Susan Pendergrass speaks with Aaron Renn, author and consultant, and David Stokes, Director of Municipal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, about the recurring debate over whether the city of St. Louis should rejoin St. Louis County. They explore what city county mergers have actually accomplished in places like Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, and Lexington, why a full merger in St. Louis would be extraordinarily difficult to pull off, and whether the benefits would even outweigh the costs. They also discuss St. Louis’s demographic challenges, what the Pittsburgh model might offer as a path forward, the cultural barriers that make it hard to attract and retain people from outside the region, and more.

You can find Aaron’s work here.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:05): Welcome back, Aaron Renn, to the podcast. So happy to have you and David Stokes, our own expert on cities and counties and all things municipal. I appreciate you coming on, Aaron. There have been murmurings around St. Louis again on a topic that we have revisited for probably a hundred years: should the city of St. Louis be a separate county from St. Louis County?

Before we get to that, I want to ask you something because I was reading the news this morning, and I know that you’ve written about city county mergers before, like cities that are kind of dying and then either pulling in parts of their closest suburbs to sort of make everything look better, broaden their tax base, make their crime numbers look better. I was reading something you wrote a year or two ago about that, and you said that Louisville is a failed example of that. Is that right, basically?

Aaron Renn (01:01): Yeah, I’m a little skeptical of how these things have worked out in practice.

Susan Pendergrass (01:05): Yeah, in terms of losing the flavor and the coolness of the city. Literally this morning I saw an article about how Louisville is having a renaissance and these young professionals are all moving there because they didn’t tear down all their beautiful old Victorian homes, so you can still get one for close to a million dollars. They’ve got a cool art scene and a bourbon scene. So it sounds like maybe Louisville did not lose its personal flavor in the merger. I would be curious to know what you think of that.

Aaron Renn (01:33): Well, I like to put St. Louis in context. I’m glad you mentioned Louisville because many of these river cities have similar characteristics. I like to look at St. Louis as well as three cities in the Ohio Valley: Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. All of them heavily German Catholic in their demographics. All of them are very geopolitically fragmented with many small tiny suburbs throughout. They all have very fragmented neighborhood systems as well, where everybody has a strong sense of neighborhood identity. Where you go to high school is a big social marker. They all have phenomenal collections of urban assets and great historic buildings. They all still have their own unique character in a country where that has sort of bled away.

Aaron Renn (02:31): And they also have curiously underperformed demographically and economically in terms of growth. They’re slow growth places. So one thing I always encourage people is to pan back the lens and don’t just look at St. Louis in isolation. Look at it in comparison or dialogue with some of these other places and see what you can learn from them.

Louisville is actually a quite troubled city in important ways. From a white collar employment perspective it’s doing well, from a blue collar perspective less so. It’s one of the 10 least educated major metros in the country. I don’t want to spend too much time on Louisville, but I want to talk about the city county merger, which is distinct from recombining the city and the county. This has been considered urban planning best practice for 30 or 40 years. There was a book written by David Rusk called Cities Without Suburbs. The idea is that cities that were able to expand their boundaries through either annexation or city county mergers were prospering, whilst cities that did not, like the Clevelands, the Cincinnatis, and the St. Louises, were struggling. So the idea is we need big box government.

Indianapolis, where I live now, had a city county merger in 1970. Louisville did a city county merger, I grew up near Louisville. Jacksonville, Florida, Lexington, Kentucky, and Nashville, Tennessee did as well. What I would say is a few things. Merger is not necessarily bad. For Indianapolis, merger did prevent the city from essentially going down the tubes in important ways. So it really was a win in important ways.

But it did not prevent the historic city from going into the exact same demographic decline as St. Louis. The historic city of Indianapolis has lost almost exactly the same share of its population since 1970 as St. Louis has. Secondly, these are very politically difficult to pull off. They take enormous effort. They often fail multiple times. Louisville had multiple failures.

The most precious resource is always management time and attention. Is this where you want to put all your political chips? And in order to get it passed politically, what happens invariably is that most entities are actually not consolidated. In Louisville, none of the existing incorporated suburban governments were in fact merged. In Indianapolis, the school districts weren’t merged.

This means you don’t necessarily get all of the benefits you think from consolidation, because many things are excluded. And then unlike a corporate merger, where there’s typically a lot of downsizing and cost rationalization, in city county mergers nobody ever loses their job and salaries and benefits might even be harmonized upward to the high watermark. So don’t expect it to save any money. Personally, city county merger might have some benefits for St. Louis. I’m not saying it would have no benefits, but in my opinion it’s not going to be a needle mover and most likely it would be extraordinarily politically difficult and uncertain to pull off.

Susan Pendergrass (06:00): Yeah, no question. It’s been very politically difficult. People don’t want to do it. However, we do have these little tiny school districts and police districts. We have, I don’t know, 28 911 systems. We have a lot of what looks like bureaucratic waste and red tape. To the extent that doesn’t get resolved in a merger, then what’s the point? But I do think, you know, we’ve been talking about the demographics of St. Louis. There were over 800,000 people in the city once. Now there are maybe 280,000 and declining, and we’re in the death spiral of more people dying than being born. We’ve been in that for a while. And I guess it brings up the question of what is St. Louis to do if we are in this death spiral? We’re not having the babies. We’re having fewer babies than we did 15 years ago. So school enrollment is only declining. What is the prescription in that situation?

I’ve been to Cincinnati quite a bit. They’re trying to get people downtown with sports stadiums. It doesn’t really work. Louisville has sports stadiums downtown. I don’t know if people really want to move down there. I don’t see it working in St. Louis. So what is a city in that situation to do?

Aaron Renn (07:18): It’s going to be challenging in a sense because your problems are a little over determined. St. Louis was once a regional capital city, much like a Dallas or an Atlanta or a Denver or a Minneapolis. And it lost a lot of those functions. Many of its headquarters have left. It used to have a lot of professional services firms like ad agencies that did business all over the country, not just for the local market. Now St. Louis, although it’s still bigger than Indianapolis, looks a lot more like an Indianapolis or a Columbus, Ohio, where you have fewer corporate headquarters and most of the service firms are just there to serve the local market. St. Louis has essentially shrunk a little bit in relative importance, and it’s hard to get that back.

The demographics are also quite difficult and create a situation where it’s hard to attract business when you have a shrinking labor force, weak demographic growth, and a weak ability to bring people in from the outside. So it’s a very complicated situation and I don’t think there’s any silver bullet for St. Louis.

Susan Pendergrass (08:39): That’s what I’m asking you for. You have the answers. What’s the silver bullet?

Aaron Renn (08:43): So here are the things I would look at if I were in St. Louis. One of the clear issues that affects all of these river cities is that their wonderful, unique local cultures come with a downside, which is an extreme parochialism that has two negative effects. One, it makes it difficult for the communities to cohesively work together, which I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. City-suburb divides tend to be bigger. In Indianapolis, regional leadership is mostly all on the same page about the big issues. Same with Columbus, Ohio. Secondly, it makes it very difficult to attract people from out of town because they come there and they can’t make friends, they can’t penetrate the social networks.

Susan Pendergrass (09:15): 100%, yes.

Aaron Renn (09:40): You hear it over and over again in places like St. Louis, Cleveland, even Minneapolis, Minnesota. There are some sayings there. If you want to make friends in Minnesota, go to kindergarten, because that’s when everybody makes their friends. Or Minnesotans will give you directions anywhere but their house. They’re never going to invite you over. St. Louis has that reputation. I don’t think it’s just a reputation. And I know you just had Ness Sandoval on.

