Know Your Ballot: Propositions & Amendments

Absentee voting for the November 8th general election began in Missouri last Tuesday, but since I’m still researching items on the lower part of the ballot I haven’t voted absentee yet. I decided to start at the bottom and work my way up, so this post is my initial research on ballot issues. Most are statewide, but even the first applies to St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and the City of St. Louis:

Proposition S — senior services

Voters in 3 counties will vote on identical measures.

A November ballot measure seeks to create senior citizen service funds in St. Charles County, St. Louis County and St. Louis that together would raise about $18 million a year in property taxes to help people stay in their homes longer.

More than 50, mainly small, Missouri counties already have created similar programs to help provide transportation, food, health care and other services. If the new measures pass, they would be the largest of their kind in the state.

Proposition S would levy a 5-cent property tax on every $100 of assessed value, which boils down to $9.50 a year on a home worth $100,000. Local boards would decide which needs are a priority for residents who are at least 60 years old.  (Post-Dispatch) 

I’ll probably vote yes on this. It is often better for seniors to be able to stay in their homes as they age — it’s also cheaper on taxpayers.  This is a good investment, assuming the local boards are well-managed. This is on the ballot because of Seniors Count St. Louis.

Proposition A/Constitutional Amendment 3 — cigarette/tobacco taxes

Regular readers know I’m a non-smoker who supports prohibition of smoking in public. I’ve also pointed out how low Missouri’s cigarette taxes are compared to neighboring states. So, you might think I’d be happy to see two ballot issues that raise taxes on cigarettes/tobacco. Wrong.

The campaigns behind both of the competing tobacco tax increase measures on the ballot were largely funded by tobacco companies. Large tobacco companies, in general, backed Amendment 3, the 60 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative, while some smaller companies and wholesalers supported Proposition A, the smaller tax increase.

Reynold’s American Inc. gave over $2 million to Raise Your Hand for Kids, which is supporting Amendment 3, the 60 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative. The drafters of Amendment 3 included a 67-cent-per-pack fee on wholesale tobacco sellers, raising the total state tax for smaller companies to $1.27 per pack. This added tax for small companies was designed to close an alleged loophole that allowed small companies to evade making payments to 46 states mandated by a multi-state court settlement to help offset Medicaid costs. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster had been pressuring the Missouri General Assembly to end this loophole and demand lost payments from small companies totalling $50 million annually.

Smaller companies such as Cheyenne International, LPC Inc., and Xcaliber International donated toward the Proposition A, the 23 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative, largely to oppose the Amendment 3. Chuck Hatfield, lawyer for Cheyenne, said that the Amendment 3 was “about Big Tobacco wanting to tax their competitors. That’s what this has always been about.” (BallotPedia)

Given this information, I’ll be voting no on both.

Constitutional Amendment 6 — Voter ID

Voter ID laws in other states have been controversial and ruled unconstitutional, but that didn’t stop the Republican-controlled legislature from overriding the veto to place this on the ballot. Their intent is very clear — discouraging/preventing African-Americams from voting. Period. What about the 78th House Dist race?  A voter ID wouldn’t have made a difference, the St. Louis Board of Elections had created a secondary process for absentee ballots that was abused.

In January a Missouri State Senator argued in favor of such a law:

Kraus said Missouri needs a voter I.D. law because there have been more than 16 cases of “some type of voter fraud” in Missouri. That number isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t support Kraus’ assertion that photo identification would solve the problem — or that there is a problem of people impersonating voters.
Kraus’ statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context. We rate his claim Half True. (PolitiFact Missouri)

I’ll be voting no.

Constitutional Amendment 4 — banning new sales/use tax on services

More states are looking to tax services, so some in Missouri are trying to stop it from happening here:

Could Missouri tax haircuts, veterinary services, pedicures and yoga classes? Missouri voters will have their say this November at their polling place with Amendment 4.

The “Taxpayer Protection Amendment” was certified for the ballot this month. If approved by voters it would ban a sales tax on services.

