One of the most common mistakes in public policy is assuming that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. Crime declines after a new program is launched, so the program gets credit. Crime rises after a policy change, so the policy gets blamed. Often, the evidence for either conclusion amounts to little more than timing.

The KSHB story quotes Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson, who said she believes SAVE KC is playing “a real role in the success that we are seeing.” Perhaps it is. The problem is that belief is not evidence.

Violence rises and falls for many reasons: gang conflicts, police deployment, prosecution decisions, demographics, economic conditions, and the churn of individual offenders. A before-and-after comparison cannot isolate any one cause.

That is why researchers do not determine whether a program works by simply comparing crime rates before and after implementation. They look for evidence that the intervention itself produced measurable changes that would not otherwise have occurred. Jackson County’s COMBAT program has long suffered from this same problem: public claims of success without rigorous evaluation.

To its credit, SAVE KC has been careful to acknowledge on its website that multiple factors influence violence trends; it does not claim sole responsibility for recent declines. That’s a welcome departure from what we’ve seen before. But public officials are already drawing connections between the program and declining violence. That may ultimately prove justified. But Kansas City has heard similar claims before.

The Kansas City No Violence Alliance (KC NoVA) offers a warning. KC NoVA was once praised as an innovative violent-crime strategy. But a U.S. Department of Justice review found no statistically significant effect on homicides, group-member homicides, or aggravated assaults after two years.

In 2014, city leaders were celebrating the lowest number of homicides since 1972. Public officials were quick to claim credit. “We’re making progress,” proclaimed then-Mayor Sly James, citing targeted police work, community engagement, and anti-crime initiatives for the decline. But after homicides continued to rise in subsequent years, Mayor James’s confidence disappeared.

The lesson is not that violence-reduction initiatives never work. The lesson is that confidence should follow evidence, not precede it.

Rather than asking whether a new program coincides with lower crime, reporters should ask what evidence exists that the program caused the decline. Has an independent evaluation been conducted? Are outcomes being measured against comparable groups? What metrics are being tracked? How will success be defined? What would constitute failure?

Lower homicide numbers are worth celebrating. But celebration is not evaluation. Before officials claim victory, and before reporters repeat the claim, Kansas City deserves evidence that the program worked.

The post Crime Is Down in Kansas City. That Doesn’t Prove SAVE KC Worked appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to break down the final week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. They discuss the constitutional amendment heading to voters that would begin the process of eliminating Missouri’s state income tax, where property tax reform efforts stand heading into the final days, the early literacy bill’s uncertain path through the Senate, the legislature’s approach to A through F school report cards, what the state budget does and does not get right, the Ferguson city council’s rejection of a major data center tax subsidy, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Zach Lawhorn (00:00): Welcome to the Show-Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show-Me Opportunity. Today I’m joined by Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes from the Show-Me Institute. It is the last week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. Today we’re going to go through what has crossed the finish line, mostly what has not crossed the finish line, and see what these guys think about the possibility of that happening here in the home stretch. Elias, we’ll begin with something that has crossed the finish line, and that is the start of a discussion about phasing out Missouri’s state income tax. Legislation did pass. It goes to the governor, and he gets to decide when it goes on the ballot. So what do we know right now, what passed, and what are Missouri voters going to be asked sometime in the fall?

Elias Tsapelas (00:50): By May 22nd, the governor needs to decide whether this constitutional amendment will go on the August or November ballot. What it says, essentially, is to Missouri voters: do you want to start the process of getting rid of Missouri’s income tax? It comes with three main components. The first piece is the legislature will be required to enact legislation that would get rid of the state’s income tax based on revenue growth. Once that income tax is gone, it cannot be reinstituted. Previous versions of this bill had some details lined out about how the income tax rate would be cut based on revenue growth, but in later versions this was stripped back to just the legislature will decide this later. The other two pieces say you will also be authorizing the legislature to expand the state sales tax base, meaning the things the state sales tax applies to. This could also involve changing the rate, because right now Missouri’s constitution does not allow the state legislature to expand the sales tax to anything that was not taxed in 2015. But this does come with a guardrail: if the legislature does change the state sales tax, it has to be done in a revenue neutral fashion. So expanding the sales tax base or raising the rate to bring in additional tax revenues has to go towards lowering the state income tax. That gives the legislature the authority to change how much revenue comes in, which would speed up the process for getting rid of the income tax. The last piece is a component for local governments. If the state changes the number of things that the sales tax applies to, this would also increase revenues to local governments. Those additional revenues would have to go towards a list of other taxes that would be lowered. In places like St. Louis and Kansas City, that would go towards lowering the earnings tax. For other local governments, they get to choose whether it goes towards lowering the sales tax, property tax, personal property taxes, or real property taxes. The key piece being revenue neutral. This is not going to be a windfall for anyone. It is basically the start of a discussion, because they don’t say what the rate might need to go to, what the sales tax could be expanded to, or what revenues would trigger income tax elimination or cuts. This is just the start of the discussion, giving the legislature the authority to keep moving in the direction we started around 2014.

Zach Lawhorn (03:57): Taking those a piece at a time: the first one, if it passes and the income tax is eliminated at some point, it cannot come back. That seems pretty straightforward. The next two seem like responses to opposition that we hear on a regular basis. The first being the revenue triggers, which seem designed to prevent what we often hear about with Kansas, where they cut the income tax without cutting spending, leading to revenue shortfalls. And the expansion of the sales tax base seems like protection against having to raise the sales tax rate on goods. Do I have that right?

Elias Tsapelas (04:40): Yes. The revenue trigger piece is basically what Missouri has been doing for a while, waiting to see how much revenue we have before lowering the income tax by that amount. We’ve been doing that for over a decade now and have lowered the top individual income tax rate from 6% to 4.7%. We’re just continuing down that path to be sure we don’t create some enormous budget hole. Now, when you look at the sales tax, Missouri has a very complicated, out-of-date sales tax system. The state sales tax rate is 4.225%, but when you go to the store you’re paying something significantly higher, largely due to local governments and a lot of special taxing districts. Missouri also has a lot of sales tax exemptions. Missouri really needs a full look at its entire sales tax system. But economically, when thinking about switching a state from being primarily funded by income taxes to something closer to sales taxes, the best way to fund a state is to tax as broad a base as possible so you can have the lowest rate possible. You want to be taxing final consumption, not business inputs. As we start the idea of transferring to more of a consumption tax in Missouri, the goal is to make sure it doesn’t become a tax increase for some people while things change elsewhere. It’s trying to keep it level the whole way, and at least right now it seems like a pretty neutral proposal going forward.

Zach Lawhorn (06:24): David, for people who don’t think about taxes as a corresponding tax system, can you explain the idea of local governments rolling back certain taxes and how people might experience that on their property tax bills or personal property tax bills?

David Stokes (06:44): It’s trickier than you might think, but it’s vital that it be done right. If you expand the sales tax base at the state level, as Elias discussed, you don’t want local governments to start collecting significantly more sales tax revenue for no reason. At the state level we’ll do something good with that and phase out the income tax, but at the local government level we don’t want just more revenue with nothing to spend it on. You need tax relief for citizens, which is why they’re going to require rollbacks. They’ve given local governments some options in how you roll that rate back, which is a good thing, but they need to give them a few more options. For example, they said you could roll back property taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes, or sales taxes. A few things that need to be considered: many municipalities don’t have a property tax, so they won’t be able to roll back the property tax. And it’s trickier to roll back sales taxes than you might think. Unlike property taxes and income taxes, which can be reduced in small increments, sales taxes have to be done in set increments. You can’t go from a 1% sales tax to a 0.92% sales tax. It’s just not allowed and would be incredibly difficult for retailers to implement. So local governments need even more flexibility in how they roll back taxes. I would say the utility tax, which just about every county imposes, is a great option to add to the choice mix for rollbacks. These are the sales taxes that can be placed on utilities, which unlike other sales taxes can be rolled back in small increments. That’s a very good option. The biggest challenge of all, though, is the special taxing districts that Elias mentioned earlier, such as transportation development districts and community improvement districts. These usually only have sales taxes and nothing else. You have to address what they do if their sales tax collections go up 30% and they have no legal way to roll it back by that same amount. So we need to adjust that. I would also hope that part of this whole deal would be a substantial cap on how these special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs operate in the first place, to really restrict their continued expansion in Missouri, which has been very harmful. Those are just a few ideas out of many in how local governments are going to have to address this.

