The Springfield News-Leader ran an op-ed this week written by one of the aldermen for the city of Ozark, in which he attempted to characterize (or, perhaps, caricature) those individuals and groups who are demanding an end to eminent domain abuse as radical activists “promoting their own personal agendas hoping to cost taxpayers thousands.”

Reading the comments at the bottom of the page has been the highlight of my day.

Steelman fields another question of interest over at the Post-Dispatch:

Brian R.: Urban decay and poverty is a problem that has been ignored in Missouri for far too long. As governor, what will you do to stimulate positive economic activity and lift people out of homelesness and poverty in North St. Louis and Kansas City? Additionally, how do you plan to address rural poverty?

Sarah Steelman: That is a very good question. I believe that any economy, including local economies, have to be allowed to grow themselves. One of the main problems in both Kansas City and St. Louis is the earnings tax. This 1% tax is levied nowhere else in Missouri. In St. Louis, you need look no further than the hole next to Busch Stadium to know that the status quo is not working. In addition, no major corporate headquarters has moved to downtown St. Louis in 50 years. The state should support economic growth in our cities.

She is just on fire this afternoon, isn’t she? The earnings tax is a terrible idea, and should be eliminated in both Kansas City and St. Louis. As Steelman notes, the earnings tax deters businesses, as well as people, from moving into affected areas. If tax revenue is needed, there are much less distortionary means to raise it, such as through a tax on sales or on the value of land.

The Kansas City Star has a story on the failures of the planning process in Kansas City’s Beacon Hill neighborhood. I encourage you to read it carefully. Now, I have never, to my knowledge, been to Beacon Hill. But this entire story is a perfect example of the failures that come when the government steps in to plan things that should be left to the free market and individual choice.

The historically revitalized neighborhoods in Saint Louis, such as Soulard and Lafayette Square, did not come about because of a government plan. They happened because free people made choices and put time, money, and effort into their neighborhoods. The government did not “plan” for Lafayette Square becoming what it has become, and it certainly did not mandate its development with legal contracts, etc. (I am certain that there are similar neighborhoods in Kansas City that have been revitalized in the same way as Soulard.) I will admit that the government does provide historic tax credits that encourage much of the revitalization, and they should continue to do that in historic parts of Missouri.

But the city should not get to “choose” who is allowed to buy property. From the Star article:

He and two other buyers were chosen to purchase and fix up the homes.

Even if the city had owned the homes by then, they should have taken the best offer. Somebody who wants to “mothball and flip it” might be doing just as much for the economy as someone who gets a lot of government tax money to subsidize revitalization. The Kansas City planners have no way of knowing what the best long-term plan is, and they have apparently not been making cost-effective decisions (emphasis added):

Beacon Hill so far is known mostly for exorbitant spending of federal dollars on two bungalows in the 2500 block of Tracy Avenue.

Government should stick to governing, rather than trying to predict the future and take risks with public money. That should be left to the private sector.

Somehow, I messed up my prior post, so the following portion did not get added.

The disaster movie references were leading up to the fact that, last night on the 10 p.m. news, Channel 5 hit a new low in nanny-state obsessing. Leisa Zigman (who lives right by me, although she’s moving) had a story about the “silent danger” of hot plastic slides in St. Louis playgrounds. Needless to day, the station went just hyperplectic (might not be an actual word) [Editor's note: "hyperplectic" sounds so nicely intemperate that I'm resisting the urge to change it to "apoplectic" — EDD] about the danger of hot slides. A two-year-old recently suffered second-degree burns from a plastic slide in Corondolet Park. And, of course, according to the story, it is the government’s responsibility to protect people from this danger.

I loved how the representative of the city of St. Louis basically told them the city was not going to do anything. Cities around the county have spent many millions replacing metal playground equipment with plastic pieces during the past decade. It is still not good enough for some people. I swear, some nanny state control freaks won’t be happy until we all have to put on our safety helmets before we get out of bed in the morning. Hey, parents: When it’s 95 degrees out, touch the frickin’ slide before you put your kids on it! This is St. Louis in the summer — it gets hot. And the city should not pay the medical expenses of the family. It is not the city’s fault or responsibility.

