Hoosier State Helps Home-Sharing

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb has been sent legislation forbidding local governments from banning Airbnb and other short-term rental companies (STRs). Previously, cities in Indiana had, according to The Indianapolis Star, “prohibited people from renting out space that wasn’t their primary residence on a short-term rental platform.” Missouri would be wise to follow Indiana’s lead.

Cities across Missouri, including Kansas City and towns around St. Louis, have banned Airbnb outright in some areas. As we’ve written previously, this is an onerous and likely unconstitutional restriction on property rights. In 2017, home sharing advocates supported state legislation that would have pre-empted localities from imposing fees or prohibiting STRs outright, while permitting those subdivisions to impose “reasonable regulation” to “protect the public’s health and safety.” It may have been those undefined regulatory allowances that killed that bill, as supporters abandoned the effort at the end. A similar bill is being considered by the Missouri legislature this session.

The economic case for home sharing is compelling. Contrary to opponents’ fears, home sharing seems to increase home values in the surrounding area. However this has raised the concern that it increases rents as is displaces available housing units, although it hasn’t seemed to affect the hotel industry as much as hoteliers feared. As the industry matures, we will learn more about the consequences, intended or otherwise, of this new opportunity for homeowners.

Our guiding principle, however, must not be fear of change or of disruption, but protecting the economic freedom and individual liberty of Missourians. Protecting property rights against neighborhood NIMBYs remains a worthy endeavor.

Reform Missouri’s Mandatory Minimums

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

In the 80’s and 90’s, politicians from both parties wanted to be tough on crime. A favored tool was stripping judges of their discretion in favor of mandatory minimum sentences set by the legislature. Unsurprisingly, prison populations have gone up. But has the investment of public dollars been worth the return on public safety? The research tells us that it hasn’t.

Missouri leads the Midwest in incarceration rates, and we’re eighth highest in the nation. We just recently lost to Kentucky our position of having the highest incarceration rate for women. If we do nothing to slow the flood of new inmates, Missouri will need to spend about $485 million in the next five years to build and operate two new prisons. For comparison’s sake, the entire budget of the state Department of Corrections is $725 million in 2018. (It was $580 million in 2006.)

According to the Missouri Department of Corrections’ 2016 Profile of Institutional and Supervised Offender Population, 41 percent of inmates are incarcerated for nonviolent and/or drug-related crimes. These two offender groups, incidentally, are the fastest-growing populations since 2011. Missourians could save hundreds of millions of dollars if courts had the flexibility to sentence these offenders to treatment programs or probationary periods prior to locking them up—while still retaining the ability to protect us from violent or habitual offenders.

Furthermore, research indicates that large sentences are not as effective a deterrent as swift capture and conviction. And large sentences are expensive, and not just in terms of the public dollars used to house and feed inmates. They also impose a significant cost on families and make it harder for ex-offenders to re-enter the workforce and become productive members of society.

The good news is that there is a better way.

Other states, such as Texas, have found ways to increase public safety and reduce recidivism while reducing public spending on prisons. Reducing mandatory minimum sentencing in certain circumstances is a part of that public policy strategy. Let’s return to judges the discretion they need to separate violent offenders from those who pose less of a threat. To do nothing will put greater pressure on public coffers while offering no respite from crime.

Summer Internships

Posted on by Administrator

Summer Intern

The Show-Me Institute is pleased to offer internship opportunities for Summer 2018.

  • Internships are open to current undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates.
  • Internships last approximately ten weeks. The exact starting and ending dates are flexible, but we anticipate that each internship will run from June 4 until August 17.
  • Summer interns will work a full-time schedule (9 a.m.-5 p.m.).
  • Interns will be involved in many aspects of the Institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
  • Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, organizing events, and writing and editing op-eds, newsletters, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks also will be required.
  • Policy internships as well as communications and development internships are available.
  • A Show-Me Institute internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce regular blog posts and an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest to him or her. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from SMI staff members throughout the process.
  • Internships are located in either our St. Louis or Kansas City office.
  • Interns will be paid on an hourly basis.

Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit the enclosed application and the requested supporting materials. The deadline for applications is Friday, April 27, 2018. However, we will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision in mid to late May.

About the Show-Me Institute

Founded in 2005, the Show-Me Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization. The mission of the Institute is advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy. For more information:

Phone: (314) 454-0647

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.showmeinstitute.org

 

 

Microsoft Office document icon Summer 2018 Intern Application Form.doc

An Opportunity for Responsible Criminal Justice Reform

Posted on by Emily Stahly

Earlier this year, I wrote about the need for broader criminal justice reform in order to avoid spending nearly half a billion dollars on two new prisons over the next five years. Legislation has been introduced that would adopt the recommendations from the Justice Reinvestment Task Force that could help Missouri avoid taking on this large expense.

