How to Help the Homeless with Housing Policy

Posted on by Grace Hearne

Homelessness is awful for everyone. Some homeless people suffer from substance abuse and mental illness and require significant care. But some just require a bit of assistance to get back up on their feet. For helping that population, single-room occupancies (SROs) are a time-tested solution.

Single-room occupancy units, otherwise known as SROs, are small, furnished rooms that are rented out. SROs are definitely not five-star hotels or luxury apartments, but they do provide the homeless with a roof over their head, a bed, and a hot shower until they can afford a better living situation. St. Louis, and many other municipalities, severely restricts the construction of SROs. On the other hand, some cities such as St. John entirely prohibit the construction of such facilities.

An alternative to SROs is building more multifamily dwellings. By increasing the supply of multifamily dwellings, the price of these housing units will decrease, making housing more affordable for the homeless (and anyone else interested in these units) and providing them with an alternative to SROs or a homeless encampment. Unfortunately, cites such as Sunset Hills have shot down efforts to change the zoning code to allow for the development of more multifamily dwellings. However, Kansas City has seen a growth in housing options.

You may ask, “How can the homeless afford SROs or multifamily dwelling units?” SROs or multifamily housing become affordable through employment and through housing and utility assistance programs such as Beyond Housing.

There is no silver bullet for solving homelessness, but making housing cheaper is a great place to start. By changing zoning regulations to allow for the construction of more SROs or multifamily dwellings, we may be able to provide housing for many who need it.

Federal Broadband Funds Are Just Being Wasted

Posted on by David Stokes

The ability of the government to waste enormous amounts of money while accomplishing very little never ceases to amaze.

I have been writing about public broadband funding for several years now. My work at the Show-Me Institute has been less focused on the federal expenditures overall and more on how that money would be spent in Missouri. I never liked the idea of a massive federal internet expansion program, although I understand that in certain, very rural parts of the nation it could be beneficial. My aim has been to argue against new, local-government owned internet networks (GONs) in Missouri. GONs are, simply put, terrible.

In 2021, the federal government appropriated $42 billion for broadband expansion. Three years later, how many homes have been connected to the internet with that tax money? According to Brendan Carr, an appointed member of the Federal Communications Commission, zero. That’s right, zero. Three years into the program, and they aren’t even close to doing the actual work to connect people to the internet. Carr writes that the administration has been far more concerned with other things instead of actually connecting people to broadband. The internet expansion focus in on: “Climate change mandates, tech biases, DEI requirements, favoring government-run networks + more.”

The original bill to fund broadband expansion was passed with bipartisan support. But, as often happens, bureaucrats appear to have bent the policy to their own agenda (and possibly the administration’s agenda). In this case, as Carr and others have explained, that means progressive policy aims enacted under cover of program rules instead of legislation that both sides of the aisle were willing to support. The Reason Foundation highlighted one of many examples here:

Among several examples, the senators noted that National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment proposal “requires subgrantees to prioritize certain segments of the workforce, such as ‘individuals with past criminal records’ and ‘justice-impacted […] participants.'” The infrastructure law that authorized the program merely required contractors to be “in compliance with Federal labor and employment laws.”

In May, I published an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch highlighting some astounding examples of government waste. It looks like I can add broadband expansion to this list.

The Father of the School Choice Movement with James V. Shuls

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with James V. Shuls, Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the Show-Me Institute, and Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, about the history and impact of the school choice movement. They discuss Shuls’ recent paper, “The Father of the School Choice Movement,” which highlights the often-overlooked contributions of Father Virgil Blum alongside the well-known Milton Friedman. The conversation explores Blum’s legal, moral, and religious advocacy for educational freedom, his role in founding Citizens for Educational Freedom, and how his work laid the groundwork for modern school choice policies.

Find the paper here

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try Again

Posted on by Amanda Unverferth

You may have witnessed the trend of dilapidated shopping centers, malls, and retail outlets that were once thriving centers of economic activity becoming eyesores that abet crime. In the best cases, these properties become repurposed for a new use. The Woods Mill Center strip mall, located just southwest of Highways 64 and 141 in Town & Country, will hopefully become a “best case.”

In 2022, Maryville University planned to redevelop the Woods Mill Center into a complex featuring an e-sports arena, among other amenities. While the plan faced substantial public backlash, it was recommended to the board of alderman by the Town and Country Planning and Zoning Commission. However, Maryville ultimately withdrew the proposal in 2023. The school was hesitant to spend any more money on a plan that it felt was likely to be denied by the board.

