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 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.

A committee in the Missouri House has heard a bill to keep the Missouri Gaming Commission from closing the President Casino (or any other casino) on “purely economic grounds.” The testimony makes clear the Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare into which the commission has placed the President Casino:

Some House lawmakers said the idea of “inadequate declining performance” seemed subjective and was a hard standard to interpret.

Rep. Vicki Englund, D-St. Louis County, questioned how the commission evaluates casino’s performance and asked lobbyist Jim McNichols, who testified on the commission’s behalf to explain how casinos could be expected to meet standards when they weren’t explicitly provided with standards to comply with.

McNichols said the commission works hard to involve casinos in the rulemaking process.

The Missouri Gaming Commission opposes the bill, but McNichols said he couldn’t speak to the specifics of the President Casino case because there was a pending legal matter.

This may strike some people as a crazy idea, but I think it should be up to the owners of a business to decide whether it lacks sufficient revenue to justify operating, not the decision of a government commission with no set standards by which it must abide. And, of course, if the President is forced to close, it is not only the casino’s owners, employees, and patrons that would suffer, but also gamblers at other casinos. Following the decrease in competition, casinos would be able to pay out a lower amount in winnings at the margin.

Missouri Gaming Commission Executive Director Gene McNary got right to the heart of the matter in his written testimony when he wrote that passing the bill to keep the President Casino open would “neuter the commission and, in effect, take away our ability to regulate Missouri’s gaming industry.” I doubt he shared my view that this would be a positive development, however.

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

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

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

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

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.

Today, I’m going to Jefferson City to testify on bills related to the initiative and referendum powers that the Missouri Constitution secures to this state’s citizens.  One of the points that I hope to make plain is related to an article that ran last week on the Kansas City Star’s Prime Buzz blog, which quoted the president of the Greater Kansas City AFL-CIO as saying that the organization would work to prevent citizens from being able to vote on whether Kansas City or St. Louis should replace their earnings taxes, claiming, “This is not the will of the citizens.”

The irony, of course, is that nothing demonstrates “the will of the citizens” more than, say, letting them vote for themselves!

This is yet another example of a problem I have noted several times before: Powerful interests can (and do) game the system to prevent Missouri citizens from voting on issues of great importance. The most prominent example is the way that the Missouri Municipal League has for years been engaging in litigation strategically calculated to keep eminent domain reform off of the ballot. The most damning element, in my mind, is that at least in the case of the Missouri Municipal League, the opponents acknowledge the virtual certainty that eminent domain reform would be approved if the citizens were allowed to vote on it.

If an organization or some other group of citizens is concerned about the wisdom of any given ballot initiative, they are well within their rights to communicate their concerns to voters and to try to persuade Missourians not to approve the proposition. But to manipulate the system in such a way that citizens are denied the opportunity to adopt what they believe to be valuable changes to their laws is reprehensible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Here at Show-Me Daily, we have long documented the efforts of the Missouri Municipal League to prevent this state’s citizens from voting on constitutional amendments that would severely limit abuses of eminent domain in this state. For years now, the league (its leadership is made up of elected officials from across the state) has successfully persuaded cities to use your taxpayer dollars in order to help support their effort. Part of that effort has included litigation that the filers claimed to be an attempt to get a “fair” ballot title — but, in reality, it was intended to keep the measure off the ballot entirely by so delaying the signature-gathering process that it would be impossible to collect the necessary number within the limited time available.

Up until a few weeks ago, advocates of eminent domain reform had no real proof that the Municipal League’s lawsuits had this suspected insidious purpose. On Nov. 20, however, at a meeting of the Missouri Bar Association’s Eminent Domain Committee, a managing partner in the law firm representing the Municipal League was asked to give an update on the litigation. She had this to say (audio transcript; emphasis added):

It’s not a real big update, but … um … from the standpoint of the initiative petition, uh, we did partially win, uh, in the … at the trial court level, and it’s on expedited appeal for the western district, um, which will be argued in December, with the main objective being to delay the gathering of signatures and, um, hopefully we’re … we’re accomplishing that.

