David Stokes, Patrick Ishmael, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to put a bow on the legislative session, discuss new restrictions on short-term rentals, and calls to increase security in downtown St. Louis following a rash of car break-ins around Busch Stadium.
Produced by Show-Me Opportunity
With the expiration of the leases for the Kansas City Chiefs and Kansas City Royals creeping ever closer, there’s been a lot of talk about where the teams might build their next stadiums—and how much local taxpayers will end up subsidizing them. My position, and that of many of our staff, is pretty clear: Missouri taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing professional sports.
Well, I have some bad news. On Friday, word broke that the Royals have been talking with North Kansas City and Clay County officials for a ballpark development, and those talks have gotten fairly serious. According to two county commissioners and the mayor of North Kansas City:
Over the past few months leaders from Clay County and the City of North Kansas City have had conversations with the Kansas City Royals about the possibility of developing a new baseball stadium and adjacent ballpark district in North Kansas City. This plan would include commercial, residential development and entertainment experiences adjacent to the stadium, complementing the amazing businesses and entertainment options that already exist in downtown North Kansas City today. We look forward to continuing our work with the Royals and have additional meetings scheduled with them.
The Royals confirmed in a recent media report that they are considering a location in North Kansas City. We think it is important that we communicate our efforts with the community, and the reason we plan to work with the Royals on behalf of our respective jurisdictions to select a North Kansas City site for the planned new stadium. Although no agreement has been reached by either Clay County or North Kansas City to take action on, we are striving to lay the groundwork necessary for a plan that is positive for the city, the county and our entire community.
A vote on a countywide tax for the stadium could come as early as this November, a quick turnaround for such a seemingly late-breaking project. Apart from the expected taxpayer subsidy, the potential North Kansas City sites have a few advantages, including no Kansas City earnings tax (and so instant raises for Royals employees) and a more stable crime situation than Kansas City, which just had its 88th murder of 2023, including seven murders in just the last four days as of this writing.
I expected both the Chiefs and Royals would remain in the region but thought that the Chiefs were the most likely to head to Kansas or some other non-Kansas City, Missouri jurisdiction. Friday’s news upends that assumption, with both teams leaving Kansas City’s boundaries now a legitimate possibility. No taxpayers should subsidize the Chiefs or Royals, but if Kansas City lucks out and gets to enjoy the teams without having to line their pockets, all the better.
And to North Kansas City and Clay County, I’ll just say this: Really? C’mon now.
Really?
Recently, the Stanford Education Opportunity Project released a new analysis of education data. The analysis measured the academic growth of students in a single school year. In other words, did a school’s student gain, on average, a full year of learning, more than a year, or less? While we would hope that most schools move their students a full year forward academically in a year, the fact is that many do not. As a result, children fall further and further behind.
How can we prevent this from happening? An analysis of these data yielded an interesting finding—a little competition might just do the trick. And how do we get that competition? We encourage charter schools to open in every type of district, even those with “good” schools that don’t “need” them.
Generally speaking, suburban school districts are believed to be the highest performing and the most protected from competition. When open enrollment was considered in Missouri, suburban districts balked. The fear was that students from low-performing urban districts would try to enroll in their schools while providing no local property tax dollars and depleting their test scores. This is not unique to Missouri. When open enrollment programs, in which students can choose any school in the state, are voluntary for districts, the higher-performing suburban districts often opt out.
But, according to this new analysis, when charter schools open in suburban districts those that have chosen to sit out open enrollment realize that they’re going to need to get in the game. Their students can already leave for a charter school so they might as well start competing with other districts in the area for open enrollment students. Of the six states analyzed, the one with the most competition—Arizona—also had the best growth performance. More importantly, the finding held for low-income students. Seventeen percent more suburban schools achieved more than one year of growth for their low-income students than achieved less than one year of growth. In Ohio, where there are no suburban charter schools and open enrollment is voluntary, the numbers were reversed. More suburban schools achieved less than one year of growth for low-income students than not.
Of course, Missouri has no suburban charter schools or voluntary open enrollment. We have suburban districts such as Columbia 93 that have become complacent and middling to low performing. We should be encouraging high-performing charter schools in these districts to push them out of their comfort zones.
It was a banner year for families and education reform—outside of Missouri. Iowa parents got a big win. Once its new school choice law is fully phased in, families will be able to take $7,600 to the public or private school of their choice. The Oklahoma Legislature also scored a victory for parents. Oklahoma students who choose a private school can take a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for tuition, from $7,500 for the lowest-income families to $5,000 for the highest-income families. In Arkansas, Governor Sanders signed a sweeping education bill—the Arkansas LEARNS Act—that allows families to use up to 90 percent of annual per-student spending on private school tuition, homeschooling, or other educational expenses while holding public schools more accountable. Another neighbor, Kansas, will begin implementing its own strong open enrollment program passed by the legislature last year.
Once again, Missouri parents came up shorthanded. An admittedly weak open enrollment bill died when Missouri Senators couldn’t stop filibustering each other’s bills. A bill that would have made it easier for Missouri students to enroll in the state’s full-time virtual program met a similar fate, as did expansion of the extremely limited education savings account (ESA) program.