Zach Lawhorn (09:59): Finally, Elias, as you said, it’ll be on the ballot sometime in the fall. But between now and either August or November, people interested in this topic are going to see a lot of data, modeling, estimates, and projections. We want to be honest about what we can know and what we cannot know. With the legislation that has passed now, what should people keep in mind when they see some of these estimates or models or projections this summer?

Elias Tsapelas (10:39): The first thing is, if you see anything claiming this is going to generate a tremendous budget shortfall or major harm to local governments, this thing is set up to be revenue neutral. This is not something that is going to create enormous holes. Most of the time, estimates that reach that conclusion assume this would work in an entirely different way than what is allowed. So that is something you don’t necessarily need to worry about. What people are more reasonably worried about is: if you empower the legislature to expand or raise the sales tax, how is that going to impact everyone? Missouri’s state and local combined sales tax rates are relatively high already. The state’s portion is pretty low, but combined it’s relatively high. So what the state decides to do in terms of how much it expands the sales tax base, whether that involves more services versus goods, will impact different people differently, in different parts of the state and at different income levels. Anything right now that says this is definitely going to be bad for X person, we just can’t know that, because there’s not enough information out there. Everyone should keep an open mind and also recognize that the reason for this amendment and this proposal is that Missouri’s economy is falling behind. We are falling behind our neighbors in terms of tax competitiveness, and the only way to change that is to improve Missouri’s tax standing. Our sales tax system is incredibly broken, so this is something that is going to need to be fixed. At least right now we are at the point of asking: do we want to go down this path? Let’s hope the legislature does a good job. We’ll be shining a light on whatever they do, but we can’t know some of the things that people are warning about right now.

Zach Lawhorn (12:50): David, after the legislature got the income tax bills out the door, they shifted to talking about property taxes, which is something we hear a lot about. People want property tax reform. With only a few days left in the session, where do those efforts stand and what are your thoughts?

David Stokes (13:11): Unlike a lot of the property tax changes of the past few years, I actually like the property tax changes being proposed this year. At least one property tax bill is in conference committee being debated between the House and Senate right now. Another major bill has passed out of the Senate but hasn’t made it through the House yet. I’m told there are going to have to be some compromises on both sides to get a bill across the finish line, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The biggest change this year, which seems very much in the weeds but is significant, would take the way property taxes are imposed in St. Louis County and apply it to the rest of the state. St. Louis County has different tax rates for all the different types of property: residential, agricultural, commercial, and personal property, which includes your car, boat, farm equipment, livestock, and the like. Those rates adjust differently as assessments go up and down each year. This approach was originally intended to be extended to the rest of the state about 20 years ago when they did it in St. Louis County, but the following year they came back and said the rest of the state didn’t have to do it. It’s a good idea. It might sound strange to some people, but a good example of why it would be beneficial came from stories in the St. Louis Business Journal about the real decline in commercial property values in the city of St. Louis over the past year. Because they set one tax rate measured under one unified property value, residential homeowners in St. Louis end up making up with their taxes for the decline in commercial property. In St. Louis County, with the siloed tax rates, if commercial property goes down, the commercial property tax rate will go up to offset that instead of passing it on to homeowners. In rural Missouri, which has so much agricultural property, this would allow agricultural property tax rates to increase to fund goods in rural areas without as dramatically impacting commercial and residential property. I think this is a good idea and I hope it passes. There are also some good amendments that would put taxpayer protections in place to avoid the temptation of local officials to target commercial property with these new different tax rates. It’s in the weeds, but I think these are good changes this year.

Zach Lawhorn (16:24): That sounds like the other side of the coin from what’s happened in Jackson County, where over the last few years people have been very upset that their assessments have gone up by more than 20% and residential homeowners have seen gigantic leaps in their property taxes. Is this kind of like having to turn one knob one way and another knob the other way?

David Stokes (16:55): Sort of. The tricky part is that the situation in Jackson County for the past 10 years has been so bad, it’s hard to compare it to other counties. It’s been uniquely horrible for the people of Jackson County. But it does start with one basic truth: 15 to 20 years ago, Jackson County was under-assessed. The assessor was ordered to increase the valuations because they were improperly low, and probably artificially and intentionally low. The right approach would have been to raise those assessed valuations to more accurate totals while lowering the rates at the same time to avoid crushing people with higher taxes. But Jackson County’s taxing entities have not really done that, starting with the Kansas City 33 school district, a very large school district in Kansas City, which is the only taxing body in Missouri exempt from rolling back rates as values increase. So you’ve seen these giant increases within that school district and they don’t even have to roll back rates. They just get to keep their same rates, as they have frequently over the past 10 years. So people are getting walloped. And then you throw in the fact that the Kansas City Assessor’s Office has done a terrible job managing the process year after year, not hitting deadlines for notifying people about changes and not properly running the appeals process. It’s just been a terrible system in Jackson County, and almost uniquely so.

Zach Lawhorn (18:30): All right. Before we have Elias read the budget line by line, Avery, I want to get an update on the education items here in the last week of the session. Early literacy, the reading bill, we’ve been talking about it all session long. How’s it looking?

Avery Frank (18:47): When it first passed out of the House before spring break, 131 to 10, I was genuinely excited. It wasn’t necessarily that it passed so early; it was that it passed with such little resistance and such bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. Teaching our students how to read, giving every student the best chance to become a confident, capable reader, that seems like common sense and a goal that everyone wants to work toward to help our state improve and perhaps become the next Mississippi. It looked that way before spring break, but the Senate version of the early literacy bill got filibustered and set aside. The House bill has made it through the process and is on the informal calendar for third reading, so it could be taken up at any time. If it does pass the Senate, I anticipate it would easily pass the House again. But that is the problem with a lot of education legislation: can it pass the Senate? There have been different concerns about the early literacy bills. Some people are concerned that the MAP test, or the Missouri Assessment Program, which we use to test all of our students, is not a good measure and we shouldn’t be basing anything on it. Some are concerned with third-grade retention and whether it actually helps, looking at states like Mississippi and noting that while fourth-grade scores are great, eighth-grade scores have only improved a little. Those are the main pushbacks we’re seeing. I would still say this is something we really need to do. The early literacy bill is built on two different pillars. The first is a mandatory third-grade retention policy. Missouri already tests all K through third-grade students with a reading screener to see how they’re doing with reading. What this bill would do is set a passing score for those screeners. If students don’t meet that score, they would be retained in third grade, because reading is such a foundational skill. If you don’t know how to read, that’s something worth holding back for, to make sure students get it down before moving on for the rest of their educational career. Students would still have the opportunity to retake the screener, and there would be good-cause exemptions for students with disabilities, for students who have been held back previously, and for English language learners. The second main pillar is reforming our teacher preparation programs. In 2023, the National Council on Teacher Quality conducted a survey of all of our universities and teacher preparation programs and found that half of them received an F in teaching the science of reading, which is the best evidence-based way to teach students to read. The early literacy bill would align our teacher prep programs with those best practices. If they don’t do it, they can’t certify teachers. You can see how there could be pushback and reason why people would filibuster or not want it to come to the floor. That’s where it stands right now. I’m hoping people set aside their objections and recognize that this is a great first step to get Missouri back on track. Our reading scores have been really poor, especially after the pandemic. They continue to decrease and have not bounced back at all. They’re lower now than they were the first year after the pandemic, and we have to turn things around. These early literacy bills, I hope people see the common sense in them.

