John Schultz's Weblog

Wednesday June 28, 2006

Just what does Peter Kinder do? The Board of Public Buildings recently decided that the offices of the state auditor and the Lieutenant Governor should be swapped. Much ado has been made on this being an office grab by the current Lieutenant Governor, Peter Kinder, with the expected Republican and Democrat bickering. However, no real discussion has emerged on just what the office actually does. Based on my reading, not much except jumping to higher office, yet there is a staff of seven assigned to Peter Kinder. If Governor Blunt is truly interested in cutting government costs, he would look into reducing this staff or eliminating the position of Lieutenant Governor outright. But then he may just be waiting until a Democrat gets into that position first. ( Jun 28 2006, 12:02:55 PM CDT ) Permalink Comments [1]

Wednesday June 21, 2006

Boone County government should not consider purchasing development rights A recent trend in the Midwest is to sell development rights of rural land so that it cannot be developed in the future. At a recent workshop (covered here and here), the subject of Boone County government obtaining these development rights was broached. As mentioned in the linked articles, the county does not have current funding for such purchases. Furthermore, this is not the proper role of government and should be discouraged. If citizens feel that buying development rights to rural land will help preserve the character of the county and reduce urban sprawl, they should put up their own private money instead of looking to government to fund their wishes. ( Jun 21 2006, 03:45:33 PM CDT ) Permalink

Tuesday June 13, 2006

What happens when government gets involved in the school A recent Columbia Tribune story tells about a New Bloomfield teacher who was forced to resign after not administering the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test in the proper manner. While details are sketchy due to this being a personnel issue, it appears a well-liked teacher has been booted for giving a test she had not been trained to give. The students suffer by not doing as well as they may have otherwise on the test, a teacher is without a job, and the administration of the school suffers no harm. In an ideal world, Bloomfield Superintendent Jim Botts would be the one whose employment was at jeopardy since he is responsible for all decisions at the school he is supposed to be running. If the state and federal governments did not mandate (mostly worthless) annual testing, the teacher may still have her job. ( Jun 13 2006, 03:26:42 PM CDT ) Permalink Comments [1]

Thursday June 08, 2006

Columbia restaurants going smoke-free voluntarily The Boone Liberty Coalition recently conducted a survey of area restaurants showing that nearly two-thirds of Columbia's restaurants are already smoke-free. Additionally, 17% of restaurants that allowed smoking three years ago now voluntarily prohibit smoking. This shows that the proposed smoking ordinance approved by the Columbia/Boone County Board of Health is not needed and that the free market is working to provide smoke-free restaurants.

Further data can be found in their press release here. ( Jun 08 2006, 12:03:31 PM CDT ) Permalink

Monday June 05, 2006

Looking for love? Let the government help! Are you a single person in Columbia looking to meet other singles? Then let the Columbia Parks and Recreation Department host a free mixer for you. Why should you be content to use pay services, such as those you see advertised on TV and the web, when you can let your local government use tax dollars to help you find your soulmate? ( Jun 05 2006, 12:15:42 PM CDT ) Permalink Comments [2]

Thursday April 27, 2006

Don't they have something better to do? On my way to work this morning, I encountered a Missouri Highway Patrol checkpoint (near the APAC quarry on Route VV for those familiar with Columbia). My first thought, seeing at least three cars and several troopers, is that they were conducting a manhunt for a suspect of some sort. But no, this was a driver's license and insurance checkpoint. I'm sure a warrant check was run as well, along with a cursory visual check of each vehicle. I was in and out in less than five minutes, but is this really a good use for the Highway Patrol's resources? As I was pulling away, yet another patrol car was pulling up. ( Apr 27 2006, 10:46:39 AM CDT ) Permalink Comments [5]

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