Low unemployment rates, high labor force participation rates, positive employment and labor force changes, and increasing wages define the strong small metro areas in this country.
There are a total of 324 metro areas with less than 1 million people. There are three in Mississippi: Gulfport, Hattiesburg, and Jackson. The Wall Street Journal recently ranked those areas to determine the hottest and coldest markets in the country.
The top markets were as varied and diverse as the country, though it certainly helps to be in the Southeast or the interior West.
Some may roll their eyes at three of the top seven small markets benefiting from today’s oil boom. Odessa, Texas, of Friday Night Lights fame, came in at number five with Lake Charles, Louisiana at number seven. And the number one small metro area? Midland, Texas. Midland has an unemployment rate of 2.3 percent, labor force participation rate of 77.1 percent, a 9 percent employment change, and a 7.4 percent labor force change. Barbers can even make $180,000 a year in the oil boom town. Certainty times are good.
But, the hottest markets extend far beyond oil. The top five markets also include locales such as Greeley, Colorado, Provo, Utah, and Columbus, Indiana. Other growing markets in the Southeast include College Station, Texas, Gainesville, Georgia, and Huntsville, Alabama.
We are in what may be the hottest job market of our lives. The economy has added jobs for 100 consecutive months (though the 20,000 jobs created in February came in low). Unemployment is at its lowest level in 49 years. Both low-skill and high-skill jobs are in-demand and, as a result, salaries are growing.
Yet that isn’t everywhere. Including a large segment of Mississippi.
Mississippi’s three metro areas are, unfortunately, more likely to be on the back half of this list.
Hattiesburg, home to the University of Southern Mississippi and William & Carey University, had the best showing at 154. The unemployment rate is 4.1 percent with a 59.8 percent labor force participation rate. The employment change is 1.5 percent and the labor force change is 0.9 percent.
The state’s capitol city wasn’t far behind at 173. The Jackson metropolitan area has an unemployment rate of 4 percent, with a 61.9 percent labor force participation rate. Employment grew by 1.3 percent and the labor force grew by 0.7 percent.
While Hattiesburg and Jackson were slightly better than stagnant, the Gulfport metro area fared much worse. Among the 324 metro areas, it came in at 282. The unemployment rate is around the state average at 4.8 percent, while the labor force participation rate is 54.1 percent. Employment grew by just 0.2 percent and the labor force contracted, decreasing by 0.4 percent. This made Gulfport one of 93 markets to see their labor force get smaller over the past year.
In Mississippi, growth is largely relegated to pockets, not metro areas.
Oxford and Lafayette county have a booming economy and a low unemployment rate thanks in large part to Ole Miss, but it generally doesn’t extend beyond the county line.
There’s a similar story in officially designated metro areas. In the three-country Hattiesburg metro area, Forrest county has an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent, which is in line with the state average. Lamar county, it’s western neighbor, has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state at 3.9 percent. Meanwhile, Perry county, which is east of Hattiesburg, has a 6.5 percent unemployment rate.
In the Jackson metro area, unemployment rates range from 3.7 percent in Rankin county to 6.5 percent in Copiah county.
This, of course, isn’t that different than what much of the smaller markets in America are experiencing.
While the Jackson City Council considers an ordinance which could drastically limit Airbnb and other short-term rental properties in the area, Jan Serpente continues to maintain and prepare her cottage in anticipation of her next guests.
She first learned of Airbnb about two years ago, when her youngest son, Sam, suggested she and her husband rent out their recently fixed-up wash house in their backyard. “One year he said, ‘mom, why don’t you rent this out?’” Within the first 24 hours that the space was listed on the Airbnb site, she had her first visitor scheduled. Two years later, she has welcomed and hosted over 200 guests in the Jackson area.
“I think people want to experience their travel, and this gives them an experience,” Jan says.
Jan and her husband moved to Jackson from the Coast after Katrina. Most of the guests she and her husband have hosted are either traveling from Memphis to New Orleans or from Dallas to the beach. A drive, Jan says, that is too long to cover in one day. However, she has also hosted visitors from Cambridge, England; New York; and locals looking for a weekend retreat.
