I am not writing to commend the Kansas City School District for closing down almost half of its schools or laying off hundreds of staff. I will, however, commend it for being willing to make hard decisions, and these must have been incredibly hard.

I don’t think there is anything more difficult in current public policy debates than the issue of education in big cities. Even the school choice measures I believe in strongly, like charter schools and vouchers, are by no means magic bullets. That being said, the Kansas City School District has changed dramatically during recent decades, and it needed to shrink in order to reflect those changes and efficiently operate itself. The last thing the school district, or any government agency, should do is linger on indefinitely as a jobs program for government workers, whether they are needed or not.

Here is St. Louis Board of Aldermen Bill No. 337, which would apply current licensing requirements for commercial HVAC work to residential work, as well. Look for almost the exact same thing to be introduced in St. Louis County shortly, too. I understand that these proposed licensing rules and regulations will be introduced in Jefferson County, as well.

Should we expect another fight over this unnecessary, anti-competitive, and simply appalling use of government to restrict competition? Well, given that one of the people who led the fight against this same effort in 2000 — and who was partly successful in that effort — is now a cosigner on the letter requesting the expansion of licensing authority in the county, I don’t have much hope.

My initial post on this HVAC licensing issue last month has all the links you need to find media stories on this subject. I once again recommend the Riverfront Times story from 2000. I basically feel like a boxer who is still standing, but has been hit so many times that he can’t respond. (And, yes, I have boxed and know what it’s like to be hit really hard in the face.) These proposals are coming, they are a perversion of capitalism, and they will raise costs for St. Louis consumers, yet there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening. The capacity to fight back that existed in 2000 just does not appear to be extant right now (as I am sure the licensing proponents are well aware).

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.

Mayor Francis Slay is once again talking about St. Louis city and county once again considering the idea of reuniting in various capacities. I totally support the readmission of the city into the county, where it would be the 92nd, and largest, municipality. This would have two primary results, in my opinion: lower taxes in the county and fewer employees on the public payroll in the city. Both of those are, obviously, very good things to me. For a bit more detail, check out this op-ed on the issue.

Also in the Post, the county police chief is concerned about police officers within the county being properly licensed. Now, as regular readers know, I hate occupational licensing, but police work is one of the exceptions for me. Doctors (including dentists), cops, and (most) nurses are the main exceptions on my list to keep full licensure. Lawyers, accountants, and some other medical professions could keep some of it, too, but at a reduced level of licensing. (Lawyers should be licensed more like CPAs. Basically, if you can pass the test — in this case, the bar — you are in.) But back to the police.

I don’t necessarily think licensing agencies instead of individual police is the answer, but I’m not sure. If agencies are licensed, rather than the police themselves, that might reduce the ability of individual police to market themselves and change jobs. Also, if the citizens of small municipalities want to get rid of their own police forces, they are fully capable of doing that now via contracting out the service or disincorporation. As much as I would like to see many of those cities do just that, I don’t support forcing them if their citizens don’t want to. I admit I need to research this issue more, but at first review I don’t see positive change coming from just changing the licensing system.

I wanted to note that Alderman April Ford-Griffin called me today to discuss the proposed open space map that NorthSide Regeneration Regeneration LLC submitted as part of its plan for a $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis.

I have written about how owner-occupied homes appear to be slated for open space, as are some area businesses.

When I asked Ford-Griffin about the fate of Fehlig Brothers Box & Lumber, a 137-year-old area business that, according to NorthSide’s plans, will become open space, she said that much detail can’t be read into the company’s plans.

“That is a concept,” she said. “That is not a document where you take it and say this is what’s going on this block and this is what’s going on that block,” she said.

You can read the updated report, with Ford-Griffin’s comments, here.

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.

On Feb. 23, I wrote about the proposed “open space” that NorthSide Regeneration LLC, has planned for the company’s $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis. According to NorthSide’s plans and other publicly available documents, at least four owner-occupied homes are slated for open space.

