Voluntary Open Enrollment Means No Open Enrollment

Posted on by Scott Tanner

They say the best defense is offense. Perhaps the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has gotten that memo. As part of their legislative priorities for 2026, DESE and the state Board of Education (BOE) included the following: “The State Board of Education suggests that DESE work with stakeholders to examine best practices for voluntary public school open enrollment.”

For the past several years, the Missouri Legislature has considered letting parents choose a public school in another public school district than the one in which they live—also known as open enrollment. It seems that DESE and the BOE are preparing for the moment that the legislature takes another crack at this idea. And by preemptively adding the word “voluntary,”, they have signaled that they prefer a weak and less effective version of this policy.

Currently, there are sixteen states, including our neighbors Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, that require all public school districts to accept transfer students, provided that there is an open seat available. According to the Reason Foundation, students using open enrollment accounted for about 7 percent of publicly funded students in those states. In other words, open enrollment doesn’t have a massive impact on the system, but it can be a game changer for the students who use it.

In states such as Ohio, which have limited open enrollment to only those districts that voluntarily agree to accept students, high-income suburban districts have declined to participate. Thus, kids in Ohio’s largest urban districts, such as Akron or Cincinnati, don’t have any feasible open enrollment options. They would have to leapfrog over the suburban rings that surround their cities.

Missouri was called out last year in a national study for having district lines that mimic old residential red lines. That legacy could be ameliorated by making those lines more porous and less exclusionary. Regardless of the executive branch’s stated priorities, let’s not start the conversation on open enrollment with an eye toward a weak policy.

Missouri Should Scrap Parking Minimums to Reduce Housing Costs

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Across the country, cities are rethinking rules that force developers to overbuild parking—and Missouri should follow suit. A new study from Denver shows that eliminating off-street parking minimums boosts housing production, including affordable units. By relaxing these mandates, Missouri communities can free up land, cut costs, and enable more housing.

Researchers at the University of Denver found that parking mandates significantly limited multifamily housing. Removing them could increase housing output by about 12.5%—roughly 460 additional units per year in Denver. Each mandated space often adds tens of thousands of dollars in construction costs, inflating rents or home prices. Give developers flexibility, and more money goes into housing, not concrete.

The economics are straightforward. Requiring parking regardless of demand drives up costs, reduces flexibility, and wastes land. A one-size-fits-all rule—one space per unit, no matter the neighborhood—locks inefficiency into the system.

Missouri has already started down this road. St. Louis exempts its Central Business District from parking minimums, showing that alternatives work here too. Still, much of the state relies on rigid, outdated rules rooted in mid-20th-century, car-first planning. These no longer reflect how people live or commute.

What would change if Missouri relaxed parking mandates statewide? Development would get cheaper. Land would shift toward housing instead of empty lots. Supply would grow—and housing would also become more affordable. Cities would also reduce red tape, giving builders room to respond to actual demand.

Some concerns are valid: What about spillover parking? Transit deserts? Residents who rely on cars? Eliminating mandates isn’t a ban on parking—it simply lets developers decide. Local governments can still manage parking through pricing, permits, or optional caps, without locking in costly minimums.

Missouri cities should audit zoning codes, identify outdated requirements, and revise them accordingly, while monitoring neighborhood effects.

In St. Louis, Kansas City, and beyond, this change could be a cornerstone of affordable housing policy. It would cut regulatory burdens, shift spending toward housing, and allow the market to work.

Denver shows it can be done. Missouri should take the cue: Scrap parking minimums, unlock housing supply, and let developers meet real demand.

KCUR Finally Confronts the Reality of Fare-Free Transit

Posted on by Scott Tanner

On Monday, KCUR carried a piece by NPR’s Joel Rose exploring fare-free buses in New York City, using Kansas City’s own experiment as a case study. After presenting the policy’s advocates, Rose shifted gears:

Then there’s Kansas City. The regional transit authority eliminated fares in 2020, but it did not go exactly as local leaders had hoped.

“We just never found a sustainable funding source to replace the $10 million a year out of the fare box,” said Eric Bunch, a city councilman in Kansas City, Mo., and a board member of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority.

Rose also included perspectives from urban transit researchers, who note that reducing fares is less critical than improving service speed, frequency, and reliability.

For KCUR’s audience, Rose’s framing may have come as a surprise. While the station occasionally raised funding concerns, it largely avoided discussing how fare elimination could affect service.