Missouri Citizens for Property rights, the group spearheading the petition effort, has asked the court for permission to supplement the record with the audio evidence of the attorney’s statement, and should hear today whether the court will agree. If the court chooses to take her statement seriously, it could assign sanctions against her firm for violating the ethical rules (yes, attorneys are supposed to understand ethics) governing the legal profession.

The story has started to gain interest nationwide — as it should. It is yet another example of powerful people trying to prevent ordinary citizens from having their own say on important issues. The AP article has so far been run by media outlets in Atlanta, Phoenix, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Miami, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Dayton, Ohio. Here in Missouri, the story has been reported in Kansas City, Springfield, Columbia, Jefferson City, Joplin, Cape Girardeau, and St. Louis — although it is interesting to note that the Ost-Pay Ispatch-Day, for some reason, has not yet covered this story.

Why the long face, North Face? I’ll be going on my annual ski trip later this winter, and now I know what clothes to buy for the trip. Hint: It ain’t gonna’ be anything from The North Face. Rest assured, I will stop by Ladue Pharmacy to pick up some apparel from The South Butt. I honestly see no way on God’s powder-covered earth that this new St. Louis company is not a totally legitimate enterprise, under rules for parody or anything else. So, at least I now know how to spend my money.

I’ll be a guest on Charlie Brennan’s morning show on KMOX tomorrow from around 9:30–10:00 a.m. What will I be discussing? I’m glad you asked. …

Although we haven’t yet discussed it on the blog, I hope that all of our readers are aware that the St. Louis Police arrested Gustavo Rendon, husband of the president of the North Side Community Benefits Alliance. Why? Because he was distributing fliers that opposed the NorthSide redevelopment project recently approved by the city. Even worse, he just happened to be doing so outside the church of Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin, a staunch supporter of the project. So, two police officers arrived, threatened to put his kids in foster care if he didn’t stop distributing the fliers, then arrested him.

The charge? Affixing advertisements to private property.

Fortunately, the city attorneys quickly realized that the ordinance under which they arrested him didn’t, you know, prohibit what he was doing. And even if it had prohibited distributing fliers that communicated purely political ideas, the ordinance probably would have been unconstitutional anyway. So, today they announced that they were dropping the charges.

The bigger problem, which I hope to address with Mr. Brennan, is that Mr. Rendon’s arrest is suggestive of a much larger problem: powerful people trying to stop citizens from having their say on important public issues. In this case, it was police officers arresting someone for communicating opposition to a redevelopment project. In Jim Roos’ case, a city agency is trying to destroy a sign calling for an end to eminent domain abuse. In the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District, officials tried to fine and ban from future meetings certain taxpayers who protested the district’s insane spending. And, of course, the Missouri Municipal League is using taxpayer money for a lawsuit with the primary goal of keeping off the ballot a constitutional amendment that would go a long way toward ending eminent domain abuse in the state — because they know it will pass if citizens are allowed to vote!

So, like I said, tune in tomorrow morning as Charlie Brennan and I discuss these issues. Who knows, there might even be some interesting surprises involved. And, if you can’t listen to tomorrow’s show, keep an eye on the Policy Pulse website, where Audrey Spalding is continuing to do excellent work reporting on abuses of taxpayer money and government authority.

The Wall Street Journal reflects on Pfizer’s recent decision to leave its location in New London, Conn. I like the following statement from the op-ed in particular:

If there is a lesson from Connecticut’s misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.

This is a lesson that cities like Saint Louis should remember and asseverate in their future development projects. As demonstrated in New London, government involvement produces opposite-than-desired results, such as driving out businesses and attracting feral cats.

There’s an article on the Wall Street Journal’s website about fishing rights in New England. It’s a very interesting case. It seems that a small-time commercial fishermen refuses to get the mandated fishing license, asserting that his right to fish the waterways is protected by a 423-year-old legal compact between the former British governor and the local townspeople. According to the article, a post-revolutionary war court upheld the “Dongan Patent” in 1777, and there are apparently other legal cases providing a precedent for the right to fish the local waters of Long Island’s East End without obtaining any extra permission.

As is evident from the far-reaching historical backdrop of this case, government regulation of fishing has a very long history. The economics of fishing permits are fairly cut and dried: This is an application of the tragedy of the commons. When a number of individuals have a right to consume from a public region — i.e., fishing on a river or other waterway — each one of them is individually incentivized to get as much as possible as quickly as possible, especially when it is their livelihood rather than their recreation. On the other hand, in cases where there is only a single owner, there is much less reason to worry about others “getting theirs first,” and the owner can economize with an eye on maintaining the future value of the property. The problem with a single concern having access is the same as the problem with any monopoly: higher prices and less service, with none of the benefits of competition. One solution to the tragedy of the commons is some form of social arrangement, with social stigma or other punishment for “cheating.” These sorts of arrangements have been studied at length by Elinor Ostrom, and she recently won a Nobel Prize in economics for her work.

A far more common solution, though not necessarily more efficient or desirable, is a government regulation of “the commons,” such as by requiring fishing licenses. If regulators can accurately determine the impact of each additional fishermen extracting each additional fish, they can set a price on licenses such that the most efficient outcome will be reached. This level of prescience is less likely than what actually happens in practice: License fees are set too low, in which case you still get overfishing, or they are set too high, in which case not enough fish are extracted to maximize value over time. I don’t know which case is more likely, but I strongly suspect the former is more common.

For what it’s worth, the state of Missouri sells recreational fishing licenses in unlimited quantities, and they are quite affordable — a daily pass is cheaper than a movie. Although I’m sure it’s a nice revenue stream for the Missouri Department of Conservation, I seriously question whether this is a proper area for government involvement in people’s lives.

Clayton residents are debating whether the city should restrict pet chickens. This Post-Dispatch article presents the usual quotes from neighbors who abhor all things farm-related. Also noted are the people who want Clayton to promote chicken ownership actively:

On the other side of the issue is Clayton resident Stan Braude, a biology professor at Washington University.

Braude said after the meeting that he hoped the city would encourage more residents to have a few hens in their backyards.

What would Clayton have to do to increase hen ownership? I’m imagining a chicken incentive program, reminiscent of Cash for Clunkers — or, alternatively, a fresh eggs buyback program.

I hope Clayton avoids both regulation and encouragement, and instead allows people to make decisions about chickens for themselves. If anyone can’t stand to live in a city that permits chicken raising, they can always move out to Chesterfield.

This week, I was thrilled to have the opportunity to spend two consecutive afternoons being interviewed on St. Louis’ WGNU, a radio station with programming directed to the city’s African-American population. On Monday afternoon, I spent an hour as part of a panel conversation (with Sheila Rendon and Romona Williams of the North Side Community Benefits Alliance) discussing eminent domain and the proposed NorthSide Regeneration Project on Kuumba Nia’s radio show. (Audio available here.)

The conversation went so well that I was invited back the following afternoon to spend another hour discussing the same topic with co-hosts state Sen. Robin Wright-Jones and John Bowman on her show, “The Wright Side of Politics.” (Audio available here.) My conversation partners the second day were Barbara Manzara and Keith Marquard, also of the North Side Community Benefits Alliance. If you’re interested in hearing from those on the front lines of the upcoming battle over the proposed redevelopment effort, give these two shows a listen!

Today, Matt Drudge linked to two articles that illustrate the negative consequences of excessive licensing requirements. The city of Ventura, Calif., has condemned a homemade haunted house on private property as an “unsafe structure,” and prohibits visitors from entering it.

Responding to an anonymous complaint, the city said the 1,200-square-foot “amusement building” didn’t have a permit.

As a consequence, the cavorters will have to limit their fun to that which the city will allow.

There will be no maze, and it will only be open Halloween night, to coincide with a block party the neighbors are hoping to have, with the city’s permission.

This story has a lot of similarities to a story I blogged about recently in which a Michigan woman was cited for running an unlicensed daycare center. In both situations, no one had been physically hurt, all involved parties were happy with the arrangement, no money had been exchanged, and it occurred on private property.

This demonstrates how red tape can negatively affect the general welfare. For many families, visiting this haunted house is a Halloween tradition. The unintended consequence of requiring vigilante haunted houses to obtain a permit is disappointed children. Parents should have the right to determine what constitutes a safe environment for their children.

As contributors to this blog have discussed, Missouri is a milieu for rampant licensing laws, too.