When discussing the possibility of eminent domain, NorthSide representatives, including developer Paul McKee and attorney Paul Puricelli, have stated that eminent domain won’t be used to take owner-occupied residences. The specificity of the qualification “owner-occupied residences” should make anyone looking into the project take pause. After all, there are many types of properties that are important to lives and livelihoods that aren’t owner-occupied residences — for example, businesses. In the latest Show-Me Report, I profile Fehlig Brothers Box & Lumber, a business slated for open space.

The city of Duluth, Minn., made the band Wilco and its members honorary citizens. Not to be outdone, the city of Madison, Wis., my stamping ground of 6 years, has proposed to do the same thing. Last week, Alderwoman Satya Rhodes-Conway and 10 cosponsors filed a resolution in the Common Council in Madison. It goes like this:

WHEREAS, Wisconsinites generally have a love/hate relationship with all things from Illinois but the sold-out crowd at the Overture Center on February 20, 2010 had only love for this band from Chicago; [...]

In an article in the Duluth News Tribune, Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz pokes fun at the situation. I realize that he’s joking, but there’s a sad element of truth in his statement.

“If it’s a typical resolution for the city of Madison, it will be referred to 20 different city committees, it’ll be amended and we’ll probably vote on it in August 2012,” the mayor said.

On the one hand, although the Common Council could spend its time more productively, at least it isn’t passing resolutions that limit personal liberties or promote fiscal irresponsibility.

However, as Sarah Brodsky has communicated on this blog, legislating state symbols encourages people to ask the government to affirm their preferences. I happen to enjoy listening to Wilco, but why should it matter to me that Ald. Rhodes-Conway and Mayor Dave do as well? In a recent blog post, Mayor Cieslewicz confesses that he doesn’t like John Mayer. Does this mean that I shouldn’t like him too? If John Mayer is barred from becoming an honorary citizen in Madison, does he face a barrier to performing concerts in Madison?

I hope that Mayor Cieslewicz is only joking about this, too:

There are also questions being raised about where honorary citizens would be allowed to live. Some have suggested a referral to the Zoning Code Revision Advisory Committee to mull that one over, though the City Attorney has hinted darkly that he won’t allow it.

I hope that these cities stop short of providing tax advantages to their honorary citizens. I wouldn’t be that surprised if they did, though; Midwestern states have already demonstrated a willingness to bend their tax codes in an effort to attract glitz and glamour.

First, I’d like to thank Hugh Scott for his response to my op-ed arguing against expansion of the MetroLink system. I doubt we will ever see completely eye to eye on the subject, but an informed dialogue can still be illuminating for everyone involved.

Before I respond directly to any of Scott’s points, let me just clarify something that may have been unclear from the op-ed (a 700-word format does not allow for full explanation of every point): I was not arguing against the proposed half-cent sales tax. My point was that we should not expand the MetroLink system into areas with relatively low population densities because the lines would have low ridership and be even more heavily reliant on tax dollars than current lines.

Scott observes that the flexibility of buses is a disadvantage as well as an advantage, a point well-taken. Light rail is undoubtedly better than buses when it comes to understanding routes. However, the question is whether that disadvantage outweighs the advantages of flexibility and lower costs that buses provide, and my answer is that it depends on population density. The denser an area, the more rail should be preferred to buses, and vice versa.

With regard to the possible lines of MetroLink expansion, Scott is perfectly right that Metro does not plan on expanding the system without federal funds to diffuse the costs of constructing the line(s). However, even if a new line would not cost area taxpayers a cent to build, it could still be a bad deal for them if very few people rode it and they were then on the hook for operating costs. Again, my argument is that the best method of forecasting ridership is through population density. Aside from the north-south corridor, none of the proposed lines come close to matching the densities found along the current lines.

Finally, I agree that MetroLink performs well against the light-rail systems of other cities, but that is a relative metric when the question should be an absolute one: Do the benefits justify the costs? Even existing lines do not meet the profit-loss test used in the private sector, so light-rail systems are not efficient by our most common metric for success. Perhaps we need another absolute standard we could use to determine which light-rail lines are successes and which are failures, but for now the best that can be said is that it is unclear whether the benefits of MetroLink expansion would outweigh the costs.

