Royals May Stay at Kauffman Amid Stadium Inertia

Posted on by Scott Tanner

A new story by Kansas City Business Journal’s Thomas Friestad suggests a growing likelihood that the Kansas City Royals will remain at Kauffman Stadium beyond 2030—not because that’s their preference, but because no alternative is coming together.

The Royals, who have spent more than three years insisting they will vacate the K after their lease expires in 2030, face a conundrum: they have no new stadium site selected, no clear funding source, and no legislative momentum. Missouri lawmakers are on track to adjourn without approving any stadium funding bills. Kansas, meanwhile, has not yet extended the STAR bonds meant to lure the team across the border.

The Royals’ 2024 pitch for an East Crossroads stadium fell apart when Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected a new 40-year sales tax. Since then, the team has gone quiet. They have options—North Kansas City, Washington Square Park, and previously Overland Park—but each presents new complications. Land assembly, tax votes, and public skepticism loom large.

According to Friestad, the Royals do have the option to extend their lease at Kauffman for up to 10 additional years, through 2041. The provision, part of their 2006 lease, only requires 12 months’ notice and a clean track record with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority.

That means the team isn’t nearly as cornered as some may think. And as experts in Friestad’s piece explain, the ticking clock shouldn’t pressure local officials into bad deals.

“This point just means your current agreement ends,” said Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado-Denver professor who studies sports economics. “Nothing bad happens at this point.”

Indeed, Propheter compares it to a standard lease renewal in the housing market—if both parties want to keep the arrangement, they’ll find a way. That’s an important reminder in Kansas City, where both major sports franchises have long benefited from generous public terms. Royals critics, such as former City Councilwoman Becky Nace, argue that the team already enjoys the best deal they’re likely to get: a dedicated sales tax for stadium maintenance and operations, covering hundreds of millions in costs. Proposals in Kansas and downtown Kansas City would cover only construction, not ongoing upkeep.

The article also touches on the broader context. MLB relocations are rare and messy. Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas are often floated as threats, but relocating to any of those locations would involve significant political or financial headwinds. Economist Victor Matheson called such leverage “overstated,” pointing to the Oakland A’s relocation saga—the team is now stranded in a minor league stadium with uncertain funding for a Vegas move.

What emerges is a portrait of slow-motion bargaining. The Royals’ ownership may still prefer a new stadium, but they’re learning what voters and lawmakers have long suspected: urgency doesn’t equal necessity, and options, while limited, do exist.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has floated a revised package between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion for either a new stadium or a Kauffman renovation, though specifics remain scarce. Meanwhile, voter fatigue and fiscal realism continue to grow.

The takeaway is clear: a looming lease expiration should not be confused with a deadline for action. Kansas Citians rejected a rushed deal last year. If there’s a better one to be had, it will take time, transparency, and trust to get there.

MOScholars Program Remains a Worthwhile Investment

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

UPDATE (May 9, 2025):
The Missouri General Assembly has included $50 million in the state budget to expand the MOScholars program. This reflects growing support for educational freedom in Missouri. With this investment, Missouri joins 16 other states that have publicly funded private school choice programs.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

As Missouri’s budget conference committee finalizes its priorities, one investment stands out as both strategic and essential: restoring the governor’s proposed $50 million for the MOScholars program in House Bill 12. This tax credit–funded scholarship initiative expands educational opportunity across the state, especially for students who need it most. In recent polling, two out of three Missourians expressed support for the MOScholars program, and it’s time for the state to commit to it.

MOScholars provides scholarships to eligible K–12 students, particularly those from low-income families or with special educational needs, so that they can attend the school of their choice—whether public, private, or homeschool. By doing so, the program empowers parents, promotes educational freedom, and drives innovation across the education landscape.

Currently, the program is entirely donor funded. It was launched with a $25 million cap, and the six Missouri organizations that raise the funds and grant the scholarships have been working hard for the past few years to serve as many students as possible. The state committing to an appropriation of $50 million would help clear waiting lists, provide stability to scholarship-granting organizations, and ensure that more students can benefit from the learning environments that best suit them.

