The first zoning example is in Des Peres, where the owners of a wellness and substance-abuse treatment center want to operate on the site of a recently closed hospital. Let’s repeat that. A healthcare-related business wants to open on the site of a former hospital. In a rational world, the City of Des Peres would do nothing more than say, “Welcome to Des Peres.” But, alas, nothing is ever easy. The Des Peres Board of Adjustment has decided that a wellness and treatment center is not a hospital and denied the application and permits to operate. Furthermore, city officials have said the company seeking the approval cannot appeal the decision, as it doesn’t own the property yet. The company can appeal once it finalizes the purchase of the property, but then it will be forced to make a very large investment in the site without having any idea if it will be allowed to use it after purchase. This is, of course, all completely insane.

I am not adamantly anti-zoning. Nobody here is trying to put a chemical factory into a neighborhood (or some similar hyperbolic example anti-growth NIMBYs usually make). This is a wellness and treatment center that will be located where a hospital was. The fact that the city can deny any part of this is absurd.

The other zoning example is nearby on the border of Chesterfield and Wildwood. Here, a small, tightly knit African-American community has lived for over a century, and the land has become very valuable over recent decades as the suburbs have expanded. The family that owns most of the land wants to sell its largely undeveloped property and build a lot of new, large homes there, which is exactly what has happened in the surrounding area for the past 40 years. Not so fast . . .

Among the many impediments the family is facing is the opposition of neighbors. Here is a great quote from the public hearing by an opponent of the zoning change to allow the redevelopment:

“This would certainly be a substantial change to the character of this entire area,” resident Chrissy Jurkiewicz told the city council at its Dec. 1 meeting. “The landscape would be forever altered.”

Come again? What does the speaker think happened 20 or so years ago when her own subdivision was built? Did her own house and all of her neighbors’ homes somehow not “forever alter the landscape?” Did Osage Indians roam the area in the early 1800s and see a bunch of empty houses in her neighborhood and wonder why nobody lived in them?

A while ago, the City of Chesterfield approved rezoning to redevelop the property, but the City of Wildwood (remember, it’s on the border) rejected the rezoning precisely because the Chesterfield change was “too permissive” and would “overdevelop” the land. The entire area has changed from farmland to subdivisions over the past 50 years, but a bunch of Wildwood officials who live in those new subdivisions get to tell this family that their sale would “overdevelop” the land. This is infuriating, and it’s denying this family the right to the prosperity it has earned.

Does this mean cities should have no say at all in these zoning changes and redevelopments? No. For instance, in the Chesterfield case, I think the nearby residents have legitimate concerns about water runoff if the higher land above them were to be developed. But that’s not a reason to deny the proposal; that simply means the cities should ensure a plan to address such possible harm is included. As for the eternal concerns about things such as increased traffic, cities (and counties) can use the increased taxes generated by the development to fund the infrastructure improvements it may necessitate. We used to allow people to build, and we used the expanded tax base to fund the improvements we needed. Now we either reject it or subsidize it. (Yes, I’m exaggerating, but the point stands.)

It’s great that we have more liberal city and county zoning rules in Missouri than the rest of the country. However, these examples show that there is additional room for improvement.

The post We Still Need Zoning Reform in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As 2025 comes to an end, we reflect on the progress made this year, from expanding MOScholars and strengthening property rights, to improving telehealth access and supporting Missouri’s entrepreneurs. Despite challenges, including rebuilding after the May 16th tornado, our mission remains the same, ensuring every Missourian has the freedom and opportunity to prosper. As we look to the next twenty years, we invite you to stand with us. Support the Show-Me Institute and help build a lasting legacy of liberty for Missouri. 

Click Here to Support Liberty in Missouri

The post Watch: Help Build Missouri’s Legacy of Liberty 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.

