Royals Move Downtown Is Not About Baseball

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

John Sherman, the billionaire owner of the Kansas City Royals, wants a new stadium in downtown Kansas City, funded with a new sales tax. He doesn’t need public money to do this and it won’t drive economic development. It’s a cash grab, pure and simple.

Royals-loving Jackson County voters might think this is about baseball; it is not. It’s about Sherman enriching himself and his investors, leveraging our love of the Royals so he can drive up the value of the team. A recent CNN report pointed out:

Teams are now real estate plays for billionaire owners, stadiums increasingly serve as anchors for mixed-use shopping and entertainment districts, and development rights around stadiums for owners have become a key component of public financing for these projects.

Sound familiar? That same CNN story points out that the trend of moving stadiums downtown is relatively new. Prior to that, in the 1960s and ‘70s, new stadium construction moved to the suburbs—just as the Chiefs moved from Municipal Stadium to Arrowhead in 1972 at public expense. (Kansas City leaders are nothing if not suckers for developers’ slick sales pitches.)

The trend to move stadiums back downtown started in 1992, when the Baltimore Orioles opened Camden Yards. The deal struck by the Orioles owner, Peter Angelos, is a cautionary tale for Kansas City.

Neil deMause, freelance journalist and editor of the website Field of Schemes, has covered the Orioles for years. In 2019, he noted rumors of a possible Orioles move to Nashville. Orioles CEO John Angelos, son of the elderly owner, then inked a lease keeping the Orioles in place for 30 years.

Well, not exactly. According to deMause:

. . . the new lease gives Orioles owner John Angelos, or whoever buys the team from him, an out clause where he can leave early if he can’t come to an agreement with the state on a development deal for the area around Camden Yards by the end of 2027.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore extolled the agreement as protecting taxpayers, but it didn’t. In fact, the governor weakened his negotiating position because of that 2027 deadline—he either caves to Angelos on area development or risks triggering that out clause. Or, as Sherman has done in Kansas City, the owners could seek to renegotiate a subsidy package years before the lease expires.

The Angelos family recently announced they are selling the Orioles to billionaire David Rubenstein for over $1.72 billion.

Here’s the point: In 2019, when the rumors started that the team may relocate, the Orioles were valued at $1.3 billion. After renegotiating leases, additional subsidies, and an area development agreement, the team sold for over $1.72 billion. That’s a 33% increase in value driven not by playing baseball, but by negotiating deals—deals taxpayers paid for with subsidies.

Beyond the cost, deals like this allow developers to influence who sits on the other side of the negotiating table by backing sympathetic (or simply malleable) politicians. Here in Kansas City, Burns & McDonnell was one of the largest contributors to local political candidates, including Mayor Sly James, the year it applied for and received millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Incidentally, Sly James is now on Sherman’s stadium tax campaign payroll.

Whether you’re on the diamond or in city hall, it pays to play ball.

But nothing about this is about baseball. It’s about money and contracts.

If voters agree to the new stadium tax, elected leaders will have less leverage to strike a good deal on community benefits agreements, leases, and more. If the measure is defeated, Sherman and the county, in a stronger position, will go back to the negotiating table—hopefully cutting a better deal for taxpayers.

Sherman and his partners want to make as much money as they can, and that is fine. Voters need to be just as clear eyed about the costs and benefits of this proposal.

Temporary Licenses for Out-of-state Workers

Posted on by Avery Frank

Recently, the Missouri Senate held a hearing on Senate Bill (SB) 817, which would modify some occupational licensing requirements in Missouri. Particularly, it would define how to apply licensing reciprocity when Missouri requires a license for an occupation but another state does not.

The Institute for Justice has identified nine occupations for which Missouri requires a license that are not subject to licensing in at least 15 states. For example, Missouri is one of 22 states that requires a license to work as a sign-language interpreter. Acquiring the license entails $442 in fees, 60 credit hours of education, and two exams. Under current statute, if a sign-language interpreter with three years or more of experience from a state that doesn’t require licensing moved to Missouri, they would have to spend the time and money to acquire a license before they could work here.

SB 817 would not waive licensing requirements for these sign-language interpreters, but it would provide access to a temporary license (if an individual has already worked for three years in the relevant field) while they satisfy Missouri licensing requirements.

Oversight bodies can still require that applicants take license-related exams and charge fees. The goal of this bill does not appear to be reducing licensing requirements, but allowing people who move to Missouri to work during the process of acquiring a license.

I think this bill would improve the status quo. However, I still do not think those who are experienced in their field need to waste time and resources fulfilling licensing requirements. SB 817 has language that says:

Upon expiration [of the temporary license], the individual shall be required to apply for a permanent license in accordance with the license requirements for the occupation . . .

