If you have ever had the chance to visit any of Missouri's state parks, you'll know what a treasure they are. One of the reasons our state parks are so nice is that we have had this tenth of a cent sales tax dedicated to among other things our parks.
This tax is an example of good public policy. Everyone should look at this proposal and I think they would agree that this tax should be ratified.

Missouri's eighty-three state parks and historic sites receive 75 percent of their funding from the dedicated Parks, Soils & Clean Water Tax. The rest of the support comes from fees and some federal dollars.

This tax renewal is essential to keep such wonderful treasures as Route 66 State Park, Johnson Shut-Ins, Elephant Rocks, Watkins Woolen Mill, Civil War battlefields, the Katy Trail and so many more open and well-maintained for residents and tourists to enjoy.

Please support Amendment 1 and your state parks when you go to the poll in August.

Before I decide how to vote on this issue, I'd like to see some reports and projections on the ability of the State's parks to be funded by other sources.

Travis:

My advisor at WashU, Bill Lowry, has done extensive research on the revenue sources for state park systems. Many state parks across the country are pretty heavily developed with operations like golf courses and ski slopes, which cut pretty severely into the natural areas of those parks.

Because of this tax, Missouri State Parks are generally more natural, pristine areas. Let's keep it that way.

Vote YES on Amendment 1!

Joe:

Do you think that Mr. Lowry would be willing and able to release some of this information on this forum? Thanks for the info!

Many thanks to ACC for this opportunity to publish my report on this matter. I believe this is one of those times that we can all agree that the Internets is a good thing.

Swapping a property tax for the Conservation Sales Tax requires a statewide vote. In order for that statewide vote to happen, it must be placed on the ballot by the General Assembly or by initiative petition. Neither is going to happen.

There is not a single current state legislator or Republican or Democratic candidate for the Missouri General Assembly who would sponsor it, let alone get both chambers to adopt it.

There is no organization to fund an initiative petition drive, let alone foolish enough to waste money on the campaign once on ballot, which would fail miserably.

Among supporters of Missouri's Conservation, Parks, Historic Sites programs:

96% agree that the current sales tax funding is the best route to go

2% would like to see the sales tax swapped for property tax but would not spend their own funds toward that end

1% like the product of the current tax but think it can happen without a tax if the State properly solicited the benevolence of Magic Forest Cows and Feral Suidae Fairies

1% would like to see the sales tax swapped for earnings & income taxes and permit & licensing fees associated with prostitution and are willing to spend their own funds toward that end just as soon as someone else brings about legalization of prostitution

Travis,

The basic point of utilizing a dedicated source of funding is that it keeps funding constant and it keeps the Lege from moving the money to other programs. It also removes decision making directly from the Lege leading to more decisions being made on environmentally sustainable ecosystem and significant sites versus pork as the National Park system has been turned into.

If the tax were to expire, the state parks would have to increase user fees and the general budget would have to fit into the current state budget with Hancock restrictions meaning it would create a major decrease in the DNR budget.

Missouri, unlike the National Park System and many if not most State Park systems has very low rates of deferred maintenance problems.

I may actually see if Bill wants to do a policy brief on this with me, but ultimately, if this tax were to expire, the state park system would have no alternative than to commercialize the parks and make decisions solely on recreational value--also likely to lead to less access for lower income Missourians.

Your best reference to Bill's work on State Parks is:
"The Impact of Reinventing Government on State and Federal Parks." 2001. Journal of Policy History Vol. 13 No. 4: 405-428.

Bill is considered the leading expert on natural parks policy in the country and his research centers on intergenerational goods and their preservation. His book the Capacity for Wonder is probably the best book ever written on the politicsl of US National Parks. As a bonus, it's also the best book on the politics of Canadian National Parks.

There are so many wonderful books out there about the politics of Canadian National Parks, I don't know how the Archpundit can pick just one?

Does the State use any of this money to purchase private land? I am wondering what effect this may have on neighbors or farmers who may be trying to purchase the same land.

Stokes: zing! That was funny.

MDC is inclined to acquire from willing sellers with neighbors that like the idea of the State doing its conservation work next door. It also gets property via its nonprofit partner on a lot of projects, Nature Conservancy.

===Does the State use any of this money to purchase private land? I am wondering what effect this may have on neighbors or farmers who may be trying to purchase the same land.

Sometimes, but most park expansion, largely because of the insulation from lege politics involves completing natural habitats and as Howard mentions, their partner in such ventures is often the Nature Conservancy.

The larger reality is that when we talk about farmers purchasing land, it isn't a family farm, but corporate farmers enlarging their farms. Nothing wrong with that mind you, all businesses need raw materials, but it would be a mistake to think of them as family farmers.

OK so what!