There is a lot of ongoing discussion about eliminating personal property taxes. There have been bills introduced to eliminate them. It’s a major topic of debate around the state, particularly in St. Charles County.

Personal property taxes are the taxes levied on your car, boat, livestock, business equipment, farm equipment, and more. (Thanks to data centers, the business equipment part has become much more important in the past year or so.) Missouri indeed taxes personal property more than most other states. I am perfectly fine with eliminating the tax. But people should understand that if personal property taxes were eliminated, the Hancock Amendment would allow local governments to then raise real property taxes by the amount lost in personal property taxes.

So, if the state eliminated all personal property taxes statewide, it would likely end up as a revenue-neutral switch where we taxed land and buildings slightly more and taxed mobile assets not at all while removing a tax that most people find particularly annoying. I think that would be a modestly beneficial switch; I just don’t want to sell it as a tax cut.

But could counties on their own eliminate personal property taxes? Yes, every county and taxing district in the state could eliminate personal property taxes if they wanted to. They just don’t want to and I understand why.

Currently, St. Louis County is the only county that is required to set different tax rates for different classes of property. RSMo §137.073 requires every local government within St. Louis County (including cities, school districts, streetlight districts, etc.) to set a property tax rate for each subclass of property. This means that there are different tax rates for residential, commercial, agricultural, manufacturing, and personal property. The requirement to break down the tax rate by subclass was originally intended for the entire state, but eventually the rest of the state was given the opportunity to opt out if their county commission chose to, which every county in the state did. As a result, the rule currently only applies within St. Louis County and (for an unknown reason) the city of Gladstone in Clay County.

In the rest of Missouri, every government with property tax authority sets one tax rate, which is then applied to all subclasses of real and personal property. There are a few exceptions to this (primarily cities that have never taxed personal property, such as Independence), but almost all governments outside of St. Louis County set the same rate for all real and personal property. But here is the key: Any county in Missouri can adopt different tax rates for different property classifications whenever it wants to.

County officials could require all the taxing entities within their county to set different rates, and then county officials could set the county rate for personal property at zero. But county officials could not tell other taxing districts within the county to apply those new, variable rates. Would any of them choose to set the personal property tax rate at zero? Well, let’s just say that since this switch was made in St. Louis County, I know of no taxing entity that has voluntarily set the personal property tax rate at zero (other than some municipalities that don’t have property taxes at all, such as Chesterfield, or had never set a personal property tax, such as Westwood).

What would happen if a county set its personal property tax rate at zero and no other governments followed? In St. Louis County, the county portion of the tax bill is about five percent. It is a largely similar percentage around Missouri (varying slightly, of course). If St. Louis County government set its personal property tax rate to zero tomorrow, the average car and boat owner would see a five percent reduction in their annual car or boat tax bill. That assumes no other local taxing districts got approval from voters to raise their rates at the same time, which would more than offset it.

The fact is that unless school districts agree to also lower personal property tax rates, any attempt by counties to end personal property taxes will produce underwhelming results. I still think it would be a good thing. We should tax fixed assets like land and buildings instead of mobile ones like cars. It would be a general improvement in tax policy and remove a minor annoyance for most people (i.e., their annual car tax payment).

Let’s just not pretend it would be a large tax cut.

The post What If You Eliminated Personal Property Taxes and Nobody Noticed? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Judge Glock, director of research and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor at City Journal, about the growing debate over data centers in Missouri and across the country. They discuss why some communities are banning data centers while others are welcoming them, how Loudoun County, Virginia became the global epicenter of data center development and what it has meant for local tax revenue, whether concerns about noise, aesthetics, and energy use are valid, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): Thank you for coming on the podcast again, Judge Glock. We’re going to talk about something that is certainly in the news and certainly good and bad for Missouri in the past week. We’ve had stories about both new data centers being announced and more communities banning them. What’s your take on that? You live in Virginia. In Missouri, we are certainly at odds with each other between one area that is going to have both a massive Amazon and a massive Google data center and then very close to that a large county that just banned them. Where do you think this is going?

Judge Glock (00:36): In some sense, it’s going the way of a lot of American projects in that there’s going to be a diversity of local responses to them, which I think is actually quite OK. One of the things I gather when I talk to some of my friends across the pond in the UK or in Europe is that they basically have to have this grand national debate about data centers, whether to allow them and where to allow them. That’s obviously an important and worthwhile debate, but in America what we’re going to have, and what we’ve already had, is a near infinitude of local debates about data centers. I think that’s the right path. When you nationalize or centralize these issues, you create more veto points for people who want to refuse any sort of growth. You also force certain kinds of growth on people in areas that aren’t necessarily favorable to them or most likely to benefit from them. The American system of fairly decentralized governance, combined with a fiscal horse-trading side where the main benefit of local data centers is the fiscal bump local communities can get, I think is going to lead to a more positive outcome than a more centralized system that tries to create a single answer for a whole country or state.

Susan Pendergrass (02:07): But we have at least one county in Missouri that within the last few days said, regardless of the money, we’re a community and these things ruin towns and communities. I wonder if it isn’t going to be like driving across some states like West Virginia where the biggest, ugliest, most pollution-spewing plants are there. I wonder if it’s because Virginia was willing to have them. Now you have these communities in Missouri that are like, we’ve got acres and acres of land and we don’t care what it looks like, versus these other communities that are saying we don’t want big white buildings everywhere. That to me is a very interesting dynamic, because I feel like they’re going to end up in places where nobody wants to build anything else.

Judge Glock (03:02): Yeah, and that might not be the worst outcome. Can I give a quick segue into the history of something called environmental racism? This was a movement started to some extent in the South in the 1970s and 1980s to meld general anti-industrial, pro-environmental sentiment with the burgeoning civil rights movement. The argument at that time was that evil polluters were forcing their factories into places that were poor and largely Black or minority-majority areas, and that this was a travesty because it was burdening people with increased environmental harm, pollution, and factory soot. The problem with that analysis, which has been carried out by the federal government for decades, is that a lot of times poor and minority communities really, really wanted these factories. They were willing to accept the trade-offs of the environmental harms for the fiscal and monetary benefits in a way that wealthier communities were not. Precisely because they were poor, they usually put a lower value on the environmental concerns that exercised a lot of high-income people and put a much higher value on getting good jobs and all the rest. There’s a famous case from the 1990s where I believe the Clinton administration sued a Louisiana parish and a company that was trying to place a factory in a majority-minority district, claiming it was an example of environmental racism. It actually turned out that the largely Black politicians in the local area were saying this was insane, that they were being sued by the federal government for being racist against themselves when they wanted the factory. That’s a long segue into environmental racism, but I think it’s the sort of analysis we should apply to data centers. There are going to be some areas that put a higher value on the fiscal benefits of data centers than others. On the whole, I imagine those will be poorer areas that care a bit more about reducing property taxes and perhaps the fairly small but not insignificant job benefits of data centers. Estimates suggest a finished data center will create around 50 or so permanent jobs, though certainly hundreds during construction. Some of those communities will be more likely to accept them than maybe wealthy suburbs or other areas that don’t want them for various reasons. Now there are exceptions to that general framework, and I’ve written a bit about Loudoun County, which is a very strange case study.

Susan Pendergrass (06:02): Tell me about that, because I’m surprised that it’s the data center capital of the world given what I’ve seen in Loudoun County.

