Why Does Missouri Make it So Difficult?

Posted on by Abigail Burrola

In Missouri, it may seem like school choice is only for Kansas City and St. Louis, since they are the only two districts in the state with charter schools. However, there are areas in the rest of the state where thousands of students could benefit from more educational options. One such area is Springfield. The Springfield Public School (SPS) District and Missouri State University (MSU) are collaborating to open a school of choice for SPS students, an agricultural-focused magnet school. This new school has gained financial and district support, signifying that there is plenty of demand for educational options in the state.

Magnet schools are public schools that have a specialized focus, like STEM or the arts. They will often have admission and retention requirements, such as a minimum test score or GPA for students. Charter schools are another form of public school choice; they are granted autonomy and accept all students who apply. If a magnet school can get millions of dollars and support in Springfield, why does Missouri stifle the growth of charter schools, which could serve students outside of Kansas City and St. Louis?

I bet there have been many other ideas from would-be school leaders across the state on how to create new opportunities for students with an innovative school, but Missouri has been hostile to expanding school choice. Students in Springfield are fortunate enough to soon have access to another option. Unfortunately, many other Missouri students don’t have the chance to pick an education that’s right for them.

 

Don’t Just Talk the Talk

Posted on by Corianna Baier

With all the excitement of the legislative session starting, let’s not forget about the Interim Committee on Tax Credit Efficiency and Reform. It was reported last month that the committee, created last year will continue during the legislative session. Given Missouri’s large, convoluted, and distortionary tax credit programs, it’s great that this committee will continue, provided some real reforms come about.

As summarized in The Missouri Times,

. . . the committee will look at the social and cost analysis benefits of Missouri’s tax credit programs, its return on investments, economic development incentives, and other goals for tax credits…. Additionally, the committee will establish metrics for tax credits to decide whether to continue, expand, or eliminate certain programs.

This sounds like exactly what Missouri needs, but as was said when this committee was created, we need a little less conversation and a little more action. Show-Me Institute researchers have been pointing out problems with  various tax credit programs for years.  These programs distort incentives and give economic power to government officials. Plus, the data often show that the projects don’t deliver their promised return on investment. If an extension of this committee brings about reforms that we desperately need, then I’m all for it. But let’s not waste anyone’s time if we are going to get another report that just sits on a shelf and gathers dust.  

 

Like Oil and Water

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Talking about school choice in Missouri often feels hopeless. A common attack on school choice efforts in Missouri is “Most of our schools are rural and school choice doesn’t work in rural areas.” The first half of that statement is true. Of the 518 school districts in Missouri, 367 (over 70 percent) are considered rural by the U.S. Department of Education. And 130 of those are considered “rural remote,” meaning that the district is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area.

In these districts, there is only one school that serves each grade. The schools also serve as community centers, gyms, and local concert venues. The students may travel long distances on the bus each day. The superintendent probably knows every student and their family. These districts, I’m told, don’t need charter schools or private school choice. For the students in these schools, the same system and curriculum that served their parents and grandparents is fine.

But is it? The world is changing very quickly. Today’s high school graduates need sophisticated skills just to pursue a trade or a career in agriculture. College coursework requires a solid foundation in English and math. Yet many rural high schools don’t offer upper-level coursework in either. 

Choice takes many forms for those who are open to it. In Texas, for example, three remote rural districts have decided to collaborate and form a “Rural Schools Innovation Zone.” Like rural districts in Missouri, the superintendents in these districts don’t want to hear more about consolidation. Rather, they want to give their students the best chance at success. The schools in the zone will share resources and ideas, and students in the zone will have access to any of the pathway programs offered by the three districts, all while remaining separate and distinct school districts. These school districts are innovating by acknowledging the benefit of choices that go beyond what each of the districts offers individually. And, fortunately, they have the support of their school boards.

If we consider the past to be prologue, then we can find confidence that a statement like “That won’t work here” will eventually motivate those who don’t believe it to prove it wrong. In Missouri, that’s going to require finding communities that are open to innovation. I know they’re out there.