Susan Pendergrass (09:53): Yeah.

Aaron Renn (10:08): He’s talking about you need to get better on migration. Migration isn’t going to improve if migrants are not going to be able to join the social networks here. And that’s not even just international migration, that’s domestic migrants. So I think that’s a huge issue for the city. Cultural issues are hard to solve, but maybe less intractable than infrastructure.

The other thing is looking at Pittsburgh as a sort of model. Pittsburgh hasn’t solved really most of its problems by any means, but it has been able to regenerate in the city a sort of high value economy around Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. It’s done quite well. Many Silicon Valley firms have set up shop there. What’s happened in Pittsburgh, although it’s still a demographic decline story, is there’s been a demographic transition in the city. Pittsburgh went from one of the least educated cities in America to now one of the youngest and most educated. Part of it is old people moved and died off and young educated people replaced them. So the total number of people in the city was declining, but there was a churn happening underneath. And the same thing is already happening in St. Louis.

Susan Pendergrass (11:13): How did they do that?

Aaron Renn (11:33): College degree attainment in the city is now well north of 40%. So the people who live in the city of St. Louis are very educated. That demographic churn has raised educational attainment and thus incomes in the city a lot. Now Pittsburgh was different because it was an almost entirely white city. There’s a racial divide in St. Louis and gentrification concerns become more salient. But St. Louis is now an educated city. This is not an old post-industrial blue collar city. The city of St. Louis itself is very educated. And also being very small, it doesn’t necessarily need a massive change to move the needle. In Indianapolis we have a population of over 900,000. Moving that behemoth takes a lot. St. Louis now being smaller has a situation where there could be a big impact from lower numbers of things. So I think a knowledge economy built around Washington University and your medical centers has some possibilities, somewhat similar to Pittsburgh.

Susan Pendergrass (12:45): So much medical.

Aaron Renn (12:58): Carnegie Mellon’s engineering and computer science areas will be a little different. I might also look at Vanderbilt, what’s going on there? What are some peer schools you could watch to see what’s going on? But I think there are actually some reasons to think that the city of St. Louis, believe it or not, could be sort of turning a corner. It has now demographically renewed itself to a higher educational attainment state. Being small, it probably doesn’t have that much further to fall, and you can start building from there. Obviously there are governance challenges, but looking at the Pittsburgh model, studying similar complexes around peer schools, and addressing the culture issues is where I’d look.

David Stokes (13:33): Hopeful.

Susan Pendergrass (13:47): So as a spokesperson for St. Louis, what do you see for the future?

David Stokes (13:52): Well, I would be curious to get Aaron’s thoughts on that size question, about how the city of St. Louis has in fact gotten so small. It’s about 10% of the metro area. How does that affect the pros or cons of any type of a merger? These would not be a merger of equals. St. Louis County would almost subsume St. Louis City into it. How do you think that would affect things for better or worse?

Aaron Renn (14:28): Well, that was the critique of the Louisville merger by two academics at the University of Louisville. I mentioned the book Cities Without Suburbs. They wrote an academic paper called Suburbs Without a City, which basically said if the merger passed in Louisville, it would essentially mean the suburbs take over the city, not the city taking over the suburbs, because the old city of Louisville only had about 260,000 people and the suburbs would numerically dominate. The same thing would certainly happen in St. Louis. If there were a merger, suburban St. Louis County would control the city in essence.

Another consideration, and this is a Cincinnati issue, I interviewed about 15 years ago the mayor of Cincinnati, John Cranley. Here’s what he said, and I think this is an important point. He said, 30 years ago, city county merger was the thing because cities were in decline and you wanted to tap that suburban tax base to fund the city. But now it’s reversed. Now the cities are coming back and it’s the inner suburbs that are actually going down the tubes. And so in Cincinnati today, we have all the corporate headquarters, we have the universities and the medical centers, and we don’t have to share our tax revenue with anybody. If we were merged with the county government, we’d have to prop up all these failing suburbs. And so I think you’re in a similar situation in St. Louis, where the high value activity, not all of it is in the city of St. Louis because of Clayton and so on, but the St. Louis County suburbs are mostly places that are themselves on negative trajectories. Merging the city, which may be on the cusp of being able to bottom out and turn around, with all of these still declining inner suburban areas, might actually be an albatross around the city’s neck.

Susan Pendergrass (15:16): What would that mean?

David Stokes (16:37): I just think one of the differences between St. Louis and Cincinnati, and I don’t know the property tax base of Cincinnati, is that so much of the city of St. Louis is tax exempt right now. Between Washington University, Saint Louis University, and all the government entities, there’s just so much of it. I say that as somebody who supports property tax changes to make them pay something towards it. But I just don’t think the Cincinnati argument applies to the city of St. Louis right now. That property tax exemption part is a huge factor because the most growing, thriving part of it is the entire giant Barnes-WashU-Cortex complex, and the amount of property taxes they pay is miniscule.

Susan Pendergrass (16:38): Hmm.

Aaron Renn (17:26): Well, some of that is a planning issue. And I think the reality is, when you have a complex like that, are all these people going to move to St. Charles? Maybe not. I’ll tell you, I live in the suburb of Indianapolis named Carmel, and a lot of the hospitals and things have been opening facilities here. When these nonprofit hospitals come up here, we will not approve zoning changes for those hospitals unless they agree to make payments in lieu of taxes. You want to come up here and you want a zoning change, you’re going to have to pay. We were actually quite prescient in that one of the local hospital chains opened a for-profit hospital. As part of the approval deal, we said, if you ever convert to nonprofit status, you will continue paying property taxes. And we did that.

So I think there probably is leverage from the city over some of these entities. You don’t have a lot of leverage over a corporation deciding where to put their office, but that’s not a tax exempt situation. The stuff at Cortex is probably not going to leave if you make them pay a little money the next time they come to you for a zoning approval. I think you need to start looking at how to get more money out of these entities that are nonprofits in name only. These universities and hospitals are effectively gigantic hedge funds. Their executives are extremely well compensated and billions of dollars are flowing through there. Undoubtedly the better solution there is to figure out how to tax them rather than figure out how to tax the soon-to-be-dead mall in the suburb over the border.

David Stokes (19:24): Well, yeah, and that’s sort of the trade off, unfortunately, is that they do pay earnings tax. The employees, many of them very highly compensated, pay the earnings tax. And that’s what makes the city more dependent on local income taxes, not less, because they’re either tax exempt or in the case of Cortex, have tax abatements that make them essentially tax exempt.

Susan Pendergrass (19:25): We do have earnings taxes, right? So the folks who work there have to pay an earnings tax.

Aaron Renn (19:53): Yeah. Again, I don’t know exactly the fiscal architecture there. But I would say you don’t want to do a merger simply to do a tax dollar grab. The lesson of Indianapolis is we did that. We grabbed suburban tax dollars and we used it to rebuild our downtown successfully. But here we are 50 years later, and now we have enormous tracts of decayed suburbia that are an enormous problem. Our entire core county is now in a sense the inner city. We have big challenges because we were not able to invest in ways that allow those suburban areas to retain their allure over the long term.

And I’m not saying that’s impossible, but any short term juice you get, cities always rise and fall. Core cities have proven more resilient and more able to regenerate themselves than suburbs. Part of it is because state governments cannot afford to let their state’s largest city or major urban center go down the tubes.

Susan Pendergrass (21:06): Yeah.