SB 817 has some good qualities, as it makes it easier for people to work in our state. However, we are still left with the question of why Missouri imposes licensing requirements at all when other states do not. Moreover, if a person has three years of work experience in a field, why is Missouri requiring that they jump through additional hoops? Absent a showing of a real health or welfare concern, it looks as if Missouri is just protecting revenue streams to special interests. Shouldn’t lawmakers consider changing this bill to waive these extra bureaucratic hoops and encourage more people to come to work in Missouri?

Add Alabama to the List

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Add Alabama to the growing list of states that let parents take their state education dollars to the school of their choice. The list now includes Iowa, Arkansas, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Indiana, Utah, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Governor Kay Ivey vowed that giving every family in Alabama an education scholarship account (ESA) was her “number one legislative priority” and last week she made good on that commitment.

Next year, Alabama families making up to 250 percent of the federal poverty line ($78,000 for a family of four) will qualify to receive $7,000 in state dollars to customize their children’s education. By the 2027–28 school year, the scholarships will be available to every family in the state. Homeschoolers can receive up to $2,000. The money can be used for private school tuition or other educational expenses.

Like Missouri, Alabama’s scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have been poor for the last couple of decades. Like Missouri, Alabama has wide gaps in achievement between low-income and non-low-income students. Like Missouri, Alabama families whose children are struggling in their assigned public schools want (and need) an alternative. Alabama families now have that. What about Missouri families?

 

March 21 in St. Louis: The Insider’s Hour with Show-Me Institute

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

What’s happening in Jefferson City?

Get the scoop on the expanding Missouri budget, transparency in healthcare pricing, and free-market policies at our Insider’s Hour!

Join us at one of two open discussions with Brenda Talent, David Stokes, and Elias Tsapelas from the Show-Me Institute.

Thursday, March 21

MAC West

1777 Des Peres Road

St. Louis, MO 63131

Doors open: 11:30 a.m.

Discussion and Q&A: 12-1:00 p.m.

Ticket Price: Sold out

The lunch event is at capacity. Tickets still remain for the evening event below. 

 

Thursday, March 21

Cafe Napoli

7754 Forsyth Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63105

Doors open: 4:30 p.m.

Discussion and Q&A: 5-5:45 p.m.

Ticket Price: $15.00 (includes a beverage and light snacks)

Purchase Tickets Here

Speakers:

Brenda Talent

CEO

David Stokes

Director of Municipal Policy

Elias Tsapelas

Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy

Getting Education Right with Mike McShane and Rick Hess

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks to Mike McShane and Rick Hess about their new book Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College.

In Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College, Frederick M. Hess and Michael Q. McShane argue that America has too long suffered from the absence of a robust, coherent, and principled conservative vision for educational improvement. The problem? The right has too narrowly focused on school choice, campus speech, and shrinking Washington’s footprint, while the left has sought to subsidize and supersize the status quo. The solution? An education system imbued with shared values, respectful of family ties, and equipped for the challenges of the 21st century.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Why Is This Still a Debate?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

My colleagues and friends, Mike McShane and Rick Hess, have co-authored a book on their conservative vision for public education. Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K-12, and College has lots of smart ideas and sensible prescriptions for how to better educate our children.

But one takeaway for me, as someone who has been in the field of education reform for decades, is that we need to stop apologizing and giving up ground because our work happens outside of the circled wagons of the education establishment. The fact is that partnering with parents instead of hiding things from them, giving parents access to the childcare setting of their choice instead of creating universal, government-managed pre-K programs, and letting parents decide where each of their children will attend school aren’t really reforms—they’re just common sense. And most people agree.

Take school choice, for example. It’s no longer a radical idea that must be wrangled with and heavily negotiated by state legislatures. Public opinion surveys repeatedly find that very few people are opposed to the idea, regardless of the type of program.

Teachers unions may have loud voices and large platforms, but that doesn’t mean that we have to set common sense aside. The idea that parents can be trusted should no longer be up for debate.

KC Stadium Debate, MetroLink Expansion, and MO Loses the Top Spot

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Patrick Tuohey join Zach Lawhorn to discuss:

– The stadium tax debate in Kansas City
– The MetroLink expansion plan advances in St. Louis
– How to make it easier to access virtual health care in Missouri, and more

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Use Taxes on the Ballot Again in Missouri

Posted on by David Stokes

Use taxes in Missouri are simply sales taxes on goods delivered to your home from out-of-state sellers. Local governments have been authorized to collect use taxes for a long time—predating the internet, even—but such taxes had not been widely adopted until the past two years. Collecting sales taxes on Sears catalog purchases used to be a lot of work for little revenue. The internet has changed that. The Supreme Court decision several years ago in the South Dakota v. Wayfair case, changes to state law in 2021, and, most obviously, the tremendous increase in e-commerce during the pandemic have all combined to greatly increase the need or desire (depending on your point of view) for governments to tax online sales.

