Let’s Grow Missouri, Literally

Posted on by David Stokes

We often talk about growing Missouri in abstract ways. We want to grow the economy, grow the tax base, grow the number of gigantic waterfalls. But I think we should try to grow Missouri in a more literal way by simply taking land and people from Illinois.

There is a part of Illinois that may actually be interested. On election day, voters in seven Illinois counties approved a referendum (non-binding, obviously) on seceding from Illinois and creating a new state without Chicago. This makes a total of 33 counties that have passed this Illinois Separation Referendum, as it is called. Twenty seven of these counties either border Missouri or can be connected to Missouri by other counties that have also passed the referendum. Five more counties could connect to Missouri if just two more counties pass it, too. (One county, Iroquois County in northeast Illinois, is going to have to look toward Indiana.)

While the referendum calls for leaving the current state of Illinois to create a new state, like the West Virginia model that I assume they are following, I think Missouri needs to get aggressive here. In the same way that President Trump could embrace destiny by acquiring Greenland, I think Governor-elect Kehoe should take that approach as well.

Territorial switches between states are rare, with Maine and West Virginia being the two most famous examples. North and South Carolina made a very minor land exchange as recently as 2017. The last time Missouri made a territory change was 1950, when Missouri and Kansas exchanged some land after flooding along the Missouri River border. The primary expansion of Missouri territory after statehood was the Platte Purchase, which added our six northwest counties to the state. However, that land was ceded from unorganized territory, not another state.

So, let’s get this done, Missouri! Let’s grow our state’s territory and population the old-fashioned way—by taking it from someone else! (Though we’ll do it peacefully, of course.)

Missouri’s Mean Streets

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Traffic fatalities in both Kansas City and St. Louis have seen significant increases, drawing concern from local leaders and community members alike. Both cities are known for high homicide rates, but traffic deaths are also worrying. It’s a reminder that when cities fail to deliver public services, they fail in many ways.

Kansas City Councilwoman Melissa Robinson recently posted, “On a beautiful Saturday, my 16 and 10 year old ride the bus to the KC Wheel and my only worry and constant reminder is “stay on the sidewalk, be careful walking!”

In Kansas City, fatalities spiked significantly during the pandemic and have remained high, with 103 deaths recorded in 2021. This was the highest total in over three decades, marking a substantial increase compared to pre-pandemic levels. While the numbers decreased to 90 fatalities in 2022, they climbed again to 102 in 2023, indicating persistent safety challenges on the city’s streets. The city has been trying to reduce fatalities through its Vision Zero program, a safety initiative launched in 2020 and intended to eliminate traffic deaths by 2030. However, the program has faced challenges due to limited funding and political support.

St. Louis has faced similar issues, with pedestrian fatalities particularly concerning. In 2021, the city and county combined saw 178 traffic-related deaths, and in 2022, the figure slightly decreased to 173. The City of St. Louis recorded 78 fatalities in 2022, one of the highest annual totals, reflecting a concerning trend. Pedestrian deaths in St. Louis County, in particular, have increased dramatically over the last decade, with areas on high-speed corridors responsible for a significant portion of these fatalities. Mayor Tishaura Jones recently posted, “Parents are afraid to let their children play outside or walk or bike to school because they would have to navigate roads built for big, motorized vehicles.”

It’s easy to argue that each city’s homicide rate takes precedent over traffic safety. Advocates for reform doubtlessly believe that efforts to reduce traffic deaths are underfunded—and they may have a point. Streets probably could be better designed; pedestrian infrastructure could be improved.

The job of running a city is difficult, there are so many priorities to balance. Public safety needs to be a priority, and that extends beyond homicide rates. I suspect however, that the initial solutions are the same: swift and sure enforcement of existing law.

St. Louis Making the Right Moves on Regulation

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

St. Louis is taking steps to roll back the bureaucratic barriers that have long stifled economic growth. With the introduction of ordinance 71819 earlier this year, the city is making it easier for small businesses—especially those in underserved areas—to thrive by streamlining the liquor licensing process and cutting unnecessary red tape. My colleague Grace Hearne wrote recently about another effort in The Lou to relax regulation on barber shops.

These moves are a win for local entrepreneurs and a sign that St. Louis is serious about economic development through deregulation.