Judge Glock (06:08): I happen to live in Fairfax, Virginia, in part of the suburbs, and grew up in the general area. So it surprised me to learn not too long ago that Loudoun County, just a little further west from Fairfax, a county generally considered ex-urban and rural, and by one measure, median income, the richest county in America, with a median household income of around $170,000 a year. And yet despite this reputation as a wealthy Northern Virginia ex-urban community, what Loudoun has actually become is the global epicenter of data centers. By some measure, the amount of gigawatts used by data centers, the only place close is Beijing, and they’re not even close, at about half the level of what Loudoun and Northern Virginia have. As I showed in an article I wrote for City Journal that got some attention, that came from a particular confluence of events, a history of Defense Department buildup that left a lot of what’s called dark fiber in the area, which created what’s known as low latency, meaning data centers there could communicate with each other very quickly. That made it a good place to locate internet and communication-focused data centers, and today data centers focused on inference for AI, that is the answering of AI queries. That history made it a particular location. But the other side of the Loudoun story is that for decades, and especially in the last decade, the county just recognized the fiscal benefits. Right now data centers are paying for 45% of all taxes in the county, which is pretty remarkable.

Susan Pendergrass (08:12): How much are they taking in from data centers in person?

Judge Glock (08:15): For the next fiscal year, the estimate is that data centers will bring in $1.3 billion in county revenue. That’s about 45% of all local tax revenue. But maybe an even more startling way to frame it is that all local government uses and projects outside of schools are a little less than what Loudoun raises from data centers alone. So the local residents of Loudoun County effectively get free police, free firefighters, free animal control, free roads, and so on.

Susan Pendergrass (09:00): Have they lowered their property taxes?

Judge Glock (09:02): Yes. Thanks to this absolute boom in data center revenue, Loudoun not only has very well-appointed and well-funded schools, roads, and police departments, but they’ve also lowered their property tax rate pretty continuously for over a decade. It’s about 40% lower than it was in the early 2010s. Now that’s offset to some extent by increases in assessments and other rates, but it is much lower than what I pay over here in Fairfax, about a third lower. So data centers for Loudoun, which can kind of be seen as the first area to really embrace them, and home to one of the first significant data centers in America built by a now large firm called Equinox in the late 1990s, has worked really, really well for that county. I don’t think it’s necessarily going to work as well for every possible county that doesn’t have the same advantages Loudoun does, but it does show that for those that embrace them, there can be real benefits. It clearly hasn’t hampered the ability to attract high-income, well-funded residents with good jobs and a nice community. On the whole it seems to have been beneficial, even if you’ve seen growing opposition there as you’ve seen elsewhere.

Susan Pendergrass (10:46): Virginia horse country. But now it feels like the word is out and people are hearing that there could be health risks, that the buildings buzz, that they use all the water. I’ve seen some recently that have like some blue stripes and stuff on them, but the originals were pretty plain. The latest vote in Missouri was in St. Charles, and people cheered and wrote all these emails saying we don’t want them in our backyard because of health risks and noise. How valid are those concerns?

Judge Glock (11:22): Before I was celebrating the local diversity of responses to data centers relative to the alternative, but I don’t want to slight the classic concerns with local NIMBYism, the not-in-my-backyard movement, or the idea that local governments often try very hard to restrict new development of housing or other projects in their area, which can be a substantial burden for people looking for housing or hoping for jobs and fiscal revenue. On the whole, I think the competitiveness of local governments will help wash that out. If St. Charles or another county refuses to build a data center, it’s often not too difficult to find another county willing to accept one. But I do think a lot of this anti-data center hysteria is driven by people with not just local concerns, which can be legitimate though to my mind often vastly overblown, but with a general anger at technological civilization and AI writ large. A lot of that has been strangely channeled into specific local opposition to data centers. That old leftist slogan of think globally and act locally presents a problem here: a lot of local issues don’t really map well to global concerns about climate change or AI. If someone has an issue with AI and they ban a local data center, that is in no way going to stop AI. Stopping a data center nearby is not going to stop the revolution. It will barely even slow it down. There is a lot of generalized opposition to modernity and technology that gets channeled into opposition to local data center construction, which is totally irrelevant to that debate. As for the actual local concerns, when I was reporting on the story for Loudoun, I spent some time driving around and checking out these data centers. For those who have not seen one, or frankly a park of them, it’s a pretty amazing sight. These things can be huge, nearly approaching a hundred feet tall, very solid concrete boxes, not often the most beautiful structures you’ve ever seen. The trend now is placing blind windows in them randomly to make them look better, though depending on your preference that may or may not help. I think a lot could be done to address the aesthetic concerns. Those are real. If you look at some parts of Loudoun and elsewhere, there are data centers built right next to housing subdivisions, and it can feel uncomfortable to have a looming concrete block right next door. The other local concern I think is somewhat legitimate but again overblown is the noise. Data centers, mainly because of their cooling systems, emit a fairly regular hum. It’s a low frequency, low decibel hum, but at a low frequency it can go through walls and subtly shake things. It can be irritating. I personally would not like a low frequency hum right next door. But the solution, as with the visual impact, is simply to push them back a bit. This is not like a local school that needs to be right next to a subdivision. If you’re talking a few hundred yards down the road, you’ve pretty much solved most of the hum and visual impact issues, especially if you surround it with some trees or berms or other methods to both hide the structure and limit the noise. Those two issues, the noise and the visual impact, are real. I understand why people are concerned, but they can be and have been easily addressed. In most of the debates you see, that’s not really the issue. It’s these generalized concerns about AI or false concerns about water.

Susan Pendergrass (16:03): What about the use of energy?

Judge Glock (16:19): Again, to some extent this is another local versus global problem where the local energy use of a data center is not really going to change the price people pay on their local residential energy bill. Most energy here in Virginia and elsewhere is part of a big interconnection, which is a market where different energy producers and power plants share electricity across large transmission lines. The price for electricity, besides state-level mandates, laws, or environmental regulations, is usually determined in that general market. Yes, a data center will drive up electricity costs somewhat in that general market, but it’s not necessarily a substantial driver of that. One new data center will have a very minimal impact on anybody’s bills across the whole region and will have no real effective impact on somebody’s local energy bills. To some extent, data center builders have also been doing a lot more work to construct what’s called off-the-grid or behind-the-grid energy production attached to the data centers. That can be problematic because of increased noise, even in Loudoun and elsewhere where a lot of places just have backup diesel generators that can produce a loud crack when the backup energy turns on, since data centers want to be running constantly. But in general, as before, you have very localized concerns about noise that you want to address with very localized attempts to limit those impacts, either through distancing the data center or finding ways to cover it and limit the noise it emits. The electricity issue is real in the sense that demand for electricity is going up because of data centers, and as economists like to say, supply is inelastic, meaning supply of energy is not going to ramp up as quickly as demand. That means prices are going to go up a little bit nationally because of that. But as long as the value of these data centers is there and people are going to build them, they’re not really going to have a meaningful impact on local electricity prices, and the data center builders are going to find other ways to get electricity and make sure that generation capacity comes online.

Susan Pendergrass (19:28): Missouri is building these two massive data centers not far from our one nuclear plant, and I know that’s something that has been discussed. When I hear that Loudoun County was the first to do this in such a massive way that they could bring in half of their income from data centers, it feels to me like when Colorado legalized cannabis and was the only state to do so. They took in so much money that residents got money back on their income taxes, and every other state said they were going to be just like Colorado. But Colorado was the one that did it first. Maybe Loudoun is the one that did it first with data centers. So now when a community brings in a data center, it’s not going to have the same impact it had in that first wild test case that was Loudoun County, right?

