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.

What about us in Kansas City? To judge by city leadership, our biggest need is to look like other places—we are constantly mimicking other cities with convention hotels, streetcars, and entertainment districts.

In a speech at the KC Library in July 2015, (video here) professor Heywood Sanders discussed the folly of convention hotels and fielded a question about promoting Kansas City. The question-and-answer begins at about 49:49 and is worth hearing in its entirety, but in short he says:

Don’t do what everybody else is doing. Okay? Period.

There is an old saying that goes along those lines, “don’t think if you’re doing exactly the same thing that everyone else is doing except not quite as big or good or well, that it’s going to be any different.”

Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly what Kansas City is doing: building the same things that everyone else is building, except perhaps not as ambitious. Proponents of the Jazz District, for all its many challenges, at least want to promote something that is unique to Kansas City. Let’s think about what we have that no one else has, and promote that.

In the coming months, the Show-Me Institute will be talking more about what Kansas City has to offer. It’s a worthy discussion, and it ought to be the first step in promoting ourselves rather than simply engaging in municipal me-tooism.

The post Let Kansas City Be Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The program is an improvement on the traditional voucher, as parents can pick multiple services that match their child’s unique needs and pay for them using a debit card.

Five states have adopted ESAs, but the Silver State’s program is unique in that any student who has attended a public school for 100 days can participate.

In June, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed the revolutionary school choice bill into law. The Treasurer’s Office began accepting applications three weeks ago, and has received 2,000 applications total, with about 100 applications arriving daily.

LasVegasNow reported the state had anticipated receiving a total of 4,000 applications for the entire year, and within 3 weeks they’ve received half that amount. The flood of applications is a testament to the demand among parents for the power to choose where their children are educated.

“I’ve been wanting my kids to go to a private school or to a better school, but my husband and I pretty much work paycheck to paycheck,” the story quotes Sandra Salas as saying. Salas is one of hundreds of Nevada parents who submitted applications.

According to greatschools.org, there are more than 100 private schools within five miles of Las Vegas alone, including St. Ann Catholic School, which only charges $3,900 for tuition. This means that if a child uses an ESA and attends St. Ann, $1,100 will be leftover (students will receive about $5,000 each). Parents can then either choose to spend leftover funds on other educational services like tutoring or leave the money in the account. In that case, funds can be directed toward higher education expenses later on.

The application period for Nevada’s ESA program closes November 30^th, and approved families will receive funds the first week of April. I look forward to hearing the final number of applications submitted. Any guesses?

The post Flood of ESA Applications Demonstrates Demand for Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Tuesday, Allegiant Air announced it will start nonstop service from Kansas City to Orlando, Southwest Florida and Tampa in mid-November. The Las Vegas–based low-cost airline is operated by Allegiant Travel Co.

In an interview on KMBZ radio, Bill Grady asked airport administrator Mark VanLoh if this new service announcement raised questions about the real need for a new terminal. Mr. VanLoh replied, “I don’t see how the two are connected.”  

In fact, the two are very much connected.

The news of Allegiant Air is not only good news in and of itself, but it demonstrates exactly why Kansas Citians ought to be skeptical of taking on an unnecessarily large expense at the airport. Allegiant Air is a “low-cost” airline. According the The Memphis Business Journal: 

Allegiant often serves smaller markets like Orlando-Sanford International Airport instead of Orlando International Airport to avoid pricey landing fees.

Advocates of spending a great deal of money at the airport tell us that only travelers and airlines will pay the price. That is largely true. They also tell us that the prices airlines pay to serve an airport have little to do with ticket price; that may also be true. But pricey landing fees of the type that would follow an expensive rebuild or remodel may chase away airlines like Allegiant. And they would be a disincentive for bigger airlines like Southwest, too. A Southwest vice president said as much to the airport advisory group, “Higher costs can lead to less service, not more.” They have left other airports over similar price increases.

If Southwest wants to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a new KCI, that might be welcome. But if improvements require issuing bonds resulting in higher fees to airlines, city leaders should think twice. A shiny new airport is of no use if airlines choose not to service it.

The post How a Cheap Airport Helps Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The response isn’t unusual. New City is a beacon of creativity in education. The private school is known for its academic prowess and unconventional atmosphere, where students call teachers by first names and climb to the tops of tree-house-like structures to use classroom computers.

