a business, these wasteful practices would have been done away with years ago. “Business” may not be the most convincing metaphor to use, because one of the classic economic justifications of government action, particularly the justice system, is that public goods are not optimally provided by markets. Some economists, however, have suggested that many aspects of government action that are commonly justified in terms of their status as public goods, including some within the justice system, can’t correctly be considered public goods:

The standard economics approach to delineating the optimal set of the state’s functions is unsatisfactory.² In particular, when economists such as Joseph Stiglitz (1988: 24) indicate that “a primary role of government” is to provide the legal framework “within which all economic transactions occur,” not much is said about the desired content of the laws, and how it might affect the desirability or efficiency of their enforcement. Besides, there is typically no mention of nonstate enforcement mechanisms and their relationship to those of the state. The impression is created that all conflict resolution in economic life is in the unavoidable domain of the state. That impression is in contrast with the empirical evidence (see, e.g., Greif 1997, Gow and Swinnen 2001, and Waldmeir 2001).

This confusion is related to the use that is made of the concept of public goods as being nonrival in consumption and nonexclusive (Samuelson 1954: 387–89). If these goods are to be provided at all, taxes and the related state’s coercion are necessary. However, which goods are truly public? Is the justice system the domain of the state because the relevant services are a public good? Clearly, that cannot be said of all such services. Then, which “justice services” constitute a public good? Is the lighthouse, the favorite textbook example of a public good, a public good? Ronald Coase (1974) has shown that lighthouses in 19th century Britain were operated and financed privately. This finding, however, has not prevented the lighthouse to continue serving as the primary example of a public good in many textbooks (e.g., Stiglitz 1988: 75).

There may be fewer public goods in real life than typically assumed. As a result, the necessary (or desirable) scope of the state’s activity may be narrower, too. Some of the goods declared “public” may in fact be private goods, pushed into the state’s domain by public intervention that has eliminated or undercut the possibility of voluntary private financing of these goods. In other words, some uses of the theoretical concept of public goods may inadvertently constitute ex post justifications for the results of previous expansion of state activity.

Judge Price is not an economist, but by questioning whether the routine prosecution and incarceration of nonviolent offenders for committing consensual crimes actually provides more value than cost for the people of Missouri, this may well be the type of argument he was trying to make, using different terminology. Price is suggesting that it’s time for a more thorough analysis of which interests are truly being served by prosecuting many types of nonviolent offenders, and whether such prosecution actually provides results that could be considered a public good. His address doesn’t contain all the answers, but it’s the starting point for a worthy debate.

In times of fiscal crisis, it sometimes becomes necessary to embark upon a new policy path, and welcome changes that we might otherwise avoid. Whether Judge Price’s recommendations are inspired by a concern for justice or for more practical financial reasons, this would be a positive step for the government to take. The judiciary appears to be willing to do its part in order to withstand the jolts of the recession, but are the other branches of government also up to the task?

Barbara Geisman, an aide to Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay has questioned whether the city needs a drug court and recommended cutting funding for the court by $325,000. Now, I’m all for cutting the budget of pretty much any government agency, but if this just shifts people that would be going to drug court into the more punitive side of our criminal justice system, it will likely wind up costing Missouri taxpayers more in the long run.

Geisman’s view has been challenged by William Ray Price Jr., Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, who last week called for increased drug court funding.

From the Post-Dispatch:

“We know drug courts work. We have more than 8,500 graduates,” said Price, who is seeking $2 million more a year for drug courts. “We know the tremendous savings that result from drug courts in Missouri.”

As for studies about drug courts, Price had this to say in his speech to the state House and Senate:

At one fourth to one fifth the cost of incarceration, more than one half of drug court participants graduate, and recidivism is only in the 10 percent range. The last five meta studies on drug courts, from all across the United States, have shown that drug courts reduce crime from 8 to 26 percent.

As the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch noted, this is the low-hanging fruit in our justice system. I will reiterate that the cheapest of all alternatives here is to not to criminalize the behavior of nonviolent drug offenders at all, but since that is not currently on the table, drug courts are an improvement over prison — even if you think people who consume politically incorrect substances should be forced by the state to change their behavior.

An op-ed in the Daily Iowan refutes some arguments against urban chickens, including one I hadn’t heard before:

Bailey was quoted suggesting that urban chickens undermine local economies, saying, “We have a lot of small farmers around here making chickens and eggs available for sale. My fundamental question is: Why aren’t we supporting the regional economy?”