Here’s an overview of some of the legislation passed this session (some of which is still awaiting the governor’s signature):

$50 MILLION FOR MOSCHOLARS PROGRAM

• First public investment in the K–12 scholarship program, with $50 million approved in the state budget
• Could triple the number of students served, expanding access to private school, homeschooling, and
specialized support

TELEHEALTH AND HEALTH CARE REFORMS: SB 79

• Improves telehealth access by allowing both audio-only and audiovisual services on any HIPAAcompliant
platform
• Expands health benefit offerings by allowing certain organizations to offer health plans to members,
sometimes referred to as farm bureau or association health plans, without many of the burdensome state
and federal restrictions that apply to traditional insurance offerings

PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS: HB 595 AND HB 343

• Prohibits cities and counties from requiring landlords to participate in voluntary federal housing
programs such as Section 8 housing vouchers
• Bans caps on security deposits and restrictions on tenant screening criteria like income, credit, and
criminal history

CAPITAL GAINS TAX EXEMPTION: HB 594

• Exempts 100% of long-term capital gains from Missouri state income tax for individuals
• Applies to all individual income reported as capital gains for federal tax purposes, starting tax year 2025
• Designed to encourage investment and entrepreneurship by reducing the tax burden on productive
activity

EXPANDING LICENSE PORTABILITY: SB 150

• Expands access to temporary occupational licenses across most licensed professions in Missouri by
repealing the harmful compact exemption, ensuring that more professionals moving to Missouri can
start working without unnecessary delays
• Provides expedited occupational licenses to law enforcement spouses moving to Missouri, allowing
those licensed in another state for at least one year and in good standing to receive a Missouri license
within 30 days of applying

Download a copy of the report here.

The post 2025 End of the Legislative Session Report appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The total amount of real property associated with all solar energy projects that are established in any one county in this state shall not exceed an amount greater than two percent of all cropland in a county.

This bill highlights a legitimate concern. Solar farms take up a significant amount of space and require extensive transmission construction as well.

Nonetheless, interfering in the free market and banning the sale of land for solar energy projects seems like a step too far. While there are ample concerns with solar energy, why is the state government limiting property rights and picking winners and losers in the energy market?

If our state is concerned with the rapid growth of solar, the future reliability of our energy grid, and land use, why not take the shackles off the operation of the free market in energy? The Missouri Legislature could loosen restrictions around the nuclear industry. A traditional nuclear energy facility has a very small land footprint, requiring about 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of energy.

To generate the same amount of energy as nuclear, less powerful silicon solar photovoltaic farms need on average 63 times more land.

As I have written before, Missouri could do this by setting a solid foundation for nuclear and eliminating government restrictions on the industry. But what we don’t need is more government interference in the free market.

The post Limiting Solar Farming? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Based on complaints (and a few horror stories), residents and officials alike have been pushing for some sort of reform in the “wild west” of STRs. I thought the original bills created a satisfactory regulatory compromise between those who enjoy the benefits of STRs and those who are subjected to the negative effects of this industry.

However, members of the Transportation and Commerce Committee are now seeking to attach additional rules that would make STR regulation even stricter. There are three key new proposed rules that would turn this proposal into an overly burdensome set of regulations.

1. No STR in the City of St. Louis can allow customers to stay fewer than two nights.

The concern is people renting an STR for one night in order to throw a “rager” (I apologize for my former fraternity brother lingo). This “two-night minimum rule” is meant to curb this practice, but it still wouldn’t prevent partiers from simply renting an STR for two nights. This rule would also have negative effects for others. To illustrate one example, let’s say a student is graduating from St. Louis University and his entire extended family wants to attend. The family would be barred from renting a house for Saturday night, cheering on their graduate Sunday morning, and then leaving that afternoon (a common practice).

2. The STR agent must be able to be physically present at the address within one hour if required.

An STR agent is a person or organization who operates the STR. In the original bill, the agent only had to be contactable at all times. Now, that agent must be able to show up to the STR within an hour—failure to do so can result in revocation of the permit. This rule ties the hands of any potential STR operators. This would make owning and operating an STR in St. Louis City extremely burdensome, and also nearly impossible for anyone who is traveling outside the St. Louis area.

3. An owner can only operate one STR per multi-family structure (such as an apartment complex).

This was proposed in order to prevent conglomerates from buying up a large number of units in apartment complexes and creating “ghost hotels,” where residents essentially have no neighbors due to many units being converted to STRs. While this argument has some validity, as community relationships are important, the original bill already included a four-property maximum for STR owners.

Lawmakers in St. Louis City should reconsider adding these new rules to the STR reform bills. The additional rules have moved this legislation from a reasonable regulatory compromise to a burden for visitors and owners.

