By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

In the Missouri Constitution, Article 1, Section 29, there is an extraordinarily pesky “s.” In the case of a recent teacher union suit against the Springfield School District, there likely wouldn’t have been a lawsuit and trial if it weren’t for that letter.

In its entirety, Section 29 reads, “That employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” For the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA), the state affiliate of the national teacher union, that “s” is problematic, because it leaves some ambiguity as to whether teachers can choose multiple unions to represent them in salary and work condition negotiations with school districts.

There are, in fact, a number of Missouri school districts that bring at least two representative groups to the table when it comes time for negotiations. The Bayless School District, also facing a lawsuit from its district’s MNEA affiliate, allows any number of representatives to take part in negotiations. The Brentwood School District, which is not facing a lawsuit, has a similar multiple representation process.

Earlier, Article 1, Section 29, wasn’t an issue, because it had been interpreted that the clause only applied to private employees. However, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the clause does in fact apply to public- and private-sector employees.

The MNEA and its district affiliates seem to be pushing that ruling to the conclusion that teachers have a right to collective bargaining with exclusive representation.

THE TRIAL
On Thursday, the second lawsuit filed on behalf of a school district affiliate of the MNEA to test this issue went to trial before Missouri Circuit Court Judge Michael Cordonnier. The trial lasted for more than six hours, but a verdict has not yet been reached. The lawyers have until Wednesday to file post-trial briefs, and a decision will be made at some point after that.

At issue in the case of Springfield National Education Association v. the Springfield School District is whether a school district can first hold a vote for teachers to decide whether they want single, multiple or no bargaining representation, and then, if the teachers want representation, hold a vote for the election of representative(s).

The school district’s defense of this policy is that it leaves the decision to the teachers.

“Giving the teachers the most flexibility and choice was the intent of the policy,” said Gerald Lee, president of the Springfield Board of Education, while testifying as a witness.

Ransom Ellis, III, the attorney for the school district, said that the SNEA was in fact attempting to whittle down the options available to teachers with its lawsuit.

“The choice here is the choice of the employees,” he said, “not the choice of the employer and not the choice of the union. We’re not mandating that they have multiple, we’re simply allowing the option.”

But the Springfield National Education Association (SNEA) argued that allowing the choice between single, multiple, or no representation would undermine the collective bargaining process.

“Why go through that hurdle when that’s not collective bargaining,” said Sally Barker, attorney for the SNEA. “It’s really a confusing and false choice.”

Furthermore, she argued, collective bargaining has been historically understood as referring to exclusive representation.

“It is clear the words ‘bargain collectively’ mean on the behalf of one unit by a sole representative,” said Barker.

Collective bargaining, Barker said, is “not to serve the employer’s interest by rule of divide and conquer and fragment. It is certainly not to serve minority organizations.”

Barker was referring to the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA), the MNEA’s main rival for membership across the state. The MSTA has historically supported non-exclusive bargaining, and does not lobby on political issues, as the MNEA’s national affiliate does. The two groups don’t agree on a number of issues.

The MSTA is the third party in the Springfield case, and is intervening on behalf of the school district.

Kent Brown, the attorney for the MSTA, focused most of his arguments on how teachers that didn’t want SNEA’s representation could have a voice in the negotiation process.

“How does a bargaining unit represent both the majority and the minority when there are issues on which those groups are diametrically opposed?” asked Brown.

Judge Cordonnier stayed silent throughout the three lawyers’ arguments and questioning of witnesses. But, during  Barker’s final arguments, he questioned her at length.

“It’s not inherently undemocratic to have two organizations negotiate at the same time,” Cordonnier said.

But it would be practically impossible, Barker said. “It’s impossible for these groups to agree on anything,” she said.

The judge also noted that in the Missouri Supreme Court Case that ruled that Article 1, Section 29, applied to public
employees, the high court noted that the term “collectively bargain” was ambiguous.

If those two words had such an agreed-upon meaning, Cordonnier asked, “Why would our Supreme Court not have said so?”

“Frankly,” Barker said, “because I think it was presumed.”

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

On Wednesday night, more than 60 people gathered in the basement of the Zion Lutheran Church in north Saint Louis to hear developer Paul McKee and Alderman April Ford-Griffin explain a proposed $8 billion redevelopment of Saint Louis’ north side. There were some familiar faces from recent meetings hosted by a community group critical of the redevelopment, but most did not overlap. Two policemen attended the presentation, as well.

Before the presentation could really begin, Ford-Griffin noticed a journalist sitting in the front row of metal folding chairs that had been set out for the evening. He had a microphone and was unwinding its cord. Ford-Griffin stooped down to speak with him.

After about two minutes of exchange, the journalist got up and left. Later, McKee explained after asking a girl to stop taping the presentation that people are “not comfortable” when the news media record their questions and voiced opinion.

Thus began the two-hour-long meeting, which consisted of a slide show followed by a heated question-and-answer session.

