John Schultz's Weblog

Tuesday February 13, 2007

Is a temporary moratorium on downtown development an abridgement of private property rights? The city of Columbia, the University of Missouri-Columbia, and Stephens College recently hired a consultant to look at opportunities for city-college development in the downtown of Columbia. The consultant group recommended three different areas that were ripe for redevelopment, but offered only a high-level view and left the nitty-gritty for a local group to implement.

Although no formal action has been taken after the final presentation by the consultant in January, Columbia's city council recently denied a rezoning request by a downtown landowner who wanted to tear down three apartment buildings and replace them with a restaurant and loft apartments. The council wants a "temporary moratorium" on downtown zoning changes and development until the Sasaki Associates study can undergo additional public discussion.

Columbia should not be mandating development based on an outside consultant's vision of our city. The property owner's proposal should have been approved or denied on its merits, not due to the fact that the city needs to take additional time to review and approve a study that may never be implemented or will only be enacted years in the future. ( Feb 13 2007, 03:48:40 PM CST ) Permalink

Small business owners petitioning to repeal Columbia's smoking ban Columbia's recently-enacted smoking ban has encouraged several local bar and restaurant owners to start a petition to repeal most of the ordinance's changes. Members of the Boone County Libertarian Party, working as the non-partisan Boone Liberty Coalition, argued against the smoking ban for the better part of a year and a half, only to see it pass by one vote at a city council meeting.

We are grateful to see these businesses, several of which have seen declines in customers and revenue, band together to take the law into their own hands, so to speak. We are helping their cause by issuing press releases, talking to the media, and listing the nearly 40 local businesses that are hosting the initiative petition to repeal the ban on our website.

The business owners must collect 2276 valid signatures of registered voters from within the city limits of Columbia, which they are hoping to do by the end of March. If the petition is certified by the city clerk, the city council would have 30 days to take up the issue. If they do not vote to repeal the ban, the issue would then go to a public vote. ( Feb 13 2007, 01:54:54 PM CST ) Permalink

Monday November 20, 2006

Third parties have a place in the political process I had a recent opinion piece published in the Columbia Daily Tribune in response to an article saying third parties only served as spoilers to the two annoited political parties and anyone working with them should work in local Democrat or Republican organizations. Below is my response:

In a recent column, J. Scott Christianson contended third-party candidates offer only a spoiler role and should integrate themselves into the two major political parties if they wish to effect change. As a member of the local Democratic Party structure, perhaps he was concerned about the presence of Progressive Party candidates on the ballot and their chances of drawing votes away from the Democratic candidates he presumably supported. In the U.S. Senate race, Libertarian Frank Gilmour polled almost 2,000 more votes than the margin between Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill. With the votes received by Progressive candidate Lydia Lewis, third-party candidates might have decided Missouri’s new senator.

Some will be upset at the Libertarian and Progressive candidates, saying they "spoiled" Talent’s bid for re-election. Actually, the only ones to blame would be Talent, his organization and the Republican Party for not offering a message that resonated with the nearly 66,000 voters who chose a third-party candidate.

This failure also explains why third parties exist. Despite so-called "big tent" platforms, there are many people who do not consider themselves a Republican or Democrat and do not agree with the platform of either political party. A column by Charley Reese in the same issue of the Tribune said there is no political party for true conservatives, so clearly there are demographics that neither major party attracts.

Why must a citizen work for a local Democratic or Republican Party organization if he does not support its mission? I prefer to support the Libertarian Party; it is more aligned with my beliefs. I would much rather work with a small group of citizens for a cause I believe in than be a small cog in a political machine I do not feel shares my values.

Republicans say they support business, but where was the local Republican Party when business owners’ property rights were being threatened by a smoking ban in Columbia? Although ultimately unsuccessful, a small group of Libertarians led the opposition to the ordinance, working with many from the business community to defend their private property. It might sound presumptuous, but I think the smoking ban would have been enacted more than a year ago without nearly as much fuss if local Libertarians had not taken a stand.

Democracy can be improved only by additional voices offering more solutions to today’s problems. I personally would be ecstatic if the Republicans or Democrats considered more of the Libertarian Party platform. Adopting the positions of third parties is possibly the only way to see such organizations go by the wayside. Until that time comes, I will continue fighting for freedom and liberty with a third party. ( Nov 20 2006, 02:20:00 PM CST ) Permalink

Wednesday October 11, 2006

Smoke 'em if you got 'em, but only where the government says Early in the morning of October 10th, Columbia's City Council voted 4-3 to implement a smoking ban in Columbia's bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and other previously-exempted locations. The Boone County Libertarian Party and the Boone Liberty Coalition led the campaign against the smoking ban but came up just short in the end against our government-employed grant-funded opponents. I'm disappointed in particular with three members of the City Council. Mayor Darwin Hindman repeatedly mentioned in the past week that there would be winners and losers from this change, but still voted for the amendments. Councilman Bob Hutton agonized that his vote may cost businesses financially, yet he voted for the ban. Councilman Chris Janku during his re-election campaign this past March said he didn't think he would vote for the ban, drawing an endorsement from the Boone County Libertarian Party, but decided to change his vote for some unknown reason. I hope that Columbia's business owners will remember that Libertarians led the fight against the loss of their private property rights. The local Democratic and Republican parties were not heard from at all. One would think the Republicans would have been on the side of small business, but I suppose they had something else more pressing to attend to. ( Oct 11 2006, 10:44:37 AM CDT ) Permalink

Monday September 18, 2006

A special business district that impedes business? Columbia's Special Business District recently approved a proposed ordinance for downtown Columbia (pardon me "The District) that would require new or replacement signs to be one-half the size of existing signs, departing from the current ordinance that is in place throughout the entire city. Additional language would also restrict letter height on signs, depending on if they were place on the first floor or second floor of a building. Supporters apparently feel that further limiting a business' ability to advertise their goods and services will make potential shoppers more likely to flock to downtown.

Columbia's Planning and Zoning board took up the matter at its September 7 meeting and has tabled the issue until September 21st. A vote to pass the ordinance would then place it on the City Council's agenda. ( Sep 18 2006, 02:11:52 PM CDT ) Permalink

Thursday July 06, 2006

George Bush hates me While blowing up my backyard during our annual fireworks extravaganza/BBQ/pool party, a 12 (or so) year-old boy was concerned about my shooting a particular Roman candle. It had nothing to do with safety - his issue was the American flag motif on the firework (a Red White and Blue from Bob's Fireworks if you are curious). When I finally picked it up to light, he said "George Bush hates you." Being the son of one of my wife's coworkers with a conservative bent, my comment was a nonchalant "Whatever" but it makes you wonder about the future generation if they are being influenced so strongly at a young age. ( Jul 06 2006, 10:33:39 AM CDT ) Permalink

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]