The Free-City Project for Missouri

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

In 2001, a group of very libertarian-minded activists launched the Free-State Project, which encouraged thousands of libertarian believers in minimal government to move to New Hampshire. The overall success of the project has been limited, for a variety of reasons, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I’d like to see people in Missouri flatter the Granite State and try to do a similar thing here in one of our many cities.

What would such a limited-government, free-market oriented municipality look like in Missouri? To start with, it should be modeled on successful, small-government municipalities like Weston, Florida, and Sandy Springs, Georgia, which provide many local services by contracting with the private sector. It should not be based on the more radical, no-government “utopias” like Grafton, New Hampshire, where the removal of almost all government services led to an increase in bear attacks.

How many limited-government activists would it take to create a free city in Missouri? Not very many. There are hundreds of existing municipalities here with less than a hundred residents where, at most, a few dozen show up to vote in local elections. If, say, 50 true free-market believers moved into one city, what types of changes could they make to create that desired free city?

To start with, they could remove all municipal planning and zoning rules and replace them with private contracts managed by property-owner associations where allowed. Those property-owner associations could manage issues like short-term rentals, trash collection, and home-based businesses.

Municipalities, especially small ones, could focus on contracting with larger cities or counties to provide many services, like policing or building inspections. The new free city could contract with private companies to provide many other services, like trash collection and recreation management. It could similarly contract with nonprofits for some other services where profit opportunities are limited, such as animal shelters. If it had municipal utilities, it could privatize them into regulated, private utilities. The free city could reduce local code requirements, permitting rules, and occupational licensing to the largest extent possible. The important ones, like fire codes and elevator inspections, could be kept, while arbitrary or obsolete regulations, like television repairman licenses and pool-table taxes, could be thrown out.

None of these examples are farfetched. Every one of the above examples is already in place in a city somewhere in Missouri. Private utilities provide water, gas, and electricity to millions of Missourians. Cities contract with counties and other cities for services all over the state. In St. Louis County, every municipality (88 at last count) contracts with the county for at least some inspection services. Nonprofits provide important services to the public, like Pinnacles Youth Park near Columbia, and operate many animal-care facilities. Private businesses operate city-owned golf courses and manage municipal swimming pools throughout the state.

How would a free city fund these services? It would maximize private contracts between residents and companies and enact user fees to the largest extent possible. Low general sales and property taxes could fund the rest, along with revenues shared from other sources, like the gas tax. Importantly, such a city would avoid special deals such as tax abatements or tax-increment financing, for some businesses or people. Making the sales and property tax bases as wide as possible would allow the rates to be as low as possible for everyone. This free city would absolutely avoid the errors of a local income tax such as exist in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Overall, a Missouri free-city project would create a municipal government system not all that different from those in many rural, unincorporated parts of Missouri. It would just be in a more urban or suburban setting. It may seem unrealistic to expect hundreds—or even dozens—of people to make such a move based on political philosophy. But as a model of quality, low-tax local government, it is perfectly realistic. While no city may have enacted all of these ideas, each of them has been enacted with success somewhere. We just need the right number of people to put it together all at once.

I vote we try it somewhere near the Lake of the Ozarks.

What Are My Schooling Options as a Missouri Parent?

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Last week, I had the pleasure of speaking with a parent who wanted to know what schooling options were available for his son. Before I could answer his question, I first asked where he lived. He replied that his son was zoned for a school district in western St. Louis County. When he told me that, the list already forming in my head sadly got shorter.

What Is Off Limits?

As Show-Me Institute analysts have written about extensively, Missouri parents have fewer public schooling options than families in many other states, including many of our bordering states. First, Missouri does not have a cross-district open enrollment program. This means that the man I spoke with cannot have his son attend a public school outside of his zoned district unless another district chooses to accept him and he pays the tuition set by the new district.

Next, since he is zoned to attend a school district in western St. Louis County, charter schools are also off limits. Charter schools currently only exist in the City of St. Louis, Kansas City, and Normandy. Why is this the case? Charter schools require sponsors, and for accredited districts, the local school board must approve the charter school to operate. This has never happened in Missouri—the requirement of local school board sponsorship has essentially acted as a ban on charter operations in most of Missouri. And without open enrollment, no one outside of a charter school’s local district can enroll. In other states, schools like the Arizona Autism Charter School attract parents from far and wide.

The Good News

After these options were crossed off, the family is left with the options of the local public school district, a private school, or homeschool.

