Third-Grade Retention and Early Literacy Policies

Posted on by Avery Frank

Reading scores in Missouri continue to fall, relative to both past performance and other states. But this trend doesn’t have to continue. Across the country, numerous states have improved reading outcomes, and a common thread among these states (which include Mississippi, Indiana, and Louisiana) is their focus on early literacy policies.

The premise is simple: if you can effectively teach students to read in their early years, then they will be better at reading to learn for the rest of their years.

While there is of course need to continue reforming education practices at all grade-levels, the research literature and recent real-world examples show the positive outcomes that can result from focusing on helping students learn to read effectively at a young age.

This report explores the beneficial effects of a focus on early literacy. Drawing on the findings of a 2023 study by John Westall & Amy Cummings at Michigan State University, it provides a road map for Missouri: establishing a mandatory, academic-based third-grade retention policy, fully eliminating the three-cueing method for teaching word reading, and aligning teacher preparation programs with the science of reading.

Click here to read the full policy brief.

Platte County Agreement Could Be a Model for Missouri

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Platte County has had a difficult 2025 reassessment cycle. Most stories I have read and heard put the blame on the county assessor. I have no idea if that is true or not, and the assessor defended himself here. All I know is that county assessor is a quirky elected position where if you simply don’t do your job, you actually make voters happier.

The state tax commission (STC) stepped into the below-market mess and required Platte County to increase its assessed valuations to a more accurate level. The county and the STC agreed to an across the board 6.8% increase on residential property in Platte County. This agreement is exciting to me, and yes, I realize it is weird to be excited by something like that. But I have been calling for years for counties to stop individually assessing every property and to do it using an average-based system. As I explained in my recent testimony before a House committee on property taxes:

Missouri should eliminate the practice of sending thousands of assessors out into our neighborhoods every other year to assess residential property. In the current system, each county assessor uses sale prices of comparable homes or other, less accurate, methods to assess every home in the county. The county’s average rate of increase—which is used for tax rate–setting purposes—is determined only after all of the homes are reassessed. I believe the process should be reversed.

. . . This article could serve as a starting point for the Missouri State Tax Commission as it worked with county assessors, local realtors, and online real estate resources to determine average county increases (or decreases) in valuation for each reassessment cycle.

Each residential, commercial, or agricultural property in a county could then be adjusted based on the county’s average for that particular class or subclass of property. The various tax rates could then be adjusted based on that average, and the vast majority of homeowners would be subject to the same resulting increase (or decrease) in their overall property taxes. This would eliminate wide discrepancies from house to house that undermine faith in the current system and sometimes lead to high tax increases for some homeowners even when the overall assessment increases are modest.

The final part is really the key. If everyone sees the same residential increase, then everyone’s tax rates can be rolled back the same amount as dictated by the Hancock Amendment, and everyone will more or less see the same, small property tax increase.

There is one potential flaw in the plan, which Platte County may be experiencing this year. If taxing districts find ways around rolling back their tax rates, then the idea doesn’t work. And from what I have been told by knowledgeable sources, school districts have started to aggressively move funding from their general service funds to their debt service funds. The latter is exempt from rate rollback requirements. I have been told that two school districts in Platte County are going to do this. (I hope that’s wrong.) I know of one school district in Lebanon that was planning to do it but instead “compromised” and moved most of the general fund rollback to the debt service fund but did allow a very small overall decrease in the total fund.

These are just a few specific examples, but I hear about it happening all over Missouri. However much ignoring the tax rate rollback by raising the debt service rate may be happening, it is wrong. School districts (or any government bodies) should not do this, and state government needs to amend the laws to make sure it can’t happen going forward.

SNAP Back to Reality

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Medicaid wasn’t the only welfare program that received significant reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, will similarly be seeing major changes very soon.

For Missouri, perhaps the biggest change will be the cost of SNAP going up. Unlike Medicaid, the federal government has historically paid for 100% of the SNAP benefit, with states only on the hook for 50% of its administrative costs. The OBBB increases the share of administrative costs borne by states to 75%, and has the potential to start charging states for some program benefit costs as well.