The amendment would prevent the state from taxing such services as car repairs, tattoos and lawn care. 

Currently, consumers don’t pay taxes on those services. Inconvenienced travelers pay a sales tax on a new tire but not on the service of replacing a flat.

But despite Missouri’s current lack of a sales tax on services, Amendment 4’s supporters – primarily the Missouri Association of Realtors, which circulated the initiative petition – see trouble on the horizon. (Missouri Times)

Taxing service transactions could be a headache for those providers, but this might also help budgets in areas heavy on service but low on retail. Hmm…

Retired financier Rex Sinquefield is a potential adversary, especially because he’s advocated for replacing Missouri’s income tax with an expanded sales tax. An e-mail to one of Sinquefield advisors wasn’t returned about whether he’d actively oppose Amendment 4. (St. Louis Public Radio)

This might force sales taxes to go up even more — an unintended consequence. I’m not sure yet how I’ll vote on this issue.

Constitutional Amendment 2 — campaign limits

Big money flowing into politics is something I generally favor trying to limit/stop:

The measure would cap donations to candidates at $2,600 per election and to political parties at $25,000. It also would impose other campaign finance restrictions aimed at preventing political committees from obscuring the source of their money.

In November 1994, 74 percent of Missouri voters approved a ballot measure limiting contributions to state candidates. The Republican-led General Assembly repealed contribution limits in 2008, which at the time stood at $1,350 for statewide candidates, $675 for Senate candidates and $325 for House candidates. (Kansas City Star)

Even though the person behind this is anti-abortion, I’ll likely vote yes.

Constitutional Amendment 1 — renew tax for soil/water conservation

This measure has been renewed in the past:

Amendment 1, upon voter approval, would renew the existing sales and use tax of 0.1 percent for 10 years. The revenue from the tax goes toward conservation efforts, and the measure was designed to “continue to generate approximately $90 million annually for soil and water conservation and operation of the state park system.”

Constitutional Amendment 1 was automatically referred to the 2016 ballot. This measure originated with a 1984 constitutional amendment. Due to the wording of this original amendment and subsequent iterations, the measure must be reapproved by voters. It is automatically referred to the ballot every 10 years. Previous versions of this amendment were approved in 1988, 1996, and 2006. If Amendment 1 is not approved in 2016, it will not be referred to future ballots. (BallotPedia)

I’ll vote yes to continue this tax.

Next week I’ll post on judges up for retention.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Are You Concerned About Possible Health Risks Associated With Some LED Street Lights?

I’ve posted about LED street lights before, but have never asked a poll question about them.

Some cities say the health concerns are not convincing enough to override the benefits of the first-generation bright LED lights that they installed in the past three to eight years. New York is one of them, although it has responded to resident complaints by replacing the high-intensity, white LED bulbs with a lower-
intensity bulb that the AMA considers safe. 

Scott Thomsen, a spokesman for Seattle City Lights, which is responsible for the city’s exterior illumination, dismissed the health concerns about bright-white LED lights, noting that they emit less of the problematic blue wavelengths than most computers and televisions. (Washington Post)

So here’s today’s poll:

The poll is open for 12 hours, until 8pm tonight.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bills 9/30/2016

The following Board Bills will be introduced at today’s meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, review today’s agenda here:

Board Bill No. 143 | Basketball courts in Forest Park

BOARD BILL NO. 143 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN ANTONIO FRENCH An ordinance mandating that the Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry shall cause the construction of four lighted basketball courts in Forest Park by July 1, 2017.

Board Bill No. 144 | Parking at City Hall

BOARD BILL NO. 144 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN ANTONIO FRENCH An ordinance pertaining to public parking at City Hall, mandating that the first hour of parking on the City Hall lot be provided free of charge during normal business hours, by amending Section 17.62.150 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis and Section 17.62.150 of Section One of Ordinance 62101; and containing an emergency clause.

