Webster Groves Has Some Decisions to Make

Posted on by David Stokes

Webster Groves is considering the region’s latest giant, taxpayer-subsidized, “savior” type development. By that I mean the type of mixed-use megaplex that will somehow instantly “save” the city.

The fact that the developers have requested eminent domain should disqualify it from the start. From the article about the proposal (emphasis added):

The developers have asked the city for the power to use eminent domain to force property owners to sell, but said they are not considering it now.

So they want the power of eminent domain, but as of now they say they don’t plan to use it. Until they deal with a property owner who does not feel like selling, of course. Just the threat of eminent domain impacts the entire process negatively.

They also want tax subsidies:

They need approval for $35 million in tax incentives, plus an extra sales tax.

So, a big TIF, plus a CID or TDD (to be determined), so that average people throughout the region can subsidize this development.

I don’t know if there is a real market for new apartments, condos, shops, etc. in this part of Webster Groves. There may well be. But if the project has to have huge tax subsidies and the threat of eminent domain, then I would doubt it.

The TIF commission should deny the TIF and the Webster Groves City Council should refuse the eminent domain and oppose any CID, TDD, etc. Then the developer can talk with the property owners and move forward or not.

The Devil Is Certainly in the Details

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

The American Rescue Plan (ARP) contains the latest federal stimulus package for public education, of which Missouri is set to receive $1.9 billion. The plan doesn’t dictate how the funds must be spent, in contrast to the education stimulus packages of the Great Recession. It does contain one pesky detail, though. Before funds can be spent, the state education agency, known as the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) in Missouri, must engage in “meaningful consultation.” with stakeholders.

As a parent of three, I consider myself to be a key stakeholder in their education. And the guidance from the U.S. Department of Education lists students and families first and second on the list of those to include in the meaningful consultation. Did DESE consult any parents? It’s hard to say, but there is no direct indication that they did. In its application for ARP funds, DESE claims to have involved:

  • The Commissioner’s Advisory Committee
  • The Education Roundtable
  • The Commissioner’s Teacher Advisory Committee
  • “Leaders of education organizations.”

In addition, DESE claims it surveyed all superintendents and over “100 additional stakeholders.”

If by “stakeholders” the U.S. Department of Education meant those inside the education establishment, then DESE nailed it. If, on the other hand, it meant the actual stakeholders—namely families—we may have missed the mark. Not surprisingly, considering who was surveyed, DESE’s application states, “. . . survey respondents indicated support for teachers, particularly in the area of improving teacher pay.”

At least one state is taking this guidance seriously. Governor Ige of Hawaii vetoed a proposal to use stimulus money to give teachers bonuses of $2,000 precisely because the process did not include the consultation of stakeholders. Will Governor Parson do the same if DESE doesn’t reach beyond the education establishment in its decision making?

Dr. Marguerite Roza of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University suggests that this consultation clause presents a great opportunity for districts to do “participatory budgeting.” That doesn’t mean making budget meetings open to the public or posting the budget online for review. It simply means actually involving the community in budget decision making. As Roza states: “One question is whether it was ever possible to use a federal rule to change the process by which thousands of districts decide how to spend billions in school funds. Old habits die hard. And, let’s be honest, there are a lot of vested interests when it comes to school spending.”

It’s not about the ABC’s—It’s about the K

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In education, as with the economy, recovery from the pandemic is happening at different paces for different groups. In fact, the education recovery, regardless of how steep the upward slope is overall, is already shaped like a “K.”

The downward leg of the K is made up of several types of students, including those who were not able to quickly transition to a virtual education of even modest quality. These students probably sat out the end of the 2019–20 school year and at least part of the following one. Incredibly, as of summer 2021, nearly one-quarter of Missouri students still did not have access to high-speed internet.

The bottom leg also has students—as much as 3.5 percent of enrollment in Missouri—who simply didn’t show up for the 2020–21 school year. We’re not sure where they are or how they’re doing. Finally, we have many students who have simply struggled for the last year and lost critical time in their education—from kindergartners needing to launch, to third graders needing to read fluently, to high-school students heading out into college or careers. These same students are likely among the most disadvantaged to begin with.