Here is the op-ed’s excellent response:

I would argue that urban chickens would in fact strengthen Iowa’s economy, especially when we consider unique and important businesses such as the McMurry Hatchery in Webster City, known nationally for its collection of rare chicken breeds. Likewise, I highly doubt Bailey would make such an argument when considering whether citizens ought to be allowed to have vegetable gardens.

City residents are also part of the economy, and they shouldn’t have to pass up opportunities to create value for themselves in order to protect people who are already farming. Transactions in which money changes hands aren’t the only economic activity that matters.

In fact, the freedom to raise your own chickens is an important check on the farmers’ power. When customers can build their own chicken coops, farmers aren’t able to overcharge them for eggs or sell lower-quality eggs than what the market demands. If farmers don’t offer acceptable price and quality, customers will walk away and raise chickens themselves.

Some legislators in Jefferson City are trying to ban a drug called K2. The Post-Dispatch’s Political Fix blog explains the situation:

Legislators say the spread of K2, a “herbal incense” more commonly referred to as a synthetic marijuana, is an epidemic.

Missouri state Rep. Ward Franz, R-West Plains sponsored a bill that would add K2 to Missouri’s list of illegal drugs. That bill was heard before the House Public Safety committee Tuesday.

“There are so many people, including adults, saying its legal so we think it’s safe, and that is not the case,” Franz said.

West Plains Police Department Detective Shawn Rhoades said in West Plains, students as young as middle school have been experimenting with the drugs. Last month, a West Plains high school student was hospitalized after smoking K2.

The dried herbs come in 3-gram packages of various flavors, and are available online and in several stores in the St. Louis area for about $30 – less than the cost of a tank of gas.

“We don’t know much about this, but it’s going to end up killing somebody,” Franz said.

There are so many flaws in the reasoning behind this bill that it would take a lengthy essay to unravel them all — and the commenters on the post have made a great start — but here are some of the more rudimentary ones.

Judging by the fact that I have never even heard of K2, I doubt its use is all that widespread — but, even if it were widespread, it could not be considered an epidemic. Epidemics are diseases that are extremely communicable and infect others even when they take steps to avoid infection. K2 is a drug that people have to consume (voluntarily, unless someone forces them to do so, or they are tricked) in order to feel its effects.

Furthermore, it is a very foolish person indeed who believes that any product that is not illegal is therefore safe. Just to stay in the realm of drugs, drinking a fifth of whiskey and smoking three packs of cigarettes a day is hardly safe, but it is perfectly legal. A free society is supposed to allow people to take such risks, provided they do not harm anyone else in the process.

Next comes the appeal that we must ban K2 to protect the children, because some middle school students have used it and one high school student was hospitalized after using it (note that the story didn’t say the student was hospitalized because of K2; that’s a possibility, but the article does not confirm the scenario). Well, I got drunk for the first time in middle school, and high school students are hospitalized all the time for drinking. Does that mean we should completely ban alcohol?

The paragraph about the cost of K2 is essentially meaningless. Three grams costs $30, it tells us, but that’s completely useless information without knowing the active dose. If three grams is what it takes to get high, I sincerely doubt K2 will ever catch on in any major way.

Finally, the legislator who introduced the bill is convinced it will kill somebody if it is not banned, but given the fact that he just admitted he knows little about the drug, I’m guessing that his certainty is based on exactly zero toxicological evidence. I don’t know specifically how K2 differs from marijuana, but unless it is dramatically more dangerous than its organic cousin, it is — for all intents and purposes — impossible to overdose on the drug.

Later in the article, a different legislator claims, “This has no legitimate use in society that we’re aware of.” Well, that depends on your definition of “legitimate”. If people are buying it and coming back for more, they must be enjoying it. Is enjoyment not a legitimate use? If not, I wonder whether the General Assembly should next take up the issue of banning carnivals. After all, the Scat routinely makes people sick, and it’s only a matter of time before one of the carts flies off the Zipper.

Finally, there is a presumption on the part of supporters of a ban that the legislation will be effective. Perhaps they should reflect on the history of marijuana prohibition. Marijuana is far more popular today than it was when it was originally banned in 1937. That trend may not repeat itself if K2 is banned, because people might simply opt to smoke the already widely available original as opposed to the newly developed synthetic, but no ban will keep people from altering their consciousness.