Earlier this year, McBride Homes submitted applications for rezoning and preliminary site development plan approval to redevelop Woods Mill Center into an 80-home development. Unlike the Maryville proposal, McBride’s “Woods Mill Crossing” received significant public support, especially after the plan was revised to have slightly fewer homes in response to public concerns. Nonetheless, Town and Country’s Planning and Zoning Commission failed to recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary site development plan.

After discussion during multiple board of aldermen meetings, McBride withdrew its plan. According to reports, McBride wants to revise its plan to address some officials’ concerns and resubmit on July 19.

McBride’s biggest hurdle? Density. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that “the new neighborhood would have been the highest density residential development in the affluent west St. Louis County suburb.” Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission think increased density would hurt the character of the city. But should increasing density in Town and Country really be met with such consternation?

Increases in housing density are shown to have various positive impacts. Higher-density housing can make providing services more efficient and improve housing affordability. For example, while the median home price in Town and Country is around $1 million, the homes in the proposed development would be priced between $600,000 and $700,000. In addition, there are environmental benefits to higher-density housing including decreased automobile usage and, of course, less land usage. On top of that, the Woods Mill Crossing proposal is to redevelop already developed land, meaning there won’t necessarily be a loss of green space, as is often the concern with new developments (see another of McBride’s developments in St. Charles).

McBride’s proposal has the potential to make smart use of underutilized land, something that many residents want for the city of Town and Country. We will see if officials accept a revised proposal and the benefits of higher-density housing are realized in this community.

Sacre Bleu! Sporting Events and Stadia Don’t Drive Economic Development

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

The Telegraph reminds us that big sports events usually fail to meet the promises made regarding their impact on economic development. The Paris Olympics, set to open in less than two weeks, was supposed to be a grand event to boost tourism, revive the city, and kick-start France’s sluggish economy.

The reality is starkly different, and we shouldn’t be surprised. Historically, the economic benefits of hosting the Olympics have been dubious, and Paris is proving no exception. Despite the €7.5 billion investment, tourism has slumped, with travelers avoiding the city due to expected overcrowding. The author of the Telegraph piece writes:

Judging by the experience of other cities, many of those supposed benefits never materialise and the host is stuck with a series of expensive developments that no one can find a use for. To take just one example, the London Stadium, constructed for the 2012 games, makes a decent ground for West Ham, but it is hard to understand why taxpayer’s cash was needed to build it.

I share this in the hopes that seeing the failed promises of big sporting events overseas will make the argument at home more palatable. These investments just don’t pan out for taxpayers, be they for the Olympic Games, the Royals, Chiefs, or Cardinals. And yes, as my colleague David Stokes wrote 14 years ago, “there is a big difference between hosting an event for which you have to build facilities, like the Olympics, and hosting an event for which you already have the requisite facilities for other purposes.” But the impact, or rather the lack thereof, remains.

Given these challenges, the author suggests a permanent home for the games. Perhaps Greece. Establishing a permanent venue could drastically reduce costs, simplify organization, and minimize corruption.

That may be a viable solution for the Olympics, but for those of us stateside, the lesson needs to be learned. These events, be they Olympics or political conventions, don’t drive meaningful economic activity. They aren’t worth expending public funds on.

 

Why Markets Matter for Human Progress with Russell Sobel

Posted on by James V. Shuls

James V. Shuls speaks with Russell S. Sobel, Professor of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the Baker School of Business at The Citadel, about his latest paper, “Why Markets Matter for Human Progress & Prosperity.” They discuss how free markets drive innovation, prosperity, and human flourishing, the historical context of market-based economies, the pitfalls of government intervention, the long-term benefits of entrepreneurship and competition, and more.

Read the full paper here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Congress Moves to Advance Nuclear Energy

Posted on by Avery Frank

The ADVANCE Act recently powered through the U.S. Senate and is now on the president’s desk. This bill, which is intended to improve and streamline advanced nuclear power plant construction, had almost unanimous support, passing the Senate with a resounding vote of 88–2. If we want to strengthen our grid, meet the growing demand for power, and keep our air clean, nuclear has to be a big part of our energy plan.

You can read my past thoughts on the bill here and here.

Here is a summary of the policy changes in the ADVANCE Act:

  1. Narrows which regulatory costs nuclear energy licensees have to pay (read more here).
  2. Establishes an award program for pioneers in the advanced nuclear industry.
  3. Streamlines the process to convert “covered sites” (land formerly used for coal plants, factories, etc.,) into nuclear reactor sites.
  4. Mandates the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to expedite the “combined license” process for applicants building at a site where a nuclear plant currently operates or has previously operated.
  5. Seeks to increase manpower at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
  6. Updates the mission statement of the NRC to be more supportive of nuclear energy.

