There is a saying in areas prone to significant flooding that “floods bring their own rain.” Like many legends and old wives’ tales, it isn’t scientifically true, but it has a hint of truth to it. In the days after a massive flood—the kind that Missouri is prone to experience—the enormous amount of water sitting in areas it normally doesn’t can generate so much evaporation so quickly that it seems to rain more frequently. Again, I’m not saying it’s true, but it offers an interesting comparison for data centers in Missouri.

When data centers go into smaller cities or rural areas, the assessed valuation they add is so large that it should generate substantial property tax cuts for all involved. How large a difference are we talking? Google just announced plans to build a $15 billion data center in Montgomery County, in east–central Missouri. It remains to be seen how much of that investment will be reflected in property tax totals, but since the largest expense is going to be for the very expensive equipment in the data center itself—and that equipment is taxable—we can safely assume the assessed valuation of the final project will be enormous and almost certainly measured in the billions.

This for a county that had an entire assessed valuation in 2025 of $315 million. Again, that’s every farm, house, car, tractor, building, boat, and cow in the county. Google intends to build the county’s second enormous data center, with an assessed valuation in the billions. Data centers don’t have kids who need teachers. They don’t require much in the realm of public services. What do you think happens when you add huge assessed valuations from businesses that don’t add much to the public service requirements? The answer should be tax cuts, which is exactly what happened in Loudoun County, Virginia. The only way these data centers won’t generate large tax cuts is if the local elected officials make a big mistake and approve massive tax subsidies for them.

Which, of course, is exactly what they will do. Montgomery County officials gave Amazon a huge tax subsidy, just as Festus and Independence city officials did with their data centers. So instead of widespread tax cuts for an entire community, you get, at least in the short and medium term, huge tax cuts for the developers, which might result in slightly reduced taxes for everyone else. Local officials have it all backward. We should use the resources that make Missouri attractive to data centers and promise tax cuts for all instead of special subsidies for a few.

The post Data Centers Can Bring Their Own Tax Cuts 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.

But the concerns with Port KC don’t end with finances alone. A series of audits from 2021 through 2024 flagged serious internal control problems, including one where the finance director had full authority over journal entries, deposits and account reconciliation—with no oversight. Port KC has repeatedly promised to fix these issues and repeatedly failed to act.

PortKC’s most recent audit, dated April 30, 2025 (but which seems to have been posted to the website on August 29, 2025), contains the same financial concerns on page 52. Specifically, a “significant deficiency in internal controls over financial reporting.”

My column was published after the 2025 audit but before it was made publicly available. PortKC could not have effected any changes for the 2025 audit—but I wish someone at PortKC had alerted me that I was actually undercounting the years auditors were pointing out the same, unaddressed shortcomings. So much for claims of transparency.

The post Correction: PortKC Ignoring Its Own Audits for Five Years, Not Four appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Port districts exist, in theory, to build and manage port facilities along rivers. When they actually focus on that job, I have no complaints. But in reality, many of the port districts are focused on other things, such as granting tax subsidies or engaging in government corruption. (The latter is less common, thankfully.)

The City of St. Louis’s port authority legitimately operates port facilities along the Mississippi. However, it is also substantially engaged in the granting of tax subsidies, usually for businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with rivers or shipping. For example, the port authority passed a one-cent special “port” sales tax for the St. Louis soccer team to be charged at the soccer stadium that the team gets to keep for its own purposes. (The soccer team has stated that it will use those funds to fix groundwater issues, so I guess it’s at least related to water.)

That was the city’s first “port” sales tax. Now there is a hotel, retail, and condo redevelopment downtown that also wants in on the game. The Jefferson Arms redevelopment has also requested a “port” sales tax of one percent. This is on top of the tax-increment financing subsidy it has already received, as well as the state and federal historic tax credits it got, and the community improvement district and transportation development district extra sales taxes it has applied for and will likely receive. Could it be that the developer wants to socialize the risk and cost, while privatizing the profit?

