The St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) met today to consider offers to purchase vacant property. The LRA, part of Saint Louis City government, is the largest owner of vacant property in the city.

Our research showed in 2011 that the LRA had a track record of frequently rejecting offers to buy city property, often for no discernible reason. The agency would cite “lack of aldermanic input” when rejecting offers, or plans for “future development” that would fail to materialize.

I have written here about improvements to the LRA’s practices that were made in the wake of the publication of our research and the resulting media attention.

This month’s meeting went pretty well – most offers to purchase property were accepted or countered (meaning the LRA asked for a higher purchase price or change in contingencies). However, I still cannot help but think that Saint Louis City aldermen still have outsize influence over whether the agency accepts or rejects offers to purchase property.

An offer from Transformation Christian Church and World Outreach Center to purchase four properties illustrates this well.  LRA staff members recommended that the church’s offer be rejected. However, former Alderwoman Irene Smith (ward 1) spoke on behalf of the church during the meeting and managed to sway the commission. It seemed that the decision of whether to sell the property hinged on whether the area alderman was supportive of the sale.

Smith, speaking to the commission, noted that the church had spoken with Alderman Sam Moore, saying that after “swapping” some property with him, he had agreed to provide a letter supporting the sale of LRA property to the church.

But LRA Chairman Mark Wells initially would not recommend moving to sell the property, saying that “Based on the information we got from Alderman Moore, I think more discussion is needed.”

Smith responded: “We’re taken aback by that. We sat down with Alderman Moore.”

Ultimately, the commission moved to counter the church’s offer instead of rejecting it. And I am glad — the church has a history of purchasing, maintaining, and rebuilding LRA property.

But, I wonder: If the church has a track record of being a strong community resource and has the funds to buy the vacant city property, why does it matter what the alderman thinks? The LRA does not have to consider the input of an area alderman. The agency’s authority was established under state law, and the LRA law does not suggest that the agency consider the input of any political officials. Saint Louis government has implemented this practice by choice.

You can download the LRA’s meeting agenda (with a few of my notes) here.

This article in the Kansas City Star is a must-read for anyone interested in payday lending. Here are some of the details (emphasis mine):

Central Bank has agreed to make old-fashioned signature loans (that means no collateral from the borrower) of $300 to $2,500. That’s also what payday and installment lenders do. Except Fair Community Credit will lend money for slightly longer durations and at a double-digit interest rate, not a triple-digit one. That way borrowers will have a better shot at paying off their loans, rather than defaulting.

What makes that possible is Fair Community Credit’s promise to cover any loan losses from a $200,000-plus loan guarantee pool donated by foundations and individual donors.

The market is creating relatively cheap short-term credit alternatives to payday loan shops. It is incredible to watch society tackle perceived problems through voluntary interaction without the forceful hand of the state. It will be intriguing to see the results of this venture.

A hat tip to John Combest for the link.

Last night I was in Cape Girardeau, Mo., to talk tax credit issues. I noted that the Missouri Legislature could eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of failing tax credit programs and basically wipe out the corporate income tax if it assigned the tax credit savings toward the tax’s elimination — shifting the state from a system where the government picks winners and losers in business to a system whereby all businesses benefit equally with a reduced or extinguished tax. (I have discussed this before.) Missouri’s tax credit problem is titanic, but its enormity also offers an opportunity to change the game when it comes to giving Missouri a competitive advantage in the national economy.

The good news? It seems the idea is picking up some steam with at least one Kansas City area legislator, who is considering a veritable tomahawk chop to some of the worst offending programs (via The Missouri Record):

[Sen. Will] Kraus’s bill would eliminate certain tax credits and apply the savings from the programs to lower the corporate income tax rate. Kraus said he hoped there would be enough additional revenue to get rid of the corporate income tax all together.

“This would make Missouri a much more business friendly place for businesses to come. It eliminates the picking of winners and losers by different tax credits,” Kraus said.

