Missouri’s application for the federal Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) reads like a blueprint for major reform. It promises a “bold and comprehensive vision” that will “fundamentally shift the healthcare experience” for rural Missourians. That kind of language suggests that the state is ready to address long-standing structural barriers to care—and to the credit of those who wrote the application, it does identify many of the right problems.
A portion of the federal funding approved in the One Big Beautiful Bill last summer was designed to help states expand access, improve outcomes, and rethink how care is delivered in rural communities that have long struggled with provider shortages and limited infrastructure. As I’ve written many times before, Missouri, with large rural regions and persistent access challenges, is an obvious candidate for that kind of transformation.
But when you get to Appendix 1 (page 56), where Missouri outlines its actual policy commitments, the tone changes.
Take certificate of need (CON) laws. Instead of proposing reforms, the state spends its time disputing outside criticism, arguing that a report from the Cicero Institute “inaccurately claims” Missouri’s CON program is overly restrictive and that critics “overstate Missouri’s regulatory reach and understate its flexibility.” The focus shifts away from change and toward claiming the current framework really isn’t that bad.
The same pattern shows up on scope of practice (which procedures certain healthcare professionals are allowed to perform). Rather than committing to specific changes, the state says it will “reassess our current scope of practice laws” and “identify the optimal legislative and regulatory changes” at some point in the future. The emphasis remains on further review rather than action.
These are only a few of many examples that make the contrast in this application so striking. The front half lays out a vision built on “innovation,” “transformation,” and system-wide change. But the appendix, where commitments actually matter, falls back on the status quo.
It is true that the federal government bought into that vision. Missouri was awarded significant funding through this program, with the expectation that the state would follow through on what it proposed to improve access in rural communities. The application suggests that the state understands the problem. The commitments, however, raise questions about whether state leaders are serious about implementing real solutions.
As Missouri begins spending the RHTP funds it receives over the next five years, taxpayers should pay close attention to how closely the state’s actions align with its stated vision.
Recently, Show-Me Institute analysts have been sounding the alarm on Missouri’s literacy crisis. The data are sobering—42 percent of our state’s fourth graders can barely read, representing some of the worst results we have seen in two decades. When a child reaches the end of third grade without the ability to decode text, they do not just fall behind. They are essentially locked out of the rest of the curriculum.
Some rural Missouri students, fortunately, are beginning to make breakthroughs with help from The New Teacher’s Project (TNTP) and its Rural Schools Early Literacy Collaborative. This program helps educators move away from the discredited balanced literacy models of the past and encourages them to embrace the science of reading. This signals a return to proven, evidence-based instruction that prioritizes how the human brain actually learns to process language.
For too long, Missouri classrooms have relied on the three-cueing system, which is a method that encouraged students to guess words based on pictures or context rather than sounding them out. As Institute analysts have argued repeatedly, reading is not a natural skill like speaking; it must be explicitly taught. Focusing on phonemic awareness helps students identify individual sounds and connect them to written letters, building the accuracy and speed necessary to make sense of the text as a whole.
While it is heartening to see individual districts taking the lead, Missouri’s recovery requires systemic policy changes. We need essential reforms to ensure this new approach becomes the standard rather than the exception. First, we need universal screening to identify struggling readers in the earliest grades so no child slips through the cracks. Second, we must address accountability in teacher preparation. Currently, too many Missouri universities fail to train new teachers in evidence-based methods, and we must ensure our educators enter the classroom equipped with tools that work. Finally, we must make sure that students who are far behind in reading skills are not promoted to fourth grade.
If we fail to get the foundation right in the early years, we are setting our students up for a lifetime of struggle. The TNTP program is just one example of how we can prioritize research over rhetoric and turn the tide on literacy.
Susan Pendergrass speaks with Todd Davidson, Vice President of Programs at the State Policy Network, about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the think tank world. They explore what AI is good at and where it falls short, how organizations like the Show-Me Institute can use it to become more productive without losing their edge, why face-to-face relationships will only become more valuable as AI-generated content floods the internet, how a Hawaii think tank used an AI agent to help fire victims submit legislative testimony, what good policy looks like in an AI-driven energy landscape, and more.
Susan Pendergrass (00:00) Great, well, thanks so much for joining us this morning. Todd Davidson of the State Policy Network, to talk about the topic du jour: artificial intelligence. Thanks so much for coming on to talk about it. I’m afraid to even say anything out loud about AI because by next week it’ll be…
Todd Davidson (00:11) Yeah, happy to be here. Thanks for having me.
Susan Pendergrass (00:18) Nothing really ages — it changes so fast. But I did just read that Mark Zuckerberg has an AI agent who is performing his CEO duties for him. Did you see that? Why not, right?
Todd Davidson (00:28) I saw that, yeah. And then he can just kick back, go down to his Hawaii bunker and just let Facebook run itself.
Susan Pendergrass (00:37) Yeah, I mean, I still haven’t really dabbled in agentic AI, but I know it’s right there and I’m going to want to do it soon. We’re going to talk about AI in the think tank world, but I have to check legislation and hearings and see how those things are going every day. I can well imagine an AI agent doing that for me.
Todd Davidson (01:01) Yeah, if it’s properly trained. So ShowMe Institute, to give the audience broader context, is a member of State Policy Network, and we have sister organizations like ShowMe in states across the country. The Libertas Institute, which is based out of Utah, did exactly what you’re talking about. Connor Boyack, the CEO, built a legislative tracking system that then feeds into their scorecard where they keep track of legislation. He said it took him about eight hours of work to code the agentic AI, but now it does the work automatically. Of course it needs fine-tuning and always has a final human observer that verifies everything, but it’s being used for those purposes right now across the country.
Susan Pendergrass (01:59) So we’re in the think tank world, and it’s probably more of an art than a science at the state level. Tracking the policies — first of all, thinking about the policies that we think would be best for Missouri, then doing a bunch of research on those policies, then creating content on those policies, then trying to talk to legislators and hope that they see our point of view, and that they enact actual laws that reflect those policies. That’s a really labor-intensive job. Which parts of that could you see being picked up by AI?
