Page 443 – Show-Me Institute

Streetcar Supporters’ Tortured Logic On Display In North Kansas City Extension Option

Posted on May 8, 2014January 13, 2026 by Joseph Miller

It seems the downtown streetcar line and the proposed 7.8-mile extension plan have not slacked some Kansas City residents’ thirst for more rail. As the Kansas City Star reported today, the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) is still pushing for a streetcar extension to North Kansas City. According to the most recent report, the proposed line would not get its own bridge because it is too expensive. Instead, the streetcar would run across the congested Heart of America Bridge before heading north to 18th Ave. As we wrote when the plan was first proposed last year:

All streetcar lines are expensive and redundant, but the proposed northern extension is especially wasteful. Opponents and friends of the streetcar alike should be able to agree that this is not the best use of city resources.

Well, it seems like we can agree, with some rail supporters arguing against this extension plan. The price tag is an obvious point of criticism, but some streetcar supporters undercut their previous argument for streetcars by claiming that North Kansas City does not have the economic density to warrant a rail line. As Kansas City Councilman Russ Johnson put it, “it’s hard to have rail where there isn’t economic density.”

But wait a second. Haven’t we all been told that streetcars create economic density? Even Johnson has “insisted that the streetcar will help economic development near the rail lines and could help build urban population density.” He is not alone. Supporters of the streetcars have claimed that development follows the rail and that the un-built line in Kansas City has already driven development. If that is truly the case, a streetcar line makes more sense in North Kansas City than elsewhere, because its economic density could use a boost.

Johnson’s statements betray the truth about streetcars: they do not necessarily drive development, but they benefit greatly from existing development. The massive expense of streetcars usually requires densely developed areas that can act as a supportive tax base. Downtown Kansas City has businesses and property owners who can be taxed to pay for the streetcar, North Kansas City does not. Sales and property taxes, like those proposed for the downtown streetcar, would not be sufficient to support a streetcar extension to North Kansas City.

Imagine: Kansas City Schools Attracting Residents

Posted on May 8, 2014January 13, 2026 by Patrick Tuohey

We have heard it for years: Kansas City schools are so bad that it is driving people from the city in droves. The district enrollment has dwindled from 75,000 a few decades ago to approximately 14,000 today. And this isn’t just the much-maligned “white flight;” people of all races continue to flee the city.

But there is one glimmer of hope. At a recent morning talk at the Central Library, Dean Johnson, of the Crossroads Academy, a publicly funded but independently operated charter school, offered this:

Two weeks ago, we conducted our lottery for next school year. For kindergarten alone, we had 95 applications for only 47 open positions. Among the applicants is a family seeking to relocate from Kansas City, Kan., for the primary purpose of sending their children to Crossroads academy. Now this is not something we often hear — people moving to Kansas City because of the schools. But here’s the simple truth: families will go wherever they find the best teachers.

Johnson is correct, but he downplays the important role of administration. There are excellent teachers in the Kansas City School District, but the administration often is so bad that teachers are unable to teach. As local public education reform advocate Pam Kingsley said, “You could replace every teacher in the Kansas City district with the best teachers in the world, and after a year, they’d all have left because the schools are run so poorly.”

One family moving to Kansas City is anecdotal, but it is good news in what seems to be decades of bad. If Kansas City is serious about improving its education system, it needs to embrace school choice. After all, charter schools, which are public schools that are independently governed rather than district-run, not only out-perform public district schools, but they do so with less resources. It’s no wonder that more than 40 percent of the children in Kansas City’s public schools are already in charters. The program needs to be supported and expanded.

If charter schools can offer better education for less — and in the meantime actually attract people to the city — then everyone should encourage their existence and success.

Post Dispatch’s Criticism Of Sen. Chappelle-Nadal Misses the Mark

Posted on May 8, 2014January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

Patrick Gibbons, public affairs manager for Step Up for Students – Florida’s only tax credit scholarship organization – has a great critique of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s tirade against Missouri Sen. Maria Cappelle-Nadal (D-Dist. 14).

He wrote:

The newspaper editors declared Sen. Chappelle-Nadal to be “clueless on the value of public schools.” They expounded on that value by discussing the ways public schools benefit the general public, including increasing home values, greater economic development, higher incomes and more. Naturally, an educated population improves the greater public good.