Clayton, apparently, isn’t following my advice. According to the Post-Dispatch, the municipality is currently looking at an incentive plan for Centene Plaza. Yes, that Centene. Something tells me that tax incentives would be completely unnecessary in a town growing as quickly as Clayton. Robert Wislow, chairman and CEO of U.S. Equities of Chicago, the developer of Centene Plaza, confirms my suspicions:

Asked about the private financing, Wislow said, “We don’t think that we will have a problem with a project as well pre-leased and well-located as this.”

So, why are the tax incentives necessary again?

Kansas City’s mayor, Mark Funkhouser, is likely to appoint a new task force to help develop the urban core, the Kansas City Star reports. A number of ideas have already been tossed around, including:

• Create a private investment funding source, with the help of financiers and foundations, to assist small businesses with loans or in other ways.
• Provide college or vocational opportunities for needy high school students.
• Create work force training centers in distressed areas.
• Improve transportation and child care offerings to assist people in getting to work.
• Provide specific incentives to employers who hire people living in distressed communities.

Kansas City could follow a simple recipe for growth: low taxes, lax regulations, and strong property rights. Implementing this isn’t necessarily easy, however. To start, the city could repeal the earnings tax, because it provides strong incentives for productive people and businesses to locate elsewhere. A sales tax or a tax on the value of land could raise the same amount of revenue without having as much of a negative effect on growth. A general rule of thumb would be to avoid TIFs, tax abatements, tax credits, and other special tax exemptions. Consumers and businesses will take notice and move in … perhaps with the help of our handy tax estimator.

As our regular readers (hi, Frank and Mary!) know, I detest the way in which our lives and laws are constantly being regulated, in matters both large and small, for our own safety. We have been discussing how this situation came into being, where we are just so happy to let the government take care of us and our children. I run the risk of sending this post into book-length territory, so let me make this quick. Who do I blame for this?

I blame the following people and groups (this is fun): Hollywood, trial lawyers, consumer reporters, and parents too willing to let other entities take responsibility for their own children (and, yes, I have a child, and, no, it’s not your job to take care of him, unless his nanny is reading this, in which case it is indeed your job to watch him between 8:30 and 6:00). I honestly bet that you could trace a line from the consumer movement to our overwrought safety obsession with the disaster movies of the 1970s. This point hit home for me a few years ago, when I was watching The Towering Inferno. Check out these lines:

Chief O’Hallorhan: You know we were pretty lucky tonight, body count’s less then 200. You know, one of these days, you’re gonna kill ten-thousand in one of these firetraps, and I’m gonna keep eating smoke and carrying out bodies until someone asks us… how to build them.
Doug Roberts: Ok, I’m asking.
Chief O’Hallorhan: You know where to reach me.

Or:

Doug Roberts: I thought we were building something where people could work and live and be SAFE! If you had to cut costs, why didn’t you cut floors instead of corners?
James Duncan: Now listen. Any decisions that were made for the use of alternate building materials were made because I as a builder have a right to make those decisions. If I remained within the building code and god-dammit I did!
Doug Roberts: [Chuckling] Building code? Jesus. Building code. Come on, Dunc, I mean now that’s a standard cop-out for when you’re in trouble. See, I was crawling around up there. I mean duct holes weren’t fire-stopped! Corridors without fire doors in them, sprinklers that won’t work, and electrical system that’s good for what? I mean it’s good for starting fires! Phew, where was I when all this was going on? Because I’m just as guilty as you and that god-damned son-in-law of yours! What do they call it when you kill people?

The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article today about the new “urban renaissance," which has been fueled by baby boomers and “millennials” fleeing the suburbs for chic urban living and lower gas bills.