Private schools charge tuition, but thankfully, Missouri has an education savings account (ESA) program—MOScholars—that can help meet some of those costs for interested families. If the student has an Individualized Education Program (IEP), or if the student’s family household income is less than 300% of the federal poverty level, the student is eligible for a scholarship that can be used for private school tuition. However, the program is capped at $75 million in total funding. That means that even if a student qualifies, there may not be enough money for every eligible applicant to actually receive a scholarship. (If you are interested in MOScholars, you can learn more here.)

Unfortunately, there are not many choices available to the parent who reached out to me, and there is no choice at all when it comes to public schools. This is true for most Missourians. The Show-Me State needs more public options for our students and families. Next year, when someone asks me a similar question, I want to have a better answer.

Medicaid in Trouble?

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Missouri’s Medicaid enrollment numbers are telling a story, but it may not be one that the federal government wants to hear. Late last year, I wrote about a sharp and troubling decline in the number of permanently and totally disabled (PTD) Missourians enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program. Since then, the enrollment numbers have continued their downward trend, and now have fallen by more than 30,000, or 20%, since 2019, which is significantly lower than any point Missouri has seen in the last two decades.

At first glance, some might assume this drop is simply a byproduct of the state’s post-pandemic Medicaid redeterminations. But as I’ve written before, I fear that explanation doesn’t add up. Permanently disabled recipients aren’t people you expect to lose coverage once their eligibility is established, given that they’re unlikely to re-enter the workforce. Instead, the data and a new quote suggest a different story: PTD shifting.

As I’ve explained in more detail here, PTD shifting is the process where individuals who would normally enroll in Medicaid due to their disability instead enroll as a healthy adult in the Medicaid expansion population. Why would they do this? For recipients, it makes sense because gaining access to Medicaid coverage through expansion is a much easier process. They don’t need to prove their disability; they just need to be able to show that their income qualifies. And for the state, it makes even more sense because the federal government pays 90% of the healthcare costs of someone enrolled in Medicaid expansion but only about 65% for disabled individuals.

People with disabilities often have a variety of healthcare needs, which in turn means paying for their coverage is quite expensive. If some of these costs can be shifted to the federal government, it could yield huge savings for the state. The problem, of course, is that this is explicitly not allowed. Federal law requires that individuals enrolling in the Medicaid expansion population be “newly eligible” for services, meaning they couldn’t otherwise qualify for the non-expansion part of the program. While I have no proof this is what Missouri is doing, this is a trap I’ve feared our state could fall into since before we adopted Medicaid expansion.

My concern was reinforced in a recent article quoting Timothy McBride, the former chair of the MO HealthNet Oversight Committee. When talking about Missouri’s changing Medicaid enrollment, he stated:

Essentially, the recipients chose one door or another when choosing to enroll, and it’s a much easier path to sign up for the expansion than sign up through disability, since it can take one year or longer to become qualified for Medicaid as permanently disabled.

If his observation is true, and the federal government finds out that Missouri is effectively off-loading disabled enrollees into the Medicaid expansion population to save state money at the expense of federal taxpayers, the consequences could be severe. We’re talking hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, that could need to be repaid to the federal authorities.

Missouri’s lawmakers should take this warning seriously. The drop in PTD enrollment is no longer just an accounting curiosity—it’s a signal that our state may be running afoul of federal law. Ignoring this problem now could lead to both a fiscal and legal crisis later.

Green Means Stop

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Earlier this week, the City of St. Louis and the Bi-State Development Agency, better known as Metro, officially cancelled the planning and application process for the MetroLink Extension Green Line, formerly known as the the North–South route.

This is wonderful news, also known as great news. The proposed route was simply preposterous. Even by Metro’s own overly generous predictions, it was only going to have about 5,000 boardings a day. (That isn’t very many boardings for a billion dollars.) It was bad enough that it generated significant opposition at the East-West Gateway Board of Directors (EWGBOD) project vote, which almost never happens. At the Show-Me Institute, we released a study by Randal O’Toole in 2023 that highlighted why this project was unnecessary and wasteful, and I provided testimony against it before the EWGBOD in early 2024.

The federal government gives away a lot of money for expensive transit projects, so St. Louis invented an expensive transit project to go get that money. Never mind that few people were going to ride it, and that people along this route could be served much more affordably by buses.