The post St. Louis City Proposes Adding Additional Rules to Short-Term Rental Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Often referred to as granny flats or in-law suites, ADUs are built near or inside existing homes and provide a separate living space from the main house.

You might hear of the university student who rented out space above someone’s garage or in their basement to afford an education–that student is renting an ADU. And if you search Airbnb (with the filters “Entire Place” and “Guest House”), you can get an idea of what ADUs might look like.

Historically, ADUs have been used to house older family members or relatives—hence the names granny flat and in-law suite. This helps promote multigenerational living, making it easier to maintain relationships with close friends and family (which could help ease a recent increase in loneliness).

ADUs are not currently illegal by name in the City of St. Louis, but a convoluted set of regulations make it extremely difficult for many homeowners to build them; the city requires 4,000 square feet of land per dwelling unit, so residents need at least 8,000 square feet of land to build an ADU. Additionally, parking minimums and setback regulations make it very difficult to build ADUs in homes of certain sizes and shapes, even on larger lots.

ADUs can help lower-income residents afford mortgages and other living expenses while also providing an affordable living space for renters. They also have the potential to increase the value of homes for owners—the extra living space, as well as the potential to rent it out and earn passive income, can increase a home’s appeal.

Board Bill 43 will allow ADUs to be built and used in all residential zones of the city (this interactive map shows how the city is zoned if you’re interested).

Allowing people to use their properties as they see fit and strengthening the rights of homeowners will let the market work freely, increasing the amount of affordable housing in Missouri. This is a much better approach to affordable housing issues than misguided regulations and tax-credit programs.

The now awaits discussion in the Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee.

The post How to House Your Family—and Make it Affordable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Where do we put these larger homes? Well, obviously, many of them are new homes in outer suburbs around the country. But many of them are also infill housing, which simply means someone (often a developer or rehabber who plans to flip the property) buys an older home in a developed area and either substantially remodels it or tears it down and rebuilds from scratch. Usually, as the trend above indicates and the profit margin often requires, the new “infill” house is larger than the prior house. Because there are two constants in life—change and people complaining about change—infill housing often becomes a public policy issue.

While many cities have dealt with the issue of infill housing in Missouri, two cities are debating the issue right now. Columbia and Glendale are both considering changing their municipal codes to address infill housing, though Columbia at least for now has decided against any changes. The objections in both places—and basically everywhere this debate occurs—are very similar. I agree with some and disagree with some. In Columbia, supporters of a moratorium on in-fill development in part of the city described the concerns thusly:

Infill development doesn’t match the character or the scale of the existing neighborhood, historic buildings are not adequately protected, there is a lack of affordable housing, and the areas need better storm water management, stronger development buffers and increased walkability.

Remember, these aren’t really zoning disputes. In many cases, you have single family homes replaced by larger single-family homes. The infill housing in question in Columbia is a bit different, given that it’s a college town with more multi-family (i.e. student) housing in the area. Let’s start with where I agree with some limits or regulations on in-fill housing, which are the very real concerns about the stormwater and flooding issues. That is a big part of the Glendale debate. Tearing down an older home and replacing it with a larger home often involves filling up much more of the lot with concrete and asphalt, with much less space to retain water. Just a few of these infill houses on a block can mean worse flooding for downhill neighbors. These water issues are a legitimate issue for cities to address, either by requiring improved stormwater systems or requiring minimum greenspace on a lot.

What don’t I agree with? Generally, the neighborhood character argument. As people objecting to a development in St. Louis County a decade ago phrased it:

The “McMansions” of Berra’s proposed Estates are too large for small lots and are crammed together to maximize profits, while irrevocably changing the character and density of a treasured neighborhood, 15 residents living near Schuessler Road told the panel. They presented a petition with 186 signatures opposing the development.

The character of a neighborhood is not for the government to decide. That is best left to market decisions or homeowner indentures (which are now easier to amend in Missouri). Yes, the difference between neighborhood indentures and government zoning and regulations may seem small, but I think it is important. There are many aspects of life we do because of social commitments, not government mandates or laws. I can sympathize with objections based on size of the homes, etc., even if I don’t agree with them. I have much less sympathy for government regulations on “neighborhood character” issues like siding, color, heights, plywood, and so on. Those are decisions for people to make with their property, not the government, even in instances where the neighbors may reasonably hate it.