This is good news for Missouri’s urban areas, which have made important strides in improving livability over the past several years.

But the article fails to address a third demographic noticeably left out of the equation. What about the 30- and 40-somethings raising young families? Why aren’t they moving into the cities?

We all know why. It’s the schools. And this is still the big elephant in the room regarding why cities remain less desirable than suburbs for many parents.

The article also attributes much of the recent urban growth to "New Urbanism" and the trend toward light-rail commuter trains. While I love commuter trains (particularly in cities where they work), research suggests that they do little to spur urban growth. Most cities (unless they have an extremely dense urban center) would be better off expanding existing bus lines (which we discussed in our review of Kansas City’s light-rail proposal) — but I guess buses aren’t as “sexy” as trains. 

It’s a shame that the Journal fails to understand this.

But at least one thing is true. Economic incentives always correct market imbalances. Think about it. Is it government fiat that is changing Americans’ attitudes toward public transportation and energy policy, or is it the market’s forces at work?

It’s a shame that environmentalists fail to understand this.

Kansas City residents are resisting a proposed increase in the numbers and operational hours of downtown parking meters.

As much as I want to admonish them with a tenable free-market argument in favor of meters, I can’t help but allow our shared hatred of urban inconvenience to unite us. I regularly insult the dedicated individuals who have taught me neoliberal economics by expending excessive resources to avoid meters out of shortsighted laziness and an immediate unwillingness to part with the contents of my coin tray.

But Kansas City may offer conditions that complement my irrational distaste for meters. Although I have absolutely no knowledge of Kansas City’s downtown geography, I gather that — like my native St. Louis — revitalization efforts are aimed at drawing in the suburban population. When target customers are offered similar services closer to home and without the costs of going downtown (explicit and implicit), lawmakers should be careful when imposing additional burdens on urban businesses. Concerned business owners reasonably speculate that the selective
implementation of new meters might create an incentive for city-goers to choose
economically inefficient alternatives along streets that offer free
parking. Especially in condensed urban areas, disparities in the application of avoidable burdens will produce inefficiency and hassle. However, blanketing an entire area with parking meters is probably not the solution to attracting suburban customers.

David interestingly noted in a previous discussion of the same issue that the University City Loop benefits from its free public parking. The Loop’s successful model may not be suited to the financial hub in central Kansas City, but it might be applicable to surrounding areas, like the Crossroads Arts District, that are being considered for new parking meter placement.

Dave Roland beat me to it, but I was going to talk about the "Call to Oneness" article for addressing crime in north St. Louis.

I think this is a great idea, and one that worked very well in the Los Angeles area during the height of gang violence in the early 1990s (when my burgeoning love of rap music was beginning).

Of course, I take issue with the arguments in his other post. There is a difference between protectionism (like occupational licensing laws) and laws that lower information costs and help ensure that a market system can exist (such as, for one specific example, accounting regulations). This doesn’t mean we can’t challenge these regulations or strive to constantly find better solutions to the way in which we organize society. I certainly would support that.

But here’s my objection to the Village Law (and to Dave’s argument in general). A very wealthy and politically connected individual wants to incorporate his own village to get around zoning laws and build a casino. In Dave’s world, his poor and politically naïve neighbors can simply take him court to reclaim the damage to their property from this new development because I’m sure everyone has the resources and time to fight a long, drawn-out legal battle against a team of high-priced lawyers working for the casino development during the next 10 to 15 years.

Sorry Dave, but I don’t see that happening. Not even in libertarian paradise.

The Kansas City Post has a very interesting piece (link via Prime Buzz in the Star) about parking in downtown Kansas City. I don’t agree with everything in it, but I recommend the piece highly. The economic analysis strikes me as very good, but I can give him one very vibrant area that benefits heavily from having a large amount of free parking: The Loop in University City. The Post piece is based on the situation in KC, but its arguments apply to any downtown area in the state. It’s thought provoking, which is one of the highest compliments in blog world.