Nearly every family in the state of Missouri is given exactly one choice for their children’s education, and if it isn’t a fit—too bad. Or you can simply move to a neighboring state. Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, and Oklahoma trust their parents to choose a school that works for them. Enrollment is already shrinking and our resistance to change is going to shrink it even more. And guess what happens when you have fewer K-12 students? You have fewer high school graduates, fewer college students, and fewer workers. It doesn’t make Missouri look like a very attractive state.
School choice is spreading like wildfire across the country because parents have stood up and demanded it. The longer Missouri sits on the bench, either because we’re not sure it’s a good thing or because we just can’t get our priorities straight, the less families will choose to raise their children here.
Many are familiar with the plot of the classic movie Back to the Future. While I am probably thinking of my job too much, I see this story relating to the status of licensing regulations in the most recent legislative session.
Missouri passed universal licensing reciprocity in 2020, meaning licenses from all other states can be used in Missouri. For example, 37 states across the country require licensure to be a makeup artist. Licensing reciprocity means that anyone who has a license in one of the 37 states can have Missouri licensing requirements waived when they move to Missouri to be a makeup artist. This policy lowers barriers to entry for professionals and in turn, increases the supply of workers and services. With increased supply and competition, quality increases while prices decrease.
However, Missouri legislators have taken the DeLorean and gone back in time by sending two bills (Senate Bill (SB) 157 and SB 70) to the governor’s desk. The bills would create a new licensing compact and also have Missouri join two other existing compacts. Licensing compacts allow workers with licenses in one state to practice without additional licensing requirements in other states in the compact. These compacts are essentially a less inclusive version of licensing reciprocity. Former Show-Me Institute Analyst Corianna Baier explained the harm licensing compacts can cause:
[T]he current licensing reciprocity statute states that licensing reciprocity “shall not apply to an oversight body that has entered into a licensing compact with another state for the regulation of practice under the oversight body’s jurisdiction.” On its face, this language indicates that the license compact would overrule licensing reciprocity to the injury of Missouri consumers.
Essentially, a compact would partially cancel out licensing reciprocity. Missouri, like Mrs. McFly, is obsessing over the wrong thing. To use the makeup artist example: with reciprocity, anyone from any state (which has a license) can work in Missouri without having to get a new license; under a compact, only makeup artists from states included in the compact reap the benefits.
As Institute analysts have noted repeatedly, this glitch needs to be ironed out with a language change. If we remove the “compact exception” then Missouri can “restore the timeline” and Missouri will once again have full licensing reciprocity.
At this point you may be wondering: what is the benefit of compacts? The benefit of keeping compacts is that many other states don’t have reciprocity. For example, to practice telehealth in another state, one needs to be eligible in that state. While Missouri lets any license apply to our own state, suppose Arkansas does not have the same rules. Therefore, with the passage of the compact, a doctor in Cape Girardeau could now practice telehealth in Little Rock if Arkansas became a member of the same compact.
State regulatory boards are certainly satisfied with the expansion of compacts in our state, but our policymakers need to look out for the interests of Missouri consumers. Fixing the language that puts compacts and reciprocity in conflict would be a win for everyone in Missouri. Hopefully we will not need two more sequels to solve our issues.
Missouri officials failed to deliver on promises made to expand school choice in the 2023 legislative session. Failure came both big and small. Open enrollment puttered out and did not even make it to the Senate floor for debate, while a tiny bill concerning improving virtual class funding (for inaccessible subjects in certain districts) was filibustered in the Senate. Should we be surprised by this? In the moment I was, but in hindsight, I shouldn’t have been.
Education reform was never a top priority—it was barely mentioned in the governor’s State of the State address. The lack of commitment to educational progress foreshadowed how the rest of the session would unfold. Other states managed to accomplish what Missouri could not. Let’s take a look at three states (there were many more) that made major strides this year in education policy.
Florida, already one of the leading states in educational performance and choice, continued to build on past success. Governor DeSantis, in his State of the State, emphasized:
We must continue our momentum with K-12 education by increasing teacher salaries, enacting a teacher’s bill of rights, providing paycheck protection for teachers, expanding school choice and fortifying parents’ rights.
Every single one of these objectives became law in Florida this year, with the highlight being a law that made the Florida education savings account (ESA) program universal throughout the state.
Two of our neighbors, Indiana and Arkansas, also made education a priority.
Arkansas’s Governor Huckabee Sanders was committed to expanding education choice and personally pushed for reform. The LEARNS Act (Arkansas’ new education bill) creates an ESA program (starting with only “at-risk” families and expanding to all families by 2025), removes the limit on charter schools in the state, eliminates the 3% transfer cap on the existing open enrollment program, raises teacher starting salaries, and creates a required literacy screening for K-3 students.
Indiana waived textbook fees for K-12 families and expanded the state school voucher program to be near universal (77% eligible to 96% eligible).