Zach Lawhorn (22:30): It’s not even the perfect being the enemy of the good. It’s just people being afraid to push back against the status quo. Missouri has fallen back in reading test scores, and other states, most notably Mississippi, have found ways to improve. I don’t think it’s helpful to frame this as some kind of radical moonshot. In the final days of the session, the urgency cannot be overstated. The other thing we’ve talked about a lot this session is A through F report cards, a transparency measure. Governor Kehoe issued an executive order before the session started. What’s the status of the legislature trying to adhere to the governor’s executive order?

Avery Frank (23:19): The legislature has tried to legislate its own way into how the executive order gets implemented, because DESE, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, could implement it in their own way. The legislature wants to determine how things are going to be scored instead of letting DESE make that decision. There’s been a lot of back and forth, and a lot of different interested parties. Not to get too in the weeds, but some districts really want academic achievement, their base score on the Missouri Assessment Program, to be weighed the most heavily because that would give them the highest score. Some want growth to be weighed the most heavily for the same reason. Some want basically no grades and a lot more qualitative information. There are a lot of different factors. The best vehicle for A through F report cards right now looks like Senate Bill 1351, which continues the long legacy of education omnibus bills used in recent years in Missouri. It combines the report card, limits on screen time for young students, and a couple of other things. I’m not sure if that’s going to make it past, to be honest. People are still concerned about whether the Missouri Assessment Program is something they want to base all of this on. Personally, I think the executive order is better than the legislation as it currently stands. They got rid of one aspect I liked as a researcher: in Governor Kehoe’s executive order, there was a penalty if districts didn’t report their data properly. In the current legislation, Senate Bill 1351, if districts don’t report sufficient data, it’s just written as an aside, basically saying they have to note on their report card that there is not sufficient data, and then they’re not included in the ranking as much. I don’t like that. It gives districts, especially poorly performing ones, an incentive not to report their data so they can have this qualifier on all of their report cards. I also don’t like it because, from all the education research I’ve been doing, we really do have a data reporting problem and we need to be a lot better about transparency. I hope we get some good report cards, because right now at the Show-Me Institute we do our best with the data we have, but we have to work with unsuppressed data, meaning we don’t have data that could potentially identify certain students. So there are some districts we have no data on because they’re so small. But DESE and the state have the best data possible. They could make a really good report card even better than we could, because they have better data than we do. That’s why I’m really hoping we get a good report card, because it would be very helpful for all the parents, legislators, and researchers across the state to see which districts are doing well and learn from them, and which ones are doing poorly and need more support.

Zach Lawhorn (26:42): Let’s talk about the budget. Elias, the legislature passed the budget a little early this year. They beat the deadline by a couple of days, right?

Elias Tsapelas (26:53): They finished early, which is a little bit different than the last few years.

Zach Lawhorn (26:56): Are we spending more or less money than last year?

Elias Tsapelas (27:01): Spending less, but I’m not throwing them a party. There’s just a lot less federal money going around. There was a lot of COVID money in recent years, and Missouri hasn’t spent all of it. The current budget this year is about $54 billion. What the legislature passed is a little bit less than $50 billion, depending on whether you count different construction items. But there was a lot of federal money in that total. At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a budget that is still going to spend more general revenue, where our income and sales tax dollars go. It’s still going to spend more than we expect to bring in. So we’re still going to exhaust all of our surplus that we built up over those years. There were some positive things that happened this year, but ultimately part of how they got the budget done early was by spending just a little bit more, so they left some of the good on the table.

Zach Lawhorn (28:20): So we’re spending the surplus, as you’ve been warning about for several years, the federal money is drying up, and to circle back to the opening segment, I think part of the trust the legislature is going to have to build this summer is demonstrating we’re getting spending under control. You said you’re not throwing them a party. But is this reduction, whatever the reason, directionally good enough for the legislature to say they’re working on the spending side of things, or is it just not good enough?

Elias Tsapelas (29:00): I think I’ll know a lot more going into next year, because there were a lot better discussions this year, especially looking at spending incentives. As was mentioned, DESE is going to have a new funding formula, or at least the governor has a task force working on one. The way education is funded for K through 12 is going to change. There was also a big fight this year about how to fund higher education. What seemed to me like a common sense idea, essentially having the legislature fund colleges based on how many students are enrolled, turned out to be considered too radical and was pushed off for the future. But there’s talk of coming back with a performance funding measure going forward. There’s also some movement on changing how the state does its IT work. There are a lot of IT changes coming, including things affecting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Missouri has a very bad track record with IT. Part of this budget moves some IT resources over to the Department of Social Services to support getting things going there, because most IT for the state of Missouri is currently consolidated in the Office of Administration. While that can seem efficient because every state department doesn’t need its own IT department, it also makes it a lot harder to hold people accountable. There has been a big issue recently with the state’s accounting software, where a contract is millions of dollars behind schedule and not working. The budget tries to get at that too, and it raises this major incentive question: are the people in charge of implementing new IT going to do their best at something that will ultimately try to eliminate their job? I think the legislature is finally starting to deal with that. Ultimately, if we go down the path of a more efficient government and a better tax system, that may mean fewer state employees, and that is something that hasn’t come up much but I think the legislature is finally starting to look at. Pushing toward better funding models, a better state workforce, all those type of things, is moving in the right direction as opposed to how it has been, where the budget just grows larger every year. They’re looking in the right direction. I would have liked to see more, but I think we’ll know a lot more in the next year, especially because the federal COVID funding will essentially be gone.

Zach Lawhorn (32:12): Our final topic, partly so we can put it in the title of the episode for clicks, but also because it seems like every week there’s a story from across the country or across the state about data centers and communities pushing back for a lot of reasons. The most recent one was Ferguson in the St. Louis area. David, can you catch us up on what was on the table for this data center in Ferguson and what happened?

David Stokes (32:40): The vote that the Ferguson city council took last week was strictly on a tax subsidy, I believe about $1.8 billion in tax abatements and various subsidies for the project. It was not a vote on approving the data center itself. This was a commercially zoned area, so it didn’t need any permission to put a data center there, and that’s a good thing. But the city nonetheless rejected the tax subsidy, which I thought was the right call. These data centers are very profitable and important, and I’m certainly not anti-data center. But the demand that they get enormous subsidies everywhere they seem to be going is improper. Festus was right to approve the data center operation there, but I think very much wrong to approve the enormous tax subsidy the city granted, which I believe was about a half a billion dollars. Avery can correct me if I’m wrong on that exact number. I like what Ferguson did, and I hope the data center moves into the old Emerson complex there nonetheless. We need data centers. Data centers produce so much tax revenue that they can generate their own tax cuts, and I don’t mean a special subsidy for the data center itself. I mean they go into a city or a small area, generate so much revenue, and you can cut taxes for everybody in that community, including the data center itself. I think that’s the road to follow, and hopefully that’s what we’ll have in Missouri. I also think we need to change the way data centers are taxed in an upcoming legislative session, taxing them a little more like utilities to reduce the incentive for one city or county to hand out a big subsidy and instead spread those tax benefits around a little more.

Zach Lawhorn (34:46): Avery, are you heartened by this rejection? Because as David said, we need the data centers, but we really want to avoid this new layer of corporate welfare that could pop up everywhere. So how do you feel about it?