Todd Davidson (02:33) I’m by no means an expert on AI, but I work with someone who is. What has been explained to me is that AI is very good at synthesizing information. It’s very good at predicting — it essentially predicts the next word. It takes all these inputs and predicts the next set of words, which comes out to us as sentences. So if you are able to give it certain inputs — say, I want you to look at these bills, I want you to look at these things — and give it a sort of walled garden, it can then be prompted to produce any type of analysis that you want. The reason you want that walled garden is because AI can still hallucinate. It can make stuff up. Actually, this just went viral last week: a lawyer down in Georgia went before the Georgia Supreme Court and had AI produce her entire argument. It cited five fictitious cases, and the judges called that out. So you have to give it constraints and say, here are the data inputs, now summarize this for me. And it can get you a pretty solid first draft of that summary. Of course, you’re still going to need a human to go through and edit it and add voice and texture to it. But summarizing that data, saying tell me which of these align with our principles or does not align with our principles — it would be very good at that kind of thing. What it’s not going to be able to do is the creative part. When you think about what is the policy that we want to design for Missouri, what does Missouri need — it’s not at the stage where it could do that. That’s where you would still want Show-Me Institute experts to be crafting those kinds of things. But if something’s already out there and existing, you can summarize it and score it based on criteria pretty easily.
Susan Pendergrass (04:35) So given how quickly firms are moving towards AI — and in fact mandating AI because it’s such a time saver and productivity increase — how does a think tank position itself in that world? There’s so much talk about AI just replacing all of our jobs. Maybe it does replace my job — I don’t know. I’ve heard podcasts generated by AI in my voice, so it could be doing this job right now. I would like to think it wouldn’t be as great, but how does a think tank position itself? What’s our value add in that scenario?
Todd Davidson (05:12) Start by going back to what your mission and objective is. ShowMe Institute — and by the way, I am a resident of Missouri and a big fan of the Show-Me Institute, both from my SPN perspective and from my Missouri resident perspective — we have principles: free markets, a robust civil society, a thriving economy. We want the feds to get out of the way in a lot of cases. We want the government to get out of the way. And then how we execute that mission is through policy change, mostly at the state level, though I know you also work at the local level. So state and local policy change is the objective. How do we go about that? We produce research and then we advocate — in some cases talking directly to policymakers, communicating out to the public through op-eds and things so that the public then talks to lawmakers. And ultimately we get policies passed that lower the income tax, reduce barriers to work, and provide more options for kids in schools. So what AI is going to do is make research and content much easier to produce. By research, again, I mean that summarization kind of research — it’s going to make that kind of stuff extremely easy for folks to produce. Everybody’s going to have a research assistant. What AI cannot do is personal relationships. It will never be able to do that. What it also cannot do is tour the entire state of Missouri, know all of the history and relationships and connections of people throughout the state. So I believe Show-Me Institute and all of the affiliates across the country that are state and local based are going to have an advantage because you’re in your community. You know people, you know policymakers, you know community leaders, you know people that are affected by your policies. And that’s something AI is not going to be able to do. AI can look at the statistics and arguments and academic literature, and it could put together a brief, and that could be useful. It would make your job more efficient — you’d be able to produce those things in a fraction of the time you do right now. But then with that extra time, I would use it to go out and build stronger relationships in the communities, and then use those relationships towards policy change.
Susan Pendergrass (07:51) What about grassroots? More grassroots-type stuff?
Todd Davidson (07:55) Grassroots very much. AI is going to have an interesting relationship with grassroots. In one way, it actually makes it easier for grassroots individuals to engage their legislature. On the other hand, it’s going to create a flood of grassroots engagement digitally. So face-to-face grassroots engagement is going to have more impact. I’ll tell you a story: Hawaii had the terrible fire that destroyed Lahaina a few years back. Hawaii has terrible building codes — it’s incredibly hard to build homes there. That town was completely destroyed, so the state needed to relax its building codes in order for homes to be rebuilt. Well, they weren’t making this change. Show-Me’s sister think tank, called the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, built an AI platform that allowed individuals to submit testimony to the legislature. Testimony has a higher bar, right? You can email your lawmakers pretty easily, but testimony goes into the legislative record and has to follow a certain format and be structured in a certain way. That’s not something that grassroots individuals were very equipped to provide. So a think tank would typically provide the testimony and then get grassroots supporters to send emails to lawmakers. What Grassroots Institute of Hawaii did was build an AI agent so that an individual could say, “Hey, my house was burnt down, I need these things,” and the AI agent would turn that into testimony and submit it directly to the legislature. It resulted in a skyrocketing number of testimonies being filed. Because of that, the legislature said, “Wow, we’ve heard from 500 constituents — we’ve never heard from that many constituents before.” So they relaxed their regulatory regime, and now homes are being built in Lahaina much faster.
Susan Pendergrass (09:48) Did they know that AI was doing it? Were legislators thinking, okay, this is AI?
Todd Davidson (10:12) That is why they went through testimony. Legislators’ email inboxes — they’re not reading their emails anymore, right? They get thousands of them. But through testimony, the AI was not making up the stories. The people had to fill out the content and explain their story. The AI was just structuring it in a way to make sure that it got submitted as testimony. I do think that is a bit of an arms race. At some point the same thing that has happened with email will happen — there will just be thousands of pieces of testimony and you won’t be able to read all of them. So there was a bit of a first-mover advantage. And once that becomes ubiquitous, I do think what you predicted is going to happen, where legislators just say, well, this is AI-facilitated. And that’s where it’s going to have to go back to face-to-face, bringing those people in.
Susan Pendergrass (11:08) I think you’re absolutely right. As more video content comes out and we all realize it’s AI — I just don’t really believe that any videos are real anymore. I don’t really believe pictures are real. I don’t really believe music is real. And it doesn’t necessarily bother me that much, but I think because of that skepticism and unwillingness to believe in digital content, things happening in real life right in front of us are going to take on higher and higher value, so that we know for sure that if I’m speaking to a legislator, it is me saying it and what’s coming out of my head. That’s about the only way we’re going to know if something is real — or the default is just going to become AI-generated.
Todd Davidson (12:01) 100%, I absolutely agree. And that’s where I think organizations like ShowMe are well positioned. Because you’re in the state of Missouri, you can be in Jefferson City or you can be in St. Louis or Kansas City in those face-to-face relationships. It’s going to make your government affairs personnel far more valuable, your fundraisers who can be face-to-face with donors far more valuable, grassroots activists that are face-to-face. It’s going to put a premium on face-to-face interactions for sure. I agree — there’s going to be so much content out there. You’re still going to need content because that gives you credibility, it gives you what you’re going to talk about. But then you’ve got to pair that with the face-to-face interaction, otherwise it’ll just get ignored.
Susan Pendergrass (12:47) And you can definitely see the gap when people are generating stuff through AI and they don’t know the subject matter enough — like you said about the attorney. But there is definitely a role for humans to say, I mean, I do this all the time with AI: I’ll say give me five of these things, give me five infographics or something like that. But the human has to know which one is the best or which one makes the most compelling argument. AI simply really can’t do that. So while some people would love to believe that AI is going to run the world, I do believe there is an emerging role for human discernment to know which AI products are better than other AI products. Would you agree with that?