In late 2019, a KCUR piece quoted then-Councilwoman Kathryn Shields, who lead the council’s finance committee, as pointing out that no one was addressing how to offset losses at the farebox. Instead, KCUR’s early coverage framed zero fare as a breakthrough, not a policy gamble — quoting advocates and then-KCATA leader Robbie Makinen extensively while declining to examine the underlying “research” he invoked.

None of the KCUR reporting during the debate seriously contended with the service impact of zero fare. None sought out urban transit researchers, as Rose did. None considered the so-called research that Makinen cited in support of the policy. KCUR’s framing heavily favored advocates—including an exceedingly fawning piece on Makinen himself—and did not interrogate claimed benefits.

In May, 2021, KCUR quoted Makinen as saying, “When [zero fare] started, everyone said it wouldn’t work, I believe we’ve proved them wrong.” His confidence was premature.

Early in the debate, research, ridership surveys, and national reporting—some of which I cited in a January 2020 Kansas City Star column—already pointed to the risks of fare-free transit.

KCUR’s most direct acknowledgment of fare-free drawbacks came belatedly, in 2022, when it reprinted a story from The Beacon on unreliable service and long waits faced by bus riders. KCUR’s own reporters only asked, “Should Kansas City Keep Buses Free?” in 2023 when the damage was evident.

Back in that December 2019 piece, KCUR quoted then-Councilman Kevin McManus as saying, “When we take the fareboxes away, nobody wants to be on this council putting them back.” Six years later, six of the 13 council members who voted to remove fares in 2019 voted to reinstate them in 2025.

KCUR deserves credit for eventually publishing more substantive fare-free coverage. But had this level of scrutiny come earlier—before the rise in operator assaults, service cuts, and staffing concerns—the public conversation might have been far more informed. Policymakers might have avoided their embarrassing reversals. And the harmful impact to those who depend on public transit might have been reduced, or avoided altogether.

Election Day Preview, SNAP Shortfalls, and Missouri’s Data Center Debate | Roundtable

Posted on by David Stokes

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss local ballot measures in Missouri, including new hotel taxes in Springfield and Jefferson City, municipal use and gas taxes, how the ongoing federal shutdown could jeopardize food stamp benefits for hundreds of thousands of Missourians and what the federal Rural Health Transformation Fund means for reform, and emerging ideas in energy policy such as consumer regulated electricity and the debate over data center development in Missouri.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Election Season Insights
04:57 Convention Center Controversies
09:09 Understanding Use Taxes
13:32 State Budget and SNAP Challenges
16:12 Rural Health Transformation Fund
21:59 Energy Prices and Consumer Regulation
27:21 Data Centers: Economic Growth vs. Local Concerns

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Harrisonville Goes for a Local Gas Tax

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Harrisonville, in Cass County, has three local tax and bond issues on the November 4 ballot. This being a November in an odd-numbered year, turnout will likely be low (probably intentionally).

The most interesting tax issue on the Harrisonville ballot is a local gas tax. Local gas taxes are a little-used option for funding roads for municipalities. Harrisonville would be the eighth city in Missouri to enact such a tax for its roads, according to Show-Me Institute research. Not surprisingly, many of these municipalities are located along major highways where people frequently stop for gas. In the same way that Prussia was called “an army with a country,” Foristell and Matthews could be considered truck stops with their own cities.

Local gas taxes require a 60 percent threshold for voter approval. The funds raised by the tax can only be spent on roads within the city. Obviously, getting 60 percent of the vote for any new tax is difficult, and that is likely one reason local gas taxes are so rare. Foristell, for example, needed multiple attempts before voters approved its gas tax.

Funding roads with user taxes like a gas tax is good public policy, and this includes local roads. It is smart policy to connect the cost of driving with the act of driving as much as possible. When you pay for roads with unrelated taxes, such as a property tax, a general transportation sales tax, or a targeted transportation development district (TDD) sales tax (which sounds like a transportation tax but is often just a form of corporate welfare), you subsidize increased driving by lowering the relative cost of driving.

As electric vehicles become more common, adjustments to the gas tax system will have to be made. But in the short term, more cities should consider adopting very low gas taxes in order to fund local roads. This table has more information on the local gas taxes implemented by Missouri cities:

While not every municipality can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, it is worth considering in any municipality with a gas station. Similarly, the state should consider lowering the threshold for voter approval of local gas taxes to the standard 50 percent plus one.