The slide show, co-hosted by McKee and William Laskowsky, chief development officer of the redevelopment company, included statistics showing how far the north side had fallen in comparison to national education and income averages, as well as outlining the geographic boundaries of the proposed project and pointing out which types of stimulus money, tax increment financing (TIF), and other tax credits for which the project was eligible.

That government assistance, McKee said, is necessary because of the systemic deterioration of the north side.

“The infrastructure is more than 100 years old,” he said, “and most of it is shot.”

Generally, the presentation tried to assuage fears that eminent domain would be used to force people to give up their property, and that the current north side community would be uprooted to make way for more affluent residents.

“We are not about displacement,” said McKee. “We are not about eminent domain residential.” Furthermore, he claimed the project would likely benefit current residents, stating that “everything around what we’ve done has grown in value. Sometimes 10 times as much.”

Ford-Griffin was on the defensive as well. She said that the actions of some — likely referring to the North Side Community Benefits Alliance, a group pushing for more inclusion in the redevelopment process — were creating “hysteria in the community.”

“There will be no eminent domain on residences and churches,” she said. While she spoke, several audience members muttered about her chances at reelection.

In the TIF application that the redevelopment company submitted to the Saint Louis TIF board of commissioners on May 29, the company noted it could use eminent domain to acquire properties from uncooperative owners, though sparingly.

McKee’s and Ford-Griffin’s statements on Thursday were based on an updated TIF application that has not yet been made public.

A man who identified himself as Terry Chapman stood up to ask a question and referred to the more than 2,400 properties the redevelopment company had listed on its application as “properties or parcels needed for proposed redevelopment.”

“On that list is my yard,” he said. “Are you going to take my yard?”

McKee promised he wouldn’t, again referring to the not-yet-public revamped TIF application.

“The list has been modified,” said Laskowsky.

Ford-Griffin, when pressed by NSCBA member and certified public accountant Keith Marquard, said that the updated TIF application would be available to the public on Sept. 9, two weeks before the TIF commission would meet to consider the redevelopment company’s proposal and application for more than $410 million in TIF funds.

A building put up for sale by the Saint Louis Development Corporation as a “featured” property, at 455-457 Walsh St. The LRA acquired the property from Anheuser Busch in 2008. The building is priced at $16,000. Photo from Saint Louis Image Library

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

In the city of Saint Louis, the largest property owner by far is a  government agency that holds vacant and abandoned buildings and property. The agency holds more than 9,500 properties, at least 10 times as many as owned by the city government itself.

If knitted together, the 9,587 properties would come to a total of 1.7 square miles of vacant lots and buildings. But only half of those properties are up for sale, though at especially low prices. The rest are being held for some greater purpose — likely as a part of a future developer’s real estate project.

The city agency that holds this land is the Saint Louis Development Corporation’s (SLDC) real estate department. The department acquires properties through three different agencies, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA), and the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA). Each year, a total of about 225 properties are sold from the pool owned by LRA, LCRA, and PIEA.

The LRA in particular has been mentioned in the press and at recent north Saint Louis community meetings as an organization that often lets its properties go unmaintained. Another complaint made at past community meetings is that sometimes the LRA won’t sell property to area residents, preferring to hold the land for an ambitious developer.

At least 1,300 of those vacant lots and buildings held by the SLDC — not listed for sale — are part of a proposed $8 billion redevelopment project in north Saint Louis, put forward by developer Paul McKee and his redevelopment company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC. The project has come under a good amount of public scrutiny because the redevelopment company is asking the city of Saint Louis for $410 million in Tax Increment Finance funds (TIF), and because of the project’s large scale.

Some of the 1,300 properties listed for acquisition by the company have been held by the LRA for more than a decade. For example, a vacant lot at 2618 Sullivan Avenue, assessed at $1,500, has been held by the LRA since at least 1997, as far back as city property records are available.

A vacant lot at 1349 Leffingwell, assessed at $170, has also been held by the LRA since at least 1997. In fact, the vast majority of properties picked at random from a spreadsheet of to-be-acquired NorthSide properties listed as owned by the LRA had been held by that agency for at least the past 12 years.

According to a written statement from the SLDC in response to an interview request, “… if the properties are suitable for large-scale development, the agencies hold those properties for such major developments and do not sell them piecemeal to individuals.”

At a recent meeting of the North Side Community Benefits Alliance, a group that formed out of members’ concerns that the company will use eminent domain liberally, will remake the area with no regard to current residents’ needs, and has been letting properties it already owns go to waste, a man said he had tried to buy a LRA-owned lot near his home and had been refused.

The SLDC does take into consideration whether a prospective buyer has the means to improve the property, according to the agency’s statement. If the SLDC deems that person does not have the resources, it won’t sell the property to them.

“It is no favor to sell someone a vacant building that they will not be able to rehabilitate,” said the SLDC in its statement.