But a strange thing happened when the developer and its consultants tried to get the sales tax approved by the port authority. The port board said, “Wait, not just yet.” (Trust me, I wish I could say it said “no,” but the vote was tabled, not defeated.)

As Commissioner William Kay Jr. noted at the hearing: “If all three districts are approved, the Jefferson Arms building would have the highest sales tax rate in the city at 12.67%. We’ve got the CID, we’ve got the TDD—the tax rate right now will be 11.67%,” Kay said. “That’s the high mark for the city. I do not think the port authority needs to get into the business of subsidizing these projects.”

Let me reiterate: the Jefferson Arms project has nothing to do with a port. The use of port authorities to create one more tax subsidy opportunity in St. Louis, Kansas City, or anywhere else is terrible public policy. It’s great to see one agency say “not yet.” Hopefully, that “not yet” becomes a “no” in the future, both for this instance and many other subsidy proposals around the state.

Furthermore, the state legislature should remove the ability of port districts to issue tax subsidies or institute new sales taxes. Ports should be funded with user fees to the largest extent possible, and should not be another tool in the corporate welfare toolbox.

The post Denied Entrance at the Port of Call appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

North Side Grant Project Is a Disaster

The revelations about the North St. Louis Small Business & Non-Profit Grant Program being managed by the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) keep coming. The entire grant program is rife with political favoritism, but at least the places connected to politicians actually exist! It turns out some of the other recipients of the grants are not, shall we say, real entities, like this “museum” just north of the Central West End:

The museum’s website advertises a facility, historical exhibits and a passion for illustrating the history of the Mississippi River and the people who have lived on its banks. But its address leads to a brick four-family structure in a neighborhood just north of the Central West End. No one answers the door, even during advertised business hours. And the building itself is surrounded by weeds and overgrowth.

“I’ve never heard anything about that place being a museum,” said Ray Sims, a longtime neighbor of the building. “How do I get the money?”

It’s almost like word got out that the SLDC was just giving away free money and, shockingly, people started making up reasons to get free money.

Recipients of Large Tax Subsidies Under Indictment

Does the SLDC make better decisions when dealing with big-time developers instead of ordinary people? Apparently not. Last week, the heads of a major St. Louis and Kansas City development firm were indicted in St. Louis for allegedly submitting false documents regarding minority-hiring rules. While this is the first indictment of these men (everyone is, of course, innocent until proven otherwise), their questionable business practices have been well known. Yet they have consistently received massive tax subsidies for work in St. Louis and Kansas City: particularly the latter in recent years.

Five Lux Living projects in Kansas City have been approved for incentives since 2021, including a $200 million apartment/hotel at 14th and Wyandotte streets.

Is it fair of me to blame the SLDC for an act  by private citizens or companies seeking subsidies? Perhaps not, but when politicians and bureaucrats choose who gets subsidies, don’t be surprised when unpleasant actors start circling. After all, political donations and tax subsidies have a strong connection:

For instance, around the country, politicians who make these deals are more likely to receive campaign donations, and they’re more likely to be re-elected. On the flip side, companies that make political donations to relevant officials are four times more likely to enjoy subsidy deals than those that don’t, and their deals are more than 60% bigger, to boot.

Again, it’s shocking, I know . . .

Maryland Heights Uses General Taxes to Make up for Failures

It isn’t just large cities that abuse economic development policy. Suburbs do it all the time, and they don’t always do it with misplaced tax subsidies. Sometimes, cities make the mistakes all on their own.

Several years ago, Maryland Heights decided to get into the ice arena business. Not a normal ice rink for its residents, mind you; that would have been understandable. City leaders apparently wanted to act like private developers and build a massive hockey and skating complex to make money for the city. This is, usually, a big mistake for cities.