The other two taxes and bonds being considered are much less beneficial. Harrisonville already has a local sales tax rate of 2.375%, and it is asking voters to raise it another 0.25%. However, the ballot wording is very confusing. The ballot says, “Shall the city of Harrisonville, Missouri impose a city sales tax of one and one quarter of a percent?” That would seemingly indicate a tax increase of 1.25%. However, the city website says it is only a 0.25% increase, leading to a total tax of 1.25%. But that conflicts with the other city website (link above), which lists the city sales tax at 2.375%. It may be that the city general sales tax is being increased, but then the city is clearly misleading voters as to the current sales tax rate by saying it is just 1% when it is 2.375%.

This sales tax rate increase is particularly high considering that Harrisonville also levies a moderately high property tax rate. Other cities with extremely high sales taxes tend to have very low property tax rates, such as Ashland. Whether they want the tax increase or not, Harrisonville residents should know they are living in a city with very high total municipal taxes. In particular, Harrisonville should remove some of its 1% TDD sales taxes, which would make its local sales tax almost 5%, if voters approve the tax increase.

Finally, voters are being asked to approve a bond issue for the Harrisonville municipal water and sewer system. This blog post is long enough, but suffice it to say residents of Harrisonville would be better served by privatizing their municipal utilities instead of continuing to go further into debt for them.

The Future of Federal Education Policy with Christy Wolfe

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Christy Wolfe, director of K–12 policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, about major shifts in federal education policy. They discuss recent Department of Education layoffs, the push to give states more flexibility through waivers, how Indiana is leading a new accountability approach, what it all means for states like Missouri, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Reform First, Dollars Second

Posted on by Scott Tanner

If policymakers were worried about the One Big Beautiful Bill’s impact on healthcare in Missouri, they may soon find it’s paying dividends instead. Thanks to the new $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund established in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), Missouri could be rewarded for adopting reforms that expand the state’s healthcare options.

Created, at least in part, to help states deal with the reining in of Medicaid provider taxes, the fund guarantees each state $500 million (half of the $50 billion divided by 50 states), but the other half ($25 billion) is going to be awarded based on a scoring system the federal government recently rolled out. Most notable among the recently published scoring criteria are points for enacting many of the free-market healthcare reforms my colleagues and I have been writing about for years.

The scoring system doesn’t just assess demographics or the number of rural hospitals, though they are a big part of the rubric. It also awards states points for policy changes that reduce red tape and open the door for better care. Some of these items include repealing certificate of need (CON) laws, expanding scope of practice for nurses and other healthcare professionals, improving short-term health insurance options, and making telehealth more accessible. Missouri has debated each of these ideas for years, and made some progress, but now enacting these meaningful reforms has additional monetary stakes.

Despite recent incremental progress on the free-market healthcare front, there’s still a lot that Missouri could do. Our CON laws are some of the worst in the country. They stifle healthcare competition by forcing providers to receive permission, often from their competitors, before adding new hospital beds, building new facilities, or even purchasing certain types of equipment.

Scope of practice restrictions are another self-inflicted wound I’ve written a lot about in the past. Missouri gives advanced practice registered nurses less autonomy than in many other states. Our state already has a shortage of healthcare providers, and removing those restrictions would help improve healthcare access, make Missouri jobs more competitive, and ultimately lower costs—all without sacrificing patient safety.

On the telemedicine front, Missouri has made progress by expanding services to audio-only technologies earlier this year but has the potential to go much further. More flexible rules on prescribing and treating patients could dramatically expand access for families, especially for those in rural communities.

At the end of the day, many of the reforms incentivized by the OBBB are policies Missouri should have adopted years ago, but the federal funding offers lawmakers a new reason to finally take action. If Jefferson City seizes this golden opportunity, Missouri can both improve the state’s healthcare policy and score some additional resources that could help in these tough budgetary times. That sounds like a rare win-win to me.

Considering Coal-to-Nuclear Transitions in Missouri

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Kansas’s Department of Commerce and Evergy (the state’s largest utility) are partnering with TerraPower, a leading nuclear developer, to explore potential siting locations for a new advanced nuclear power plant. The three organizations signed a “memorandum of understanding” which is a nonbinding handshake to pursue a shared goal—in this case, bringing nuclear power to Kansas.

While no site has yet been selected for a TerraPower reactor, lessons from Wyoming and recent federal reforms offer clues about what might come next. As I have written before, the federal government has put extensive emphasis on converting retired coal plants into advanced nuclear reactors. These conversions, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, can save up to 35% on construction costs and retain much of the existing workforce. In Wyoming, TerraPower is currently building a reactor on a former coal site, and it would not be a surprise to see Kansas follow suit. This model could highlight a potential path forward for nuclear adoption in the historically coal-dominant Missouri.