There’s a noticeable focus in the OBBB on improving program integrity in America’s welfare programs. With Medicaid, the focus was on checking program recipients’ eligibility more frequently. For SNAP, the focus is on reducing state payment error rates. Last year, the national rate of overpayment for SNAP (awarding benefits to people who don’t qualify or offering more benefits than the recipient was eligible for) approached 10%, with Missouri not much behind at 8.16%. Perhaps the most surprising thing about the payment errors is that they’re almost entirely overpayments. The error rate for underpayments barely exceeds 1%.

To be clear, there could be myriad reasons for the errors, but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that the government needs to do better. One possible explanation is that states tend toward overpayments because they aren’t responsible for the cost. The OBBB tries to address this misaligned incentive by requiring states to get their error rates below 6% by 2028; states that fail to meet this goal will need to start paying for a portion of the cost, with the share scaling by how far away the state is from the 6% goal.

All told, the SNAP changes contained in the OBBB could have a greater impact on Missouri’s budget than the changes to Medicaid. According to the Tax Foundation, these new costs could reach up to $400 million per year for Missouri if the state isn’t able to sufficiently reduce its payment error rate. It’s important to remember that the only guaranteed increase in cost for states is the higher share required for administrative services. If Missouri can find efficiencies in how it administers the program, the state’s cost might not need to go up much at all.

In the coming weeks, I’ll explain more about the OBBB’s changes to SNAP (no, these aren’t all of them), but these are the two that could have the largest impact on Missouri’s budget. Now that the federal government has finally gotten around to tackling the many broken incentives in America’s welfare system, it’s time for Missouri to step up and follow through on enacting comprehensive reform.

Massachusetts Joins NYC and KC in Shifting Fees to Landlords

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Massachusetts lawmakers recently approved a measure requiring landlords—not tenants—to cover apartment broker fees, which often equal one month’s rent. The move mirrors a new policy in New York City, where landlords are likewise barred from charging tenants unless the tenant directly hires the broker. Proponents claim the change will save renters money. But early evidence suggests it merely repackages the same cost—and may even drive rents higher.

In New York, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act took effect on June 11. Within a week, average listed rents jumped 15 percent, from $4,750 to $5,500. Many landlords, faced with absorbing fees once paid by tenants, simply raised rents to cover the difference. Others introduced vague “management” or “technology” fees—charges that resemble the old broker fees in everything but name. At the same time, the number of apartment listings fell, suggesting some landlords were withholding inventory to preserve pricing power.

This cost-shifting dynamic isn’t unique to New York. In Kansas City, for instance, landlords must pay a $20-per-unit annual inspection fee—and are legally barred from passing it on to tenants. Yet few believe it doesn’t show up in the rent. As with most expenses in housing, the end user ultimately picks up the tab.

Even if renters are no longer writing separate checks to brokers or city departments, they’ll still bear the cost indirectly. Landlords operate in competitive markets and adjust pricing in response to total expenses, no matter how those costs are labeled. The illusion of savings may please voters, but it won’t lower rents.

Such policies also obscure the true cost of housing. When fees are baked into rent rather than itemized, it’s harder for renters to assess value. And as seen in New York, shifting fee obligations may reduce supply if landlords delay listings or forgo using brokers entirely, which limits choice for renters.

Some argue landlords are better positioned to negotiate broker fees, or that renters shouldn’t face steep upfront costs. That may be true in theory. But it assumes landlords won’t pass on those costs—an assumption contradicted by New York’s immediate market response.

If the goal is housing affordability, policymakers should focus on fundamentals: zoning reform, faster permitting, and reducing regulation to increase supply. Reassigning fees won’t create more apartments. But it can inflate rents.

Missourians—and Massachusetts residents—should be skeptical of promises to cut costs by simply shifting who pays them. As Kansas City and now New York have shown, policies that ignore how markets behave rarely deliver the relief they promise.

Most Teachers Don’t Like Equitable Grading Practices Either

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Rather than being viewed as accurate indicators of knowledge and skills, traditional grades are viewed by some as contributing to longstanding social inequities. In response, some districts have adopted “equitable grading” practices, which can include giving students partial credit for assignments that are not turned in, allowing multiple test retakes without penalty, and not penalizing students for failing to complete homework or participate in class.