Todd Davidson (13:32) Yeah, 100%. I think the sweet spot is utilizing AI to make yourself more efficient or do things that you don’t like doing. But then that raises you up into that discernment phase where you’re the one making the call. I do this all the time — I’m having conversations with AI to increase the outputs. I should not spend any time making infographics. I’m not good at it. But I can have a conversation with AI where it produces that infographic much more effectively than I could. I’ve also found that, if you put the prompting on it, it can help you find those particular sources that you’re looking for. Say you want to write a survey on school choice research — it can help you gather all of those materials much faster. But then you have to make sure that it’s of high quality.
Susan Pendergrass (14:35) What do you think about the current pushback on AI-generated pictures? Do you think that is just a learning phase we all need to get through? Some top artists on Spotify have been determined to be AI-generated.
Todd Davidson (14:57) Really?
Susan Pendergrass (14:59) Yeah. The number two Christian artist is just AI, and across all genres there are artists with millions of subscribers who are just AI-generated music based on what AI knows we all like. So we do like it. Does it matter that there’s no real person writing the music? I don’t know.
Todd Davidson (15:12) It’s kind of sad. Yeah.
Susan Pendergrass (15:21) I know the initial reaction is, that’s sad. But then after a while you’re like, I don’t know.
Todd Davidson (15:26) There is going to be intense pushback to all things AI. AI is very unpopular right now. I saw some polling just last week that showed it is the number one concern of voters. There will be a populist pushback against AI. We’re seeing this pushback against the data centers. There’s even polling that showed a plurality of the population believes it’s immoral to use AI. And I think it gets at the core of some of what you’re talking about here — yes, there’s this very popular, satisfying music, but it loses some human element because there’s not a human behind it. I do think we’re going to see a lot of pushback to AI on multiple dimensions. There’s that cultural dimension. There’s the economic anxiety dimension right now: a fear that AI is driving up energy costs, a fear that AI could take my job. There’s going to be pretty significant pushback. Right now we’re mostly seeing that in anti-data center efforts, trying to stop the building up of data centers across the country. I was looking at some Democratic pollsters today who were pitching that Democrats should advocate for a guaranteed job, guaranteed income, guaranteed healthcare, and a guaranteed home if you lose your job to AI. That kind of populist messaging is going to resonate with a lot of the public. What is the response going to be to that? What are the other solutions that we could advocate for that both allow the continued growth and opportunity and also allow continued innovation around AI, because we’re going to need AI to continue to develop?
Susan Pendergrass (17:30) It’s already here. I mean, we’re doing this in reverse order. And I think my opinion is that massive new technologies always get pushback — like the car. People were on their horses, and then we started designing roads for cars. Calculators got a lot of pushback, the internet got a lot of pushback. But ultimately people decided that they liked it better. I think AI is the same — we just have to figure out how to work with it. And I know that it is threatening to take a lot of jobs, but I see it more as a good thing. It gives us an opportunity to become the expert over AI. AI is not going to be the expert — we still need the human component. Like you said, face-to-face interactions. Legislators are still going to know what Missourians want and how to represent their constituents, and those are real-world issues. The data center pushback is because I don’t want to look out my window and hear a buzz and see a data center — I don’t want all that land going to data centers. That’s a real-world, in-person issue. But I just think we’re going to have to learn to work with it. I don’t think robots are going to — maybe this is where I don’t want to say things out loud — but maybe the robots will take over the world, I don’t know. But personally I feel like it is helpful to get a lot more content out, because you don’t know what’s going to resonate with stakeholders. Whether it’s a video or an infographic or a report or a different type of content, the fact that we can generate these things much more quickly I think is a benefit to us, and it makes the in-person time more meaningful to me.
Todd Davidson (19:11) You’re absolutely right. When a new technology comes out there’s going to be pushback, and organizations like ours have to figure out what’s the policy framework that allows that innovation to thrive without getting in the way. And fortunately we have a lot of those policies already. Like Avery, your colleague at Show-Me Institute, talks a lot about energy. One of the biggest pushbacks on AI is that it’s driving up energy costs. There’s some research that shows that’s not quite what’s happening. What’s happening is a lot of green policies that got passed in the 2010s are coming to roost — the renewable portfolio standards and those things are really what’s driving up energy costs. But even still, what can we do to make energy more affordable and reliable, even with a bunch of data centers added to the grid? And Avery’s got good policy on this: expanding nuclear power, expanding the use of reliable energy sources.
Susan Pendergrass (20:23) It’s separating out consumer electricity from data center electricity. You can carve these things differently.
Todd Davidson (20:29) Yeah, that’s another one — where the data center has its own power source. So there are policies out there that can mitigate it. And on the job question, unfortunately AI is happening at the same time that we’re having a continued cost of living and inflation issue. It’s one more thing that is driving anxiety. It’s not the root cause of what’s going on — we’ve got other factors that we need to address to get inflation under control, particularly on the energy side.
Susan Pendergrass (21:08) Yeah, but I do think it’s great that we have so many opportunities to expand or improve how we do things. In our little corner of the world, which is think tanks, we’ve been doing things kind of the same way for a long time. So I think a new approach to how we do business is a welcome change, and I think we could be a lot more effective.
Todd Davidson (21:38) Yeah, I think we’re going to see far more productive think tanks on the research side. On the litigation side, I was talking to Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. They litigate a lot of cases. With the advent of AI, every lawyer essentially got a legal clerk right away. They went from nine lawyers and a handful of legal clerks to nine lawyers who each now have their own AI legal clerk. It’s dramatically expanded the number of cases they can take on. And the same thing on the research side. On the marketing side, production of content is going to be quite a bit easier and more cost effective as well.
Susan Pendergrass (22:26) Well, I appreciate having a chance to talk to somebody who has a positive perspective on it, because I do hear a lot of doom and gloom when it comes to AI. I was reminded by somebody that many of the scenarios in movies and books about AI are very dystopian, but perhaps it’ll be utopian. We don’t know. It’s all in how we approach it, right?
Todd Davidson (22:48) Yeah, it is. It’s going to be an exciting new world that we live in and we’re right on the frontier.
Susan Pendergrass (22:54) Anyone with little kids, like you — who knows what the world’s going to look like when they’re going to college. So you’ve got to stay flexible, right? Well, thanks so much, Todd. I appreciate you coming and talking to us about it. We’ll have to talk about it again sometime soon when the whole thing has changed.