Of all the fascinating elements that make New City one of the top schools in Saint Louis, the most interesting feature is its students.

‘There’s no bullying here,’ said one of the sixth graders I interviewed. Several other students went on to explain that diversity education is taught early on—individuality isn’t just tolerated, it’s celebrated. In a time when bullying has progressed from the playground to the internet, the perspectives of New City School students are rare.

According to one study, bullying victims are two to nine times more likely to commit suicide, the third leading cause of death among young people.

Since bullying often occurs outside school property after hours, public school administrators can do little. Families who cannot afford to move or pay private school tuition are left without options.  This is close to the situation Las Vegas mother Natika Bird found herself in before her daughter took her own life in early March.

“She had been getting bullied for a long time, to the point where the happy, bubbly girl that I knew changed,” she said. “They hacked into her email and they created a Facebook page and they massacred her.”

Bird said she had discussed the situation with Clark County School District police.

“The school police told me because it was not on school campus and after hours, I needed to call the regular police. The regular police told me, ‘You need to call the school police,’” Bird said.

Public schools have often addressed bullying through prevention campaigns and anti-bullying contracts, but sometimes, parents need other options. Bird’s daughter’s public school was not at fault for her death, but there should be a safety net for parents who have sought help and were told to look elsewhere.

School choice is that safety net. Though, New City School prides itself in attaining socioeconomic diversity by offering financial aid, choice is still limited for many children.

That all children should have the opportunity to enjoy learning without the fear of bullying is just another reason why Missouri should expand school choice.

The post School Choice and Bullying appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is little doubt that once the coming elections are over Kansas City leaders will start pushing for a convention hotel. The mayor has talked about it, and Star editorial writer Yael Abouhalkah champions it. When the GOP decided not to have their 2016 convention in Kansas City, those involved in the bid sought to blame a lack of hotel capacity.

According to CityLab, a think tank attached to The Atlantic Monthly magazine,

Over the last 20 years, convention space in the United States has increased by 50 percent; since 2005, 44 new convention spaces have been planned or constructed in this country alone. That boom hasn’t come cheap. In the last ten years, spending on convention centers has doubled to $2.4 billion annually, much of it from public coffers.

“It’s a very, very, very competitive thing,” says Susan S. Gregg, managing editor of Association Conventions and Facilities magazine, one of a large number of trade publications devoted to the convention industry. “All these cities that are so competitive are constantly having to upgrade and expand and improve.”

So if Kansas City built a convention hotel it would just be the latest comer to an already crowded market. Worse off, the convention industry is shrinking. Again according to CityLab:

But there’s a problem with this building bonanza, and it’s a doozy: There aren’t really enough conventions to go around. The actual number of conventions hosted in the U.S. has fallen over the last decade. Attendance at the 200 largest conventions peaked at about 5 million in the mid-1990s and has fallen steadily since then.

Even Las Vegas, a leader in the industry, has yet to get back to its pre-recession peak. According to CalculatedRiskBlog, Vegas reports that

There were 39,668,221 visitors to Las Vegas in 2013, just below the record 39,727,022 visitors  in 2012.  The pre-recession high was 39,196,761 in 2007. Convention attendance was at 5,107,416 in 2013, still well below the record of 6,307,961 in 2006.

The post Nationwide Convention Business Declining appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Apparently, in other circumstances, you can play big and always win big if you know the right people and have enough money. Especially if your name is Paul McKee.

I recently wrote about the lack of progress on McKee’s NorthSide Regeneration project in North Saint Louis, despite the $40 million he has already received in tax credits.

One specific state tax credit, that only McKee is eligible for, is set to expire in April. But not if he can help it. Seventeen lobbyists registered on Monday to represent the NorthSide project, which the St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes is the same amount that represents Ameren Corp. and Anheuser –Busch, combined.

When will McKee end his relentless pursuit of tax credits?

Unfortunately, priorities shift when business becomes intertwined with the government. Relying on the government often incentivizes companies to hire people with the ability to work with government, not the ability to complete projects.

Ludwig Von Mises discusses this problem in Bureaucracy (pages 76-77, if you are interested). He writes, “Why bother about bringing out better and cheaper products if one can rely on support on the part of the government? For them [corporate executives] government contracts … and other government favors [are] the main concern.”