It definitely was a big mistake for Maryland Heights. The city has announced that it has again been forced to tap into general tax revenues to fund the bond payments after its predicted ice complex revenues have continued to fall short. Part of the reason revenues fell short is that both Maryland Heights and the ice complex failed to collect a sales tax for several years that was implemented to pay for the bonds. I don’t know if that is funny, sad, or both.

Cities do not have to engage in economic development schemes to succeed. Unilateral disarmament is the best option all around. Until that happens, expect stories like these to be a regular occurrence.

The post It Has Been a Great Week for Economic Development Agencies in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, I have some bad news. On Friday, word broke that the Royals have been talking with North Kansas City and Clay County officials for a ballpark development, and those talks have gotten fairly serious. According to two county commissioners and the mayor of North Kansas City:

Over the past few months leaders from Clay County and the City of North Kansas City have had conversations with the Kansas City Royals about the possibility of developing a new baseball stadium and adjacent ballpark district in North Kansas City. This plan would include commercial, residential development and entertainment experiences adjacent to the stadium, complementing the amazing businesses and entertainment options that already exist in downtown North Kansas City today. We look forward to continuing our work with the Royals and have additional meetings scheduled with them.

The Royals confirmed in a recent media report that they are considering a location in North Kansas City. We think it is important that we communicate our efforts with the community, and the reason we plan to work with the Royals on behalf of our respective jurisdictions to select a North Kansas City site for the planned new stadium. Although no agreement has been reached by either Clay County or North Kansas City to take action on, we are striving to lay the groundwork necessary for a plan that is positive for the city, the county and our entire community.

A vote on a countywide tax for the stadium could come as early as this November, a quick turnaround for such a seemingly late-breaking project. Apart from the expected taxpayer subsidy, the potential North Kansas City sites have a few advantages, including no Kansas City earnings tax (and so instant raises for Royals employees) and a more stable crime situation than Kansas City, which just had its 88th murder of 2023, including seven murders in just the last four days as of this writing.

I expected both the Chiefs and Royals would remain in the region but thought that the Chiefs were the most likely to head to Kansas or some other non-Kansas City, Missouri jurisdiction. Friday’s news upends that assumption, with both teams leaving Kansas City’s boundaries now a legitimate possibility. No taxpayers should subsidize the Chiefs or Royals, but if Kansas City lucks out and gets to enjoy the teams without having to line their pockets, all the better.

And to North Kansas City and Clay County, I’ll just say this: Really? C’mon now.

Really?

The post “The Kansas City Royals of North Kansas City”? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While I recognize the appropriate use of aldermanic courtesy in some instances, I am the last person to defend its widespread practice. Laws should be applied evenly to the greatest extent possible, and too often aldermanic courtesy just enhances the whims and personal power of the practitioners. Whether your new restaurant is allowed to serve liquor should not depend on whether the alderman likes you or not.

Recent unfortunate events in the City of St. Louis have brought the practice justifiably into question, but like a desperate gambler whose every bet is wrong, the board of alderman can’t even get ethical reform right. The board just decided to bypass the usual practice of aldermanic courtesy in the 17th Ward FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. The local alderwoman had been more hesitant to support tax subsidies in her ward, and she deserves praise for that (and some related criticism). So the developers who want their giveaways just found another member of the board to introduce their subsidy bill, and it is expected to pass.

The most absurd statement in the story is this one:

In any case, [Alderman Marlene] Davis said aldermen should be willing to listen to the “experts at SLDC,” who professionally vet development projects.

The idea that “experts” at the St. Louis Development Corporation actually “vet” these development subsidy requests is beyond absurd. The ease and frequency in which developers receive these subsidies, combined with the continued decline of much of the City of St. Louis, are Exhibits A through Z for why all these types of subsidies don’t work.

These tax subsidies are there for the taking. A few aldermen, such as Ms. Pihl, occasionally try to push back somewhat. So what happens then? You just find another member of the board to go around the member who won’t rubber stamp your handout. If this is how we are going to reform aldermanic courtesy in the City of St. Louis, then bring back the crooked assessor.