The measure would lower the low-income housing and historic preservation tax credits to 25 percent of their current value by 2016. The low-income housing credit costs the state $60 million a year, while the historic preservation costs $140 million.

The legislative session just began, so certainly a lot can change in the next few months that may temper my optimism. But in terms of policy, it is satisfying to see that the right, liberty, and free-market ideas are moving to the forefront of the state’s agenda. The state must realign its economic development program to reflect that in practically every circumstance, the best allocators of capital in the market are the participants in the market themselves.

As my colleague Michael Rathbone noted, there are only three states in the country that do not have a corporate income tax or a gross receipts tax, and none of them border Missouri. It would be a great way to get a leg up on our regional competition by telling businesses that Missouri is not only business-friendly, but that its tax laws are simple, predictable, and unencumbering. It also means that the unseen cost of the corporate income tax — higher consumer prices that compensate for the taxes that companies pay — would disappear, lowering costs of Missouri goods and making Missouri corporations more competitive.

It would be the right thing for Missouri, and I hope Missourians give the idea serious thought.

I saw this excellent story on Tony’s Kansas City. Independence, Mo., is privatizing bus and transit services within the city. The Independence City Council has decided to contract with a private bus operator to meet the city’s transit needs, and I think that is great. (The city intends to maintain some service from ATA, the Kansas City public transit provider, so this is not a 100 percent privatization. But it is close.)

I look forward to seeing how this works out for the city and its residents. I am confident it is going to work out great. In our policy study on public-private partnerships for Missouri transportation, we discussed these options for transit at length (see Section VII, pages 32-36). There are many examples of successful transit privatization efforts in the United States, including Las Vegas and Denver. Here is a key finding from Wendell Cox, a local authority on transit and highways, as quoted in the policy study (note: competitive contracting is a common form of privatization):

Competitive contracting has produced positive results for transit agencies in the United States and abroad. The quality of competitively bid transit has been found to be equal to or better than that provided previously, and ridership has generally risen as cost savings allow for expanded service. According to Wendell Cox, direct savings from competitive contracting have ranged from 14 to 52 percent, with an average of 30 percent, over the former non-competitive service in cities that have competitively contracted out at least 10 percent of their service.

After this transit privatization works out to everyone’s benefit, I hope Independence can privatize a few more things. To their additional credit, at least the golf courses in the city are all privately operated.

According to an article in the Kansas City Star, Platte County is engaged in a difficult debate regarding budget cuts. Officials have proposed cuts to many departments, including the sheriff’s department. In response and opposition, the sheriff said:

“The golf course fleet is better maintained than the sheriff’s department’s fleet,” Sheriff Richard Anderson said.

This brings to mind a very easy move for the county to make that will (1) bring new revenue into the county (the sale price); (2) reduce future expenditures; (3) expand the county property tax base (placing the property on the tax rolls); and (4) remove the county from doing things government is not intended to do. Privatize the golf course.

Golf courses make up one of the least important government programs. I say this as a golfer. I do not think governments should own golf courses, but at least some just own the land and contract out the operations of the course to private companies. Can someone say “comparative advantage”? But Platte County does not appear to even do that. The county appears to own and operate the entire course as a division of county government. (I base that on my reading of the 2011 budget, pages 221-224.) That is insane.

The Mackinac Center and the Reason Foundation both have conducted great work involving government golf courses.  This should be a fairly easy choice for Platte County. Shed the golf course to raise money to improve your sheriff’s fleet. Platte County should sell off its golf course to private operators, and if that is not possible (due to legal restrictions on selling parkland or some other such issue), contract out the management of it.  

And I now will resist the temptation to end this post with an overly cute golf reference, such as “Privatization would be a real Birdie for Platte County!”

During this time of year, no one wants to say “Bah, Humbug!” However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the state might run into a revenue shortfall (between $400 million and $600 million) next year. That can be troublesome, but it also presents an opportunity for the state to reexamine some of its questionable spending decisions. In previous posts, I have listed some areas where the state should reconsider spending money. However, for now, I will focus on the state’s support of the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority.