The Show-Me Institute recently released an op-ed by research assistant John Payne titled, “Adding New MetroLink Lines Too Costly, Inefficient.” The piece appeared on the Riverfront Times blog on Feb. 15, along with comment from the paper, and ran in the St. Louis Business Journal on Feb. 19.

We recently received a thoughtful response from Hugh Scott, III, who has been a member of Metro’s Board of Commissioners for nearly five years, commenting on Payne’s op-ed. In the interest of furthering dialogue about important issues like public transit funding, his entire letter appears unedited below:

As even noted anti-tax advocate Glenn Beck acknowledged on his show yesterday, (2/22/10) some taxes are necessary. In the case of public transit, I would maintain that taxes supporting these systems inure to the economic benefit of metropolitan areas. Public transit enables people to commute to jobs and transit centers provide a critical mass of customers for businesses located near them. Not only does Metro employ 2000 St. Louisans but it assists countless thousands of workers to get to jobs in healthcare, retail, manufacturing and distribution. For many of these commuters, no public transit would mean no job.

Show-Me Research Assistant John Payne misses the mark in his article, “Adding New MetroLink Lines Too Costly, Inefficient.” While he tacitly agrees that public transit is important for our community, he advocates opposition to the proposed referendum for a ½ cent sales tax on the April ballot. The focus of his criticism is on the part of the proposal which suggests some the addition of light rail corridors. Extending light rail is however, not the major thrust of the proposal.

Throughout its history, BiState (Metro) has not had sufficient dedicated taxes to support its operations. It has relied on the beneficence of the City of St. Louis and the adjoining Missouri and Illinois counties, the States of Missouri and Illinois, and the Federal government to provide operating subsidies. Some of these entities have been generous over the years. Others have been quite parsimonious. In all cases, awarding of funds is arbitrary and Metro must beg for money from its stakeholders on an annual basis. If Metro is expected to operate in a business-like manner, it must have a stable reliable source of revenue. This, in fact, is what the April 6 ballot proposal is really all about.

When the last tax measure failed in a very close vote in November of 2008, Metro was forced to cut 40% of its bus and train service and 400 staff members. This resulted in the loss of at least 5000 jobs in our community. While half of these cuts were quickly restored due to the receipt of emergency funds from St. Clair County and the State of Missouri, deeper cuts will be necessary if the proposed tax is not approved by the voters. With the approval of the new tax, pre-2009 service will be restored and the current system will be able to operate on a stable financial footing for the first time in memory.

Other short term (1-5 year) priorities include implementation of a bus rapid transit system similar to the “higher speed bus routes” advocated by Payne, adding amenities such as a “smart card” fare system, and beginning planning for more light rail. These programs will be implemented only after the pre 2009 service is in place and only when funds are available. The five year plan does not call for construction of new light rail corridors.

Putting a light rail extension in service will take a minimum of ten years. It will also require large amounts of federal funds in order to build. Metro does not believe that the community should “foot the bill” for any Metrolink expansions without the majority of the funds being provided by the federal government. Instead Metro is asking for funds to begin the planning process so that when federal funds become available for light rail expansion, St. Louis will be in line. It only makes good sense to spend some money on planning. Otherwise, federal money for light rail will go to other cities and St. Louis will be left out.

Payne tries to make a case for increased bus service as opposed to more light rail. He asserts that buses are a better form of transit because they are cheaper and provide more flexible route opportunities. This was precisely the argument made by former BiState CEO, Col. Rudolph Smyser in the 1960’s when he ordered the shutdown of the last of the street car lines in St. Louis.

While it may be argued that buses are superior to light rail from an economic standpoint, flexibility of routes is precisely the problem with buses. Businesses which might prosper by being near a transit stop do not locate near bus stops because a bus stop might easily move to another street or corner. Many non-transit dependent customers will not ride buses because it is often difficult to know where the bus is going. With streetcars, subways and light rail, one need only look at a map showing landmarks or look down the track to know where the car is headed.

In some ways, Metro has successfully mitigated the confusion caused by changing bus routes by creating a hub and spoke system integrating buses and light rail. Thus a person who boards a bus that says “Clayton Station” can expect to travel to the Clayton Metrolink station. Similarly, a passenger who boards our most heavily traveled bus route, Grand Avenue, can be confident the bus will travel north or south on Grand without deviating. In a sense, our increased market share in buses may be in part attributed to our lack of flexibility with routes not the reverse.