Some residents of private communities have found that saving the planet conflicts with following their community rules. They want to conserve energy by hanging clothes outside to dry. But their neighbors dislike the sight of hanging laundry. At one time, people solved these dilemmas by moving west. Nowadays, they call their state legislators.

I hope Missouri won’t join the states that have enacted laws overriding private community clothesline bans. People joined these communities voluntarily, and they knew the rules up front. It’s not okay to ask the state to change the terms of your contract once you’ve already signed.

Today the Wall Street Journal reports on the latest episode of eminent domain in the courts:

New York’s highest court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that will decide whether the state government can lawfully seize private property for a development company.

The story is very familiar, although the actors are different. This time, the New York State Urban Development Corp., a government agency, assumes the role previously played by the city of New London, Conn. A chorus of concerned land owners reprise the role of Susette Kelo, the woman in the little pink house. Forest City Ratner Cos. replaces the New London Development Corporation in the role of the developer, and instead of building a Pfizer research complex, it plans to build an NBA stadium in downtown Brooklyn.

Stay tuned! If the Court of Appeals in Albany sides with the property owners and introduces additional limits on eminent domain, there will be a happy ending. If the court sides with the developers, there will be an unhappy ending, as there was in New London. This will mean that, in addition to other negative consequences, the property owners will lose their homes and the city will lose money on the project.

The city’s Independent Budget Office said in a report last month that the arena would cost the city nearly $170 million, nearly $40 million more in spending than it would generate in tax revenues.

Eminent domain is not reserved for East Coast cities like New York and New London — it’s a pukka issue here in Missouri, too. Last month, the Show-Me Institute released a study of the expansion of eminent domain in Missouri, and it also hosted Jeff Benedict to speak about the eminent domain abuse that occurred in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case.

Yesterday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch had a story about the effort by Realtors to pass an amendment to Missouri’s Constitution that would ban real estate transfer taxes, which are essentially sales taxes you pay when you sell your house. Now, we don’t currently have this tax anywhere in Missouri, and Realtors want to keep it that way.

All of our neighboring states have this tax, and it is generally pretty small, but just because it might be small does not mean it is good tax policy. I agree with the Realtors that in a state that makes heavy use of property taxes to fund local government, a transfer tax amounts to double taxation. I oppose their implementation in Missouri at the city and county levels, and at the state level as well — with one potential exception, which I will get to shortly.

A few interesting things jumped out at me in the article:

In other mountain resort towns in Colorado, such as Aspen, Vail and Telluride, the taxes are used to help preserve open space or provide low-income housing.

Regular readers might recall that I love to ski, and I do so each year near Vail. From the perspective of Vail residents, it is a no-brainer to institute a transfer tax. Of course they want to tax the out-of-towners who own property in Vail; it is no different from the high real estate taxes on second homes for Missourians with property along the lake in Western Michigan or in Door County, Wis. The Great Lakes or Rocky Mountains are not easy to replace. If you keep such a tax within reason, it is a way to make people from outside your community pay more so that the full-time residents will pay less. I am not saying I like it, just that it is easy to see why they do it.

I don’t really think, thankfully, that this is something we can repeat in Missouri. Tourists visit Branson, but they don’t really own homes there. As for the Lake of the Ozarks, where people DO own the homes, I have to guess that most of them are Missourians from other parts of the state, so implementing such a tax would just end up screwing ourselves.

The other thing that jumped out at me was this:

While the taxes aren’t high, the revenue adds up when applied to every sale or transfer of property in a state. In Tennessee, the tax produced more than $174 million in revenue in 2004, according to a study of the Federation of Tax Administrators.

What do we have that Tennessee does not have? You guessed it: an income tax. Speaking generally, I would support the passage of some type of state transfer tax in exchange for getting rid of the state income tax. So, while I certainly support the Realtors’ position and oppose not only all local transfer taxes, but also any state transfer tax (short of possibly using it to replace the state’s income tax), I guess I wouldn’t want to enshrine it in the state’s Constitution if that would make it even harder to replace the income tax in Missouri.