Aaron Renn (21:16): Missouri cannot let St. Louis and Kansas City implode. Michigan cannot just write off Detroit and say who cares. But these suburban areas have proven a lot tougher to save. We don’t have a good model. We’ve spent decades thinking about how to rebuild cities and build districts. There are certain things you can pull off in a city around conventions, civic events, gathering spaces, museums, and government that are very hard to translate to suburban settings. So there’s not a great playbook, especially in declining markets, for renewing suburbs. The playbook for suburban renewal, if you want to call it that, is places like Carmel, Indiana, which are growing and affluent, and therefore can build large mixed use centers, new urbanist developments, trails, and parks. The suburbs of St. Louis County are probably tremendously deficient in infrastructure as we would understand it today.

So again, there may actually be some benefits in having St. Louis City rejoin the county in a sense, because then the county functions are spread and amortized across a larger population.

Susan Pendergrass (22:45): It would immediately improve our murder rate because we would be mixing it in.

Aaron Renn (22:48): Yeah, there is some of that. The murder rate is an artifact of the size of the city more than anything. There are places in Chicago with higher murder rates. A former colleague of mine at the Manhattan Institute, Rafael Mangual, did an analysis of Chicago. He said there are areas on the South Side of Chicago that are larger and have more people than St. Louis with far higher murder rates than St. Louis.

Susan Pendergrass (22:56): We get called out because of the small denominator.

Aaron Renn (23:17): And so there is that. The other thing is Chicago is a good example. New York City was essentially a city county merger. In 1898, the five counties that are the five boroughs of New York were consolidated into one city. Philadelphia was also a city county consolidation from the 19th century. But what happens when you create a very large city of say a million people or more is you really have to scale up your government. You have to have a government that operates at that scale.

What happened with Indianapolis was we merged city and county government, but we didn’t really have a government that could effectively manage this new larger territory. It never built out the infrastructure in the suburbs. In New York, the Bronx has subways, great parks, everything built out with proper infrastructure, because it was part of New York and New York had to expand governance to become a city of eight million. Chicago got big in the 19th century and built a city government that could run a city of three million people. And some of the stuff that gets critiqued there, for example, is a lot of city services were organized by ward or city council district. There are 50 city council districts and every city councilor is sort of a little mini mayor of their district. The alderman essentially has veto power over any zoning changes. It’s called aldermanic privilege. So there are a lot of constraints there.

But if it’s just one mayor and one city council trying to think about a huge city of 77 neighborhoods and three million people, they can’t keep that much in their head. All they can think about is downtown. And that’s what happened in Indianapolis. The mayor and city council can really only think about downtown. We should have built out structures in townships throughout the city so that you had leadership focused on that area and money focused on that area. That’s what made the suburbs work really well. A suburb like Carmel is basically township sized. We have 100,000 people, big enough to do things, but not so big that our mayor and council can’t keep the whole city in their head and plan and manage the whole city.

So if you merge with the county government, you’re going to have to create an entirely new government structure that allows you to essentially manage every sub area of the whole thing and bring it all up to a standard of services. That’s the other thing they often did in Louisville and Nashville. They merge, but they have a two tier service system where there’s an urban services district for the old city which gets more services, and then the others get less. They didn’t do that in New York. There’s one standard of service in New York, one in Philadelphia, one in Chicago. So if you can’t commit to a single standard of service, you’re basically creating a bogus merger in my opinion. If you’re going to do a merger, you need to obliterate every government and entity in St. Louis County and city, merge them all into one with one standard. That’s not going to happen.

Susan Pendergrass (26:35): That’s not going to happen. What do you think, David?

David Stokes (26:37): Yeah, that’s not going to happen.

Aaron Renn (26:43): So you end up with a lot of problems. Louisville didn’t merge any fire departments. Imagine a city that doesn’t have a consolidated fire department. Imagine a city without a single police department. That was actually Indianapolis. When we merged, the Indianapolis Police Department still patrolled the old city, but the new parts of the city that were consolidated in from the county were still controlled by the sheriff.

Susan Pendergrass (27:13): That is 100% what would happen in St. Louis. Everyone would retain their school system and their police department and their fire department. I lived for a long time in Fairfax County, Virginia, which is a single county government. It’s massive, 150,000 students in their school system. It seems to function with a single police department and fire department. But I don’t think you can backwards engineer that into a place that for hundreds of years has been operating as it has been operating.

Aaron Renn (27:43): Lexington, Kentucky worked pretty well because one, the schools were already consolidated, as in the South it’s typically county school districts. Secondly, there were no other government entities, no township governments, no other incorporated municipalities. So it merged everything. And they were sort of able to solve the urban services district issue because the outer areas of Fayette County were horse farms. They actually put in a kind of green belt rule, you can’t develop out there, because they wanted to protect these scenic landscapes. So there was actually a good reason to treat that differently, because it was a very unique American landscape. Lexington, I think, was pretty successful.

Susan Pendergrass (28:15): They are. I appreciate it when I drive across Route 64.

Aaron Renn (28:39): Lexington was pretty successful and wasn’t especially controversial when they did it, in part because there weren’t all these entrenched interests like there are in other places. If you look at places that did the mergers, they weren’t the Cincinnatis and Pittsburghs. They’ve been talking about consolidation in Pittsburgh forever. It was very hard. And Louisville did it, but it was one of the least consolidated so-called consolidated governments. What the Louisville merger functionally did was dissolve the city of Louisville and reorganize county government. The county government now has a mayor and a council instead of the old fiscal court with the judge executive and all that.

Susan Pendergrass (29:21): That’s kind of what would happen in St. Louis, right?

Aaron Renn (29:36): That’s essentially what they did. They basically dissolved the city and the county government was reorganized, but nothing was merged.

Susan Pendergrass (29:43): Did you have a question?

David Stokes (29:45): I want to get back to the fire district point. We’re talking about why this would be so hard. There’s actually a law in St. Louis that only applies in St. Louis County that makes it impossible to consolidate fire districts. Even if a modest mid-sized suburb annexes an unincorporated part of town, they’re not allowed to provide fire services to that new annexed area, or they can, but they have to pay so much to the old unincorporated fire district that it makes it impossible to do so. That’s just one example of how even if you wanted a full scale merger, it would just be impossible to actually carry through.

Susan Pendergrass (30:34): Why do you think people float this idea, David? Why does it come back every couple of years?

David Stokes (30:38): You know, it’s the old line. I remember a study I read about Pittsburgh and St. Louis many years ago. The question was, are the St. Louis and Pittsburgh areas really inefficient with all the fragmented government? And the conclusion was, well, you would never design a metro area like this, but they’ve both made it work over the last century better than you would think. The conclusion was that St. Louis and Pittsburgh aren’t actually as inefficient as you might assume when you run the numbers.

I think people have trouble accepting that. People look at so many small municipalities, many of them dysfunctional, many of them until recent times funded themselves primarily with traffic tickets, which is a terrible way to fund local government, and that’s not even an exaggeration. And there’s just this fundamental belief that if you can just plan it better you’ll create a better place. I just think it fails.

One of the reasons it would fail, going back to what Aaron led this conversation off with, is that if St. Louis County and St. Louis City joined together, they’re not actually going to lay any government employees off to save any money. St. Louis City government is not going to fire city employees. It’s never going to happen. So you’re not going to save any money and it’s all just going to collapse.

Aaron Renn (32:12): Yeah, New York City and large governments are not more efficient.