This reliance on government favors is not necessarily McKee’s fault; he did not create the system. But this is not an excuse to let it continue. We need to change the system that encourages businesses to spend significant resources on government lobbying instead of investing efforts into their business. It is time for Missouri to cease “business as usual” and put an end to corporate welfare.

The post Gotta Spend Money To Make Money? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I look forward to seeing how this works out for the city and its residents. I am confident it is going to work out great. In our policy study on public-private partnerships for Missouri transportation, we discussed these options for transit at length (see Section VII, pages 32-36). There are many examples of successful transit privatization efforts in the United States, including Las Vegas and Denver. Here is a key finding from Wendell Cox, a local authority on transit and highways, as quoted in the policy study (note: competitive contracting is a common form of privatization):

Competitive contracting has produced positive results for transit agencies in the United States and abroad. The quality of competitively bid transit has been found to be equal to or better than that provided previously, and ridership has generally risen as cost savings allow for expanded service. According to Wendell Cox, direct savings from competitive contracting have ranged from 14 to 52 percent, with an average of 30 percent, over the former non-competitive service in cities that have competitively contracted out at least 10 percent of their service.

After this transit privatization works out to everyone’s benefit, I hope Independence can privatize a few more things. To their additional credit, at least the golf courses in the city are all privately operated.

The post Independence Privatizes Its Bus Services appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Chairman Watson and Honorable Members of the Board of Commissioners:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments about the upcoming sales tax vote in Saint Louis County, the proposed service cuts if the tax increase does not pass, and more. This testimony follows up on comments I made last month, at Metro’s invitation, at the Missouri Public Transit Association’s convention. The primary point of this testimony is not to comment on the proposed service cuts, but to suggest alternative means of financing and providing mass transit in general. These ideas will hopefully be given consideration, whether or not voters pass the sales tax increase, although they may become imperative should the measure be defeated.

Before I discuss alternative provision of transit, I would briefly like to consider the possibility of fare increases. I am aware that transit is subsidized everywhere, to varying degrees, and I agree that society as a whole gains from effective mass transit. However, there is nothing wrong with making the riders of the system pay as much of the cost of the services they use as reasonably possible. In years past, on numerous occasions, I have heard Metro officials explain the cost and demand curve of a fare increase. I understand and appreciate that, in the past, fare increases were inevitably met with substantial ridership reductions. However, these past fare increases also occurred during a prolonged period of remarkably stable and inexpensive oil and gas prices. When the cost of ridership increased then, potential riders reconsidered the cost equation of transit versus driving. In many of those cases, fare increases led riders to re-evaluate the cost of driving and decide in favor of driving, rather than using mass transit.

I propose to you, in light of the sharp increases in the price of gasoline during the past three years, and the prospect that gas prices will likely remain at a significantly higher level than their average just a few years ago (even considering the recent welcome reduction downward from $4 per gallon), that the vast majority of the system’s current riders would continue to use Metro’s buses and light rail after a fare increase. Fare increases to $2.50 per bus ticket, or $1 for a transfer, or $3 to ride light rail, are still very inexpensive when the overall costs of driving and parking are computed in an era of $3-per-gallon gas.

As I stated earlier, it’s a good policy to require the users of a service to pay for it. In some government-based examples, such as home inspection fees or park facility rental fees, it is theoretically possible to recover close to 100 percent of the cost of a particular service. For others, such as police protection and urban mass transit, it is either theoretically impossible or completely unrealistic to recover 100 percent. In the case of police protection, recovery is impossible because it is morally and logically unsound to charge or tax someone more because they might require additional police protection — e.g., someone who lives in a violent neighborhood. As for mass transit, if you charged the full cost recovery of the service, you would almost certainly price out some of the people who need the service the most. But, keeping that fact in mind, Metro should still recover as much of the cost of services as possible from the people who use the service. Using Metro’s own 2006 data, taxpayers subsidized every systemwide passenger boarding to the amount of $2.46. It seems simply absurd to argue that those taxpayers who do not use transit do not already give enough money to those who do. While it is reasonable to subsidize a single parent who needs mass transit to get to and from work, it is just as unreasonable to subsidize a Cardinals fan or Mardi Gras paradegoer. Striking the right balance might be a difficult task for Metro, but relying solely on increased subsidies is unfair, and — by increasing tax rates — harmful to our economy. One potential way to strike this balance could be to increase the cost of individual tickets more than the cost of monthly passes. That way, regular riders who depend on mass transit would not be priced out of the system, and would still be able to purchase affordable monthly passes.