The post Aldermanic Discourtesy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is important to learn from one’s mistakes, and when it comes to special taxing districts in the Springfield area, there are plenty of mistakes to learn from. Special taxing districts (SDs) are tax districts established to support one specific function or program, such as a school district. In recent years, however, most new SDs have been nothing more than vehicles for corporate welfare, and their use in Springfield has been anything but an example of good government.

Springfield is now considering a gift basket of new tax subsidies for the Sports Town youth sports complex. This included the recent city council approval of a new community improvement district (CID) to use tax dollars to subsidize the private development. First, the city gerrymandered a map to make sure the new CID didn’t include any voters to get around the voting requirements. Next, city leaders decided to give the developers $2 million in upfront subsidies even though the city’s own guidelines recommend against doing exactly that. The upfront subsidy by the city means that all Springfield taxpayers are paying for this project, not just the ones who may use the facility.

Remaining on this expensive list is a request by the developers for $4 million more subsidies from federal stimulus funds. Shockingly, the developers have decided that their project qualifies for federal funding. Maybe it’s for the sewers, or for tourism, or perhaps this project will help fight the COVID pandemic. Youth sports may be infrastructure now. Whatever the feeble excuse is, the lure of “free” federal money is strong. If a private development such as SGF Sports (the company behind Sports Town) cannot succeed without multiple subsidy programs, it’s not the job of taxpayers to ensure it goes forward.

With such a large subsidy upfront, Springfield is basically trying to be a real estate developer. The city should have learned from Greene County that government real estate speculation is a bad idea. That county previously subsidized the private Jamestown development by creating a neighborhood improvement district (NID) to pay off bonds the county issued in support of the proposal. It assumed the future taxes from the NID would suffice to pay off the bonds. It assumed wrong. When the Jamestown project failed, Greene County taxpayers were on the hook for the unpaid debt. Springfield should have learned from this costly mistake.

This SGF Sports CID would be the 17th CID in Greene County, most of them in Springfield, along with at least four more transportation development districts (TDDs). Despite the public-sounding names, many CIDs and TDDs consist of just a few parcels of property with sales taxes imposed on the public for the private benefit of one property owner. These tax dollars are often used for essentially private purposes, such as retail parking lots or landscaping.

How have these other SDs worked out in Springfield? Not very well. Missouri state auditor Nicole Galloway specifically cited Springfield’s HyVee store CID for improperly collecting almost a quarter million dollars of tax money. Galloway also identified Springfield’s College Station TDD downtown for multiple abuses, including failures to notify shoppers of the tax. Based on research on SDs generally in Missouri, the other SDs are likely functioning as corporate welfare schemes here in the Queen City of the Ozarks.

Springfield is a vibrant, growing community that does not need to rely on tax subsidies to boost its economy. If Springfield wants to help all businesses succeed rather than just a select few, it should work with Greene County to lower its commercial property tax surcharge rate, which is high compared to those of other Missouri communities. The CID for Sports Town was not necessary, and $4 million more from federal funds would be an even worse decision. The evidence is clear that these subsidy programs produce more financial mismanagement than economic growth. Springfield should learn from its history and stop repeating the same mistakes.

The post Springfield Should Reject Subsidies for Sports Town appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

[A]lternatives need to be examined because the tax totals a third of the city’s general revenue. “That is just unsustainable,” she said. “We need to see how we can diversify our sources of funds to make us not so dependent on the earnings tax should the voters ever decide that they don’t want to pay it anymore.”

She is absolutely right. The City of St. Louis needs to get serious about leaning less on the earnings tax, for a variety of reasons. The newest reason, resulting from the pandemic, is the increase in working from home. The city is, unfortunately, attempting to claim that people working from home in the suburbs still have to pay the tax. Through legislation or litigation, I hope that this new and intentionally improper implementation of the law is prohibited. Nevertheless, the long-term impacts from increased working from home on the earnings tax in St. Louis will likely be substantial.