Judge Glock (20:18): I think that’s correct. I would note though that for some smaller communities, especially small rural communities with relatively small populations, such as some of these Texas counties, a single data center can become a third or more of the city’s or county’s budget overnight. So they can have a huge impact on smaller and poorer areas. But do most data centers as they’re built today have the huge fiscal impact that Loudoun got? Absolutely not. The other side of the fiscal story, though, and one that will apply more universally, is that data centers require very little in the way of services. When a city allows a new subdivision or apartment building, it gets more property taxes but also has to pay for schooling for the kids, roads, fire departments, and all the rest. When a city allows a new office park, there are similar property tax benefits but fewer service costs than residential development. According to one estimate I saw, for every dollar a typical office building or commercial retail project generates, a city spends about 25 cents on actual services to it. For data centers, because there’s basically no one in them, that number drops to about four or five cents. They basically need nothing. As I talked to some of the local officials in Loudoun, they said these things don’t send kids to school, they don’t even put cars on the road. There’s basically no impact on anything else. Once it’s built, it just sits there and throws off property tax revenues. No trash pickup, no breaking up fights at a local bar. It’s just money that keeps flowing in. So even if the property taxes aren’t as massive as they are in Loudoun, local communities still aren’t going to have to worry much about services, and they’re still likely going to see a big net benefit. Some people point out that data centers don’t offer many jobs over the long run, and a lot of industrial projects get approved because of job creation. But the flip side is that very few jobs also means low services and low impact. A big concern with local communities approving projects is traffic, and data centers just don’t create much of it for their size. So yes, other counties are not going to get the kind of deal Loudoun got and still is getting, because it remains the epicenter and data center builders want to build next to other data centers. But they are going to get a project that really doesn’t cost much of anything, still throws off at least some money, and doesn’t really burden local communities as long as it’s placed ever so slightly out of the way.

Susan Pendergrass (24:16): That brings me to another point. I’ve read that there are a lot of very smart engineers working on the problem of AI inference and how much energy and space it requires, and how to make it more productive. Eventually I think they’re going to solve this. We used to have server rooms that every business kept cool, and then everyone ended up with a laptop or even a phone. Eventually I think people are going to address this problem of requiring so much physical space to do what we need to do. I wonder if in a decade we’re just going to have empty white blocks sitting around because it’ll be too expensive to demo. What do you think?

Judge Glock (25:08): It could happen. You mean the data centers will be depopulated of their servers because they’ll be so miniaturized. That’s true, and it could be. To some extent, counties like Loudoun that have benefited massively from these data centers can and have set up rainy day funds, similar to counties that get a sudden oil influx, to say that if this ever starts to peter out, they’ll still have a long-term benefit they can continue placing into their budget and at the service of their residents. Right now I think we’re so far away from a potential data center bust that it really shouldn’t be a concern. As I’ve also pointed out, right now about one and a half percent of our whole economy is spent building data centers. This is just from basically zero just a few years back. This is a wild building boom, absolutely wild. We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We need, if anything, to make sure that people can build out those data centers to do the other things that the AI revolution is going to require and demand, no matter what local opposition one county or another expresses. When you talk to people in the industry, the consensus is that we just can’t even build them fast enough. If very smart companies and very smart people are willing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars a year in data centers, and when I say data centers I mean mainly the servers and computers in them, I think they know it’s going to be a good return.

Susan Pendergrass (27:09): Well, it’s going to be interesting to see it play out in Missouri, because there’s definitely been backlash coming through the local town councils and the voters have been pretty loud in some areas. Have any Virginia counties banned them that you know of?

Judge Glock (27:29): Virginia has not only been the epicenter of the growth of data centers, it has been the epicenter of the opposition to data center movement as well. There is a group, something like Data Center Reform Watch, that has been monitoring local opposition. You’ve seen a bunch of counties take pretty strong steps against new data center construction. I forget if they’ve gone all the way to a formal and complete ban, but you definitely have votes in major counties either to block individual sites or to ban them from large swaths of the county. My take is that some other county is going to want and find ways to get those data centers, and when some of these counties realize they may have gone a little too far, they’re going to look at ways to pare it back and focus more on where to place the data centers rather than banning them outright and everywhere. I really struggle to find the logic in a local community banning a data center that’s going to be two and a half miles from anybody else. Frankly, as weird and big as they are, are they that different from, say, a local warehouse? A warehouse has trucks coming in and out all day, spewing pollution. One of these fulfillment centers is a big concrete box just like a data center, but with all that traffic on top of it. Data centers just seem much less problematic in that regard. In some sense they’re like a warehouse without all the trucks. If not for this huge generalized concern with AI, which is a separate debate, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of logic to just banning them completely.

Susan Pendergrass (29:42): Well, it is early days. I would love to have you come back again to talk to us when the dust settles a little bit, especially in Missouri. One of the first places I remember reading about a ban was Festus, Missouri, and now there are more. I’m also hearing about some of the biggest data centers going in there. So we’d love to have you back.

Judge Glock (30:02): That’d be great. I look forward to it.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Are Data Centers Good for Communities? with Judge Glock appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week in The Kansas City Star, I argued the earnings tax is harmful. The responses suggest the Show-Me Institute is winning the argument, regardless of the vote’s outcome. What’s striking is that even those who acknowledge the tax’s flaws remain unwilling to act on their supposed principles. (St. Louis will also be voting on the earnings tax.)

I argued that the tax is regressive, drives workers and businesses away, and fuels the city’s subsidy culture.

David Hudnall, a reliably left-of-center columnist for the Star, urged a yes vote but largely conceded my points. In a column titled, “Just hold your nose and vote for Kansas City’s earnings tax,“ he agreed the tax is regressive and supports lavish subsidies for wealthy developers.

Weirdly, Hudnall then lamented that the tax requires a public vote in the first place. But he wistfully concluded, “I’d welcome a little more fiscal discipline at City Hall.”

The Star’s Editorial Board also endorsed a yes vote but conceded the tax is regressive and “economically harmful”—a significant admission. The piece further conceded, “The earnings tax is not the best way to fund such a large proportion of our city services.” Another notable concession. The piece closed not with a demand for action, but with little more than meek, wishful thinking:

We hope to see future City Council candidates campaigning on a pledge to reform the system. We also hope to see council members who vow to keep the basics of what makes a city hum fully funded—and ratchet back the incentive handouts.

Back in 2021, the last time Kansas City voted on the earnings tax, the Editorial Board urged a yes vote after admitting the tax was regressive and fed the city’s incentive culture. (They even admitted that the sales tax was too high.) Yet they feared reform would be worse.

In 2015, another reliably left-of-center columnist for the Star, Yael Abouhalkah, lamented that the city has neither explored alternatives nor held a meaningful discussion about the tax. He also observed that the tax is regressive and hits the poor hardest.

The problem, then as now, is that city leaders have no incentive to explore alternatives or discuss a 10-year phaseout of a tax widely acknowledged as harmful. Why? Because rather than demand better, the Star’s opinion class and business leaders reliably fold at the slightest scare tactic.

Hand-wringing about Kansas City’s flawed tax structure is not enough. We need city leaders, including those at the Star, to live up to their principles. Otherwise, what is the point of having a platform?

The Mayor and Council have failed to address these issues. There is no reason to expect that will change until voters demand it.

The post Earnings Tax Defenders Unable to Defend Earnings Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

St. Louis County Executive Sam Page has announced that the county is raising park and recreation fees as part of an effort to address budget shortfalls in county government. This is after the county announced a reduction in recreation facility hours a while back (among other cuts) in response to the same budget issues.

The increase in fees is a good move by St. Louis County government. According to the article:

Page . . . [said] the changes stem from a comprehensive review of the actual cost of providing services and reflect “operational realities, market standards, and equity considerations.”

The most important part there is “operational realities.” (I’ll let you guess which one I think is the least important.) I covered this topic in my most recent paper in the free-market municipality series. The operating costs of recreational facilities should be funded to the largest extent possible by user fees. (Capital costs are generally funded through bonds paid back by taxes.) It may not be possible to get 100% of funding with user fees, but fees should consistently be updated to ensure that they cover as much of costs as they can.

One increase that the county announced is that ice rink rentals are increasing to $300 per hour. Building, managing, and maintaining an ice rink is very expensive, and it is not something that most of the general public often uses. The hockey teams that rent it out should pay the cost of the service, not the general public. The same reasoning applies to regular ice skaters during open ice time. The fee for a ticket and skate rental should cover the costs.

