Not Quite Half Of Readers Would Support Arch/Park Sales Tax, A Third Oppose

ABOVE: The final piece of the Gateway Arch was set into place on Thursday October 28, 1965

If the folks at CityArchRiver plan to get voters to approve a 3/16¢ sales tax with part of the funds paying off bonds for their 2015 project they’ve got their work cut out for them. I think it’s fair to say the readership here is more pro-city than the region at large but not even half of those that voted indicated they’d support such a tax:

Q: Would You Support A 3/16¢ Sales Tax Increase for Parks/Arch?

1. Yes, we need to invest in parks and the Arch is a major tourist attraction for the region 67 [49.63%]
2. No, sales taxes are too high already 45 [33.33%]
3. Maybe 15 [11.11%]
4. Other: 7 [5.19%]
5. Unsure/No Opinion 1 [0.74%]

Those that answered “maybe” could be the deciding factor on approval, assuming 50% +1 is what’s needed for approval. Here are the other answers that were submitted:

1. Not for the current arch ground plan, we need to start over again I’m afraid
2. for city parks, yes, National Parks, no
3. Not unless it will help pay for removal of the depressed/elevated section of I70
4. Yes, but lets also include Jefferson County
5. No, not for the current project. Save local funds for metro expansion (N/S Line)
6. Only if they got rid of the ridiculous idea of the gondola going across the rive
7. yes but only if the bill is expanded to all of the METRO AREA

We’ll see what happens if a tax increase measure is placed on the ballot for voters to decide.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Would You Support A 3/16¢ Parks/Arch Sales Tax Increase

ABOVE: The final piece of the Gateway Arch was set into place on Thursday October 28, 1965

In November voters in St. Louis, St. Louis County and St. Charles County may be asked to approve a 3/16¢ sales tax increase:

An obscure bill moving through the Legislature includes a provision that would allow residents to vote — possibly in November — on raising sales taxes in St. Louis, St. Louis County and St. Charles County by three-sixteenths of a cent (0.1875) for the Arch project and other area parks. (STLtoday.com)

The CityArchRiver group and Civic Progress say the sales tax revenue is needed to pay off bonds to complete planned improvements to better connect the Arch to the city. Much of the money would fund parks in each taxing jurisdiction:

Susan Trautman with the Greenway District says only 30 percent of the tax would go to the Archgrounds. The rest would go towards improving local and regional parks and trails.

[snip]

The tax increase would only last 20 years and collect enough money to pay for a $120 million bond issue to help pay for the project. (KMOV)

Voters in Illinois may also be asked to support a small tax increase as well. This is the subject for the poll this week — the poll is located in the right sidebar.

- Steve Patterson

Readers Split on Back to School Sales Tax Holiday

Last week readers were split on Missouri’s Back to School Sales Tax Holiday that runs this weekend:

Q: Thoughts on the Missouri back to school sales tax holiday?

1. Great, helps low-income families afford needed supplies 28 34.57%
2. Bad, just reduces much needed income for various governments. 21 25.93%
3. Meh, doesn’t hurt or help anyone. 19 23.46%
4. unsure/no opinion 8 9.88%
5. Other answer…5 6.17%

The five other answers were:

1. Eliminate taxes year-round. Imagine what that would do for the economy.
2. Would be better if municipal taxes were also waived!
3. Just a gimmick to stimulate spending.
4. reduce govt tax take
5. why is the tax holiday “selective”? It should cover everything.

Will you be taking advantage of this holiday?

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Missouri Back-to-School Sales Tax Holiday a Good Idea?

Readers: Expand the Zoo-Museum District

ABOVE: South entrance to the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park

More than half the readers that voted in the poll last week said the five Zoo-Museum Institutions (Zoo, Art Museum, History Museum, Science Center, and Botanical Gardens) should not offer discounts as proposed by one member of the ZMD Board:

Q: Should Zoo-Museum Institutions Offer Discounts to City & County Residents?

1. No, more of the region should fund these institutions so we all pay a lower rate. 41 [32.03%]
2. No, leave it as is. 30 [23.44%]
3. Yes they should offer something, but not free parking 19 [14.84%]
4. Yes they should offer something, especially free parking 16 [12.5%]
5. Maybe, let each institution how to thank city & county residents 13 [10.16%]
6. Other answer… 5 [3.91%]
7. No, reducing the tax rate would be better 2 [1.56%]
8. Unsure/no opinion 2 [1.56%]

I think expanding the size of the district so more of the region shares in the costs is a good idea. Of course those of us already paying wouldn’t see a rate reduction, does that ever happen? Still I could see counties such as Jefferson and St. Charles paying something, just not the same as St. Louis City & County. But the more of the region paying in then there will be those who think some or all of the institutions should leave the city.  I suppose there are already institutions in the region that could be added?

