Border War is Back On!

Posted on by Mike Ederer

For a brief, shining moment, Missouri and Kansas called a truce. After decades of lobbing taxpayer-funded incentives across State Line Road like cannonballs, the two states agreed to stop bribing businesses to hop the border. It was a bipartisan recognition that our local economy wasn’t growing—it was just shifting, while schools and libraries quietly picked up the tab. (To be honest, I was never convinced the truce was real or lasting—but it wasn’t nothing. )

That truce, however tenuous, is now over. And the legislative safeguards that underpinned it? Those are collapsing too. Missouri’s border war limitations on cross-state tax subsidies are set to expire in August. Earlier this year, legislation was introduced to preserve the truce by eliminating the expiration date entirely. Lawmakers added it to Senate Bill 10, which passed both chambers independently—but couldn’t get reconciled before session’s end. So the bill died, and with it, hopes for ending the economic arms race.

Kansas Governor Laura Kelly indicated last year she was never really serious about the truce. But now Missouri has let the truce expire. And in doing so, our lawmakers joined Kansas in an economic race to the bottom. It’s bad policy. Worse, it’s profoundly unserious governance.

Economic development isn’t war. It’s not supposed to be a battlefield where neighboring states trade artillery in the form of publicly issued bonds and tax abatements. Yet here we are again, watching legislators in Jefferson City and Topeka dress up like Civil War reenactors—reenacting the Border War with new costumes and worse math.

Meanwhile, Missouri public officials continue their own subsidy spree, throwing tax breaks at data centers and entertainment districts while the state is unable to keep the streets repaired or safe. If lawmakers were serious about our state’s economic health, they’d rein in their own giveaways first.

Instead, we’re back to playing an expensive, performative game—one that enriches developers, flatters politicians, and drains public coffers. Legislators in both states want to be seen as “fighting” for jobs, but all they’re doing is trading fire in border skirmishes that make the region poorer.

The original truce was imperfect, but it pointed in the right direction. It said we could grow the region without cannibalizing each other. That we didn’t have to subsidize the illusion of progress. That good policy could also be good politics.

By breaking the truce or letting it expire, politicians on both sides demonstrated they are not interested in sober economic stewardship. They may win a few headlines or ribbon cuttings. But the public—taxpayers, students, local governments—will be left paying the bill.

If this is a reenactment, let’s at least admit it: The weapons are new, but the economic costs are the same.

Don’t Believe the (Streetcar) Hype

Posted on by Mike Ederer

Back in 1988, Public Enemy urged us: “Don’t Believe the Hype.” In the 37 years since, plenty has changed—but that line remains sage advice, especially as Kansas City prepares to open another streetcar extension. It’s also a timely reminder for those of us in the media.

A recent article in The Beacon highlighted “Historic renovations, new buildings and empty lots. Twelve projects to watch along the streetcar extension.” These projects may well be real, and perhaps even partially spurred by the streetcar—though that’s a bold assumption. (Consider, for example, the claim years ago that a company moved to be nearer to the streetcar, only to find out the claim was  specious.)  But more to the point, the story misses a crucial journalistic opportunity: comparison.

What if development along the streetcar line is proceeding at the same rate as development elsewhere in the county? Wouldn’t that be a critical piece of context for readers? Unfortunately, the article doesn’t address it.

The piece features an enthusiastic architect praising the streetcar and predicting continued growth—but offers little else in the way of evidence. There are no supporting data or comparative figures, just optimism.

Yet when we look at property value increases within the streetcar development district, the growth mirrors that of the broader county. If the streetcar were truly driving development, we’d expect the district to outperform. But so far, it hasn’t.

In fact, the full picture is more sobering. The city has layered on economic development incentives—tax abatements and similar tools—specifically to attract investment along the line. Still, there’s little sign they’re making a difference.

So, as more coverage emerges touting the streetcar’s economic magic, it’s worth pausing to ask a foundational economic question: “Compared to what?” That kind of framing—rooted in evidence, not enthusiasm—might offer readers a more accurate view of what’s really happening.

Tornado Severely Damages Show-Me Institute Headquarters

Posted on by Brenda Talent

On Friday, May 16, a devastating tornado struck the St. Louis area, claiming lives, damaging homes and businesses, and leaving many across our region reeling. The Show-Me Institute’s headquarters at 5297 Washington Place was severely damaged. The roof and most of the third floor were torn away, and the building is now uninhabitable. It is possible that the structure will not withstand the storms expected early this week.

Photo: The back of the Show-Me Institute’s headquarters on May 17, 2025

By God’s grace, all of our team members are safe and unharmed. Over the weekend, staff worked tirelessly to recover essential equipment, documents, and other critical items before more rain arrived. I am deeply grateful for their quick action and dedication during this difficult time.

We are now working to secure a new location and restore operations so we can continue to serve the people of Missouri. But today, our thoughts are with those in the broader community who are suffering far more. Many of our neighbors have lost their homes, their livelihoods, and, in the most tragic cases, their loved ones.