For those visiting the area, Jan leaves out a list of places of interest, restaurant suggestions, and places to explore. Jan and her husband themselves have traveled a bit, though not extensively. Their last stay in a hotel ended when a lawnmower smashed into their room causing them to swear off hotels completely. She says that when someone visits a town, they generally want the local experience of that town. Which is what they get with an Airbnb. With Airbnb, we can give our customers that local town experience.
In Jan’s opinion, Airbnb’s growing popularity comes from a few factors; the comfort level an Airbnb space provides can offer an alternative to a national hotel chain, it generally costs less than a hotel, and an Airbnb can add to a traveler’s experience in ways most hotels just can’t.
Especially important to Jan is the comfort of her guests. She bakes fresh bread every day and makes sure to leave some in the cottage to welcome the guests when they arrive. She also leaves snacks like fruit and instant grits.
“It just makes me happy,” Jan added. “I’ve always liked visitors. I like to make them cozy beds, I like to make good food. So, it’s kind of a spiritual experience that you’re taking care of strangers. You want them to be comfortable, safe, happy. You want it to be a good experience for them.”
By adding to guests’ traveling experience, Jan gets an experience of her own. She describes Airbnb hosting as a way of seeing the world from the comfort of her own home. An experience she loves to share with her granddaughter, who often accompanies her in welcoming guests.
How does a potential renter know if they will be staying in a nice house? Airbnb uses a peer-to-peer review system. If an Airbnb is not up to standards, guests can complain or leave a bad rating. When customers rate a host poorly, that host is likely taken off the Airbnb site completely and kicked out of the system. If a host wants his or her location to stay up on the site, they must provide the best experience possible. This puts the power in the hands of the users and guests who stay at these Airbnb locations, rather than in the hands of government.
We want to keep this power in the hands of the costumers rather than forcing local restrictions on hosts, as various cities in Mississippi, including Jackson, are either attempting to do or have already done.
In Jan’s opinion, the city of Jackson should be doing things to promote Airbnb in Jackson.
“I think we’re doing the city of Jackson a favor,” Jan said. “We’re fabulous ambassadors. Visitors come here for a stay and I want it to be nice for them.”
Considering Jan’s level of constant guests, she is sure that this is what people want. And she enjoys putting on a good face for Jackson. Since moving here over a decade ago, Jan and her husband have considered if they wanted to stay in Jackson on several occasions. Ultimately, there is a lot about Jackson they are both proud of and they want to share that pride with others. Airbnb has given them a way to use their property to do exactly that.
“You kinda want to share that with other people, it’s easy to be here.”
The House and Senate have adopted the conference report to expand Mississippi’s film incentives program despite evidence that the program loses taxpayers money. It is on its way to Gov. Phil Bryant.
Those concerns were largely swept aside by proponents who either argued that the report from PEER was incomplete, inaccurate, or that there are other benefits that we can’t necessarily measure.
The 2015 report from PEER shows taxpayers receive just 49 cents for every dollar invested in the program. That means that for every dollar the state gives to production companies, we see just 49 cents in return for the general fund.
But Senate Bill 2603, which passed with few dissenting votes, will bring back the non-resident payroll portion of the incentives program. This allows for a 25 percent rebate on payroll paid to cast and crew members who are not Mississippi residents. It expired in 2017 and the Senate had refused to consider it. Until this year. Though the companies now have to be Mississippi-based production companies.
Two other incentive programs remained on the books. One is the Mississippi Investment Rebate, which offers a 25 percent rebate on purchases from state vendors and companies. The other is the Resident Payroll Rebate, which offers a 30 percent cash rebate on payroll paid to resident cast and crew members.
For those who question the PEER report, they are missing one key data point. All the studies on film incentives, and the body of research is significant, have painted a similar picture. We are not sitting on an island with some crazy, unsubstantiated report. As the PEER report outlined, no one is receiving more than 50 cents on every dollar put in the program.
This is why many of those states have scaled back or eliminated their programs. In 2009, all but six states offered some type of incentives for movie producers. As of 2018, just 31 states still have programs on the books. So, while other states are cutting back, Mississippi lawmakers appear interested in pressing forward.
