“substituting a regional earnings tax.”

How bout no. Isn’t our tax money wasted enough? Here’s an oldie but goodie idea, s–tcan the 90 some fiefdoms in this region and just have one.

“Who among the region’s business and political hierarchy are capable of leading this kind of change?”

None of the above. Politicians are too interested in serving themselves or getting reelected. Oh, and blaming problems on someone else. Too many years of Democratic control has driven this city into the crapper. Look at the other cities run by Dems, they are just as bad off. I guess if St. Louis had something to offer people things might improve, as such we don’t and they won’t. Sorry to be Mr. Negative but I’ve seen little, if any, improvements in the 18 years I’ve been here.

> The result, though, is a region steadily strangling itself — a
> condition that seems likely to accelerate as national economic
> conditions deteriorate.

You’re right, Mr. Roth, competition is so destructive. What we need is a regional central planning board, to ensure that businesses develop and locate in a way that is most helpful to the people. Only by implementing government centralized planning can our region’s economy ever thrive.

In reality, we probably need this on a national level too. After all, states are competing with each other in the very same way as municipalities. If the federal government would simply tell companies where to build factories, this wouldn’t be needed. And if they would forecast the demand for various products, they could tell the companies what capacity they needed to develop. No excess capacity, no waste, no layoffs, a better world for all.

Mr. Kasoff’s comments reveal that he is not a careful reader. He has missed the point. In fact, he has it completely backward.

What’s proposed is not government planners substituting their judgment for the results of market competition. It’s the precise opposite.

The post criticizes planners’ using (wasting) huge amounts of public money to manipulate market competition in ways that may promote narrow, temporary advantages to local governments but undermine the vitality of the regional economy.

What’s proposed are fiscal reforms designed to ensure that, if public money is to be used to promote private enterprise, the system be well planned and coordinated, calculated to ensure taxpayers receive value for the public investment in the form of job creation and economic growth.

Mr. Roth misrepresents the proposal. We have repeatedly heard from groups such as East-West Gateway that it is inefficient to pit one municipality against another competing for businesses by offering TIFs and other incentives. Therefore, we must prohibit the offering of these incentives, and as Eddie himself said, “local communities would have to work together.” This is, of course, just the first step toward their ultimate goal, of dramatically reducing the number of municipalities in St. Louis county.

Let me be perfectly clear: I think TIFs are, as a general rule, a horrible public policy. If you have to offer tax incentives to a shopping center in the midst of the most affluent part of the county, then it probably shouldn’t be built. On the other hand, the Buzz Westfall Center in Jennings received significant incentives from Jennings, would not have happened without it, and has been a wonderful thing for Jennings. So the question is, how do you draw a line on that issue?

And since I brought it up, I should also say that I agree there are some municipalities in St. Louis county which should just disappear. Like Flordell Hills, Norwood Court, Hillsdale, St. George, and Bella Villa.

Problem is, the guys pushing these things have their own agenda, and I trust them even less than I trust Charlie Doolie. Regionalism is a wonderful thing, unless you happen to believe your municipal government does a better job in your community than county government does in similar areas. I live in Ferguson, and our area is much nicer than demographically similar parts of unincorporated county nearby. I want our city to continue to have the flexibility to respond to business development opportunities in the way we feel best suits our city’s interests. You want to give a regional TIF czar authority to prohibit us from doing so. No thanks, Mr. Roth.

Actually, I think you’re all saying much the same thing. What we would advocate is that there be a healthy competition among cities, based on the quality of services they provide their citizens. If Ferguson does a good job (which I think they do), they will succeed. In order for this “marketplace” of communities to work, however, we need to level the fiscal playing field. The current system moves tax revenues around in an irrational way, not at all related to the quality of the community. Rather, wealthy communities can afford to use subsidies to attract businesses that produce sales tax. Those communities can then reduce property taxes for their own citizens. So we have the net perverse effect of creating low tax/high service communities and high tax/low service communities, precisely the opposite of what one would expect in a healthy competitive marketplace. This will naturally lead to a downward spiral for the “loser” cities whose citizens pay their taxes in one community and consume services at home. This is not a healthy competition. It is a mutually assured destruction.

I always thought Mr. Sterman was the unelected, regional czar. I have a better idea. Government should not spend money for the benefit of private interests. If a project is worth doing, it should stand on its own. The development should pay taxes to schools, etc. just like everyone else. If every city took this attitude, this would happen and we would all be better off.

I oppose a regional earnings tax, even though I am retierd and have earned all the wages I will earn.This will just stretch the City’s disadvantage to the new edges of the “region” where people will move to escape it.

Nick, can the anti-dog eat dog rule be far behind?

I prefer reality-based policy making.

We have a system that is badly broken, whose incentives create crazy, wasteful outcomes.

We should be working for reforms that make that system more rational, accountable, and calculated to advance the public interest.

The Metropolitan Forum paper outlines some thoughtful approaches.

The question is: How do we overcome inertia, move beyond ideological prattle and get serious proposals on the table?

Capitalism is not prattle.

Billions wasted when once again the Govt is involved were it should not be. TIFs, Favors, paybacks. Until the Govt. (State and Federal) quit trying to control free enterprise this is not going away. Get ready because it’s about to get much much worse before it’s even close to getting better.

We depend on you to do much better than that, jjk.

What you wrote about wasn’t capitalism, it was fantasy — and a riff off the top of your head, at that.

You obviously are smart and famously retired, maybe even snowed in today.

Why don’t you click on the link and take a look at the Metropolitan Forum paper. And then do us a favor: get back with some real critiques, ideas and strategies.