Thinking Out Loud

KC Star Headline About LGBT Study Was Flat Wrong

Earlier this month, the Kansas City Star printed an article announcing the results of the Municipal Equality Index reflecting a score of zero for Jefferson City, but scores of 100 for Columbia, Kansas City and St. Louis. The article itself was not entirely unbalanced, but the headline was very misleading. It shouted:

"THIS MISSOURI CITY IS ONE OF THE WORST FOR LGBT PEOPLE IN THE NATION, REPORT SAYS."

If you just read the headline and skimmed the story, you could jump to the conclusion that Jefferson City is hostile to its LGBT residents.  I cannot say for sure whether my LGBTQ friends face hostile attitudes in Jefferson City, but I have never heard such a complaint. I could not understand how the scoring could be so drastically different for the three towns. 

When I looked deeper I found that the headline was flat wrong. The study only examines municipal codes. A city gets a good score if there are specific laws and policies aimed at protecting and supporting it LGBT population. It does not even study whether the laws and policies are enforced, or how effective they are. In fact, if you will find this honest disclaimer: 

"[The study] is not a ranking of the friendliest cities to live. It neither attempts to quantify how respectful cities enforce their laws, nor does it gauge the experience of an LGBTQ person interacting wth the police or city hall . . .  The MEI specifically rates cities on their laws and policies; it is not a measure of an LGBTQ person's lived experience in that city." (page 39).

As I think this through, I'll bet that the low scoring cities tend to be cities where the prevailing attitude is that local government (and all other levels of government) should be limited in how much they attempt to control the lives of their citizens. I'll bet low scoring cities, in addition to not codifying  LGBT protection, also tend to have less restrictive measures in other areas of governance such as code enforcement, environmental and historic preservation. I believe Jefferson City residents value those things, but they would rather that government not hold a gun to their heads. In fact, one could conclude that we don't have  laws and policies protecting the LGBT population because we don't need them. Maybe our residents are welcoming and friendly to the extent that the LGBT population has not expressed the need for such measures. The study shows a heavy concentration of 100 scores in larger cities, where (I suggest) local government is prone to regulate everything aggressively because of the problems they face due to their size and complexity.

It's worth noting that several towns that seem pretty friendly and welcoming are in the "zero" club: Pierre, SD; Rapid City, SD; Myrtle Beach, SC; Bend,OR; Stillwater, OK. Cape Girardeau got a score of three.

I think the study does point out some interesting facts, and there are things we can learn from it. Maybe Jefferson City can look to laws and policies that seem to work elsewhere. Maybe we should head off problems before they arise. Maybe there is hostility that I'm not aware of. But I suspect (but of course do not know for sure) that our LGBT population gets along just fine with everyone else, and I do not feel the KC Star headline saying Jefferson City is "one of the worst for LGBT in the nation" was fair at all. In fact, it was misleading and it represents journalism far below the standard normally set by that newspaper. 

Parks & Rec @JCMO is unlike other city departments.

In the "chargeback" discussion (Parks and Rec compensating the JCMO General Fund for internal services like finances, legal and personnel) some are saying that Parks should be "treated the same" as other city departments. That quick response misses too many nuances. Even aside from what it means for kids.

Each fund/department has different economics and different purposes. Chargebacks for Parks was designed to chip in a little for administrative services and help with the general fund when parks received an independent revenue source via the dedicated sales tax. How much to charge is actually not very scientific, or at least no one should pretend so. It's more policy than math. It's like when we reduced the CIP level for parks from 20% to 10%. We tried to keep track of the goal --  to fund a great parks and recreation system endorsed by the voters -- while being fiscally responsible and broad minded about other needs. A couple of thoughts:

1. "Enterprise" Funds.   The sewer and parking funds are not good comparisons since those are bonded endeavors, with the rates being set by the economics of bonds sold to investors. The administrative load in those funds was factored in and deducted from the amount of net revenue available to pay back the bonds. Those numbers were included in the public offering and are pretty much set in stone since they were part of the rate design approved by voters. While the chargebacks will certainly have some effect on parking and sewer services, the effects are long term and hard to predict. Day to day service is not impacted. You will only know what the effect is when, decades later, you learn that you have money for only two lift stations instead of three; or maybe you have only $3.5 million in the parking reserve fund instead of $3.8 million. Most people could care less. The toilets flush and the parking lots get new asphalt. Life goes on. 

2. Other departments.  The fallacy of treating all departments the same becomes apparent if the comparisons are complete. Parks derives a large part of its budget from user fees. If we truly want to "treat all departments the same," we would have "toll streets" and the fire and police departments would charge for each service call. Public works and Public Safety are (with some limited exceptions) completely subsidized with no user contributions. Citizens pay for these services through community taxes and not through user fees.