The post “Mr. Mayor, Tear Down This House!” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Various ideas are being tried in other states, including eliminating single-family zoning, requiring the allowing of smaller units, and overriding the authority of local zoning boards.  

We have seen efforts to amend zoning recently in Missouri, though in different ways. State government actually took away the authority of local governments to address concentrated animal feeding operations through zoning. In Webster Groves, the city passed an ordinance allowing duplexes in most single-family zoning areas, but residents put that law up for a referendum and it was voted down. As I wrote at the time about the issue of zoning reform in Webster Groves (and elsewhere):

The rubber will meet the road in debates about equality in housing policy when people — including suburban liberals who claim to passionately support more diversity and inclusion — are forced to consider changes that could affect their own home values and community makeup.

I think the larger questions of zoning reform will eventually come to St. Louis and Kansas City. Right now, our cities and suburbs aggressively mandate lot sizes, setbacks, parking requirements, family limits (homes versus duplexes versus apartments or condos), and much more. The revealed preference of suburban growth is that many people like those policies. I happen to think we should make some adjustments to them.

I understand homeowners’ objections to zoning changes. You make likely the largest investment of your life (your house) under a certain set of rules, and now people want to change the rules on you. I understand the frustration. But strict zoning rules limit people’s ability to use their own property as they see fit, and perhaps more importantly, may create housing shortages that squeeze lower-income residents out of certain markets and raise costs for everyone. That’s a serious tradeoff that homeowners ought to consider.

Until those larger debates happen, what are some zoning reforms Missouri cities and counties could benefit from now?

• We can remove building height restrictions in our urban areas.
• We can reduce or eliminate parking requirements, particularly near transit facilities.
• We can limit or end the authority of advisory boards, such as historic preservation commissions, to reject development proposals themselves.

Those are three ideas worth acting on in St. Louis and Kansas City, and probably other parts of the state.

The post Let’s Talk About Zoning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The debate over municipal limits on renting out your own property is happening all over Missouri, but most immediately in Lake Ozark and the City of St. Louis. In Lake Ozark, which currently bans short-term rentals in much of the city, the city council is voting Tuesday night on amending the zoning laws and allowing short-term rentals in certain parts of the city. I am opposed to municipalities having a comprehensive ban on short-term rentals. In a tourism-driven area like the Lake, it makes even less sense to have an outright ban.

The arguments for allowing short-term rentals are that: (a) you have right to rent out your own property if you wish to (b) allowing more rental options is good for the tourism industry and local economy; and (c) complaints about the rentals are often overblown, and police or regulators can handle such problems as they arise.

I agree with all of that—but even if you believe with all your heart that zoning violates property rights, the courts have decided that zoning is legal. So, if zoning regulations where you live say you can’t rent out your property, you may need a better argument. Point (b) is hard to dispute, and while point (c) is also true in my opinion, I understand why homeowners next door to the property that is the exception—with lots of parties, noise, crime, etc.—may want their city to take more proactive action.

The legitimate arguments against allowing short-term rentals are also straightforward. Too many of them do involve large parties and general mayhem. More importantly, one has to have sympathy for the property rights of the people who bought a home or condo under existing zoning laws that limited or prohibited such rentals, and are now seeing people trying to change (or governments ignoring) those laws. I support allowing short-term rentals, but I won’t be cavalier about the property investments people made with the understanding such things are not allowed.

It’s a tough issue. I think short-term rentals should be allowed in a tourist area like Lake Ozark (and the entire Lake region), but I understand that limits and rules may be necessary. In more residential locations, tighter limits may be appropriate. However you look at it, this issue isn’t going away in Missouri anytime soon.

I’ll be writing more soon on the role homeowners associations can play in this issue and how short-term rentals should be taxed.

The post Short-term Rentals, Long-term Questions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Then again, in the song, they said that seven stories is about as high as a building oughta grow, and perhaps that explains the limits on building heights that they have in the Plaza, and, hence, the controversy.

The Plaza area has had height limits in place for three decades, although the limits were advisory until about three years ago when they became law. The limit for buildings is between three and five stories, depending on the location within the Plaza district.