In conclusion, Metro has built a world class transit system which integrates bus and rail service quite successfully. While our population density might be low for light rail travel our market share compared to peer group cities is very high. Light rail continues to gain popularity from non-transit dependent riders and nationally, our market share is in the top three cities in our ten city peer group. The April ballot proposal is about preserving this fine system. Our first priority must be to stabilize the existing system. Future planning is always important but it comes further down the list of priorities.

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.

This weekend, KC Star columnist E. Thomas McClanahan had a terrific article about the benefits of replacing earnings taxes with a land tax, as proposed for St. Louis and Kansas City by Show-Me Institute executive vice president and University of Missouri–Columbia economics professor Dr. Joseph Haslag. This is the second major KC-area piece that really demonstrates an understanding of how a land tax creates a better incentive structure relative to other types of taxation. The Pitch had an excellent story on the issue in 2008.

As if the article was not great enough, I also want to share the remarks of commentor number 3, “jayhawk6″, who said:

Good explanation for just how the land tax works. The spiteful aspect of property taxes [...] is that a homeowner can be discouraged from improving his/her home because it will raise its value and thus the tax burden.

We thank both McClanahan and “jayhawk6″ for the attention and focus on this important issue. McClanahan is absolutely right when he says that a land tax should be adopted as an eventual replacement for the current property tax system even if the earnings tax is maintained. (But it should NOT be maintained.) Although, as the article explains, this would entail amending the state constitution, counties in Missouri could move in that direction simply by applying more of the current value of property to the land, and less to the improvement. Then, as the property might be improved, the taxes would rise less because the portion determined by land value would hold steady.

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.

As many residents of Saint Louis are aware, there has been a coyote wandering through Tower Grove Park for more than a week. As someone who lives very close to the park, I demand the city of Saint Louis take swift and drastic action to drive the beast from our midst. The city should establish a Coyote Patrol, similar to the Bear Patrol created after a bear wandered into Springfield in The Simpsons episode “Much Apu about Nothing.” No expense should be spared to protect us from the solitary predator: We need round-the-clock surveillance of the park, and patrols of all nearby wooded areas to ensure that no more coyotes sneak in.

While some might say that the risk of coyote attack is still very low — negligible, even — and that therefore we shouldn’t spend lavish amounts of money guarding against it, I respond that the risk can’t be much lower than some other risks the government pours billions into thwarting. And when Tower Grove Park is once again free of coyotes, we will have the government’s Coyote Patrol to thank — just as Homer knew to credit the Bear Patrol for keeping bears out of Springfield:

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.

You knew this was going to happen sooner or later. Ten years ago, when HVAC contractors in St. Louis County succeeded in significantly increasing the licensing requirements for HVAC work in a way that would benefit union firms and workers, they focused on the commercial aspect of the work and left out the residential work. The naked power grab for commercial work was enough for them in 2000, and the political price they paid prevented them from reaching for any more, until now.

If you are not familiar with the story of how the pipefitters union and their allied contractors tried to knock non-union contractors out of the HVAC business 10 years ago, then you just have to read this awesome Riverfront Times story about the pipefitters plan. To paraphrase Berkely Breathed’s comment about how Caspar Weinberger’s poetic request to him provided a template for how to “get something from someone who is not inclined to give it to you,” if you are interested in knowing the real reasons that occupational licensing laws are passed, “all you need to know is here.”

Needless to say, the proposal for new restrictions on HVAC contractors is a sick twist on capitalism. It is just a joke to hear that the supporters of licensing requirements for residential work are once again promoting their arguments as increasing “safety.” As my friend, “D” (I’ll err on the side of caution and not use his name — he can claim credit in the comment section if he so chooses), who sent me the link to the Post-Dispatch article, said:

Isn’t the more likely story that the bad economy has created a greater incentive for established contractors to try to protect their territory by establishing barriers to entry?

My friend has hit the true story on the head. It would be shameful if this were passed by the various local governments to which the proposal is being brought. I hope to be a part of the fight against it.