And there is another point to be considered. Do we want Hollywood to think they control our state? That is certainly the emerging situation in Georgia, a state that has a massive film incentives program. Consider this recent tweet from actress Alyssa Milano:
Just last week, Gov. Phil Bryant signed a heartbeat bill into law. Or this commentary from director Rob Reiner concerning North Carolina’s bathroom bill a number of years ago:
When you incentive Hollywood to come to your state, they believe they can and should set policy for your state. If you dare to disagree with their value system, the script they follow is to economically boycott the hand that feeds them. We’ve seen this movie before. It’s not worth the price of admission.
Mississippi saw a slight uptick in the number of jobs last month according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Preliminary estimates show nonfarm payrolls grew from 1,161,300 in January to 1,161,900 in February. This is an increase of over 12,000 from this period one year ago, but down about 700 jobs from two months ago.
The unemployment rate saw a slight increase from 4.7 to 4.8 percent. It is down from 4.9 percent a year ago.
Manufacturing, trade, transportation, and utilities, leisure and hospitality, and government all saw increases in number of jobs over the past month. Construction, professional and business services, and education and health services all posted decreases in number of jobs over the same time period.
Government has now grown by 1,100 jobs year-over-year. Yet, the most recent Census estimates show population in the state was down 3,100 between 2017 and 2018 meaning the state now has more employees to serve less people.
Among neighboring states, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee also had growths in government employment ranging from 200-500 new employees. But they each also had increases in population over the prior year. Louisiana, which loss population last year as well, saw a decrease of 100 jobs in the government sector last month.
Louisiana is also the only neighboring state to have a loss of jobs from December, with a net loss of about 2,000 jobs.
A few years ago, the Mississippi legislature adopted a cottage food operators law, bringing the industry, those who bake goods at home and then sell to the public, into the light.
Cottage food operators, who have annual gross sales of less than $20,000, are given the freedom to sell goodies they bake in their own home, without the government inspecting their kitchen or providing a certificate.
Because of this law, those who had long been baking without asking government now had permission from the state. However, the law is limited. Many states don’t have limits on sales. Mississippi does and such limits are artificially low. Additionally, cottage food operators aren’t allowed to post images of their products for sale on Facebook, Instagram, or anywhere else on the web. These are just two of the many restrictions.
As a result of the internet exclusion, the Department of Health has sent cease and desist letters to the rogue operators who posted pictures of their creations online. The legislature attempted to mend this peculiar prohibition this year.
A bill sailed through the House that would have permitted online postings of food you bake at home. It also slightly raised the cap for gross sales to $35,000. It quietly died in the Senate without a vote.
Who could be against these entrepreneurs trying to earn a living or perhaps making extra money at home? Naturally, the established food industry. The Mississippi Restaurant Association, on their own website, has called the cottage food industry “problematic,” citing “widespread abuse creating an uneven playing field.”
They like to point to the fact that cottage food operators aren’t regulated by the government. That is true. But it that a bad thing? Instead of the cookie police, bakers are best regulated by the free market. An individual who sells an awful-tasting cookie or cake won’t be in business long.
This isn’t much different than the fight to limit food truck freedom. During much of 2018, the city of Tupelo debated restrictions on food trucks that were operating, and thriving, in the city. Were consumers unhappy with the food they were receiving? No, it was the brick-and-mortar restaurants who were unhappy.
The Tupelo city councilmen who were pushing for restrictions acknowledged they were interested in protecting established restaurants. Never mind the fact that any thriving downtown should welcome and encourage food trucks, it is simply not the business of government to prefer one industry, or one sector of an industry, or one participant, over another.
If the residents in Tupelo didn’t want food trucks, there would be no food trucks. All food trucks are doing is responding to market demands. In doing so, they are serving a consumer niche the way any prospering entrepreneur will. Fortunately, the city council relented and didn’t adopt burdensome regulations that would have driven food trucks out of business.
The legislature could have adopted statewide regulations that would have pre-empted local ordinances limiting food trucks, but they, again, decided it was not something they wanted to do.
The legislature also, once again, passed on a bill that would have allowed intrastate sales of agricultural products directly from the producer to consumers and would have prevented local governments from restricting those sales. This would have also opened the door for the legal sale of raw milk for human consumption.
Again, there was a much larger segment of the industry that didn’t want to see small farmers providing competitive pressure. And they won.