Avery Frank (35:00): I’m actually very excited by the rejection in Ferguson. I’ve talked to a lot of people on both sides of the data center debate, those who have gone to the meetings and stayed up until 3 a.m. and protested, and those who want them. When I look at this Ferguson project specifically, the numbers David was talking about involved granting up to 15 years of tax abatements on real estate, personal property, and sales tax for a data center project. When I see something like that, it gets at what David was talking about. The only true significant benefit of a data center is the tax revenue it could bring. It doesn’t bring a lot of jobs. It takes a lot of electricity and a lot of water. It generates noise. It already makes a lot of people upset, and there are concerns about housing values and everything else. So if you’re not getting any tax revenue, there really is no strong incentive to have a data center project. That Emerson complex in Ferguson had thousands of employees. A data center does not take very many employees at all. So when you have people coming up and saying this data center project won’t succeed unless we get all these tax subsidies, I say that’s fine and I hope you don’t build a data center there, because the tax revenue is really the only benefit you’re getting from it. One of the bigger things is just something about Missouri in general. I’m from Tennessee and there are a lot of concerns there about having too much growth. Missouri sometimes feels like the opposite of Tennessee. We’re so desperate for growth that we’re willing to hand out a bunch of money. We don’t have enough pride. This Emerson complex is a good building and a good place. Ferguson has a STEM high school that produces very high test scores and graduates people who can work in the tech industry or an engineering industry. We shouldn’t waste a good building and a good workforce on a project that’s going to get all these tax subsidies and not bring a lot of jobs. The same thing happened over in Independence, where they gave out billions in subsidies for a data center project. Whenever I see that, I think we have to have a little bit of pride in Missouri. We can’t just be giving out all this money to get anyone to come. We have a good parcel of land, a good workforce, a lot of water, and a central location in the country. We can attract good projects, data centers or not, without giving out a bunch of subsidies. We need to understand what the benefits and costs of a data center are and what data center developers are actually looking for. They have a lot of money already. If you give them a good workforce, a place to build, and community support, I think they’ll come, even without a bunch of money.

Elias Tsapelas (38:28): I was really hoping this was the discussion we were going to have this year in Missouri’s legislature, because it started off so well with the discussion of how to get rid of the income tax and everything that goes with that. Talking about the income tax is really about how you make your state more desirable and how you grow faster. But Missouri for so long has just said: we want this industry or this type of business, so let’s give it an economic development tax credit. Let’s give out a billion dollars worth of those. Let’s give out sales tax exemptions. As far as I know, data centers in Missouri already get state and local sales tax exemptions. We just give those out. If we’re really going to start thinking about how to make the state the most desirable place, how to grow the fastest and be the most desirable for families and businesses, that’s really more about making the tax climate the best for everyone, not constantly picking winners and losers. Unfortunately, the budget didn’t see as many cuts as I had hoped. As we go into the last few days of the legislature, there are plenty of tax credit bills waiting to pass. The film tax credit is back and there’s talk of extending the sunset on it. There are other tax credits. We’re still going down that path. There are still more sales tax exemptions being considered. Missouri just needs to decide what direction we want to go, because ultimately if we do get rid of the income tax, a lot of these economic development incentives don’t even really work anymore. You have to look at different things. You have to look at what is really the criteria for families and businesses. States across the country are dealing with these issues, changing their economic conditions, their tax policy, and people are moving there. We know people are leaving Missouri. We know income is leaving Missouri. We need to change things. The status quo is not going to work going forward, and I was hoping that would have sunk in a little bit more this year than it did.

Zach Lawhorn (40:37): We will leave it there this week. We’ll talk to everyone again after the session ends over the next few days and see how everything turned out. As always, plenty more at showmeinstitute.org. David, Avery, and Elias, thank you very much.

The post Missouri’s 2026 Legislative Session Final Week appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With Kansas City preparing to host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Missouri lawmakers are considering a bill to simplify food truck licensing in Jackson County. The proposal would allow vendors licensed by the county to operate in any municipality without additional city permits.

The change would remove a common barrier: multiple permits just to cross a city boundary.

The idea makes sense. But if it will help entrepreneurs and visitors during the World Cup, why should the same principle not apply across Missouri? As the Squirrel Nut Zippers sang, “If it’s good enough for Grandad, its good enough for me.”

Food truck regulations vary widely by city. Vendors operating across a metro area may face requirements for multiple permits, fees, and regulatory approvals.

Show-Me Institute writers have written about these barriers for years. In 2019, we noted that St. Louis food trucks still faced significant regulatory constraints despite growing demand. Food trucks offer a flexible and relatively low-cost entry into the restaurant business, but local regulations can make that opportunity harder to pursue.

In some places, additional rules beyond health and sanitation standards function as a de facto ban on mobile vendors.

Health and safety regulations would remain under the proposal being considered in Jefferson City. Missouri already regulates food safety through inspections and sanitation standards administered by local health departments.

The real issue is duplication. Requiring vendors who already meet health standards to obtain a license in every municipality adds cost and delay without improving safety.

Every occupational license carries costs: higher prices for consumers, barriers to entry for workers, fewer providers, and lost time and money for licensees. The central policy question is whether those costs are justified by clear benefits to public safety or product quality.

Several Missouri communities have taken steps to loosen food truck restrictions in recent years. Clayton, for example, expanded opportunities for food trucks to operate at events and public gatherings while maintaining basic safety requirements.

Such changes recognize that mobile vendors are part of the broader restaurant ecosystem and often serve as a first step toward larger businesses.

Starting a small business often requires navigating numerous regulatory steps and fees. Reducing unnecessary barriers can make it easier for entrepreneurs to test new ideas and serve customers.

That flexibility helps explain the popularity of food trucks: vendors can move where demand is strongest, serve events, and test new concepts without the overhead of a traditional restaurant.

Major events like the World Cup highlight that advantage. When large numbers of visitors arrive, mobile vendors can help meet the temporary surge in demand for food and entertainment.

But the benefits of reducing unnecessary regulation should not depend on an international sporting event. If getting government out of the way helps vendors serve World Cup visitors in Kansas City, it should also help them serve customers across the rest of Missouri.

The post If Food Truck Reform Is Good for One County, It’s Good for All appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In St. Louis County, parts of the county are still recovering from the tornado, the county executive is under indictment (everyone is innocent until proven guilty), and county government’s 2026 budget forecast says there is an $80 million budget shortfall. The last part is the focus of this post.

Every government budget can be cut, and in every government budget there is enough waste and fat to be trimmed to make a difference. That said, cutting government spending is hard (I wish it weren’t). County governments in Missouri are not bloated bureaucracies wasting money hand over foot. They tend to operate fairly efficiently, at least by government standards. So, while making cuts should be the highest priority for the budget shortfall, I doubt that there is $80 million in waste and fraud to be trimmed. Some tough choices are going to have to be made. So, beyond cutting all the waste that it can, what should St. Louis County do?

First, if you are in a hole, stop digging. St. Louis County continues to inexplicably grant tax abatements and other subsidies that never live up to their promises. If these subsidies worked—and by “worked” I mean generated long-term revenues that outweighted the short-term costs—then St. Louis County wouldn’t be in this predicament in the first place. St. Louis County needs to stop giving away taxpayer money as part of a delusion that government planning grows the economy. And yes, this includes getting rid of the senior property tax freeze among other subsidies.

Privatization and outsourcing some services are always an important option for local governments. St. Louis County’s options here are limited, in that the county doesn’t operate any public utilities and it already provides many services via outsourcing. (This is, of course, all a good thing.) The biggest mistake county government has made in recent years is the debacle with the animal shelter. The county should never have taken the animal shelter back in-house. St. Louis County officials should admit their mistake and once again outsource management of the animal shelter.