Giving families more options can lead to healthier competition, better outcomes, and stronger public education systems. States with robust choice programs have shown that when families are empowered, all schools—district, charter, and private—tend to improve.

Moreover, the scholarship expansion would especially benefit rural families, who too often are left out of school choice conversations. By including micro-schools and homeschool supports, MOScholars brings flexible options to small towns and agricultural communities where traditional alternatives are limited.

This is not just about education policy—it’s about economic opportunity, parental rights, and long-term prosperity. A child’s ZIP code or income level should not determine the quality of their education. Missouri’s leaders have the chance to deliver real change by restoring the $50 million commitment to the MOScholars program.

St. Louis Crime Reduction: Progress, Pitfalls, and the Path Forward

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of the following commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

With a new mayor taking office, St. Louis begins yet another chapter in its long, uneven push toward revitalization. The challenges are familiar: population decline, economic disparity, fractured politics, and struggling public institutions.

But the most daunting task ahead may not be solving those problems—it may be changing how the city is perceived.

A recent national study published in the Journal of Business Venturing Insights surveyed more than 500 entrepreneurs and prospective employees on how they evaluate U.S. cities when deciding where to live, work, or launch a business. The researchers, Kaitlyn DeGhetto and Zachary Russell, didn’t just ask about taxes or economic conditions. They asked how people feel about cities—how safe, stable, and welcoming they seem. And in those perceptions, St. Louis landed in a troubling middle ground: not the most dangerous or dysfunctional, but clearly among the cities seen as risky, especially when it comes to safety and governance.

Out of 25 major U.S. cities, St. Louis was ranked 10th in perceived safety risk—where #1 is the most dangerous. Respondents were asked about “the likelihood that individuals’ security and physical well-being will be endangered due to the normalization of aggression and criminality.”

St. Louis fared better on other measures. It ranked 13th in perceived social risk—how inclusive or equitable a city feels—and 17th on political risk, which the study defined as the threat of erratic or self-serving government action. Still, for a city that has had three mayors in eight years, that perception may be hard to shake.

These findings won’t surprise many locals. But they carry weight outside city borders. Perception—fair or not—influences investment decisions. Employers notice. So do renters, families, and job seekers trying to choose between St. Louis and cities like Charlotte, Austin, or Nashville.

This is the modern challenge for post-industrial cities. It’s no longer enough to compete on cost of living or square footage. Cities are now judged on vibes—by the headlines they generate, the stories residents share on social media, the narratives that take root far from City Hall. And while that may seem superficial, it’s anything but. In an economy increasingly driven by talent and mobility, a city’s reputation can make or break its efforts to attract the very people and businesses needed to fuel a turnaround. The difference here is that St. Louis must deliver not with soccer stadiums or entertainment districts, but with basic services.

We can and should debate the objective data—what’s truly happening on our streets, whether crime is up or down, and how we compare nationally. In the immediate past, St. Louis has seen reductions in certain types of crime. But the more difficult task—the one that falls squarely on the shoulders of the new administration—is shaping what people believe about the city in the first place.

There will be a temptation to reach for slogans or launch rebranding campaigns. But what’s needed is substantive progress—not just on public safety, but in how city government performs. That means competent service delivery, clear budgeting, and leadership that resists the pull of yesterday’s political fights in favor of building civic trust and shared purpose.

In the DeGhetto and Russell study, entrepreneurs ranked safety risk as their top concern—above taxes or regulatory burdens. Conservative respondents emphasized crime and political dysfunction. Liberal respondents focused more on social inclusion. That tells us something important: Everyone is watching, but they’re seeing different things.

For St. Louis, that means the mayor can’t govern just for applause from any one audience. The challenge is to build broad confidence. Do people believe this city is safe? Do they believe it’s run competently? Do they see a place where they and their children can thrive?