For my take on why equitable grading policies are illogical and misguided, see my previous post about San Francisco’s recent bid to introduce a sweeping Grading for Equity policy. It ultimately failed under intense public pressure once families understood what was happening, because most people do not support these ideas.

It turns out most teachers don’t support them either. That’s the main conclusion from a new report by David Griffith and Adam Tyner at the Fordham Institute. The report draws on a nationally representative survey of teachers to examine their views. Key findings include:

  • Equitable grading practices are widespread: About half of teachers say their school or district has adopted at least one “equitable” grading practice, and a third report multiple such policies.
  • Most teachers believe these practices are harmful to academic engagement.
  • Most teachers want high standards for students but feel pressured to inflate grades.

I encourage interested readers to take a look at the full report. Among other things, it’s a good reminder that teachers aren’t so different from everyone else, and they’re also frustrated by policies that lower expectations.

(Note: In a previous post about the San Francisco policy, I indicated that I hadn’t heard of any “Grading for Equity” policies in Missouri, but a reader reached out to explain that many Missouri districts have adopted them. It is hard to know how many, but their widespread use nationally—as documented in the Fordham report—suggests it could be a lot.)

A Free-Market Guide to Zoning with David Stokes

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute Director of Municipal Policy David Stokes about his new paper in the Free-Market Guide to Missouri Municipalities series on planning and zoning. They discuss how fragmentation among local governments can limit overly strict zoning, how zoning rules affect housing affordability, and why “last house syndrome” poses risks for Missouri’s future growth. From accessory dwelling units and minimum parking requirements to the debate over multifamily housing, Stokes explains how smart reforms can protect property rights and keep housing costs down.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Planning and Zoning in Missouri
02:35 The Impact of Fragmentation on Zoning
05:24 Housing Affordability and Zoning Regulations
08:22 The Role of Municipalities in Housing Development
11:18 Challenges of NIMBYism and YIMBYism
14:21 Accessory Dwelling Units and Short-Term Rentals
17:00 Planning and Infrastructure in Missouri
19:57 Future Papers and Conclusion

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thank you, David Stokes, so much for being on the podcast this morning. You have a new paper out with the Show Me Institute. Well, it’s actually part three of an existing series on your free market guide to Missouri municipalities. And this one is on planning and zoning. So thanks for joining us to answer some questions about it. Great. I do have one question that I was just saying before we started recording. I’ve seen this paper a few times.

David Stokes (00:19)
Delighted to be here.

Susan Pendergrass (00:26)
And one thing that I noticed up front is that I complain about the number of school districts in St. Louis County and how fragmented it is. And other folks have also said similar things, too many small municipalities. But it seems to be the case that when we’re talking about things like planning and zoning and permitting and regulations, that can be a good thing. Is that right?

David Stokes (00:46)
Absolutely. Because it’s harder to enact comprehensive planning, zoning, major things like urban growth boundaries—the extreme things like an urban growth boundary that we don’t have in Missouri. But it’s harder to enact that the more governments you have to get in line to agree to it in the first place. So it’s definitely—I don’t want to say it’s a causation. I don’t think the data is there to—

Susan Pendergrass (00:47)
What?

David Stokes (01:14)
But it’s definitely a—I would say it’s a truism—that there’s a strong connection between the metropolitan areas that have less strict zoning around the country. And over the past decade, we’ve really changed a lot in American local public policy to realize the harms of overly strict zoning. Until the past decade or so, it was just sort of assumed that strict zoning was a good thing. So now that we recognize the harms of it, we see that the places like St. Louis—and to a lesser extent, Kansas City—that have more fragmentation. St. Louis by any measure nationally has extreme fragmentation, meaning a whole lot of local governments, be they cities or school districts or fire districts or streetlight districts. I mean, we can really get into the obscure ones here in Missouri, but the more you have of that, the less strict zoning you’re going to have. And then that results in lower housing prices.

Susan Pendergrass (02:00)
You—

David Stokes (02:10)
What is the good that comes from that in the end? I think there’s lots of goods that come from it and some harms too. But the real good—the point of this paper, and the good for somebody who doesn’t care about public policy or libertarian thoughts or anything and just wants to be able to buy a nice house at an affordable price—is: the less strict zoning you have, the more fragmentation you have, the more you see that in lower housing costs.

