Brentwood Considering Mandating EV Charging Stations in New Townhomes and Apartments

Posted on by Jakob Puckett

Brentwood officials are considering a new electric vehicle charging station law that could raise prices for residents either looking to renovate or move into newly built townhomes or apartments.

The rule they’re considering would require electric vehicle charging stations be built with “new and substantial renovations and additions [at least 50 percent of the unit’s final floorspace] on single-family two family and townhomes and new multi-family residential developments.” The Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a similar proposed mandate last month, but the Brentwood Board of Aldermen has revived the idea, with the Brentwood mayor indicating they may pass a bill on the matter.

Each EV charger costs an average of $5,000 to install, but it is still unclear who will pay for them. Ameren offers property owners subsidies for EV charging stations up to half the cost, but that still leaves thousands of dollars unaccounted for.

Additionally, their deliberations are vague concerning how many EV charging stations would be required per property. Would it be one per family in the case of townhomes? Would it be a percentage of total parking spaces available, as the new Saint Louis County ordinance requires? Would families that don’t use an EV be paying for their EV-driving neighbor’s charging station?

The board of aldermen’s proposal is not finalized, but the idea should be rejected. Let property owners install EV charging stations at their own pace based on the market demand for them. EV charging stations have grown rapidly across the country for the past several years without mandates like the one Brentwood officials are considering.

In the near future, equipping townhomes and apartments with EV charging stations may indeed make good business sense, either to keep existing tenants or attract new ones. But shouldn’t business and property owners be the ones deciding where to place EV charging stations rather than government officials?

Call for Music Production Tax Credits Sounds Familiar

Posted on by Corianna Baier

Gateway Studios is using a hodgepodge of incentives to build a $130 million music production facility in Chesterfield. The company is also lobbying to create a state incentive program specifically for the music production industry. While I’m not opposed to making Chesterfield the new Nashville, it’s a lofty goal that interested parties want to achieve using taxpayer dollars and government handouts. Is anyone else getting déjà vu? This is sounding eerily similar to the colossal failure that was Missouri’s film production tax credit program.

The state’s film tax credit program was intended to stimulate the film industry by reducing a studio’s tax liability. Thankfully,  the film tax credit program sunset in 2013. The program was a failure. The Tax Credit Review Commission recommended that the tax credit be eliminated because it served too narrow of an industry and didn’t provide a positive return on investment. There was very little evidence that the program delivered on any of its promises. Do we really think the music production tax credit will produce a different result under very similar circumstances?

Show-Me Institute writers have been arguing against the film tax credit program for years (this tax credit program continues to haunt the legislature). What was said about that program also rings true for a potential music production tax program: If this industry cannot succeed in Missouri without government assistance, then maybe it shouldn’t be here.

Missouri certainly wasn’t the next Hollywood, but perhaps there’s potential for us to be the country’s next music capital. But that isn’t for the government to decide. If a private company wants to make it happen, great! Lawmakers, on the other hand, should not be giving out incentives (on the backs of other taxpayers) to artificially boost music production companies. It didn’t work with film tax credits—why should we expect a music production tax credit to be any different?

Why Missouri Should Embrace Retail Electric Competition in One Graph

Posted on by Jakob Puckett

Since 2008, Missourians’ average retail electricity prices have increased the fourth most in the country. The average retail price of electricity jumped 17 percent in our state over this time period after taking inflation into account.

Missourians have little recourse to deal with these rising costs. Missouri’s retail electric markets are monopolized, meaning that each Missourian only has one possible electric service provider.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. As I have written previously, thirteen states and the District of Columbia allow customers to choose between competing electric service providers. Looking at the time since competitive markets matured in 2008, the results have been quite encouraging, as shown in the graph below.

Source: Energy Information Administration

Missourians are losing ground when it comes to overall electric prices, too. In 2008, Missouri’s prices were quite low—43rd-highest overall electricity prices nationwide. Missouri’s prices now sit in the middle of the pack at 29th, due to the rapid price increases shown in the graph above.

Across every sector, competitive states are outperforming monopolized states—and especially Missouri—when it comes to lowering prices. Competition has helped make the electric service industry in those states more efficient and has passed on savings to customers. If lawmakers want to reduce the cost of living for Missourians while enhancing their economic freedom, they ought to consider embracing retail electric competition.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights, Money for Music, and AG Lawsuit

Posted on by Corianna Baier

Corianna Baier, David Stokes, and Patrick Ishmael join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights, a lawsuit filed by Missouri’s AG against The Springfield School District, an update on corporate welfare around the state, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

 

The Kansas City Star Lies in “Parents’ Bill of Rights” Editorial

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

In an editorial titled “Missouri think tank’s ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’ wants us to subsidize private schools,” the Kansas City Star Editorial Board takes aim at our Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR) transparency proposal, claiming that it is intended to sneak money to private schools and “designed to make angry people angrier.”