 

Fare Free Public Transit? Not so Fast

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

A version of this op-ed was published by the Kansas City Star.

Kansas City, Missouri, made news around the country last month with reports that city officials had done away with fares on its municipal bus system. But neither the announcement nor the results the city can expect are as clear-cut as they first seem. The reality is that Kansas City has not adopted a fare-free bus system, nor has it considered the broader implications of doing so. In fact, city leaders have no idea how they will pay for it.

What actually happened: Kansas City’s City Council instructed the city manager to work with transit officials on a policy that would “include a funding request in the next fiscal year budget to make fixed route public transportation fare free within the City.” The city’s next fiscal year does not begin until May 1, 2020.

One reason for all this is the 2.2-mile streetcar the city completed in 2016. Its operations and administration are independent from the bus system and are funded through sales taxes, assessments on property along the route, and additional support from the city’s general fund.

The streetcar, which is free to ride, also receives $2 million from sales taxes meant to fund regular transit. It’s viewed by many as a free party bus for tourists, operating alongside buses that low-income workers must pay to use for trips to work and school.

Advocates of the free-fare transit proposal argue that the move to ditch fares on the bus system would address inequality without risking a drop in ridership that a streetcar fare would cause.

Locally, the idea has been making inroads for a while. Free bus passes became the norm for veterans two years ago, and last year the system offered the same to students. The Authority claims that over the past few years, 23 percent of riders have paid no fare.

Making the entire system free may be attractive to transit advocates, but it’s a move with risks—risks that seemingly haven’t been assessed. This was underscored when, in an interview with local newspaper The Pitch, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority CEO Robert “Robbie” Makinen offered, “Just because nobody else is doing it, that’s not a reason for us not to do it. What’s wrong with trying it? What’s the worst thing that happens? It doesn’t work, and Robbie gets fired.”

But the idea isn’t new, and that’s not the worst that can happen.

Other cities have tried fare-free bus service—and abandoned it. A 2002 study by Jennifer Perone and Joel Volinski of the Center for Urban Transportation Research concluded:

. . . (A) fare-free policy might be appropriate for smaller transit systems in certain communities, but is ill-advised for larger transit systems in major urban areas because experience shows that in larger systems, a tremendous amount of criminal activity, as well as a sharp increase in ridership, caused higher maintenance costs, labor costs, and operational costs and drove away existing riders.

In a 2012 book, “Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems,” Volinski detailed a fare-free pilot program in Austin, Texas. Ridership increased by as much as 70 percent, but there were issues of, “overcrowded buses, disruptive passengers, and unhappy bus operators.” The program was discontinued. Denver tried a similar program, saw the same results, and discontinued the effort.

Riders get it. According to a 2019 TransitCenter surveys of passengers around the country, “most low-income bus riders rate lowering fares as less important than improving the quality of the service.” (KCATA is undertaking its own “comprehensive review and redesign of transit service,” which included a survey, but as of this writing, KCATA has not completed the review or shared with me any questionnaire of passengers.)

Then there is the cost of going fare-free, estimated between $8 million and $12 million annually in Kansas City.

Given the ridership increase in other places that have tried it, the transit authority will need to cover not only its current fare box revenue, but also the costs of serving increased demand. During legislative discussion on the resolution, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas suggested returning the $2 million currently diverted to the streetcar. Councilwoman Kathryn Shields offered an amendment, adopted by the Council, that also instructs the city manager also to report how this potential budget outlay will impact other city services.

Again, none of this is known.

Good policies go beyond good intentions—they serve a public need with as few negative consequences as is possible. Our national experience with large-scale, fare-free transit has been a bumpy ride. Kansas City needs to consider all the options and trade-offs before adopting such a significant policy change. Reporting on the matter suggests that this has not yet been done.

 

Show-Me Chairman Confirmed to Federal Director Role by U.S. Senate

Posted on by Brenda Talent

Today, I’m honored to announce that one of the Show-Me Institute’s founders, R. Crosby Kemper III, has been confirmed by the United States Senate to be the next Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (“IMLS”). A federal agency established in 1996, the IMLS pursues a mission “to advance, support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through grantmaking, research, and policy development.”