One of the reasons St. Louis County is in this situation is that it has gone over a decade without a qualified county auditor catching mistakes and making suggestions for fiscal improvements. Hopefully, the recently hired county auditor can change that.

Now let’s talk about the revenue side. Nobody likes tax increases, but sometimes they are necessary. If the county were to consider raising taxes, what taxes should it either institute or increase?

St. Louis County voters have rejected a use tax several times, most recently in April, 2022. A use tax (which is a sales tax on online purchases) is probably the best tax option for the county from a revenue perspective. Two other options could be imposing a small county gas tax to help fund roads or a modest property tax increase. Both of these would be politically complicated.

Beyond all of this, cuts will have to be made. Those may be cuts to services people like, such as the police department or highway projects. But elected officials are there to make hard choices.

The post What Should St. Louis County Do about Its Budget Shortfall? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One thing I noticed about all the cities that I listed is that they contain lots of “U’s” and “L’s,” so I guess we know who the patron saint of this blog post is.

A use tax is simply a sales tax imposed on goods you purchase online or via catalogue and have delivered to your home. Municipal use taxes in Missouri actually predate the internet, but not surprisingly, most cities didn’t pass them until online shopping took off over the past fifteen years or so.

I am generally unsympathetic to the idea that these cities need a tax increase. If Creve Coeur needs more tax revenue, why did it just pass an enormous tax abatement in a very prosperous area that absolutely does not need tax subsidies to encourage development? If Festus needs more tax revenue, why did it put the fix in to sell its water system to another public entity without going out for bids as good government principles require? I don’t have any specific criticisms of Ladue, but I highly doubt the city is in financial trouble. This famous doggerel about Boston Brahmins could easily have been written about Ladue:

And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots,
And the Cabots speak only to God.

My view is that use taxes are a good way to expand the tax base, level the playing field for businesses, and raise local revenues. However, this last point is key. They should not be used simply as a way for cities to get more revenue. Cutting other taxes after the use tax is imposed (should voters pass it)—especially if you have a particularly harmful tax — is a great way to achieve the above benefits without a tax windfall for the city. Cities can lower their property tax rates, reduce their utility tax rates, or adjust other sales taxes (altering sales tax rates is much trickier than other types of taxes).

I don’t know if any of these cities have pledged to reduce other taxes if the use tax passes. Without such a pledge, the use tax would likely be a significant revenue gain for the city. If you think your city, town, or village actually needs that revenue, then so be it. But I’d be hard-pressed to buy that for the cities listed above, especially Ladue, Creve Coeur, and Festus.

The post Use Taxes on the Ballot in Missouri This November appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new state law creates three types of counties with different rules for property taxes and assessments: five percent counties (75 total counties), zero percent counties (22), and unaffected counties (17). For more details on the differences among these counties, go here.

There are many reasons why these substantial changes to the system are bad. The first one, which I wrote about previously, is that property taxes are generally the least harmful tax for economic growth. So, if you want to create a tax system that encourages greater economic opportunity for all Missourians, the property tax is the last tax you should focus on.

This post is about the absurdity of putting Jackson County in the unaffected category. Jackson County is home to most of Kansas City and is the second-largest county in Missouri. It has had by far the worst administration of assessment and tax collection in recent years of any Missouri county. This is like a patient going to the doctor with a bad left knee and the hospital deciding to amputate their right arm. You made everything worse but didn’t address the main problem that started it all.

The solution to Jackson County’s issues is not to simply make it a zero percent or five percent county. That would cause serious problems over time, which we will eventually see in the other zero and five percent counties in Missouri if the law is upheld in court. What you need in Jackson County is first and foremost better administration. If 113 counties can generally make the assessment and tax process work without being sued by the state tax commission and one cannot, then the problem is with the one county, not with the overall process. Electing the Jackson County Assessor (instead of the assessor being appointed), which will be voted on soon, would be a good start. From a tax bill perspective, ending the rate rollback exemption for the Kansas City 33 School District is a vital change. The main reason bills increase so much in that part of Kansas City is because that district does not have to roll rates back at all, unlike every other taxing body in Missouri. Major reforms were needed in Jackson County, but instead in the special session we got bad legislation that did nothing for the taxpayers there. That’s not a win for anyone.

Future posts will discuss the potential constitutional problems with this bill, the harmful effects of favoring current homeowners over future homeowners, and a discussion of Charles Tiebout and his theories. For more information, please see my testimony from the special session, these policy studies on this issue of property taxes and assessments, and related commentaries.

The post Why the New Property Tax Rules in Missouri Are Bad, Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new state law creates three types of counties for property taxes:

1)        Five percent counties: These counties are made up primarily of Missouri’s smaller, rural counties. In these counties, upon local voter approval, a homeowner’s property tax liability can go up by no more than the lower of five percent or the national inflation rate during reassessment, unless voters approve tax rate increases or the homeowner improves their property. There are 75 counties in this category.

2)         Zero percent counties: These counties are made up primarily of mid-sized and suburban Missouri counties. In these counties, upon local voter approval, a homeowner’s property tax liability cannot increase at all during reassessment unless voters approve tax rate increases or the homeowner improves their property. There are 22 different listings for counties in this category.

3)         “Unaffected” counties (my term, not language from the bill): These counties are primarily Missouri’s large urban counties or counties in central Missouri, including the Lake of the Ozarks area. These 17 counties and the City of St. Louis are not included in this legislation and their tax and reassessment system will continue unchanged. It is worth noting that Jackson County, which has had by far the worst administration of assessment and tax collection in recent years of any Missouri county, is unaffected.

There are many reasons why these substantial changes to the system are bad, but the first one is that, in general, property taxes are the least harmful tax for economic growth. So, if you want to create a tax system that encourages greater economic opportunity for all Missourians, the property tax is the last tax you should focus on. Furthermore, these changes will almost certainly lead to greater governmental reliance on income taxes (mostly through the state’s foundation formula for school funding), which is exactly the wrong way to go about this.

Here is a chart I like to share. It includes four major economic studies of tax policy. The conclusions are obvious. Property taxes, in general, are the least harmful for economic growth and income taxes are the most harmful. Why Missouri would be severely limiting property taxes in many counties in a manner that will increase dependency on income taxes is beyond me. It may make for good politics. It is not good tax or economic policy.

Not all property taxes are the same, of course. Property taxes focused on the value of the land are the best, and we need to expand that (i.e., land taxation) in Missouri. Property taxes focused on homes and buildings are next best. Missouri makes heavy use of personal property taxes on cars, boats, etc., and those taxes on mobile assets are less beneficial and should be phased out. Finally, personal property taxes on business and farm equipment are harmful, and should be ended. (The final category makes up a very small part of the property tax base, so ending it would not be difficult.)

Future posts will discuss the constitutional problems with this bill, the harmful effects of favoring current homeowners over future homeowners, a discussion of Charles Tiebout and his theories, and more. For more information, please see my testimony from the special session, these policy studies on this issue of property taxes and assessments, and related commentaries.

The post Why the New Property Tax Rules in Missouri Are Bad, Part 1 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Royals, who have spent more than three years insisting they will vacate the K after their lease expires in 2030, face a conundrum: they have no new stadium site selected, no clear funding source, and no legislative momentum. Missouri lawmakers are on track to adjourn without approving any stadium funding bills. Kansas, meanwhile, has not yet extended the STAR bonds meant to lure the team across the border.

The Royals’ 2024 pitch for an East Crossroads stadium fell apart when Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected a new 40-year sales tax. Since then, the team has gone quiet. They have options—North Kansas City, Washington Square Park, and previously Overland Park—but each presents new complications. Land assembly, tax votes, and public skepticism loom large.