Parks are different. Nobody wants to pay a fee to take a walk in a park. That is why general taxes are the best way to pay for community parks. (Many national parks and some state parks are more “destination” type facilities where user fees should be and are a part of the funding.)

St. Louis County is doing the right thing here. I hope other cities and counties also stay on top of the fee structures to make sure their recreational facilities are capturing the right amount of money in user fees.

The post St. Louis County to Raise Park Fees—That’s Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Youth sports centers have been exploding around Missouri for two decades and, unfortunately, tax subsidies seem to go hand-in-glove with them. Let’s make one thing clear at the start: these aren’t parks. These aren’t public facilities where any kid or family can go and play or picnic or fly a kite with a delightful, singing nanny. These are businesses aimed at youth travel sports clubs, which are private, expensive teams. I like club sports (if my kids’ coaches are reading this, please don’t bench them). I just don’t think they fit any definition of a public good. These private facilities have no business being subsidized by taxpayers; if there is a market for them (there is), then they will succeed on their own.

Here is a brief listing of some of the major youth sports facilities that received taxpayer funds of various types (grants, incentives, special sales taxes, etc.) by various governments:

• Springfield heavily subsidized the Sports Town project.
• St. Louis County had trouble deciding which of multiple youth sports projects to ultimately fund (it eventually subsidized both).
• A baseball complex in Lake of the Ozarks has seen multiple battles over tax incentives.
• O’Fallon just rejected subsidies for another complex (yeah!), but then turned around one week later and approved them (boo!).

This is just a short list. I am sure there are more. The first policy change we need is to remove the ability of cities to make these decisions. At a minimum, counties should make all of these tax subsidy decisions. County officials are at least answerable to the voters for their choices. Municipalities routinely grant tax subsidies to businesses where the immediate impact to the city is limited but the harm to the school district, library district, and other entities that rely on tax revenue is substantial. Yet voters in those other districts often don’t live within the municipality and can’t hold anyone responsible with their votes.

Beyond that, we need local municipal officials to better understand basic economics and think both long term and regionally. I am not holding my breath.

The post What’s the Deal with the Tax Subsidies for Youth Sports Centers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, new federal proposals aimed at lowering healthcare costs through cost sharing, employer coverage reforms, and prescription drug transparency. They also break down the latest installment of David Stokes’ Free Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities on parks and recreation, the role of user fees and outsourcing, national polling on public school open enrollment and why parents strongly support it, what they are watching as the 2026 legislative session approaches, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Link to the national survey: yeseverykidfoundation.org/new-national…2-education/

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post ACA Subsidies, Parks Policy, and Open Enrollment in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Download Part Four Here

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities Part Four: Parks and Recreation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Festus is not alone in its debate. Nationwide, there have been significant disputes about whether communities should want data centers in their backyards. While data centers can bring investment to a community, there are concerns about electricity, water usage, and sound.

Of the hundreds of citizens participating in the recent Festus hearing, one gentleman’s comments captured my attention. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

He urged local governments to turn any revenue gain due to the new facility into lower property taxes for the general public. He also said a data center should pay for any increase in utility rates due to the extra energy usage it requires. And, he said, the city should not offer the data center any tax incentives.

I have to wonder—has this gentleman read this article I recently published?

Jokes aside, his comments convey a few key points that I think are important to keep in mind when considering a data center project in a community.

#1: Lower taxes help drive economic growth, so a reliable course of action is to return extra revenue to taxpaying citizens.

New data center revenue ought to be returned to taxpayers through lower tax rates, easing pressure on the entire tax base. Property tax abatements should not be handed out.

#2: Find innovative solutions for electricity needs.

Last year, a major energy omnibus bill, Senate Bill 4, included a provision that protects average ratepayers from “any unjust or unreasonable costs from service to such customers [such as data centers].” This should help shield average ratepayers from rate hikes to meet this new energy demand, but some burden will likely still fall on them.

While it is a state-level solution, Missouri should explore consumer-regulated electricity (CRE), which would allow new data centers and other large customers to be served by separate, independent grids. This idea could be beneficial for both ratepayers and developers. You can read more about CRE here.

#3: Remember what data center developers are prioritizing, and do not hand out subsidies.

Lastly, the actions of the biggest data center customers have made their priorities clear.

Money does not seem to be a big factor for these enormous developers. They instead seem focused on energy availability, speed to operation, and long-term stability. A clear example of this is Microsoft pouring an enormous amount of money into restarting Three Mile Island for its data centers.

Instead of handing out subsidies, a municipality could evaluate its own permitting rules. Reducing red tape could both accelerate speed to operation and signal that the community is a dependable, long-term location.

Festus will certainly not be the last community to have a heated debate about data center development. Keeping these key principles in mind, however, may help communities have productive debates on this topic.

The post The Data Center Debate Continues in Festus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: St. Louis County Procurement Rules appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But a recent news story gave another twist to the idea of cities as romantic partners.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that NorthPoint Development called off a $120 million apartment complex of over 300 units and will soon sell the site. Why? Because the city was constantly making additional demands. What started as a yes was becoming a maybe. NorthPoint backed out.

The Post-Dispatch quoted St. Louis Development Corp. Executive Director Otis Williams as saying, “if we just stuck to whatever we said we wanted to do,” the project would have continued.

Alderman Michael Browning alleged the city wasn’t “good-faith negotiators. With all of the unpredictable things in development, the city does not need to be the thing that constantly changes.”

Yes, the city needs to be consistent. But that does not mean the city should crank the subsidy spigot to full blast.

The story notes the number of projects receiving subsidies from the St. Louis Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) has dropped since 2018. The chairman of the LCRA, Matt McBride, argued that because there are so few developers wanting to work with the city, “we need to be encouraging of those who are taking the risks to do so.” I suspect by “encourage” he means, “subsidize.” The folks who hand out subsidies always want more to hand out.

Perhaps there is another way. Perhaps, instead of overregulating the market, instead of demanding ever increasing concessions, instead of imposing costly application, permitting, and approval stages, the city just got out of the way of those who want to build in St. Louis?

City leaders should work to address barriers to development rather than leaving them in place and cutting checks to offset them. They’ve already shown a willingness to do so with liquor regulations and parking mandates.

Unfortunately, Megan Green, president of the board of aldermen, wants to further increase the city’s demands of developers regarding affordable housing and community benefits. But that will just increase the costs for developers and, in turn, increase the amount of taxpayer subsidies. “St. Louis,” she says, “has been a cheap date for way too long, and we should not be a cheap date.”

It calls to mind the bawdy punchline: ‘We’ve already established that, madam. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

Unfortunately, taxpayers are picking up the tab for these dalliances. Instead of seeking more expensive dates, St. Louis should make itself a more attractive partner by ditching its baggage and focusing on stable, long-term relationships.

The post St. Louis Needs to Stop Dating and Settle Down appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

And we will admit, it can make us sound like hand-wringing naysayers, always seeing the glass as half empty. (In our defense, we have each spent two decades trying to successfully launch a combined six children into the world. Saying no is a big part of that. Honestly, we are both fun at parties.)

But isn’t securing population and economic growth a basic function of government?

No, it isn’t. A well-run government should not care about growing either its population or its economy.

According to the ideas of Charles Tiebout, cities (and other local governments) compete with each other for residents based on the services the governments offer and the taxes they impose. Cities that provide quality public services at reasonable tax rates will naturally grow, as more people choose to move into those communities. That increased demand will increase housing prices which, combined with zoning rules, generally prevents the city from growing more than its residents want to. Cities that provide poor services at high taxes will see population decline, for obvious reasons.

The forced need for growth—from a government point of view—only becomes necessary when the books are out of balance. Government leaders often push important financial obligations out into the future—hoping to pay tomorrow for what they purchase today. Those ballooning debts on the horizon make them susceptible to all the journeyman consultants and their economic impact chicanery that only makes the situation worse.

