John Schultz's Weblog

Friday March 31, 2006

If you really want to protect the worker... I was a guest on the Tony Messenger show on KFRU last night, due to winning the Final Four contest he had on his blog by getting two of the final four teams correct. We discussed libertarianism in general and the state and Boone County LP, as well as immigration, but the main topic I spoke about was the proposed smoking ban in Columbia.

Last month, I talked to an alderman in Arnold named Randy Crisler about his and Arnold's experiences with the smoking ban. Randy wasn't always an alderman, he was first a bartender at Applebee's. After the smoking ban went into effect, he lost $1000/month in tips, was eventually laid off, and his family lost their health insurance. He ran for alderman to supplement his family's income and to wage war against the pro-ban forces. A year after being elected he was able to get the smoking ban somewhat modified such that restaurants could have separate enclosed smoking areas instead of having smoking banned outright.

Randy gave me some numbers that I would love for those who want to impose their morals on others to refute. In addition to his personal economic losses, the Waffle House and Denny's in Arnold are down 12% and 20%. Waffle House has raised their prices three times to compensate for their losses, while Denny's has done so twice. Business in Arnold is down - I'm waiting for more firm numbers from Randy on the specifics.

Arnold isn't the only victim of the pro-ban moralists. Ballwin fell under a smoking ban at the first of the year and businesses there are reporting a downturn, while neighboring localities are experiencing an upswing. But anything goes to save the citizens of Ballwin from a little smoke, right?

Our do-gooder opponents talk about how this is a workplace-safety issue. If they really want to protect the worker and the employee, they will leave well enough alone unless they plan on offering laid-off employees food and housing in the near future. This anti-American ordinance they want to see pushed down the throat of the business community will cripple the economy of Columbia's entrepreneurs. Enough is enough. It's time for Columbia's business community to speak out on regulation that could threaten their existence. ( Mar 31 2006, 02:04:44 PM CST ) Permalink

Wednesday March 08, 2006

Letting the opposition make our argument for us I found some of the comments that the pro-ban people made at the public hearing last night very disingenous.

They say 90% of the businesses in Columbia are already smoke-free based on the existing ordinance, and a signficant fraction of the remaining 10% are smoke-free by the owner's choice, yet they claim workers have no choice in their jobs.

Kim Dude claims that a survey of Mizzou students shows a high percentage of students (high 80s I think, can't find the survey online) would go out more if there was no smoking, yet she has been fighting for responsible student drinking for as long as I can recall. Why give the kids more reason to hit the bars?

Kim Dude also said that bars and restaurants would make money hand over fist from students who want smoke-free environments. If so, why haven't those establishments made that change willingly? Some have gone smoke-free, but maybe the remainder know their clientele better than someone who doesn't run a business.

One young lady, who I believe to be a student and not a mother based on her perceived age, said that second hand smoke is a leading cause of SIDS. I have not heard that claim, but this ban would not apply to homes, so this was simply an emotional appeal to "what about the children?"

In short, this appears to be a method for a bunch of do-gooders (including several government employees funded by our tax dollars) to legislate the use of a legal substance on private property. They want no smoking anywhere, by anyone, but are too afraid to admit it. Instead, they hope to make it inconvenient for smokers to light up where the private property owner has said it is OK.

And for the record, I am a non-smoker.

I do expect Columbia's board of health to rubberstamp this proposal and send it on to the City Council, where hopefully more reasonable minds will prevail. ( Mar 08 2006, 03:23:52 PM CST ) Permalink Comments [1]

Speaking out on the proposed smoking ban in Columbia Below are the prepared comments I gave on March 6th to the Board of Health in opposition to the anti-choice smoking law they are considering sending to the City Council. I will be posting my general comments on the hearing later today.

My name is John Schultz. I am the chair of the Boone County Libertarian Party. I speak in opposition tonight to the proposed changes in Columbia’s smoking ordinance.

I would first like to state that I am a non-smoker and do not condone smoking.

When the process first began to amend the smoking ban, it was framed as a health issue. Recent changes due to opposition, primarily by fraternal organizations, indicate that is not the case. If health were truly the issue, the Health Department would seek to outlaw smoking everywhere. Rather, this appears to be a slow attempt to modify behavior by making it difficult for smokers to partake of a legal substance on private property where it is permitted by the owner.

This smoking ban is really more about choice, or rather the lack of it. This anti-choice smoking ban will remove the ability of proprietors to target the customers of their choosing. It will also create an unfair competitive environment by giving those sites with an outdoor patio the possibility to offer smoking areas to their clientele, something their rivals without outdoor seating will not be able to offer.

Both customers and employees have the freedom to choose their surroundings. Several restaurants in Columbia have made the switch to non-smoking over the past year, indicating that those owners understand that smoking is not preferred by their customers and employees. Similarly, other venues have not made the switch because they offer a welcome alternative to a segment of the population. Truly this is the free market at work.

I wish to call attention to Chapter 191 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, sections 765 through 773, and particularly section 769, which defines several areas not considered a public place under state law and which may allow smoking. These areas include halls used for private social functions, limousines and taxicabs, bars and restaurants that seat less than fifty people, bowling alleys, and pool halls where signs indicating no non-smoking areas are available. I would like to inquire of the Board if the city attorney was aware of these statutes when approving the language of the amended ordinance and if the city is legally able to restrict those places granted non-public status by state law.