Todd Davidson (23:02) Yep, stay flexible and always be learning. Yeah, sounds good. Thanks, Susan.
As technology companies try to meet the skyrocketing demand for AI-specialized computing capacity, they are dotting the country with data centers to the dismay of some and the delight of others. As is all too often the case in Missouri, many of these companies are being offered taxpayer-supported subsidies or tax exemptions.
For example, Independence, Missouri, is giving Nebius more than $6 billion in tax breaks over the next 20 years for a “hyper-scale” data center, and Montgomery County has offered Amazon hundreds of millions in tax abatements to build a data center near New Florence. But why would subsidies be needed when it seems like data-center developers have money to burn and are desperate for suitable building locations?
Recent actions of data-center developers suggest that it is not the cost of building and operating those facilities that is the barrier; the main problems appear to be finding pathways to secure reliable energy generation and getting their centers online smoothly and quickly (speed-to-operation).
These two obstacles are so serious that the major technology companies (Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc.) recently met with President Trump and signed the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” to supply and pay for their own power for their AI data centers.
Why would these companies agree to take on this expense? Because their constraint is not cash. For these firms, time is money. The costs of delays in permitting and interconnection outweigh the value of a local tax incentive.
The negative effects of economic development subsidies and tax breaks are well known. When local officials offer these incentives, they diminish positive benefits that could come from a new data-center development: increased property-tax revenue to fill in the gaps for local services or be used to lower the overall tax rate of the community.
With all of this in mind, rather than just doing what most other states do (handing out checks or tax exemptions) Missouri should work on policies that actually deliver what these companies need most: pathways to secure and reliable energy generation, regulatory certainty, and speed-to-operation.
For local communities, this means they should not offer taxpayer dollars. Even with big tech agreeing to pay for their own power, many municipalities will still try to lure projects with incentives. No doubt the companies will take whatever money is offered to them, but subsidies are unlikely to significantly drive their decisions about where to locate.
Instead, local communities should offer a stable, predictable permitting environment and a suitable location to build. That would help address the greater desire for certainty and speed-to-operation.
And at the state level we should think even bigger. Policies like consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) could help make Missouri a true hub for data center development—without using unnecessary subsidies.
CRE would enable private electricity providers to serve large, energy-intensive customers independent of the existing, permission-heavy grid structure by allowing them to build their own power plants. Rather than spreading the costs for this infrastructure, CRE would create a “parallel path to energy abundance” —one financed by the large customers who demand the power.
CRE would allow these data centers to work with a private partner to meet their own energy needs, with less red tape, more certainty, more control, and more freedom to innovate. These benefits are likely to be more appealing than subsidies.
Unfortunately, offering subsidies seems to be a reflexive reaction in Missouri when there is an opportunity to attract a new business. But especially in this case, Missouri would be better off focusing on what the data center sector really needs. Efficient regulatory and permitting policies (like CRE), a predictable and stable environment in which to construct, and abundant energy would be far better suited to attracting and improving data center development than taxpayer dollars.
A bad idea doesn’t get better with age. Bad ideas aren’t wine, jeans, or your high school memories. The tax subsidies for the Post-Dispatch building redevelopment in downtown St. Louis were a bad idea back in 2019 when the development was proposed, and they are a bad idea now.
Using tax subsidies for economic development rarely benefits the public. Instead, it lowers the risk and increases the returns for private investors. Under a capitalist system, the relationship between risk and reward for investors can be a wonderful thing, but in recent decades the government has somehow decided the public should get involved in private business dealings through tax subsidies and incentives. Taxpayers in St. Louis were left holding the bag for the failed St. Louis Marketplace tax increment financing (TIF) plan, the tax subsidy package for the Renaissance Hotel that was literally sold on the courthouse steps, and numerous other failed, subsidized enterprises. Most economic development schemes are like an expensive game of musical chairs in which the taxpayer is always the one with nowhere to sit.
The tax subsidy package for the old Post-Dispatch building at 900 N. Tucker on the northern edge of downtown St. Louis was approved by the Board of Aldermen in 2019. It primarily consisted of a $12 million TIF package. The summary included with the legislation featured the normal jargon required for such bills, and it included a statement that the development “will have approximately 1,250 jobs with an average salary of $76,500.”
How has that jobs promise worked out? Well, OK at first. The most recent annual TIF report (2024) filed by the developers with the state auditor repeated the same number of 1,250 estimated jobs created. It also listed 830 jobs created so far. There are two ways to look at that number, and both are accurate. The first is that, once again, developers exaggerated their job creation in order to get the subsidies they wanted. That often happens, and it may have happened here. The second is that getting to two-thirds of the promised jobs is actually better than many other subsidized developments, and maybe the developers deserve some credit. Not enough credit to justify all the subsidies in the first place, but, you know, some.
Except that recent actions indicate that the development is highly unlikely to ever get to 1,250, and it may quickly move in the other direction. The largest tenant in the redevelopment at 900 N. Tucker is Block, formerly known as Square. As you may have read, Block recently announced that it was laying off 4,000 people companywide, almost half of its total workforce. How many of those layoffs will be in St. Louis in unknown at this time, but the company previously announced much smaller layoffs in Missouri in both 2024 and 2025, so it seems unlikely that its St. Louis office will be unscathed.
I am not judging the company about the layoffs. If artificial intelligence is making some employees obsolete (the company’s stated reason for the move) then those people should be let go so they can do something else with their lives. That’s the creative destruction of capitalism. But this situation is a perfect example of why cities and counties should not give subsidies to private companies based on promises of employment, growth, renewal, or whatever the vibe of the moment is.
Numerous economic studies have disproved the belief that tax subsidies lead to economic growth. If tax subsidies worked, the City of St. Louis would already be awash in riches. Tax incentives have been piled on top of tax subsidies under every acronym under the sun for decades. None of it has worked. The city should focus on keeping tax rates level and low for everyone, not high for most and low (because of special exemptions) for the politically connected. A reliance on subsidies rewards cronyism, over-promising, and political grandstanding, but it doesn’t lead to real economic success. Just ask the Block employees who may be laid off soon.
The city of Herculaneum in Jefferson County is showing how use taxes can be properly added into the municipal revenue mix. A use tax is simply a sales tax on goods you purchase online (or through catalogs) and have delivered to your home. Many cities and counties have added them in recent years as online shopping has grown. Voters often approve them, but sometimes they say “no, thank you.”
Supporters of use taxes say they level the playing field between online purchases and actual stores from a cost perspective, along with raising revenue for local services. That is true, and I have generally been supportive of use tax expansion in recent years. Broadening the sales tax base is a good thing.