For purposes of comparison, e-commerce now makes up over 15 percent of total sales in the United States. For municipalities around Missouri, 15 percent is a lot of sales not to tax. While many cities and counties have already adopted use taxes in recent years, there are many more proposing new use taxes on the April 2 ballot. The list includes Pleasant Hill, Centralia, Hallsville, Cool Valley, and the constant requesters in Raymore, Northwoods, and Velda City. (Feel free to notify me of others.)

It is a central tenet of tax policy that a tax base should be as broad as possible. The more expansive the tax base, the lower the rate that must be imposed to fund the functions of government. Raymore, for example, estimates it will receive $1.8 million per year from the proposed use tax. (It should be noted that Raymore has asked its citizens to approve a use tax in 2021 and 2022, both of which were rejected by voters. Raymore is a perfect example of why we need HB 2058 to pass, but I digress.)

Raymore has stated that it intends to use the use tax revenues for police, public works, highway maintenance, and park maintenance. Those are all reasonable uses, of course, but use taxes should not be approved simply to grow municipal government revenues. The use tax could be approved by voters to responsibly expand the tax base and equalize the competition between online and physical stores, but cities should also offset the increased taxes by lowering other, more harmful taxes. Imposing a use tax in a revenue-neutral manner is not a new idea. It is exactly how the Missouri Legislature addressed this issue with the state’s new use tax law in 2021.

The simplest way for these cities to offset the revenue increases from the use tax would be to lower city property taxes slightly. That would lead to a wider tax base, fairer competition between businesses, and lower tax rates for all taxpayers. Raymore’s property tax rate of 1.2447 per $100 of assessed value is very high compared to other cities that don’t have a fire department. (Raymore is served by an independent fire district.) Lowering that rate would be a good way to offset, at least in part, the new tax increases. Reducing the various municipal utility tax rates—especially for cities with already low property taxes—could also be a good exchange.

The imposition of a use tax in these cities could be a positive policy change. It could also be an easy way for politicians to just raise taxes one more time. By having city officials pledge to enact offsetting revenue reductions, these Missouri municipalities can reap the public benefits while curtailing the tax impact on residents and businesses. That is a plan that I think most taxpayers and voters could support. Without such a commitment, though, the use tax is just another tax increase.

In Peaceful Village, the Voters Vote Next Month

Posted on by David Stokes

Peaceful Village is a small, nicely named municipality in Jefferson County, just south of St. Louis. I don’t know if it has a theme song, but it should, and we all know what it should be. And, yes, there are almost certainly (mountain) lions that have slept near Peaceful Village.

On April 2, the residents are voting on disincorporating the city. This disincorporation proposal is a clear example of the Anna Karenina Principle at work. This is the rare example where the municipality’s zoning codes are less strict than the county’s codes. Some residents of the area want to disincorporate the city because they are opposed to a treatment center being built in the village. Building the center is legal under the village’s rules but would be illegal (from a zoning perspective) under the county rules. This is a twist on a zoning fight that you don’t see every day.

It is also worth noting the strange circumstances under which the village came into existence in 2008:

In 2007, the Missouri Legislature had passed a controversial law, supported by former Speaker of the House Rod Jetton, to help a wealthy donor create his own village. The donor wanted to bypass building and zoning regulations in southwest Missouri. The short-sighted law was repealed a year later, but dozens of landowners across the state had already tried to take advantage of it.

There is a part of this fight where I side with the municipality. According to some village leaders, the village is allowing the building of some treatment centers after the county has prevented their construction elsewhere. I am not in a position to verify that claim, but I personally think it should be easier for charities to build treatment and charitable shelters in Missouri.

But in the bigger picture, would Missouri benefit from having fewer small municipalities like Peaceful Village? Probably, but not necessarily in each instance. The worst abuses at the local government level in Missouri are found in the special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs. Yes, we are awash in bad municipal policies in Missouri, but those policies are  found in large, medium, and small municipalities.

In recent years, we have had municipalities in Missouri disincorporate because of corruption, flooding, and, perhaps most commonly, just a general malaise about the community. I don’t know where Peaceful Village fits in on that list. To paraphrase Tolstoy, every unhappy village is unhappy in its own way.

I am glad the people of the village are voting on disincorporation. If the village isn’t meeting the needs of its residents in a manner that justifies the taxes it charges (which I think are comparatively low), then it deserves to go away. That will be up to the residents and voters, as it should be.

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