The answers may be shaped as much by tone and transparency as by policy. But they begin, inevitably, with what city leaders do to promote public safety—and just as importantly, what people think they’re doing.

Perception isn’t everything. But for a city trying to reverse decades of loss, it’s not enough to make progress—it has to look like progress, too.

“Free” Transit Is Anything But

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Examiner.

People don’t appreciate things that are free, for good reason. One of the most famous insults in film history is on point here, when Rodney Dangerfield notices Ted Knight’s ugly golf hat in “Caddyshack” and says, “I bet you get a free bowl of soup with that hat.”

The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) didn’t give out free soup to riders when it made all transit free in 2020, but it might as well have. Free transit is great if your goal is to turn buses into mobile homeless shelters. If your goal is to provide quality, safe, affordable transit, then making it free is the last thing you would want to do. It reduces revenues the system needs while making ridership a worse experience for more people.

KCATA head Frank White III has acknowledged that security problems have increased under the free fare system. The agency addressed those problems by adding more security and police, which is better than doing nothing. But it is spending more money on security to address problems caused by collecting zero money in fares. No wonder there is a funding shortfall. Austin, Texas, instituted free fares on buses in the 1990s, and crime dramatically increased. Reinstating fares addressed that problem quickly.

KCATA is finally moving toward reinstating some fares, but it won’t go nearly far enough. According to plans, numerous groups, including the homeless, will remain exempt from paying fares. Politicians and other free-transit backers will blame the inevitable decrease in ridership on the fares while overlooking that the free rides for some will continue to make the bus experience so unpleasant that others who need it will choose not to use it. That’s basically progressive public policy in a nutshell: Make local government services equally awful for everyone.

On another transit front, Independence, Kansas City, and several other cities have been experimenting with a different option for public transit: outsourcing it to a private company. Independence had been contracting for bus services with Transdev bus company, but increased costs and low demand led the city to end those routes and that contract. Now, Independence and Kansas City are contracting with the private company RideCo to offer their own version of Uber or Lyft. To save money and time, the IRIS program in KC takes riders to a general area rather than an exact address, so some walking is required (which most Americans, including the author, could use). The IRIS program is subsidized by taxpayers, as public transit generally is. But it charges a modest fare, as it should. The baseline fare in Independence is $5. Some type of fare is needed both to fund the service and address the (both literal and figurative) free rider problems.

Will this new program succeed? I hope so. Such an experiment with subsidized ride sharing can only be done with the private sector. If it succeeds, wonderful. If it fails, the program can be ended and taxpayers won’t be on the hook for it anymore. Engaging the private sector avoids the complex politics of hiring and firing new government employees.

Successful public transit moves people who depend on it to where they need to be in a safe, efficient, and timely manner. The louder supporters of transit often confuse actual success with more grandiose aims: convincing well-off suburbanites to use transit, designing flashy but useless pet projects, or creating utopia by making everything free. For a perfect example of that confusion, see how KCATA is cutting its bus route hours while the flashy and useless (yet expensive) KC Streetcar route is being expanded.

Reinstituting some bus fares and contracting with private operators for rideshare service will hopefully give KCATA, Independence transit, and the larger region the resources it needs. The purpose of transit is to move people who need it, not to satisfy the dreams of urban planners or ideologues. Free transit and streetcars do the latter, but all actual transit users want is a safe and affordable way to get to work or school on time.

Legislating Lower Standards for Missouri’s Children?

Posted on by Mike Ederer

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Springfield News-Leader.

Missouri lawmakers are considering a change to the performance levels the state uses to categorize students based on end-of-year test scores. Currently, Missouri categorizes students into one of four performance levels. From lowest to highest, these are: (1) below basic, (2) basic, (3) proficient, and (4) advanced. I believe the meaning of these categories is self-evident, as it should be.

A proposed change in House Bill 607 would add a fifth performance level, called “grade level,” which would fall below the “proficient” category and above the “basic” category.