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.

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.

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.

I won’t add much to my TIF post from the other day, I just want to note and link to this Kansas City Star article about the TIF lawsuit in Jackson County. As promised in the press conference the other day by Co. Exec. Mike Sanders, the county has sued the city over the makeup of its TIF Commission. This should be an interesting case, and while much of it focuses on some narrow issues of the board’s procedures and make-up, I hope it can lead to larger debates over who should be making these decisions.

Jefferson City has grudgingly lifted its ban on tattoo parlors. They are now legal, but subject to several regulations: The shops can’t open before 9 a.m., and must close by 8 p.m. They can’t display any neon lights. And they can’t stand out:

The Jefferson City News-Tribune reports that another stipulation requires the businesses to aesthetically blend in with their surroundings.

That last requirement is the least reasonable. No store can look just like the establishments surrounding it while simultaneously advertising itself to customers. And the burden of this regulation will only increase over time, for if neighboring businesses come and go, a tattoo shop will have to continually redesign itself to blend in with the changing scene.

I can’t imagine what tattoo shops will look like under this ordinance. Will a tattoo parlor next to an office building have to masquerade as corporate headquarters?

The new policy doesn’t satisfy all tattoo shop critics; some would prefer that tattoo shops stayed out of Jefferson City. One council member explains why he opposed ending the ban:

“Many times these things are done randomly without much forethought and individuals do regret this,” said Pope.

I would expect people who share this opinion to call for waiting periods before anyone can get a tattoo, rather than bans. Completely banning tattoo parlors prevents people who do exercise foresight from getting tattoos — and why should they be punished for someone else’s lack of judgment? This council member should at least be happy with the new policy’s regulation of operating hours, because whoever decides to get a tattoo after 8 p.m. will have all night to reconsider.

All right, so the title of this post is a bit misleading — I just wanted to get as many acronyms and abbreviations in there as possible. Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders announced today that Jackson Co. will file suit against the make-up of the TIF Commission in Kansas City. Prime Buzz has the early scoop here.

This is a big issue, and you will see a lot more from the Show-Me Institute about it as it goes forward. Basically, I completely agree with the county on the larger issue of the KC TIF commission’s fairness. (Debating the details will have to wait a day or so until I have time to read everything carefully.) TIF commissions at the municipal level are a rigged game. The city gets to appoint so many members that the whole commission is clearly stacked. In St. Louis County, they are currently working with a modified TIF commission that gives the county more influence and the various cities less. It has not faced a real test yet, but I support the increased county role. I would support it for Jackson County, too, and I wish Co. Exec. Sanders and the county luck in this dispute.

I wrote about this issue in some detail nearly two years ago, in an op-ed arguing that all TIF decisions be made at the county level, and another piece commending St. Charles County for its resistance to the use of TIF. It looks like both of these pieces are very applicable to Kansas City and Jackson County right now. Nifty stuff.

The Central Missouri Humane Society is alarmed by a proposal to allow urban chickens in Columbia. It anticipates trouble caring for and finding homes for the chickens that would end up in the shelter:

Shelter Relations Coordinator Allison Toth said a chicken was brought in during the summer. The staff named it Tyson, after the food manufacturing company.

[...] It was a small inconvenience until Tyson was finally adopted by board member Ann Korschgen, who owns a farm.

But staff cannot rely on such acts on a regular basis.

The argument that no one should be permitted to keep chickens because a few of them will probably be abandoned is unpersuasive. By that reasoning, the city should ban cats and dogs, too, because some owners leave them at shelters. And, although it’s inconvenient for a shelter to build new coops, the city’s animal population changes over time and shelters need to evolve.

The shelter’s contract for 2010 excludes chickens, and the city is thinking of other ways to deal with abandoned chickens this year — perhaps paying a farmer to take care of them. That means the shelter would have a whole year to prepare for the chickens’ arrival.

And I don’t buy the argument that no one will adopt chickens. When urban chickens are illegal, the shelter has to wait for someone from a farm to take a stray chicken. But if city residents could keep chickens, there would be many more potential chicken owners. Finding homes for abandoned chickens would be easier.

