Downtown Baseball? A Swing and a Miss

On the October 12, 2017 episode of KCPT’s Ruckus, panelists discussed the topic of moving Kauffman Stadium to downtown Kansas City. A panelist who has worked as a consultant to local governments and who has steered public funds toward private baseball business in the past said we ought to be having this conversation. More recently, the editorial board of The Kansas City Star said “Kansas City should launch a metro wide conversation about a decision with far-reaching consequences.”

Exactly what does it mean to have the conversation? It will doubtlessly require money spent on consultants to draft options, hold meetings, and the like. And what will those plans drive toward? Probably an expensive public finance project to buy a new stadium for a billionaire.

We’re spending money so we can spend money. It’s absurd.

It gets worse. The Star’s editorial board included this nugget:

City Manager Troy Schulte said his conversations with [Royals owner David] Glass associates have left the door open to that possibility.

“He (Glass) is saying, “Give us some options,” Schulte said. “He has not said no.”

In other words, the team owner isn’t even asking for any of this, he just didn’t refuse. And why should he? He’d be a fool to stop the city from offering him the same type of taxpayer subsidies that cities make all the time. As a result, city leaders, including the Star, are eager to start spending money on it.

Wait, there’s more. The Star makes clear there is additional cost beyond the taxpayer outlay of funds on consultants and construction subsidies:

Other possibilities remain east of City Hall and near the 18th & Vine Jazz District. “You’ve got to reserve it, or you’re losing development sites,” Schulte said.

Schulte is saying the city would intervene in the market to “reserve” sites, effectively stopping anyone else who might have a better, unsubsidized, idea for development. (One can imagine that at the time of construction, the then-mayor and council members will point to the lot they have kept vacant and say, “look at this lot no one has developed, we need this downtown stadium to address blight.”)

If Kansas City’s wealthy sports team owners want to consider other locations for their stadiums, and spend their own money doing so, they are free and welcome to do so. But the idea that taxpayers should take the initiative and spend money now so we can maybe spend money later is completely wrong.

 

States with School Choice Reap the Benefits

Kelly Clarkson says that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and I believe her. You know who doesn’t believe her? Teachers who are willing to close down the schools in their state to prevent any student from having a choice when it comes to their education. Rather than adapting to charter school competition and becoming stronger in the process, some try to just kill charter schools outright. West Virginia teachers attempted this recently, and it worked. The threat of seven potential charter schools opening in their state was killed, even though the teachers would have received raises from the same bill.

As a researcher, I can’t stress enough that correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I’m still struck by the following graphic.

State Performance Graph

This graphic was created by the Urban Institute for their 2015 report, Breaking the Curve: Promises and Pitfalls of Using NAEP Data to Assess the State Role in Student Achievement. The states in the bottom left quadrant are those that both performed in the bottom half of all states on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2013, and also saw their NAEP scores decline between 2003 and 2013, after controlling for student demographics. And the states in this bottom left quadrant are mostly states with little or no school choice. The states in orange had no charter schools in 2013, and those in blue only allowed charter schools as punishment for low performance. Oklahoma gave up using charters as a last resort for low-performing districts in 2015, but Missouri has not. Iowa and Wyoming had fewer than 400 students in charter schools in 2013. By contrast, Florida and Texas had over 200,000 students enrolled in charter schools that same year. Pennsylvania had almost 120,000 charter school students and New Jersey and Massachusetts had about 30,000 each.

If school choice killed public education, this graphic would look a lot different. I’m perplexed that the states in the bottom left quadrant, including Missouri, think that taking a strong stance against school choice is a winning strategy.

 

Truly “Public” Schools?

Have you ever heard any of these chestnuts?

  • Unlike public schools, charter schools make families apply to them which keeps out kids from less-involved families.
  • Unlike public schools, charter schools require students to maintain a certain GPA to apply (or to stay enrolled).
  • Unlike public schools, charter schools require students to adhere to a conduct code or else get expelled.
  • Unlike public schools, charter schools require parents to come to meetings before they can enroll their children, so that the school can screen out less-involved parents.

These are serious charges. If charter schools can pick and choose their students, are they really public schools that are open to all?