Susan Pendergrass (02:35)
Yeah, and if you were starting a business too and one municipality, let’s say Clayton, has really high restrictions on what you can build, where you can build a health office and be—I don’t know if they do or don’t—but then you could just simply go next door to the next place and pick a different place that has fewer restrictions.

David Stokes (02:52)
You can, and that does happen. One of the ways they’ve solved that dilemma in St. Louis County especially is they do a lot more code enforcement and permitting at the county level than at the municipal level. Because nobody wants to have to get—if I’m going to be a plumber—nobody wants to have a plumbing license in 88 different cities. So they do that at the county level. You get your county license and it’s good throughout all of St. Louis County. Now, there are good aspects of that—mostly that you have to get one license instead of 88, which is an obvious good—but it’s also subject to abuse as well. It’s sort of the counterargument to the benefits of fragmentation in that it’s easier for special interest groups, like in this case, say the plumbers union, to capture licensing in St. Louis County if they only have to dominate one board as opposed to 88 boards. So there are two different ways to go—there’s the good and then the part of it that might not be quite as good.

Susan Pendergrass (03:59)
Yeah, so you make the point in this paper that while St. Louis does not necessarily have a housing affordability issue—or maybe even Missouri—it’s still worthwhile for folks who are working at the municipal level, like if you’re working as a newly elected Board of Aldermen or newly elected county board official, to educate yourself on what is and isn’t possible to make sure that you avoid what you just described as the pitfalls of over-regulating.

David Stokes (04:28)
Absolutely. A lot of this paper is about—in the not very scientific term—sort of low-hanging fruit. Just because zoning in Missouri may be less strict than in other states… there’s actually, I discovered in researching this paper—I’d always understood and known that zoning in Missouri and in St. Louis and Kansas City was less strict than in many other parts of the country—but then I discovered that there is actually an index out of the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania that ranks metropolitan areas by zoning strictness. And St. Louis is the least strict for zoning of any metropolitan area in the country in this ranking. And Kansas City is sort of in the middle. But then you see that Kansas City on the Missouri side is closer to St. Louis, and it’s the Kansas side that is more strict and puts them in the middle. So we really do have not-strict zoning.

Susan Pendergrass (05:05)
That’s hilarious.

David Stokes (05:24)
And that’s a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t mean that cities shouldn’t make some of these reforms that are coming nationwide that would still benefit Missouri, such as abolishing minimum parking requirements, allowing smaller lot sizes, allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their own property. It’s a great reform focus—from the Show Me Institute’s perspective—because these are changes that can be made that enhance people’s own property rights and what they can do with their own property, while at the same time giving people more choice. And in the long run, if you do more of these, you’ll help keep housing prices down even more for people. And in a good way—you’re not doing this through mandates or rules; you’re just saying we’re going to allow people to build even more. And I’m not against every limit on every property thing ever. There are some that are reasonable—particularly in Missouri we have floodplain limits on where you build that are very reasonable in many cases—but there’s still a lot of good stuff we can do.

Susan Pendergrass (06:33)
Yeah, I saw recently last week that in the upcoming election cycle, housing affordability is a top issue for folks. This is really bubbling up the list of priorities because it’s gotten so expensive and, you know, I keep reading about why people can’t afford to move, and they can’t afford to sell their home, or they can’t afford to buy a home. And certainly some markets—like you mentioned in the paper, like Portland—and you mentioned this briefly: Portland’s got a brown zone and a green zone, and you can’t build in the green zone. You have to stay in the brown zone, and it makes it very prohibitively expensive to build new housing stock in Portland, and the prices have gone up dramatically. We do not yet have that problem in St. Louis, but I know that it’s on a lot of people’s minds and certainly, statewide, we still have some concerns about having enough affordable housing for everybody. I do think it’s important to make sure that we don’t let regulation creep happen so that we find ourselves raising our prices artificially.