The Show-Me Institute was pleased to be able to host Jeff Benedict, author of Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage, for speaking engagements in both Kansas City and St. Louis earlier this month. The first of those events, held in conjunction with the Kansas City Public Library, is now available for your viewing pleasure on our website. Hear how Susette Kelo’s heroic fight to save her New London, Conn., home turned into the landmark Supreme Court case that outraged homeowners and sparked a legislative backlash across the nation. Kicking off the event is R. Crosby Kemper III, executive director of the Kansas City Public Library and chairman of the board of directors for the Show-Me Institute.

I’ve also posted it below, for your convenience. This playlist consists of seven separate parts. After each individual part has finished playing, the playlist should automatically load the subsequent part until the sequence has finished. You may also choose to view any individual part on its own:

Part 1 (10:00) | Part 2 (10:03) | Part 3 (9:47) | Part 4 (10:01) | Part 5 (9:59) | Part 6 (10:00) | Part 7 (5:58)

A couple of weeks ago, the Show-Me Institute hosted events in Kansas City and St. Louis at which Jeff Benedict discussed his book Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage, the story of Susette Kelo’s fight to save her home in New London, Conn. As most will know, Susette lost her fight when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution permits cities to take private property on behalf of new private owners, so long as those owners are considered more likely to generate more tax revenue for the city.

Many people at these events asked whatever became of the planned development once the city won the case. Did they ever build the luxury hotels and condominiums, or the high-end retail shopping establishments that were promised? New London’s local newspaper, The Day, has produced a video that lets you see for yourself how the development is faring, four years after Mrs. Kelo’s neighborhood was leveled. I hope the city is satisfied with the Fort Trumbull neighborhood’s new residents.

When we were still dating, my wife once said to me: “I don’t like to be told ‘no.’” “No” is a word that a lot of people dislike — we don’t like hearing it, and many of us also have a hard time saying it. From a free-market perspective, however, it is a word that can have tremendous power, especially when large numbers of people use it at the same time and in the same way.

Back in June, I heard a conversation on “Bob Edwards Weekend” with the filmmakers behind Food, Inc., in which they made a point about the power that food consumers can wield by virtue of the fact that they make choices every day about where and what they will eat. Consumers tell companies what they like and dislike by the way they spend. We don’t have to look to state or federal governments to accomplish change in the food industry. If consumers let companies know that it’s important enough for them to maintain certain standards for the way their food is raised or prepared that they will favor businesses that conform to their preference, eventually even corporations as large as Walmart or McDonald’s will take notice.

Just a month or so ago, this principle was on full (and ironic) display. Many patrons of Whole Foods shop there because of the company’s commitment to high-quality natural and organic products. But when the company’s CEO published an op-ed advocating a free-market approach to health care reform and opposing President Barack Obama’s proposals, many previously loyal Whole Foods shoppers decided to take their money elsewhere to communicate their displeasure. This sort of revolt can be incredibly effective, although bringing these issues into such high profile might also inspire (as it did in the case of Whole Foods) new patronage from a group of people who had otherwise been disinterested in a company’s goods or services.

Utilizing such a “boycott” strategy, however, means that those saying “no” must be willing to give up goods and services that they would really prefer to have — at least until the market responds to their demands. And, because these consumers don’t want to give up those goods and services, they all-too-frequently utilize the coercive power of government to force providers to offer those goods and services on the consumers’ chosen terms.

Examples of this mentality leap from recent headlines. Don’t like the limitations offered by insurance companies, but you’re worried about going uninsured? Get your state government to mandate the kind of coverage you want. Wish that your favorite restaurant didn’t permit smoking, but you can’t bear to go without their signature dish? Get your city or county to pass a smoking ban. Want to build a corporate headquarters, but you can’t get the current property owners to sell at the price you want? Get your city to use eminent domain. Want an iPhone or a Blackberry Storm, but you don’t want to sign a long-term contract with AT&T or Verizon? Demand that Congress outlaw exclusive service agreements.

In every one of these examples, consumers have the power to change the market as long as they have the willpower to say “no.” Think health insurance premiums are too high? Refuse to carry insurance until a company offers a deal that you think is reasonable. Want to enjoy your meals without a smoky environment? Tell that restaurant owner that you won’t be back until his establishment has gone smoke-free. Don’t think that a property owner’s asking price is reasonable? Choose a different location or figure out a way to build around them. Prefer to stick with your favorite wireless service provider? Tell Apple or Blackberry that you won’t purchase their products until you are free to use them with a carrier of your own choosing.