For too long, starting a bar or restaurant in the city meant navigating a confusing maze of fees, delays, and arbitrary requirements. The plat petition, for instance, required business owners to collect signatures from nearby property owners before getting a liquor license. This often turned into a nightmare, particularly for small businesses in lower-income neighborhoods, where support can be harder to gather. Ordinance 71819 eliminated this burdensome step, replacing it with a more straightforward hearing process. This, along with provisions allowing for easier license transfers and extending opportunities to people with criminal histories, could be a game-changer for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Yes, there is a lot more St. Louis must do to recapture its economic vibrancy, But leaders deserve credit for listening to the community, acknowledging that heavy-handed regulations do more harm than good, and taking action.

Show-Me Institute writers have long argued that cutting red tape is essential for fostering a vibrant local economy. St. Louis, with its layers of outdated regulations, has been a case study in how excessive government interference can choke off innovation and growth. By reducing these barriers, the city is empowering local residents to build businesses that create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods.

The Fiscal Effects of School Choice with Marty Lueken

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Martin F. Lueken, director of the Fiscal Research and Education Center at EdChoice, about the findings of his report Fiscal Effects of School Choice: The Costs and Savings of Private School Choice Programs in America through FY 2022.

Marty shares insights into how school choice programs have financially impacted state and local budgets across the United States. He explains the methods used to estimate both short- and long-run savings from these programs and discusses the disparities in per-student funding between public and choice program students. Lueken also addresses the funding context and long-term fiscal implications of choice programs for K–12 education systems, shedding light on common misconceptions and more.

Read the full report here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

A Fork in the Road in Kirkwood

Posted on by David Stokes

On November 5, Kirkwood residents will vote on Proposition T, which, if passed, will create a citywide transportation development district (TDD). While Kirkwood officials deserve credit for several aspects of this proposal, sales taxes are nonetheless a questionable method of funding transportation needs.

TDDs are often abused by private developers as a means to expand corporate welfare under the pretext of “infrastructure improvements.” Most TDDs are created simply by the signatures of the property owners (often just one developer) who want to establish them. The TDDs are then governed by a board (affiliated with the property owner) that treats the tax funds as private money rather than public tax dollars. Missouri state auditors have consistently documented problems with TDDs for the past two decades.

Kirkwood city leaders deserve credit for putting this TDD to a vote of the entire city. They also made the right choice by ensuring that city leaders will have primary control of the future funds. Kirkwood residents can be confident that the taxes raised would be properly accounted for and spent on public needs, not private wants.

The main argument against this TDD is that sales taxes are not, generally speaking, the preferred way to fund transportation projects. Kirkwood should consider a local gas tax (which is allowed, yet admittedly rare in Missouri) before it commits to a sales tax for its roads. And, while nobody wants to hear it, property taxes are a better way to fund sidewalks in a community. General sales taxes are a way to push local costs onto visitors instead of having local people pay for the public services in their own neighborhoods.

Kirkwood voters face a tough decision tomorrow, but whatever the result of the vote, residents will benefit because the most harmful aspects of TDDs have been properly addressed by the city.

Short-Term Rental Regulation May Again Be Changing in The City of St. Louis

Posted on by Avery Frank

On November 5, residents of the City of St. Louis will have the opportunity to vote on a new tax on short-term rentals (STRs). Proposition S, if passed, would require people who stay in an STR to pay an additional 3% per night on top of existing lodging taxes. The revenue raised would go toward building affordable housing units in the city and toward other expenses, such as providing attorneys for renters in eviction proceedings.

Why Is This Proposition Being Brought to Voters?

This proposition is intended to address concerns about STRs affecting housing affordability. In fact, a St. Louis City alderman had this to say about Proposition S:

As we’ve seen a proliferation of short-term rentals, we’ve also seen rents and mortgage rates also climb as a result of that. . . . This [Prop S] is kind of a drop in the bucket to try and offset some of that.

Concerns about the effect of STRs on the housing market are not unreasonable, as some studies have indicated that STRs drive up housing costs by decreasing the supply of owner-occupied housing stock and long-term rental units. However, other studies have found that STRs bring increased tax revenue, supplemental income, residential renovation, business growth, and tourism to underdeveloped areas.

The City’s Previous Efforts on Short-Term Rentals

Last year, concerns with STRs arose following numerous horror stories of out-of-control parties. A slew of regulations (some reasonable and some harmful) were enacted through Board Bills 33 and 34, on which my colleague David Stokes and I testified.