A couple hundred protesters showed up on Saturday to protest health care reform outside of Sen. Claire McCaskill’s office. At one point, Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft asked the crowd, “Are we getting paid to be here today?”

A few “billionaires” showed up to encourage the anti-health care reform protesters. Early on, the group chanted “keep us rich,” and “vote in Trump.” Later, one said, “we’re filthy rich in a kind of clean way.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill has scheduled a number of health care forums in the coming week: On Aug. 24, McCaskill will hold forums in Hannibal, Moberly and Kansas City. On Aug. 26, she will hold forums in the central part of the state in Warrensburg and Jefferson City. On Aug. 31, she will hold forums in Springfield and West Plains.

Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

This week, Sen. Claire McCaskill will hold seven health care forums across the state. If her forum in Hillsboro is any indication, the forums will be well attended, a little loud, and won’t get out of hand.

Saturday, before those health care forums, a number of events were held outside of state elected officials’ offices to protest the proposed public option and the general expansion of government.

Those worried that the recent health care protests are threatening or violent should have seen what happened outside McCaskill’s office on Saturday. The most confrontational moment involved Kool-Aid.

Protesters against the reform stood on one traffic meridian, holding “Don’t tread on me” flags and signs proclaiming things like “Hands off my health care.” A large number of people had shown up, possibly as many as 500. The closest any crowd members came to being threatening was a woman who yelled anti–health care statements loud enough that she began to go hoarse.

John Stoeffler, a veteran, retiree, and weekly columnist for the Post-Dispatch’s Suburban Journal for south Saint Louis, said this was his first protest.

“I’m a columnist,” he said. “I figured I should get down here and see what it’s all about.” Stoeffler wore a T-shirt with a photo of the capitol and the caption, “Ahoy Americans thar be pirates in Washington.”

He said he was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but was concerned with excessive government spending. The public option proposed wouldn’t be legitimate competition for insurance companies, he said, because the government isn’t concerned with making a profit.

“Government spells profit D-E-F-I-C-I-T,” Stoeffler said.

Stoeffler currently is on Medicare, but said that in the past he had owned a business and paid for his employees’ insurance.

On the adjacent traffic meridian, a much smaller crowd had shown up in top hats, bow ties, heels, and sequins. The self-proclaimed “billionaires for health care” were in character, claiming they favored making health care available only to those who could afford it.

“I’m supporting my fellow billionaires,” said a woman who identified herself as Laurie Ann, decked out in a sequined top, black skirt, and pink scarf. “We’re trying to help our little people help us keep what we’ve got.”

When asked if she had health insurance, she replied, “Health insurance? I own the damn company. I don’t have to struggle. Struggle is so … ugly.”

Midway through the protest, there was a confrontation between the groups. One man from the anti-reform group took what he had labeled as “100% Obama KoolAid” and offered it to the tongue-in-cheek “billionaires.”

“No, no, that’s okay,” said a bow-tied and bearded man. “We’re so rich, we’re never thirsty.”

Show-Me Institute Intern Caitlin Hartsell attended the Saturday protest at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s office on Manchester (this article’s front-page photo is from that protest). She reports that it stayed peaceful as well.

The North Side Community Benefits Alliance (NSCBA) has little more than a month to convince the north Saint Louis community, not to mention the rest of the city and the Saint Louis Board of Aldermen, that a proposed $8 billion redevelopment of the area is untenable at best.

At worst, NSCBA members have said, the proposed redevelopment is designed to uproot the current residents of the north side and replace them with more affluent residents, at the city’s expense.

The north side developer, Paul McKee, will present his application for $410 million in tax increment financing (TIF) from the city on September 23. That day, the NSCBA hopes to get a large turnout of redevelopment critics to speak publicly against the measure.

Their strategy to build opposition to the redevelopment and persuade activists to turn out at the hearing places a focus on eminent domain, a process by which the government can take property from its owner for “public improvement.

On Thursday, the NSCBA hosted a forum at Shining Light Pentecostal Church to discuss the nature of eminent domain and how it has been used in the past. Nearly 70 people attended to hear speeches by NSCBA leaders and guest anti–eminent domain activists Jim Roos, known for painting the large “End Eminent Domain Abuse” mural that is visible from eastbound Highway 44,  and Christina Walsh, the Institute for Justice’s director of activism and coalitions.

Eminent domain has become more controversial in recent years as its use by government officials has expanded from acquiring land for things like roads to taking land from some in order to give it to others who say they can put that land to a better use.

“What can’t be replaced by something bigger and newer?” said Walsh, who came from Washington D.C. to attend the meeting. “We could replace the Mayor of Saint Louis’ house with something bigger and newer.”

In the case of the north side development, more than 2,400 properties are listed as those the redevelopment company needs to acquire for its $8 billion project. The church at which Thursday’s forum was held is on that list. In fact, at least 10 other churches, including the Grace Baptist Church on Cass Avenue, less than a mile away from Shining Light Pentecostal, are also on the list.

“Who can ever think that someone would propose to take this lovely church?” asked Romona Taylor Williams, NSCBA board member. “It’s a …” she stopped short, then continued. “It’s not right,” she said.

Though eminent domain is an issue, the use of it may be limited to a small number of residents.

Within the TIF application submitted by NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the redevelopment company noted that it would use eminent domain to acquire less than 5 percent of the total redevelopment area’s acreage from owners who still live on their north side properties and are unwilling to sell.

Although Sen. Claire McCaskill has kept her promise of not awarding earmarks, other Missouri politicians have doled out hundreds of millions of dollars during the past year without public debate and review.

Within the U.S. House of Representatives, the nine Missouri members earmarked a total of more than $125 million during the 2009 fiscal year for projects they sponsored alone. Sen. Kit Bond, who is not running for reelection, earmarked projects totaling $120 million. Only six other senators earmarked a larger total on their own.

It is now extremely easy to see how much money politicians are giving out under the guise of earmarks. Missourians who want to know exactly who is getting these funds can find the information online. A new database, made available by the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense, has compiled earmarks awarded by senators and House members for the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

In a written statement earlier this year, McCaskill said that a major fault with the practice of earmarking is that it takes money from a more competitive funding process.

“Most earmarks just skim money off of other programs — competitive grants for law enforcement, locally decided projects for roads and bridges — and redirects it to projects that are chosen by one criterion: someone in Congress wants to fund them.”

The Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to promote government transparency, explains earmarks more bluntly. “Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or, in the infamous case of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, to exchange them for bribes.”

One of the properties the 11 Jackson County school districts allege is undervalued. According to the lawsuit, the property, at 1100 N. Noland Rd., in Independence, was purchased for $355,000 in 2007, nearly $100,000 more than its 2008 assessed value.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

On Friday, a Jackson County judge ruled that Missouri school districts, faced with lower property tax revenues, cannot sue for higher property assessments.

In the current climate of declining real estate values, the ruling is significant. For the 11 Jackson County school districts that banded together to file a lawsuit against the Jackson County assessor, the ruling means that they will face a combined revenue loss of $35 million for the 2009–2010 school year alone.

On the other hand, Jackson County residents, who have already received their 2009 assessments, won’t see an unexpected increase in their property taxes.

“Most homeowners saw their property values lowered with this year’s reassessment,” said Brian Johnson of the Jackson County Assessment Department in a written statement. “… It’s no secret property values have dropped nationwide and our county has been no exception.”

The districts’ lawsuit alleged that the Jackson County assessor has been consistently undervaluing properties over the years. According to their lawsuit, property assessments submitted for 2009 are far too low compared to nearby property sales in recent years.

For example, a property just a few miles away from the courthouse (pictured above) was listed in the districts’ lawsuit because its 2009 assessed value was 125 percent lower than the price it was purchased at in June 2008. Nearly 50 properties with assessments at least 10 percent below recent sales values were listed in the districts’ lawsuit.

“They are so far from the sales price that they cannot be justified,” said Steve Mauer, the lawyer for the districts.

What the districts wanted was for the Jackson County assessor to rescind the 2009 assessments and apply the 2008 assessments, which Mauer said are “real numbers that we know have been approved.”

Of course, the 2008 numbers reflect higher property values from a better economic time. If the districts had gotten their wish, property taxes for Jackson County residents would have gone up — for some, a significant amount.

The judge, Michael Manners, didn’t have an easy decision before him. From the plaintiffs, he had Independence School District Superintendent Jim Hinson testifying that his district would be short more than $2 million if the 2009 assessments were allowed to stand, and, because of the Hancock Amendment, would not be able to recoup the losses if property values began to increase in later years.

From the defendants, Manners had the promise of an immediate demand for the authority to issue a $54 million bond from the county assessor’s office if he granted the school district’s request, and the specter of some people in the coming year forced to pay taxes on property they had owned in 2008, but had sold by 2009.

The hearing Manners held on Thursday was simply to determine whether the 16th Circuit Court had the authority to hear the case, and whether it would issue a temporary restraining order against the county assessor. But what normally takes little time in court stretched into nearly four hours of arguments about the tax collecting process, whether schools were overspending, the overall direction of the economy, and the fairness of districts doling out raises during a severe recession.

Though Manners wrote Friday that the circuit court could hear the case, he wrote that school districts don’t have the authority to sue the assessor’s office for assessments that are too low. That authority, he wrote, was determined by a previous Missouri court case in 1975, in which the St. Francois County School District sued a county administrative board for undervaluing real estate. The district lost because, the court said, only property owners have the right to appeal an assessment.

Charlene Wright, a lawyer for the county assessor characterized the lawsuit as a money grab. “They want a $54 million tax increase,” she said during the Thursday hearing. “And they want this court to help them do that.”