I look at it and say, look, I think merger is a solution for failed states, if you want to call them that, in the St. Louis suburbs. Take some micro-suburb that’s a complete scam or is bankrupt and merge it in with its neighbor. Do some consolidation like that, that probably needs to be led by state government, almost like a receivership sort of thing. That’s just kind of good government as you work through it. But I just don’t think the benefits you would gain from trying to do a complete governmental merger of St. Louis City with St. Louis County would outweigh the opportunity cost of how much time and effort you spend on it, when you could be spending that on other things that I think will actually move the needle more.

The downsides are arguably as high as the upsides. There’s no guarantee it’s even net positive in this environment. The time to have merged was when Indianapolis did it in 1970, not in 2026. Nashville did it in the 60s. Jacksonville did it a long time ago.

And then I think it doesn’t fix the fundamental issues around the culture. You’ve got to take a hard look at that and say, it’s maybe very difficult to change. The idea that people who aren’t from here have to be able to move here and get connected and feel like they belong in the city. There’s a couple we know who lived in St. Louis. The wife taught in St. Louis public schools. They’re big urban people. The husband was from St. Louis, and they moved here to Carmel, Indiana.

Susan Pendergrass (33:47): Tell me more about that.

Aaron Renn (34:10): Basically they said, man, people are just so much friendlier here. They make better eye contact, they engage more. It’s just so much more welcoming than it was in St. Louis, even though they were actually in a sense connected because the husband was from there.

So when even people who lived in St. Louis and liked it notice a difference when they leave, that is a killer when you’re already struggling demographically. I had a guy who owned a business in Cleveland who said to me one time, I learned the hard way never to recruit anyone from out of town to work for my company unless that person or their spouse is from Cleveland, because otherwise they will never stay. When that’s where you are as a place, that is just rough. I think that is one of the killers for these river cities.

Susan Pendergrass (35:16): Yeah, what’s the fix for that? I don’t know what the fix is.

Aaron Renn (35:38): I think the optimistic case for St. Louis, and I actually tweeted this a year or two ago, is that St. Louis City educational attainment is really high now. In a sense, it’s a small, highly educated city that is probably going to continue growing more educated. So I think the Pittsburgh option looks viable in St. Louis.

Susan Pendergrass (36:00): And certainly great medical care. I know that the average age is getting older in St. Louis. I think within 10 years, one in four people will be over the age of 65. But we also have an Alzheimer’s research center and access to medical care, which as you get older gets more important. I do think there’s an opportunity to lean in to the medical services that are available, as the country as a whole gets older. I think St. Louis looks more attractive for that reason. So I think you’re right that with universities and medical centers, there’s an opportunity.

Aaron Renn (36:35): Yeah, I think if America’s demographics keep on this trend, a lot of other places are going to get to where St. Louis is. And the thing to be careful of is that when you’re in a declining market, that often prompts centralization of activity and population. What happened with Japan is that once Japan’s population started falling, everybody started moving to Tokyo. It’s Tokyo and a handful of other cities where everything is concentrated, and they literally have ghost towns there.

I don’t think it’s any accident that Indianapolis’ growth really took off once the Rust Belt era and deindustrialization hit the state. Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio have grown in large measure through drawing people out of the rest of the state as those states declined. Huge numbers of people move from Cleveland to Columbus every year.

Missouri is a little different than that. One of your challenges is that St. Louis does not draw people from rural Missouri. When I looked at the data, it’s not like there’s a massive flow into St. Louis from the rest of the state. So you don’t have that siphon bringing people in.

Susan Pendergrass (37:55): There are public safety issues around that, but yes.

Aaron Renn (38:00): And the issue we have is that we’ve now eaten our seed corn. There’s not going to be next generations of children in the towns I grew up in in rural Indiana to move to Indianapolis anymore. The cohort sizes are going to be smaller. So that pump, even Tokyo is declining now in population. That siphon is draining the water table. We can only rely on that so long.

But I think this is the risk for St. Louis in that kind of environment. People with opportunity might avoid or flee St. Louis and go to Austin, Texas or Nashville. They go to the handful of places in America that are really still growing. That’s a threat even for Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio. In a declining market, it’s very hard to get people to want to come to a shrinking city because the opportunity space is shrinking. St. Louis’s opportunity space has been shrinking because you’re losing corporate headquarters and your working age population is declining. That dynamic is really going to be a challenge. But within that, the city of St. Louis might end up doing okay. Again, being small actually helps it here.

Susan Pendergrass (39:25): Any closing thoughts on that, David?

David Stokes (39:27): Just that the part of Missouri that is definitely still growing, and that probably is attracting those young rural people who are moving to a city, is going into southwest Missouri, the Springfield-Branson area. That’s absolutely the growing part of the state. And even Kansas City is growing certainly more than St. Louis is.

Aaron Renn (39:48): Yeah, it’s not a culturally cohesive state. Springfield and that area are definitely growing, and growing despite the fact that they have nowhere close to the urban assets of a St. Louis. It’s interesting to watch, and we’ll just have to see what happens.

Susan Pendergrass (40:05): It is. I think about it a lot. I’ve been talking about this in terms of school enrollment for years and years, where you could see the biggest kindergarten cohort was after the Great Recession of 2009. You know that that’s the biggest kindergarten cohort for the last 15, 16, 17 years. We do nothing but build schools and hire teachers. We are slow to catch on to these things happening. But I think your perspective is certainly very interesting. On the question of the merger, it’s not worth the cost for whatever benefits there might be. But it still gets talked about, so I appreciate you coming and giving us your thoughts on it. Maybe we’ll have to have you back to talk about it again.

David Stokes (41:02): And Aaron, I want you to come back. I want to find out how we get more roundabouts in Missouri. I love roundabouts. I go to Carmel it seems like once a year for these gigantic youth sports tournaments up at Westfield, just a little bit north of you. My kids’ sports take me there. And I love the roundabouts. You cannot get enough of them.

Aaron Renn (41:09): I’d love to talk about that. My favorite topic.

Aaron Renn (41:24): Yeah, it’s great. We hardly ever have to stop. There are barely any stoplights or stop signs left in our city. It’s amazing. We’re one of the few growing places in America where traffic is better today than it was 20 years ago.

Susan Pendergrass (41:32): They’re awesome.

David Stokes (41:45): People don’t realize how good that is for air quality and everything. You just keep moving along, not stop and start. We need 100 times more roundabouts in this area.

Susan Pendergrass (41:55): Are you pretending that people stop at stop signs in St. Louis? Because let’s be honest, people don’t stop at stop signs.

David Stokes (42:00): Well, they roll them, but it’s still wrong when they roll them. Maybe all the people blowing red lights on Kings Highway at 50 miles an hour are just being environmentally conscious. I need to give them more of the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

Susan Pendergrass (42:12): That’s exactly right. All right, thanks so much. I really appreciate it.

Aaron Renn (42:19): Thank you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The St. Louis City-County Merger with Aaron Renn and David Stokes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

RSVP Here

Cost: Complimentary, but RSVP required.

Event Sponsored by: James G. Forsyth III, John Lamping, and Rex Sinquefield

The post Next Gen Connection with Show-Me Institute appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

COVID-19 appeared to accelerate this student loss, as Missouri saw a decline in enrollment of 20,000 students in the fall of 2020. When enrollment rebounded slightly the following year, it was fair to wonder if Missouri could eventually regain the 20,000 who had left. However, according to recent enrollment data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), enrollment is trending downward once again.