I have been to the Plaza many times and I, like most people I know, love the look, feel, and vibe of it. But I think that the property rights of the developer along with the benefits of urban density make building height limits a questionable idea.

Kansas City is not the only city in Missouri with building height limits. St. Louis has them, too, in certain areas. I would imagine many other towns also have them, but they don’t come into play much. Nobody is proposing to put a 42-story office building in Poplar Bluff right now.

I think the most famous example of building height limits in the United States is Washington, D.C. Those very strict limits have certainly given our capital a consistent look, but they are undeniably one of the reasons housing and office costs in DC are so high.

Removing the height limits in Kansas City won’t make it Manhattan overnight (no, not that Manhattan). But if a developer wants to build an unsubsidized, tall building along the Plaza, shouldn’t the economic, social, and environmental benefits of allowing taller buildings be given greater weight than the desire to maintain a “consistent look” for an area, even an area as iconic as the Plaza?

The post Building Height Limitations Are Unwise appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

HB 1584 stipulates that any municipality requiring property owners to install EV charging stations pay for those installation costs. Some municipalities in Missouri created requirements for property owners to build EV charging stations on new construction and major renovations—this law would ensure that private property owners aren’t forced to bear the costs of government-mandated construction.

Retrofitting an existing parking space with EV charger equipment can cost thousands of dollars per space, so sorting out who pays for what is not unreasonable. Despite what some opponents claim, this bill doesn’t “block” EV market growth; it simply ensures that private property owners aren’t told where and when to spend more money.

Another objection to this bill is related to costs. It costs much less to outfit a parking space with EV charger equipment during construction than after. Some estimates say installation during construction rather than after could cut costs by 75 percent. And with thousands more EVs hitting the road each year, opponents of the bill claim it would be better to require building charging stations as cheaply as possible to accommodate EV market growth.

This gets it backward. It may indeed be cheaper to install chargers during original construction, which is something property owners can take into account if they wish to respond to a growing EV market. Accommodating an emerging class of customers is standard business practice and doesn’t require any mandates.

Lost in the discussion surrounding HB 1584 are several better policies state and local policymakers can pursue to improve the EV market. For charging stations, municipalities can streamline their zoning rules to allow EV chargers in all zoning districts, review EV charger installation permits in days rather than weeks, and make information about the permitting process much more transparent. To make it easier to purchase EVs, state lawmakers can allow Missourians to buy EVs directly from manufacturers rather than forcing them to go through a franchised dealership (which many new EV companies do not have).

HB 1584 is a step in the right direction, but it’s a narrow bill that only deals with protecting private actors from an onerous government mandate for EV charging station construction. I’m hopeful that future EV policy discussions can turn from talks of fines and mandates to free markets.

The post Major Confusion About Missouri’s EV Charging Station Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.

This quote by Ludwig von Mises in his magnum opus, Human Action, is a plea to the common citizen to learn economics. At first glance, it might seem exaggerated. Is economics really relevant to everybody and everything? And is it really the essence of civilization?

In fact, it is. As Mises argues elsewhere in the book, society is simply the cooperative interaction of different individuals. But how does this cooperative interaction come to be? Human nature is selfish, so why don’t we just fight each other to get the things we want?

The answer, according to Mises, is the division of labor. By specializing in tasks and exchanging goods, each individual actually benefits more in the long run than if they were to fight each other. Division of labor is cooperation. This is the foundation of economics. It’s also the foundation of civilization.

However, the fact that the division of labor is more productive is not, in itself, sufficient for cooperation to take place. Each individual must also recognize this fact. Without understanding the benefits of cooperation, individuals would give in to their short-term instinct of plunder. Thankfully, humans are rational beings and eventually realized that cooperation and exchange are better than barbarism.

However, cooperation through the division of labor—the foundation of civilization—is constantly under attack by socialists who want to dismantle the market system. This market system based on property rights is nothing but the extension of the division of labor and exchange.

This is why Mises makes his plea for everyone to learn economics. If people lose this insight about the benefits of cooperation and give into short-term instincts for plunder and control, our society would suffer greatly.