Urban chickens are up for debate in Columbia. I hope the city decides to allow people to keep at least a few chickens. Ideally, the law should allow a certain number of chickens for anyone who wants them, without a lot of fine print.

When laws include too many qualifications, they lead to absurd predicaments like this one in Sacramento. Chickens are legal there, but only on large plots of land. So, a family that’s renting a smaller property will have to get rid of its chickens — despite the fact that the landlord is happy for the birds to be there, and that bevies of quail, wild turkeys, and wood ducks move through the neighborhood on a regular basis.

There are wild turkeys running down the street but residents can’t raise a few chickens in an enclosed yard? All because the property isn’t spacious enough by an arbitrary standard? If someone were trying to cram hundreds of chickens into a tiny parcel, I would be the first to say the government should step in. But the family in Sacramento keeps just four hens. That’s the kind of case local governments should let alone.

I don’t know the answer, but there certainly could be. For those of you — including our intrepid editor — who have no idea what I mean by “utility player,” that is the player on a baseball team who serves as the backup for a number of positions, especially infield. They can be used in many different ways, and that is why they are valuable. (Cardinals fans will always remember Jose Oquendo in that role.) Could there be such a thing for local governments, and would it be a good thing?

I ask because of this article in today’s Kansas City Star about snow-removal efforts in Kansas City. The short answer for why snow removal is taking a long time in Kansas City is simply that there are too many roads and too little staff:

For example, Kansas City plows more than 4,200 lane-miles of main arterials and residential roads, compared with 1,800 lane-miles in Overland Park. During the last round of storms, Overland Park had 125 people involved in snow operations, compared with about 200 to 250 in Kansas City.

Staffing cuts and shortages haven’t helped. Since 1998, Kansas City’s street maintenance staff has dropped from 174 to about 110.

For the record, the reasons they give are entirely acceptable to me, and I have no reason to believe they are not all doing the best they can. Anyone who loves political history like I do knows how much local officials can be judged by these things, though. Just ask Jane Byrne.

This leads me to an open question about local government staffing. Cities and counties in Missouri could have at least a few workers who are trained in multiple fields, and can move from department to department as the needs change. Here is a possible schedule:

1. December–February of each year: Streets/highways, primarily as snow plow and salt truck drivers.
2. February–August of odd-numbered years: Assessment divisions, though not as primary assessors. (This has been done by St. Louis County in the past, although mostly just to get lots of people to physically eyeball properties that computers determined rose in value by more than 15 percent.)
3. Memorial Day to Labor Day every year: Parks Department, while the pools are open and the parks and golf courses are busy. 
4. November–December every year: Revenue Department, collecting checks as everyone pays their property taxes.
5. Other potential opportunities include working for the Revenue Department on the delinquent tax sale day, the Police Department for parades, protests, etc., and the Health Department for emergency preparedness procedures.

I predict everyone will hate this idea. Libertarians and unions would finally agree on something. I don’t actually support it, because it would be turned into an excuse just to hire more government employees in total, but it would not be a bad thing if we could have a small number of government employees able to assist in multiple fields as seasons and needs change.

There is a decent article in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch about proposals for transit-oriented development in St. Louis. I say “decent” because it has a lot of good information, but it also misses out on a few key points and never attempts to question government involvement in all of these projects. Read the article carefully, and then tell me if you can find one proposal discussed at all that does not involve significant government subsidies. Is transit-oriented development really profitable if every project depends on things like this?

That changed last fall, when the federal government made $1.5 billion in transportation funding available as part of its economic stimulus package. Metro and McCormack Baron partnered to apply for $19 million, a good chunk of the $43.2 million it would take to build the development project.

How can someone really say the following when every TOD project around MetroLink has been subsidized?

“There’s a market out there for this,” he said. “I don’t think we’ve quite recognized it yet.”

Look, I’d love to be wrong about this, and will gladly correct myself if someone can give me an example of a TOD project that succeeded on its own merits. Furthermore, I am fully aware that developments of all types in Missouri have been taxpayer subsidized, as I, along with others here at the Show-Me Institute, have also argued against. But I won’t buy into any dreams of St. Louis becoming a mass transit mecca until I see one TOD that succeeds without the crutch of the taxpayer subsidy. I expect to wait a long time.