Both claims are lies.

I know they’re lies because I authored the proposal, and I know why I wrote it the way I did. At no point does the text of the MPBR reference—sneakily or otherwise—expanding Missouri’s educational choice options beyond its current boundaries. A simple call to our office or my personal cell, which staff at the Star have, would have further disabused the editorial writer of the notion. And if, as the editorial stipulates, people are angry about what is happening in their schools, this proposal intends to be a solution that reduces that anger by . . . solving those problems.

Problem solving! How quaint.

Indeed, finding solutions to public policy problems is central to the mission of the Show-Me Institute, and we pride ourselves on pursuing and advancing those solutions with facts and fair arguments. We believe our words speak for themselves and we invite feedback and criticism of those words, but our standing presumption is that our counterparts in the media and elsewhere have adopted a similar approach in their critiques—an approach that relies on facts and advances those facts through fair argument. The Star’s editorial board missed both of those marks here.

No one is hiding that the Show-Me Institute organizationally supports school choice. We do. But the MPBR is not a school choice proposal, nor is it a call to “subsidize private schools.” Affirming that parents have the right “to choose the existing educational option that works best for their children” is important because many parents and children who qualify for that choice under current law have been denied it in the past. It’s mind-boggling that the Star doesn’t know this.

The Star and I agree that “transparency shouldn’t be limited to public schools.” We’ve been working on mandating government transparency for cities, counties, school districts, local taxing districts, the state, and others for years—transparency ideas taken up not only by the Missouri Treasurer’s office three years ago but also by the legislature with HB 271 just months ago. That we’ve finally gotten to curriculum transparency is, if anything, late. The implication that schools are somehow being targeted in a vacuum for transparency is to have sleepwalked through the last half decade of Missouri policy and politics.

Like a parent might be, I’m not mad at the Star—I’m just disappointed. I assume that Star employees still know how to operate a phone or send electronic mail to ascertain and share facts. That they instead chose to share the false idea that the MPBR would subsidize private schools is disappointing.

After all, it wasn’t the Show-Me Institute trying to make angry people angrier.

How to Make School Boards More Responsive with Michael Hartney

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Michael Hartney. 

Michael T. Hartney joined the Boston College political science faculty in fall 2017. Previously he was Assistant Professor of Politics at Lake Forest College. Professor Hartney’s main research and teaching interests include: state and local government, interest groups, and public policy.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

A Truly Terrible Idea for West County

Posted on by David Stokes

The title of this article in the Post-Dispatch says everything one needs to know about the focus of far too many businesses in Missouri: “New Chesterfield music production development eyes legislation to bolster industry.” How do you increase profits? Well, first you need to get special legislation passed.

This new business, which has just opened in West St. Louis County and has already received millions of dollars in state and county tax subsidies, is all set to go with a plan to increase profits. Is it going to focus on customer service? Hiring a better sales team? Increasing business efficiency? Apparently not. It is going to focus right away on hiring lobbyists and getting the Missouri Legislature to pass a new, special state tax incentive program for its industry. From the article (emphasis added):

Gateway Studios in August hired Bardgett and four lobbyists from his firm. Kerr said the company is hoping to win support for an incentive program tailored to the music production industry. Pennsylvania has its own program for the industry, which helps draw production companies and acts to the state.

What Ludwig Von Mises said in 1944 in his famous book Bureaucracy is becoming reality in our state with tax subsides (emphasis again added):

Such executives did not care a whit for the company’s prosperity. They were accustomed to bureaucratic management and they accordingly altered the conduct of the corporation’s business. Why bother about bringing out better and cheaper products if one can rely on support on the part of the government? For them government contracts, more effective tariff protection, and other government favors were the main concern. And they paid for such privileges by contributions to party funds and government propaganda funds and by appointing people sympathetic to the authorities.

The tax subsidies this particular business has already received are bad enough. The idea that a special Missouri state tax incentive would be created to benefit one particular business in Missouri is appalling. There is no evidence that supports the idea that subsidy-focused economic development plans are successful, especially in a growing, thriving area like Chesterfield. Economic development officials and politicians cannot predict the future, and their choices are often based on political favoritism. Furthermore, chasing subsidies often leads businesses to make sub-optimal choices, such as locating in a less productive place to qualify for tax money, or focusing resources on lobbying instead of business improvement (the latter of which, unfortunately, does pay off far too often).