But let’s give credit where it is due. The new mayor of St. Louis and Metro deserve credit for making the right decision now. Whether they did it because they realized it was a bad choice all along, or whether they just succumbed to the political reality that the current administration in Washington, D.C., was highly unlikely to fund this project, doesn’t really matter. I am just happy that it is done for, or at least as done for as a project like this can ever be.

Which brings us to the other part of the good news. The city and Metro are redirecting their efforts along this route to consider a bus rapid transit (BRT) route. BRT has worked well in Kansas City (unlike the streetcar) and deserves consideration for this route in St. Louis. I am still amazed, though, at how expensive BRT itself is. (That will be a topic for a future post.)

An affordable (for both taxpayers and riders), changeable, safe, and on-time bus system is what the St. Louis region needs for public transit. We should stop dreaming about getting suburbanites out of their cars and start focusing on serving the needs of people who depend on public transportation. Cancelling the Green Line is the right move in that direction.

The Fiscal Facts Behind School Choice with Marty Lueken

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Marty Lueken, director of EdChoice’s Fiscal Research and Education Center, about the 2025 Fiscal Fact Book. They discuss how much is really spent per student, where the money comes from, why staffing has grown even as enrollment has declined, the fiscal impact of school choice programs, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding School Funding in the U.S.
10:03 The Impact of School Choice Programs
20:30 Challenges and Misconceptions in School Funding

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

MetroLink Line Canceled, SNAP Reform, and Missouri’s Reading Crisis | Roundtable

Posted on by Zach Lawhorn

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss: the cancellation of the St. Louis MetroLink Green Line and what bus rapid transit could mean for the city, major changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under the One Big Beautiful Bill, and Missouri’s worsening reading crisis and how other states have improved with reforms like third grade retention.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Cancellation of the Green Line Project
08:12 Changes to the SNAP Program
17:18 Reading Retention and Educational Reforms
26:10 Property Tax Reassessments in Platte County

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

 

More SNAP Changes: Restoring Thrift

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Four years ago, the federal government orchestrated the largest year-to-year growth in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in history. While some cheered this expansion, many scholars argued that the maneuver that generated this increase shouldn’t have been allowed to happen. Fortunately, the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) gets SNAP back on track.

At the center of the issue is what’s called the “Thrifty Food Plan,” which is the formula the USDA uses to set SNAP benefits every year. In short, the formula is designed to determine the cost of a basic but nutritious diet, given the USDA’s dietary guidelines. For decades, the Thrifty Food Plan was adjusted yearly to account for the increased costs families saw in their grocery bills. But in 2021, the formula was changed to boost benefits by around 21%, far exceeding inflation.

The precise way the formula was adjusted is complicated and goes beyond the scope of this post, but suffice it to say that both the foods included in the calculation and their cost were changed to increase national SNAP expenditures by roughly $200 billion over ten years, all without an act of Congress. Historically, major changes to the Thrifty Food Plan beyond inflationary cost increases have been the result of legislation. Such a significant change without explicit approval led many to call for its immediate reversal, arguing the move violated federal law and years of precedent.

After several years of higher SNAP spending, the OBBB finally addresses the issue created in 2021. The law now ties Thrifty Food Plan increases to inflation and specifies how often the foods included in the calculation can be re-evaluated. While this may not seem like some groundbreaking change, it’s an important step to protect against future bureaucratic attempts to expand welfare benefits without congressional approval, and could ultimately save Missouri taxpayers money.

As I wrote recently, in an effort to improve SNAP’s program integrity, the OBBB will soon start putting states on the hook for a portion of benefit costs if they can’t get their payment error rates under control. Keep in mind that until the OBBB is fully implemented, the federal government covers 100% of all SNAP benefits. Meanwhile, states have overpaid recipients nearly 10% of the time. By changing the incentives, states now have a reason to lower their error rates, which should reduce wasteful spending. The Thrifty Food Plan change will also help states (maybe including Missouri) that become responsible for a portion of benefit costs (because their payment error rates are too high) from being subject to unanticipated large program cost increases in future years.

The Thrifty Food Plan changes will help rein in the administrative state and encourage states to be better stewards of taxpayer money. Missouri’s policymakers and taxpayers should welcome the return of thrift to SNAP.

Springfield Needs Charter Schools

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Springfield News-Leader.

Of Missouri’s four largest cities—Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield, and Columbia—Springfield will soon be the only one without charter schools. Charter schools are already thriving in Kansas City, and St. Louis and thanks to recent legislation Columbia will have its first charter schools up and running as early as 2026.

Springfield is missing out.