Below is a graph that maps Missouri’s K-12 public school enrollment since fall 2011 (the 2011–2012 school year):

Source: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

*Fall 2023 has a dashed line because the enrollment figure is preliminary and not final. *

It’s possible that the students we lost during the pandemic simply aren’t “coming back,” as Missouri enrollment resumed its pre-pandemic decline in both of the past two years. With this in mind, we need to evaluate policy options in light of a shrinking student body.

As I have discussed before, the general trend of declining student enrollment and rising teacher employment reveals that the proclaimed “teacher shortage” is due to specific deficiencies in the teacher pipeline—not a growing student body.

School districts also need to evaluate which classes and services they can provide to their student body. As I discussed recently, declining enrollment and participation led to Brentwood being unable to field a football team. As a result, the district merged its football team with Clayton, which led to a solid playoff run.

These kinds of policies will be needed as enrollment continues to decline. Districts may need to share classes with each other. Some districts may need to go a step further and pool their resources. There are many costs associated with meeting federal and state regulations in a school district, and merging two shrinking districts into one could increase the amount of funding devoted to instructing students.

The K-12 enrollment decline isn’t what we want, but it appears to be what we’re getting. Policymakers at the state and district levels need to plan accordingly.

The post Missouri Public-School Enrollment Continues to Fall appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

St. Louis already has a ridiculous “source of income” rule that forbids landlords from rejecting Section 8 housing vouchers from applicants. Keep in mind that Section 8 is a federal program, and the federal government has no such requirement for landlords. The program is supposed to be voluntary, yet the city is making participation mandatory. Clayton, Webster Groves, and Maplewood also have this terrible policy on their books.

Missouri has a state law forbidding rent control rules, so at least St. Louis can’t pass that next.

Housing in St. Louis is very affordable. Passing laws that limit how and to whom landlords rent their property limits supply and makes housing more expensive. (Obviously, there are anti-discrimination rules for housing that everyone supports.)

Using City of St. Louis tax dollars to assist tenants in their civil disputes against landlords is an inappropriate use of tax dollars. I know, I know, city officials will say they are just paying for “representation,” not taking sides, but if you hire a lawyer for one party and not the other you are clearly taking sides.

The eviction moratorium during the pandemic did plenty of damage to landlords, even if it may have been an unfortunate, short-term necessity. Using city tax funds to oppose landlords in court is just another bad decision by elected officials who likely claim they want more affordable housing. This move will give them less.

The post Landlord Island appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Clearly, since government economic development officials are so good at picking winners and losers, this subsidy has accomplished its goals and now the firm is operating without any tax subsidy and thriving in downtown St. Louis, right?

Not quite. Polsinelli announced two months ago that it is moving its local office to Clayton. No subsidy is required for this move (to the best of my knowledge). Polsinelli will be moving to the Centene Building, which is itself an argument for the uselessness of tax incentives.

Polsinelli has every right to move wherever it wants and I wish the firm the best. But as the City of St. Louis, Chesterfield, Crestwood, and more continue to dive headfirst into the tax subsidy well, the Polsinelli example is a perfect illustration that economic development based on tax incentives does not work. It just doesn’t. Politicians and economic development officials cannot predict the future. Their decisions are biased by political interests, or worse. The incentives for politicians and economic development officials bias them toward ribbon cuttings and campaign boasts at the expense of long-term thinking.

Yet we continue to prime this empty pump with new plans and programs every year, despite the repeated failure of the process. Economic development officials boast loudly of their few successes (which really just means the subsidies weren’t needed in the first place) while ignoring their many, many failures. It’s almost as if actual economic development isn’t their main goal in the first place.

The post St. Louis: Come for the Tax Subsidies, Depart When You Can appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Analysis of what companies actually do, as opposed to what they say they require, tells a different story. Shockingly—I know this is going to stun many of you—those same companies often don’t need the subsidies as much as they claim. Here is an article that discusses one study out of Texas:

Nathan Jensen, a University of Texas at Austin professor, analyzed businesses’ applications for school property tax relief. His findings suggest that just 15 percent of participating firms needed the incentives in order to make an investment in Texas. Furthermore, many of the other firms were uncharacteristically open that incentives were not a necessity.

Just fifteen percent. And sure, Amazon received substantial subsidies when it decided to build its sought-after second headquarters in Virginia, but it received far fewer subsidies there than had been offered by other states.

Which brings us to Clayton, Missouri and Centene. Several years ago, the City of Clayton passed an enormous incentive package for Centene as part of its major expansion plans within the city. From a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story on the topic:

Clayton and state officials signed off on a sizeable incentives package: $75 million worth of property and personal tax abatement over 20 years in Clayton and tens of millions more in state incentives, most of which would be dependent on the number of jobs Centene would add in the region.

Not surprisingly, “ . . . Centene said then that it could not build the project without public subsidies.”

But that was 2016, when it was time for asking. Now it’s 2022, and it’s time for doing. And Centene has changed its mind. The company is not going to build many of the parts of the proposal that justified the tax incentives, including a civic auditorium in downtown Clayton (emphasis added):

“A civic auditorium is no longer in Centene’s plans regardless of any incentives to proceed,” the company said in a statement to the Post-Dispatch.

Centene almost certainly didn’t need the tax subsidies in the first place, and it threw in the civic auditorium promise as a political victory for the local politicians who like to delude themselves as to their own importance in creating downtown Clayton.

As long as Clayton holds firm and takes back the subsidies now, fairness demands we give the city some credit here. But the precedent has been moved further along by the subsidies Clayton gave out in 2016, and that part of the damage has already been done—all over tax subsidies that were likely not needed in the first place.

The post Centene Says the Quiet Part Out Loud appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But that is not good enough for certain Missouri cities that won’t be content until we are all forced onto the dole.

Maplewood is the latest city to consider passing a “source-of-income” law compelling landlords who operate in that city to accept Section 8 housing vouchers as payment. It would be illegal to decline to rent to people in the program, even though it is a federal program and federal law allows landlords to choose to participate or not. The City of St. Louis, Clayton, and Webster Groves are the three cities in Missouri that currently have these laws. Kansas City has considered it, but thankfully not passed it.

Cities cannot, and should not, be able to tell doctors within their boundaries that they must take Medicaid patients. Cities should not be able to force grocery stores to take food stamps. Clearly, most grocery stores choose to, just like many landlords choose to participate in the Section 8 program, and many doctors and hospitals serve Medicaid patients. I can’t find any examples in Missouri of cities that compel food stamp acceptance, but feel free to share with me if there are (so I can go oppose it). For food stamps, the debate is more about what you can buy with the program, not where you can buy it.

You might — believe it or not — as a landlord, store owner, unemployed person, disabled person, or anything else, choose not to accept a government welfare check or join in a certain program. You have, and should continue to have, that right. Cities with “source-of-income” rules are basically like Marcellus Wallace telling the Harley-Davidson riding, sword-wielding watch-enthusiast/boxer Butch Coolidge what he should do with his sense of pride.

The fact that Marcellus is a mobster just makes the analogy more delicious. These “source-of-income” rules are relatively new to Missouri. But new or not, they are wrong. The state should not compel anyone to participate in a welfare program if they don’t choose to, and this includes landlords. Maplewood should reject this proposal (which has not yet been introduced as a bill). If cities continue to adopt such laws, the state legislature needs to step in and prevent it like they did in Texas.