According to Friestad, the Royals do have the option to extend their lease at Kauffman for up to 10 additional years, through 2041. The provision, part of their 2006 lease, only requires 12 months’ notice and a clean track record with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority.

That means the team isn’t nearly as cornered as some may think. And as experts in Friestad’s piece explain, the ticking clock shouldn’t pressure local officials into bad deals.

“This point just means your current agreement ends,” said Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado-Denver professor who studies sports economics. “Nothing bad happens at this point.”

Indeed, Propheter compares it to a standard lease renewal in the housing market—if both parties want to keep the arrangement, they’ll find a way. That’s an important reminder in Kansas City, where both major sports franchises have long benefited from generous public terms. Royals critics, such as former City Councilwoman Becky Nace, argue that the team already enjoys the best deal they’re likely to get: a dedicated sales tax for stadium maintenance and operations, covering hundreds of millions in costs. Proposals in Kansas and downtown Kansas City would cover only construction, not ongoing upkeep.

The article also touches on the broader context. MLB relocations are rare and messy. Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas are often floated as threats, but relocating to any of those locations would involve significant political or financial headwinds. Economist Victor Matheson called such leverage “overstated,” pointing to the Oakland A’s relocation saga—the team is now stranded in a minor league stadium with uncertain funding for a Vegas move.

What emerges is a portrait of slow-motion bargaining. The Royals’ ownership may still prefer a new stadium, but they’re learning what voters and lawmakers have long suspected: urgency doesn’t equal necessity, and options, while limited, do exist.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has floated a revised package between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion for either a new stadium or a Kauffman renovation, though specifics remain scarce. Meanwhile, voter fatigue and fiscal realism continue to grow.

The takeaway is clear: a looming lease expiration should not be confused with a deadline for action. Kansas Citians rejected a rushed deal last year. If there’s a better one to be had, it will take time, transparency, and trust to get there.

The post Royals May Stay at Kauffman Amid Stadium Inertia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many homeowners in Jackson County had seen their reassessments increase by more than fifteen percent, so this order by the STC was no small thing. Because of the major impacts on tax revenues for various local governments, the county sued the STC to stop the order. The judge ruled the other day, and the county lost.

The county will likely appeal this ruling, but the facts are pretty clear here. The Jackson County Assessor’s Office did not adhere to the requirements of the process, and property owners were harmed by it. I don’t see any way the appeals court changes this ruling (I am not a lawyer), unless the judges decide that the harm to the taxing districts overrides the rights of the property owners.

I have been writing about the history and issues of property reassessments in Jackson County for a long time. One hundred and thirteen counties can get their reassessments done correctly, and one can’t, so the problem is more with the management in Jackson County itself than with the reassessment process overall. Better management of the Jackson County Assessor’s Office is the first needed change. Beyond that, some policy changes are needed for Jackson County, including:

• Electing the assessor (Jackson is the only county in the state with an appointed assessor); and
• Removing the tax rate rollback exemption for the Kansas City 33 School District.

Jackson County may have been underassessed overall, but that doesn’t excuse the county from complying with the reassessment process laws. If the county appeals, I hope it loses again, and quickly.

The post Jackson County Property Tax Assessment Update appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s an obscure state law that every article about government and politics in Kansas City has to include a quote from Harry Truman. As I follow the controversy over the reassessment process in Jackson County, I flash back to my own time working for St. Louis County government during the 2001 “drive-by assessment” scandal. That, in turn, reminds me of this quote from our 33rd President: “The only thing new in the world is the history you do not know.”

In the Spring of 2001, the St. Louis County Assessor had a problem. An enormous number of homes were coming back with a reassessment appraisal increase greater than 17 percent, meaning that a physical (in-person) inspection would be required. The problem was that the assessor had neither the time, the staff, nor (apparently) the desire to schedule in-person inspections of tens of thousands of properties. The solution? Quietly redefine what “physical inspection” meant. The assessor’s office plotted tens of thousands of properties with large valuation increases on maps (probably using Mapquest; Google maps hadn’t been designed yet) and sent assessors off driving around the county. Driving past a house and looking at it was considered a physical inspection. Problem solved, right?

Wrong. Assessments ballooned throughout the county. Taxpayers were livid. They called their council members screaming. A few of them, including my soon-to-be boss, started to investigate. They asked for the filed inspection reports. Once it became clear that individual assessors had somehow been doing several hundred “physical inspections” per day, the scheme was exposed and the scandal exploded.

Huge valuation increases. A poorly managed assessor’s office. Angry taxpayers. Politicians trading blame. Does this sound familiar to residents of Jackson County?

If you look at the property valuations in Jackson County from a decade ago and compare them to valuations in St. Louis, it is hard to dispute that Jackson County property, overall, was underassessed. That is the only partial defense I’ll give to the Jackson County executive and assessor. But for multiple cycles now, especially in 2019 and 2023, the assessor’s office has done a shockingly poor job of managing the reassessment and adhering to the rules of the process. Nobody likes seeing their valuations go up at tax time, but 113 other counties in Missouri seem to be able to reassess property without the process failures that have plagued Jackson County. Taxpayers in Jackson County have every right to be angry.

Taxpayers in St. Louis were angry in 2001, too. Almost immediately, the assessor and revenue director were fired. While it took a few more years, that demand for reforms to the reassessment process led to real change locally and statewide. The law was clarified to define a physical inspection as just that, and the trigger point for an inspection (with homeowner consent, of course) was reduced to the present 15 percent increase in value. Requirements for tax-rate rollbacks by governments were enhanced. Eventually, the St. Louis County charter was changed to make the assessor an elected position. While the present process is far from perfect in the rest of Missouri, the changes that emerged from that 2001 scandal have benefited the entire state.

Which brings us back to Jackson County. Voters and taxpayers need to demand reform. There is already an effort to change the law to elect the assessor, which seems like an obvious improvement. Another change that is needed is to end the tax-rate rollback exemption for the Kansas City School District. Despite its substantial increase in assessed values in 2023 (which is still being contested in court), the district voted once again to keep its tax rate the same. Every other taxing body in Missouri has to roll its tax rate back to at least partially offset assessment increases, but the Kansas City School District gets to enjoy its windfall on the backs of taxpayers. Finally, Jackson County could consider using variable property tax rates, as St. Louis County does, to allow for greater ability to adjust rates by property type in response to future changes.

Other changes would be easier and don’t require amending the law. Why the Jackson County assessor still has her job after all this mismanagement is a mystery to me.

The 2001 reassessment disaster in St. Louis led to improvements to the overall process that are still in place today, at least everywhere but in Jackson County. Hopefully, the ongoing controversy over the 2023 reassessments in Jackson County can lead to similar, lasting reforms. Jackson County taxpayers deserve nothing less.

The post Jackson County Assessment Disputes Will (Hopefully) Lead to Real Change This Time appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When the Emperor was trying to convince Anakin Skywalker to come over to his side in a regional political dispute, he famously told him, “I can feel your anger. It gives you focus. Makes you stronger.” Right now, we could use some of that well-focused anger when deciding on local tax increases in Missouri.

I get it. People hate property taxes. That’s not just conventional political wisdom—there are actually data to back that up. In one poll, 69% of respondents said their local property tax was too high, and 59% said it was unfair. In another poll taken regularly through the years comparing Americans’ views on taxes, the property tax was historically the least-popular tax. However, in the most recent poll (2023), the federal income tax (34%) edged out the local property tax (29%) as the “worst tax.” If you are almost as unpopular as the most hated tax, you are very unpopular. But the property tax does not deserve such contempt.

Other than a small cadre of hard-core political leftists, nobody really “likes” taxes, thankfully. People should be ambivalent about parting with their own money. They should want to get value for their tax dollars and expect that they be spent effectively. Most of all, they should be hesitant to pay higher taxes just because politicians want them to.