David Stokes (07:36)
And you see this in disputes in our exurban areas now in, say, St. Charles and Jefferson County—surrounding counties of St. Louis—and on the Kansas City side as well. Last year, for example, in St. Charles County, a big new subdivision was rejected in a wooded part of the county—I think it was near Weldon Spring. They’re also allowing some, but—

Susan Pendergrass (07:56)
Was it Weldon Spring, or what was that?

David Stokes (08:02)
And that’s the dilemma that people face: as places like St. Charles and Jefferson County grow and get more full, there’s going to be inevitable pressure from the people there now to stop new building. It’s called last-house syndrome: “Great, my new home here is great. Now don’t build any more because I got the house and it’s perfect.” You see that everywhere, and you understand the concerns. I try not to completely ignore the concerns of the folks, because they’re not always wrong—of course, we’ll go back to the floodplain issue—but you’ll have people worry. It’s the people there now: concerns about traffic and overbuilding and destruction of wooded areas and too dense and all those things. But you want people to realize that other people probably said the same thing before they built your house, and it was a good thing that people in most instances really said no to that, and it allowed that construction to continue. And I really want people to realize that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:34)
Yeah. That’s right. ⁓

David Stokes (09:00)
If we go—it’s not about any one subdivision, because look, there probably are certain instances in certain places where the new zoning is too dense, whatever it may be—it’s not that every rejection is always completely wrong. But if you start in Missouri making a pattern of this in the outer areas of Kansas City and St. Louis, where you start turning down a lot of these new subdivisions to preserve whatever it is that people moved out there for 20 years ago, then housing prices are going to increase in Missouri. They will increase substantially, and it won’t take that long if you really do stop the building. So that’s one of the takeaways from this paper: to the largest extent possible, we need to keep allowing the building of these new homes or apartments. And obviously a big part of the paper is that apartments should be generally allowed in more places too. That’s how we’re going to continue to have low housing costs, and that’s the benefit of it. It’s not about one subdivision in one space, but if it becomes a trend, it’s really going to be a problem—the trend being protecting it.

Susan Pendergrass (10:15)
Yeah, and the multifamily for sure. What are your findings around that? People don’t seem to want to have to look at apartment buildings. Is that right?

David Stokes (10:25)
They don’t—there’s just some natural rejection against it. And it’s frustrating to see. In some spots—I remember in the City of St. Louis; this is one where, when you lived in St. Louis, you lived near there—at the corner of Skinker and Delmar there was a proposal for a large apartment building right there, and it got a lot of opposition, and it has not moved forward. It was stopped. I hope it comes back because it’s a perfect lot for an apartment building. It’s just an empty lot—it was a chicken restaurant for many, many years and a popular one—but it’s been vacant forever. And it’s right near public transit. So it’s the perfect idea where you should be able to build there, and you shouldn’t have generous or extensive—

Susan Pendergrass (10:59)
An abandoned empty lot, right?

David Stokes (11:18)
—parking requirements for those buildings, because one of the projects—

Susan Pendergrass (11:21)
That’s what people were kind of freaking out about though, was the parking. Like, where are all these cars going to go? And there was one across the street and they had only put in like one parking space for every two units or something, and they figured that people would use public transport. Anyway, I remember the pushback on that. And it’s this NIMBYism–YIMBYism thing, right? It’s so hard to push people to YIMBYism—yes in my backyard—because of things they don’t… I don’t… These same people often talk a lot about housing affordability, so I don’t mean to overgeneralize, but there are some of the very same people who are so concerned about it who don’t want to look at apartment buildings.

David Stokes (11:50)
Right, don’t want to—and you understand. That’s a very liberal area that we’re talking about. If you were to define the politics of that area, you’re right: many of the residents of those communities in both the city and in University City right there would, in theory, in the big picture, probably agree, but then, “Oh, we don’t want this development here.” And it was a perfect place for a new apartment. Again, of all the St. Louis area, it’s one of the best areas served by public transit—

Susan Pendergrass (12:06)
Yes.

David Stokes (12:31)
—with buses and MetroLink and the WashU shuttles, because so many people who would be in those apartments would be WashU students. They’ve got that extensive shuttle system. But it was rejected, and I hope it comes back. And that’s just one of many, many examples of it.