The post You Will Accept This Welfare Check Whether You Want It or Not appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For a home with a market value of $1 million (of which there are many in Ladue), the 30-cent increase per $100 of assessed valuation would amount to a tax hike of $570. If similar recent proposals in neighboring cities are any guide, how Ladue voters will respond to this proposal is anyone’s guess. In August, voters in Frontenac approved a very large tax increase, while voters in Clayton rejected a much more modest one (18 cents per $100). In each case, turnout was light, as expected and (perhaps) intended.

The most interesting part of the proposed tax increase is that it’s only for residential property, not commercial. In other words, homeowners will pay it, but businesses won’t. Too often, governments try to export the costs of running their cities to outsiders with tourist taxes, sales taxes, special district taxes, and so on. The best thing you can say about this Ladue proposal is that it deals with property taxes that will be paid by the people who receive the public services. But don’t businesses also benefit from public services like police and fire protection? Of course they do. However, unlike both Frontenac and Clayton, where commercial property makes up a large part of the tax base, commercial property in Ladue is less than ten percent of the tax base. Including commercial property in this tax increase would not make that much of a difference in tax collections, but how voters react will be intriguing.

In Frontenac, the (voter-approved) tax increase actually targeted commercial property with especially large increases, while in Clayton the city proposed the same (voter-rejected) tax increase for each. What is the moral of the story? Voters apparently like targeting businesses to fund as much of their services as they can.

Does Ladue truly need this added money? As stated, the annual deficits Ladue has been running have been large, and that can’t continue. With most city funds going to public safety in recent years, cuts would have to come from police and fire protection. Ladue has very little crime and even fewer fires, but history has shown that people like having higher levels of police and fire protection than may be necessary.

Ladue has received over $900,000 in stimulus funds and will receive over a half-million more in the near future. This is on top of upcoming increases in local tax revenue from higher gas taxes and online sales tax collections passed in the state legislative session. (Ladue voters would have to pass a use tax, which they rejected in 2020, to collect all of the online sales taxes.) I don’t doubt that the cost of providing public services is increasing, but with the stimulus funds, increased property assessments, and other future taxes, do the people of Ladue really need to be hit with approximately $2.5 million in new taxes?

Residents, voters, and taxpayers (most people are all three, of course) generally like the high quality of services found in most St. Louis County suburbs, especially in the more prosperous cities like Ladue. But you can only ask for so much before people start saying “no.” People want quality services; they also like fair taxation and the idea that their cities aren’t just out to gouge them. One thing Ladue has a large number of is country clubs, and on election day, we will see how many voters in Ladue are yelling “Fore!” as they cast their votes.

The post A Property Tax Increase for Ladue? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A student at Washington University recently opined in his school newspaper that the university should be paying payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOTs) to the cities around the school where it owns property: University City, Clayton, and the City of St. Louis. A complicated question is what to do when Wash U buys homes or apartment buildings within those cities to house students or visiting faculty, and then those properties are removed from the tax rolls because Wash U is a non-profit. From an article in the Post-Dispatch:

To house some of those people, it has purchased many off-campus single-family homes, duplexes and apartment buildings – 11 in Clayton, 53 in the city and 121 in University City.

It also owns several commercial properties – with one of the largest being its 1991 purchase of the old Clayton Famous-Barr for $17.5 million. All those purchases have an impact: The university’s not-for-profit status removes them from the property tax rolls.

The residents in these buildings need police and fire protection, roads, and other public services. When a property is purchased by a university and comes off the tax rolls but still has residents, the cities continue providing services but no longer receive the property taxes. That puts cities in a bind, especially University City and Clayton, which depend more heavily on property taxes than the City of St. Louis. The Wash U writer documents how many other universities pay PILOTS for local services to their cities, including the second-best university in Southwest Connecticut: Yale.

You know who else has written about this issue? Me. I think larger non-profit organizations, such as Wash U, SLU, many senior citizen homes owned by non-profits, and others could be asked to make partial payments of property taxes to cities. As for the City of St. Louis, I definitely think that should be part of a trade-off for eliminating the earnings tax.

Without ending the earnings tax, I don’t think non-profits should be asked to pay PILOTs to the city. (Non-profits are also exempt from the half-percent payroll tax that for-profit companies pay to the city.) Wash U and SLU doctors, administrators, nurses, etc. pay plenty to the City of St. Louis via the earnings tax. University City and Clayton have no such alternative (nor should they). I think partial PILOTs by larger non-profits are a reasonable way to help fund local services so that the tax burden is not unfairly falling on local residents for services used by the non-profits as well.

The post What Should Washington University Do with All of That Money? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It costs money to run cities, and that money comes from taxes. While governments at all levels waste that tax money to varying degrees, sometimes it is necessary to increase certain taxes to fund necessary services.

Right now in St. Louis County, two prominent suburbs have put property tax increase votes before their citizens in August. The first one is Clayton, the county seat and central business hub. The second one is Frontenac, a wealthy bedroom community with a major mall right in the center of St. Louis County.

Too often governments try to export the costs of running their cities to outsiders with tourist taxes, sales taxes, special district taxes, and so on. In the cases of Clayton and Frontenac, the best thing you can say about the proposals is that they are property taxes that will be paid by the residents and businesses of their respective communities. Of course, the businesses don’t vote—only the residents do. But businesses and residents all benefit from effective police, properly equipped fire departments, and well-maintained roads.

There is one difference between the two proposals. That is, simply, the size of the proposed property tax increases. Clayton’s proposal is relatively modest, at 18 cents per $100 dollars of assessed valuation. While Clayton has very valuable buildings and beautiful homes for which even a low-percentage increase will mean real money, at least at this reasonable level of increase people can fairly weigh the costs and benefits to the proposal. (As a point of reference, a home worth $500,000 would have a $171 tax increase.) Nobody is getting hammered with radical tax increases. What’s more, residents and businesses will see the same rate increase. They will share in the costs and benefits of the proposal.

The same can’t be said for Frontenac. Frontenac’s proposed tax increase is huge any way you look at it. The city’s residential tax rate is more than doubling from $0.435 to $1 per $100, and the commercial property tax rate is tripling. Tripling! The owners of 1701 S. Lindbergh, the primary parcel for Plaza Frontenac, will pay $150,000 more in property taxes to the city if this proposal passes. $150,000! The owners of the Frontenac Hilton—which just experienced a pandemic year with hardly any guests and furloughed 128 employees in 2020—will have to pay $40,000 more per year in taxes. Nothing says “we will all get through the pandemic together” like a huge tax hike on struggling businesses.

Do these cities truly need this money? That is up to the voters to decide. They both claim that they have cut waste as much as they can, and I believe they have tried to do so. Frontenac’s website details money it has saved by sharing services with other cities and freezing employee salaries. Fair enough. Clayton’s website also documents recent budget savings by the city, but considering that Clayton still offers rear-yard trash pick-up, I know of at least one more thing they could cut to save tax dollars—rear-yard trash pick-up). Clayton is expected to receive over $3 million and Frontenac about $750,000 from the latest federal stimulus funds. This is on top of the likely increases in tax revenue for each city from online sales tax collections and higher gas taxes passed in the recently concluded state legislative session.

Residents, voters, and taxpayers (most people are all three, of course) generally like the high quality of services found in most St. Louis County suburbs, especially in the more prosperous cities like the two we are discussing here. But you can only ask for so much before people start saying “no.” People want quality services; they also like fair taxation and the idea that their cities aren’t just out to gouge them. The Clayton proposal will probably pass that test with many voters, but with numerous Frontenac residents staring down an increase of over $1,000 in property taxes, I think the gouging question is going to be asked a lot.