The most important long-run decision for Metro, though, is not a fare increase. Rather, officials should consider whether Metro is willing to change the fundamental way it provides transit, and to consider the opportunities presented by private financing and private partnerships. The Denver Regional Transportation District provides 46 percent of its fixed-route bus services and all of its door-to-door services for the disabled through competitive contracting. This model allows a transit agency to determine the scope and goals of service provision, such as bus routes and preferred schedules, then invite private businesses to bid on performing that service.

Nobody is suggesting that private businesses are going to magically turn a profit on these routes. Instead, to quote David Horner, Chief Counsel to the Federal Transit Administration in his April 17, 2007, testimony before Congress, “Private operators then compete for the opportunity to provide services not by bidding up the concession payment but by bidding down the subsidy.” He terms the use of private companies to provide transit as “subsidy minimization.” While this differs from many road or bridge partnerships in which private service providers often make substantial up-front payments to governments, it nonetheless can save taxpayers significant sums of money. A study by Wendell Cox found that competitive contracting saved the Denver RTD $101 million between 1989 (when they began the program) and 1998. Las Vegas has also made extensive use of competitive contracting in its provision of mass transit. One of America’s fastest growing cities, Las Vegas contracts out the majority of its bus services to private providers.

Denver is going even further with its radical changes to transit provision. In the summer of 2008, Denver RTD issued a request for qualifications from contractors to build four new commuter rail lines. This was the city’s opening step in using private companies to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain an expanded light rail and commuter rail system for Denver. The first example of the use of private partnerships in U.S. light rail provision was the Hudson-Bergen line in New Jersey. According to Mr. Horner’s testimony, that private partnership resulted in the light rail line entering service five years ahead of schedule, with an estimated cost savings of up to $345 million. While there may be statutory limits and prohibitions to what Metro can do in this regard, we all know it only takes political will and effort to change those regulations. More importantly, it takes creativity, a nurturing of partnerships, and a willingness to work with the private sector to rethink how transit is provided in Saint Louis.

Metro knows how important federal funding will be in making the desired expansion of MetroLink a reality. Comments made by federal officials at an event commemorating the 15th anniversary of MetroLink, at Washington University this summer, as well as Mr. Horner’s testimony, make clear that large-scale transit capital projects involving private partnerships will receive favorable treatment and have a better chance of obtaining the necessary federal funds. Competitively contracted bus–rapid transit, though, could well serve the transit needs of the suburbs more cost-effectively than expanded light rail. As traffic moves back onto I-64 in 2010, improvements made to the arterial roads during the closure — including traffic light synchronization — will allow buses to serve the suburbs’ commuting needs better than before.

Missouri and Illinois could be on the forefront of private partnerships in mass transit. Whether or not the voters of Saint Louis County pass the sales tax, I recommend that Metro strongly consider the possibilities offered by competitive contracting and private partnerships.

Related Links

The post Testimony Before the Metro Board of Commissioners appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The city council, in its debate of a proposal to allow a hot dog stand, seemed to have a disproportionate amount of concern for something so simple (emphasis added):

Several members of the council expressed concerns that approving a permit for Daily could lead to many more people hoping to set up carts on city property.

Others were worried a late-night hotdog stand would lead to more people loitering after bars close.

It would clearly be a disaster for St. Charles if all of a sudden more people tried to sell food out of a cart to loiterers. Next thing you know, St. Charles will be like Las Vegas and they’ll do away with laws altogether! (Note: Sorry, but I can’t find the Onion article I just referenced.)

In all fairness, at least one councilman is going to keep trying to allow hot dog vendors. I give him credit for staying at it. Regulating and taxing street vendors is better than an outright ban, I guess. Why is it so difficult for someone to sell a hot dog to people who might want to buy one? Oh, yeah, because the government gets involved. (“But David, it’s for your own safety!” “I guess I forgot that for a moment.”)