The mission of MASBDA is to make “capital available to Missouri farmers, particularly independent producers; agribusiness; and small business at competitive interest rates on a scale to make a major impact.” This raises a red flag for me. An entity that makes capital available to businesses at a “competitive” interest rate sounds an awful lot like a bank to me. In fact, a couple of the programs that the MASBDA administers include: Missouri Agribusiness Revolving Loan Fund, Alternative Loan Program, and Animal Waste Treatment Loan Program. The total state funds loaned to the Animal Waste Treatment Loan Program alone is close to $500,000 ($485,333.56 for fiscal year 2011, specifically).

Is anybody uncomfortable that a part of state government is acting like a bank? Why can’t the recipients of these loans get private financing? If they are great deals, why are private banks and/or financial institutions not jumping at the chance to invest in these projects? Farms already face lower property tax burdens compared to commercial businesses (farm property has an assessment ration of 12 percent compared to commercial at 32 percent and residential at 19 percent, and the soil quality grading system sets a very low appraised value already) so why do they need ADDITIONAL help with subsidized loans?

Also, how can a government and a private enterprise compete when it comes to financing? By issuing below market interest rates to different businesses, isn’t the state undercutting private financial institutions? Even if a state department/agency/program loses money, it can acquire new financing by compulsion with increased taxes. A private organization does not have that same power to tax (although with TDDs and CIDs, we are getting there). Thus, with the ability to achieve easier financing, what real incentive is there for the state to make wise spending decisions when it comes to these loans besides avoiding grief  from dedicated bloggers such as me? Isn’t it time for the state to get out of the business of lending with YOUR money and return to the basics? Just some food for thought.

A Missouri House committee heard testimony Wednesday from the soon-to-be former director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED), David Kerr.

Kerr’s testimony follows testimony from Moberly officials on Tuesday. A key point of Kerr’s testimony was that it would be a poor use of time and effort for the DED to double check the claims that every business makes when seeking incentives. Kerr said that if every business seeking incentives is treated as a criminal, fewer businesses will come to Missouri. I think that if a background check would deter a CEO with a history of passing bad checks from applying for tax credits, it might be appropriate.

There are two broad issues that legislators and the general public should consider in light of Mamtek. The first is that government officials (and others) mistakenly believe that with the right subsidy package and safeguards, they can eliminate all or nearly all of the risk associated with using public dollars to subsidize a private business. Any business can fail, due to its own negligence, or due to factors beyond its control. Public financing for a project cannot guarantee success, though it may prop up a business that otherwise would not be profitable without taxpayer money. Furthermore, as we may see in Moberly, no matter how many safeguards are used, the result may be that taxpayers are left holding the bag.

The second issue that may be at the heart of the Mamtek debacle is the fact that people and businesses will strive to get the largest benefit for the least amount of effort. That behavior has been seen in Missouri with gaming the requirements of the Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits and the general tendency of companies trying to access as many subsidy programs with a single project. It also has happened in China, where shoddy construction work on a high-speed train may have resulted in at least 39 deaths, along with corruption charges and the misuse of public funds.

As an outside observer, I don’t know whether any of those involved (Mamtek, the DED, current and former top state officials, etc.) deliberately misled anyone. There are ongoing criminal and civil investigations that may determine that.

However, the testimony that the House committee has heard so far sounds bleak, particularly the state’s investigation of the Mamtek company. The Columbia Daily Tribune posted the House committee information packet on Mamtek, and portions of it are riveting.

For example, one point of contention is whether Mamtek ever had an operating plant in China, as the company claimed in its project summary. The company wrote:

As of December 2009, Mamtek had moved from development into manufacturing and sales. We have completed both an 18-ton pilot production line and a full-scale, fully-functional [sic] 60 ton line (metric tons per annum). Each step and detail in the manufacturing and operational processes have been verified independently by the international patent firm Perkins Cole (page 27 of the House committee packet).