“They have the ability to go back to voters,” she said. “If they want that money, they can go back to the people and ask for a vote.”

The situation that the Jackson County school districts are in is not unique. Many Missouri districts are seeing less-than-rosy property assessment values this year. For example, Saint Louis County school districts saw a 9-percent decline in commercial assessed valuation in less than six months.

Whether school districts will make that move for more funds remains to be seen. Many districts wait until April to put tax levy increase proposals up for vote, though they also have earlier ballot options, in November and February.

By Abhi Sivasailam and Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

On July 27, governors from eight Midwestern states met in Chicago to sign a memorandum committing to develop a strong high-speed rail corridor in the Midwest. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was among the signatories.

In recent months, Nixon has called for high-speed rail projects for the state: one in Missouri, for rail between Saint Louis and Kansas City, and the other stretching from Saint Louis to Chicago. At a June press conference held with Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, Nixon and Quinn promised that trains traveling between Chicago and Saint Louis could reach speeds of more than 100 miles per hour.

But trains traveling the route between Kansas City and Saint Louis would travel much slower. According to the state’s preliminary application for federal funding, those trains would travel an average of 55 mph after improvements, a 5-mph increase from the current average speed.

On Aug. 24, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) will submit its final application for federal stimulus money to upgrade the existing Amtrak route between Saint Louis and Kansas City. The state is not asking to build a new route.

“It would cost something like multiple billions to get a high-speed rail system between Saint Louis to Kansas City — you would basically have to start over,” said James Noble, an engineering associate professor at the University of Missouri–Columbia who was commissioned by MoDOT to evaluate high-speed rail projects.

Instead, according to its preliminary application, MoDOT is seeking to make siding and crossing grade upgrades, and install a passenger communication system, among other improvements, (see a map of those here) for a total cost of $151,350,000. Most of that cost, $124 million of it, would be paid by the federal government out of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (ARRA), if the project is approved.

The remainder would be paid by Missouri and Union Pacific Railroad, with the state paying about $15 million.

Currently, trains running between Kansas City and Saint Louis run at an average of 50 mph — slower than any posted speed limit on highway I-70, which links the two cities.

In order for passenger trains to reach a maximum speed of 110 mph on the route between Kansas City and Saint Louis, a large portion of the track would need to be rebuilt as a double track, Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said.

“I don’t think anyone is seriously thinking of higher than 90 between Kansas City and Saint Louis,” said Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who studies transportation issues.

COSTS
Amtrak currently runs a sizable deficit. In September 2008, Amtrak posted a net loss of nearly $119.9 million. According to O’Toole, Amtrak lost about $51 for every passenger that took the train from Kansas City to Saint Louis during the same month.

O’Toole said he had calculated a per-passenger loss for each Amtrak route, based on figures released in Amtrak’s monthly performance reports. For most short distance routes, he said, losses run anywhere from $10 to $95 dollars per passenger.

Although Amtrak consistently posts losses, it can afford to continue to run trains because of state funding.

“The legislature allocates money every year to keep Amtrak here,” said Lisa Lamons, railroad operations manager at MoDOT. “If we didn’t get that money from the legislature, Amtrak wouldn’t be here.”

Amtrak operates the trains that run from Kansas City to Saint Louis, but Union Pacific, a private rail company that makes its money from transporting freight, owns the entire route, according to Lamons. “Which is pretty common in the western United States,” she said.

Because Union Pacific owns the tracks, it decides when and where to make infrastructure improvements, which are intended to improve its bottom line, not improve passenger train travel speeds.

“Most or all of the improvements were geared toward freight train improvements,” Lamons said. Though occasionally, she noted, some improvements designed to help freight traffic end up helping speed up passenger train travel as well.

“The idea behind these proposals was trying to address benefit for both Union Pacific and Amtrak,” Noble said.

But if needed infrastructure for passenger rail travel isn’t being built, MoDOT can’t use its operating budget to fund the construction. According to Rodney Massman, MoDOT’s administrator of railroads and high-speed intercity passenger rail application contact, MoDOT isn’t authorized to make railroad infrastructure improvements.

“One thing is right now we don’t have any kind of fund for actual rail improvements,” he said. “MoDOT is still funded like a highway agency. Most of those road funds can only be spent for roads.”

“We’ve never had a budget for infrastructure improvements until last year,” Lamons said.

In this case, although MoDOT has offered a contribution of nearly $15 million toward rail improvements, the money is not coming from MoDOT’s own funds. “It’s coming from two sources,” said Massman. “One is a federal program where money can only be spent on rail highway crossings. The other is a state program for the same thing.”

Although the federal government and state governors interested in a slice of the $8 billion high-speed rail funding pie label the improvements as one-time costs, that’s not strictly true.