This position requires Crosby to leave the Institute’s board of directors and his role as its chairman—a loss for our organization, but a gain for our country. I will not attempt to capture everything that Crosby means to us, and has meant to us. I will only say that his deep intellect, thoughtful counsel, good humor, and earnest engagement will be missed in the halls of Institute. The IMLS receives a happy warrior for—and tenacious defender of—our country’s educational and research institutions.

Crosby, best of wishes on your new adventure, and know we’ll keep a light on for you here.

Some Possible Good News

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Last fall, the MNEA submitted applications for six ballot initiatives to the Missouri Secretary of State. If a ballot initiative is approved, the secretary of state crafts language that summarizes the applicant’s proposal and estimates the cost to taxpayers. Then the applicants have to circulate petitions and gather enough signatures to have the language included on every voter’s ballot. So far, the status of signature collection on the MNEA’s initiatives is . . . TBD? There’s no evidence the MNEA is collecting the signatures, but it hasn’t officially said that it’s not going to.

The MNEA’s ballot initiatives are about protecting the status quo monopoly on public education in Missouri. If passed, the initiatives would dramatically increase the potential budget for K–12  education in the state and remove the education budget from the constitutional protection given to taxpayers—that taxes cannot be raised without a statewide vote of approval.

During the required public comment period for the initiatives, analysts at the Show-Me Institute and concerned groups in the state submitted evidence of the potential disaster that could result from any one of these initiatives being passed. If the petitions passed into law, the annual cost could easily be in the billions and the state would have no choice but to either take money from other programs or raise taxes. Fortunately, the secretary of state drafted ballot language that includes these estimated costs and implications.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that spending more on education while allowing the public education establishment to keep its stranglehold on the delivery of that education will improve outcomes. We’ve been doing that for at least twenty years and our education metrics are only declining in relation to other states. We can be smarter and more innovative in the design and delivery of K–12  education in this state. We just need to be open to ideas that come from sources other than the protectors of the ineffective status quo. Hopefully, the MNEA agrees and will drop its effort.

 

Raise a Toast: Missouri Three-Tier Speech Prohibition Struck Down

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

While it remains an issue of generally low public awareness, Missouri’s three-tier alcohol regulatory system is one that the average Missourian should care about. Without going into great depth, many states, including Missouri, require alcohol sales to follow a process by which alcohol producers, distributors, and retailers—the “three-tiers”—have discrete and different ownership interests. A relic of post-Prohibition efforts to mitigate the harm and maximize the revenue of the return of widespread alcohol consumption, the modern effect of the system has been to raise the cost of booze by forcing a middleman between alcohol producers and alcohol consumers.

It’s an issue we don’t talk a great deal about, but it’s one that we’ve had a clear and long-standing stance on. Back in 2012, my colleague Michael Rathbone wrote about the problems with a proposal that would have further limited vertical integration of alcohol distribution in the state, and in 2013, my colleague David Stokes testified on the matter before the Missouri Legislature. It was logical, then, that we would have a stance on litigation that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on yesterday, and for which we submitted an amicus brief in collaboration with the Washington Legal Foundation in 2018.

The case, Missouri Broadcasters Association v. Dorothy Taylor, centered on a very specific aspect of Missouri’s three-tier law that prevents producers and distributors from providing certain advertising materials to retailers. Although there are many policy problems with the three-tier law, the First Amendment issue here is particularly egregious. Even though commercial speech has historically been subject to greater regulation, courts are generally reticent to impose or enforce content restrictions and burdens on commercial speakers. And as our amicus brief notes, these content impositions are substantial:

In § 311.070.1, Missouri prohibits alcohol manufacturers and distributors from “directly or indirectly, loan[ing], giv[ing] away or furnish[ing] equipment, money, credit or property of any kind” to “retail dealers.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 311.070.1. This blanket ban prohibits manufacturers and distributors from giving any advertising-related support to retailers. In § 311.070.4(10), however, Missouri allows manufacturers and distributors to advertise on behalf of retailers, so long as the advertisement (1) excludes any mention of retail price, (2) lists “two or more unaffiliated retailers,” (3) does so only once, and (4) displays the retailers’ names inconspicuously. Mo. Rev. Stat. 4 § 311.070.4(10). But this “exception” is just an unconstitutional condition on exercising First Amendment rights.