To those families and individuals affected, we offer our heartfelt condolences. The path to recovery will be long for many, and we are keeping you in our prayers.

As we move forward, the Show-Me Institute remains committed to our mission of advancing liberty and opportunity in Missouri. We are thankful for the support of our community and will continue our work with resilience and purpose, even as we begin to rebuild.

 

The Testing Bogeyman Is Alive and Well in Missouri

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Daily Tribune.

If we believe it’s essential for schools to teach core academic skills—like reading and math—then we should support the tools that help us measure those skills. Statewide standardized tests remain our best tool for understanding how much students are learning. As the saying goes, what gets measured gets counted.

However, there is growing opposition to state testing in Missouri on both sides of the political aisle. On the left, the education establishment has long resisted all forms of accountability, and what better way to shut down accountability than to stop measuring how students perform in school? The left has been surprisingly effective in undermining the credibility of state tests, leading many to believe they don’t measure what matters. Standardized tests have been criticized for being too narrow, unobjective, and even racist. (I wish I were exaggerating on the last point, but I am not.) At the university level, we saw a brief movement to eliminate SAT and ACT requirements—only to see many institutions walk those changes back once they realized these tests provide crucial insight into academic readiness.

Meanwhile, on the right, the opposition to testing is relatively new. Not long ago, political conservatives were strong advocates for test-based accountability. No Child Left Behind, the largest test-based accountability policy in U.S. history, was ushered in under George W. Bush in the early 2000s. But today, it seems that testing has been swept up in a general push to shrink government and localize decision-making. In Missouri, testing is viewed as part of the state’s top-down policy agenda and a threat to local control.

This left-right alliance is playing out now in Jefferson City. Senate Bill 360, which would dismantle uniform statewide testing and accountability in Missouri, is sponsored by Republican Senator Jill Carter and supported by the National Education Association, a group typically aligned with the left.

All of this is unfortunate, because the truth is we need state standardized tests. The Missouri tests are not what many have been led to believe. They are objective, they are not racially biased, and they are not political. They are not concoctions brewed up in the back room of state government—rather, they are developed by independent experts, grounded in years of research, and focused almost entirely on reading and math.

Without statewide testing, we risk replacing hard data with empty assurances. School districts will insist students are learning—they’re doing exceptionally well, in fact!—and we’ll have no choice but to trust them.

An extreme policy would be to end testing entirely, but an equally damaging policy would be to abandon a common state test and allow school districts to use their own tests. This sounds appealing to local-control advocates, and in fact is the proposal on the table in SB360. But if this were to happen, it would be impossible to compare outcomes across districts, leaving us in the same place as if we had no testing at all.

If you’re unhappy with the direction schools are heading, just wait until we don’t have state tests—and the hard data provided by the tests—to keep them in line.

The Real Price of “Affordable Housing”

Posted on by Scott Tanner

There’s a growing chorus among policymakers in Kansas City, St. Louis, and around the country demanding that new housing developments “do their part” to solve inequality—most often through inclusionary zoning policies. These require or incentivize developers to include low-income units in otherwise market-rate buildings, usually in exchange for tax abatements or density bonuses (permission to build additional height, floor area, or dwelling units beyond what standard zoning allows). Sounds noble. But when you start to do the math, as MIT economist Evan Soltas did in a recent study, you realize the cost of these programs can be staggering—and they can be wildly inefficient.

Soltas takes a close look at New York City’s 421-a tax incentive, a voluntary program meant to coax developers into adding affordable units to new construction. His conclusion? The marginal cost of delivering just one of those “affordable” units is about $1.6 million. Not per building—per unit.

To put that in perspective, housing vouchers or programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) can often serve a family for a fraction of that price. In fact, Soltas finds that the 421-a program is about six times more expensive than either LIHTC or Section 8 on a per-unit basis.

Supporters of these policies often say the premium is worth it because it moves low-income households into higher-income neighborhoods, opening up long-term opportunities. But even that goal comes with trade-offs. We can’t pretend money is infinite. When we choose to spend $1.6 million to house one family in a high-rent ZIP code, we are choosing not to house five or ten families elsewhere. Every dollar we overpay in one neighborhood is a dollar not spent reducing waitlists, repairing existing housing stock, or investing in other services.

The more we subsidize these costly outcomes, the more we distort the market—and not in subtle ways. Developers are rational. When inclusionary mandates make a project unprofitable, they don’t build. When they can get tax breaks for minimal public benefit, they take the deal. Soltas’s paper even shows that developer “windfalls” aren’t the biggest issue—it’s the simple fact that it costs far more to make units “affordable” in already expensive neighborhoods.

What this all points to is a deeper issue in housing policy: the unwillingness of lawmakers to prioritize. Inclusionary housing tries to solve everything at once—cost, segregation, opportunity—but ends up creating a system where we pay top dollar for minimal benefit. It’s the public policy equivalent of spending a fortune on a single winning lottery ticket while others go hungry.