The post Keeping St. Charles Safe From Hot Dog Vending Chaos appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This will be a grand experiment for Missouri and the entire country. If it works, it may open up a range of new possibilities, and perhaps once again encourage Kansas City to consider privatizing its airport. If the Branson airport fails, it will do so without taxpayer dollars being involved — only the investors would lose their money. (Remember when companies sometimes used to fail without the federal government bailing them out? Those were the good old days. …)

In my opinion, the best thing the airport has going for it, businesswise, is that it is starting small:

Peet also has set expectations low. Reno gets about 2.5 million air travelers a year, or nearly 68,500 travelers a day, he notes. Discount king Southwest Airlines has 38 flights a day there. But to reach Peet’s goal of 250,000 passengers a year, Branson Airport needs only 685 passengers — five to six planeloads a day.

Branson is not an easy drive from St. Louis or Kansas City. My family went to Branson for a weekend last year, and we drove. I would love to have the option to fly there on a discount airline. If I could knock two hours off the trip each way by flying, that would be worth a little extra money to me. For people who live farther away, this airport opens up Branson to a lot more people — not to sound like a chamber booster for them, or anything. …

This line in the article immediately reminded me of The Simpsons:

“Reno’s got beautiful scenery. Branson’s got beautiful scenery. They’ve got a lake. We’ve got three lakes. They’ve got lots of hotel rooms. Branson’s got lots of hotel rooms. They’re pretty isolated. Branson’s pretty isolated. The only thing they’ve got that we don’t are the casinos, and a lot of people don’t want to be around gambling.”

Because we all know that Branson is what Las Vegas would be like if it were run by Ned Flanders.

The post Branson and Its Fancy New Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis area officials have long struggled over how to fund the mass transit system. In the November elections, county voters will choose whether to increase the transit sales tax by one-half cent in order to fund Metro. If this measure passes, it will also trigger a one-fourth-cent transit sales tax in Saint Louis city. During the weeks preceding the November elections, voters will hear the arguments both for and against the tax increase. Both sides have merit.

The new tax increase, if it is approved by voters, is expected to generate approximately $87 million in additional funding for Metro, the majority of which would come from Saint Louis County’s higher tax rate and larger base. Saint Louis city’s one-fourth-cent increase would generate approximately $9 million in additional funding. About half of the additional funds raised, around $40 million, would be used to fund the current bus and light-rail system, while the remaining half would be used to fund future MetroLink expansion. Metro officials have stated that without the tax increase, the agency would be forced either to cut back on services or increase fare prices to ensure a balanced budget.

These officials view the prospect of increased fares as harmful, because they fear ridership would fall accordingly. However, this may actually be a better way to raise revenue. In the past, raising fares was a surefire way to decrease Metro patronage, but that assumption might not hold true today. As gasoline prices hover near $4 per gallon, it is plausible that most current Metro riders would rather absorb an increased fare than turn to even greater expenses at the pump. High fuel prices make it unlikely that anything short of a particularly large fare hike would spur a significant decrease in ridership.

To whatever extent possible, those who actually use Metro should be the ones to pay for its services. Therefore, any discussion of additional funding for Metro should include an estimation of the system’s popularity, and, in turn, its cost to taxpayers. For the fiscal year 2008, Metro officials project that the system will carry more than 60 million passengers. MetroBus ridership accounts for 33.5 million of that figure, while MetroLink will transport almost 26 million. Metro has always operated, however, with significant taxpayer cost. According to the agency’s 2007 figures, taxpayers subsidized Metro at a rate of $2.30 per rider, with MetroBus’s $2.61 subsidy average higher than MetroLink’s $1.39. In all, Metro received close to $124 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies during 2007, and although some of this revenue is paid by transit users in addition to their fares, the vast majority comes from non-riders. Higher fares can be seen as a fairer means of raising revenue than increasing the already-sizable tax burden devoted to underwriting Metro.

Conversely, those who ride the Metro regularly are not the only people who benefit from its services. For example, in 2007, Metro carried almost 2 million riders attending special events, which includes sporting events and conventions downtown. If not for Metro, the roads would have been more congested, with more people vying to park — perhaps driving up parking space prices. The reduction in gas usage that Metro facilitated on these occasions, paired with reduced congestion on our roads, are factors that benefit us all — even those who don’t use public transit.

Some of those opposed to the tax increase, however, simply don’t think the money will be spent wisely. Half of the revenue raised from new tax proceeds will fund MetroLink’s expansion, which is an enormously expensive project. For instance, the recent Cross County Extension added eight new miles of track for an estimated cost of $650 million. MetroBus has a much lower operating cost per mile than MetroLink, which means that bus routes can cover more ground at a cheaper rate than rail, while avoiding MetroLink’s large infrastructure requirements. However, it’s likely that increasing gas prices will gradually shrink the margin of efficiency that MetroBus now enjoys.