According to O’Toole, an often-overlooked portion of the cost of railroads is the rebuilding cost. It’s not an annual expense, he said. However, “Every 30 years you’d have to go in and completely redo it. Rebuild fences, rebuild extensions … Technically, that’s an operating cost — not a capital cost. All you’re doing is make sure what you’ve got stays there.”

According to Noble, there would be some other small maintenance costs.
“The maintenance costs for sidings are minimal,” he said. “The only place you’re going to see maintenance costs along the line is from Jefferson City to Saint Louis. Those rails will see costs from running along the river and carrying heavy coal trains.”

GAINS FOR MISSOURI
The real gains for Missouri are not in increasing speed, but may be in getting trains to arrive on time. According to the preliminary application, only 18.6 percent of trains running between Kansas City and Saint Louis arrived on time during the federal fiscal year of 2008.

There isn’t an overwhelming number of train passengers causing the large delay — O’Toole estimates that Missouri train travel averages 54 miles per year per Missouri resident — but instead, a large amount of freight traffic.
Noble’s 2007 study, commissioned by MoDOT, attributed the majority of train delays to freight train interference (FTI) at more than 53 percent.

Passenger train interference (PTI) was cited as the cause in only 9.7 percent of delays.

Massman and Lamons confirmed that very few trains arrived on time during 2008, but said that with the economic recession, freight traffic has dropped dramatically — it’s about half of what it was, according to Massman — freeing up more track space for passenger trains.

“Since January, it’s been above 90 percent pretty much every month,” said Massman.

The late-train problem will likely resurface as the economy recovers, bringing back the need for some of the infrastructure improvements MoDOT is proposing. “Railroads are very resilient and very enterprising, and they’re going to grab a lot of freight traffic,” O’Toole said. “Most recently, they’ve been carrying 40 percent of freight. They bounce back as fast as the economy, and a little faster in some cases.”

MoDOT estimated on its application that with the listed improvements, 80 percent of Amtrak trains would arrive on time, a large jump from pre-recession performance.

Abhi Sivasailam, a student at the University of Missouri–Columbia, is an intern at the Show-Me Institute.

A large crowd turned out for McCaskill’s health care forum. Before the event started, police monitoring the streets by the college campus told drivers that the gymnasium was at capacity and that organizers were no longer letting people in the building.

Crowd members listen to McCaskill’s answers to questions concerning health insurance competition.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

Sen. Claire McCaskill was on the defensive at her health care town hall forum on Tuesday. More than 1,000 people attended the meeting in Hillsboro, many of whom were critics of the national health care reform initiative currently being considered in the Senate.

The forum was held in the gymnasium of Jefferson College, and the wooden bleachers on three walls of the gymnasium were packed, along with the chairs set up to accommodate spillover. Many people, for lack of space, stood.

Oddly, no posters or banners were allowed, a change from the health care forum hosted earlier by McCaskill’s regional director, Michelle Sherod. At one point, a woman was forcibly removed from the forum for unfurling a poster.

At the beginning of the forum, and throughout, McCaskill worked to keep the crowd calm. “This is a patriotic democracy, not a sporting event,” she said.

Although no fights broke out, the crowd was loud and quick to boo or applaud comments from either McCaskill or audience members.

In an effort to acknowledge the legitimacy of attendees’ views — of both reform proponents and detractors —McCaskill borrowed a phrase from a recent op-ed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer criticizing loud health care town hall protests as “drowning out opposing views.”

“It’s wrong to say that anybody’s opinion is manufactured or un-American,” McCaskill said. Several crowd members cheered.

“I’m not here to circumvent any portion of debate or any portion of discussion,” she said.

The second question of the day, and a number of those that came later, addressed the issue of abortion. One questioner asked whether federal money would be spent to provide abortions, at which point the loud crowd booed.

“There is not one word in this bill that would allow tax dollars to go to abortions,” McCaskill said.

“The federal law is that no federal money can be used for abortions,” she said. “I will not vote for a bill that will change the federal law.”

Others were concerned that a public option, as proposed, would effectively kill private insurance coverage.

A man from O’Fallon asked how a private plan could compete with a public plan if the government could subsidize the public plan below market rates.

McCaskill said that if someone were to place a bet that the public plan would eventually lead to a single payer government-provided system, “Take the bet and take their money. We will not do this. It’s not even on the table.”

At this point, the crowd began shouting.

“You don’t trust me?” asked McCaskill.

“No,” came the extraordinarily loud response, although some health care reform proponents stayed silent.

Joe McMahon, of Arnold, left the town hall early. He said he wasn’t leaving because of the shouting, although he acknowledged “it gets a little out of hand.”

McMahon, who wore a health care reform sticker, gets his health insurance from his employer and Medicare. “I came here to back up the party and to back up McCaskill,” he said.

“Just because you’re a poor person and you get sick doesn’t mean you should die.”

Toward the end of the forum, McCaskill answered a question from Lynda Greenlee, of Chesterfield, concerning private options for health insurance coverage, such as health savings accounts (HSAs).