Susan Pendergrass (12:31)
Yeah, yeah. What about the—what part of zoning and planning is this push in the City of St. Louis, anyway, to try to get people to move downtown? Is that something that’s coded in? I feel like they’re trying to get people to go downtown.

David Stokes (13:03)
They are. And thankfully, I don’t think zoning is preventing that. Of all the reasons people may or may not be choosing to move downtown—fear of crime and businesses leaving downtown, the jobs—as somebody who lived downtown in the late 1990s and early 2000s, to move down there when many of the jobs have left—fear—it’s a harder thing to convince. But I don’t think there’s— I don’t think it’s difficult or has ever been difficult for the loft developers of the ’90s to get permission to take an empty commercial building and turn it into lofts. There might have been a lot of issues they had to deal with, but zoning—I don’t believe—was one of them. Thankfully that’s a very good thing. But it’s one of the fun parts about this paper, right? We’re talking in the other papers and in the ones to come about the best ways to do public safety and public works and a lot of things. In most of these instances we all agree somebody has to do this service, and it’s just a question of: does the city provide it themselves? Do they contract with a neighboring municipality to do it—such as a small city contracting with a neighboring city to do police service? Should you let the private sector do it in a regulated manner, like utilities? But we can all agree it has to be done. Whereas I started this paper saying: despite the fact that it may be incredibly common, cities don’t actually need planning or zoning—life can exist without it. And that’s where the current HOA options come into play. And the history of HOAs in St. Louis, in the private place model, is such an interesting part of that. So there’s a little bit of the historic discussion of all of this in the paper too.

Susan Pendergrass (14:53)
So where do Missouri municipalities for the most part right now stand on things like—two questions I’m going to ask you—accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals or Airbnbs? Where do they stand on ADUs?

David Stokes (15:06)
Well, slowly but surely, we’re starting to permit ADUs. We haven’t had any sort of statewide, to my knowledge, overarching legislation. And that’s where the fact that we have low housing costs in Missouri matters. I don’t think we’re going to see the California situation that had to go statewide because none of the municipalities would agree to it. I don’t think we’ll see that here because there’s not the tremendous high-cost-of-housing crisis to push that. But slowly but surely, cities are starting to allow more ADUs, and that’s a very good thing. When you get out into rural areas—and in some places that don’t even have zoning in the first place—you can do any ADU you want to, or the zoning is so loose that of course you can build an apartment above your garage if you’d like to. Why are you even asking? But the cities have the rules against it.

Susan Pendergrass (15:52)
That’s where I live.

David Stokes (16:03)
Slowly but surely moving in the right direction there. And then it’s going in the opposite way with short-term rentals. Slowly but surely most cities are instituting short-term rental limitations. I’m not automatically opposed to that in every case. I get it: if you have a neighborhood and all of a sudden there’s a house where big parties are being thrown every weekend because they’re renting it out to different groups of people to throw parties, you’re going to hate that, and that’s going to impact the quality of your life. So I’ve been saying for a few years now that the short-term rental regulations I support would generally be things that don’t go to a blanket prohibition. I think that’s too far—and most cities aren’t doing that—but rather really focus on punishment of the property owner for repeated rule-breaking. One party is maybe one party, but if there’s a trend where you own the property and the people you’re renting to are consistently out of control, then the fines should be increased. I wouldn’t be opposed to them getting fairly steep up to a point too—that if it happens too often, you would lose your business license to operate that short-term rental. Because I do think that if you’re doing it a lot—if you’re routinely renting it out—you should be treated a little more like a hotel. We don’t want to give short-term rentals an advantage over the hotel-motel industry. You want that playing field to be as level as possible, especially for people who are renting their houses or condos or whatever out a lot. So then pull that license if it’s an abuse that’s happening consistently. But let’s try to—

Susan Pendergrass (17:55)
Well, I had that on my street.

