From all of us at the Show-Me Institute, thank you to all the men and women who have served and continue to serve our great nation. We will never forget your bravery and sacrifice.
Springfield Takes Its Time Hiring a City Manager
Springfield is undergoing a lengthy process to hire its new city manager. There is nothing wrong with that. This is one of the most important decisions the members of the council and the new mayor will make. The position has a very high salary of $350,000. That is higher than the Kansas City manager’s salary, and KC is a lot bigger than Springfield. Apparently, the city council offered such a high salary to attract lots of national candidates, and some of the councilmembers are disappointed that most of their candidates, including the main finalist, were still local. C’est la vie.
The primary candidate under consideration now, David Cameron, the current city manager in nearby Republic, is controversial, so I read, because he is a “disrupter.” That’s great if you are leading a start-up in Silicon Valley. Is it great for a midwestern city? You tell me. According to the story in the News-Leader:
David has probably stepped on a few toes along the way, it would be impossible, unrealistic to think that you would be able to make everybody happy in the process of doing your job,” [Springfield Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Bob Helm] said. “His leadership style is bold. He operates with confidence. He’s become a great problem-solver and has also been very responsive to those who approach him along the way.
If his disruptive leadership style is used to push the city employees in Republic, to work harder, then that sounds great to me. If is it used to think “bold” and offer lots of tax incentives, then count me out. Here is a story about how Republic gave a big tax break to Amazon to open a distribution center there and how the city manager got a pay raise because of it. (The story is also noteworthy as it does a good job of looking at all sides of the issue instead of just repeating press releases from the government about how great tax incentives are.)
Too often, “visionary” or “bold” local leadership just leads to local delusions about how great a city can be instead of just trying to provide the necessary services to its residents.
In fairness to Republic, the city, overall, doesn’t appear to offer that many tax incentives, so legitimate criticism of the Amazon deal needs to acknowledge that. In Springfield, they are taking their time to decide on the city manager position, and getting that decision right is worth the wait.
For much more on the evidence about the plusses and minuses of professional city management, check out my first free-market municipality guide, which goes into that debate in detail.
“May Malaise” and the Value of Testing in Schools
It’s that time of year again. As students finish testing, school begins to shift. More time is spent on parties, watching movies, and projects that fall below grade level. I call it the “May Malaise.”
I don’t object to a little downtime as the school year winds down—most parents probably feel the same. But I do mind that the slowdown seems to begin earlier and earlier in the year, stretching into a multi-week period in May when little meaningful academic work takes place. What’s more, students don’t always enjoy it either. Speaking from my own experience, my kids are not exactly clamoring for more assignments, but their disengagement is obvious.
This end-of-year drift is especially frustrating after months of being told how critical school attendance is. If every day in school matters, why is so much time wasted at the end of the year?
In the grand scheme of things, the May Malaise may seem like a minor annoyance. But it also informs a deeper question: What would schools look like without testing? While I don’t believe they would devolve into nonstop parties and movies, this period offers a glimpse into what the school system would look like with less focus on academics and less accountability. It suggests the motivation to improve student achievement isn’t as deeply embedded in the system as we might hope. And to me, it highlights the value of testing.
I know some people see standardized tests as the enemy of good teaching. They argue that tests constrain teachers, forcing them to “teach to the test” instead of inspiring creativity and deeper learning. But I see it differently. I believe testing is one of the most powerful tools we have to keep schools focused on what matters most: teaching core academic skills. I fear that if we stop testing, what little urgency we have for improving academic achievement will be lost.
Even if you think that tests are too distracting for teachers, or too stressful for students (some stress is good for them, I assure you!), just remember May Malaise. It could be worse.
Information Overload and Missouri School Report Cards
Have you ever started reading the warning label on an over-the-counter drug like aspirin or ibuprofen? Ever finished one? Probably not.
Drug warning labels are classic examples of information overload—so packed with details that they become practically useless. Unfortunately, the school report cards produced by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) suffer from the same problem.
In theory, these report cards should help parents and community members quickly understand how their local schools are performing. When well-designed, they can promote transparency and inform decision-making. But if a school report card is not organized and does not emphasize the most important information, it functions like a drug warning label. It can include a lot of detail but be of little practical value.
If you’re curious to see this for yourself, here is a link to the school report cards made available by DESE. Choose a district, then a school, and you can scroll through a vast amount of information. However, after you’ve taken the time to look through it all, you may realize you haven’t learned very much. DESE’s report cards may be comprehensive, but they fail to deliver what busy families need most: clear, accessible information about school quality.
Now, contrast the Missouri report cards with this report card for Briarmeadow Charter School in Houston, produced by the Texas Education Agency. At the very top, letter grades in four categories are displayed prominently:
- Overall Rating: A
- Student Achievement: A
- School Progress: A
- Closing the Gap: A
With just a glance, you know where this school stands.
Texas is not alone in this approach. States like Florida, Illinois, and Louisiana also use summary performance indicators on their school report cards to give the public a clear picture of school quality. Unlike Missouri, these states are courageous enough to rate schools based on performance, and most importantly, publicly identify schools that are failing to educate their students.
It’s no coincidence that students in states with strong transparency and accountability policies, including clear and informative school report cards, consistently outperform Missouri students academically. These policies are key drivers of school improvement, and without them Missouri is only likely to fall further behind. School report cards that are informative about actual school performance are a simple way to get our state moving in the right direction.
Border War is Back On!
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
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
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.
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
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”
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?”