Whenever new entrepreneurs enter the arena, whatever that arena might be, the response from the established interests are generally the same. It doesn’t matter whether it’s restaurants not liking food trucks or cottage food operators, the fight waged against Uber and Lyft by the taxi monopolies, or the fight against Airbnb by the hotel lobby, incumbents will always seek government partners to protect their positions. We should recognize it when we see it.
Every incumbent industry will portray their request for protection as merely seeking fairness or consumer safety. But taxpayers are not simpletons; they are on to this game. They understand that much of these regulatory hurdles are about defending the insider’s market.
Unfortunately for consumers, too often the response by lawmakers is to agree to protect the established interests rather than letting the market choose the winners and losers. That was certainly the case this year.
This column appeared in the Commercial Dispatch on March 20, 2019.
The recent scandal regarding celebrities and the elite class and the college admissions of their children has riled up many as we wonder about the deserving child who was left out in favor of an undeserving child.
But even before this scandal, we knew Americans believed the primary consideration for college admissions should be high school grades.
This common belief runs directly against the narrative of Ivy League institutions, and many others, where the trap of identity-based admissions has affected both the highest and lower margins of applicants. However, this belief has reached the point where one ethnic group is being discriminated against simply for being exceptionally talented at achieving high grades.
Affirmative action was designed to provide a remedy to long-standing discrimination allowing schools “considerable deference” in how they select students. This concept of considerations to race and identity in education has been debated extensively in the courts.
These court battles began in 1978 with University of California v. Bakke to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which may soon make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter case is redefining the generational debate about affirmative action. Unlike other cases, which have questioned if students on the margins can be rejected so that diversity may be preserved at universities, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard asks if minority students that excel, can be discriminated against because of their race, specifically Asian students.
Harvard contends that the lawsuit is frivolous as Asians make up roughly six percent of the national population while making up more than 17 percent of Harvard students. Yet Harvard’s own argument is used against it by Students for Fair Admissions, who contend that Harvard’s knowledge of this led the university to discriminate against highly qualified Asian applicants in favor of non-Asian students. Essentially, Harvard’s case is that they have too many Asians.
While schools are granted privilege to foster “equality” in admissions, courts have consistently denied any effort to employ quotas or “racial-balancing” in admission considerations. If the accusations against Harvard are true, it is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will find the university went beyond the law. Regardless, the ruling here will likely have a big impact on future cases involving race-based, university admission policies.
Harvard does make a very good point in its lawsuit; they suffer from an over-representation of exceptionally talented applicants for admission. How awful it must be for them.
Suggesting that some people are just “too good” to be Harvard students could be seen as a symptom of the current times, yet it is more likely this sort of discrimination is a byproduct of the current structure of affirmative action. Diversity in education has proven to be beneficial, but not when the definition of diversity is narrowly confined to the color of skin or the country of origin. When diversity is programmatically enforced by an intentionally vague policy, you can bet actual diversity is not the goal; alterations to student populations based on emotional appeals are.
Such admission policies can be incredibly dangerous to colleges and Harvard has emerged as the face of it. Asian students often outperform white students (and every other race and ethnicity) on academic and extracurricular metrics. This is no secret in the Ivy League community, yet they lag far behind on personal appeals. The mysterious conglomeration of factors, which qualifies some to be Ivy League material and others not, is curiously subjective. And the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, have made the argument that such policy is inherently discriminatory.
Students, regardless of who they are and where they come from, should be judged by their academic records, their extracurricular accomplishments, and their personal references from school officials/teachers/coaches who know them best, not by arbitrary factors. The result of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard will likely impact admissions policy significantly. Let’s hope it rewards students who apply for admission based on the quality of their records and not the color of their skin or the country of their origin.
The legislature is very close to reinstating a provision in the film incentives program that died two years ago. And, in doing so, continuing and expanding a program that we know is losing taxpayer dollars.
Senate Bill 2603 has passed the Senate, and, last week, the House, with only minor changes that will need to be resolved before a bill is sent to Gov. Phil Bryant for his signature.
Mississippi currently has two incentives on the books. One is the Mississippi Investment Rebate, which offers a 25 percent rebate on purchases from state vendors and companies. The other is the Resident Payroll Rebate, which offers a 30 percent cash rebate on payroll paid to resident cast and crew members.