I did some digging on the websites of Kansas City area schools, and some admissions requirements surprised me.

For example, to get into one Kansas City area school, “Applicants must score at or above the 60th percentile on a national standardized reading and math test to be eligible for entrance. Students must also have a record of good citizenship and a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher.”

To get into another, “Students must have a GPA of 2.35 or better, a 90% or better attendance record, and a discipline record that shows appropriate student behavior.”

To get into another, “They must be school ready and able to abide by school policies and expectations as indicated in ‘Behavioral Expectation Student Contract’, which will be distributed upon acceptance.” What’s more, “All new parents will be required to attend a mandatory informational [meeting] before a seat will be offered.”

Can you believe this? Ostensibly public schools are deliberately screening out low-performing students, students with discipline problems, and students with less involved families.

So now is the time I’d bet you’d like me to reveal the culprits. It might surprise you to learn that none of them are charter schools. All five of these examples come from Kansas City Public School Signature Schools, a group of magnet schools. The full list of requirements is on the KCPS website.

According to Rebecca Haessig of the local education blog Set the Schools Free, nearly 26 percent of KCPS students attend one of the seven Signature Schools that place admissions requirements on children or families. They play a huge part of the public school system in Kansas City, yet get very little attention. I wonder why?

For the record, charter schools cannot, by law, place requirements related to previous achievement or behavior on their students. They cannot force parents to attend informational meetings before children are offered a seat. Perhaps they’re the most public schools in town.

 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Are Being Reformed? Not So Fast

Last week, the Missouri Senate gave preliminary approval to a plan that supposedly “reforms” the state’s low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program. This proposal follows the announcement by Governor Parson last September that the Missouri Housing Development Commission, the body in charge of awarding LIHTCs, would not be issuing any new tax credits until the program is reformed by the legislature. At the time of the Governor’s announcement, my colleagues cheered the prospect of long-anticipated tax credit reform. Sadly, the most recent moves by the Senate deserve no cheers and should hardly be considered “reform.”

Prior to 2017, Missouri’s LIHTC program was one of the most generous in the country. The LIHTC program is federally created and funded, but in an effort to increase affordable housing development across the state, Missouri agreed to match up to 100% of the federal funds allocated to the state. The problem was that report after report showed the tax credit wasn’t an effective use of state funds. For example, a state auditor’s report showed that only 42 cents of each dollar allocated to LIHTCs was spent on the development of low-income housing. That was why the state’s portion of the program was halted in 2017.

But those who profit from the tax credits have always had a well-organized lobby, so it was only a matter of time until legislative efforts were made to restore Missouri’s funding. The measure approved last week returns Missouri’s funding for LIHTCs to 72.5% of the federally allocated funds.  Unsurprisingly, a St. Louis Post Dispatch article chronicling the negotiations notes the original “reform” proposal was to only return 50% of the funds, but developers felt that number was too low and as such eventually got the amount increased 77%, before eventually reaching the compromise number of 72.5%.

Just to summarize this backwards process: a program that currently receives zero state dollars was offered a return of 50% of their funding (over $100 million annually), supporters of that program claimed 50% was an inadequate number, and then the funding increase was bumped up north of 70% while no structural changes were made to the program that would actually ensure more dollars are spent on the original purpose of the tax credit (low income housing). If any dollars are going to be restored for the LIHTC program, there needs to be serious structural reform first. Anything else is just window dressing.

 

Should Missouri End Some of Its Vehicle Inspections? Maybe

Vehicle maintenance isn’t typically the sexiest legislative topic, but one proposal offered in the Missouri House may make it hot in 2019, to the chagrin of at least a few auto mechanics across the state:

[The bill proposes that] the state law be repealed that requires vehicles of five years or older to be inspected every other year. Rep. J. Eggleston, R-Maysville, said the bill would put the responsibility of having vehicle inspections in the hands of drivers.

“I have no doubt that problems are detected in the inspections and are corrected,” Eggleston said. “The point I was making though, is these problems would, by and large, be detected and corrected anyways even without the inspections.”

Eggleston said he has done a large amount of research on the subject and that states where inspections are no longer required have not seen a major increase in safety problems.