Wait, what? What does testing at a “proficient” level mean, if not testing at “grade level?” And how can a student test at grade level but not be proficient? Digging a little deeper, the bill defines a student as “proficient” if the student can: “Demonstrate mastery over all appropriate grade-level standards and has introductory-level knowledge for the next grade or level of education.” When I think of what the word “proficient” is intended to communicate, this sounds about right.

But what, then, does the new “grade level” category mean? According to the bill, it also means that the student: “Demonstrates mastery over appropriate grade-level subject matter.” However, it goes onto indicate that a grade level student: “May be ready, with appropriate reinforcement, for the next grade or level of education.” This means that a student could be classified as testing at grade level on end-of-year assessments, even if he or she is not fully ready for the next grade. This does not sound like “grade level” performance to me, and I suspect many Missourians would agree.

This matters for two reasons. First, in case you haven’t been paying attention to national education headlines recently, student learning has been declining for about a decade now, and the decline has accelerated since the COVID pandemic. Missouri is no exception to the national trend. In the face of disappointing academic outcomes, it is important to maintain clear and rigorous standards. We should continue to demand the best from Missouri children. This watered-down version of “grade level” performance seems like a step in the wrong direction, like an implicit acceptance of the fact that our children are learning less in school than their counterparts from a decade ago.

Second, consider when schools and districts report out to the public on student performance. With this new category, they’ll be able to report on the share of students who are performing at “grade level” or higher, but this will not mean what most people will think it means. If I hadn’t read the language of the bill myself, I certainly would not understand it. The definition of “grade level” in the bill, as quoted above, is more appropriately communicated by the term “basic,” which is already a performance category. I want our schools to report on student performance in a transparent manner, rather than obfuscating it.

At first glance, how the state chooses to report out on student test performance may not seem like a big deal. But the more I think about it, the more this bothers me. I cannot think of a single positive rationale for doing this. It is certainly not aspirational. I don’t think it is a stretch to call it dishonest.

I hope the lawmakers in Jefferson City reject this change in the interest of maintaining high standards for our children, and promoting transparency in Missouri government.

 

A Mother’s Fight for Education: Kelly Williams-Bolar’s Legal Battle and Time in Jail

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Kelly Williams-Bolar about her harrowing experience of fighting for her daughters’ education, which led to a legal battle that changed her life forever. After enrolling her daughters in a better school district, Kelly faced accusations of fraud and was ultimately charged with grand theft. After spending nine days in jail, Kelley was pardoned by the governor, who recognized the injustice of her situation. They discuss the systemic issues in education, the consequences of parental choices, and the importance of advocacy for educational equity. Kelly’s story serves as a cautionary tale for parents navigating the complexities of school enrollment and the legal ramifications of seeking better opportunities for their children.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Struggle for Education
08:22 The Legal Battle Begins
14:06 Consequences of a Fight for Education
22:13 Advocacy and Change
30:50 Reflections and Future Directions

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Watch: 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index Webinar

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

On April 30, 2025, the Show-Me Institute hosted a webinar featuring EdChoice experts Ben Scafidi and Colyn Ritter, who presented findings from The 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index: All Students, All Options, All Dollars. This first-of-its-kind report measured private education choice across all 50 states. Inspired by the vision of Milton and Rose Friedman, the index evaluated how effectively states empower families to direct education funding toward the best options for their children—whether public or private. The event was moderated by Susan Pendergrass, director of research at the Show-Me Institute.

You can download the Friedman Index here.

A Bad Deal for Missouri’s Children

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

A version of this commentary appeared in The Heartlander

Tradeoffs and give-and-take are at the heart of politics. We’re told that the politicians who are willing to compromise are the ones who “get things done.” But not every tradeoff is worth it. Case in point: In the Missouri legislature, passage of a relatively weak open-enrollment measure has been discussed as a “both/and” that could be tied to passage of another bill that strips the State Board of Education (BOE) of its authority to accredit (or refuse to accredit) Missouri’s public schools. If that’s the offer, it deserves a hard no from legislators.