And yes, voters may one day (Tuesday was clearly not that day) decide they want to phase it out, and the city should move in a direction to encourage that, not discourage it. The single most important thing the City of St. Louis can do is reduce the enormous tax subsidies it gives out each year. As stated in our recent op-ed in the St. Louis Business Journal, the city gives out about $70 million per year in subsidies. Expanding the tax base by letting those subsidies expire and not granting new ones is the single best way to phase out the earnings tax without large tax increases elsewhere.

Even if one thinks that the City of St. Louis (and Kansas City) should maintain the earnings tax, not depending on it so much would be a smart thing to do.

The post More on the Earnings Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On March 11, 2021, David Stokes joined The Gary Nolan Show to discuss why this is a bad deal for Boonville:

The post $40 Million Tax Giveaway in Boonville, Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So when the St. Louis County TIF Commission voted the atrocious Maryland Heights proposal down last year 7-5 (with all county members and a Parkway school board member voting no), it was fantastic news. It was not the first defeat of an awful subsidy proposal in Missouri, but it was certainly one of the most important when you consider the amount of damage—fiscal, economic, and environmental—the project would have done. That’s why such a large consortium of individuals and groups opposed the project.

Of course, the City of Maryland Heights wasn’t going to take this decision lying down. No, it was going to do all it could to make sure it was able to use other people’s tax dollars to subsidize a hugely damaging project. So, after the vote, the city sued to overturn the decision of the TIF commission, claiming the commission itself was improperly constructed. Would the city have sued claiming the commission was improperly constructed if the commission had voted to pass the TIF? To ask the question is to answer it.

The great news that came down on Tuesday is that the court upheld the decision of the TIF commission and decided against Maryland Heights. This is a big win for taxpayers everywhere, and hopefully it will help inspire people around the state to continue opposing these types of tax giveaways with renewed fervor. I hope people are listening in Boonville, Lake Ozark, Kansas City, Chesterfield, and beyond. You can stand up to these awful local government plans and win.

The post A Big Win for Taxpayers in Maryland Heights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Patrick Tuohey on KCPT’s Ruckus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are innumerable instances where a city’s expenditures far exceed the tax revenues brought in by a publicly funded stadium (the Edwards Jones Dome in St Louis and Yankee Stadium in New York to name a few). It makes no sense (or cents) to promote the financing of a stadium for tax revenues when spending exceeds income.

Not only does public funding of a stadium severely hamstring city government, but a quick analysis reveals that the gains promised to the city’s economy rarely materialize. According to a 2008 study conducted by professors at Holy Cross, professional sports facilities, and even teams themselves “have little or no significant positive impacts, or even negative impacts on the local economy.” Why? Because the vast majority of fans who attend these stadium events are area residents who would likely be spending their money in the city regardless of the existence or location of the stadium. The same idea holds true for job creation. The thousands of jobs required to build a stadium are only temporary and often just taken from other projects occurring around the city.

This is not to say that professional sports franchises and their stadiums offer no benefit to cities. Sports teams promote civic pride and can unify city residents. If the Royals want to build a downtown stadium with their own resources, that’s fine. But the idea that a publicly-financed stadium will pay for itself by catalyzing economic growth is a tired, disproven argument.

In fact, Kansas City should have already learned this lesson. Almost two years ago, Patrick Tuohey detailed concerns about Wyandotte County funding a similar project for the semi-professional Kansas City T-Bones. Taxpayer subsidies could not overcome a lack of demand. The T-Bones’ failure continued and the owners are looking to sell. When it comes to subsidizing stadiums, policymakers should heed Breaking Bad’s Gustavo Fring and never make the same mistake twice.

The post New Downtown Royals Stadium Would Cost City a King’s Ransom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is much to bemoan in the deal. Besides the fact that nearly half of the project’s costs will be covered by taxpayers, the upfront payments from Novus the city negotiated—funds to improve the Olive Blvd. corridor and Third Ward in general—have been cut in half, at least in the short term.