Instead, cities should understand their role is to play host to economic activity, not engage in it themselves. The folks who referee the kids’ soccer games at which I spent many Saturday mornings are not players in the game. Nobody asks them to make calls in a way that helps a particular team or drives up the combined score. Quite the opposite—we are alarmed by the idea that a referee may act on a team preference.

To turn planning and spending over to local elected leaders risks overreach and overspending. Overreach because elected leaders want to be seen as bold visionaries dreaming of “what could be” in order to capture the imagination of voters. Overspending because, well, concern about risk is greatly reduced when the consequences of failure are so widely and thinly spread.

As Heywood Sanders, a professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio, said at the Kansas City Library in 2015:

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.”

Private actors understand this. Why would they invest in a new convention center for Jefferson City or Springfield if they are just going to be the latest in a long line of cities to do so?  How does that make sense or play to either city’s strengths? It doesn’t—so they turn to elected leaders, who are swayed by the possibilities and unencumbered by the risk of investing their own money. Who cares if it works tomorrow—it feels good today!

If a city is to grow, the best our elected leaders can do is to make sure all the obstacles are removed and the rules are clear and evenly enforced. Everything else, including growth and winners and losers, needs to be determined by the players on the field.

The post What’s a City to Do? 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.

In 2001, a group of very libertarian-minded activists launched the Free-State Project, which encouraged thousands of libertarian believers in minimal government to move to New Hampshire. The overall success of the project has been limited, for a variety of reasons, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I’d like to see people in Missouri flatter the Granite State and try to do a similar thing here in one of our many cities.

What would such a limited-government, free-market oriented municipality look like in Missouri? To start with, it should be modeled on successful, small-government municipalities like Weston, Florida, and Sandy Springs, Georgia, which provide many local services by contracting with the private sector. It should not be based on the more radical, no-government “utopias” like Grafton, New Hampshire, where the removal of almost all government services led to an increase in bear attacks.

How many limited-government activists would it take to create a free city in Missouri? Not very many. There are hundreds of existing municipalities here with less than a hundred residents where, at most, a few dozen show up to vote in local elections. If, say, 50 true free-market believers moved into one city, what types of changes could they make to create that desired free city?

To start with, they could remove all municipal planning and zoning rules and replace them with private contracts managed by property-owner associations where allowed. Those property-owner associations could manage issues like short-term rentals, trash collection, and home-based businesses.

Municipalities, especially small ones, could focus on contracting with larger cities or counties to provide many services, like policing or building inspections. The new free city could contract with private companies to provide many other services, like trash collection and recreation management. It could similarly contract with nonprofits for some other services where profit opportunities are limited, such as animal shelters. If it had municipal utilities, it could privatize them into regulated, private utilities. The free city could reduce local code requirements, permitting rules, and occupational licensing to the largest extent possible. The important ones, like fire codes and elevator inspections, could be kept, while arbitrary or obsolete regulations, like television repairman licenses and pool-table taxes, could be thrown out.

None of these examples are farfetched. Every one of the above examples is already in place in a city somewhere in Missouri. Private utilities provide water, gas, and electricity to millions of Missourians. Cities contract with counties and other cities for services all over the state. In St. Louis County, every municipality (88 at last count) contracts with the county for at least some inspection services. Nonprofits provide important services to the public, like Pinnacles Youth Park near Columbia, and operate many animal-care facilities. Private businesses operate city-owned golf courses and manage municipal swimming pools throughout the state.

How would a free city fund these services? It would maximize private contracts between residents and companies and enact user fees to the largest extent possible. Low general sales and property taxes could fund the rest, along with revenues shared from other sources, like the gas tax. Importantly, such a city would avoid special deals such as tax abatements or tax-increment financing, for some businesses or people. Making the sales and property tax bases as wide as possible would allow the rates to be as low as possible for everyone. This free city would absolutely avoid the errors of a local income tax such as exist in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Overall, a Missouri free-city project would create a municipal government system not all that different from those in many rural, unincorporated parts of Missouri. It would just be in a more urban or suburban setting. It may seem unrealistic to expect hundreds—or even dozens—of people to make such a move based on political philosophy. But as a model of quality, low-tax local government, it is perfectly realistic. While no city may have enacted all of these ideas, each of them has been enacted with success somewhere. We just need the right number of people to put it together all at once.

I vote we try it somewhere near the Lake of the Ozarks.

The post The Free-City Project for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state tax commission (STC) stepped into the below-market mess and required Platte County to increase its assessed valuations to a more accurate level. The county and the STC agreed to an across the board 6.8% increase on residential property in Platte County. This agreement is exciting to me, and yes, I realize it is weird to be excited by something like that. But I have been calling for years for counties to stop individually assessing every property and to do it using an average-based system. As I explained in my recent testimony before a House committee on property taxes:

Missouri should eliminate the practice of sending thousands of assessors out into our neighborhoods every other year to assess residential property. In the current system, each county assessor uses sale prices of comparable homes or other, less accurate, methods to assess every home in the county. The county’s average rate of increase—which is used for tax rate–setting purposes—is determined only after all of the homes are reassessed. I believe the process should be reversed.

. . . This article could serve as a starting point for the Missouri State Tax Commission as it worked with county assessors, local realtors, and online real estate resources to determine average county increases (or decreases) in valuation for each reassessment cycle.

Each residential, commercial, or agricultural property in a county could then be adjusted based on the county’s average for that particular class or subclass of property. The various tax rates could then be adjusted based on that average, and the vast majority of homeowners would be subject to the same resulting increase (or decrease) in their overall property taxes. This would eliminate wide discrepancies from house to house that undermine faith in the current system and sometimes lead to high tax increases for some homeowners even when the overall assessment increases are modest.

The final part is really the key. If everyone sees the same residential increase, then everyone’s tax rates can be rolled back the same amount as dictated by the Hancock Amendment, and everyone will more or less see the same, small property tax increase.

There is one potential flaw in the plan, which Platte County may be experiencing this year. If taxing districts find ways around rolling back their tax rates, then the idea doesn’t work. And from what I have been told by knowledgeable sources, school districts have started to aggressively move funding from their general service funds to their debt service funds. The latter is exempt from rate rollback requirements. I have been told that two school districts in Platte County are going to do this. (I hope that’s wrong.) I know of one school district in Lebanon that was planning to do it but instead “compromised” and moved most of the general fund rollback to the debt service fund but did allow a very small overall decrease in the total fund.

These are just a few specific examples, but I hear about it happening all over Missouri. However much ignoring the tax rate rollback by raising the debt service rate may be happening, it is wrong. School districts (or any government bodies) should not do this, and state government needs to amend the laws to make sure it can’t happen going forward.

The post Platte County Agreement Could Be a Model for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute Director of Municipal Policy David Stokes about his new paper in the Free-Market Guide to Missouri Municipalities series on planning and zoning. They discuss how fragmentation among local governments can limit overly strict zoning, how zoning rules affect housing affordability, and why “last house syndrome” poses risks for Missouri’s future growth. From accessory dwelling units and minimum parking requirements to the debate over multifamily housing, Stokes explains how smart reforms can protect property rights and keep housing costs down.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Planning and Zoning in Missouri
02:35 The Impact of Fragmentation on Zoning
05:24 Housing Affordability and Zoning Regulations
08:22 The Role of Municipalities in Housing Development
11:18 Challenges of NIMBYism and YIMBYism
14:21 Accessory Dwelling Units and Short-Term Rentals
17:00 Planning and Infrastructure in Missouri
19:57 Future Papers and Conclusion

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thank you, David Stokes, so much for being on the podcast this morning. You have a new paper out with the Show Me Institute. Well, it’s actually part three of an existing series on your free market guide to Missouri municipalities. And this one is on planning and zoning. So thanks for joining us to answer some questions about it. Great. I do have one question that I was just saying before we started recording. I’ve seen this paper a few times.