David Stokes (17:56)
—go to a method through crackdown on rule-breaking, not blanket prohibitions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:00)
Yeah, we had that on my street in St. Louis, and it was a street of, I don’t know, three- or four-bedroom houses, and they somehow had eight bedrooms and a pool, which was very rare in my neighborhood. So they mostly just rented it out to college students and got called all the time—the police got brought in all the time for noise complaints. And there wasn’t really a good mechanism in place at the time to prevent it from happening. So I agree that there should be some limitations around them, but not to make it so strict that people can’t use it as intended. I mean, I stay in Airbnbs all the time. I like having them, but—

David Stokes (18:36)
Now, that police dilemma—that’s something in St. Louis and probably Kansas City, a few big cities, where the cops just have better things to do than break up parties. I mean, they’ve got violent crimes to address. That’s an issue: how are they going to take it seriously enough? In the average Missouri suburb or mid-sized cities, the police are going to take that a little more seriously, I would think. And a good comparison I like is in Lake of the Ozarks, where some cities have instituted strict rules against short-term rentals, while others, like Osage Beach—at least as of our research—hadn’t instituted anything and took a much more free-market approach: “We’re a tourist area; we want tourists to come here.” So it’ll be a good natural experiment over time to see how it affects property values, how growth is affected, as different comparable cities in the Lake of the Ozarks region choose different paths to move forward. So I definitely look forward to following that.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37)
Well, then I’ll know—another component to this paper is on planning. I think you just said a city doesn’t have to do planning if they don’t choose to, but are Missouri cities or municipalities planners? I mean, is that a planned thing, or are we more like anything goes?

David Stokes (19:56)
Most Missouri cities have plans. Right?

Susan Pendergrass (19:57)
I’ve been to New Town, by the way. I just want to say I have visited New Town, so—before you start talking.

David Stokes (20:03)
Well, that’s the architectural planning—how do we want to design it? Then there’s the legal, defined planning. And luckily, again, I really don’t think Missouri cities need to do any planning outside of general infrastructure planning. So I shouldn’t say they don’t need to do any planning—there’s the general infrastructure planning that pretty much everybody supports, meaning you should have an idea of how growth is going to go in your city and where you’re going to put sewers and sidewalks and streets. You want a general long-term plan for that, even if that plan is—as it should be—thoroughly adjustable and can be changed as growth happens naturally. But then you get into planning like we mentioned with Portland earlier—urban growth boundaries—where the planners really start to say, “You can live here; you cannot live here; you can build here; you cannot build here,” and it gets to be really extreme. We don’t really have that in Missouri. Thankfully, the plans that cities do adopt can be easily amended by any city council. They can be changed. When I worked at St. Louis County, we dealt with the county planning commission for the parts of the council district I worked in that were unincorporated, where the planning commission had a lot to say on that. So elected officials can and should be able to change that plan as they go. And then the biggest—let’s say you permitted a development that’s against your plan, but the elected officials want to do it anyway—I usually don’t have a problem with that. The fact that it’s inconsistent with your plan would generally be something that, if locals want to sue to stop the development, they would cite in the lawsuit—that it was inconsistent with your process and your plan—and then it would be determined by judges and the whole legal process. But planning in Missouri is something that, outside of basic infrastructure planning, cities shouldn’t really do. And to the extent that they do it, it’s easily amended and changed. And that’s a good thing.

Susan Pendergrass (21:55)
Mm-hmm. So the first two papers in your series were taxation, right?

David Stokes (22:20)
Taxation was number two, and the first one was just sort of the structure of municipal government in Missouri. It had a lot to do with city managers. And then the fragmentation issue was addressed as well in the first one that we discussed here, because that’s a part of that, obviously.

Susan Pendergrass (22:23)
Introductory. Okay. And taxation. And this is zoning and planning. Right. And then what’s on deck? What’s the next one?

David Stokes (22:41)
We don’t actually know yet what number four will be—germinating. Most of them are ready to go pretty quickly, so I think the next one will be released within the next two months—certainly this year. And I think it’s going to be on public works. But we have papers coming on public works, public safety, parks and recreation—which is one I’m really going to enjoy. You go to Forest Park and there’s all the great things in St. Louis’s Forest Park, and then you realize that many of the wonderful things there are actually done under contract with the private sector, either for-profit businesses like the Boathouse and the ice rink that pay the city to operate, or nonprofit businesses like the Muni that have been in the park for a long time. So it’s a great option to talk about all the different ways to provide parks and recreation services.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18)
Yeah.

David Stokes (23:35)
But those are at least three of the upcoming ones. And then there’ll be a concluding, summarize-it-all-up section as well.