However, I have also called for cities and counties to offset the increased revenues from use taxes with cuts to other taxes (at least partly). That approach gives you the benefits of expanding the tax base, equalizing competition between types of retailers, and some increased tax revenues without giving local governments a windfall in tax money. Unfortunately, most local governments have shared my enthusiasm for the first three parts, but not the last one.
But Herculaneum is doing it the right way. Herculaneum has included in the ballot language for its use tax vote on April 7 that, if the use tax is passed, the city will reduce property taxes by ten percent to partly offset the new revenue collections. Regular readers will know that I support making property taxes the foundation of local government revenue, but that doesn’t mean I want high property taxes. If Herculaneum can expand its sales tax base while lowering its property tax rate for everyone, that is a reasonable trade-off for taxpayers and residents.
Neglecting a problem doesn’t make it go away, or cheaper to fix. Missouri is learning that lesson with regard to its IT systems right now.
As I’ve written before, many of Missouri’s government computer systems are critically out of date. COVID relief funds helped jumpstart long-needed modernization efforts, but the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill last July means new federal requirements will soon depend on those upgrades.
Missouri’s Department of Social Services (DSS) has been tasked with integrating its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid eligibility systems while preparing for new community engagement requirements. This integration has been needed for years, but the new federal rules make it urgent. The goal is straightforward: simplify how benefits are administered while reducing costly errors. If Missouri cannot bring those error rates down, the state will be responsible for a larger share of program costs.
Some officials have warned that meeting the new requirements could force the department to shift resources away from other modernization work. There is no doubt funding plays a role. Modernizing large government IT systems can be expensive. But in this case, stronger systems are exactly what will make complying with new federal mandates possible.
There are reasons to worry about how this effort will go. This is not the first time DSS has faced a difficult administrative task, and the last major one did not go smoothly. When federal pandemic rules suspended Medicaid eligibility reviews, states had time to prepare for the return of normal operations. Missouri did not use that window to get ahead or fully modernize its systems. When eligibility reviews resumed and the state had to reassess hundreds of thousands of enrollees, Missouri struggled immensely.
More recently, Missouri’s experience with large IT modernization efforts across state government offers another warning. Lawmakers were told a few weeks ago that completing upgrades to the state’s financial management system will cost more than $250 million. This is a project that is already significantly behind schedule and over budget. It should be noted that Missouri’s difficulty with modernization is partly the result of how long these systems were allowed to fall behind. It‘s not surprising that the longer upgrades are delayed, the harder and more expensive they become.
The challenge Missouri faces now is that many of the policies it must implement depend on the very systems still awaiting modernization. Community engagement requirements require technology capable of tracking employment data. More frequent eligibility renewals require information that can move accurately between programs. Lower error rates require systems that can catch mistakes before they turn into federal penalties.
As lawmakers finalize Missouri’s budget in the weeks ahead, this issue should remain front of mind. Modernizing the systems that run the state’s safety net is not a project the state can afford to ignore any longer.
There’s no getting around the fact that Missouri will ultimately have to upgrade these systems. The only real question now is whether the state does it in time to avoid more costly mistakes and federal penalties.
Susan Pendergrass and Patrick Tuohey join Zach Lawhorn to discuss their new report, The Public Safety Climate in the City of St. Louis. They explore what the data actually show about crime trends over the past two decades, how St. Louis compares to similar cities like Cincinnati and Memphis, why crime perception lags so far behind the data, the challenges facing the 911 system and police staffing, why public disorder in high-traffic neighborhoods may be doing as much damage to the city’s reputation as violent crime itself, what it would take to make residents actually feel safer, and more.
Zach Lawhorn (00:00) Welcome to the Show Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show Me Opportunity, and today I’m joined by Susan Pendergrass and Patrick Tuohey from the Show Me Institute. Today we’re going to be talking about some work that the two of you have done on public safety and crime, specifically in the city of St. Louis. But before we get into the project, I want to talk to you both about your perception of crime as people who have both lived in and frequently visit the city of St. Louis. So Susan, I want to start with you. Before you started this project, before you started looking at the data, when someone said “Is the city of St. Louis dangerous?” what was your perception before you started this project?
Susan Pendergrass (00:38) I only moved to the city of St. Louis in 2015, so there’s a long period of time before I lived there. I was in D.C. for part of that, and my perception before I moved there was that it was dangerous. The Ferguson incident had just happened and I knew that there was a lot of crime. But then when I moved to St. Louis, my husband and I decided to live in the city itself and we loved our neighborhood. It was the coolest with this super cool house built around the time of the World’s Fair. It was amazing. But I never felt really safe. We started leaving our car doors unlocked because our cars would get rifled through. We had a smash-and-grab right within two weeks. I called to report the smash-and-grab and was told that they don’t take reports on them. That was new for me. We had to keep a lot of lights on outside. We didn’t really walk our dogs after dark. I felt like lots of times I would go by police cars sitting on corners idling, but it didn’t necessarily make me feel safer because I wasn’t sure how much they were doing. I also realized people run stoplights, run stop signs, use the right parking lane to pass, and that was all new for me. So I got this feeling that the rule of law wasn’t enforced very well in the city, and that just doesn’t feel good as somebody who has bought a house there and lives there.
Zach Lawhorn (02:06) Patrick, as someone who lives in Kansas City across the state, two questions. What do you think the perception is over there on the western half of the state? And then as someone who comes into St. Louis regularly, what was your perception of the safety situation in the city?
Patrick Tuohey (02:22) A lot of the issues that Susan and I explored in this paper bore out here in Kansas City. I’ve lived in cities my whole life. I understand that every city is going to have the parts you don’t want to go to, the parts that are rougher than others. Kansas City certainly has that. I’ve had my car broken into here in my driveway a number of times, no real damage, and it’s not something I reported to the police. As far as traveling to St. Louis, I’ve been going to St. Louis since the late nineties. Before I lived in Kansas City, I was in Washington, D.C. And I loved St. Louis. I still do. I would visit Creve Coeur, the Central West End, sometimes stay at the Westin downtown. But living in D.C. and growing up in D.C., I understood that every city is going to have the places that you don’t want to go. I understood that St. Louis often gets ranked higher than it should because the city’s footprint is so small. But it never felt to me that what was going on in St. Louis was way outside the normal limits of what we see in U.S. cities. There are those dangerous parts and you generally know not to go there. There is kind of an urban decline, which can be seen in a lack of services, graffiti, uncut grass. But I didn’t navigate St. Louis or think of St. Louis any differently than I thought of Kansas City, Washington D.C., Boston, or any other place I had been.