David Stokes (00:19)
Delighted to be here.

Susan Pendergrass (00:26)
And one thing that I noticed up front is that I complain about the number of school districts in St. Louis County and how fragmented it is. And other folks have also said similar things, too many small municipalities. But it seems to be the case that when we’re talking about things like planning and zoning and permitting and regulations, that can be a good thing. Is that right?

David Stokes (00:46)
Absolutely. Because it’s harder to enact comprehensive planning, zoning, major things like urban growth boundaries—the extreme things like an urban growth boundary that we don’t have in Missouri. But it’s harder to enact that the more governments you have to get in line to agree to it in the first place. So it’s definitely—I don’t want to say it’s a causation. I don’t think the data is there to—

Susan Pendergrass (00:47)
What?

David Stokes (01:14)
But it’s definitely a—I would say it’s a truism—that there’s a strong connection between the metropolitan areas that have less strict zoning around the country. And over the past decade, we’ve really changed a lot in American local public policy to realize the harms of overly strict zoning. Until the past decade or so, it was just sort of assumed that strict zoning was a good thing. So now that we recognize the harms of it, we see that the places like St. Louis—and to a lesser extent, Kansas City—that have more fragmentation. St. Louis by any measure nationally has extreme fragmentation, meaning a whole lot of local governments, be they cities or school districts or fire districts or streetlight districts. I mean, we can really get into the obscure ones here in Missouri, but the more you have of that, the less strict zoning you’re going to have. And then that results in lower housing prices.

Susan Pendergrass (02:00)
You—

David Stokes (02:10)
What is the good that comes from that in the end? I think there’s lots of goods that come from it and some harms too. But the real good—the point of this paper, and the good for somebody who doesn’t care about public policy or libertarian thoughts or anything and just wants to be able to buy a nice house at an affordable price—is: the less strict zoning you have, the more fragmentation you have, the more you see that in lower housing costs.

Susan Pendergrass (02:35)
Yeah, and if you were starting a business too and one municipality, let’s say Clayton, has really high restrictions on what you can build, where you can build a health office and be—I don’t know if they do or don’t—but then you could just simply go next door to the next place and pick a different place that has fewer restrictions.

David Stokes (02:52)
You can, and that does happen. One of the ways they’ve solved that dilemma in St. Louis County especially is they do a lot more code enforcement and permitting at the county level than at the municipal level. Because nobody wants to have to get—if I’m going to be a plumber—nobody wants to have a plumbing license in 88 different cities. So they do that at the county level. You get your county license and it’s good throughout all of St. Louis County. Now, there are good aspects of that—mostly that you have to get one license instead of 88, which is an obvious good—but it’s also subject to abuse as well. It’s sort of the counterargument to the benefits of fragmentation in that it’s easier for special interest groups, like in this case, say the plumbers union, to capture licensing in St. Louis County if they only have to dominate one board as opposed to 88 boards. So there are two different ways to go—there’s the good and then the part of it that might not be quite as good.

Susan Pendergrass (03:59)
Yeah, so you make the point in this paper that while St. Louis does not necessarily have a housing affordability issue—or maybe even Missouri—it’s still worthwhile for folks who are working at the municipal level, like if you’re working as a newly elected Board of Aldermen or newly elected county board official, to educate yourself on what is and isn’t possible to make sure that you avoid what you just described as the pitfalls of over-regulating.

David Stokes (04:28)
Absolutely. A lot of this paper is about—in the not very scientific term—sort of low-hanging fruit. Just because zoning in Missouri may be less strict than in other states… there’s actually, I discovered in researching this paper—I’d always understood and known that zoning in Missouri and in St. Louis and Kansas City was less strict than in many other parts of the country—but then I discovered that there is actually an index out of the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania that ranks metropolitan areas by zoning strictness. And St. Louis is the least strict for zoning of any metropolitan area in the country in this ranking. And Kansas City is sort of in the middle. But then you see that Kansas City on the Missouri side is closer to St. Louis, and it’s the Kansas side that is more strict and puts them in the middle. So we really do have not-strict zoning.

Susan Pendergrass (05:05)
That’s hilarious.

David Stokes (05:24)
And that’s a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t mean that cities shouldn’t make some of these reforms that are coming nationwide that would still benefit Missouri, such as abolishing minimum parking requirements, allowing smaller lot sizes, allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their own property. It’s a great reform focus—from the Show Me Institute’s perspective—because these are changes that can be made that enhance people’s own property rights and what they can do with their own property, while at the same time giving people more choice. And in the long run, if you do more of these, you’ll help keep housing prices down even more for people. And in a good way—you’re not doing this through mandates or rules; you’re just saying we’re going to allow people to build even more. And I’m not against every limit on every property thing ever. There are some that are reasonable—particularly in Missouri we have floodplain limits on where you build that are very reasonable in many cases—but there’s still a lot of good stuff we can do.

Susan Pendergrass (06:33)
Yeah, I saw recently last week that in the upcoming election cycle, housing affordability is a top issue for folks. This is really bubbling up the list of priorities because it’s gotten so expensive and, you know, I keep reading about why people can’t afford to move, and they can’t afford to sell their home, or they can’t afford to buy a home. And certainly some markets—like you mentioned in the paper, like Portland—and you mentioned this briefly: Portland’s got a brown zone and a green zone, and you can’t build in the green zone. You have to stay in the brown zone, and it makes it very prohibitively expensive to build new housing stock in Portland, and the prices have gone up dramatically. We do not yet have that problem in St. Louis, but I know that it’s on a lot of people’s minds and certainly, statewide, we still have some concerns about having enough affordable housing for everybody. I do think it’s important to make sure that we don’t let regulation creep happen so that we find ourselves raising our prices artificially.

David Stokes (07:36)
And you see this in disputes in our exurban areas now in, say, St. Charles and Jefferson County—surrounding counties of St. Louis—and on the Kansas City side as well. Last year, for example, in St. Charles County, a big new subdivision was rejected in a wooded part of the county—I think it was near Weldon Spring. They’re also allowing some, but—

Susan Pendergrass (07:56)
Was it Weldon Spring, or what was that?

David Stokes (08:02)
And that’s the dilemma that people face: as places like St. Charles and Jefferson County grow and get more full, there’s going to be inevitable pressure from the people there now to stop new building. It’s called last-house syndrome: “Great, my new home here is great. Now don’t build any more because I got the house and it’s perfect.” You see that everywhere, and you understand the concerns. I try not to completely ignore the concerns of the folks, because they’re not always wrong—of course, we’ll go back to the floodplain issue—but you’ll have people worry. It’s the people there now: concerns about traffic and overbuilding and destruction of wooded areas and too dense and all those things. But you want people to realize that other people probably said the same thing before they built your house, and it was a good thing that people in most instances really said no to that, and it allowed that construction to continue. And I really want people to realize that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:34)
Yeah. That’s right. ⁓

David Stokes (09:00)
If we go—it’s not about any one subdivision, because look, there probably are certain instances in certain places where the new zoning is too dense, whatever it may be—it’s not that every rejection is always completely wrong. But if you start in Missouri making a pattern of this in the outer areas of Kansas City and St. Louis, where you start turning down a lot of these new subdivisions to preserve whatever it is that people moved out there for 20 years ago, then housing prices are going to increase in Missouri. They will increase substantially, and it won’t take that long if you really do stop the building. So that’s one of the takeaways from this paper: to the largest extent possible, we need to keep allowing the building of these new homes or apartments. And obviously a big part of the paper is that apartments should be generally allowed in more places too. That’s how we’re going to continue to have low housing costs, and that’s the benefit of it. It’s not about one subdivision in one space, but if it becomes a trend, it’s really going to be a problem—the trend being protecting it.

Susan Pendergrass (10:15)
Yeah, and the multifamily for sure. What are your findings around that? People don’t seem to want to have to look at apartment buildings. Is that right?