But there is something else lurking in the deal worth worrying about.

Although it seems to have been a part of the plan from the outset, a community improvement district, or CID, will be created in the main development area. The district will be controlled by the developer, and will collect a 1% sales tax to fund . . . pretty much anything associated with the development (see pp. 20-21). (CIDs often fund site improvements, such as earthwork and infrastructure, but it is not uncommon for them to fund developments more directly.) And while the final agreement states that no other CIDs or related districts may be formed in the area, it only prohibits proposed districts that would overlap with the main development area, not the entire development footprint, which extends south of Olive Blvd (see pp. 21-22). So there could be even more special sales taxes for University City in the future.

So, what does this mean? In short, more taxpayer money than meets the eye will subsidize the project. In more concrete terms, it means that everyone who shops in the main development area, where a Costco is slated to be built, will pay an extra 1%. That might not sound like much, but it is important to keep in mind that CIDs and their close cousin, transportation development districts (TDDs), have collected more than a billion in revenue from Missourians since their inception. As I’ve detailed previously, CIDs and TDDs are growing at alarming rates, and have altered the state’s tax landscape. Perhaps it should be no surprise that they’re written into this recent mega-deal. 

If policymakers at the local level seem inclined to approve handouts like these, what can be done to stop taxpayer abuse? As Patrick Tuohey and I make clear in a recent paper, the most effective reforms would come at the state level, and would either prohibit developers from forming CIDs and TDDs without a public vote (what will likely happen in the case of this CID) or rescind their sales taxing authority. Short of these reforms, consumers can only brace themselves for higher and higher taxes.

Disclaimer: The author lives in University City’s Third Ward.

The post A Snake, or CID, in the Grass appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The proposal, which is being considered by the Kansas City Council, seeks funding to help build an office tower and parking garage combination (requiring $27 million and $36 million in subsidies respectively). The building site is at the corner of 13^th and Main, right in the heart of downtown. Supporters of the project argue that the subsidies would help provide needed office space.

As ludicrous as the idea of government subsidizing private development in a popular area already is, it gets better—there are no tenants lined up to occupy the space. In other words, economic development officials want the government to spend $63 million on office space . . . just in case.

Jon Stephens, CEO of Port KC (which is currently an active participant in this proposal), attempted to explain this reasoning: “The demand for ready-to-occupy space has been proven in other markets. The demand appears to be present here.”

The editorial board is asking the correct questions in response to Stephens’ comment. If the demand is there, why are taxpayer dollars needed? If the demand isn’t, why would you ask taxpayers and government to take on that risk?

If downtown Kansas City is attractive to a company, then the company should pay for building its own office space. Private developers should be building based on market forces, without being cushioned from risk by taxpayer subsidies.

The Star’s editorial board is right: “It’s time for downtown projects in Kansas City to stand on their own merits, not on public dollars subsidizing private development.”

The post Kansas City Star Editorial Gets It Right on Tax Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Exactly what does it mean to have the conversation? It will doubtlessly require money spent on consultants to draft options, hold meetings, and the like. And what will those plans drive toward? Probably an expensive public finance project to buy a new stadium for a billionaire.

We’re spending money so we can spend money. It’s absurd.

It gets worse. The Star’s editorial board included this nugget:

City Manager Troy Schulte said his conversations with [Royals owner David] Glass associates have left the door open to that possibility.

“He (Glass) is saying, “Give us some options,” Schulte said. “He has not said no.”

In other words, the team owner isn’t even asking for any of this, he just didn’t refuse. And why should he? He’d be a fool to stop the city from offering him the same type of taxpayer subsidies that cities make all the time. As a result, city leaders, including the Star, are eager to start spending money on it.