Federal Reform and Cost Savings for Coal-to-Nuclear Transitions

The concept of coal-to-nuclear has drawn bipartisan attention in Washington, D.C., and has been codified in the recent ADVANCE Act, which directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop and implement strategies to enable more efficient licensing reviews for converting former coal plants and other former industry infrastructure into nuclear reactor sites.

A report prepared by experts at the Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Argonne National Laboratories found that these projects can achieve significant savings by repurposing existing infrastructure, such as steam-cycle components, since both nuclear and coal are thermal power plants that rely on generating steam to turn a turbine.

Missouri’s Long History with Coal and Transitioning Our Workforce

Coal has long been king in Missouri. Despite recent closures, Missouri remains the fourth most reliant state on coal, with coal supplying 57% of electricity generation in 2024. That legacy presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

Missouri has several coal plant sites that could be strong candidates for advanced nuclear conversion. A study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory identified three Missouri coal power plant sites (retired or slated for retirement between 2020 and 2040) as suitable for hosting a number of reactors.

Not only is there an opportunity to make use of our physical infrastructure, but Missouri can also use our existing workforce. The U.S. Department of Energy notes that many coal-plant and nuclear-plant jobs share identical or similar occupation codes, meaning a large portion of the existing workforce could transition with minimal retraining.

A Nuclear Advisory Council Could Help Identify Steps for Missouri

Another way to better identify potential nuclear sites is by creating a nuclear advisory council. If Missouri brought together the best and brightest minds in nuclear energy to discuss our unique opportunities, analyze trends in federal regulation, and address our state’s weaknesses, the Show-Me State could become a significant player in nuclear development.

Kansas is moving along in its process. Let’s hope the Show-Me State doesn’t let this same opportunity pass it by.

Interested in Nuclear Energy in Missouri?

Read my recent report, Connecting Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, here.

Jefferson City Residents Should Be Skeptical of Conference Center Project

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of this commentary appeared in the News-Tribune.

On November 4, Jefferson City voters will decide on a proposal to renew the city’s seven percent hotel tax. The proceeds from the tax will help fund a new conference center for the city. Supporters of the new conference center have claimed it will create 370 new jobs and generate over $100 million in economic growth. Exaggerated estimates such as this one have been made on behalf of convention and conference center projects all around the country for decades, and the historic evidence is clear that Jefferson City voters should be dubious of such claims.

Between now and November, Jefferson City residents who visit St. Louis should drive by the largely empty dome attached to St. Louis’s downtown conference center to see how these conference center promises often play out. That dome was a part of a large convention center expansion in the 1990s. The same promises of growth, revenue, and utopia were all made when St. Louis voters approved a hotel tax increase back then. Now the dome is mostly empty, and the regional body that manages it is struggling to pay for its upkeep. You can also visit the site of the taxpayer-subsidized convention center hotel that went along with the project. You can only visit the site of the hotel, not the hotel itself, because the hotel failed and was foreclosed on long ago.

Like a Cold War general in a Kubrick movie or a carpenter with a box full of nails, local tourism agencies have the same solution for every problem. Economic recession? Expand the convention center. Economic growth? Enlarge the convention center. Global nuclear war? Definitely gonna need a bigger convention center to commiserate in.

The renewed hotel tax isn’t the only public money being used as part of this plan. State tax dollars are being pursued in the legislature, and the conference center may receive local tax subsidies.

Supporters of the conference center plan in Jefferson City would likely say their plan is not as grandiose as a major convention center and dome project in St. Louis, and they are correct in that regard. However, there are plenty of examples of more comparable projects that have failed to reach the level of activity anywhere near was promised. Haywood Sanders is a researcher and writer with the University of Texas–San Antonio who has studied convention center expansions for decades. He has documented how cities and tourism agencies systematically inflate projections to get these projects approved. Sanders has cited the actual and underwhelming numbers of very comparable projects in Overland Park, Kansas, and St. Charles, Missouri. Overland Park opened its convention center and hotel in 2002. Project supporters had projected $36 million in annual hotel revenue by 2012, but the reality was much lower, coming in at under $20 million.

Sanders explains that the convention and conference-center industry peaked in the early 2000s and shows no signs of returning to the success it had back then. With a major convention area nearby in Lake of the Ozarks, a new center in Jefferson City will face intense competition for these limited conference opportunities.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for conference centers whose overstated benefits, small as they will be, will largely go to private entities. Jefferson City is the capital of the Show-Me State, and the claims being made by convention-center supporters should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism by voters.

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