Back in high school, I was a policy debater, and in policy debate, the affirmative team advancing a policy proposal had the burden of proof to show that the policy was necessary. Each plan had to meet five so-called “stock issues” to prove it was good policy. Foremost among those were “solvency,” “harms,” and “significance” — meaning that the plan had to solve a significant problem that had major harms. If this proposal to ban K2 were advanced in a high school policy debate, it would lose without the negative team having to say a word because those advancing it have not shown that there is a significant problem or harm associated with the status quo, nor that the policy would actually achieve its intended goal. It’s a pity that the ban proposal will inevitably receive more consideration (and likely pass) in the General Assembly than it would from a high school debate judge.

A Parents as Teachers program in Alabama has started a “baby bucks” program to reward parents for what it considers to be appropriate decisions:

Parents of children up to age 36 months are eligible to earn “baby bucks” when they make good parenting choices, such as participation in child-development programs for family events.

Parents can also earn “baby bucks” through other actions, like signing up for WIC assistance or allowing Parents as Teachers into their homes. The “baby bucks” are redeemable for items such as diapers, toys, and clothes, which are donated to the Baby Bucks Boutique.

I spoke with a representative from the Alabama program who confirmed that “baby bucks” is open to all parents with children in the eligible age range. Although Parents as Teachers obviously can’t enroll wealthy families in WIC, parents at all income levels can earn “baby bucks” in various ways.

“Baby bucks” are not given only to families that couldn’t afford baby items on their own — kind of like the entire Parents As Teachers model, which isn’t means-tested. A program that starts out as free for all parents, so that it’s not a welfare program for the few, can turn into a welfare program for everyone.

I don’t know of any Parents as Teachers programs in Missouri that offer material incentives for participation and parenting decisions. But if you’re not enthusiastic about publicly funded programs giving out stuff in exchange for approved parenting behavior, keep in mind that this is a direction that Parents as Teachers can go.

While anti-texting laws may be ineffective attempts to deal with a real problem, the most charitable thing I can say about this is that it is a solution in search of a problem:

A bill heard in committee Monday would prohibit felons from commercially using fireworks.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Brad Lager, R-Maryville, would prohibit anyone guilty of a felony or anyone without proof of liability insurance from getting a permit to sell, make or ship fireworks. It would also allow the state fire marshal to examine sales records to make sure businesses buy and sell only from those with a permit.

I can understand the liability insurance requirement and fire marshal oversight, but is there really a serious problem in Missouri with felons selling fireworks? The article does not mention any reason it should be illegal for felons to sell fireworks. Even if there are a great many felons going into that line of work, that is not in itself cause for alarm. In fact, we should be glad those individuals are reintegrating themselves into productive society. I suppose the concern is that felons are more inclined toward violence and could use the fireworks for that end, but fireworks — although dangerous if mishandled — aren’t terribly effective weapons. They are hard to aim and are usually designed to minimize damage to people and property if they are misused. Let’s not go making it even harder for felons to get jobs outside of crime just because it sounds kind of scary to have them around gunpowder.

Wherever you are in located in Missouri, there is probably a chapter of Liberty on the Rocks near you!

• Saint Louis: tomorrow at 6 p.m. at the Drunken Fish in the Central West End (1 Maryland Plaza, Saint Louis)
• Kansas City: tomorrow from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Coach’s (414 W. 103rd St., Kansas City)
• Columbia: next Thursday, Feb. 18, at The Heidelberg (410 South 9th St., Columbia)

Liberty on the Rocks is about connecting freedom lovers across the country — to encourage more education, more involvement, and a larger demand for liberty! Stop by for some good drinks and good discussion!

These events are not sponsored by the Show-Me Institute, but perhaps some of our blog readers would be interested in attending.

Also, thanks to the Missouri Record for the link!

Today, first lady Michelle Obama launched her “Let’s Move” campaign, aimed at eradicating childhood obesity. Before the she made her announcement, attendees heard speeches from the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, an urban farmer, two mayors, and a student.

