Tuesday December 06, 2005
Letter to the editor supporting eminent domain restrictions In a recent editorial, Henry Waters opined that Missouri should not be concerned about eminent domain actions and that there are only “imaginary problems†in Missouri. Residents of Arnold, Independence, Manchester, Richmond Heights, St. Louis, and Sunset Hills might beg to differ. People in these cities have seen their homes and businesses threatened or taken by eminent domain to enrich private developers instead of for public use, as mandated by the Constitution before the unfortunate Kelo decision.
It is entirely appropriate for the state of Missouri to seek ways to limit eminent domain to purely public uses. Many people who are subject to eminent domain claim they do not receive adequate compensation or notification of condemnation in order to save their property. It is unconscionable that someone can lose their house or business just because a private developer can convince the local government that they can generate more tax revenue.
St. Louis citizens seem concerned enough about eminent domain that they recalled an alderman who supported the use of eminent domain to remove a gas station. Additionally, the towns of Ellisville, Maplewood, and O’Fallon have passed ordinances limiting the extent of eminent domain, while Creve Couer and St.Charles County are considering similar laws.
Perhaps Waters would feel differently if the Tribune building he is rightly proud of was one that had been condemned in the 1950s instead of the buildings it replaced?
For more information, concerned readers can peruse http://www.stolemyland.com/ and http://www.castlecoalition.org/current_controversies/index.asp for details on eminent domain abuses in Missouri.
( Dec 06 2005, 04:33:48 PM CST )
Permalink
When the politicians know better than you Two recent stories on the Missouri Digital News illustrate most politicans' need to interfere in the lives of citizens and businesses, rather than limiting government's influence to only the most necessary actions.
State Senator John Cauthorn of Mexico has filed a bill mandating all gasoline sold in Missouri be blended with ethanol. While this is a pretty obvious nod to the agriculture sector in Missouri, Cauthorn should not be meddling in gasoline market. As Ron Leone mentions in the linked article, this change could force higher costs onto the gasoline industry. I currently do fill up with a 10% ethanol blend as my gas station of choice offers non-ethanol and ethanol-blended at the same price, but I do wonder if they are eating some costs to do this. Additionally, no one can determine the true cost savings until ethanol welfare is turned off at the state and federal pumps. The Republican Party once stood for small government and laissez faire business practices, but that has not been the case for quite some time.
Meanwhile, state Representative Cynthia Davis is busy making sure
all drivers licenses applicants take a drivers education course. Never mind that some schools, such as the one in my small hometown, stopped offering drivers ed ages ago due to budgetary or legal concerns. This law would require schools to do away with other educational activities to accomodate the massive increase in students needing this course, when the real solution is already present - let the student drive with their parents until they are convinced their child is ready for a license. My parents did have me attend a paid drivers education course as they thought it was a good idea, but not all parents will have the means to do so. Representative Davis' proposal only increases costs on schools and parents, while not offering a clear benefit to the state.
( Dec 06 2005, 09:01:08 AM CST )
Permalink
Thursday November 10, 2005
Columbia residents defeat two of six tax proposals On November 8, Columbia residents voted down one sales tax extension and one sales tax increase, while approving three other sales tax extensions and a development fee increase. The Boone County Libertarian Party opposed the two failed measures (Propositions 2 and 5), as well as one of the measures approved by voters (Proposition 1). Proposition 2 would have extended an eighth-cent sales tax for two years to pay for a multi-use facility for the Columbia farmers' market and an ice rink. Boone County Libertarians opposed this measure since it was not a proper task for city government to be involved in. Proposition 5 seeked to increase the sales tax rate by an eighth-cent to improve roads and sidewalks. Libertarians urged rejection of this measure since it would have been an increase of the overall sales tax rate in Columbia. The final of the three measures that was opposed by the BCLP was Proposition 1, a five-year extension of an existing eighth-cent sales tax to fund improvements in the city's park system.
( Nov 10 2005, 12:13:57 AM CST )
Permalink