The post A Property Tax Tale of Two Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Latest on the Crestwood Mall Redevelopment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On June 8th, legislation was approved in the City of Clayton to allow more freedom and flexibility for mobile food vending equipment. Previously, food trucks could serve closed groups at private events, but they could only serve the public on their own property. That essentially allows food trucks to do the “food” part of their name but not the “truck” part.

This new legislation allows food trucks to operate at public events outside downtown Clayton with an approved special events application, expanding a food truck’s market to include block parties, neighborhood gatherings, and similar events. The legislation also lifts the prohibition on individual cash payments at these events.

Current permit requirements remain (temporary merchant permits, right of way permits, special events permits, etc.) and safe use of streets and sidewalks remains a priority. While food trucks still cannot serve the general public in downtown Clayton (unless the food truck is on its own property), these changes mark significant progress. This legislation is a good move for food truck vendors and customers.

The post Clayton Expands Opportunities for Food Trucks appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although it’s a little trite, “the early bird gets the worm” is harmless enough as far as old sayings go. Still, living by those words is one thing, and governing by them—as Lake Ozark seems to be doing—is quite another.

Food truck operators want to set up business along The Strip in the city of Lake Ozark, but the Planning and Zoning Commission is prohibiting them from doing so. While identifying consumer desire for food truck options in this area, the Commission says that its intent is to protect brick-and-mortar businesses that are already there. As the daughter of a restaurant owner, I fully support brick-and-mortar businesses, but why is the Planning and Zoning Commission choosing to protect these businesses at the expense of others, namely food trucks? Why are we only allowing the early bird a chance at getting the worm?

The commission fears that food trucks would compete with existing businesses. That is not something that should be feared; it should be expected and encouraged. In the same way that existing businesses compete with one another, food trucks should compete with other restaurants—and may the best food and dining experience win! It’s through this competition that we end up with a collection of businesses that consumers really want. That’s how competition in the market should work; consumers, not commissioners, pick winners and losers. It shouldn’t be the early bird that gets the worm, but the best bird.

After the Great Recession, many were looking for cheaper, on-the-go food options, and a lot of culinary experts were unemployed, laying the groundwork for a surge of food trucks. (And it’s not a stretch to think that our current economic situation could increase the demand for food trucks even more.) From 2013 to 2018, the number of food truck establishments in the U.S. doubled, employing over 16,000 workers in 2018 and reporting sales of $1.2 billion in 2017 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. More options increase the chance that consumers find exactly what they are looking for at a price they are willing to pay. Additionally, more businesses mean more entrepreneurship and opportunities for workers.

Other cities have found ways for food trucks to operate that would be better options than an outright prohibition. For example, Clayton allows for food trucks to operate for city or private events provided that they follow specific guidelines. Branson prohibits food trucks from operating within 100 feet of a restaurant and also allows for food truck courts. While these examples still place regulatory burdens on the food trucks, they show that there are ways for brick-and-mortar restaurants and food trucks to coexist.

Existing businesses should not receive special treatment just because they already exist. We allow brick-and-mortar restaurants to compete with one another—is it really that dangerous to allow them to compete with food trucks? Lake Ozark says it’s working on an ordinance to lay the groundwork for food trucks operating in the area. I say, let all the birds go and see which one gets the worm.

WATCH: More From Show-Me on Food Trucks

The post Why Should the Early Bird Get the Worm? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Make no mistake—people across Missouri are losing their jobs, and state income tax revenue is going to decline as a result. The timing of Missouri’s fiscal year may obscure the crisis to some extent this year, but next year will be tough. Public school districts are going to take a hit. Education is one of the very few areas of the Missouri budget that can be cut, and it will be. School districts and the legislature should be planning now.

But before we get to what districts should be doing, we need to acknowledge that we won’t have firm numbers on how many students are being educated by each district for several years. For per-student funding purposes, Missouri law allows districts to use their current enrollment or the enrollment from either of the two previous years to calculate state public education spending. Obviously, districts will want to use the highest possible number. But this year in particular students are moving around—opting for microschools, private schools, or homeschooling. There is some evidence that enrollment in the MOCAP public virtual education program is way up. At some point, we need to figure out where every student is being educated this year. It may be hard to take attendance on Zoom, but legislators cannot make informed decisions about the public education budget without solid enrollment numbers.

In the meantime, districts need to up their fiscal game, and here are a few suggestions:

• Reduce administrative costs. According to the most recent federal data (from the 2016–2017 school year), Missouri spent almost $350 million on district administrators, school boards, and their support staff. It may be time to reconsider having 520 school districts in a state with 114 counties.
• Consider how noninstructional services are provided. Could transportation or food services costs be reduced through competitive contracting? Could districts work together to share resources?
• Reconsider collective bargaining agreements and employee benefits. Step-and-ladder pay schedules, coupled with expensive pension obligations, make it very difficult for districts to reduce expenditures when their revenue declines. Salaries and promotions should be flexible, and retirement plans should be transportable 401(k) accounts.
• Delay or forego capital projects. These projects commit funds for the long term and reduce flexibility during economic downturns.

The state legislature could be doing its part as well. The current Missouri school funding formula has too many outdated “hold harmless” clauses that distort the distribution of state public education funds and, in some cases, send state funds to wealthy districts that would not normally qualify. According to the Forward through Ferguson “Still Separate, Still Unequal” project, in 2017–18, almost half of the 29 school districts in St. Louis County received hold harmless funding, including $578 in state funding per student in Ladue and $562 per student in Clayton. In addition, nearly half of the school districts in the state use property values from 15 years ago to figure out how much their local contribution of public education dollars should be, regardless of how property values have risen or fallen. That needs to change.

Finally, this year has made it clear that it’s time for public education funding to follow the child. Missouri parents who in the past gave little thought to school choice are discovering what it means to have no choice but a bad choice, and those who can afford to do so are taking matters into their own hands. Parents across the state are paying for tutors, pod coaches, private school tuition, and childcare. Meanwhile, their children are still being counted in the enrollment numbers of the schools they attended last year. It is only fair to give all parents access to a portion of their state education funding so they can spend it on options that work for their children. In several other states, governors have used stimulus funds to give parents quick access to scholarships to pay for these much-needed options. Missouri should do the same and make such scholarships a permanent option going forward.

The storm that was 2020 is going to linger for a few years, and policymakers in Missouri should be taking steps right now to weather it.

The post Belt-tightening Time in Public Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We’re told early in life that nothing is truly free. If you’ve had to learn this lesson first-hand, you know that some “free” things are actually quite costly.

The Saint Louis Zoo, one of our region’s most beloved institutions, is one of those expensive free things. And soon it could get a whole lot more expensive.

Senate Bill 49 (SB 49), if signed into law, could mean voters in Saint Louis County and City will be asked to hike their sales taxes by one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) to help fund infrastructure, conservation projects, and other zoological activities at the Saint Louis Zoo. By all accounts, the needs at the zoo are genuine—many of its pipes, sewers, etc., are original. But the zoo already receives $21 million—about one-third of its budget—from county and city taxpayers through a property tax. Is ratcheting up the region’s already-high sales taxes the best way to raise additional funds?

Here are some reasons to think not.