The urban farmer seemed out of place, because he made little effort to connect his locavore ideology to the problem of childhood weight gain. Of course, children will be healthier if they eat lots of fruits and vegetables, but there’s no reason those fruits and vegetables have to be grown in their cities instead of, say, shipped in from a field in California. The farmer railed against buying food from foreign countries — which, again, is no reason to avoid food from California, even if you accept his protectionist premise. Then he concluded with a few more off-topic pronouncements, including, “When farmers are in business, schools are out,” which sounds to me like an argument against relying on local food for children’s nutrition, and a recommendation that cities grow food in vacant buildings. (Not vacant lots, vacant buildings.)

The mayor of Hernando, Miss., offered more relevant comments, although he too gave the obligatory nods to farmers’ markets and urban gardens. He had a lot of ideas about things cities can do to invite physical activity, such as repairing sidewalks and building playgrounds. The mayor’s emphasis on local policies rather than federal mandates was refreshing. (You see, I have local biases of my own.) And I appreciated it when he said that government should not tell people to be healthy because “that’s a private decision.”

The mayor of Somerville, Mass., advocated a more invasive approach for government. His “Shape Up” campaign goes so far as to place a public stamp of approval on certain menu items at restaurants. Even more troubling is the mayor’s declaration, “The healthy choice must be the easy choice.” This recalls the attitude expressed by a student in Clayton when she spoke in support of the proposed smoking ban: If a choice is good, the city should ensure that it is also easy and fun. In other words, you shouldn’t have to make any sacrifices or be at all inconvenienced when you do the right thing — not if the government can help it. Take that way of thinking just a tiny step further, and the government will be making your choices for you.

While most of the speakers had creative plans for cities and schools, none of them explained why the federal government should play a role or why change couldn’t come from the ground up. The first lady emphasized that her campaign won’t try to impose Washington’s vision on everyone, but it’s hard to believe that when she says she’d like to turn convenience stores into produce markets.

Last week, I noted with some pleasure Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price Jr.’s call for a less punitive approach to nonviolent offenders in our legal system. In an editorial today, the Post-Dispatch praises Price and offers some concrete recommendations for reform:

• Drug courts need more funding. This is the low-hanging fruit in criminal justice reform — the chance to save serious money by ending the cycle of crime and keeping nonviolent, drug-related offenders out of prison. A lack of funding means state leaders aren’t serious.

• Leaders in rural counties must start to deal with nonviolent offenders in their own communities. If their prosecutors and judges insist on sending everyone to prison, then local taxpayers should be forced to pick up the tab.

• And, Gov. Jay Nixon should convene a panel of top law enforcement, legislative and judicial officials. Their task over the next 120 days should be to develop a plan for closing five of Missouri’s 21 adult correctional institutions over the next five years — one a year for five years — using part of the savings to support alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.

I agree that all of these would be positive developments, but I will note that we could save even more money if the state did not attempt to force people to abstain from certain vices.  Oh, well — baby steps, I suppose.

Although it changes nothing immediately, it is good to hear Missouri’s highest-ranking judge point out the inefficiency and waste of imprisoning nonviolent criminals:

During his annual State of the Judiciary address, Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr. urged lawmakers to take a closer look at the incarceration of nonviolent offenders and the expansion of the state’s drug court system.

In a speech today before the house and Senate, Price said Missouri’s “broken strategy of cramming inmates into prisons” isn’t working and costs the state millions of dollars each year.

He said the state should focus on rehabilitating nonviolent offenders, instead of sending them to jail. Jailing nonviolent offenders, Price said, frequently leads to higher recidivism rates. 41.6 percent of nonviolent offenders who are jailed, then released, return to jail within two years, he said.

Price praised the state’s drug court system, but said it needs at least $2 million more funding per year to operate at full capacity.

According to the Show-Me Institute’s new spending tool, “Show-Me: The Books,” Missouri spends more than $2.7 billion a year on the Department of Corrections. Much of that spending keeps violent criminals off the street and is justified, but much of it goes to lock up petty criminals and drug offenders. Of course, I would go much further than Judge Price by eliminating prosecution of all victimless crimes (e.g., drug possession, prostitution) completely, but given how rare it is to hear someone in power even approximate my position, I will gladly take it.

Last night, the Columbia City Council passed its urban chicken measure by a 4-3 vote. The meeting was well-attended, and spirited public comments preceded the decision. If you missed it, you might want to watch the archived video here.

Opponents of the proposal brought up two arguments against urban chickens: First, that chickens would be dirty, noisy, and wild; and second, that chickens would lower property values. Urban chicken supporters answered both objections very well.