Mises summed it up nicely in Human Action:

Everybody thinks of economics whether he is aware of it or not. In joining a political party and in casting his ballot, the citizen implicitly takes a stand upon essential economic theories.” Giving into rhetoric without examining economics yourself is “tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and to yielding to other people’s domination.

Don’t let the political winds sway you. Don’t let ideas go unchallenged. Learn economics yourself. The teachings of Ludwig von Mises are a great place to start.

The post Why Everyone Should Care About Economics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Skeptics of a massive taxpayer-subsidized redevelopment project in University City were right to trust their guts. While the City’s website says that “The City will not use eminent domain under the tax-increment financing (TIF) law to condemn owner-occupied residential property,” now it sounds as if that might be an option. In a recent interview, City Manager Gregory Rose said “there may be an option that the developer says ‘we understand what council’s position has been regarding the use of eminent domain but we’d like you to take a look at this’ . . . and so the council will end up making that decision at that time.”

Why might eminent domain be on the table now? Well, my gut is telling me this: City officials have a lot to gain (in terms of sales tax revenue) from the development going through, and now, given that some homeowners don’t want to sell for the price being offered to them by the developer, city officials might be starting to worry. And if they have convinced themselves that this development must happen, no matter the cost to taxpayers, then kicking property owners out of their homes might be a price they are willing to pay.

This is worrisome for several reasons. First, the economic renaissance promised by development proponents, which is the main justification for the project, is unlikely to occur. Unfortunately, TIF—the subsidy mechanism the development most heavily relies on—just hasn’t been shown to increase surrounding property values. Trust me, a part of me wishes TIF did this, as I live just a few minutes from the redevelopment area. Unfortunately as the economic research suggests, TIF projects don’t make the neighborhoods surrounding them more valuable. If the ends justifying a blunt tool like eminent domain aren’t likely to materialize, we might not want to incur the costs of using that tool.

Second and most important is the fact that property owners—especially owner-occupied residential property owners—simply shouldn’t be forced out of their homes for the benefit of a private developer. Perhaps certain public projects, such as interstates and railroads, can justify the coercive removal of property owners from their property, but it is far from clear that homeowners should be ousted from their homes so that a politically-favored big-box store can make a nice profit. We’ve seen how these things can go.

But if you wonder why you, perhaps someone living far away from University City, should care about this, just keep in mind that your local government body is populated by the same sorts of people that populate University City government. If we are to learn anything from public choice theory, it’s that institutions—such as local governments—have values and goals of their own, and that the people behind local institutions are as fallible and greedy as everyone else. This isn’t to cast a blanket of doubt on all institutions, but rather to make clear that the violation of property rights in some areas of Missouri is a threat to the property rights everyone in the state.

In the end, University City officials should get over their infatuation with the I-170 & Olive redevelopment and abandon their apparent “any means necessary” strategy for ensuring its materialization. The threat of use of eminent domain is politically and morally disturbing, and would signal to University City residents and others that their homes and lives are for sale, so long as city hall thinks that the price is right. 

The post Is U City Considering Eminent Domain After All? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Cities across Missouri, including Kansas City and towns around St. Louis, have banned Airbnb outright in some areas. As we’ve written previously, this is an onerous and likely unconstitutional restriction on property rights. In 2017, home sharing advocates supported state legislation that would have pre-empted localities from imposing fees or prohibiting STRs outright, while permitting those subdivisions to impose “reasonable regulation” to “protect the public’s health and safety.” It may have been those undefined regulatory allowances that killed that bill, as supporters abandoned the effort at the end. A similar bill is being considered by the Missouri legislature this session.

The economic case for home sharing is compelling. Contrary to opponents’ fears, home sharing seems to increase home values in the surrounding area. However this has raised the concern that it increases rents as is displaces available housing units, although it hasn’t seemed to affect the hotel industry as much as hoteliers feared. As the industry matures, we will learn more about the consequences, intended or otherwise, of this new opportunity for homeowners.

Our guiding principle, however, must not be fear of change or of disruption, but protecting the economic freedom and individual liberty of Missourians. Protecting property rights against neighborhood NIMBYs remains a worthy endeavor.