There has been progress made on some fronts in this fight, but creating a new incentive program just because an exciting and hip new business asks for it would be a terrible step backward.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Introducing the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

Too often, local officials have resisted oversight of Missouri public schools and districts. School bureaucrats from across the state have pushed back against Sunshine requests filed by the public, including many from the Show-Me Curricula Project, and now lawsuits are flying. I’ve heard stories from concerned parents and teachers about their treatment by school officials and their fears of persecution for speaking up about controversial issues.

This is not how parents and taxpayers should be treated by our public education system. Enough is enough.

In an effort to put the power of schooling back in the hands of the public that funds it, today I am introducing the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR).

The MPBR emphasizes two objectives—transparency and accountability—and sets out reforms that would allow taxpayers and parents to see exactly how their schools and districts are operating and what they are teaching. Titularly highlighting parents’ role in the education of Missouri kids, the MPBR is geared toward promoting good, responsive governance in taxpayer-supported schools and school districts. Certainly, many of these reforms could be just as easily applied to other local governments like cities and counties—and eventually should.

But the taxpaying public should have an unambiguous right to see what’s being taught to their kids, how schools are performing, and how money is being spent. Taxpayers and parents should be able to use every tool available to them to ensure Missouri kids can have a productive educational career and life. For that to happen, taxpayers and parents must have oversight of the educational bodies in our state.

As I’ve written before, the privilege of taxing comes with a duty of forthrightness and responsibility. Denying that forthrightness and responsibility is to entertain the idea that government rules the people and not the other way around. The MPBR seeks to proclaim unequivocally where power in our system resides—with the people—and to emphasize that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable preconditions to accessing tax dollars.

Stay tuned in the days, weeks, and months ahead as we go into greater depth on this initiative.

We’ve only just begun.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

 

The parents of Missouri’s children have a fundamental right to participate in and direct the education of their children. In order to effectuate and protect those rights, the state hereby adopts an approach that affirms “sunlight is the best disinfectant” to ensure parents can see, understand and trust representations made by state and local education officials about their children’s education and equips parents with the tools to make informed choices to educate their children especially if, in their judgment, the unique needs of their children are not being met.

Those rights include but are not limited to:

  • the right to transparent access to school and school district curricula and lesson plans, made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
    • Curricula shall be available to the public at least 30 days before the beginning of a semester’s classes.
    • Because they are often formulated up to the date of instruction, lesson plans shall be available to the public no later than 30 days after the date such course materials were taught. Parents nonetheless have the right to request such materials directly from teachers prior to that time.
    • The right to instructional material includes the right to transparent access to school and school district faculty and staff training materials, also made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on a website hosted by the state.
  • the right to transparent access to school and school district academic performance information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and based on data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
    • the percentage of all students scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
    • the percentage of students in each reportable subgroup, including race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English language learners, scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
    • the Growth score in English/language arts (ELA), measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 through 8
    • the Growth score in math, measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 thru 8
  • the right to transparent access to school and school district financial information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
    • transactional data similar to that produced from an accounts payable report, and if practicable rendered in a manner similar to the existing Show-Me Checkbook website maintained by the Treasurer’s Office.
    • the district’s latest financial statements filed with the state.
  • the right to transparent access to contract negotiations between the district and labor groups with whom the district is considering entering into labor agreement (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) including access to all materials used in negotiation and all finalized documents that describe the legal obligations of parties pursuant to an agreement. Such documents shall be available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
  • the right to choose existing educational choice options provided by law that best suit the learning needs of their children.
  • the right to request to opt their children out of the classroom for any presentation of content listed in the syllabus with which they disagree.
  • the right to control their children’s likeness in district materials, subject to exceptions like court orders.
  • the right to control their children’s health and identifying markers, including but not limited to the right to opt out of health measures not required by state order or statute.

Failure by a school or school district to abide by these rights and expectations could subject the school or school district to financial penalties by the state and administrative penalties affecting the privileges afforded districts under state law.

Download a Copy of the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

Douglas Murray: Reflections on the Revolution in America

Posted on by Zach Lawhorn

 

Douglas Murray is a best-selling author, an award-winning political commentator, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He has written books on neoconservatism, terrorism and national security, freedom of speech, and the rise of woke culture and identity politics. His upcoming book, The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason, explores why in recent history it has become acceptable to discuss the flaws and crimes of Western culture, but celebrating the West’s contributions is condemned as hate speech.

Presentation recorded on November 10, 2021, in St. Louis, Missouri at an event presented by Show-Me Institute, Show-Me Opportunity, National Review Institute, and NewsTalkSTL.

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