Zach Lawhorn (04:03) Yeah, and I’m glad you brought up the population of the city, the MSA. It seems like when there are national or even local news stories written on crime statistics in St. Louis, people will point out that if you’re not talking about the larger metropolitan area, you get down to actually a pretty small population number for U.S. cities. So for this work that we’re going to be talking about, can you define what area you guys looked at? When we say murders are a certain number, what area are we specifically talking about?
Patrick Tuohey (04:38) We looked at the city of St. Louis specifically, just those few square miles. We did not look at the metropolitan area and we did not look at the county. It is fair to want to combine all that data into one region, but oftentimes I think people want to do that to mask the seriousness of homicide and violent crime and property crime in the city. And that’s what we wanted to talk about. What is true in St. Louis is not unique to St. Louis. Kansas City has a crime problem that is not reflected in our metropolitan area. That’s true in Washington D.C., Atlanta, Los Angeles, everywhere. So I understand why people who live in St. Louis feel that you can cook the numbers by just looking at the city, but that’s true in every urban environment.
Susan Pendergrass (05:30) We also compared St. Louis to four other cities, and one of them in particular, Cincinnati, ended up being very similar. We wrote a paper and at the back of the paper there’s a table with variables on which we compared them. Similar size, similar poverty, similar median income, very similar. So to say that St. Louis is this very unique outlier and is the only city in the United States that has this situation where, essentially 100-plus years ago, St. Louis was so much better and more metropolitan and forward-thinking than the rest of the state of Missouri, and safer and wealthier, that they drew a line around the city of St. Louis and said we are going to be our own thing and we’re going to have our own police. It was called the Great Divorce. Now that line, the arrows are sort of pointing different ways, where St. Louis County isn’t necessarily excited to absorb the city of St. Louis and its services, systems, police departments, and 911 systems, because it is a uniquely crime-ridden area in parts. So while it would be nice to, as Patrick mentioned, just water down all the numbers by mixing them into a safer pot, it would really mask what’s going on.
Zach Lawhorn (06:47) Susan, you used the word “unique” there to describe the setup. Patrick, does that genuinely make it harder to talk about this topic? In the last few months you’ve had some public events, and we’re going to talk about those in a minute. But as you’ve gone through this process, do you think the unique setup has made it harder? Is there more throat-clearing and definitional work that goes into it?
Patrick Tuohey (07:12) I don’t know that what St. Louis is dealing with is unique. Yes, the city has a particularly small footprint. It is as if you drew a line around just the bad neighborhood in your community and tried to use that small footprint to describe the whole area. I get that argument. But if it’s true by a matter of degree, it’s not uniquely true of St. Louis. And it’s something that the city needs to deal with and understand rather than try to paper over. As Susan said, there are real problems in the city. Their population decline is only exacerbating those problems because there’s less revenue. And frankly, the history of the city going back decades has been that the image of the city is dysfunctional, and not just on public safety, on lots of issues. So although I understand that people say they don’t just want to talk about the city when it comes to crime, St. Louis, while it’s got lots of opportunities and strengths, doesn’t do itself any favors by combining all this stuff and whistling past the graveyard. People in this country know that St. Louis has a crime problem. You don’t solve it by redirecting people.
Zach Lawhorn (08:30) Okay, and let’s talk about that crime problem. Susan, when we use the word “crime” in this context, what are we talking about? Murders? Car break-ins? Lay it out for us.
Susan Pendergrass (08:42) We have violent crime and property crime. Violent crime is murders, aggravated assault, and robbery. Property crimes are larceny and motor vehicle thefts. In our report, we break them all out separately. Murders are the one crime area that the media likes to focus on: how many murders, which city is the murder capital, did we have 150, did we have 200, are they down? They are certainly down in the last two years, to be clear. Murder rates are down. Aggravated assault rates are not down by as much. And sometimes the difference between aggravated assault and murder is how fast the ambulance drives. We still have a lot of violent crimes against people happening. We certainly have a lot of motor vehicle thefts. That’s an area of crime that spiked during COVID, particularly for Kias and Hyundais, and it’s come down, but it’s still a very high number. While it is wonderful that crime has come down across these areas in many cases, the numbers are still pretty high, particularly on a per capita basis, which is how we translate all the crime rates so we can compare them with other cities.
Zach Lawhorn (10:00) So you said crime is down. Is it fair to classify it as it was really bad and now it’s just bad? It was terrible, now it’s just bad. How would you summarize what you found with the drop in crime?
Susan Pendergrass (10:13) Crime’s been dropping since the 80s, so we had much worse crime decades ago. It’s been dropping, it spiked during the pandemic, and it is continuing basically down. Now, when you look at the murder rate per capita in the city of St. Louis, it is still on a slightly upward trend, the number of murders per people, and that could be driven by the fact that Missouri is losing population at a pretty good clip. We have more deaths than births. So on a per capita basis maybe not quite the same, but in terms of actual numbers, crime has been coming down for some time. Crime overall peaked in the late 80s and 90s.
Zach Lawhorn (10:58) Patrick, we talked about your perception and the relevance of many other cities. Did that surprise you, the finding that crime is down? Or was that kind of what you expected?
Patrick Tuohey (11:09) No, the data showing that crime in St. Louis was down wasn’t a surprise. It’s certainly been nice to see that it’s been down year after year. This doesn’t appear to be just a one-off good year. And I’ve known that the mayor and the police chief have been talking about these positive numbers for a while. What I was really interested in with this paper was perception of crime. That’s what I’ve really wrestled with, both at events in the city and in the county. It is a difficult problem to overcome because you can have good numbers like St. Louis has and yet people still rely on that decades-old impression. That’s not something you can address just by waving away the numbers downtown. You have to wrestle with it. You have to admit it, and you have to figure out how do you get people to accept good news, and then how do you make them confident that that good news is going to continue? It’s so easy these days, especially with cities, to just be a pessimist and to say that things are down and won’t ever continue to go down. It is a problem that St. Louis has, but St. Louis isn’t alone in having it. The news on crime is good all over the country, yet perceptions about crime all over the country are still very much with us.
Susan Pendergrass (12:43) There’s a survey question that’s often asked: do you feel safe walking outside alone at night? And those numbers aren’t down. As Patrick mentioned, you have graffiti and trash not being picked up and panhandling and homelessness. Those numbers aren’t necessarily down. But we did look at St. Louis on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, and it is true that out of 16 neighborhoods, four or five have basically no crime, they’re crime-free. But then there are some other pockets that have most of the murders concentrated in one neighborhood. So it isn’t equal across all the neighborhoods. There are some that have very little crime, but it’s hard to convince folks of that when they drive through the ones that have public disorder and still don’t feel safe.