Metro funding has always been — and probably always will be — a struggle. Yet there is an important role for the government play in public transit provision. How best to provide crucial transit services is debatable. Are widespread taxes fair, or should costs focus on those who actually ride Metro? Those interested in a wider array of possible solutions should delve into the research about public-private partnerships conducted by the Show-Me Institute and the Reason Foundation. Cities like Denver and Las Vegas have already saved millions by allowing private firms to participate in operating mass transit.

Patrick Eckelkamp was a summer 2008 intern at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He is currently studying at Saint Louis University’s campus in Spain, pursuing an economics degree.

The post Metro Transit Funding Raises Difficult Questions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When citizens pass an initiative referendum, judges or elected officials should use the greatest of caution in exercising their authority to overturn that initiative. Nonetheless, the Kansas City Council’s decision to overturn the 2006 light-rail referendum is one of the rare examples where such an action was not only justified, but necessary for the residents of Kansas City. The tremendous financial problems the “Chastain” light-rail plan would have caused if it had gone forward necessitated the difficult decision to overturn the referendum, for the benefit of Kansas City.

Now the city must decide whether to proceed with a light-rail transit system at all. The choice is difficult, because while there is ample evidence that light rail would not be the best way for Kansas City to address its mass transit needs, the voters have expressed a desire for some type of light rail. Balancing the competing goals and interests involved will be a difficult job for elected officials as this issue continues to be debated.

In a study released by the Show-Me Institute on January 23, author Randal O’Toole, an international expert on planning and transportation issues, stated, “The factor that seems to have the greatest influence on transit commuting is not the mode of transit or the region’s population density, but the concentration of jobs in a central transit hub. … Kansas City has only about 50,000 jobs in its central business district, less than 7 percent of the jobs in the entire metropolitan area. This suggests that … it is a poor candidate for rail transit.”  O’Toole’s study discusses many other problems, financial and otherwise, with light rail in Kansas City. The entire document is available at showmeinstitute.org.

The dramatic weaknesses of the Chastain plan were obvious, even to many supporters of light rail. The estimated costs were too low, the assumed federal and state funding was unlikely, and the plan itself was far too grandiose. The worst part of the plan’s design, though, was its attempt to get light rail on the cheap by taking tax money from the bus system rather than by increasing taxes. There may be many legitimate criticisms of the MetroLink light-rail system in Saint Louis, but at least the voters there approved a tax increase to pay for it, rather than attempting to cannibalize the bus system that is so critical in meeting the needs of the very people who depend on mass transit the most.

With the Chastain light-rail plan overturned, Kansas City must now decide how to address its mass transit needs. Although less extravagant light-rail plans are being considered, O’Toole’s study suggests Kansas City should also give strong consideration to other alternatives, such as the expansion of KCATA’s successful bus–rapid transit lines. The Troost bus–rapid transit line, for instance, has maintained strong ridership at very reasonable costs. Several more such lines could improve transit in Kansas City at a much lower cost than light rail would require.

Kansas City should also look at the examples of Las Vegas and Denver, which have contracted out many of their transit operations to private companies. Both cities have significantly expanded their bus systems and held costs down by allowing private contractors to bid on the rights to operate bus routes. Competitive contracting is one way for Kansas City to address its transit needs in a financially responsible manner.

All of these options should be analyzed and debated as Kansas City moves forward with its long-term transit planning. So far in this process, members of the Kansas City Council have made a tough but correct decision. They certainly have many more ahead.

David C. Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

The post Overturning Light Rail a Good Decision for Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I loathe the gambling industry. I know that is not very libertarian of me, but I never claimed to be a strict libertarian. Casinos (outside of Vegas) are the most depressing places on earth, next to refugee camps. I like gambling the old-fashioned way — the type that involves point spreads and neighborhood poker, and, until recently, was controlled by the mob. Call me sentimental.

The gaming industry likes to pay money to the government. I know that sounds weird, but they are to government what a dealer is to an addict. Government gets dependent on gaming, and then every time government needs more money, gaming gets to expand and kick back repay some of its new profits in taxes or fees. We have bills to remove Missouri’s loss limits filed every year, which is nothing more than a way for government to get more revenue to expend and waste.