Not surprisingly, people like to tax other people more than they like to tax themselves. Because of our Hancock Amendment, residents get to vote on almost all tax increases in Missouri. I have closely followed hundreds of local tax increase campaigns around the state, and every campaign for a new sales tax, new hotel tax, or earnings tax renewal follows the same playbook. “With this tax increase, we can make sure those shoppers/tourists/commuters (pick one)  pay their fair share.” Convincing voters that other people are going to help fund their new service is a great way to get voters to fund what the government wants and not what the people need. Voters are more discerning on property tax increases because they know they are going to pay for it, and that’s a good thing.

Municipalities in Missouri depend less on property tax revenues than cities in any other state. That fact would probably surprise many readers. Cities depend heavily on various sales taxes, and our two largest cities depend primarily on local income taxes that also apply to nonresidents. The local governments that depend entirely on property taxes do so because they have no other choice under state law. Trust me, if they had a choice, every school district in the state would be operating a new casino with its own special sales tax right next to the high school.

All taxes impact economic growth. Poorly constructed tax systems that waste money on ineffective projects or corruption are bad for growth. Well-constructed systems that efficiently fund important public needs are good for growth. The trick is to get more of the latter and less of the former. The property tax goes to the local services that people see and use every day. When those services are well run, the tax is capitalized into higher home values, which everyone wants except at tax time. When those local services are poorly run, it hurts the value of your home, which everyone hates (also except at tax time). While any tax can be harmful if set too high, economic research indicates that local property taxes at reasonable levels harm economic growth less than other taxes, particularly destructive local income taxes.

If a local city or school district isn’t providing the services you want for the taxes you are expected to pay, it isn’t that hard to move to a different community. Families move for better school districts all the time. Older people regularly downsize to smaller homes with the resulting lower taxes and, often, within lower-performing school districts (e.g., The Gatesworth in University City). Variances in services and quality in a property tax system give people options to choose what is best for them and their families at different points in their lives. (The senior citizen property tax freezes expanding around the state remove that pressure in a contrived way that hurts communities just as much as it may help individual seniors.)

None of this is to say that the property tax system in Missouri doesn’t need reform. It’s a two-part system: assessments and taxes, and the assessment part definitely needs improvement. Electing the assessors in Jackson County and the City of St. Louis is a good place to start. Agricultural property taxes are all out of whack. The taxes on farmland are too low, while the taxes on grain, livestock, and farm equipment are absurdly inefficient. Local governments probably spend more money calculating the livestock taxes than they receive by collecting them. Business property taxes need reforms to protect commercial property from the same flaws of sales, hotel, and earnings taxes: voters targeting businesses to fund services that primarily benefit residents.

Why do people have a particular disdain for property taxes? Perhaps it’s because it’s the only tax many people pay all at once, so it seems to hurt more. Perhaps people buy into the silly argument that you never really own property if you pay a tax on it. Whatever it is, the fact that people dislike the property tax means voters are more careful about approving property tax hikes than other types of tax increases. As a result, governments need to make stronger arguments and show results to justify property taxes in the first place. The “focused anger” of voters, to paraphrase the Emperor again, is precisely why cities and counties in Missouri should depend more on property taxes, not less.

Hopefully, though, we will stop short of going fully over to the dark side. I can’t even imagine how high the taxes on a fully operational Death Star would be.

The post Everyone Hates Property Taxes, Which Is Why We Should Depend on Them More appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The screening came just as Kansas City announced another city-sponsored initiative to deal with crime, Kansas City United for Public Safety (KCUPS). It is not yet clear how this group will differ from the previous similar collectives such as KC Nova, the Violence Free Kansas City Committee, KC Common Ground, and Jackson County’s COMBAT. Somehow this group expects to succeed where others have failed. KCUPS had meetings, published a plan, and held a press conference, so it is as real as any anti-crime effort in Kansas City.

The leader of KC Common Ground, Klassie Alcine, was at the screening and gave an interview to Jonathan Ketz of FOX4 KC. Her answer when asked how much money would be needed to address crime in Kansas City? “Billions.”

I have been writing about crime, policing, and criminal justice reform at Show-Me Institute for years. I do not present myself as an expert and I am quick to admit these issues are complex. Kansas City has gotten where it is because of years of bad decision-making. The road ahead will be difficult, slow, and expensive.

But anyone who is remotely aware of Kansas City’s history knows that we spent billions on public education and have little to show for it. We spend millions each year on anti-crime programs through the county COMBAT program without even trying to measure their impact. Kansas City shoppers are also taxed to fund an economic development fund for the city’s poverty-scarred east side. That includes a publicly subsidized grocery store recently suffering high crime.

The people of Kansas City are generous, perhaps to a fault. One more effort to address crime that looks and sounds like other failed efforts needs to do better than leading with a price tag. Tell us what you want to do and give us reasonable goals and the ways you are going to measure success. Anything less seems like asking taxpayers to throw good money after bad.

The post Shocker! Local Leader Demands More Money to Address Issue appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last year, Jackson County passed the senior property tax freeze. I have testified against these plans across the state. In many of these comments, I have pointed out that it is extremely troubling to create a system where people (i.e. seniors) will vote on property tax increases they won’t have to pay. As I said in one of my testimonies:

Similarly, this bill will lead to the troubling issue of people voting on property tax increases that they themselves are not subject to. The single best aspect of property taxation is that it focuses the costs of local services on the people who pay for those services. . . . Instituting a system where people vote on property taxes they won’t pay breaks that beneficial connection. It dramatically alters the voter calculation if seniors are voting on property tax increases they are immune to.

Now, Jackson County has placed a property tax increase on the November ballot. So, as I stated, senior citizens in Jackson County will be able to vote on a property tax increase they won’t have to pay. But it gets even better. It isn’t just any property tax increase—it’s a property tax increase to create a new fund for senior services in Jackson County. You can’t make this up. The county has proposed a new tax to fund benefits for senior citizens that senior citizens get to vote for but won’t have to pay for. What rational senior citizen won’t vote for this tax? All the potential benefits, none of the potential costs. It’s simply ludicrous.

I said before that:

“This bill is every bit as much of a tax increase on non-senior citizens as it is tax relief for some senior citizens,” Stokes said.

I had no idea of just how right I was going to be, unfortunately.

The post Senior Citizens Get to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too in Jackson County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Like these other ongoing sagas, Jackson County’s assessment practices have been getting worse, though they were never great to being with. As bad as the situation was in 2019 and earlier, in 2023 it hit bottom.

The Missouri State Tax Commission (STC) has taken the unprecedented step of ordering Jackson County to essentially ditch the 2023 reassessment and move every change in assessed valuation (AV) that was over a 15 percent increase down to 15 percent. The total AV increase for Jackson County was almost 25 percent, which is enormous. Obviously, if the total increase was 25 percent, a substantial number of individual properties had to go up more than that 15 percent number. (The 15 percent level is key because that is where additional taxpayer notification laws come into play.)

This change lowers the assessed valuation for tens of thousands of properties and involves hundreds of millions in AV. According to Jackson County, the total amount of tax revenue disputed here for various local governments is $117 million. (The AV would be significantly higher than the tax revenues.)

Jackson County has been underassessed for decades. Jackson County has been attempting to correct that in recent years (under direction from the STC), and that is a good thing. More accurate assessments don’t have to lead to higher taxes, except in the Kansas City 33 school district, but’s that another issue. However, Jackson County officials seem to think that their attempts to correct prior errors somehow exempt them from following the current laws. As a county official admits in the just-filed lawsuit against the STC order :

This filing is not just about the legalities—it’s about safeguarding the resources that support our schools, public safety and community programs. [emphasis mine]

Fortunately for taxpayers, good intent does not exempt you from following the laws in reassessment. As the STC order states, the Jackson County assessors made all sorts of mistakes in 2023:

9. The Commission finds and determines that in conducting its biennial reassessment for 2023, Jackson County assessing officials failed to give proper notice to property owners and failed to perform physical inspections as required by Section 137.115 RSMo. where the assessed valuation of residential real property increased by more than fifteen percent since the last assessment, resulting in mistaken or erroneous assessments and taxes that were mistakenly or erroneously levied or paid in 2023 . . .