Finally, I would like the Board to address a recent job posting in the Columbia Daily Tribune for a community tobacco educator. Will this employee be using public tax dollars in an effort to sway either the city council or residents of Columbia to favor the proposed ordinance changes? ( Mar 08 2006, 12:07:58 PM CST ) Permalink Comments [2]

Sunday March 05, 2006

Remembering a great Libertarian Libertarians nationwide were saddened by the recent death of former Presidential candidate Harry Browne late last week from Lou Gehrig's disease. Harry did not introduce me to the party, but his great writing style and solid speaking certainly nurtured my desire to become more active in the party. I am proud to say I voted for him in both 1996 and 2000, despite being told I was throwing my vote away. While Harry may be gone, his message and spirit will live in on his many books, videos, and archived radio shows. He will be sorely missed in Libertarian circles. ( Mar 05 2006, 02:11:30 PM CST ) Permalink Comments [8]

Wednesday March 01, 2006

Too bad we can't declare just one politician as state timewaster... Recent news out of Jefferson City shows that politicians are more interested in naming a state invertebrate and state mushroom instead of tackling a state emergency, such as eminent domain reform. If our elected representatives feel that there is enough time to handle such mundane tasks, then perhaps Missouri voters should boot them out of office during the next election cycle or consider amending the state constitution to sharply curtail the amount of time the legislature is in session. ( Mar 01 2006, 04:23:16 PM CST ) Permalink Comments [1]

Monday February 27, 2006

Plan to sell Forest Service land a good idea Recent articles in the Columbia Daily Tribune and Columbia Missourian have discussed the possible sale of five small parcels of the Mark Twain National Forest in Boone and Callaway counties. The usual suspects have come out against this proposal, saying the sale of a small fraction of Forest Service lands sets a bad precedent. I would argue that this is a good decision. The five tracts are not contiguous with the rest of the forest, and the Forest Service indicates this fact (and the small amount of acreage) makes them hard to manage. At best, these should be state-owned properties, or possibly managed by the University of Missouri since all three tracts in Boone County border University-owned land. However, I feel the best decision is to sell these properties to concerned groups who are interested in keeping the land undeveloped and wild. This will reduce the amount of public land owned by the government, bring in a small amount of revenue from the sale and property taxes, and put the burden on those who wish to manage the land - not the taxpayers. ( Feb 27 2006, 04:29:56 AM CST ) Permalink Comments [2]

Tuesday January 31, 2006

But what about the parents? Recent rumblings out of Jefferson City indicate lawmakers want to put more restrictions on teen drivers. Proposed regulations include a doubling of "training hours" from 20 to 40, limitations on the number of passengers, and formal driver's education classes rather than behind-the-wheel training from parents. Whatever happened to letting parents decide when their children are ready for a drivers license and when and where they will drive? It certainly worked well for me and most other Missouri residents. Not surprisingly, these proposals are coming from Republican legislators, once again showing that when they say they are for small government, it is just smaller than the Democrats' vision. ( Jan 31 2006, 10:49:09 AM CST ) Permalink Comments [1]

Thursday January 26, 2006

It's so obvious, even a child gets it After attending an eminent domain reform rally in Jefferson City, I ate dinner out with the family. My four year-old son noticed my Castle Coalition shirt and asked why I was wearing it. I explained that I went to the Capitol to fight a bad law that let people take other people's homes and business. His response was short and to the point - "How can someone take your house?" Out of the mouths of babes... ( Jan 26 2006, 04:00:54 AM CST ) Permalink Comments [1]

Monday January 16, 2006

Possible eminent domain abuse coming to Columbia Recent articles in the Columbia Missourian and Columbia Tribune indicate that eminent domain may be used to acquire land in the construction of a connector between the Business Loop and Conley Road to improve access to the Broadway Marketplace. While road construction is one of the very few valid reasons for eminent domain, this case is troubling since a private developer (Stan Kroenke of Wal-Mart money) is building the road to improve access to his shopping center, instead of the state or city. The two articles are somewhat contradictory, with one stating that eminent domain of a portion of the Columbia Country Club's golf course may be needed if current negotiations fall through, while the other article mentions the land to be condemned adjoins the golf course and would be given to the Country Club to make up for their lost land. I've emailed both papers to try to get more information on just what is happening. Update: The Tribune reporter contacted one of the primary individuals involved with the proposed TDD, and they indicated that the land to possibly be condemned is adjacent to the golf course. They are hopeful that eminent domain will not be needed, but this is something to keep an eye on. ( Jan 16 2006, 07:30:02 PM CST ) Permalink

Monday January 02, 2006

Federal backing of loans could increase risky loans The Columbia Missourian recently reported on a splurge of Small Business Administration loans being made to bars and restaurants in Columbia. The federal government will cover 85% of the loan value if the business defaults, leaving banks free to issue loans they may not normally approve. In the past five years, the SBA has granted $22.3 million in loans in Columbia, of which $7.7 has gone to restaurants and bars. Of those 37 restaurants and bars, five have closed since receiving the federal money (it is unknown at this time if any establishments defaulted on their loans and invoked the SBA loan guarantee). While the goal of the SBA loans is laudable, the federal government should not be backing loans that local banks may not feel comfortable issuing without a payment guarantee. All of the risk should be placed on the bank that issues the loan rather than relying on taxpayers to bail out any bad loans. ( Jan 02 2006, 02:18:02 PM CST ) Permalink

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 Comments [1]

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