“I would not vote against a bill just because a private option isn’t in it,” said McCaskill.

“I wanted to see how strong she was in support of free-market issues,” Greenlee said later.

Greenlee, who has been self-employed as a systems consultant since 2001, has an HSA, and her children do as well. Her son, whose employer offers health insurance, “got better coverage than what he could get through the company,” she said.

“It’s your money,” she said. “You get to keep it. I like it.”

A deteriorating building on 2409 Cass Ave., near True Grace Baptist Church. According Saint Louis City records, the parcel is owned by Blairmont Associated Limited Co., a company affiliated with developer Paul McKee. Blairmont acquired the property in 2004. Photo from city records.

On Mullanphy Street, sitting across from the deteriorating building shown above, are two maintained and occupied homes. In the NorthSide Regeneration company’s TIF application, 17 properties on the 2300 block of Mullanphy are listed for acquisition.

Upcoming meetings: Wednesday, the North Side Community Benefits Alliance will hold a general meeting at 6:30 p.m. On Sept. 23, the Saint Louis Tax Increment Finance Commission will hold a hearing on NorthSide Regeneration’s updated development proposal at 6:00 p.m.

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

Shirley Booker, who lives on the 2300 block of Benton in north Saint Louis, says she has been cutting developer Paul McKee’s grass for years.

“The vacant house next to me, owned by Mr. McKee, has been empty for five years,” she said. “We cut the grass and make it look like someone’s there.” Booker said she’s tried calling McKee’s office to get someone to cut down the trees and weeds in the back of the empty house, to no avail.

She was one of more than 60 people who showed up at True Grace Baptist Church on Sunday in the afternoon heat to listen to presentations detailing the rights and powers residents have when a developer slates their neighborhood for purchase.

McKee and his company, NorthSide Regeneration, LLC, have proposed purchasing and redeveloping three square miles of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Most of the area lies north of Delmar Boulevard, between Grand and 11th Street. For this development, NorthSide Regeneration has asked the city for more than $400 million in tax increment financing (TIF).

Although no elected officials — including Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin, who represents a ward that contains a large amount of property included in the proposed redevelopment — attended the meeting, several community leaders and housing experts showed up to discuss issues and pass out educational information.

The organizing group, North Side Community Benefits Alliance (NSCBA), was able to secure a significant keynote speaker for the event: David Jackson, a member of both the Saint Louis Board of TIF commissioners and the Saint Louis Public School District’s Board of Education.

Jackson spoke at length about how the TIF process works, as well as the board of commissioners’ stance on the project. The board met Friday and heard McKee present the NorthSide Regeneration proposal.

“I’ve gotta be frank with you, the board of commissioners are in support of this project,” Jackson said.

However, he said, there wasn’t enough detailed information presented, and the company had not worked with the community enough.

“In our opinion, it is only missing one element, and that is community engagement,” Jackson said. He noted that NorthSide Regeneration had not spoken to or consulted with the school district.

A lack of community engagement is what initially prompted area residents to organize the NSCBA. As NSCBA President Sheila Rendon explained to attendees on Sunday, there is a feeling that North Side residents have been cut out of the redevelopment process. “The answer that was given to us was, this was politics,” she said. “So we couldn’t get in the way of politics or business.”

Romona Taylor Williams, NSCBA board member and the meeting’s facilitator, put it more bluntly. “I don’t think we can go into Clayton and those areas and say we’re redeveloping and put some boom boxes out,” she said. “Would the city have allowed the likes of Paul McKee to come into the central west end and the south side?”

Speaker Keith Marquard, NSCBA member and a certified public accountant, focused not on disenfranchisement, but on the nuts and bolts of NorthSide Regeneration’s TIF application (download here).

One of Marquard’s main criticisms was the way NorthSide Regeneration rationalized its need for TIF money. He said the company should have estimated its future profit by calculating return on equity, the additional amount that NorthSide Regeneration would make from the development than it initially put in.

Instead, he said, “they’re calculating profit on what they own and what they borrow.”

“I think they did that to make it look like they need the TIF to make it profitable,” Marquard said.

According to the company’s application, its profit would be 3.12 percent of total costs (or more than $251 million) without TIF money, but 8.21 percent (or nearly $410 million) with TIF help.

According to Marquard, if you add in the other forms of government money, such as historic property and brownfield tax credits, total assistance for the NorthSide project adds up to $738 million, which, he said, comes to about $5,000 per city household.

Speaker Mark Leinauer, a real estate attorney and NSCBA member, said that because NorthSide Regeneration is asking for city money, the community can ask for certain requirements. “This isn’t a private building,” he said. ”This is a subsidized building — heavily subsidized.”

Leinauer laid out a number of claims, including a guarantee of affordable housing, funds for resident job training, access to mass transit, and a ban on destruction of occupied housing, among other things.

“If you’re getting taxpayer money, then what you build should reflect taxpayer desires,” he said.