Here is a list of the regulations added to STRs in the City of St. Louis last year:

  • Annually, STR Agents must acquire an STR permit, with a $150 fee.
  • Minimum stay of 2 nights.
  • No STRs in a place benefited by tax-increment financing or tax abatements.
  • In structures between 5 and 23 units, no more than 25% of units can be STRs.
  • In structures with 24+ units, no more than 12.5% of units can be STRs.
  • No single owner can receive a permit for more than 4 units.
  • The owner must be a natural person.
  • An STR Agent must be physically present at the address within one hour if required.
  • Three-strikes rule for bad conduct within 24 months (suspension can last for one year).

Adding a new tax on top of the numerous regulations from Board Bills 33 and 34 is likely to make things more difficult for the STR industry, which could in turn make it harder for the city to bring in substantial tax revenue from STRs. Alleviating rising housing costs is a worthy goal, but is this approach the right solution? It also raises the question of whether STRs should be taxed more than hotels in the City of St. Louis. These are issues for voters to consider as they decide on Proposition S.

K.C. Subsidies Stop Making Sense

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

I’m reminded of the Talking Heads song Once in a Lifetime when reading about yet another scheme to subsidize more luxury high rises in downtown Kansas City. With apologies to Talking Heads, I have found myself reading about developer subsidies. I have found myself again wondering how all this public spending on downtown is benefitting taxpayers. I have asked myself, “How did we get here?”

It is, alas, same as it ever was. Cordish Cos. is again pushing Kansas City for more taxpayer-funded subsidies. This time, it’s for its $156 million, 24-story Four Light luxury apartment tower. And it is already laying the groundwork for a fifth (Four Light would be the fourth luxury apartment for Cordish Cos.). The catch? Cordish Cos. wants to declare part of the Power & Light District an “undeveloped industrial area” to qualify for incentives—an absurd claim for property it controls.

These developer handouts are draining the city of the resources it needs to provide basic public services. This isn’t about revitalizing a struggling neighborhood—it’s about maximizing profits for wealthy and well-connected developers at the public’s expense.

Kansas City needs to end this cycle. If Cordish believes there’s demand for Four Light, let it fund it privately. If the city thinks there is too much regulation or taxation, leaders should reduce it for everyone, not a select few.

Good News for Men’s Hair in the City of St. Louis

Posted on by Grace Hearne

You are not alone if you are unaware that there was a law on the books in the City of St. Louis prohibiting barbershops from remaining open past 6:30 p.m. from Monday to Saturday, as well as requiring them to remain closed on Sundays and certain holidays. Meanwhile, salons in the city are at liberty to operate during the hours the owner sees fit.

The origins of these restrictions date back to the Progressive Era of American history, a time when occupational licensing was implemented to prevent the spread of barber’s itch (a contagious staph infection of the hair follicles). At the time, it was believed that the additional step of a license to operate a barbershop, emphasizing standards such as sterilization and sanitation, would combat the spread of barber’s itch. Then, in the 1940s, more restrictions were placed on barbers, resulting in a law that restricted the hours of operation.

Despite the good intentions behind requiring barbers to obtain an occupational license, a multitude of studies suggest that occupational licensing laws have a minute effect on quality and simultaneously eliminate cheaper options for consumers. Additionally, restrictions on hours of operation prevent barbers from servicing all their clients. As Beverly Smith, owner of Artichely Hair Academy, noted:

And the reason why is because it would not allow us to do as many clients as we need to, because people work from nine to five. . . . And we can’t fit all the clients in on a Saturday.

Thankfully, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen passed Board Bill 103 12–0, repealing the mandatory 6:30 closing time and the prohibition on operating on Sundays and certain holidays.

While the bill does not repeal statewide occupational licensing for barbers (nor does the city have that power), it is a significant step in the right direction. If the board of aldermen chooses to pursue this path further, it should consider reviewing the licensing requirements for other occupations too and evaluate whether the local occupational regulations genuinely serves as a quality marker, given that studies indicate otherwise. As is often the case, the market is better at ensuring the quality of a shave or haircut or signaling the appropriate hours of operation for barbers. By continuing to reevaluate these regulations, the city can foster a more competitive environment that benefits both barbers and consumers alike.

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