Opponents told horror stories about disgusting chickens, but they failed to show that chickens are any worse than the birds that already live in Columbia. If chickens harbor pestilence and filth, then so do all the sparrows and pigeons that fly around unmolested. Chicken supporters pointed out that other pets like dogs can carry disease or leave waste, and Columbia has no trouble regulating dog ownership so that most people are satisfied. No one is asking the city to ban all dogs for sanitation reasons; chickens should be equally tolerable.

The Columbia ordinance prohibits roosters, which should go a long way toward preventing noise disturbances. One Realtor who spoke predicted that wild roosters will find a way into the coops despite the owners’ best intentions. I find it hard to believe a rooster could break into a coop that, by law, is made of sturdy fencing with a wire net on top — unless the rooster had access to power tools.

Then there’s the possibility that escaped chickens will flock in the streets. Again, the opponents haven’t shown that chickens are more likely than other animals to cause problems; owners of any kind of pets can be irresponsible. As one councilman said, chickens aren’t the nuisance — people are. Those people are the exception, and Columbia can deal with them on an individual basis. Urban chicken supporters have lots of ideas for reducing the number of wild chickens: A private organization has offered to teach people how to care for chickens, and it’s volunteered to help place abandoned birds in new homes. One graduate student pointed out that unwanted chickens can be sold on Craigslist.

It’s clear that chickens are no more of a nuisance than dogs or cats. However, some Columbia residents — namely, Realtors — say that chickens are uniquely harmful because people think of them as farm animals. They claim that the chicken ordinance will lower property values, and that chickens next door to homes on the market could quash sales. These Realtors overlook the fact that the ordinance doesn’t override neighborhood associations’ covenants or landlords’ policies, which can exclude chickens. Chickens are not about to move into a community of mansions and destroy the value of the surrounding estates. And, as several commenters indicated, some people would actually prefer to buy a house in a city that allows chickens.

The only time chicken enthusiasts lost me was when they appealed to “sustainability” and “food security.” I can’t imagine how building a chicken coop could be fun, either. But whether I agree with the chicken owners’ ideology is not the point. People should be free to pursue their ideals and passions so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. Chicken raising meets that criterion.

Although both Saint Louis City and County have recently passed a smoking ban (albeit a relatively mild one in the city), this has not placated anti-smoking crusaders in Missouri. Instead they are emboldened, now proposing a statewide ban on smoking in almost all public places. From the Saint Louis Beacon:

State Rep. Walt Bivins, R-Oakville, is leading a bipartisan cadre of at least 20 legislators who’d like to see smoking banned from most public places by next year.

In an announcement this week, Bivins and co-sponsor Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, say their aim is to create “uniform statewide smoke-free standards in bars and restaurants.”

But the bill, HB 1766, is generating lots of attention because it goes much further.

The measure also would outlaw smoking at public “aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums,” as well as sports arenas, convention halls, bingo facilities and “At least eighty percent of hotel and motel rooms that are rented to guests;”

The few exemptions include private residents not used for day-care facilities, tobacco stores, those 20 percent of hotel/motel rooms and “outdoor areas of places of employment.”

Public smoking is already banned in some form in 23 localities in Missouri, including Saint Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, and Springfield. Furthermore, even in places with no smoking ban, many businesses either forbid smoking completely or offer patrons a nonsmoking option. So, what is the necessity of this bill?

The irony, of course, is that if smoking were so widespread that no nonsmoking options existed for drinkers and diners, a smoking ban could never get a hearing in the first place. It is only when there are already many nonsmoking businesses, and smokers are a small group, that the majority can impose its will upon them so thoroughly.

I am a smoker, but I have been trying to quit lately. However, if this bill passes, I think I might have to start smoking two packs of Pall Malls a day … out of spite.

Tonight, the Columbia City Council will vote on an urban chicken proposal. If it passes, Columbia residents will be free to keep up to six hens on each property.

The text of the proposed ordinance anticipates concerns about sanitation and possible nuisances, and it includes regulations to prevent problems. I hope that those clauses satisfy the critics. Cities like Columbia should not allow anyone to pack unsanitary numbers of poultry into city plots, but residents who raise a few hens in their backyards without harming their neighbors should be left alone.

If you’d like to learn more about urban chickens in Columbia, supporters have created a blog and a series of YouTube videos.