What does this have to do with a parking garage?

The city could use general revenues or convention and tourism revenues, but Landes said both of those options would limit the city’s ability to provide other services. Landes and Budget Officer Troy Schulte also rejected any notion of a tax increase for the garage. Instead, they prefer to use gambling revenues.

Let’s just have the boats pay for it! Aren’t we smart! Saint Louis City and County are no different, expanding gaming as a quick and easy fix for a budget, with the typical government belief that everything government does is so important, it must be maintained perpetually. Eventually, though, it comes back to bite you.

The post Kansas City Counts on Gambling for Parking, Art, Self-Esteem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Anyway, what are the good parts of the proposed tax increase to fund both MetroLink expansion and support Metro’s general budget? There are indeed some good points of this proposal. I like the fact that it focuses on connecting MetroLink with employment centers. It is not clear in the article, but my knowledge of the plans is that abandoned railroad lines will be used to form the route, which will obviously save a great deal of money and limit property takings. I like the fact that Metro and St. Louis County are being honest with voters, in that if voters want MetroLink expansion, they know they will only get it with a tax increase, and if they don’t, they know they can end expansion with this vote.

Whether you support it or not, this proposal lays it out pretty clearly. I sort of like the fact that this would free up county funds for some important road projects, but, alas, those could be done without the tax increase, just by decreasing the amount the county gives to Metro now. I am NOT saying the county should decrease the Metro subsidy now, just that they could if they chose to.

I completely agree with this very clear statement from a county aide in the Post-Dispatch:

“Infrastructure precedes investment,” Jones told municipal leaders at the league meeting in Ferguson. “It provides a framework for private investment. Transportation is the first investment. You have to move goods and people,” he said.

What do I dislike about the proposal? I don’t like some of the arguments being put forth in favor of it. This one is particularly bad:

The county’s second theme is that MetroLink expansion would reduce traffic congestion. Cline said that between 1992 and 1997, cities without a rail system saw congestion increase by 52 percent and those with one had only a 32 percent boost in congestion.

Really, perhaps this is the reporter’s fault for not including supporting information, but those statistics are not proof of anything. Perhaps congestion increased more in cities without light rail because those cities tend to be newer and more open, and more people chose to move to those locations. Congestion worsened in, say, Phoenix or Las Vegas because lots of people moved there, not because they didn’t have light rail. Perhaps lower taxes, made possible by the lack of an expensive light rail system, enticed people to move there.

The above argument is a classic example of confusing correlation with causation. There are other problems with the arguments, but reducing congestion and pollution are obvious canards. Even if MetroLink expansion succeeds beyond our expectations, the number of autos taken off the roads will be so small as to have no meaningful effect on either congestion or pollution.

Supporters would be much better off just taking the direct approach to voters: If we expand MetroLink, some of you will benefit from it, and it will give employees — many of whom need mass transit — better options for getting to work. That is the argument I will use when I vote in favor of the tax increase next year. Will 50 percent plus 1 in St. Louis County join me? We’ll see.

The post Wonder Twins Powers, Activate: Mass Transit Vote! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s actually not much of a surprise to me that Boise was chosen for one of the 30 "fastest" cities in the world — although I grew up in Portland, Oregon, my dad was raised in Boise, and we vacationed there every summer. Not too long after my dad retired, my parents moved inland to Nampa (part of the extended Boise metro area), and I joined them for a little while — leaving my six years in Washington, D.C., behind me. I stayed busy with freelance projects and a copy editor job. Before the Show-Me Institute enticed me to Missouri, with its siren song of free-market think tankery, I had come to appreciate the Boise area’s status as one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation. There’s no question, it’s an up-and-coming burg — I mean, it would have been unthinkable only a few years ago to see Nampa sandwiched directly between Las Vegas and Los Angeles on a 2006 list of Rolling Stones tour dates.

But, hey — the very fact that I’ve moved here makes Boise a little slower, and St. Louis a little faster. My residency here has already slightly increased the local demand for tasty ethnic food, live music, and independent film. And it’s reduced Boise’s demand for those same things by a similar margin. I can argue all day that a few simple economic reforms would work wonders in revitalizing St. Louis, but nothing speaks louder than personal action. Although I can’t bring St. Louis from the bottom five into the top 30 singlehandedly, it won’t be for a lack of eating, listening, and watching on my part.