3. Economic Development.  Refer to "Objective 6" of the most recent Economic Development Strategic Plan. Parks has a significant role in this thoughtful study. Money retained by Parks (and not seized through an increased chargeback) enhances Parks' capacity to implement these recommendations. Everybody talks about economic development but no one reads The Plan. Parks provides the infrastructure for the "regional sports tourism" that some now endorse. You cannot cut Parks' budget and at the same time talk about how important regional sports is for economic development. 

4. Conclusion.  Instead of the glib argument that parks should be "treated the same as all departments," the more appropriate analysis should be:

    a. Does the city council believe the current level of Parks and Rec services being made available to the public is appropriate, or should it be reduced?

    b. Does the city council believe that parks user fees are appropriate, or should they be increased?

    c. Since increasing the chargeback will necessarily cause either (a) services to decrease or (b) user fees to increase, or both, what is the appropriate chargeback amount, taking all factors into consideration? The available funds are finite. The dollars have to come from somewhere.

    d. What role does Parks play in economic development and are we ready to put money toward that effort?

    e. There is nothing wrong with using a different formula for parks since it is unique in so many respects. Parks is different from enterprise funds like parking and sewer; and different from general fund departments like public safety and public works. It has economic development potential. Exercise good judgment and stewardship. Refrain from easy formulas.

Does Retail = "Economic Development"?

Faced with challenges of succeeding at traditional economic development (aka bringing manufacturing to town) some leaders have pivoted to retail expansion is an acceptable Plan B. They should pause.

For decades we have rejected requests for abatements and subsidies for retail because in a finite market, a new retailer simply takes away market share from other retailers who have done business and paid taxes without a government handout. 

There are nuances. We've done TTDs (Transportation Development Districts) for Kohl's and the East End Walmart because the sales taxes paid for critical infrastructure. Note how Sam's is now coming not based on incentives but because the guys in Bentonville did their homework and think they can make money without a handout.

"Economic Development" in our town has become such an overused term that it lacks much meaning. We should not water down the old phrase more to embrace a new Olive Garden -- although I like their salads.

We have to look no farther than the Strategic Plan created by the Chamber with help from TIP Strategies and lots of community input. It's been ignored because of the failure of the Transformation sales tax. The tax failed but the analysis is still right on. The question now is now to proceed. 

And retail is not a valid substitute for real job growth.

Speaker will discuss Recent Challenges to Religious Liberties

UMC Law School professor Josh Hawley will be the guest speaker at a Lunch and Learn at noon on Monday. Hawley was part of the legal team representing Hobby Lobby recently at the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision could be announced any day. Hobby Lobby argued that some mandates within Obamacare are unconstituional under the First Amendment.

The presentation will be at the Cathoilc Chancery 2207 West Main (just behind St. Joseph's Cathedral).

Call me at 573-690-1915 to reserve a seat and a sandwich. 

 

Public Trust: A Precious Commodity

This week the Missouri Municipal League issued its own list of (just three) "Top Challenges Missouri Cities Face in 2014."   The choices all involve revenue or the lack thereof: deteriorating infrastructure, the Internet sales loophole and unfunded mandates.

The national version of this list, also announced recently by the National League of Cities, has additional,  more social, concerns like "the shrinking middle class" and "the need for affordable housing."

But the one "concern" on the national list that did not make the state list is perhaps the the most critical: 

"Lack of Public Trust."

Locally, in Jefferson City and Cole County, this phenomenon is an anchor that keeps us from making progress on a number of fronts: school improvements (both buildings and policies), transportation and infrastructure investments, and even the downtown conference center approved five years ago by voters. It's not helpful to attribute this mood to any particular group of persistently negative thinkers or any national or local media source. Nor can you cite any of our mostly volunteer leaders for making it more prevelant. Some  of it has be taken in stride. America was founded on a healthy mistrust of government! 

But it's time that we expect both citizens and leaders to talk often, openly and calmly about issues and viewpoints -- instead of just throwing stones or constantly ducking them.

Evening Meetings = Better Government

For decades the Cole County Commission, like most of their counterparts statewide, have conducted their meetings with broad agendas at a time of day (the morning) that discouraged public involvement and made total media coverage difficult if not impossible.

Last night, at the urging of newly elected Western District Commissioner Kris Scheperle, the Commission held a regular meeting in the evening. The result, according to this morning's News Tribune article, was a meeting where "every seat was taken" by interested citizens. 

Next:  Let's stream (or at least record for replay) every Cole County Commission meeting so citizens can view their government in action without leaving their homes. The technology has been there for a long time. Is there a willingness for County government to take this opporunity at transparancy?

 

 

 

Missouri Wine: Peter Hofherr Tells All

Peter Hofherr is chairman of the Missouri Wine and Grape Board and vintner at St. James Winery. Here is everything you want to know about Missouri wines: past, present and future. 