Of course, there are many examples of students who thrived last year and are in the top leg of the K. They may have attended private schools that knew tuition-paying parents were not going to settle for online learning for very long. They may have been public school students who found virtual learning to be a great fit. They may be in families that realized how great the homeschool experience could be as kids can work at their own pace with no limits.

It goes without saying that policymakers in Missouri—both the legislature and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)—need to focus like a laser on the bottom leg of the K. We need high-quality diagnostic assessments that will honestly inform students and parents about any academic growth lost to the pandemic. Then, we need to make public funds available to families so that they can find the academic resources their children need, from tutoring, to part-time learning hubs or pods, to private schools. We need to empower parents and fund everything they need.

How to Open a Life-Changing Restaurant with Brandon Chrostowski

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass is joined by Chef Brandon Edwin Chrostowski. In 2007, Brandon founded EDWINS Leadership & Restaurant Institute.

EDWINS gives formerly incarcerated adults a foundation in the culinary and hospitality industry while providing a support network necessary for their long-term success.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Nevada 911!

Posted on by David Stokes

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones is seeking to improve the city’s troubled 911 response system by consolidating the heretofore separate fire and police 911 systems. This is a good move, and I think it will result in service and cost benefits for the city’s residents.

911 call centers are ripe for consolidation in Missouri. A number of cities and counties throughout the state have already done this. There are obvious technological and staffing efficiencies with larger 911 systems, without any of the desire for the personal connections that can come from a smaller entity. No one cares if the 911 operator yells “Norm!” and is happy to speak to you when you call; people just want a fast, professional response.

While there is a slight difference between cities merging their municipal centers with other cities (or counties) and the City of St. Louis combining its own two call systems, I think the similarities dominate. Hopefully, we will see many more service-sharing agreements like this around the state.

That’s One Way to Do It—but It’s Certainly Not the Only Way

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

What is more likely to give families relief—administrative action or the court system? Missouri’s attorney general has opted for the latter. The attorney general filed a lawsuit in an effort to prevent families from having to send their children back to school in masks. This lawsuit would make it illegal for a school district to have a mask mandate. How likely is that approach to have an effect within the necessary time frame?

A lot of families have found out just this week whether their children will have to wear masks full time when they head back to school. And a lot of families on both sides are very angry. I believe that these families should not be forced to put their children in physically upsetting circumstances—whether that’s mandatory masking or optional masking—and that they need options to move their children to a different educational environment as quickly as possible. The school year is starting or has already started. The court system is slow.

Florida and Arizona have expanded existing scholarship programs to qualify families who have strong preferences on masking policy. Missouri could do the same. We have a new empowerment scholarship account that will become law in days. That program could provide the structure and federal stimulus funds—of which Missouri has received billions for education—could provide the means to put scholarships in the hands of families.  Unconventional times call for unconventional solutions.

Let’s Sunset Occupational Licenses

Posted on by Corianna Baier

As this Wall Street Journal article points out, the COVID-19 pandemic shines a new light on occupational licensing requirements At a time when unemployment is still higher than before the pandemic and job openings are plentiful, do we really want unnecessary licensing requirements getting in the way of people getting back to work?

Occupational licensing adds educational requirements, fees, and other hurdles that make it harder to get a job. We see onerous requirements negatively affecting workers across the country, such as hair braiders in Louisiana (highlighted in the Journal article) who need 500 hours of training to receive a full cosmetologists license to exclusively braid hair. Lawmakers at the federal level have expressed a desire to increase competition in the workforce by reining in occupational licensing, but it is state lawmakers and licensing boards that set the standards and regulations.