This article about neighborhood associations reminded me of a post I wrote earlier in the year, in which I argued that tools like Facebook and Twitter could help local governments communicate with their constituents. The article describes how groups in the St. Louis area use networking sites — or even just email — to organize and share information:

Neighborhood associations used to be built around face-to-face contact — talks on porches, chats over fences, discussions in doorways. Local groups, though, insist that computers and social media haven’t killed the neighborhood association. Just the opposite, they say — it’s a way to stay even closer and to reach more of their neighbors.

Technology doesn’t sever neighborhood ties; it brings new people into the conversation.

Online networking helps neighborhood associations, and local governments could also use technology to increase community involvement. If you sit in on a few city council meetings, you see a lot of the same people every time. Some dedicated citizens don’t miss a meeting, and others attend whenever an issue that affects them comes up for debate. But there’s an entire group of people who are absent. Those are the people who might occasionally want to voice their opinion or learn about government proceedings, if they could stay involved without too much trouble. They don’t read through the newsletters, nor do they mark all the meetings on their calendars. They would benefit from local governments’ updates on networking sites — and local governments would benefit from their presence.

Before I get into the meat of this post, I should introduce myself because I am the new guy around here. My name is John Payne, and I am the Show-Me Institute’s newest research assistant. I graduated from Washington University in 2005 with a B.A. in history and then moved just down the road to attend Webster University for my teacher certification. I taught social studies for a year at East Carter County High School before I decided it was not for me, and left to pursue a career in writing, which brings us right up to the present.

My first Show-Me Daily post, appropriately enough, deals with my hometown, Poplar Bluff, and its never-ending quest to banish that devil methamphetamine. From Poplar Bluff’s Daily American Republic:

A request by police chief Danny Whiteley to adopt an ordinance requiring the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine by prescription only was moved by the Poplar Bluff City Council to its Dec. 21 voting session.

Whiteley told council members Monday night the proposed ordinance is based on one enacted July 6 in Washington, Mo.

“This will give our city another tool to fight the ongoing battle against methamphetamine in Poplar Bluff and Butler County. We are all aware of the destructive nature it has on society, families and our children,” Whiteley said. “Adopting this ordinance would be a significant step in thwarting the individuals who manufacture methamphetamine in our area.”

Back in October, my co-blogger Chaya Kristen Chopra pointed out that a similar ban in Union, Mo., would force people with nasal problems to seek out expensive prescriptions for what is for most people a very common problem. I would add that given the expense — both in time and money — of a doctor’s visit, most people would simply be inclined to drive to a neighboring town to purchase pseudoephedrine. Obviously, this will create a huge inconvenience for anyone suffering from a routine cold.

But, more to the point, the ban will not succeed in its goal of reducing methamphetamine use. If someone wants to cook meth badly enough, they will also drive to the next town (and the next, and the next) to purchase enough pseudoephedrine to cook their batch. But suppose the law were extended to cover all of Missouri, or even the country. Would that stop people from getting meth? It seems unlikely. There are no coca or poppy fields in this country, yet the supplies of cocaine and heroin never seem to disappear. The more likely scenario would be for production to get pushed into Mexico, where methamphetamine could be mass produced. In fact, that is what has already happened, to a large degree.

Where there is demand, there will be a supply. Poplar Bluff’s efforts to control methamphetamine are Sisyphean, and have been ever since I can remember. The police department constantly claims victory is around the corner, but they seem no closer to eradicating it than when I was in high school and people did lines in the back of shop class. All this law will succeed in doing is making one of the most common and effective forms of health care available, pesudoephedrine, vastly more expensive for honest citizens.

As our regular readers will remember, on Nov. 18, the Show-Me Institute published a study that discusses recent research on the impact that charter schools are having on students’ academic achievement. At that time, we sent the study to newspapers across the state, along with an op-ed I had written discussing its findings. As is the case with any op-ed, my ability to address nuances in the research was dramatically limited by the need to keep it short enough for newspapers to consider publishing it. Thus, I was unable to go into great detail about the various studies and instead focused on the primary goal of the piece: making people aware of this new study so they could consider it for themselves.