Susan Pendergrass (23:41)
I look forward to hearing more about those, and thanks for coming on to talk about planning and zoning. It’s going to be a great series when it all gets put together. Thanks.

David Stokes (23:48)
Thank you very much, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Missouri Should Rethink Fire Code Rules that Block Small Apartments

Posted on by Scott Tanner

New research suggests Missouri cities could allow more apartment buildings—without compromising safety—by rethinking outdated fire code requirements.

The study by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Center for Building in North America found that small apartment buildings with one stairwell are just as safe as those with two. But Missouri’s biggest cities—Springfield, St. Louis and Kansas City—use building codes that require two stairways in buildings taller than three stories. That rule drives up construction costs and makes many projects financially unworkable.

These two-stair rules are based on the International Building Code, the widely adopted national standard. But they block a housing type common in Europe and now gaining traction in U.S. cities such as New York and Seattle.

The data challenge the logic of the two-stair mandate. In New York, none of the 4,440 single-stair apartment buildings built since 2012—each equipped with fire sprinklers—has been tied to a fire death caused by blocked exits. Seattle shows the same pattern: no increase in fatalities for single-stair buildings.

What’s changed? Modern safety systems such as sprinklers, smoke detectors, and fire-resistant stairwells have significantly improved safety in multi-unit buildings. The redundancy of a second staircase adds cost without increasing safety.

That trade-off matters. A second staircase means longer hallways, less usable space, and fewer units—especially in tight or oddly shaped lots. For developers trying to build mid-size, lower-cost housing, the extra stairwell often kills the project.

Critics may argue redundancy is good policy. But the evidence shows single-stair buildings, built to modern standards, are safe. Other states are already adapting. Washington and California have created carve-outs or pilot programs allowing single-stair buildings under certain conditions—typically height limits and requirements to use safety features like sprinklers.

Although Missouri is one of a handful of states without its own statewide codes, if our cities want to expand housing options without major subsidies or rezonings, removing outdated design rules is a practical place to start.

Missouri Should Rethink Fire Code Rules that Block Small Apartments

Posted on by Mike Ederer

New research suggests Missouri cities could allow more apartment buildings—without compromising safety—by rethinking outdated fire code requirements.

The study by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Center for Building in North America found that small apartment buildings with one stairwell are just as safe as those with two. But Missouri’s biggest cities—Springfield, St. Louis and Kansas City—use building codes that require two stairways in buildings taller than three stories. That rule drives up construction costs and makes many projects financially unworkable.

These two-stair rules are based on the International Building Code, the widely adopted national standard. But they block a housing type common in Europe and now gaining traction in U.S. cities such as New York and Seattle.

The data challenge the logic of the two-stair mandate. In New York, none of the 4,440 single-stair apartment buildings built since 2012—each equipped with fire sprinklers—has been tied to a fire death caused by blocked exits. Seattle shows the same pattern: no increase in fatalities for single-stair buildings.

What’s changed? Modern safety systems such as sprinklers, smoke detectors, and fire-resistant stairwells have significantly improved safety in multi-unit buildings. The redundancy of a second staircase adds cost without increasing safety.

That trade-off matters. A second staircase means longer hallways, less usable space, and fewer units—especially in tight or oddly shaped lots. For developers trying to build mid-size, lower-cost housing, the extra stairwell often kills the project.

Critics may argue redundancy is good policy. But the evidence shows single-stair buildings, built to modern standards, are safe. Other states are already adapting. Washington and California have created carve-outs or pilot programs allowing single-stair buildings under certain conditions—typically height limits and requirements to use safety features like sprinklers.

Although Missouri is one of a handful of states without its own statewide codes, if our cities want to expand housing options without major subsidies or rezonings, removing outdated design rules is a practical place to start.

A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Three: Planning and Zoning

Posted on by David Stokes

This third installment in the free-market municipality series examines the use of planning and zoning in Missouri cities and suggests reforms to improve how they are implemented and managed. It explores several options to expand housing availability while strengthening property rights for Missourians. The report also highlights how the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas have less restrictive zoning than many comparable cities, and the benefits that result from this.

A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Three: Planning and Zoning


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