And then, Michael Wise, the patent attorney of Perkins Cole, a company closely affiliated with Mamtek, allegedly told the Moberly Economic Development Corporation that he had seen the plant himself, and that it had been operational for several years (page 43).

But yet, in April 2010, attorney Edward Li, a Chinese trade consultant for the Missouri Department of Agriculture, wrote to state officials to say that construction of a plant in China began in 2008, but was never completed (page 5).

Greg Havener, at the DED, wrote in an email with the subject “RE: BUILD PROJECT RUSH”  that he couldn’t find much information about Mamtek. “There is little on Google, oh well it will be a ’thin report,’ “ he wrote (page 41). That email was sent on June 3, 2010, days before state incentives for Mamtek were approved.

Oh well, indeed. It is my prediction that while the future of Mamtek is uncertain, and while the financial future of the city of Moberly and its 13,000 residents is uncertain, the future of the DED is not.

In the private sector, if a business makes a $40 million mistake, it suffers dire consequences. For many businesses, that kind of mistake can result in bankruptcy. If no substantive reform is implemented at the DED, its operations will continue as usual. In the past, that has meant tax credits awarded to voided projects, inflated job and investment numbers, and vast amounts of taxpayer dollars going to incredibly inefficient programs.

I hope this episode will lead to major changes at the DED. If a more thorough investigation on each development package leads to fewer development handouts, that is a good thing.

I want to keep our loyal readers informed on the latest developments regarding the Saint Louis County park budget issue. David Stokes, a Show-Me Institute policy analyst, gave a great rundown about Saint Louis County officials considering closing some county parks because of budget problems. Apparently, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is offering assistance to the county in managing some parks:

Nixon said that he had offered assistance to [Saint Louis County Executive Charlie] Dooley. In particular, the governor mentioned Lone Elk Park, which is adjacent to Castlewood State Park. Nixon said such a state-county operation there would save money.

Lone Elk Park is adjacent to Castlewood State Park and a previous article states that the county was considering transferring Lone Elk Park to the Missouri Department of Conservation. The governor claims that a shared management operation would save money. I haven’t seen any data to support this claim, but IF it is true, then the idea can be viewed as having some merit.

However, it seems odd that in this article, the topic of privatization was barely mentioned, except in this brief statement:

[Saint Louis County Chief Operating Officer Garry] Earls initially said that some of the parks, including Lone Elk, could be sold. However, Dooley dismissed that possibility at a special budget meeting Tuesday night.

Prudence would suggest that the county not dismiss privatization (or ANY potential solution) out of hand. Shouldn’t the county consider privatization as a possible course of action before sharing park management with the state? If there ARE obstacles to privatization, what are they? The only obstacle I could find is in this piece of information from the Southeast Missourian:

Officials said deed restrictions and covenants would prohibit the sale of most of the parks to private individuals.

However, Lone Elk Park does NOT have a deed restriction on its sale so the above restriction would not be applicable. Are there any other reasons the county would not consider privatization of Lone Elk Park?

As David mentioned in his post, the Reason Foundation has done a good analysis of park privatization, and the conservancy model of non-profit, public-private partnerships operating a park has been tried successfully in Tower Grove Park. County officials have not given a reason why following the Tower Grove example would be a bad idea, and unless there is a deterioration of Tower Grove’s situation, shouldn’t Saint Louis County investigate privatization of Lone Elk Park if a private operator can be found to manage it?

The St. Louis Business Journal reported that Post Holdings Inc. (the cereal company) would get millions in state and local tax incentives. The company could get up to $3.8 million in Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits, and another $20 million from the city of Saint Louis.

Look, we all know that tax credits have a bad track record of success. Quality Jobs tax credits are especially infamous in Saint Louis, because of Liberty Mutual. The company sent pink slips to many of its employees, and told those employees that they could apply for lower-paying jobs.  Surprisingly, the Missouri Department of Economic Development said that Liberty Mutual remained eligible for the tax credits.