David Stokes (10:25)
They don’t—there’s just some natural rejection against it. And it’s frustrating to see. In some spots—I remember in the City of St. Louis; this is one where, when you lived in St. Louis, you lived near there—at the corner of Skinker and Delmar there was a proposal for a large apartment building right there, and it got a lot of opposition, and it has not moved forward. It was stopped. I hope it comes back because it’s a perfect lot for an apartment building. It’s just an empty lot—it was a chicken restaurant for many, many years and a popular one—but it’s been vacant forever. And it’s right near public transit. So it’s the perfect idea where you should be able to build there, and you shouldn’t have generous or extensive—

Susan Pendergrass (10:59)
An abandoned empty lot, right?

David Stokes (11:18)
—parking requirements for those buildings, because one of the projects—

Susan Pendergrass (11:21)
That’s what people were kind of freaking out about though, was the parking. Like, where are all these cars going to go? And there was one across the street and they had only put in like one parking space for every two units or something, and they figured that people would use public transport. Anyway, I remember the pushback on that. And it’s this NIMBYism–YIMBYism thing, right? It’s so hard to push people to YIMBYism—yes in my backyard—because of things they don’t… I don’t… These same people often talk a lot about housing affordability, so I don’t mean to overgeneralize, but there are some of the very same people who are so concerned about it who don’t want to look at apartment buildings.

David Stokes (11:50)
Right, don’t want to—and you understand. That’s a very liberal area that we’re talking about. If you were to define the politics of that area, you’re right: many of the residents of those communities in both the city and in University City right there would, in theory, in the big picture, probably agree, but then, “Oh, we don’t want this development here.” And it was a perfect place for a new apartment. Again, of all the St. Louis area, it’s one of the best areas served by public transit—

Susan Pendergrass (12:06)
Yes.

David Stokes (12:31)
—with buses and MetroLink and the WashU shuttles, because so many people who would be in those apartments would be WashU students. They’ve got that extensive shuttle system. But it was rejected, and I hope it comes back. And that’s just one of many, many examples of it.

Susan Pendergrass (12:31)
Yeah, yeah. What about the—what part of zoning and planning is this push in the City of St. Louis, anyway, to try to get people to move downtown? Is that something that’s coded in? I feel like they’re trying to get people to go downtown.

David Stokes (13:03)
They are. And thankfully, I don’t think zoning is preventing that. Of all the reasons people may or may not be choosing to move downtown—fear of crime and businesses leaving downtown, the jobs—as somebody who lived downtown in the late 1990s and early 2000s, to move down there when many of the jobs have left—fear—it’s a harder thing to convince. But I don’t think there’s— I don’t think it’s difficult or has ever been difficult for the loft developers of the ’90s to get permission to take an empty commercial building and turn it into lofts. There might have been a lot of issues they had to deal with, but zoning—I don’t believe—was one of them. Thankfully that’s a very good thing. But it’s one of the fun parts about this paper, right? We’re talking in the other papers and in the ones to come about the best ways to do public safety and public works and a lot of things. In most of these instances we all agree somebody has to do this service, and it’s just a question of: does the city provide it themselves? Do they contract with a neighboring municipality to do it—such as a small city contracting with a neighboring city to do police service? Should you let the private sector do it in a regulated manner, like utilities? But we can all agree it has to be done. Whereas I started this paper saying: despite the fact that it may be incredibly common, cities don’t actually need planning or zoning—life can exist without it. And that’s where the current HOA options come into play. And the history of HOAs in St. Louis, in the private place model, is such an interesting part of that. So there’s a little bit of the historic discussion of all of this in the paper too.

Susan Pendergrass (14:53)
So where do Missouri municipalities for the most part right now stand on things like—two questions I’m going to ask you—accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals or Airbnbs? Where do they stand on ADUs?

David Stokes (15:06)
Well, slowly but surely, we’re starting to permit ADUs. We haven’t had any sort of statewide, to my knowledge, overarching legislation. And that’s where the fact that we have low housing costs in Missouri matters. I don’t think we’re going to see the California situation that had to go statewide because none of the municipalities would agree to it. I don’t think we’ll see that here because there’s not the tremendous high-cost-of-housing crisis to push that. But slowly but surely, cities are starting to allow more ADUs, and that’s a very good thing. When you get out into rural areas—and in some places that don’t even have zoning in the first place—you can do any ADU you want to, or the zoning is so loose that of course you can build an apartment above your garage if you’d like to. Why are you even asking? But the cities have the rules against it.

Susan Pendergrass (15:52)
That’s where I live.

David Stokes (16:03)
Slowly but surely moving in the right direction there. And then it’s going in the opposite way with short-term rentals. Slowly but surely most cities are instituting short-term rental limitations. I’m not automatically opposed to that in every case. I get it: if you have a neighborhood and all of a sudden there’s a house where big parties are being thrown every weekend because they’re renting it out to different groups of people to throw parties, you’re going to hate that, and that’s going to impact the quality of your life. So I’ve been saying for a few years now that the short-term rental regulations I support would generally be things that don’t go to a blanket prohibition. I think that’s too far—and most cities aren’t doing that—but rather really focus on punishment of the property owner for repeated rule-breaking. One party is maybe one party, but if there’s a trend where you own the property and the people you’re renting to are consistently out of control, then the fines should be increased. I wouldn’t be opposed to them getting fairly steep up to a point too—that if it happens too often, you would lose your business license to operate that short-term rental. Because I do think that if you’re doing it a lot—if you’re routinely renting it out—you should be treated a little more like a hotel. We don’t want to give short-term rentals an advantage over the hotel-motel industry. You want that playing field to be as level as possible, especially for people who are renting their houses or condos or whatever out a lot. So then pull that license if it’s an abuse that’s happening consistently. But let’s try to—

Susan Pendergrass (17:55)
Well, I had that on my street.

David Stokes (17:56)
—go to a method through crackdown on rule-breaking, not blanket prohibitions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:00)
Yeah, we had that on my street in St. Louis, and it was a street of, I don’t know, three- or four-bedroom houses, and they somehow had eight bedrooms and a pool, which was very rare in my neighborhood. So they mostly just rented it out to college students and got called all the time—the police got brought in all the time for noise complaints. And there wasn’t really a good mechanism in place at the time to prevent it from happening. So I agree that there should be some limitations around them, but not to make it so strict that people can’t use it as intended. I mean, I stay in Airbnbs all the time. I like having them, but—

David Stokes (18:36)
Now, that police dilemma—that’s something in St. Louis and probably Kansas City, a few big cities, where the cops just have better things to do than break up parties. I mean, they’ve got violent crimes to address. That’s an issue: how are they going to take it seriously enough? In the average Missouri suburb or mid-sized cities, the police are going to take that a little more seriously, I would think. And a good comparison I like is in Lake of the Ozarks, where some cities have instituted strict rules against short-term rentals, while others, like Osage Beach—at least as of our research—hadn’t instituted anything and took a much more free-market approach: “We’re a tourist area; we want tourists to come here.” So it’ll be a good natural experiment over time to see how it affects property values, how growth is affected, as different comparable cities in the Lake of the Ozarks region choose different paths to move forward. So I definitely look forward to following that.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37)
Well, then I’ll know—another component to this paper is on planning. I think you just said a city doesn’t have to do planning if they don’t choose to, but are Missouri cities or municipalities planners? I mean, is that a planned thing, or are we more like anything goes?

David Stokes (19:56)
Most Missouri cities have plans. Right?

Susan Pendergrass (19:57)
I’ve been to New Town, by the way. I just want to say I have visited New Town, so—before you start talking.