State and local economic development officials, whom one might think would ostensibly be strong supporters of capitalism and markets, are far too often just rent-seeking enablers who are so neck-deep in the muck of the government-developer complex that tax credits, abatements, etc., become the normative features of their economic model. Imagine a Missouri economic field that involved low and consistently applied taxes, limited and reasonable regulation, a fair legal system, and an educated workforce. Sounds pretty good, huh? Well, not to economic development officials, who would no longer be needed in such a system. If taxes are low, they have nothing to give away except their own purpose for employment.

Lest you think I am being too harsh, I point you to these absolutely ludicrous comments in today’s St. Joseph News-Press:

“(Legislators) didn’t step up to the plate to get the race track. I don’t think they saw the real potential in it … They will have missed another opportunity. One of the biggest challenges we face is getting our legislators to think outside the box.”

So that is the worldview of at least one official, and probably many more. According to this worldview, it is the job of elected officials to direct who, what, where, when and how a business operates; it is the job of legislators to recruit and reward favored businesses, because only legislators and economic development officials know what is best for a community; and Missouri’s legislators were stupid several years ago when they did not give away enough taxpayer money to lure a favored business. There is no room here for market forces to be making these decisions — economic development officials and their largess have replaced markets as the deciders of what goes where, and they believe that is a good thing.

It should be clear to all that within the past decade or so tax giveaways have become the norm in Missouri and the rest of the country, rather than an exception to be used in truly dire cases. Now that tax credits, abatements, exemptions, etc., are the norm, every business figures them into its calculations. Businesses didn’t demand this from government. It was offered and accepted, the natural result of having government and business involved too closely for too long. The most indispensable people in this system are, of course, the government development officials — but now I’m getting out of economic policy and into philosophy.

I have no idea how to get out of this system. Of course, I want Missouri to stop — but in the interest of fairness, I want everyone to stop at exactly the same time, which will never happen voluntarily. Perhaps a federal constitutional amendment requiring that tax rates be consistent across districts is the only way to end these current practices. I would hope people see the insanity for what it is long before that.

And a shout out to Combest for the link! Congrats to he and Monica for their solid performance at trivia night on Saturday, where I believe they came in a very respectable third. As for which team won — well, that answer should be obvious. …

The Arch City Chronicle links to two stories, one from Detroit and one from DC, on issues of interest to Missouri and the Show-Me Institute. The first one, from Detroit, regards the city’s plans to sell 92 of its parks, just as the city of St. Louis recently sold (or leased, whatever it was) a small area of Forest Park to Barnes Hospital, over much protest. The Detroit Free-Press article in very interesting, particularly in that parks abutting schools might just be transferred to the school district. I also think it would be a good idea for neighborhood associations to have the first crack at buying the parks, at a discounted rate, provided they commit to maintaining them.

The other article is from the Washington Post on judicial elections. While changes may indeed be necessary for our own Missouri Plan, this article clearly shows the problems that come from large-scale judicial elections. I hope we make needed improvements to our judicial selection system, but I in no way want to move toward the elections we see over in Illinois that are described in this article.

I’m not going to discuss the merits/drawbacks of the new St. Louis Country solid waste disposal proposal, but I will mention that it has many county residents up in arms about their loss of autonomy. A full discussion of the issue is presented in this morning’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Suffice it to say, the proposal consolidates unincorporated St. Louis County trash service (which will provide more uniform and cheaper service), but will also require each district to offer an extensive recycling service.

I personally think that this is a good idea and that it is within the government’s proper powers. But there is a certain level of arrogance in the county’s response to the criticism of the proposal:

“Giving up the right to choose their own hauler is a small sacrifice to make [in order] to achieve something the county really needs.”

I will never understand the collectivist mindset of elected officials, and their belief that what they view is “best” for someone always trumps that of the individual’s. A simple "I feel your pain" would suffice.