An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that an adjacent property to the one pictured above at 2409 Cass was owned by Blairmont.

On Tuesday, the Saint Louis County Council voted to adopt and perfect a measure that would put a countywide smoking ban before voters in November, if the council votes for its final passage on Aug. 18.

More than 60 people spoke during the public comment portion of the council’s meeting, with speakers nearly evenly divided in favor of and against a smoking ban. Their comments lasted for nearly two hours.

The proposed ban, introduced by council member Barbara Fraser (D-University City) on July 21, would prohibit smoking in public buildings, health care facilities, indoor entertainment and recreation facilities, such as sports arenas and bowling alleys, shopping malls and retail establishments, restaurants (except outdoor areas), convention facilities, and public transportation, among other similar places (you can download the ban here).

Council members Michael O’Mara (D-Florrissant), Hazel Erby (D-University City), and Kathleen Burkett (D-Overland), were visibly frustrated by Fraser’s brevity in pushing the measure forward, and said so.

O’Mara questioned the motives of pushing the ban to council vote so quickly, and said that perhaps the measure was put forward “for political purposes.”

“It would be unfair to sit here tonight and vote on something we have not spent time drafting,” Erby said.

Burkett was even more direct. “Just what does this bill contain?” she asked Fraser during the meeting.

Several versions of a smoking ban were considered, and with a last-minute voting switch made by councilmember Steven Stenger (D-Affton), the version exempting casinos and some bars from the ban is the one that would be put to voters — not the version with fewer exemptions.

Stenger serves a district in which River City Casino will open in 2010. He was the swing voter in all votes on the smoking ban made by the council that night.

WHAT THE PUBLIC SAID

More than 200 people packed the council’s meeting. Of those, at least 30 were Harrah’s Casino employees who had been bused from work. Six of those employees spoke against the ban at the beginning of the meeting, followed by Harrah’s General Manager Michael St. Pierre.

“The facts are clear. We will lose a substantial portion of our revenues,” he said. “We will lay off employees as a result of this.”

Many people speaking for and against the smoking ban said they thought such a ban should have no exemptions, rather than favoring some businesses over others.

“I’d like to talk about fairness,” said Marty Ginsburg, the owner of Sports Page Bar & Grill in Chesterfield, and who has attended many of the council’s meetings concerning a smoking ban.

“If this is supposed to be about health and safety, Ms. Fraser, then why allow smoking in casinos?” he asked. “Give me a level playing field.”

A number of bar owners made a show of force at Tuesday’s meeting, to voice concerns about the potential loss of business if the ban passed. “We are not in favor of putting any of the bills on the ballot that you are considering tonight,” said Jeff Gershman, a spokesman for the Independent Restaurant & Tavern Owners Association of Saint Louis.

“Closing restaurants is not the cure for cancer or any other problem,” said one businessman.

A litany of elected officials from nearby areas spoke as well, all of whom urged the council to put the issue to voters. Brian Fletcher, the mayor of Ferguson, called it an “opportunity to let the citizens decide.” Furthermore, he said, don’t make casinos exempt from the ban. “I don’t hear casinos up here saying give ‘em a vote; you gave us a vote for gambling,” he said.

Of those speaking for a smoking ban, many came from a medical background. Dennis Fuller, an associate professor at Saint Louis University who specializes in speech pathology, said he teaches patients to speak after their tongue, larynx, or voice box has been cut out because of smoking-related cancers. He asked the council, after hearing from many people about property rights and business concerns, “to prioritize those, as stated before, in the public interest of health.”

Robert Blaine, a medical public policy specialist at Washington University, who said he was speaking on behalf of himself and Washington University, said “We encourage the council to keep this issue moving forward.”

One consistent issue was whether the government should intervene in health matters on private property. The message from hospital workers and medical professors was that the government should get involved.

A woman who identified herself as a medical social worker at Missouri Baptist Medical Center said, “It is the role of government at local, state, and federal levels to protect the health of the people.”

Others disagreed. Kelly Owens, a restaurant worker, nonsmoker, and member of Campaign for Liberty, a group that advocates individual liberty, said the issue before the council was not one of health but of choice.

“It is your right to protect private property,” she said. “If you do decide to ban smoking, I would like to know when you will ban everything else that is not good for me.”

Near the end of the two-hour-long public comment session, a school-age girl, the youngest speaker by far, said that she had lost several family members to smoking, but though smoking is harmful, the government shouldn’t ban it.

“The right to property is inalienable,” she said, “as long as an activity is legal on some private property, it should be legal on all private property.”

Jake Smith, who identified himself as a nonsmoker who lives in Maryland Heights, voiced a similar view.

“This has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with property rights,” he said.  “What gives four out of seven people the right to infringe on the rights of others?”

An earlier, shorter version of this article was posted Aug. 5 in order to report the council’s action as early as possible. This article expands upon that coverage.