“I’ll be honest when I first heard the topic, I was against getting rid of the inspections and my investigation was to set out and prove that they were helpful,” Eggleston said. “I was trying to prove a former legislator wrong, and I ended up proving him right and proving me wrong.”

Eggleston says that putting an end to the inspections would save Missourians $30 million each year in fees alone. As Eggleston notes, this  isn’t technically a tax, but is practically speaking indistinguishable from one. Tax or not, he argues, that’s millions back in the pockets of Missourians statewide. And he’s right. The issue is already making some headway in the legislature.

The article quoted here, from the St. Joseph News-Press, is worth a full read, as it gets into some of the objections mechanics have against the change, including the fact that sometimes the inspections turn up problems that have to be fixed. I’m sure that’s sometimes the case. But is the cost of a state-mandated inspection worth the cost to Missouri consumers? Or, is its continued existence more a benefit to mechanics, who can get a fee and potentially a customer, if they find anything amiss? Expect to hear a lot of debate over this during the next couple of months.

 

The Public Interest Should Trump the Interests of City Bureaucrats-and It Shouldn’t Be Close

When Phil Oehlerking and I started the Municipal Checkbook Project two years ago, we thought that the bulk of our time would be spent showcasing how Missouri cities spend the money they take from Missourians.

As it turned out, though, most of our time was spent just trying to get spending documents in the first place, and most cities that responded wanted us to pay them to produce these records. Battlefield wanted $35,000, Hollister $25,000, and Buckner $11,000, to name a few of the more outrageous requests. Even the seat of state government, Jefferson City, wanted nearly $1,000 for the public to see what it was spending money on! The list goes on.

These quoted prices are troubling, not only because of the potential conflicts such demands have with the spirit and letter of Sunshine Law requirements, but it also raises the specter of whether there are ulterior motives for pricing out people requesting this information. Perversely, the cities that are probably most deserving of scrutiny under this “pay-to-see our spending” approach are the least likely to get it.

I’m highlighting this issue because a bill that would require cities to publish their checkbooks is now facing blowback from a House committee on precisely these grounds—that many Missouri cities don’t want to publish their spending records, which itself is a startling revelation.

But now, some state legislators are apparently willing to oblige these cities, blocking and tackling against the citizens who want to see how cities spend the money that is taken from them.

Not only is this bad policy, but it is symptomatic of a larger misunderstanding among legislators of who they represent. State legislators weren’t elected to represent the cabal of Missouri’s local officials; they were elected to represent the people, whose money the state allows local government to take by way of taxes.

Geography should not dictate whether Missourians have transparent local government, and state officials should remind themselves of who, exactly, put them in office. Going to bat for local government subdivisions against the interests of the public is a bad call.

Criminal Justice Reform Getting Attention in Missouri

The Governor laid out a number of important priorities in his State of the State address, which my colleague Scott Tanner has already summarized. But I think the focus on criminal justice deserves a little added emphasis. KCUR noted some of the highlights:

In addition to bolstering money for drug courts and prisoner re-entry programs, Parson is planning on closing Crossroads Correctional Center near Cameron and moving inmates and staff to other prisons across the state….

“This decision is largely driven by our dedication to find efficiencies wherever we can in state government — and this can be done while ensuring safety, improving security and delivering a much needed pay raise. All being done with no layoffs.”

I’ve talked about the Crossroads bit before, but there’s more going on here than just straight taxpayer savings through consolidation.

KTTN radio out of Trenton, Missouri, has an interesting post up with audio from Rep. Louis Riggs, talking about some of the same criminal justice issues. Notably, Rep. Riggs says that along with being “smarter” about our criminal justice strategy, “we don’t need to be breaking up families and taking people’s licenses away.” It’s refreshing to hear language like that, which not only considers the issues of punishment—but of rehabilitation as well, with an emphasis on avoiding incarceration where possible.

My colleagues Patrick Tuohey and Emily Stahly have been all over issues of criminal justice reform, so I know they’ll be following developments in Jefferson City closely. But it is good to see the state re-examining what Missouri does in terms of criminal justice and how it can improve outcomes—for taxpayers, and for the accused.

 

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