While the federal government got something done, Missouri missed an opportunity this past session to repeal its own burdensome anti-nuclear regulations. One particular letdown was the failure to revise the construction-works-in-progress (CWIP) law. You can read specifics on that policy here.

In 2022, Ameren Missouri (the state’s primary utility) relied on coal for 66 percent of its electricity generation. By 2045, Ameren plans to bring that number to zero. Missouri could mimic Wyoming and turn one of these soon to be “covered” sites into an advanced nuclear reactor site. The ADVANCE Act, if signed, will expedite this process in the future—just in time for our energy transition.

Additionally, there have past efforts to add another unit to the Callaway Nuclear plant, Missouri’s one and only commercial nuclear reactor. The ADVANCE Act would allow “combined licenses” mentioned above, which would make more units at the Callaway Plant eligible for a faster review.

Isn’t it time to pass nuclear reform in Missouri? The federal government has made its move—now it’s Missouri’s turn to repeal anti-nuclear regulations such as the CWIP law and perhaps form a Missouri Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (similar to Tennessee’s). Missouri leaders ought to ensure nothing stands in the way of strengthening our grid with clean, reliable, and powerful nuclear energy.

Teacher Retention and the Limits of Public Policy

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Recently, I published a paper with a former graduate student in the Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies on the topic of teacher retention. Teacher retention, teacher shortages, and teacher turnover have dominated education policy discussions in recent years. Fears surrounding teacher staffing were a primary driver of the salary increases and other provisions in Missouri’s recent, sweeping education bill (Senate Bill 727). While most discussions on the topic focus on out-of-school factors, such as pay, our paper focused on in-school factors. We were interested in exploring what school leaders themselves can do to improve teacher retention.

This is not to say that salary, benefits, and other factors are not important in keeping people in a job. Rather, we simply recognized that work conditions also matter. Generally, people are much more willing to stay at a job when they feel supported, they like their work, and they see opportunities for growth. The same is true in education.

In prior research, we identified five in-school factors that influence teacher retention: positive school culture, supportive administration, strong professional development, mentoring programs, and classroom autonomy. Through interviews with school principals, we explored how school leaders can leverage these five factors to improve teacher retention.

While our paper does not delve into the broader policy debates regarding the teacher labor force, it does raise an important idea that policymakers must keep in mind—government action is often limited in what it can accomplish. Let me explain.

The state can mandate higher teacher salaries, as it did in Senate Bill 727, but it cannot mandate better school culture. The culture must be established locally, by the leaders, the teachers, and the community of parents and students in the school. At best, government policies set the playing field for individual human action to take place, but the policies themselves cannot make a leader more supportive of faculty or improve personal relationships.

Given this reality, we must ask what conditions best promote positive school communities. What can legislators do to improve school culture? As I’ve suggested before, you do not drive excellence in academics, or school culture, via top-down policies. The best way to do this is through creating opportunities for excellence and for community to thrive. This is through choice. Through choice, leaders, teachers, parents, and students can choose the schools where they feel most accepted, supported, and encouraged to grow. Choice, of course, is not a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. But it is the best mechanism we have that allows unique, happy, and successful school communities to flourish.

The KC Streetcar Still Isn’t Driving Economic Development

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

In 2016, my former colleague Joe Miller wrote a piece in which he pointed out that the Kansas City streetcar was not driving up market values in the transportation district in which it runs. Miller wondered why the rhetoric of policymakers was so divorced from actual economic data. He found his answer in a 2010 report from the  Federal Transit Administration (FTA): “Few, if any, streetcar system operators seek information on their impact on economic activity, although most interviewed consider economic-related questions to be vital and desire further research on this topic.”

Fast forward to today and nothing has changed. Property assessment data received from Jackson County through an open records request show the aggregate annual market value of Kansas City’s downtown streetcar Transportation Development District (TDD) is largely growing at the same rate as the county as a whole.

In other words, the streetcar is still not driving economic development in any substantial way. Were that the case, you’d see market values in the TDD rising at a much faster rate, as properties are quickly snatched up and redeveloped to take advantage of all that commerce and excitement.

There may be arguments for expanding the Kansas City streetcar. But those arguments aren’t about transit (all the streetcar routes were once and could be again served much more economically by buses) and they aren’t about economic development. And because 66% of Missouri electricity is generated by coal, the streetcar isn’t green, either.

Unfortunately, as the FTA reported, few streetcar operators actually check to see if their claims are true. That remains the case in Kansas City.

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