Missouri’s failure to advance education reform was bad enough on its own, but it is even worse when compared to the progress of other states. Missouri remains stuck with an extremely limited ESA program (only 1% of students are eligible), no open enrollment program, and charter schools being inaccessible for a vast majority of students in the state. After this year’s inexplicable failure, it will be difficult to trust politicians when they say they want to improve education in our state. Action is what counts at this point—our families and students are counting on it.
The average size of American homes has increased dramatically in the post-war period. (And by post-war, I mean post-World War II, not post-Grenada.) The average size of a home has increased from 909 sq. ft. in 1949 to 2,480 sq. ft. by 2021.
Where do we put these larger homes? Well, obviously, many of them are new homes in outer suburbs around the country. But many of them are also infill housing, which simply means someone (often a developer or rehabber who plans to flip the property) buys an older home in a developed area and either substantially remodels it or tears it down and rebuilds from scratch. Usually, as the trend above indicates and the profit margin often requires, the new “infill” house is larger than the prior house. Because there are two constants in life—change and people complaining about change—infill housing often becomes a public policy issue.
While many cities have dealt with the issue of infill housing in Missouri, two cities are debating the issue right now. Columbia and Glendale are both considering changing their municipal codes to address infill housing, though Columbia at least for now has decided against any changes. The objections in both places—and basically everywhere this debate occurs—are very similar. I agree with some and disagree with some. In Columbia, supporters of a moratorium on in-fill development in part of the city described the concerns thusly:
Infill development doesn’t match the character or the scale of the existing neighborhood, historic buildings are not adequately protected, there is a lack of affordable housing, and the areas need better storm water management, stronger development buffers and increased walkability.
Remember, these aren’t really zoning disputes. In many cases, you have single family homes replaced by larger single-family homes. The infill housing in question in Columbia is a bit different, given that it’s a college town with more multi-family (i.e. student) housing in the area. Let’s start with where I agree with some limits or regulations on in-fill housing, which are the very real concerns about the stormwater and flooding issues. That is a big part of the Glendale debate. Tearing down an older home and replacing it with a larger home often involves filling up much more of the lot with concrete and asphalt, with much less space to retain water. Just a few of these infill houses on a block can mean worse flooding for downhill neighbors. These water issues are a legitimate issue for cities to address, either by requiring improved stormwater systems or requiring minimum greenspace on a lot.
What don’t I agree with? Generally, the neighborhood character argument. As people objecting to a development in St. Louis County a decade ago phrased it:
The “McMansions” of Berra’s proposed Estates are too large for small lots and are crammed together to maximize profits, while irrevocably changing the character and density of a treasured neighborhood, 15 residents living near Schuessler Road told the panel. They presented a petition with 186 signatures opposing the development.
The character of a neighborhood is not for the government to decide. That is best left to market decisions or homeowner indentures (which are now easier to amend in Missouri). Yes, the difference between neighborhood indentures and government zoning and regulations may seem small, but I think it is important. There are many aspects of life we do because of social commitments, not government mandates or laws. I can sympathize with objections based on size of the homes, etc., even if I don’t agree with them. I have much less sympathy for government regulations on “neighborhood character” issues like siding, color, heights, plywood, and so on. Those are decisions for people to make with their property, not the government, even in instances where the neighbors may reasonably hate it.
Can you think of a time when you had a view or a position on something that you were sure all your colleagues at work would disagree with? I don’t mean something like saying Nicolas Cage or Keanu Reaves are great actors, but something that matters . . . like a policy or a political stance. In these situations, our normal inclination is to just keep it to ourselves. This is particularly true when the view you hold does not impact the work you do. No need to rock the boat!
I find that this burying-your-head-in-the-sand approach often happens in public institutions, such as universities and public schools. The interesting thing is that when you decide to speak up you often find there are others who agree with you. They were just keeping their head down like you.
Not long ago, I had coffee with a retired public school superintendent. We are told by the press that all the education associations are completely against open enrollment, where students are allowed to transfer to other public school districts. But the superintendent told me that he had no problem with open enrollment. In fact, he said a lot of superintendents were fine with it. (These may have been superintendents in districts that would gain students, but that is beside the point.) Yet, superintendents who support open enrollment appear to be keeping their heads down.
I can understand why. It takes a lot of nerve to speak out against your colleagues. When I was a public school teacher and I voiced support for school choice policies, I got called to the superintendent’s office. While she framed it as just a discussion, it was clearly an attempt to intimidate me into keeping my opinions to myself.
Even now when I write in favor of school choice, I often get pushback from public school educators. Their messages effectively say, “How could you?”
The fact is a lot of teachers support school choice. They just won’t say it publicly. Consider this: teachers unions regularly push for policies that will allow teachers to enroll their children in the school they teach in, even if the teacher doesn’t live in the district. This is school choice. Teachers are supportive of other forms of school choice as well. In a 2022 poll of 1,000 K-12 teachers (public and private), 77% of those polled were supportive of education savings accounts. A majority of teachers in the poll were supportive of open enrollment and charter schools.
If you are a teacher and you support school choice policies, you are not alone. You don’t have to hide your views. Let that school choice flag fly.
The adjoining St. Louis County municipalities of Normandy and Glen Echo Park are considering merging.
Learn more here.