One major component of these reforms would be to increase the number of community treatment centers for substance abuse and mental health. Currently, 35 percent of admissions are for in-prison treatment because no alternative exists in the offenders’ community. Unfortunately, the task force found that Missouri’s in-prison treatment programs are ineffective, thus wasting taxpayers’ dollars. Establishing more community-based treatment programs could produce much better outcomes and be a better use of the state’s resources.

The proposed legislation would also assist law enforcement in combatting violent crime, increase access to victim compensation, and adopt better practices throughout the Department of Corrections to reduce recidivism. Given that Missouri’s prisons are already over capacity, pursuing these reforms would be a step in the right direction.

Why Can’t They All Be Like Winfield?

Posted on by Philip Oehlerking

One question that drives our municipal checkbook project is: What is the cost of transparency? Because Missouri’s sunshine law allows cities to charge for the time it takes to fulfill requests, it is not uncommon that producing public records will come with a price tag attached. When we sent sunshine requests for expenditure records, cities had the discretion to either charge nothing for these records, or—like the City of Battlefield—quote a price of over $35,000.

One argument we have heard from skeptics of checkbook transparency is that small cities like Battlefield (population 5,590) cannot afford to provide spending records at a low cost. Certainly, different cities have various staffing levels and challenges, but responses like Battlefield’s should raise concerns. And while we do not expect small cites to have the same resources as the City of Saint Louis, several cities provided us their expenditure records free or at very little cost, and some of those cities are smaller than Battlefield.

Consider the example of Winfield (population 1,404), which stands out not only because it shared its expenditure records free of charge, but also because of its commitment to transparency. When I spoke with the mayor, he said that while he loved our Municipal Checkbook database, his city could not afford to host its checkbook on its own website.

But after I told him we planned to put the city’s records in our database, he said that he would provide a link to our website so citizens could see how Winfield is spending its money. And if you check out Winfield’s website today, you’ll see that link. He also said the city was in the process of updating its transparency portal on the city website—not bad for a city of fewer than 1,500 people.

Cities, no matter their size, should provide easy access to information about how they’re spending our money, and modern accounting software used by most cities allows for quick generation of accurate reports. In Winfield’s case, the city saw in the Checkbook Project a tool to increase its own transparency. I applaud its commitment to promoting a culture of municipal accountability and good governance.

Charter Schools 101: Why Would We Need Charters in Suburban, Rural, or “Good” Districts?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In addition to fielding questions about what a charter school is, and whether charters are private or public schools, I’m often asked: Aren’t charter schools intended for failing urban districts serving low-income students of color? They do serve those communities well, but let’s talk about who else they serve.

While it’s true that over half of all charter schools are in urban districts, in the 2015–16 school year there were nearly 1,800 suburban charter schools and over 1,200 in small towns and rural communities.

It turns out that curriculum really matters to middle-income parents, and many gravitate to charter schools because they offer educational models that aren’t available in traditional public schools. Some of these models are more rigorous, some are more open and creative, and some offer unique programs. There are hundreds of examples of outstanding suburban and rural charter schools, but I’ll offer just a few to ponder.

Take the BASIS charter schools: In the 2017 US News rankings of the top 10 public high schools, nine were charter schools and five of these were BASIS charter schools. BASIS currently operates 20 charter schools in Arizona, Texas, and Washington, DC. Most of them are suburban, and they serve populations that reflect their communities. Like all charter schools, BASIS schools don’t have admissions tests—students are admitted by lottery. But once they’re in, it’s not easy. In this preschool through grade 12 program, students take biology, chemistry, and physics before they start high school and all high school students are expected to pass at least 6 AP exams. The key to success in BASIS schools is having highly professional teachers who are subject matter experts. Teachers are given considerable autonomy in their classrooms, but all of them, even kindergarten math teachers, must have a college degree in the subject they teach.

Or, what about the NYOS (Not Your Ordinary School) charter school in Austin, Texas? This school was founded twenty years ago and offers smaller class sizes, year-round school and “looping” (in which a student stays with the same teachers for several years). NYOS serves 950 students in grades K through 12, but they have 3,000 more students on a waiting list for a spot.

But many small towns are taking advantage of charter schools also. Graysville, Indiana opened Rural Community Academy in 2004 when their local school was slated to close. Since then, the school has grown to 150 students and some credit it with reinvigorating the community, saving the post office, and bringing several new businesses to the area.

Rural charters aren’t always opened to save a school, though. The Upper Carmen Public Charter School in Idaho was founded in 2005 “to complement the existing public school system by providing an alternative learning environment to enable more students from Lemhi County to be successful.” This school serves no more than 90 students and emphasizes personalized learning that allows students to progress at their own pace, rather than be grouped by age. Upper Carmen Charter School has consistently ranked among the top ten percent of schools in Idaho.