But those public benefits don’t magically disappear if more kids are educated at private schools using publicly funded vouchers (or even privately funded tax-credit scholarships). The benefit ensues WHEN students are educated, NOT because of WHERE they are educated.

If privately funded vouchers improve educational options for children (and the vast majority of research says they do), then society is better for it. Society is worse off if we eliminate options for students struggling in schools simply because newspaper editors and politicians are concerned about the geography of where the education occurs.

Gibbons is absolutely correct. The goal of public education is advanced when students receive a quality education, not when public schools educate more students. This goal can be advanced by providing students with opportunities to attend quality schools, regardless of who operates the school.

Joy Pullman, of the Heartland Institute, joins Gibbons in criticizing the editorial board. To read her piece, click here.

Airport Advisory Group Recommends New Terminal Plan

Posted on May 7, 2014January 13, 2026 by Joseph Miller

Today, the Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) recommended that the city move forward with a $1.2 billion new terminal plan for Kansas City International Airport (MCI). Their recommendation flies in the face of clear opposition from the airlines and revelations that the new terminal plan is far more expensive than a simple renovation of the airport.

That ATAG recommended the new terminal plan is inexplicable based on facts, but not so surprising given just how tilted the scales really were. Nearly all the information at ATAG meetings came from the authors of the new terminal plan (Kansas City Aviation Department), the only real option presented in any detail was the new terminal plan, and the process for selecting a conclusion was weighted in favor of the new terminal plan.

Fortunately, the ATAG’s recommendation is by no means binding. MCI and its airlines have already signed an agreement allowing them to basically rewrite the plan in conjunction with the Aviation Department. In addition, Kansas City voters will get a say on whether a new terminal is built. Hopefully, fiscal discipline and common sense will prevail and voters will permanently ground this boondoggle.

Our full position on the new terminal plan is outlined in this presentation from February:

It’s Difficult To Compete With Free

Posted on May 7, 2014January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

If it were your decision and you could select any type of school, what type of school would you select in order to obtain the best education for your child? This question was posed to 660 Missourians in a poll that the Show-Me Institute and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released this week. In their responses, Missouri voters overwhelmingly demonstrated that it is difficult to compete with free.

Only one-third of respondents indicated they would select the regular public school system. Thirty-nine percent indicated they would select a private school, making it the most common response. Another 21 percent indicated they would choose to homeschool their children or send them to a public charter school.

These responses stand in stark contrast to reality – nearly nine out of 10 students in Missouri attend public schools. Why this mismatch between preferences and actual choices? Cost and access.

Public charter schools are only located in Saint Louis and Kansas City and are limited on where they can expand. Private schools cost additional money. As anyone with a cursory knowledge of basic economics knows, demand decreases when cost rises. In other words, many parents are more likely to choose a free public school than they are to pay for a private school – regardless of preference.

But public schools do not have to be the only option for parents. Currently, 24 states and Washington, D.C., have school choice programs. Kansas became the most recent state to adopt a private school choice program with the creation of a tax credit scholarship program.

There is a clear desire for expanded educational options in Missouri. Yet, there is entrenched opposition to school choice from education establishment groups. These groups claim to oppose choice because they want to protect students. It seems obvious, they actually oppose school choice because they want to protect their advantage over the costly private competition. That is why economist Milton Friedman once said:

There is no doubt what the key obstacle is to the introduction of market competition into schooling: the perceived self-interest of the educational bureaucracy.

Opposition to school choice stands in the face of clear support among Missouri voters (including rural voters) and in the face of evidence that school choice works.

Paul DiPerna, the research director at the Friedman Foundation, and I discuss the new poll on this segment of Choice Media’s Reform School.

Going Too Far To Limit Voter Input

Posted on May 7, 2014January 13, 2026 by David Stokes

There are at least two efforts in the Missouri General Assembly to prevent the ability of local voters to restrict tax incentives within their community. I think these limitations are a very bad idea, to say the least. Both Senate Bill 672 and SB 693 have had the following amendment attached to them:

2. No political subdivision of this state shall by ballot measure impose any restriction on any public financial incentive authorized by statute.