Board Bill No. 145 | Grant for re-entry services

BOARD BILL NO. 145 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN FLOWERS An ordinance authorizing and directing the Director of the Department of Human Services, on behalf of the City of St. Louis, to accept a Grant Award from the Missouri Department of Corrections in the amount of $250,000.00 and to expend those funds for Re-entry Services for Former State Offenders, as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding attached as Exhibit A; appropriating said funds and authorizing the Director of the Department of Human Services, upon approval of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, to expend such funds as permitted by the Memorandum of Understanding – Grant Award; and containing an Emergency Clause.

Board Bill No. 146 | Grant for continuum of care homeless assistance

BOARD BILL NO. 146 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN FLOWERS An ordinance recommended and approved by the Director of Human Services and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, authorizing and directing the Mayor and the Comptroller of the City of St. Louis (the “City”), with the recommendation of the Director of the Department of Human Services, via the Homeless Services Division (HSD), on behalf of the City of St. Louis, to accept, enter into, and execute on behalf of the City, Grant Agreement Awards offered by the the United States of America (the “Grant Agreements”, acting through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the Grant Agreements to provide for the reimbursement or payment to the City for the United States of America’s share of eligible costs incurred for City approved eligible programs furthering the work of the Continuum of Care under the Grant Agreements; and specifically authorizing and directing the acceptance of the 2015 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Planning Project Grant Application in the amount of $336,892.00, and future Continuum of Care Grant awards, and directing the Director of Human Services to expend those Planning Grant Funding funds to accomplish and further the work of the Continuum of Care (CoC) as indicated in the Continuum of Care Program regulation (Federal Register Vol. 77 No. 147 dated Tuesday, July 31, 2012) pertaining to CoC (24 CFR part 578.7(a)(9) and 24 CFR part 578.9 (a)(3)(ii) and (b) ) and the 2015 Grant Agreement Award (MO0205L7E011500), the application for which as attached as Exhibit A; appropriating said funds and authorizing the Director of the Department of Human Services, upon approval of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, to expend such funds as permitted by the Continuum of Care Program regulation (Federal Register Vol. 77 No. 147 dated Tuesday, July 31, 2012) pertaining to CoC (24 CFR part 578.7(a)(9) and 24 CFR part 578.9 (a)(3)(ii) and (b) ) and the Grant Agreement Awards (MO0205L7E011500); and containing an Emergency Clause.

Board Bill No. 147 | Street name change to Barbara Beck Blvd

BOARD BILL NO. 147 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN STEPHEN CONWAY An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 4600 block of Cleveland Avenue as “Barbara Beck Boulevard.”

Board Bill No. 148 | Street name change to George and Sandy Grbac Lane

BOARD BILL NO. 148 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN STEPHEN CONWAY An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 4900 block of Botanical Avenue as “George and Sandy Grbac Lane.”

Board Bill No. 149 | Greenleaf TIF note

BOARD BILL #149 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN TAMMIKA HUBBARD An Ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the issuance and delivery of not to exceed $2,800,000 plus issuance costs principal amount of Tax Increment Revenue Notes (Northside Regeneration–Greenleaf Project) Series 20__-A/B, of the City of St. Louis, Missouri; prescribing the form and details of such notes and the covenants and agreements made by the City to facilitate and protect the payment thereof; prescribing other matters relating thereto, and containing a severability clause.

Board Bill No. 150 | Tucker and Cass CID

BOARD BILL # 150 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN TAMMIKA HUBBARD AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PETITION TO ESTABLISH THE TUCKER & CASS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING THE TUCKER & CASS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI; CONFIRMING THE PRIOR DETERMINATION THAT THE TUCKER & CASS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS A BLIGHTED AREA; FINDING A PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TUCKER & CASS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; APPROVING APPOINTMENT OF THE INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS; APPROVING A DISTRICT PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS AND THE TUCKER & CASS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.