The STC order goes into more detail on a number of failures by the assessor’s office.

The order may well impose a major burden on taxing agencies in Jackson County that must now redo their valuations and property tax rates. But just because it’s a major burden doesn’t mean taxpayers should have to accept having their rights violated.

I hope the Jackson County lawsuit fails and the STC order is upheld. The county assessor should not be allowed to ignore the very clear rules—rules that every other county assessor had managed to follow in recent years—that protect the rights of property owners. This may be a mess in Jackson County, but it is a mess of the county’s own creation.

The post Jackson County Assessment Facts, Part Four appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Back in 2016, I noted that Jackson County Executive Frank White said of the tax at its renewal: “Anything that we can do to help our citizens in terms of prevention, and being proactive in what we do, is really what this (tax) is about.”

I pointed out at the time that the DARE program, funded by the COMBAT tax, has failed to show positive results in the research studies that have examined its effectiveness.

Four years later, in 2020, I mentioned an audit of the tax by then-Auditor Nicole Galloway. She wrote: “The county has not developed a plan for ensuring that performance evaluations of the programs funded by COMBAT are performed annually as required by county code.”

Now, in 2024, precious little seems to have changed. In a column for The Kansas City Star, I noted:

COMBAT doesn’t appear to measure outcomes. The closest it comes is a Community Impact Report, which relies chiefly on anecdotes and testimonials — many from people with financial interests in supporting COMBAT. A clue COMBAT doesn’t monitor program effectiveness is a note in the report indicating the number of those served by various programs are based on “grant application projections.” Not only is this relying on self-reporting by those receiving funds, but doing so at the moment they apply, when their plans are the most optimistic and least tested.

Kansas City’s homicide rate reached a record high in 2023. It has been a little lower so far this year, which is good. Unfortunately, it’s not clear that anyone knows why. Maybe it’s just a matter of chance.

While the lower homicide rate is great news, if we don’t measure the effect of the money we are spending, we risk not doing enough of what is working. That assumes any of it is working. We just don’t know, and that isn’t good enough for policymakers or the families of those lost.

If Kansas City leaders want COMBAT to be taken seriously, we must measure the effectiveness of the program and focus funding on what works.

The post Jackson County COMBAT Is Still a Failure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

The post The KC Streetcar Still Isn’t Driving Economic Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Governor Parson said that Missouri would “do everything we can” to keep the teams in Missouri.

This is dangerous. The reason state and municipal leaders welcomed a truce in the economic Border War was not because of the damage it inflicted on others—it was because of the damage it inflicted on their own cities and states. When signing the 2019 truce, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly noted:

In the past decade, folks in Kansas and Missouri had to watch and wonder why economic development forces in each state spent huge sums — together, some $330 million — to pull businesses a few miles across the border, and only to create an illusion of success with practically no economic gain.

Parson agreed, saying, “Sometimes common sense does prevail. Because you don’t have to be a scientist to figure out [the Border War] was a bad deal for both states.”

Just because Governor Kelly is violating her own executive order does not mean it is in anyone else’s benefit to re-arm and ride to the sounds of guns.

The only ones who benefit from such skirmishes are the corporations that pit the two states and their various municipalities against each other. A prime example was Applebee’s, which crossed State Line Road repeatedly, adding no economic benefit to either side, but racking up sweet taxpayer-funded incentives for itself each time.

All that Kansas did the other day was provide the Chiefs and Royals leverage to play the states against each other—potentially increasing the costs to taxpayers in both states. Should the Missouri side present a package that is competitive, the teams will very likely go back to Kansas and ask it to increase its offer. This is how negotiations work. Will Kansas, now that it has gotten its developers, municipal leaders, and residents excited by the prospect of hosting the two teams, be able to say no? Or will it sweeten the deal, just a little bit, to meet this “once in a lifetime” opportunity?

Anyone can see how this quickly becomes a race to the bottom.

Many Kansans are happy to have Jackson County foot the bill—and the hassle—of dealing with the Hunts and the Shermans. Conversely, there are plenty of Missourians who wouldn’t be bothered if Kansas decided to pick up the tab—and the bond risk—of hosting those teams and all their demands of taxpayers. But responding in kind to Governor Kelly’s gambit is not good for Missouri.

The only way to grow an economy is for government at all levels to be good at the basics. Maintain your infrastructure, keep the public safe, protect property rights, and do so as effectively and efficiently as possible. Missouri leaders ought to keep that in mind.

The post The Border War Is Bad Because It Hurts Us appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Two Clay County Commissioners, Jason Withington and Scott Wagner, as well as Jackson County Executive Frank White, stated publicly that Kansas City—which sits in Jackson County—made a significant offer over and above the Jackson County sales tax that changed the course of those negotiations.

What was that offer?

We don’t know. Similar open records requests to Kansas City were denied citing ongoing negotiations. Clay County leaders initially denied requests as well. However, the Clay County Commission was made aware of the records request and the dubious claims made to keep those records closed. On February 22, the commission agreed to release the documents.

The Kansas City Council should follow suit. As I wrote to all the members of the Council on April 15:

The City denied my records request (R012348-030124) relying on an understanding of Missouri statutes that allows for sealed bids to be closed. But the negotiations with the Royals were not the result of any bid responding to a city-issued RFP or RFQ. They were more likely similar to any negotiations for incentives that go through the EDC—which are all public documents. Even if they were sealed initially, the vote itself is a clear sign that those negotiations are ended. The documents are public.

Please exercise your legislative authority by directing the city to release these term sheets, any related documents and their various iterations over time. The April 2 campaign was dogged by a lack of transparency—the measure’s defeat is a clear signal that Kansas Citians should know more, not less, about these negotiations.

I’ve received no responses to that email. There is no indication that the city is in any ongoing negotiations. And even if it were, there is no reason to keep the prior negotiations secret.

The post Release Those Records, Kansas City! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Linked here are documents regarding those negotiations received through an open records request:

• Email exchange setting up the initial August 15, 2023, meeting between Royals representatives and Clay County leadership
• July 7, 2023: The initial term sheet for the proposed lease agreement
• September 15, 2023: Clay County’s term sheet discussion points
• September 28, 2023: Royals’ presentation on the proposal
• October 17, 2023: Clay County’s revised proposal
• November 20, 2023: Royals’ second presentation
• December 2023: Clay County’s summary of negotiations to date
• Email exchanges between Royals leadership and various North Kansas City government agencies detailing infrastructure costs from JE Dunn, a fiscal impact analysis by bakertilly Municipal Advisors, and a letter from local police to the Royals. It also includes a letter from the Royals putting the negotiations “on hold with Clay County, Missouri, as we work through a competing opportunity in Jackson County.” That last letter is dated January 16, 2024.

The post Details of the Negotiations Between the Royals and Clay County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What I found gratifying is that a great deal of voters, regardless of their own political views, seemed to understand that the economic impact claims made by the proponents of stadium subsidies were simply not true. Show-Me Institute analysts have been making this point since our founding.

Read Timothy Lee’s post from 18 years ago, Stadium Proposal Unfair to Taxpayers, and you will see the exact same arguments I made in 2024. The basics of good public policy do not change, they may just take a while to catch on.

The post Sometimes, Sanity Wins appeared first on Show-Me Institute.