This proposal is almost certainly in response to the attempt to limit tax incentives for Peabody and other energy companies within the City of Saint Louis. A judge’s order turned away that ballot initiative. While I certainly agreed with the attempt to limit tax subsidies, I was never comfortable with the way the initiative targeted one industry. So, you didn’t hear me objecting to the judge’s ruling. Furthermore, I have, in the past, supported legislative preemption of initiative petitions in certain cases, so I am not saying a referendum should always trump local officials.

However, a blanket prohibition against any local votes against the use of tax incentives such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF), etc., goes way too far. This is terrible public policy and improperly restricts local voter rights. If a city or county has an allowance for initiative petitions under their charter, they should be allowed to use it. If local voters want to reduce or eliminate the use of TIF, Transportation Development Districts (TDDs), Community Improvement Districts (CIDs), Enhanced Enterprise Zones (EEZs), abatements, etc., via their local tax dollars, they should be able to do so.

Attempts to use initiative petitions after the fact against approved TIFs have failed for several legal reasons. However, there should be no legal problem with preemptively prohibiting corporate welfare in a community, as long as the prohibition is even and not targeted at select industries. (Feel free to tell me how I am wrong there, lawyers, but the mere existence of these amendments tells me that is correct.)

These amendments are trying to create a legal roadblock against citizen involvement and input into how people’s own tax dollars are spent, and that would be unfortunate for Missouri.

Show-Me Now! Food Trucks Fight Red Tape

Posted on May 6, 2014April 24, 2026 by David Stokes

Update (April 2026): More than a decade later, food trucks in St. Louis are still fighting the same battles, most recently after a bill to expand their operating areas was stalled when the Cardinals objected to losing exclusive vending control around Busch Stadium.

We caught up with some food truck vendors at the 2014 St. Louis Food Truck rally last Saturday. David Stokes asked them about the their fight against red tape in St. Louis city and county. Things are getting better, but there’s still work to be done.

We Have A Tax Cut: Missouri Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto

Posted on May 6, 2014January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

It was a long road, but after a 23-8 override vote in the Missouri Senate yesterday and a 109-46 vote in the Missouri House today, Missouri has its first individual income tax cut in nearly a century. Senate Bill 509’s passage is a victory for taxpayers that stands in stark contrast to tax handouts, like Boeing’s, that have bedeviled reformers’ attempts to take the cronyism out of the state’s economic development efforts. This first tax cut is a small but important first step to ensuring every Missourian, not just a select few with special connections in Jefferson City, is empowered to make this state better.

Missouri is not a “low-tax state” yet, but today’s vote is a welcome opening salvo to get us there.

Survey Says . . . Missourians Dramatically Underestimate Education Spending

Posted on May 6, 2014January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

Today, Missouri lawmakers voted to override Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a tax cut bill. Immediately, opponents of the tax cut began decrying the legislature’s actions. They claim that this will lead to drastic cuts in education spending. First, it is important to note that these scare tactics are just that – scare tactics. On the Show-Me Daily blog, my colleague Michael Rathbone has shown how these predictions relied on cooking the books in order to come up with a loss of funds to education. With that said, it is important to understand why this type of scare tactic is so common and effective. To do that, you need look no further than the report that the Show-Me Institute and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released today.

We conducted a poll of Missouri voters and asked them a number of questions regarding school funding and school choice. When we asked participants how much they think we spend on each student per year, we found that the vast majority of Missourians have no idea. Seventy-two percent of Missouri voters either underestimated or were not even willing to guess how much Missouri spends in total expenditures per pupil. Approximately one-fifth of Missourians estimated that we spend less than $4,000 per pupil in current expenditures. In reality, we spend $9,400.

How does not knowing the facts allow for scare tactics to work? It’s simple. When people have more information, they are less likely to believe outlandish claims.

During the poll, we tested the impact of having spending information. We found that when individuals were told how much we spend on students, they were much less likely to say that spending is “too low.” There is room for honest debate in politics, even when it comes to education funding; but this debate should be based on the facts.

You can find the full poll on the Show-Me Institute and Friedman Foundation websites.

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.