Sales taxes in both the county and city just went up. The city’s sales tax rate will soon be 9.179%, higher than New York City’s or San Francisco’s—and another half-percent hike is on the horizon. Things don’t look much better in the county. With the passage of Prop P, Clayton will soon have a rate of 9.113%, as will places like Olivette, Webster Groves, and Ballwin. In Ferguson, sales taxes will sit even higher, at 9.613%. Add in the extra 2% levied by numerous, overlapping special taxing districts, and in some places you’ll be paying more than 11%! A new zoo tax will only make your shopping more expensive, and it will hurt the region’s poor the most.

Considering that policymakers have a seemingly never-ending list of “transformative” or “essential” projects that require tax hikes, is a zoo tax the best use of limited public resources? There is no formula to determine the optimal sales tax rate, nor is there a documented sales tax ceiling, but taxpayers will only stomach so much. If the sky isn’t the limit for tax rates, could a zoo tax help exhaust the region’s sales tax capacity?

And then there’s a basic math issue. The proposed tax could raise roughly $20 million per year if passed in both the county and city, and zoo officials have claimed there is a backlog of needed infrastructure projects that will require approximately $100 million. Accordingly, by conservative estimates, a mere six years of the tax could take care of all the zoo’s infrastructure needs, and an extra year or two could raise tens of millions for conservation efforts. But there is no language in the bill that states the tax would be temporary. So while zoo officials talk of specific needs that justify the tax, they fail to mention that, in addition to taking care of these needs, the tax would increase their annual budget by a third—and, apparently, permanently so.

Finally, a sales tax hike wouldn’t fix the underlying funding problems. Since the zoo does not charge admission, it has what economists call a free-rider problem. Not all of the visitors who enjoy the zoo pay for its operation. The result is a zoo with piling bills and no way to pay for them. But rather than address this problem, a zoo tax would simply exacerbate it. City and county taxpayers who currently subsidize the zoo for everyone would be forced to doubly subsidize the zoo for everyone. And while it’s convenient to say Saint Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson counties should impose a zoo tax too, residents from these counties comprise only 13% of the zoo’s visitors, and taxing them would likewise fail to address the free-rider problem.

There are alternatives to hiking sales taxes, and one in particular deserves greater consideration: charging a reasonable admissions fee. If other top zoos charge more than $50 for admission, visitors can pay a fraction of that to keep ours one of the best in the county. A small admissions fee—for those not currently paying property taxes for the zoo—could raise millions annually, and help avoid hiking an unnecessary, regressive tax.

It’d be great if some things in life were truly free, but they’re not. And nothing is wrong with that. The user-fee system works—it’s both fair and financially sustainable. Let’s hope policymakers and zoo officials keep that in mind in the coming months.

The post To Keep the Zoo Great, Keep It Out of Taxpayers’ Pockets appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Before the board voted unanimously in favor of subsidization, each member gave a brief speech explaining his or her decision. The majority opinion was that tax incentives are not ideal, but that Missouri’s current economic environment demands them. Tax incentives for large projects like Centene’s have become the norm, so withholding the expected tax breaks means running the risk of losing investment to other regions.

But “we’ve always done it that way” is a dangerous line of reasoning when past decisions have negatively impacted cities, and the research shows that economic development subsidies are often used unnecessarily. They have little positive impact on the region’s economy, perhaps because they divert revenues away from crucial municipal services like schools. This is hardly a pattern we should aim to continue.

Clayton’s office vacancy rate is half that of St. Louis City, and Clayton is hardly lacking investors. This, along with the fact that last year Centene placed 4th on Fortune’s list of the nation’s fastest-growing companies, calls the need for subsidies for Centene into question.

Clayton officials justified the use of incentives by saying that no physical checks are written to Centene. If the city doesn’t give any money to the development, then they are not losing out. This reasoning fails to account for the millions of dollars in lost revenue from taxes that will go to the developer instead of into the city’s tax base.

It’s disappointing that the board felt, despite their distaste for tax incentives, that today’ market environment demands subsidization. Cases like this remind us of the need for reforms that can help create a more growth-friendly environment in the Saint Louis region and across Missouri.

The post Well, At Least It’s Not a Check appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: Tax Abatement for Centene in Clayton appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The team is asking city officials to impose an additional 1% sales tax on Ballpark Village to help fund the second phase of development. This tax is estimated to generate $16 million. But why does a project like Ballpark Village, which by many accounts is doing quite well—albeit at the expense of other businesses—need yet another subsidy? Is there a good reason why ordinary Saint Louisans should cough up more of their cash just so a successful business can expand?

In short, no—there is no good reason. All the subsidy does is increase the profits of a hugely wealthy corporation. One of the biggest proponents of the subsidy, 7^th Ward Alderman Jack Coatar, even admits the project would move forward (albeit on a “scaled-down” scale) without the subsidy. So why are city officials trying to put taxpayers on the hook for yet another development?

Proponents of the subsidy might object that the additional sales tax is self-imposed, and so only Ballpark Village costumers will actually pay the tax. While that’s true, we should ask ourselves why there should be an extra tax in the first place. That is, if the project is so great, why don’t the Cardinals just increase their prices by 1% instead of securing revenue via taxation?

And while the Cardinals promise the project will create 2,500 jobs, we shouldn’t get our hopes up (as the Business Journal cautions). Many of those jobs are temporary construction jobs, and the definition of a “new job” is somewhat slippery. New jobs could be jobs that moved in from just outside city limits, or jobs that a tenant at Ballpark Village claims would have left the city if not for the subsidies the project could receive. But moving jobs from, say, Clayton to downtown Saint Louis doesn’t help our regional economy, and there is so way to prove what a business tenant would have done if not for the subsidy. In short, the “Net New Jobs” clause touted by city officials as a way to protect taxpayers appears to be just a fig leaf that will not ensure that taxpayers actually get a return on their investment.

This project offers no real guarantees to the city or to taxpayers. The only guaranteed winner is a billion-dollar corporation. Does that sound fair to you?

The post It Takes a Village to Raise a Subsidy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Ridesharing in Springfield  
• The disappearance of recess  
• Mizzou's future  
• Interstate physician licensing  
• Blight (?) in Clayton  
• Kansas City's identity  

Click on the link below to read it all.

The post Show-Me Institute’s October 2016 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Incentives are kind of a funny thing to get your head around…we don’t get a check, we actually get a small increment, a small discount on the overall taxes that we pay.”

The small discount mentioned is quoted at $78 million from property tax abatement and another $35 million off of income tax bills.  There may not be a check in the mail, but public funds would go towards the development’s costs all the same.

“Centene has shareholders; they have a responsibility to be responsible with their dollars and with their investment.”

I absolutely agree, and it seems that the company is doing an excellent job of growing and increasing revenue, but the City of Clayton also has “shareholders” (aka taxpayers) and a responsibility to be responsible with public dollars.  If an expansion might take place anyways, then does it make sense to spend tax dollars on attracting it to an already successful business environment?

“This is a company that is growing really, really rapidly, and so in the long term it’s highly likely and most possible that Centene will occupy these buildings completely”

In 2015 Centene was named the 4^th fastest growing corporation in America, and it’s great to hear that the company is interested in such an extensive expansion in the Clayton community.  However if the plan is to occupy their buildings completely, then why is there a proposed expansion on the table while the current headquarters still leases out about half of its office space?

“There’s very, very low vacancy in the market right now, the market has done extremely well.”

Clayton has been a very successful city when it comes to attracting developments.  The area has recently been referred to as the St. Louis region’s new downtown.  Still the question is posed that if the area is successful and is experiencing a low vacancy rate, is spending millions to subsidize a large development really the healthiest use of taxpayer dollars?

The post CEO Defends Centene Clayton Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.