Of course, Quality Jobs tax credits are supposed to go toward creating high-paying jobs.

But today, I’d like to commend the creative designer who created the Business Journal graphic below. At first, it may seem like an ordinary cereal box. But, instead of the usual commercial claims, this cereal box proclaims that it is “Packed with $20 million in industrial revenue bonds,” and “INSIDE: $3.8 million in tax credits.”

I only wish that the designer had incorporated some fine print. Perhaps: “Job creation numbers have not been verified. Up to $20 million in bonds may be used for the project, which may not be good for the city of Saint Louis’ financial health.”

Graphic by the St. Louis Business Journal.

I miss October. The weather was nice, the sky was clear, and the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team was on its way to an 11th World Series title. Also during October, many people congregated in various parts of Missouri to celebrate Oktoberfest, a fun and lively event where people enjoyed cultural activities along with certain viticultural products.

I want to make it clear that I do not want to outlaw wine in Missouri. However, it troubles me that taxpayer money is subsidizing the wine industry. Specifically, the Missouri Department of Agriculture spends $1,828,859 (click on HB 6-Agriculture and scroll down to page 133) on something called the Missouri Wine and Grape Board.

According to the Department of Agriculture’s 2012 Budget Request Form (click on HB-6-Agriculture and scroll down to page 134), “The Wine and Grape Board stimulates growth of the grape and wine industry for the economic and social benefit of the citizens of Missouri.” Aspects of the board’s functions include using funds to “develop programs for growing, selling, and marketing of grapes and grape products grown in Missouri.” Indeed, the Missouri Wine and Grape Board does have marketing products, including brochures, videos, and radio advertisements. The Wine and Grape Board also funds the University of Missouri Institute for Continental Climate Viticulture & Enology in order to fund grape research programs.

So, in essence, the board serves somewhat like a chamber of commerce for the Missouri wine and grape industry. However, unlike a chamber of commerce, participation in this program is mandatory, with a charge of a 12-cent excise tax on every gallon of wine sold in the state. Also, in all my searches through the state budget, I have yet to encounter an official appropriation for a private chamber of commerce.

I have to ask, why can’t Stone Hill or Hermannhof promote themselves with their own money? Why can’t there be a private chamber of commerce that promotes the wine industry, or all the wineries of the state? I have no problem with private groups promoting wineries, but do I think the state should be promoting them? No.

Also, there is no evidence that this expenditure actually DOES have a positive impact on the state’s wine industry. In my search, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the Missouri Wine and Grape Board has a discernible impact on the Missouri wine industry. Even the economic development report on the Missouri Wine and Grape Board website doesn’t really show the spending cause and effect; it just shows that in recent years, Missouri wineries are doing well. However, it doesn’t link the activities of the board to the wine industry’s success.

The key issue here is funding priorities. Why is the state funding this board, at least at its current level, when there are other places in the budget that may require that money? If the choice for appropriators is between potentially laying off teachers, firing firemen, or withholding funds from vital social services, shouldn’t every area of the state budget come under review for potential savings? Just my 2 cents.

Saint Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley has proposed cuts to the county park system in response to budget shortfalls. Park advocates are outraged:

“I don’t think it’s up to those guys to make that decision,” said Walter Crawford, executive director of the World Bird Sanctuary, which borders Lone Elk Park. “That park belongs to you and me.”

If it is not up to county officials to determine how to raise and spend tax dollars, whose job is it? Not surprisingly, the hipster urbanists are all a-twitter:

Parks represent a community’s shared aspirations and values. Our St. Louis County Park system is a national treasure.

No, it isn’t. It is a wonderful local park system, but “national treasure” is a fair bit of hyperbole.

I think the real opportunity is for cities to take over some of the parks that are within their borders. Many of the parks in question were county parks before these cities, such as Wildwood, incorporated. County government officials are correct to propose changing that model now. Residents in the newly-formed cities gain the benefits of the local park without the marginal tax burden. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch explains further:

The possible transfers: Lone Elk Park to the Missouri Department of Conservation; Greensfelder to the city of Wildwood; George Winter to Fenton; and Bon Oak to Dellwood.