Here are the other answers that were provided:

1. erect big signs thanking STL/CO citizen funding to make freeloaders feel guilty
2. Yes. City/County residents should get basic member discounts.
3. County residents should get a discount; they subsidize City residents.
4. Perhaps free parking for out-of-state cars to encourage local usage of other tra
5. expand the district

I thought #3 was interesting.  The city has about 25% of the combined population of the city & county and it only contributes 15% of the tax revenue, so one could twist that into the county subsidizing the city. Of course the city foots the bill for police & fire services to these institutions.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Should Zoo-Museum Institutions Offer Discounts to City & County Residents?

Interesting story in the paper last week:

Property owners in St. Louis and St. Louis County paid more than $70 million last year for the region’s premier arts and culture attractions. But when it comes time to visit institutions funded through the zoo-museum tax district, they’re often treated the same as people who didn’t pay a dime.

Now, a member of the public board that supervises the 40-year-old tax district is asking whether that’s fair.

Gloria Wessels recently suggested that four of the five institutions funded by the zoo-museum district offer discounts on parking, concessions and special exhibits to visitors who live in the taxing district. If necessary, those discounts could be funded through price increases for visitors who live outside the district, she said. (STLToday)

Gloria Wessels is the wife of long 26-year alderman Fred Wessels (D-13). Should those of us who pay taxes to fund these attractions get a little something others don’t? The Missouri Botanical Garden already allows city & county resident in for free on Wednesday & Saturday mornings.  The article points out the logistical nightmare of trying to verify who would qualify for free parking.  Besides the last thing we need is to encourage is more cars trying to get to the zoo & museum.

During its thirty-seven years of operation the District’s annual tax revenue has increased from $3.9 million dollars in 1972 to more than $72 million dollars in 2009. In recent years, approximately 85% of the tax revenues come from the County taxpayers while City residents provide 15% of the District’s tax revenues.

The expansion of the number of Subdistricts from three to five is indicative of the success and vitality of the original concept of a tax supported cultural district. Today, the Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District is, perhaps, the largest tax supported cultural district in this country. It is a model that other cities have often attempted to emulate. (mzdstl.org)

The five subdistricts are the Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis Zoological Park, Missouri Botanical Garden, Saint Louis Science Center and Missouri History Museum.

The poll this week asks you to weigh in on this issue. The poll is in the upper right of the blog.

- Steve Patterson

One Year Since St. Louis County Voters Approved Proposition A

A year ago St. Louis County voters approved a small sales tax increase to fund transit, Proposition A. Wednesday I attended a panel discussion on why this measure  passed where previous attempts had failed.  Professors Todd Swanstrom & David Kimball introduced their new study:  From Checkbook Campaigns to Civic Coalitions: Lessons from the Passage of Prop A (PDF).  From the introduction:

On April 6, 2010 the voters of St. Louis County approved a tax increase for transit with a surprising 63 percent majority. The 1⁄2 cent sales tax now raises about $75 million a year to maintain the bus system and expand light rail. Seventeen months earlier a similar initiative had lost with 48 percent of the vote. With the economy in a recession in 2010, unemployment high, and the anti- tax Tea Party movement rising around the nation, the huge majority for Prop A was startling. In this paper we try to explain the success of Prop A and tease out the lessons for future tax initiative campaigns and civic coalitions.

Compared to the defeat of Prop M in 2008 two characteristics of the 2010 Prop A election make the victory especially surprising and help to frame our analysis: 1) Prop A succeeded in an off-year election when the composition of the electorate is less inclined to support tax increases and public transit; 2) Prop A, at least initially, did not enjoy unified business support – usually the kiss of death for transit tax initiatives.

The report details how the campaign differed from prior campaigns.  One difference was the campaign targeted some voters, as outlined by the dark line below.

ABOVE: the dark area had increased support of more than 18%, the grey 10-18%

Basically efforts were concentrated on West & North County and ignoring far SW and South parts of the County.  Voters who had voted in the prior 12 elections were targeted rather than all registered voters.  Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT) funded an educational component that never mentioned Prop A.  The pro-transit slogan was: Some of us ride it. All of us need it. Here is the TV spot that ran in the months leading up to the vote:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aR9rzybjuU

Notice Metro isn’t mentioned at all, the focus is on transit.

At the panel an audience member asked about a more regional approach and including St. Charles County. All agreed that more of the region should be served by transit but it was noted those areas need to step up with a funding source. In Illinois both Madison & St. Clair Counties fund transit.    While the 2010 passage of Prop A was important, we still have more work to do.

- Steve Patterson

Readers Think Rex Sinquefield Will Fund Campaign To Repeal Earnings Tax

Readers think, by a wide margin, that voters in April 2011 will retain our 1% earnings tax.

Q: Now that voters approved Proposition A, what do you think will happen in St. Louis next April?