David Stokes (20:03)
Well, that’s the architectural planning—how do we want to design it? Then there’s the legal, defined planning. And luckily, again, I really don’t think Missouri cities need to do any planning outside of general infrastructure planning. So I shouldn’t say they don’t need to do any planning—there’s the general infrastructure planning that pretty much everybody supports, meaning you should have an idea of how growth is going to go in your city and where you’re going to put sewers and sidewalks and streets. You want a general long-term plan for that, even if that plan is—as it should be—thoroughly adjustable and can be changed as growth happens naturally. But then you get into planning like we mentioned with Portland earlier—urban growth boundaries—where the planners really start to say, “You can live here; you cannot live here; you can build here; you cannot build here,” and it gets to be really extreme. We don’t really have that in Missouri. Thankfully, the plans that cities do adopt can be easily amended by any city council. They can be changed. When I worked at St. Louis County, we dealt with the county planning commission for the parts of the council district I worked in that were unincorporated, where the planning commission had a lot to say on that. So elected officials can and should be able to change that plan as they go. And then the biggest—let’s say you permitted a development that’s against your plan, but the elected officials want to do it anyway—I usually don’t have a problem with that. The fact that it’s inconsistent with your plan would generally be something that, if locals want to sue to stop the development, they would cite in the lawsuit—that it was inconsistent with your process and your plan—and then it would be determined by judges and the whole legal process. But planning in Missouri is something that, outside of basic infrastructure planning, cities shouldn’t really do. And to the extent that they do it, it’s easily amended and changed. And that’s a good thing.

Susan Pendergrass (21:55)
Mm-hmm. So the first two papers in your series were taxation, right?

David Stokes (22:20)
Taxation was number two, and the first one was just sort of the structure of municipal government in Missouri. It had a lot to do with city managers. And then the fragmentation issue was addressed as well in the first one that we discussed here, because that’s a part of that, obviously.

Susan Pendergrass (22:23)
Introductory. Okay. And taxation. And this is zoning and planning. Right. And then what’s on deck? What’s the next one?

David Stokes (22:41)
We don’t actually know yet what number four will be—germinating. Most of them are ready to go pretty quickly, so I think the next one will be released within the next two months—certainly this year. And I think it’s going to be on public works. But we have papers coming on public works, public safety, parks and recreation—which is one I’m really going to enjoy. You go to Forest Park and there’s all the great things in St. Louis’s Forest Park, and then you realize that many of the wonderful things there are actually done under contract with the private sector, either for-profit businesses like the Boathouse and the ice rink that pay the city to operate, or nonprofit businesses like the Muni that have been in the park for a long time. So it’s a great option to talk about all the different ways to provide parks and recreation services.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18)
Yeah.

David Stokes (23:35)
But those are at least three of the upcoming ones. And then there’ll be a concluding, summarize-it-all-up section as well.

Susan Pendergrass (23:41)
I look forward to hearing more about those, and thanks for coming on to talk about planning and zoning. It’s going to be a great series when it all gets put together. Thanks.

David Stokes (23:48)
Thank you very much, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A Free-Market Guide to Zoning with David Stokes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Three: Planning and Zoning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Three: Planning and Zoning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I attended the city council meeting where the relevant bill was introduced. Supporters of the proposal offered two different reasons why this was a good move for the city. First, supporters said the leases for the businesses in the building would pay the costs of the purchases, so the city would come out ahead. According to the Chesterfield city manager, the current leases “would mean the building would create no annual cost for the city.” This reminds me of the famous story of when former St. Louis Mayor Vince Schoemehl told some veteran members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen that the new convention center downtown would not cost the city anything, and longtime alderman Red Villa responded with, “Well then, why don’t we build two of them?”

The other reason why supporters like the purchase is because Chesterfield could use some of the building for its own future needs, such as a police substation, civic center, or parks department headquarters (all these examples were given at the meeting). But here is the problem: If you use the building for city offices or needs (which may be the more defensible position), then you don’t have the paying tenants who will cover the price of the purchase for the city. Yes, the building’s parking lot would come in handy for some events at the nearby park, but, as opponents noted, that is just a few events each year.

Then there is the belief by the city that they won’t have to pay property taxes on the building, leading to a higher profit margin for the city (stated by a member of the board and elsewhere). That is a very dubious argument. There is plenty of case law that says if a tax-exempt entity owns property but that property is not used for tax-exempt purposes that property taxes are still owed. (Scroll down here for citations.)

If one believes that buying and operating a commercial office building is the proper role of local government, then I wonder what limits there would possibly be on the role of government? If a municipality can do this, what can’t it do? That’s the scary part.

The post Municipalities Should Not Be Commercial Landlords (I’m Looking at You, Chesterfield) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The primary candidate under consideration now, David Cameron, the current city manager in nearby Republic, is controversial, so I read, because he is a “disrupter.” That’s great if you are leading a start-up in Silicon Valley. Is it great for a midwestern city? You tell me. According to the story in the News-Leader:

David has probably stepped on a few toes along the way, it would be impossible, unrealistic to think that you would be able to make everybody happy in the process of doing your job,” [Springfield Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Bob Helm] said. “His leadership style is bold. He operates with confidence. He’s become a great problem-solver and has also been very responsive to those who approach him along the way.

If his disruptive leadership style is used to push the city employees in Republic, to work harder, then that sounds great to me. If is it used to think “bold” and offer lots of tax incentives, then count me out. Here is a story about how Republic gave a big tax break to Amazon to open a distribution center there and how the city manager got a pay raise because of it. (The story is also noteworthy as it does a good job of looking at all sides of the issue instead of just repeating press releases from the government about how great tax incentives are.)

Too often, “visionary” or “bold” local leadership just leads to local delusions about how great a city can be instead of just trying to provide the necessary services to its residents.

In fairness to Republic, the city, overall, doesn’t appear to offer that many tax incentives, so legitimate criticism of the Amazon deal needs to acknowledge that. In Springfield, they are taking their time to decide on the city manager position, and getting that decision right is worth the wait.

For much more on the evidence about the plusses and minuses of professional city management, check out my first free-market municipality guide, which goes into that debate in detail.

The post Springfield Takes Its Time Hiring a City Manager appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This has, not surprisingly, led to a lot of citizen concern and pushback. In response to this, city government has gone in exactly the wrong direction and scaled back public comments at its council meetings. This is not how local government is supposed to operate.

I worked at the St. Louis County Council from 2001 through 2006. Most of the time, very few people showed up to give public comment. There were exceptions. Over the past few decades, several things have happened to change how local governments in Missouri (and probably everywhere) handle public comments in meetings. First, security concerns have increased for obvious reasons. Second, adding video and streaming to local meetings has encouraged some people to attend and play to the crowd while speaking. Finally, COVID really brought local government front and center to a lot of people (and not in a good way).

So some local governments have changed speaking policies after some public comment sessions got out of hand, like this one. Sedalia, however, has in my opinion gone too far (and I say that as someone who speaks before a lot of local councils).

Sedalia has limited all public comments to items on the agenda unless you have requested permission 48 hours beforehand to speak about something else. I don’t oppose a similar version of this idea, which St. Louis County and a few others have implemented, which is to place public comment on agenda items early in the meeting (where it should be, before officials vote on the issue) and save non-agenda items for the end (where officials can leave if they have to as their voting is over). I also don’t disagree with time limits on comments, though those limits should be flexible based on the number of speakers. (Sedalia’s three-minute time limit is not flexible.)

Being forced by Sedalia city government to beg permission to speak on other items of concern 48 hours ahead of time is deeply troubling. Here is a recent video of people being aggressively gaveled down at the end of a meeting for simply wanting to make public comment. (I know at least one of these people stated they requested permission more than 48 hours ahead of time, but apparently that request was “lost.”)

Local governments have a right to impose some limits on public comments at their meetings to manage an orderly process. Sedalia is going too far, however. Requiring 48-hour notice and pre-approval for speakers who simply want to address city issues that might not be on that night’s agenda is not good local government practice. Sedalia should change its rules.

The post Shutting Down Dissent in Sedalia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.