Zach Lawhorn (13:29) Susan, as a researcher trying to ultimately figure out why things happen, you mentioned that crime is down across the country. Would it be easier if it was just a few select cities, so you could actually go and say what is Boston doing different, what is Memphis doing? Does it make it harder to find the “why” since it seems like it’s kind of across the board?
Susan Pendergrass (13:45) Yeah. There have been other periods of time when crime has gone down and then gone back up again. I personally believe, and this is not based on any research I’ve done, that cameras being absolutely everywhere makes it harder to commit crimes. You cannot basically travel through the world anymore without being on a camera somewhere. Police body cams probably make it harder to commit crimes too. I feel like we’re getting into more of a surveillance state, and maybe that’s what’s bringing crime down. I’ve heard that Detroit has brought crime down faster than other cities, that Pittsburgh is feeling safer, Chattanooga is feeling safer, Memphis feeling less safe. So it would be worthwhile to look into some of these differences. But I don’t think our research has yet pointed to a clear reason why it’s happening.
Patrick Tuohey (14:41) Let me follow up on that because Susan’s exactly right, and I think your question gets to that point. Crime is down nationwide, down in all cities if I remember correctly, and we don’t really know why. And it’s not just Susan and I that don’t know why. Susan has spoken with public safety and crime experts from all over the country, and that’s really frustrating from a public policy research point of view, because you would love to have that outlier, that one city, maybe Boston or Omaha, that tried something novel and got results unlike everybody else. But crime is so difficult because there are so many contributors. Some people want to point to the availability of guns. Some people want to talk about root causes. Some people want to talk about the number of police, the severity of crime, the clearance rate, population growth, new development, basic services like picking up the trash and making sure the streetlights work. And all of those things are right, all those things contribute. So it’s really difficult to figure out which one is driving the change. And sometimes, as Susan pointed out, you may just get a dip and there’s no explaining it. In 2014, in Kansas City, our mayor and police chief at the time came out and had a press conference because they were so proud of the homicide drop the previous year. There was a lot of back-slapping and self-congratulation. Then when the homicide rate went back up the next year, you couldn’t get those guys to answer a basic question. Policymakers are, and maybe rightly so, really shy about claiming credit, because they don’t want to be called to task a year later when the numbers reverse. The good news is that the numbers are trending down, and that’s always good. The frustration is it’s very difficult to figure out why and then make recommendations. We’re all kind of scratching our heads. Although again, this is a good problem to have. The numbers are heading in the right direction and we ought to be happy about that.
Zach Lawhorn (16:58) Patrick, to get a better idea of the perception side, you did the hard work of going to the people. In January and February you moderated events. We had one in the city of St. Louis and one in St. Louis County. There are full recordings of the events available at showmeinstitute.org. You had a panel of experts and spent a lot of time getting feedback from attendees who lived in the city and the county. What were your takeaways? Are they buying that crime is getting better?
Patrick Tuohey (17:33) No, in a word, they don’t. We gave them a short survey before the event. A lot of them believed that crime was important, certainly, but they didn’t necessarily believe that crime was getting better. They weren’t necessarily optimistic that crime was going to be better in St. Louis City in the next five years, and that was certainly true in the county. I wanted to press these audience members: what would it take for you to believe this good news? And I think sometimes they just didn’t want to believe anything. We got the frustrating line: “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” That’s a cute thing to say, but it really doesn’t help you explain your own view. If you’re just going to say you believe it’s bad and always going to be bad, that doesn’t get us anywhere. We were happy to have representatives from the Circuit Attorney’s office at both events, and they struggle with this too. They can do a better job. They can prosecute more and different cases, they can do it faster. The police can certainly improve their clearance rate. But public policymakers in those cities, in every city, are going to have to realize that they may have to continue that grind, doing the hard work of lowering crime, and they’re not going to get the attaboys from the people in their city or the communities around them. That’s just a reality. One of the panelists talked about how perception of crime is often a lagging indicator. When crime goes up, people feel it immediately. But when crime goes down, it may take a few years. The tough news for the people who lead St. Louis City is you may have to keep doing this for another 10 years before you get any credit for being successful. And that’s really tough in politics because people want that immediate payoff, that immediate
Susan Pendergrass (19:15) You
Patrick Tuohey (19:31) applause, that immediate press conference and support.
Susan Pendergrass (19:34) Patrick and I have been thinking about the things that could happen that could make a difference, that could maybe make people feel safer. Number one: when you see a crime happening, you need to be able to have faith that you can report it and somebody will respond. And that is not happening right now in the city of St. Louis. We’ve called several times about crimes and nobody showed up. You need to have faith in the 911 system, and the 911 system needs to function. We have about 28 different systems in the county. They’re building a new 911 center in the city that’s going to consolidate services, but it’s not finished. It’s going to be some time before it’s fully functioning. We also need to know that the police will be able to solve these crimes. They need resources. They need to be able to do DNA testing and rape kits and DNA. They need money to do those things. They need detectives. We need to know that these crimes can get solved, and then we need to know that the crimes are prosecuted. I think if these pieces on the front end, not just the “lock them up” approach, but on the front end, people would feel safer if they felt like they could call somebody and somebody would respond and something would happen. I’m not sure that’s happening right now. And until it does, people, especially when they start having small children, are probably going to move out.
Patrick Tuohey (20:59) What we’ve known since at least 1961, when Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities, is that you sometimes just need eyes on the street. Shop owners, pedestrians, people walking around. Cameras can reduce crime, but they’re kind of abstract and tucked in corners. When a street is vibrant, when it’s got people living there, when you’ve got kids playing in the street and families on the porch, there’s that sense of being watched, being seen. But because St. Louis has been in this population spiral, how do you bring people back into the city? The city talks about economic development subsidies all the time, but that’s about bringing in amenities and employers. Maybe what the city needs to do is figure out how to bring in people. And oftentimes it’s the non-crime-related policies, the housing policies, the regulations, the tax structure, that keep people out. Crime is one of those, but the city could open itself up to urban homesteaders who want to come in and rehab these old houses. What has struck me about St. Louis for the decades I’ve been going there is just the absolutely beautiful old neighborhoods, the incredible housing stock. Susan talked about living in a house that was built for the World’s Fair. There are gorgeous neighborhoods in St. Louis, and it’s the barriers to entry, red tape and government regulation, that are keeping people out, I have to believe. Crime is one of them, to be sure. But I am confident there are people who would love to move into those old houses and revitalize those old neighborhoods, because they’re just so gorgeous and so walkable. And it’s been done in other cities. DuPont Circle in Washington D.C. was a slow process of rehabbing neighborhoods block by block, and now 30 years later it is a vibrant community.