1. Rex Sinquefield funds an expensive campaign but city voters keep the earnings tax 87 [51.48%]
2. Rex Sinquefield doesn’t fund the repeal campaign and city voters keep the earnings tax 37 [21.89%]
3. Rex Sinquefield funds an expensive campaign and city voters repeal the earnings tax 21 [12.43%]
4. Rex Sinquefield doesn’t fund the repeal campaign still city voters repeal the earnings tax 15 [8.88%]
5. Unsure/no opinion 6 [3.55%]
6. Other answer… 3 [1.78%]

Many also think Rex Sinquefield will fund the repeal campaign, just as he did with the Proposition A campaign.

1. rex gets a nose job.
2. Rex tries to remove the KC tax first, since it was closer to passing there.
3. KC will eventually repeal, STL never will.

One thing is certain, the usually boring April general election will be more interesting than usual.

- Steve Patterson

Poll: Will St. Louis Voters Repeal The Earnings Tax in April 2011?

ABOVE: about 1/3 of the city's revenue comes from the earnings tax

Tuesday Missouri voters approved Proposition A by a wide margin.

Yes 1,294,705 [68.4%]
No 597,920 [31.6%]
Total Votes 1,892,625

As a result, Missouri cities no longer have the option of an earnings tax.  The two cities with an earnings tax, Kansas City & St. Louis, must hold a vote in the Spring to see if voters wish to keep the earnings tax.  If they vote to eliminate the earnings tax it would be phased out over a 10 year period.  If kept, another vote must take place 5 years later, in 2016.

Voters in both cities voted against Proposition A, although not as strongly in Kansas City

St. Louis:

YES 28,251 [31.84%]
NO 60,473 [68.16%]

Kansas City:

YES 37,264 [44.85%]
NO 45,826 [55.15%]

The poll question this week seeks to find out what you think will be the outcome of this vote in St. Louis.  The answers have two parts — will Rex Sinquefield fund the campaign to repeal the earnings tax and will we keep the tax or repeal it?  The poll is in the upper right sidebar.

- Steve Patterson

Voters Could Always Decide on Earnings Taxes

I urge every voter in Missouri to vote NO on Proposition A on Tuesday.  I’ll explain why but first I want to examine the arguments in favor.

The slogan for passage is “let the voters decide.” Sounds logical enough, why shouldn’t we get to decide? From the pro-A website:

If Prop A passes in November, will the local earnings taxes automatically be eliminated in St. Louis and Kansas City?

Prop A does not automatically repeal those existing earnings taxes. It allows local voters to make that decision in local elections. If Missouri voters pass Prop A this November, the politicians will be required to allow local votes of the people on the existing earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City every five years, starting in 2011. These local votes will let voters decide for themselves if they want to continue their local earnings tax or gradually phase it out at the rate of one-tenth of one percent per year for 10 years.

Okay here is where I have  a problem with their wording.  ”It allows local voters to make that decision in local elections” makes it sound like we must pass Prop A in order to have a local election on continuing to have an earnings tax or eliminate it and get the 1/3 of our annual revenue through other taxes. This is just not true!

Anyone with a better idea on how to fund St. Louis & Kansas City could use the initiative petition process to propose changes that would reduce/eliminate the earnings tax.

“1. Article V of the City Charter provides a procedure by which registered voters may propose an ordinance or an amendment to the City Charter and have it adopted by the voters, with the same effect as if it had been enacted by the Board of Aldermen and approved by the Mayor. This procedure consists of gathering the signatures of registered voters on an initiative petition.”

But the wealthy backer of Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield, knew if he got petitions on the ballot in St. Louis & Kansas City that spelled out how our sales taxes and property taxes would increase up to 50% to make up for the loss in revenue from the earnings taxes that he wouldn’t stand a chance.

“Their next sentence is “If Missouri voters pass Prop A this November, the politicians will be required to allow local votes of the people on the existing earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City every five years, starting in 2011″ Clearly they are playing to the anti-politician sentiment we’ve been seeing nationally. Sounds like making the politicians do something, making them give us the right to reconsider the earnings tax every five years.  So?

The translation is this gives Rex Sinquefield numerous times to personally fund the campaigns to end the earnings tax in St. Louis & Kansas City.  It also means when either city goes to sell bonds to finance projects the bond rating will be higher causing a higher interest rate, potentially sidelining projects that might be able to be funded today.

Governments provide services and people pay taxes to fund those services.  There are many ways to fund governments.  St. Louis and Kansas City are both on the state line and have workers paying the tax that don’t live in the city.  Some live elsewhere in Missouri while others live in Illinois and Kanas, respectively.  Both cities provide services within each region that benefit those workers as well as their respective regions.

I have no love affair with the earnings tax and would gladly look at alternative funding concepts.  But until such alternates actually exist we don’t need to be trashing our bond rating and risking future projects. One-third of the St. Louis budget is a lot to try to make up elsewhere.

More info can be found at SayNoToA.org.

- Steve Patterson