Asking if there are any good charter schools outside of major cities is like asking if there are any good restaurants outside of major cities. Of course there are. Teachers, parents, and community leaders with great ideas for educating kids are everywhere. Charter schools aren’t a perfect fit for every student, but they’re a great fit for the students they serve.

Greene County, Missouri, Spending 2013 to 2017

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Those who have been following our Government Checkbook database closely may have noticed that a new folder was added in the last week or so: County Checkbooks. As with the municipal checkbooks, Show-Me Institute researchers are in the process of asking every county in the state for a list of their transactions, the dates of those transactions, the county’s vendors, and related “checkbook” information so that the public can more easily see where their money is going.

After all, if government can spend your money, it should be able to account for it.

It’s appropriate for government at all levels to regularly provide expenditure information to the public, and to do so in a format that is easily searchable and accessible. Consistent with this objective, and as we have already done with the state’s spending, we are sharing a “portal” for Greene County, Missouri, using information provided to us by the County, free of charge. We hope this serves as a reasonable example for political subdivisions of what 21st-century governmental transparency can look like.

Tuition Caps on Higher Education Are Anti-Free Market

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Public funding for higher education has been on the wane in Missouri. As Mike McShane pointed out in his 2017 Show-Me Institute essay, “Stuck in the Middle with Mizzou,” state support for higher education, in inflation-adjusted dollars, decreased by 20.4% from 2000 to 2015. The national average, for comparison sake, was a 1.2 percent decrease. During this period, just 9 states had bigger decreases in state support. In that same period, tuition in Missouri rose 9 percent. In comparison, the average tuition growth was nearly 18 percent among the nine states that had higher decreases in state funding. Among our border states, Kentucky and Nebraska saw similar tuition increases while all the others had larger increases. Oklahoma and Illinois, for instance, increased tuition by 17 percent while Arkansas and Tennessee increased tuition by 18 and 22 percent, respectively.

Missouri’s tuition increases are lower than most other states because state law prohibits colleges and universities from increasing tuition beyond increases in the consumer price index. The point here is that Missouri’s institutions are getting a double whammy. They are seeing reductions in state revenues and are simultaneously limited from raising additional funds through tuition.

To some, this doesn’t sound so bad. There has been growing concern about the rising costs in higher education. And increasingly, there is concern about the seemingly illiberal attitudes on college campuses that shout conservative speakers down. And we all remember the fiasco at Mizzou a few years ago.

These are legitimate concerns. Indeed, as George Mason economist Bryan Caplan has suggested in his recent book, The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money, there are compelling arguments against public subsidies for higher education.

There are few solid arguments, however, for not allowing colleges and universities to raise tuition to the level they deem appropriate.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to make college affordable, but there are better ways to do it. For example, as mentioned in SMI’s Blueprint on Higher Education, Missouri could encourage competency-based education programs or income share agreements.

Prices are the thing that help the free-market flourish. Prices tell producers where they can make profits, and prices allow consumers to choose wisely. Tuition caps are anti-free market because they distort the true cost of a college education by artificially keeping the sticker price low. It’s time to remove these artificial caps and allow more free-market policies into higher education.

 

How Would Missouri Fare in a Global Trade War?

Posted on by Andrew B. Wilson

You might think that as a Midwestern state, Missouri would be less exposed than most other states to damaging repercussions from the Trump administration decision to impose tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum.

But one of the most attention-getting findings contained in a newly released report from the Brookings Institution titled “How Trump’s Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Could Affect State Economies“ might cause you to think otherwise.

As the Brookings report points out, Missouri’s imports of steel and aluminum amount to $1.4 billion, or 7.4 percent of our state’s total imports. By that measure, Missouri’s exposure to tariff-driven increases in the price of those two commodities is the highest of any state in the country. But how meaningful is that metric?

Joseph Haslag, chief economist for the Show-Me Institute, points out that the metric is misleading for a couple of reasons. One is the presence of a large automotive sector in our state, and the other is the simple fact that Missouri is just not a large importing state.

A better measure, therefore, is to look at Missouri’s exposure relative to our state’s total output of goods and service—its gross domestic product. By that measure, Missouri falls from the state that is “most exposed” to steel and aluminum purchases to the 8th most exposed state—still not anything to be happy about.

At both the state and national levels, agriculture is one sector of the economy that is likely to suffer. As Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, told me, “Farmers are going to be hit two ways—having to pay more for tractors, combines, and other equipment made from steel and aluminum, and also having to deal with the possible loss of foreign markets due to retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports.”

 Watch this space for further information on how changes in tariffs and trade agreements are likely to affect Missourians.

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