Wait, there’s more. The Star makes clear there is additional cost beyond the taxpayer outlay of funds on consultants and construction subsidies:

Other possibilities remain east of City Hall and near the 18th & Vine Jazz District. “You’ve got to reserve it, or you’re losing development sites,” Schulte said.

Schulte is saying the city would intervene in the market to “reserve” sites, effectively stopping anyone else who might have a better, unsubsidized, idea for development. (One can imagine that at the time of construction, the then-mayor and council members will point to the lot they have kept vacant and say, “look at this lot no one has developed, we need this downtown stadium to address blight.”)

If Kansas City’s wealthy sports team owners want to consider other locations for their stadiums, and spend their own money doing so, they are free and welcome to do so. But the idea that taxpayers should take the initiative and spend money now so we can maybe spend money later is completely wrong.

The post Downtown Baseball? A Swing and a Miss appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now St. Louis faces a different proposal on building a soccer stadium. The exact details remain unknown, but according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it requires:

• $30 million in state tax credits
• A 3 percent sales tax on purchases at the stadium to back bonds for construction
• A full tax exemption on construction materials used to build the stadium
• A 50 percent break on ticket taxes

Danny Wicentowski at the Riverfront Times makes the Show-Me Institute’s point for us:

But the fact that this plan even exists should put to rest what critics considered the central deception of the 2017 push: That public money was the only way to get a professional sports team to consider St. Louis.

Indeed, the 2017 ownership group, helmed by [project partner David] Peacock, repeatedly emphasized that public buy-in was the only path forward, and maintained that $60 million in public funds were absolutely necessary to satisfy the league. The league’s commissioner, Don Garber, added to the pressure, remarking on a conference call that a public vote on the monetary outlay would represent a “referendum” on whether the city really wanted a team.

It may very well be the case that the deal before taxpayers now is better than the deal that was placed before them in 2017. It certainly seems so. But the new proposal still seeks public participation to the tune of tens of millions of dollars that will not go to the city and the state.

Maybe this is the best deal Missourians can get. But then we were told the same thing back in 2017, weren’t we?

The post Is This Really the Least Bad Deal to Build a Soccer Stadium? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We do that by making smart financial and fiscal decisions . . . and being open and transparent in our spending and where the citizens’ tax dollars are going.

This commitment to good government is admirable. So why would the Columbia City Council vote 5-3 in favor of approving the Broadway TIF after the Columbia TIF Commission overwhelmingly voted 8-3 against the proposal?

For several months, a developer who owns The Broadway Columbia Hotel, has been trying to convince the TIF Commission to declare 1104 E. Walnut St. a redevelopment area so that he can qualify to receive $2 million in taxpayer subsidies to expand. To support this effort, the developer claimed in his development plan (pp. 4–5) that the building meets the “Conservation Area” criteria for TIF eligibility because it is 56 years old and “displays obsolescence due to age, ongoing vacancy, and deferred maintenance of external items like the roof and gutters.”

Furthermore, the developer claimed in testimony provided to the TIF council on October 30 that while not blighted yet, the redevelopment area may qualify due to excessive vacancies, litter, and alcohol containers on the grounds. Should taxpayers be asked to pick up the tab for cleaning the area up, or should it be the responsibility of the property owner?

The developer also noted that without TIF assistance, potential investors and lenders said they would not be willing to join the project because the financial risk would be too great. And yet, in a letter sent to the commission, the Boone County Auditor pointed out that “just a few blocks west of the parcel in question . . . a multi-story office building is currently under construction [and] is proceeding without TIF financing on a smaller lot than the subject lot, and at a significant investment … of several million dollars.” If similar projects can proceed without subsidy, then can’t this one as well?

Finally, the Boone County Assessor has warned that over its 23-year life, the TIF arrangement would divert $4.3 million away from schools, libraries, and municipal services—but the hotel expansion is projected to produce only $695,000 in tax revenue. Proponents say this diversion of money will lead to job growth. However, this argument is at odds with multiple studies that have concluded that TIF has no demonstrable effect on job creation. Is this the sort of smart fiscal decision-making that is supposed to regain the trust of the voters?