Officials said that they had not yet contacted the state or municipalities to discuss that prospect.

However, Wildwood Mayor Tim Woerther said on Tuesday that he would be open to the idea of taking over the 1,734-acre Greensfelder.

“We would certainly be receptive,” he said. “But obviously, the devil is in the details.”

I commend Mayor Woerther for his openness to the idea. I would add Tilles Park in Ladue to the list; perhaps the cities of Ladue, Brentwood, and Rock Hill could take over the park in a cost-sharing arrangement. (Tilles is in Ladue, but on the border of Brentwood and Rock Hill, and residents of all three cities use the park extensively.)

Another possibility for some of these parks is to deed them to neighboring subdivisions as common ground. This is an option for the smaller, neighborhood parks on the list, such as Mathilda-Welmering. Maybe they would be well-maintained in that situation and maybe they wouldn’t, but the choice, and cost, would be up to the local residents who use the park. 

And, not surprisingly to regular readers, I think privatization should be considered for some of these parks. The Reason Foundation has covered the issue of park privatization at length. The conservancy model of non-profit public-private partnerships operating a park has been used successfully in some Saint Louis city parks, such as Tower Grove Park. Private supporters also have played a role in the success of some destination parks in the area, including Forest Park and Faust Park. (Nextstl.com has good detail on this in its story.)

The privatization model will, in my opinion, work better for destination parks. But, I think Lone Elk is such a destination park, and because it is one of the parks without a deed restriction on its sale, I hope the county gives that option strong consideration if a private operator can be found to manage it.

I don’t agree with every idea that the county executive proposes here, but I don’t think he deserves the criticism from all sides that he is receiving. Some of these cuts are tough choices that have to be made. I believe that the government is too large and too costly at every level. So, my axiom to that rule is that I don’t criticize elected officials — of either party — when they propose budget cuts, especially in tough economic times. (I think the closest I came to breaking that principle was in defense of Parents As Teachers. But, I only argued against its elimination; I supported cutting its budget.)  

If cities can take control of some of these parks, if privatization (including non-profit control) can be applied to the facilities where it may be best suited, if the more obvious cuts and changes can be applied (like closing minimally-used pools and expensive community centers), then I believe these changes can be implemented and, in the end, most St. Louisans would barely notice.

During the recently-completed not-so-special Missouri legislative session, some lawmakers continued to push for a new set of tax credit programs, arguing that tax credits can encourage economic growth.

Today, the Show-Me Institute is releasing a new policy study on the effectiveness of tax credits: “Tax Credits as a Tool of State Economic Development Policy.” This study, by Howard J. Wall, director of the Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment at Lindenwood University, reviews academic studies of tax credit programs in other states and discusses some of the broad arguments made in favor of tax credits.

One of the most striking findings in Wall’s study is the following: “State tax credits do not tend to lead to higher levels of employment for local residents, nor, by extension, do they lead to higher levels of employment for state residents.”

Consider the academic evidence:

• In a 2009 Michigan study, the authors found that tax credits were associated with a decline in employment.

• Some academics say that tax credits would be effective if used in distressed areas. However, an Ohio study found that tax credits generally are not awarded in distressed areas – a pattern that I suspect exists here in Missouri. Just look at The Chase Park Plaza, a luxury hotel and recipient of a great deal of tax credit money.

• In fact, tax credits may be awarded to companies that would have expanded anyway. A Georgia study found that 75 percent of tax credits were awarded to companies that would have hired more workers without receiving tax credits.

• There have been three prominent surveys of tax credit research in recent years. None of the surveys concluded that tax credits are an across-the-board, effective tool. In fact, one concluded that legislators should abandon tax credits altogether.

Most academic research on tax credit programs across the U.S. has shown that tax credits don’t work. Why do some legislators think that the situation in Missouri is any different?