Charter schools are public schools that are exempt from some of the rules and regulations that apply to traditional public schools. In most Missouri counties, including Greene County, charter schools are not allowed to operate unless they are sponsored by the local school board—a requirement that effectively bans them. Senate Bill 727, signed into law in 2024, changed this requirement in Boone County, where Columbia is located. We need similar legislation in Greene County.

Why? There are several reasons—including that charter schools are popular with families—but the most important reason is that charter schools are more effective than traditional public schools. Academic studies consistently show students who attend charter schools outperform their peers in traditional public schools on state exams and are more likely to attend college. In some cases, the performance differences are substantial. A recent national study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that charter schools deliver additional academic growth equivalent to 6 extra days of instruction in math each year, and 16 extra days in reading, compared to traditional public schools. This same study shows that Missouri has some of the most effective charter schools in the country.

Charter school impacts are largest in areas where the local neighborhood schools are underperforming. Does Springfield have any low-performing neighborhood schools? Unfortunately, it sure does. At Westport Elementary School in 2024, only 24 percent of 5th-graders scored proficient or higher on the state English Language Arts test, and in math the number was just 14 percent. At Parkview High School, only 16 percent of students who took the Algebra I end-of-course exam scored proficient or above.

Now imagine your child is zoned for one of these schools and unless you move—perhaps not in your budget—this is where he or she will be required to attend. Charter schools give families in this situation new hope. Many charter operators intentionally open schools in neighborhoods where the traditional public schools are the worst—their mission is to provide educational opportunities in these communities that are not otherwise available. In many cities, the top charter schools have long waitlists.

If we want more Springfield children to have access to highly effective schools, permitting charter schools to operate in Greene County is one of the simplest ways to do it.

How can we make this happen? Following Boone County’s playbook, we need a champion for charter schools in the state legislature who will prioritize this issue in the upcoming legislative session. For Boone County, that champion was Caleb Rowden, a longtime charter advocate. Education legislation in Jefferson City is increasingly “omnibus” style, which means multiple different education policies are bundled into one bill. Rowden made sure that permitting charter schools to operate in Boone County, without the requirement that they be sponsored by the local school board, was part of the 2024 omnibus bill.

Will someone step up in a similar manner for Greene County? I sure hope so.

Charter schools are public schools, their students are public school students, and their teachers are public school teachers. They cannot charge tuition, they’re secular, and they’re open to all students (they must admit students by lottery if the number of applicants is greater than the number of available spots). We know charter schools work and that they’re popular with families.

Every year that passes without charter schools operating in Greene County is a missed opportunity for Springfield’s children.

 

Wildwood’s Big Mistake

Posted on by Scott Tanner

During my time at the Show-Me Institute, I have regularly cited Wildwood as an example of a city that exercised fiscal discipline and admirably avoided giving away tax subsidies. Unfortunately, I can no longer do that. Wildwood, like many other municipalities, has gone down the road of passing harmful, unnecessary tax incentives in the name of “growth.” The idea that subsidies are necessary in a prosperous place like Wildwood (a suburb of St. Louis) is absurd. And yet, here we have one more city feeling that it is the role of the city to reject some projects and (now) subsidize others, as if city officials can predict the future and know which projects will be successful and which won’t. (Hint—they can’t.)

The especially galling aspect of this property tax abatement by Wildwood—and many other deals like it—is that Wildwood does not levy a property tax. There is nothing wrong with that, but a city that doesn’t levy a property tax deciding on abatements that affect the school district, county, and other taxing districts that do depend on the property tax is terrible policy. You need to have skin in the game, and cities rarely have much skin in the game when it comes to property taxes. Missouri municipalities depend primarily on sales taxes, not property taxes. Again, there is nothing automatically wrong with that, but we don’t let school districts give out exemptions on local sales taxes (which they don’t impose), so I don’t know why cities get to abate property taxes.

The evidence that local tax subsidies fail in their ostensible goal of economic growth is overwhelming. Among the myriad problems:

  • Local officials can’t predict the future
  • Local officials allow politics to influence their decisions
  • Companies and developers rarely need the subsidy (they ask because the money is there for the taking)
  • Greater use of subsidies leads to increased local economic planning

Please read these reports and articles if you would like a detailed summary of these arguments.

It’s frustrating to see Wildwood go down this path. History shows that once a city approves one of these subsidies, the dam usually breaks, and they become common. I hope that doesn’t happen in Wildwood.

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.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging