Municipalities Should Not Be Commercial Landlords (I’m Looking at You, Chesterfield)

Chesterfield, which is poised to be the largest city in St. Louis County, is attempting to get into the commercial real estate business. I mean that literally. The city is planning to purchase a commercial property building and operate it as a landlord. I can’t believe this has to be said, but municipalities have no business being in the commercial property business. I don’t think you have to be a libertarian extremist to believe that. The more extreme position is actually that owning and operating a commercial office building—or any business, really—is, in fact, the proper role of government. (In fairness to the city, they do plan to hire a property manager for the building.)

I attended the city council meeting where the relevant bill was introduced. Supporters of the proposal offered two different reasons why this was a good move for the city. First, supporters said the leases for the businesses in the building would pay the costs of the purchases, so the city would come out ahead. According to the Chesterfield city manager, the current leases “would mean the building would create no annual cost for the city.” This reminds me of the famous story of when former St. Louis Mayor Vince Schoemehl told some veteran members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen that the new convention center downtown would not cost the city anything, and longtime alderman Red Villa responded with, “Well then, why don’t we build two of them?”

The other reason why supporters like the purchase is because Chesterfield could use some of the building for its own future needs, such as a police substation, civic center, or parks department headquarters (all these examples were given at the meeting). But here is the problem: If you use the building for city offices or needs (which may be the more defensible position), then you don’t have the paying tenants who will cover the price of the purchase for the city. Yes, the building’s parking lot would come in handy for some events at the nearby park, but, as opponents noted, that is just a few events each year.

Then there is the belief by the city that they won’t have to pay property taxes on the building, leading to a higher profit margin for the city (stated by a member of the board and elsewhere). That is a very dubious argument. There is plenty of case law that says if a tax-exempt entity owns property but that property is not used for tax-exempt purposes that property taxes are still owed. (Scroll down here for citations.)

If one believes that buying and operating a commercial office building is the proper role of local government, then I wonder what limits there would possibly be on the role of government? If a municipality can do this, what can’t it do? That’s the scary part.