 

Sprawl #5: An Insult That Should Not Be Repeated

In 1967 the Jefferson City School Board purchased land in a residential subdivision on the East Side to build a new grade school. Old East School at that time was the city's second most populous elementary school. The ratio of students per square foot at East was double that of other schools in the district.

Five years later a school board dominated by members with 65109 (west end) zip codes decided that maybe they really didn't need a school there after all. Superintendent Joe Nichols, Jr. said in the News Tribune article that "It's not that the district won't build. It's just a matter of time." 

Eventually the board sold the land to the highest bidder and moved their sights westward toward to preserve and enhance their own neighborhoods. 

With this one decision the growth patterns of Jefferson City were, perhaps irrevocably, established. The decison was not based on a re-evaluation of East School demographics. The reasons were policital and self-serving. 

Fast Forward.

It was interesting that within days following the announcement that Pioneer Ridge grade school would be constructed in a field on the West Side (across from a mobile home park and a 60 year old motel), ads appeared for the new subdivisions that were being constructed adjacent to the school, subdivisions that would host $300K houses. Think how the growth patterns of Jefferson City would have been different if the school board had not decided in 1972 where they wanted growth to occur. 

It's time that the Jefferson City School Board acknowledge the dominant role they play in our community's urban planning and stop pretending that school location is just an issue related to a very narrow definition of "education."

Fast forward again.

January 16, 2011 news Tribune headline: "Board to Consider Land Purchase." The site would be for a gradeschool. Where? On the East Side, a quarter mile away from where the school should have been built in 1972. But East School is not receiving much more attention in 2012 than it did forty years ago. It is presently the only gradeschool in the district that uses trailers for classrooms due to overcrowding. The question is whether history will repeat itself and whether the purchase of this land is just for eventual resale. When Joe Nichols said "It's just a matter of time," how many decades was he thinking about?

Thomas Jefferson said that "the price of democracy is vigilence." I think tt's time for a little more vigilence in our community about how location of public amenities dictate our future.

 

Many Lessons @ Today's Council Meeting

It was not always pretty, and not all of the speeches made perfect sense, but the videotape of today's special City Council meeting (convened to decide whether to fire the City Administrator) could be used in cvics classes nationwide to study how public bodies should conduct business. 

Kudos to: 

• City Counselor Hilpert for a thorough and professional legal analysis.
• Administrator Nickolaus for suggesting the meeting should remain open.
• The City Council for voting 6-4 to keep the meeting open.
• Councilman Pope for his statemanship in extending apologies.
• Mayor Struemph for deftly chairing a complex meeting.

Regardless of our opinions about who was right or wrong on various topics discussed, we should be proud of the way our city government conducted its business today.

 

 

The City Admin Got It Right in his Fire Tax email.

City Administrator Nathan Nickolaus is in hot water over an email he sent to city employees last Friday. The message encouraged city employees to study issues on the ballot, including the sales tax for the Fire Department, "Proposition 2." He also suggested how the vote might impact city services and the budget. In an odd turn of events and semantics, there is a meeting scheduled Friday to consider whether to "fire" him.

There are really two issues flopping around. If the two issues are improperly blended it could lead to a terribly unfair result.

The first issue is whether that type of email should have been sent at all. Some will claim that using city resources (the email system) to advocate for a ballot measure is unlawful. But similar informational messages have been routinely issued in the past using city resources. And the proponents of Proposition 2 may want to examine their own behavior since department personnel and sites were repeatedly utilized in their campaign. All, I am sure, in the spirit of "getting good information to the voters."

But what really has the proponants of Proposition 2 in a tizzy, especially now that the proposition went down in flames, is that the email contradicted their annoucements that the allocaton of fire department funds currently in the city's general revenue budget would never be reduced on account of the new money from sales taxes. Nickolaus had the audacity to state that the new tax revenue could free up funds in general revenue for other purposes. 

Well, Nickolaus' statement is 100% true, and faithful to the City Charter. General revenue is always subject to council adjustments during the annual summer budget process, and thereafter throughout the year.

This fact was apparantly lost on persons running the campaign for Proposition 2. Unbelievably, these persons include current and past city councilmen and senior staff in the Fire Department who know better. Yet, they were relentless in suggesting that the current general fund allocations for the Fire Department are sacrosact and will never be diminished notwithstanding a new source of revenue from sales taxes, irrespective of unforeseen needs of other departments.

Those wishing to punish Nickolaus for his email should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether their outrage is prompted by a spurious accusation that state law was violated, as opposed to their embarassment at being caught making promises that could not be kept.

I have a feeling that if Nickolaus' email had simply endorsed the new tax, instead of contradicting their campain slogans, those persons now calling for his scalp would be voting to give him a medal.