Previously, Mississippi had a non-resident payroll portion of the incentives program. This allows for a 25 percent rebate on payroll paid to cast and crew members who are not Mississippi residents. It expired two years ago, and the Senate has refused to consider it after passing the House twice.
It’s a different story this year.
A terrible return on investment of taxpayer dollars
A 2015 PEER report shows taxpayers receive just 49 cents for every dollar invested in the program. That means that for every dollar the state gives to production companies, we see just 49 cents in return. If you or I were receiving that return on our personal investments, we would fire our financial advisor. Of course, no one spends his or her own money as carefully as the person to whom that money belongs.
For those looking at a bright side, we are actually “doing better” than many other states. This includes our neighbors in Louisiana, who recover only 14 cents on the dollar. They also have one of the most generous programs in the country; it was unlimited until lawmakers capped it a couple years ago. (Other reports show the Pelican State recovering 23 cents on the dollar, but either way it’s a terrible investment.)
Beyond Mississippi and Louisiana, film incentives are a poor investment throughout the country. Numerous studies have been conducted on film incentives. All sobering for those worried about taxpayer protection. Here is a review of the return per tax dollar given, from 2008 through 2013. In these third-party studies, covering 12 different states, there was not a program that returned even 50 cents on the dollar.
Source: John Locke Foundation
Since this chart was published, studies on similar programs in Florida, Virginia, and West Virginia have shown similar results. No program had a positive ROI.
We have to do it if other people are
One of the commonly prescribed reasons for why need film incentives is it’s “good” for the state to have movies filmed here. As is often the case in government, we focus on the inputs. How many films are made here? What movie star was in Mississippi? That is nice, but the focus should be on outcomes.
The other common argument is that other states are doing it. Throughout the country, producers hold states hostage and threaten to move without incentives. Producers in Mississippi have raised the same point. Again, that is not good reason to essentially throw taxpayer money away.
Simply because another state is wasting money does not mean Mississippi should join them, or continue this practice.
In a comprehensive list of state film production incentives compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), we see states that do not have incentives for producers but offer tax breaks to everyone, without partiality. For example:
Alaska: No film incentive program. Effective July 1, 2015, the film production incentive program was repealed. Alaska has no state sales or income tax.
Delaware: No film incentive program. However, the state does not levy a sales tax.
Florida: This program sunset on June 30, 2016. It has not been renewed. The state does not levy a state income tax.
New Hampshire: No film incentive program. The state has no sales and use, or broad base personal income taxes.
South Dakota: No film incentive program. There is no corporate or personal income tax in South Dakota.
Our goal should be for Mississippi to have the most competitive business climate in the country. The tax breaks that a few chosen industries or companies receive should be made available to all. When we do that we will remove the need for taxpayer funded incentives.
Few items are more popular or numerous in the legislature than income or sales tax exemptions.
This year is no different. Numerous bills, introduced by both Democrats and Republicans, have been offered to exempt the sales tax on the retail sales of school supplies sometime between the last week of July and the first week of August. This will go along with the current sales tax holiday for clothing and footwear purchased in the last week of July.
There have been proposals for tax credits for child care expenses, for companies that hire ex-offenders, for grocers who purchase locally grown food or open supermarkets in “food deserts,” for certain hotel renovations, for businesses to open in certain corridors, for people who purchase certain homes in certain areas, for being a volunteer firefighter, for alternative fuel infrastructure, for being a “small town teacher,” for storm shelters, for ports and airport facilities, for locating a headquarters to this state, and the list goes on and on.
Notably, the House has already passed what is known as the “Mississippi Education Talent Recruitment Act,” the legislature’s response to “brain drain.” If enacted, recent graduates will be able to receive up to the full amount of their individual state income tax liability after they work in the state for five years.
At Mississippi Center for Public Policy, we want taxes to be as low as possible. But rather than limiting the Mississippi Education Talent Recruitment Act to someone who has graduated in the past two years, it should be available to everyone in the state and maybe we call it the “Mirror the Tennessee Income Tax Rate Act.”
Tennessee, of course, doesn’t charge an income tax. And they certainly don’t require you to own property, or complete additional hurdles, to receive a full credit as this proposal would. If you don’t own property, don’t own your own business, or you aren’t a teacher, you would only be eligible for a 50 percent rebate. Nor do you have to wait five years to receive the rebate in Tennessee. You just never pay income taxes.