The challenge here is that realizing the power of “no” in this context requires a willingness to sacrifice having something that you like in the short term so that in the long term you will be able to enjoy it under more favorable circumstances. Our nation still has a fast-food mentality when it comes to our desires, which is why it is so tempting to use the government as a shortcut to get what we want. But giving the government the authority to destroy someone else’s liberty — to the extent that they must give you what you want on the terms that you demand — is a double-edged sword. That same power can (and almost certainly will) be turned back against you.

Last night, I attended the latest NorthSide Regeneration, LLC, community meeting, along with Policy Pulse reporter Audrey Spalding (be sure to read her excellent article.) I was impressed with the presentation; the NorthSide development team has obviously spent a lot of time working on the logistics of the more than 4,000 parcels of land involved in their proposal. (You can read more about those plans on Policy Pulse.) However, aside from the generalities, many questions were left unanswered about how the development might affect the future of current area residents.

Meeting organizers requested that nobody record the proceedings, and had a few confrontations with some zealous bloggers. Arguments became heated a number of times, as community members questioned how their own properties fit into the proposed plans. Some people had seen the areas in which their houses and businesses currently stand designated as “green space” on the projected plans. Although the developer and city officials responded to some questions, others were left unanswered. The portions of the plans that are publicly available are still vague and general enough that a standard answer was that no one yet knows what will happen to a specific house or business in question, because the plans are not yet finalized.

A PowerPoint presentation provided some revealing before-and-after statistics about college education. Currently, only 3.4 percent of north side residents have a college education, compared to 15.5 percent nationally. According to NorthSide Regeneration’s presentation, they envision that 75 percent of area residents will have a college education. Not included alongside that 75-percent figure was the likelihood that such a drastic increase in college attendance figures will result not from a greater number of existing north side residents attaining higher education, but from a largely new population of better-educated residents populating the area and displacing many current residents.

Parts of the north side area are undeniably blighted, and do need work. The plans as presented showed the possibility of an attractive new community that might work well for upper-middle class residents who are looking for new parks, transit, and grocery stores within walking distance. However, although the presentation seemed designed to reassure area residents about their community’s bright future, it skirted the fact that many of the people who live there now have the most to lose from the new development, and will likely not be able to afford to continue living there if the plans proceed.

On Tuesday, Sept. 15, the Show-Me Institute released a new study: “Gradual and Silent Erosions: How the Missouri Supreme Court Expanded the Power of Eminent Domain.” It discusses last year’s Missouri Supreme Court decision in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, and was written by Timothy Sandefur, a senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation and a nationally recognized expert in constitutional protection of property rights who represented Homer and Julie Tourkakis in their fight to save their dentist’s office from being taken from them by Arnold, Mo., on behalf of a private developer.

Sandefur points out several areas in which the Tourkakis court’s analysis veered away from earlier holdings about how laws should be interpreted and applied, before concluding that the court’s refusal to protect Dr. Tourkakis’ office from the wrecking ball represents only the latest in a series of steps that Missouri courts have taken away from the powerful protections for property ownership that are enshrined in the state’s Constitution.

Today, colleges around the country are hosting speakers and events to celebrate Constitution Day. Yesterday, the Show-Me Institute hosted Jeff Benedict to talk about an abuse of constitutional rights and eminent domain in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case.

While Susette Kelo’s case is well-known nationally, a new Show-Me Institute policy study also brings to light eminent domain abuses in Missouri. “Gradual and Silent Encroachments: How the Missouri Supreme Court Expanded the Power of Eminent Domain,” by Timothy Sandefur, a senior staff attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, tackles recent cases that have set back the constitutional rights of Missourians. Though this state once had one of the strongest constitutional provisions to protect home and business owners against eminent domain, new precedents by the Supreme Court have eroded that protection.

As Policy Pulse and Show-Me Daily continue to report, eminent domain is still a very pertinent issue in Missouri.

Constitution Day serves as a great reminder that some of the founding ideals of the country, like the respect of one’s own private property, still need to be protected.