Zach Lawhorn (23:03) Susan, you mentioned the 911 system. I know in the report you don’t get into specific solutions, and I know we’re still kind of in the measuring-the-problem stage and trying to figure out next steps, but beyond the 911 system, are there any areas you’d consider low-hanging fruit worth considering moving forward?
Susan Pendergrass (23:25) The legislature passed and the governor signed a violent crime clearance grant program last year that cities like St. Louis could apply for, funding to hire detectives, do DNA testing, collect data, and other activities directly focused on solving crimes. The legislature has not appropriated any money for that program. If they did, St. Louis could apply for those funds. We also have, and I don’t know the exact number as I say this, but at least 100 open police positions in the department. Those are hard to fill. The policies that have been tried, like no longer requiring officers to live within the city and across-the-board raises, none of those have really made a difference. So we need recruitment and retention policies that could actually work. And as I mentioned with the 911 system, triaging calls and making sure the correct agency responds when a crime has been committed. There are community violence intervention programs that have been tried in some places, and using neighborhood-by-neighborhood data to focus in on where crimes are really happening. Those are all things we’d like to explore further: what is the cost of these programs, what is the likelihood that they’ll improve things, and what are some feasible ways to get them done.
Zach Lawhorn (24:54) So there’s the PR part of it. The city’s got a PR problem. There’s the need for more cops. We need people to be able to call 911. We need people to actually be prosecuted for crimes. That all seems doable.
Susan Pendergrass (24:58) Yeah.
Zach Lawhorn (25:06) Where do you think the city of St. Louis is at right now? Are we in a good place? Are we in just an improved place where it could still be a few years? How are you feeling about public safety in the city of St. Louis right now?
Susan Pendergrass (25:21) I don’t want to be a wet blanket. I love the city of St. Louis and I want it to succeed wildly. But I’m concerned that they’re going to say murders are down and these other crimes are down, but people are still running stop signs and stoplights, there are still panhandlers, and trash still isn’t being picked up. They’re not really fixing the small things that make people feel safe. They’re sort of focused on these big numbers. It could be like a school improving ACT scores. You have to be really careful if you’re just focusing on one aspect, because these big crime numbers being down could be hiding a lot of other stuff that really needs to be done and focused on. So I’m cautiously optimistic, I guess.
Patrick Tuohey (26:05) I’m optimistic because crime is going down everywhere, and I think it will probably continue to go down at least for the next few years, for reasons that may have nothing to do with the management of St. Louis. Part of it is because Susan and I have been reviewing the research for the last few months, and there is so much out there, primary research on crime and secondary, that talks about exactly the things Susan hit upon: the environment, picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, fixing sidewalks, making sure the streetlights are lit. We know so much more about what drives crime, or at least what can ameliorate it, that even if we don’t know the specifics of what’s going on now, city leaders and state leaders are much more aware of what they can do to make communities not just safer but feel safe. And again, it is frustrating because you can say the numbers are down, but until people feel safe and want to go downtown and take advantage of what the city has to offer, we’re not going to see that public perception change. So yes, I think the public perception is accurate in as much as that is what people feel, but I don’t think it reflects what’s actually going on in St. Louis or in the county.
Zach Lawhorn (27:20) And we will leave it there. The report, The Public Safety Climate in the City of St. Louis, is available at showmeinstitute.org. If you want to watch the full recordings of the events that Patrick moderated, those are available right now at showmeinstitute.org. Susan, Patrick, thank you very much.
Missouri’s property tax system works best when the assessments are accurate, the tax base is wide, and the rates are low. That combination will help grow Missouri’s economy for everyone while properly funding the necessary functions of local government. However, a radical change in the system is being put before voters in Webster, Christian, Lawrence, and Dade counties in April. These four counties will vote on whether to prohibit any property tax increases due to reassessments. Current law requires local governments to roll back tax rates as assessments increase, but we all know that taxes still go up, sometimes substantially.
At the Show-Me Institute, we support low taxes, and I am well-aware of how tempting this will be to voters. But using market valuations in reassessment to set tax levels is a good system. While our property tax system needs reforms, eliminating any and all tax increases from reassessments will make Missouri more dependent on other taxes that hurt our economy far more than property taxes do. Hate them as much as you wish, but property taxes indisputably harm economic growth less than other taxes do.
These property tax limitations would reduce the ability of school districts to fund themselves and would make them more dependent on state aid. Consider the following: school districts in St. Louis County regularly receive at least 80% of their funding from local sources, primarily property taxes, and some are over 90%. It is nowhere near that level in Southwest Missouri. Nixa school district in Christian County is only 54% locally funded, while Marshfield school district in Webster is only 46% locally funded. Even Springfield school district, the largest school district in Greene County, where no property taxes changes are proposed, is only 58% locally funded. These changes would make school districts in these counties more dependent on state aid, not less. Again, I’m aware that many voters may view that as a benefit, but it is anything but.
Numerous other harmful effects would come from diluting the market forces (in the form of assessments based on market values) that form the basis of property taxation. California provides us with an example of the harms of these types of property tax caps with its famous Proposition 13, passed in 1978, which dramatically limited increases in property assessments and taxes. Proposition 13 certainly had its intended effect of lowering property taxes for California homeowners. However, it also reduced mobility, significantly increased alternative taxes, limited homeownership opportunities, and caused substantial tax disparities for similar properties receiving similar services. These negative consequences are exactly what these four counties would experience over the long run.
There are also significant constitutional concerns with this legislation. Missouri Constitution Chapter X, Section 3 states that “taxes . . . shall be uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.” So, consider the issue of the Logan-Rogersville R-VIII school district. This school district serves families in three counties. If voters approve these tax changes, the property tax system in one of those three counties would remain unchanged (Greene), while in the other two (Webster and Christian) it would be illegal to have a tax increase from reassessment. It would certainly seem unconstitutional for property owners within the same taxing district who own the same type of property (single-family homes) to face different tax and assessment systems for the same services.
We need property tax reform in Missouri, but this total limitation is too severe. If enacted, the property tax proposals before the voters in these four fast-growing counties would make the region’s overall tax system worse, not better. I hope voters will look past the easy appeal of a tax limit to think about the long-term harms.
Support Us
The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.