Board Bill No. 151 | Amending Public Nuisances Code

BOARD BILL # 151 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN MEGAN GREEN An Ordinance revising and amending the Public Nuisances Code of the City of St. Louis to protect victims of domestic violence or stalking by amending Sections One, Two, and Five of Ordinance 69730, approved April 18, 2014 and codified at Chapter 15.42 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis; and containing a severability clause and an emergency clause. [Note: This bill is co-sponsored by Tyus, Ingrassia, Boyd, Krewson]

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Municipalities Shouldn’t Change Ordinances To Keep Out Semi-Topless Establishments

A majority of people in the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll do not agree with municipalities changing their ordinances to keep out some establishments. Here were the results:

Q: Agree or disagree: Municipalities are right to change ordinances to keep out establishments where female breasts are covered only by body paint.

• Strongly agree 7 [18.92%]
• Agree 3 [8.11%]
• Somewhat agree 2 [5.41%]
• Neither agree or disagree 1 [2.7%]
• Somewhat disagree 6 [16.22%]
• Disagree 6 [16.22%]
• Strongly disagree 11 [29.73%]
• Unsure/No Answer 1 [2.7%]

Nearly two-thirds disagreed with the above statement.

This is a tough issue for smaller municipalities in a region. No nothing and be perceived as not a good place for families. Take quick action, as many have this year, and be perceived as moral puritans. There are parallels to the 19th century temperance movement, witch led to prohibition:

The country’s first serious anti-alcohol movement grew out of a fervor for reform that swept the nation in the 1830s and 1840s. Many abolitionists fighting to rid the country of slavery came to see drink as an equally great evil to be eradicated – if America were ever to be fully cleansed of sin. The temperance movement, rooted in America’s Protestant churches, first urged moderation, then encouraged drinkers to help each other to resist temptation, and ultimately demanded that local, state, and national governments prohibit alcohol outright. (PBS) http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition/

On the other hand, the objectification of females by heterosexual males can have serious consequences, including rape and sex trafficking:

The National Human Trafficking Resource Center defines human trafficking as a form of modern-day slavery in which traffickers use force, fraud or coercion to control victims for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts or labor services against their will. 

Since 2007, more than 1,500 calls have been made from Missouri to the National Human Trafficking hotline, the same site reported. 

St. Louis and Kansas City are hotspots for human trafficking. Missouri is responding through legislation, law enforcement and grassroots organizations that work to combat and raise awareness about trafficking.

“The FBI has stated that St. Louis is one of the top 20 trafficking destinations in the country. Because of our highway system, highway 70 and 44, we have a lot of possibilities for that. So we do know it’s a problem,” said Republican Rep. Elijah Haahr, chair of the Human Trafficking Task Force. “People attribute it to being an East Coast, West Coast problem. It’s a Midwestern problem, both sex trafficking and labor trafficking. (KMOX)

I’m not sure where the line should be drawn. I have no problems seeing the female nipple, our notions around nudity, decency, and morality are weird.  But, as a gay man, I’m not affected the way straight men are.

Still, laws forcing women to cover their nipples where men don’t have to seems unjust — simply because some straight men are unable to control themselves.

— Steve Patterson

The High Cost of Buying a Car If You’re Poor

For months now I’ve been wanting to post about auto financing. Last month John Oliver did a segment on it (below) that got me motivated:

Is there another subprime loan crisis brewing?

John Oliver, host of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight,” found disturbing similarities between the easy loans dished out for used cars and the mortgage crisis that devastated the economy in 2008. 

Now, car dealers are making high-risk, high-interest loans that “trap people with few options into paying vastly more than a car is worth,” Oliver said. “It’s just one of the many ways in which when you are poor, everything can be more expensive.” 

The average interest rate on a “buy here, pay here” loan made by used-car dealers is 19 percent, but some buyers are paying up to 29 percent for loans that many default on within an average of just seven months.  (Huffington Post)

Oliver pointed out bad subprime auto loans are being bundled and sold as investments — the same way bad subprime mortgages were dome a decade ago.