And yesterday, the court of appeals agreed. Readers can find the ruling and our full amicus brief attached at the bottom of this page. We may have more to say on this matter in the future, but for now, suffice it to say that we are pleased with this outcome and hope that policymakers will, separately, consider doing more to dismantle Missouri’s antiquated alcohol regulatory regime in the future.

 

A Win for Economic Development Sanity

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

There isn’t enough good news about economic development policy in Missouri. But a recent vote in Maryland Heights, just outside St. Louis, is a reason to cheer. In short, the St. Louis County Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) Commission rejected a proposal to spend millions in taxpayer subsidies developing in a floodplain.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

The six members of the Tax Increment Financing Commission appointed by [St. Louis County Executive Sam] Page joined Parkway School District Chief Financial Officer Patty Bedborough in a 7-5 vote Friday evening against creating a TIF in the low-lying area. 

This is good news for taxpayers for more than just financial reasons. As David Stokes of the Great Rivers Habitat Alliance (and formerly of the Show-Me Institute) argued in his testimony before the commission:

As severe flooding has indisputably become more frequent and more dangerous in recent decades, Maryland Heights officials intend to turn thousands of acres of farmland and floodplain into asphalt and concrete. In the next flood, the city will take millions of gallons of water and pump it back into the river to flood someone else. Of course, when they take those thousands of acres that currently can safely hold the water and remove the land from the floodplain, that “someone else” they will flood will be someone whose land previously was not in the floodplain and is not prepared for it.

Too much development in a floodplain does not seem like a good idea for the reasons Stokes outlines above. It therefore is no surprise that developers would not be able to get enough private investment to support the project. Taxpayers should be hesitant to support private endeavors even in the best circumstances. Public dollars should certainly not be used to bail out projects in risky circumstances (pun intended). That the TIF commission rejected this plan is good news.

Listen to our podcast on the topic with David Stokes here: 

https://soundcloud.com/show-me-institute/smi-podcast-stop-building-in-floodplains-david-stokes

Downtown Baseball? Show Us the Research

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

New Royals owner John Sherman is giving interviews extolling the virtues of downtown baseball. In a recent story published on Flatland KC, Sherman said: “Baseball creates more economic opportunity in denser areas versus suburban areas or less dense areas.” Unfortunately, he does not offer any evidence to support the claim.

Mind you, a new baseball stadium funded by taxpayers might be great for the owners of the Royals. But what evidence is there for any benefit to taxpayers?

The St. Louis Federal Reserve pointed out that stadiums fail to drive economic development in a 2017 report, concluding:

Building sports stadiums has an impact on local economies. For that reason, many people support the use of government subsidies to help pay for stadiums. However, economists generally oppose such subsidies. They often stress that estimations of the economic impact of sports stadiums are exaggerated because they fail to recognize opportunity costs. Consumers who spend money on sporting events would likely spend the money on other forms of entertainment, which has a similar economic impact. Rather than subsidizing sports stadiums, governments could finance other projects such as infrastructure or education that have the potential to increase productivity and promote economic growth.

A 2019 piece in The Berkeley Economic Review, a publication of the University of California–Berkeley economic program, also failed to find any economic benefit from sports stadiums:

Over the last thirty years, building sports stadiums has served as a profitable undertaking for large sports teams, at the expense of the general public. While there are some short-term benefits, the inescapable truth is that the economic impact of these projects on their communities is minimal, while they can be an obstacle to real development in local neighborhoods.

The owners of the Royals are welcome to build a stadium wherever they like. But if they want to take tax dollars away from schools, public safety, and infrastructure to help build the stadium, they should share any evidence they have that such a plan presents a good return on investment for taxpayers—not just themselves.

 

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