Last year, the Missouri Legislature passed a law stating that if a city passes a TIF over the objection of a TIF commission, then the money raised from it can only be used towards the demolition and clearing of the site. Unfortunately, the law only applies to Saint Louis County, Saint Charles County, and Jefferson County. Maybe it’s time to include Boone County—or the rest of Missouri—under the law. 

The post Is This How Trust Is Regained? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For now, though, downtown baseball is and should be off the to-do list. The region must deal with more urgent priorities first.

Subsidizing sports stadiums is a bad idea regardless of the timing. Recently, Saint Louis has spent an inordinate amount of time and money trying to force taxpayers to do exactly this. First, there was an effort to build a new riverfront stadium for the Rams. When that plan failed, there was a sprint to build a soccer stadium in hopes of luring an Major League Soccer team to town. Stadiums are said to generate jobs in their construction (they don’t), and drive economic development once they are built (they don’t). At best, they divert people’s disposable income from one activity to another. Stadiums only create wealth for the team owners—who don’t have to share their profits with the taxpayers underwriting their team’s overhead. (In Wyandotte County, Kansas, taxpayer subsidies likely just postpone the inevitable closing of a baseball park.)

These aren’t just the musings of free-market, small-government cranks, either. There is a robust body of research from organizations left and right and in-between that shows stadium handouts are a waste of public resources. Nor do we need to rely on academic studies. The dome formerly known as Edward Jones failed to attract the economic development or population density its boosters promised. Anyone who doubts this should just look at aerial photos of Truman Sports Complex. Much of the land around two stadiums lays un- or under-developed.

Subsidizing sports stadiums, wherever they are built, is bad public policy. Not because of timing, or because there are other more pressing matters in Kansas City, which is true. It’s bad because diverting tax dollars to help big businesses build their own buildings is wasteful of limited public resources intended to provide basic services.

The post Subsidized Downtown Stadiums, Forever and Always, a Bad Idea appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Success? How does Mr. Burt define success? According to his LinkedIn account, Burt was the vice president of Sales and Services at the Baltimore Area Convention and Visitors Association from March 2005 through December 2008. During that period, Baltimore taxpayers subsidized a new Hilton Hotel to the tune of $300 million. It opened in August 2008. Attendance at conventions in Baltimore has remained flat, and according to The Baltimore Sun, the convention center lost over $5 million in 2014 and again in 2015. The President of the City Council suggested selling the hotel, saying, “The hotel has been a drain on the city since it opened. We floated $300 million in bonds for it, and since it opened, we’ve been constantly losing money.”

Would Kansas Citians consider that a success?

From January 2009 through August 2010, Burt joined the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association as the senior vice president of sales and services! Indianapolis also expanded their convention center during that time. According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, the project has failed to meet expectations.

Attendance for state and national conventions in 2009, before the construction was in full swing, was 459,944. Attendance in those two categories in 2012 was 483,164, a slight increase from three years earlier—before the expansion.

Is that success?

From August 2010 through June 2014, Burt was vice president of sales and services for Destination DC, the “the official destination marketing organization for the nation’s capital.” DC was also in the process of building a hotel: the 1,200 room Marriott Marquis adjacent to the Washington Convention Center. It opened in April, 2014 and convention-related hotel room nights in 2014, 2015 and 2016 are all lower than the peak of 512,000 in 2011—before the hotel opened.

More success?

People who crisscross the country spending taxpayer dollars may think that every new construction is a success. But that is not the case for the taxpayers and city councils left holding the bill for underperforming hotels and convention centers. Kansas City’s own past is littered with unfulfilled convention promises, yet each one was supposedly a success. Taxpayers have every right to wonder how much more of this kind of success they can afford.

The post A New Convention Hotel Is Not Necessarily a Success appeared first on Show-Me Institute.