When the Springfield News-Leader expressed interest in running the op-ed, they asked me to trim it down by 50 words so that it would fit their publishing parameters. As I hope readers will see, an op-ed’s final form rarely allows the author to offer a comprehensive picture of all the information they would convey if space were no constraint. Perhaps as a result of this necessary brevity, some of the News-Leader’s readers have posted a few skeptical comments about my op-ed, so I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to the points they raise.

The first issue I’d like to address is that of my motives for writing on this topic. The commenter writing under the name “Ray Smith” suggested that I am part of a general effort to “undermine public education,” and that I have simply seized upon President Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” initiative (which, in part, promotes the expansion of charter schools) as an opportunity to promote my own agenda.

I do have one comprehensive, all-encompassing agenda when it comes to the subject of education, and I don’t care who knows it. I want to make sure that all parents have the greatest possible range of options when it comes to deciding where their children will be educated. While I, myself, am a proud product of an excellent public school system, it does not matter to me in the slightest if parents prefer traditional public schools, charter schools, parochial schools, or secular private schools. All that concerns me is that children get the best available educations — and I firmly believe that the greatest likelihood of achieving that goal is to fashion education policy in such a way that parents can vote with their feet if they decide a school is not meeting their child’s needs.

As should be clear, many parents do not believe that their local traditional public schools are the best educational option for their children — and, with that being the case, it makes the most sense to help those parents find alternatives that will serve their families better. I suggested in my op-ed that, to the extent that charter schools expand the range of options available to parents, they serve as a step toward this goal. Thus, expanding charter school availability represents good policy. In my mind, it is merely a bonus that the best academic research is showing that most (though far from all) charter schools are performing as well as or better than their traditional public school counterparts when it comes to certain measures of academic achievement.

Which brings us to Mr. Smith’s suggestion that I believe charter schools to be a “magic bullet” that will solve the education problems rampant in our state — and his intimation that I was ignoring evidence that I did not like. To the contrary, when writing the op-ed, I wanted to make sure that I pointed out the evidence in our own study that calls into question whether charter schools always generate better results than traditional public schools. Mr. Smith correctly points out that the Stanford study shows that a significant number of the nation’s charter schools appear to be attracting students, even though the schools do not currently appear to measure up to their traditional school counterparts in regard to academic achievement as measured by standardized tests. The reason I addressed the Stanford study in the op-ed was because the authors of the recently released Show-Me Institute study did not have access to research that isolated Missouri’s charter schools, and I believed that it would be valuable to highlight the fact that, in spite of the Stanford study’s broader findings, the data do suggest that Missouri’s charter schools are performing better than most.

Here at Show-Me Daily, I can address the Stanford study’s findings a little more broadly. For charter opponents, of course, the suggestion that some charter schools are not improving their students’ academic achievement is a clear signal that these schools need to close. Maybe … but maybe not. I have previously stated on this very blog that I do not generally oppose the closure of especially bad charter schools. But the facts also bear out that official action is not necessarily needed to close these schools, because in cases where the situation is truly bad, parents will voluntarily move their children to a different school and that bad school will fail for lack of funding (much as any other business would).

Also,as I note in the op-ed, parents consider a wide array of factors when deciding where to send their children to be educated — and, for many parents, academic achievement may not be the most important factor. So, if a charter school lags a little bit behind its traditional charter school counterparts in academic performance, but dozens of parents still want to send their children there, maybe government officials shouldn’t force its closure. After all, we don’t allow government officials to tell wealthy parents what factors they can consider in choosing a school for their children, so why should we assume that government officials are within their rights to tell lower-income parents what factors they can consider?

And, finally, I will add that I would actually prefer that Missouri not seek “Race to the Top” funding. In my opinion, the Tenth Amendment should preclude the federal government from interfering with educational matters, because they have always been reserved to the states. While I do think it would be good policy to expand the availability of charter schools in our state, if Missouri’s legislators are not persuaded that a particular policy is the best idea for our families, they certainly shouldn’t adopt it simply because the federal government is dangling money out there as an incentive.