I just need to know where you’re hiding the crazy, avant-garde jazz. Does St. Louis have a budding John Zorn or Frank Zappa? A nascent Henry Threadgill or Albert Ayler? A homegrown Sonny Sharrock or Marc Ribot? If you know, don’t keep it to yourself.

The post I’m Running as Fast as I Can appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Seriously, join me as I go with this idea for a bit. What are the tax/entertainment benefits of Illinois that Missouri residents cross the river to get? Let’s get the obvious out of the way here: Illinois gives you gambling like they have it in Vegas (no $2 entrance fee, no loss limits, no charge for drinks), strip clubs and horse racing. Next, if you are a Missourian lucky enough to have an office or close friends or family in Illinois, you can register your car there and avoid Missouri’s automobile property tax. Ticket scalping is also legal in Illinois, although that, like Sunday liquor sales, appears to be coming to Missouri. Finally, they have later bar closing hours, although asking a question like that at Pop’s suddenly gets very existential. (How can a bar never close???)

What benefits does Missouri offer Illinois residents? For the most part, it’s the lower taxes on gas and cigarettes that Illinois residents get here. We have a tax of 17 cents per pack and per gallon, both, while in the Land of Lincoln it’s 98 cents per pack and 32.5 per gallon. Missouri also has a lower sales tax in general than Illinois, although if you add in the local St. Louis sales taxes, I think the comparison evens out. Neither state has a bottle deposit law like Michigan, but it’s safe to say Missouri will be the last state in America to pass that, so we’ll count that for us.

So I suggest we declare the middle hundred yards or so of the Eads bridge an area within both states, under control of an appointed, multi-state board like Metro, where the lower taxes and more permissive limits of either state apply. The area would need a gas station, a convenience store, a bar, a state revenue office that could serve both states, and a UPS store for your auto registration, and a Post Office Box. The bar would close late and sell packages-to-go, the gas would be cheap — the smokes, too — and it would all be a short walk to the Casino Queen, if that is how you like to spend your property tax savings. I intend to talk to the governors of both states about this, just as soon as I sober up.

P.S. — I was only joking about having to sober up.

The post This Is The Best Idea I Have Ever Had… appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Saturday, the News-Leader printed a response op-ed by Ron Calzone, chairman of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, who handily dismantles the newspaper’s earlier arguments:

It was no small thing for citizens of Ozark to throw out an incumbent mayor in favor of a candidate who was pro-property rights. And a circuit court in Arnold, Mo., declaring unconstitutional the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment by non-chartered cities, was the most significant advancement for property rights in decades.

These victories were fought for and won on the local level, but that is no indication that the state should abdicate its responsibility to protect its citizens’ rights. Imagine if we made the same application to other types of crime. A homeowner thwarts a burglar with his 12 gauge shotgun. A little old lady’s screams scare off a purse snatcher. A mugger picks the wrong victim when he preys on the martial arts instructor. These are all "local" successes, but they do not mitigate the need for an able police force.

In fact, the very purpose of government is to protect its citizen’s property — both their material property and also what James Madison referred to as that encompassed by the "larger and juster meaning" of "property". Our own state constitution is based on this principle.

I’m reminded of the time I attended the Foundation for Economic Education‘s Las Vegas conference in 2002. On my final day in town, I caught Penn & Teller‘s magic show and saw them perform their version of the infamous bullet catch illusion. Penn Jillette assured the audience (he did the assuring, since Teller doesn’t speak onstage) that the trick was completely safe — they had several layers of redundant safety precautions built in to the routine. If any one, or even two, of those precautions failed during the actual performance, the others would still prevent either magician from coming to harm.

This is also known as reliability engineering. The idea is, you don’t want a critical system to have any single point of failure that can jeopardize the entire operation when only one thing goes wrong. If, like Penn & Teller, you build redundant safety mechanisms into your system, you’ll be much less likely to succumb to a crisis if any one part of the system fails.

What Calzone is arguing for here is a reliable system for protection against eminent domain. Sure, citizens can organize at local levels to protect themselves, but let’s face it — everybody has their own lives to lead, and fighting city hall isn’t high on most people’s priority lists. If there were a safety point at the constitutional level as well, abuses would be far less likely to require local activism in the first place. Redundancy at multiple levels would protect more people from unjust property takings.

The post Reliability Engineering for Property Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.