We don’t have to take that path. There are more cost-effective ways to support housing affordability that don’t rely on distorting incentives or showering subsidies on high-income developments. Targeted vouchers, flexible zoning reforms, and letting supply meet demand are all better places to start.

Policymakers should stop asking, “How can we mandate more affordable housing?” and start asking, “What’s the most effective way to help the most people with the dollars we have?”

Missouri Legislature Invests $50 Million in Families’ Futures Through MOScholars Program

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In a landmark victory for school choice and family empowerment, the Missouri Legislature has approved $50 million in public funding for the MOScholars program, delivering life-changing educational opportunities to thousands of additional Missouri families. This investment is not just about dollars; it’s about ensuring every child has access to a learning environment where they can thrive.

To date, the MOScholars program has been funded through private donations to scholarship-granting organizations, incentivized by tax credits. This infusion of public funding could triple the program’s reach. This is a pivotal step in putting parents back in the driver’s seat of their children’s education. Whether a student is better served by a private school, homeschooling, or specialized support services, MOScholars provides the flexibility to make those choices possible. While $50 million may be a baby step compared to Texas’s recent $1 billion committed to its scholarship program, it signals a commitment by the governor and the legislature to trust parents.

Critics may argue that public dollars should only go to traditional public schools, but the reality is that today’s students need a variety of options. This investment is not about dismantling public education; it’s about complementing it with solutions that work for every student. Parents know their children best. The MOScholars program respects that truth by offering real choices rather than a one-size-fits-all system. It ensures that fewer families are stuck in our lowest-performing schools. Missouri has joined a growing national movement—now seventeen states—that recognizes the importance of flexibility, innovation, and family empowerment in education.

On Transit, Maybe We Can Learn Something from Washington

Posted on by Scott Tanner

President Ronald Reagan once quipped that the scariest sentence is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” That sentiment aside, there may be something Kansas City and St. Louis can learn from Washington, D.C., as of late.

The capital city is making a strategic shift in its public transit approach by significantly expanding its bus services. This decision underscores the cost effectiveness and flexibility of bus transit compared to rail projects.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) plans to enhance its Metrobus network, recognizing that buses can be deployed more rapidly and at a lower cost than rail systems. The goal of this expansion is to improve service coverage and frequency, making public transit more accessible and efficient for residents.

Kansas City and St. Louis have been caught up lately in schemes to expand fixed-rail transit, which comes with higher costs and longer implementation timelines. By observing Washington’s emphasis on bus transit, these cities can explore opportunities to optimize their public transportation systems through cost-effective and adaptable bus services.

As urban areas attempt to efficiently deliver basic services such as transit, adopting flexible and fiscally responsible solutions like buses can help cities better meet the needs of their communities—something Show-Me Institute writers have been proposing for over a decade.

Shutting Down Dissent in Sedalia

Posted on by Scott Tanner

There have been numerous public concerns about government actions in Sedalia for the past year or so. I wrote about one of them—a large downtown tax subsidy expansion—here. There have been other major items of concern, including Sedalia’s government becoming extremely aggressive in issuing property citations and taking people’s property from them after they couldn’t pay the fines and make the repairs.

This has, not surprisingly, led to a lot of citizen concern and pushback. In response to this, city government has gone in exactly the wrong direction and scaled back public comments at its council meetings. This is not how local government is supposed to operate.

I worked at the St. Louis County Council from 2001 through 2006. Most of the time, very few people showed up to give public comment. There were exceptions. Over the past few decades, several things have happened to change how local governments in Missouri (and probably everywhere) handle public comments in meetings. First, security concerns have increased for obvious reasons. Second, adding video and streaming to local meetings has encouraged some people to attend and play to the crowd while speaking. Finally, COVID really brought local government front and center to a lot of people (and not in a good way).

So some local governments have changed speaking policies after some public comment sessions got out of hand, like this one. Sedalia, however, has in my opinion gone too far (and I say that as someone who speaks before a lot of local councils).

Sedalia has limited all public comments to items on the agenda unless you have requested permission 48 hours beforehand to speak about something else. I don’t oppose a similar version of this idea, which St. Louis County and a few others have implemented, which is to place public comment on agenda items early in the meeting (where it should be, before officials vote on the issue) and save non-agenda items for the end (where officials can leave if they have to as their voting is over). I also don’t disagree with time limits on comments, though those limits should be flexible based on the number of speakers. (Sedalia’s three-minute time limit is not flexible.)

Being forced by Sedalia city government to beg permission to speak on other items of concern 48 hours ahead of time is deeply troubling. Here is a recent video of people being aggressively gaveled down at the end of a meeting for simply wanting to make public comment. (I know at least one of these people stated they requested permission more than 48 hours ahead of time, but apparently that request was “lost.”)

Local governments have a right to impose some limits on public comments at their meetings to manage an orderly process. Sedalia is going too far, however. Requiring 48-hour notice and pre-approval for speakers who simply want to address city issues that might not be on that night’s agenda is not good local government practice. Sedalia should change its rules.

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