I don’t often find myself defending the BOE, and for good reason. It is fair to wonder what a school district has to do in this state to lose accreditation. Out of 517 districts, 511 (98.8 percent) are fully accredited, six are provisionally accredited, and none are unaccredited. The Ferguson-Florissant school district is fully accredited despite the fact that only 20 percent of its students are proficient in English language arts, and just 16 percent are proficient in math. Hazelwood, another fully accredited district, shows similarly troubling numbers: 25 percent proficiency in English and 15 percent in math. The Clarkton C-4 district in Missouri’s Bootheel is fully accredited even though 85 percent of students scored below grade level in English/language arts or math last year. Sadly, these are just three examples among many.

The question is: if the BOE isn’t holding schools accountable, what should be done about it? According to the proponents of Senate Bill 360, the solution is to strip the BOE of the power it seems so reluctant to use. The bill would prohibit the BOE from using academic performance to classify schools for accreditation purposes. Districts would instead be allowed to hire outside accreditation agencies to evaluate them. It should be obvious that such agencies would have a strong incentive to tell the districts that hire them what they want to hear.

If the fates of these two bills are linked, what do Missourians get in exchange for essentially throwing in the towel on accountability for school districts? They get House Bill 711, which would allow for open enrollment . . . sort of. It would only let up to 5 percent of students transfer out of any district, and more importantly, it wouldn’t require districts to accept students who wanted to transfer in. Compared to what our neighbors in Kansas and Oklahoma have, this is entry-level open enrollment at best, and it isn’t worth letting the districts themselves decide whether or not they deserve to be accredited.

There is no law of nature stating that the BOE can’t hold districts accountable for student performance. The Missouri Legislature could also make the BOE do its job. In fact, we are about to have four new members of the 8-person BOE, and they are likely to bring fresh energy and commitment to accountability.

The research on high accountability and improved student outcomes is clear, so the rubber-stamping of school accreditation needs to stop. The state, which funds public education to the tune of $6.6 billion each year, has a responsibility to both students and taxpayers to make sure that money is being spent to prepare students for college or the workforce.

If a “compromise” is on offer here it is a troubling example of the misplaced priorities of Missouri’s educational establishment. Who are they protecting here—students trapped in failing schools, or school districts threatened by the prospect of being held responsible for their performance?

Free Buses, Costly Lessons

Posted on by Scott Tanner

A recent paper arguing for fare-free buses in New York City reads like something we’ve already tried—and failed at—in Kansas City.

In 2020, Kansas City became the first major U.S. city to eliminate bus fares entirely. At the time, city leaders leaned on a slapdash four-page “mini report” that promised an $11 million local GDP boost. To put it mildly, it was wrong.

Since then, ridership dropped, assaults on drivers went up, and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) is now staring down a $10 million budget gap. The COVID money that kept KCATA afloat runs out next year. KCATA’s new leadership is asking to study whether fares should return. That’s where we are now: back at the beginning, but with less credibility and fewer resources.

The New York proposal has the same weaknesses. The author estimates a 23% increase in ridership, a 12% increase in speed and billions in economic gains—all for the low, low cost of $600 million in forgone fare revenue. But his math is speculative, his benefits are theoretical, and like in Kansas City, the costs are very real.

The problem isn’t just financial. Prices matter. Fares aren’t only about revenue—they’re also a tool to manage demand, discourage misuse, and incentivize better service. Eliminate them and you get overuse, fewer behavioral constraints, and more wear on already stretched systems. You also change the customer’s relationship with the service. When it’s free, expectations fall—for riders and for the agency.

Proponents talk about fairness. But there’s nothing fair about asking everyone to pay for a system that primarily serves a few. The better solution is targeted subsidies for those who need the help, which would preserve incentives, protect the system, and respect taxpayers.

Kansas City tried fare-free transit. It failed. New York doesn’t have to make the same mistake.

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