Note: a few words aren’t suitable for all work environments.

Some have pointed out that the auto loan market is too small to cause another recession. Even assuming these won’t cause another recession, the reality is disturbing.

In most places, the working poor need a reliable car to get to work. Even in regions with high frequency public transit, commutes can take hours. We’ve designed our built environment to male car ownership mandatory. So you ask?

For those who live paycheck to paycheck, buying a car isn’t an easy task. When my husband and I bought our used Honda Civic in 2014 we got a loan at our credit union. We didn’t qualify for their best interest rate, but still got a reasonable 3.69%APR. They required the vehicle not be more older than 7 years and have under 100,000 miles. Being pre-approved allowed up to go car shopping with confidence.

Here’s the numbers for our auto loan:

• $9,003.75 financed
• $596.01 in interest
• $9599.76 total after 42 months

Our last payment will be in November 2017. We got a good price on the car in 2014 so we’ve never been upside down on our loan.

For millions of people, their experience is very different. Their car breaks down, or they get a new job where they suddenly need a car. They turn to a nearby used car dealer where they can pay there.

The problem with this route is:

• The sales price is well-above the value of the car.
• The interest rate is 19%-25%.
• The total paid, if paid in full, is double the value of the car at purchase. Double!

Wednesday 9/14/16 I went to the website of one such dealer, picking out a car with a high reliability rating, decent fuel mileage, and less than 100k.

To someone needing a car to get to/from work at 4-cylinder Camry is a good choice, with only 88,749 miles it should have a lot of life left. The asking price is the first problem. Sure, prices are negotiable — but not much.

I also went to Kelly Blue Book to see what someone should expect to pay at a dealer for a 2006 Toyota Camry LE with 88,749 miles.

But this Camry is too old to get financed through my credit union, right now the oldest year model on used car loans is 2009. So I went back to the website and filtered their 299 cars in inventory to narrow down to 2009 & newer models under 100K miles. I got 59 matches — so 20% of their inventory could be financed elsewhere. I then sorted the 59 by price, ranging from $9,995-$15,995.

But it’s new enough (2011) and low milage enough (97,257) that it could be financed at my credit union. But the credit union wouldn’t lend more than the value.

So I wanted to compare this 2011 Chevy Aveo purchased/financed two different ways. First up, buy here pay here:

• Financed: $9,995
• Term: 48 months
• Interest: 22% (middle range)
• Payment:$314.90
• Total:$15,115.36
• Interest: $5,120.36 (33.88% of payments made)

Wow, those are big car payments for a 7 year-old car with nearly 100K miles. At this price it would be hard to afford routine maintenance and repairs for the length of the loan. Now let’s look at the same car if bought elsewhere for the suggested price and financed at a local credit union:

• Financed: $7,105
• Term: 48 months
• Interest: 3.69% (lowest rate is 2.49%)
• Payment:$159.44
• Total:$7,653.14
• Interest: $548.14 (7.16% of payments made)

The monthly payment is half with a reasonable interest rate, so hopefully the buyer could afford to keep up the car, not miss any payments, etc. I used an auto loan calculator to do the math for both.

Some of you likely think this is just the free market at work. It is, which is why unregulated free-market capitalism means a few profit while others are bankrupted. We shouldn’t force people to buy a car so they enter into an unjust racket.

By contrast, those with higher incomes have many more options. When we’re in Chicago dealers there routinely advertise new car leases with one up front payment.

A one pay lease, also known as a single pay or pre-paid car lease, is similar to a standard lease in that you are purchasing the use of the vehicle only for a set period of time. Like a standard lease, you agree to return the vehicle to the dealer in good condition and under a pre-determined number of miles at the end of this time. The difference is that instead of making monthly payments throughout this period, the entire amount is paid at the beginning of the lease. (Carintelligent)

That one payment of $12,000 will save you interest, but also cost you on interest it would’ve earned. It’s expensive to be poor.

— Steve Patterson