Missouri lawmakers took a big step forward with occupational licensing reciprocity, but there is still more that could be done. One policy that I believe would prove beneficial for Missouri workers: Lawmakers should introduce a five-year sunset for all occupational licenses and licensing boards. With a sunset, all licenses and boards must be evaluated and approved by lawmakers every five years. The hope is that unnecessary regulations, and maybe even unnecessary licenses, will be identified and eliminated. Reducing the burden of occupational licensing will create opportunities for workers and consumers, lower prices, and increase economic growth.

Kansas City Needs a Patron Saint of Tax Subsidy Reform

Posted on by David Stokes

Telling powerful people and groups they can’t have what they want is hard. St. Thomas More learned this by telling England’s King Henry VIII that he couldn’t take a new wife and start a new Church. The King got his new wife and his new Church, and Thomas More lost his head (literally). Kansas City government needs someone with just a fraction of St. Thomas More’s bravery to stand up to the development industry as they try to increase the subsidies they receive by changing the rules of the Enhanced Enterprise Zone (EEZ) program to fit their interests.

It’s been said many times that there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. While it may be a partisan campaign remark, it contains a simple truth. Each new program generates its own newly entrenched bureaucracy and special interest groups that have an interest in expanding and perpetuating the program. We can see this with big, bold programs, but often that plan to maintain or expand power happens behind the scenes in ways the public never knows about. That is exactly what is happening now with the EEZ program before the Kansas City Economic Development Council, a city advisory committee that makes recommendations regarding tax subsidies.

Kansas City gives away enormous sums in tax subsidies—an estimated $175 million in 2018 alone. The development community and its allies in finance, law, and politics (hereafter the developer-subsidy complex) do not view these subsidies as a program to be used in occasional, necessary instances. Developers view them as their hereditary birthright, to be exploited with all the subtlety of King Henry “asking” if he could have another divorce.

Just as current Kansas City leadership is taking steps to place modest limits on tax subsidies—better known as corporate welfare—the developer community is taking steps to keep the spigot flowing. What steps has the city has taken? The city lowered the maximum property tax abatement developers can receive from 75% to 70% for 10 years, and from 37.5% to 30% for five more years. While this change is commendable, it is hardly a major decrease in subsidies. But try telling that to the developer-subsidy complex.

It’s latest maneuver regards EEZs, an all-too-common business incentive package that is tied to job creation aims. EEZ tax credits have always been focused on jobs and business activity—the explanatory language on Missouri’s website is clear on that—but the development community is now trying to argue that large apartment complexes should also quality for new tax subsidies through the EEZ program. While there is no evidence that EEZs work at growing the economy—the EEZ program was a major part of the failed Waddell and Reed downtown development—they do work (all too well) at shoveling tax dollars to influential developers.

It is important to note that major residential developments like apartment buildings already qualify for plenty of incentive programs: low-income housing tax credits, historic tax credits, the above-mentioned property tax abatements, tax-increment financing, and other programs. What they have not been able to access are EEZ tax subsidies. That, apparently, has to change.

Lawyers for housing developers have been quietly arguing with EDC officials for months that the tax credits and abatements previously reserved, as intended, for businesses that create jobs should also go to housing developments. The EDC officials have resisted, but the developers are now appealing to the city’s lawyers. If the lawyers change the interpretation of the law to include housing—which it has not previously been used for—then all of the progress, modest as it may have been, in reducing the use of tax subsidies in Kansas City will be undone.

No matter how the developer-subsidy complex tries to spin it, this is a naked attempt to take more money away from taxpayers and government bodies, like the school district, and put it into the private hands of developers and their advisors.

Hopefully, someone in Kansas City government will have the courage to say “No” to these demands by the developers. If that happens, we hope it works out better for them than it did for Thomas More.

Mask Mandate Lawsuit, Judge Rules on QuickTrip, Medicaid Update

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

Susan Pendergrass, David Stokes and Elias Tsapelas join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt against school districts that have required masks for students and teachers, a judge’s decision to overturn The Creve Coeur City Council’s rejection of a plan to build a new QuickTrip and the latest on Medicaid expansion.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

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