It works well for the Volunteer State.
The intention of this tax exemption proposal is noble. The other examples range from good to silly, but the need for all these exemptions tells us one thing: Our current tax policies are not competitive. Therefore, we have to do something about it to attract (insert whatever you think the state should try to attract).
We have taken the approach that the only way to attract people is through individual incentives. Which, unfortunately, requires entrepreneurs to focus on favor-seeking in the legislature rather than on improving products and services and growing their business through market-based competition. Playing the game in such a manner gives the state more power and the ability to play favorites, essentially picking winners and losers, thus giving the consumers less power.
By following the lead of high-growth, low-tax states in the Southeast that have lower taxes, lighter licensure and regulatory burdens, and a smaller government, we will be able to offer opportunities for people regardless of their age or their industry.
Mississippi is one of the numerous states that offer taxpayer funded film incentives to Hollywood producers in an attempt to have movies shot in the Magnolia State.
And, the prospect of a movie star eating at a local restaurant or a movie being filmed in your home town is appealing to most people. Yet it shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers.
There are two programs on the books. One is the Mississippi Investment Rebate, which offers a 25 percent rebate on purchases from state vendors and companies. The other is the Resident Payroll Rebate, which offers a 30 percent cash rebate on payroll paid to resident cast and crew members.
A third rebate, a 25 percent rebate on payroll paid to cast and crew members who are not Mississippi residents, expired two years ago. But lawmakers seem very interested in reviving it this year.
So, who could be against this? For one, taxpayers ought to be. Film incentives are a losing proposition. And that is according to the state’s own data.
A 2015 PEER Report shows taxpayers receive just 49 cents for every dollar invested in the program. That means that for every dollar the state gives to production companies, we see just 49 cents in return. If you or I were receiving that return on our personal investments, we would fire our financial advisor. Of course, no one spends his or her own money as carefully as the person to whom that money belongs.
An ironic, or perhaps sad, side note is that we are actually “doing better” than other states when it comes to film incentives. This includes our neighbors in Louisiana, who recover only 14 cents on the dollar. They also have one of the most generous programs in the country; it was unlimited until lawmakers capped it a couple years ago. Other reports show the Pelican State recovering 23 cents on the dollar, but either way it’s a terrible investment.
Beyond Mississippi and Louisiana, film incentives are a poor investment throughout the country. Numerous studies have been conducted, all providing sobering statistics for those worried about spending tax dollars wisely.
For every dollar spent, Connecticut receives just 7 cents in return, Michigan receives 11 cents, Massachusetts receives 13 cents, New Mexico receives 14 cents, North Carolina receives 19 cents, Ohio receives 21 cents, and Wisconsin receives 23 cents. We could go on.
Studies from numerous other states over the past decade show taxpayers losing wherever film incentives have been tried. That is the reason many of those states have scaled back or eliminated their programs. In 2009, all but six states offered some type of incentives for movie producers. Today, just 31 states still have programs on the books. So, while other states are cutting back, Mississippi lawmakers appear interested in pressing forward.
How do these states, which no longer offer incentives, try to attract movie producers?
Alaska, for example, repealed their program in 2015. But they advertise their lack of state sales or income tax. Similar story in Florida, who let their program expire in 2016. They do not levy a state income tax.
There are many reasons Mississippi is attractive for filming. It is the quintessential Southern state with historic squares along with beautiful antebellum mansions. There is the vast farmland of the Delta, the beaches of the Coast, and the numerous forests throughout the state. Mississippi has the lowest cost-of-living in the country and it is a right-to-work state with very competitive wages. We have plenty to sell.
One lawmaker recently called it “criminal” that the movie Free State of Jones, a movie about Mississippi, was not filmed in Mississippi. We lost out in the race-to-the-bottom bidding war with Louisiana. We should consider it criminal that lawmakers are so willing to part with our tax dollars in a losing endeavor.
Rather, our goal should be for Mississippi to have the most competitive business climate in the country. The tax breaks that a few chosen industries or companies receive should be made available to all.
When we do that we will remove the need for taxpayer funded incentives.
This column appeared in the Daily Leader on February 14, 2019.