The post Hoosier State Helps Home-Sharing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On January 17, Kansas City’s City Council will again consider an ordinance regulating STRs such as Airbnb and VRBO (Vacation Rentals by Owner). Some neighborhoods are fearful of change, but there are great opportunities for all homeowners. Failure to think anew could create an uneven and potentially unconstitutional patchwork of regulations that harm consumers and property owners.

STRs have been illegal in Kansas City since 2011, but the City has chosen to overlook infractions and instead work on regulations allowing for STRs. STRs themselves are nothing new. What is new is the ease of finding and booking them thanks to Internet platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO. In the view of some homeowners, STRs amount to boarding houses and would irrevocably change the character of their communities from owner-occupied neighborhoods to more transient rental tracts. But research does not support that fear.

Protecting neighborhood character may sound good, but it is too broad to be a meaningful standard for regulation. As for fear of crime, there is no research that shows a causal relationship between criminal activity and STRs. In fact, studies have found that an increase in STRs increases property values in the surrounding areas. This shouldn’t be a surprise. People who seek to make a living off their homes have every reason to maintain the property and keep it attractive—and the income they receive from STRs helps them do so.

Cities like ours have plenty of housing codes to address issues that might arise from STRs. But there appear to be few actual problems. A public records request of the City Planning and Development Department uncovered only 68 complaints going back to 2014. Fifty-four of them simply noted that the location is being used for Airbnb or a STR, as opposed to specific complaints about noise or crime.

Meanwhile, Kansas City is host to hundreds if not thousands of long-term rental properties. Those homes do not require substantially different regulation—owners are not required to get permission from neighbors or pay additional fees or taxes. What’s more, once a unit is rented, there is little incentive to maintain the property—think of the stereotypical negligent landlord. STRs have the opposite impact by maintaining an incentive to be a good host and neighbor.

Those incentives are important. It is in the interest of every STR owner and every online platform to make sure that the experience is positive for everyone. Airbnb wants happy and safe customers; owners want respectful and well-behaved guests. Neighbors should see the opportunity for better-maintained and higher-valued neighborhoods.

The big problem with an outright ban, at least according to Jamila Jefferson-Jones of the UMKC School of Law, is that it amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on an individual’s property rights. Cities may be able to regulate the industry, but they may not be able to stop it.

Some regulation may be welcomed by STR owners. Airbnb recently announced it would collect and remit state and local taxes on behalf of their owners. Perhaps a nominal registration fee is warranted as well. People living in apartments or condominiums may want assurances that common areas remain secure. But using the power of government to stamp out a new aspect of the sharing economy is unwise and likely unworkable.

The post Some Thoughts on Regulating Airbnb appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

STRs are nothing new—they’ve been around forever. What is new, however, are the internet platforms that have made finding and booking them so easy. As a result, the numbers have increased dramatically and cities are considering how and whether to regulate them.

In Missouri, that regulation has ranged from outright bans in some cities around Saint Louis and in Kansas City to no regulation at all. Springfield recently debated such regulation, and in a news story about them, one proponent of regulation said, “we need to protect the character of our neighborhoods.” Such a vague standard should be of concern for property owners and property rights advocates. Cities already have criminal codes and housing codes to address public safety. But there is no research that I have been able to find that purports to show that STRs increase crime. Quite the opposite, research has demonstrated that STRs increase property values in the surrounding area.

At a recent Southern Communities neighborhood meeting, a representative of the City Planning and Development Department told attendees that they had received hundreds of complaints about STRs. But the hundreds of complaints turned out to be 68 complaints going back to 2014. Fifty-four of the complaints simply noted that the location is being used for Airbnb or a STR, as opposed to noise or safety complaints, for example. (While STRs are technically illegal in Kansas City, the city has not been enforcing the law, instead seeking to come up with regulations allowing the practice.)

Meanwhile, thousands of properties are being rented out in Kansas City for long-term rentals. They are not inspected or regulated by the city. They are not limited by zoning nor do they require that neighbors approve or even be notified of it. They are not assessed at commercial property tax rates. It’s fair to wonder why the city would treat a property that rents out for 3 days at a time differently than it treats one that rents out for 3 months at a time.

Then there are taxes. Kansas City charges a convention and tourism tax of 7.5% on hotels. It seems reasonable that STRs should pay this too. Again, long-term renters do not pay this, so the city will have to establish some sort of defensible threshold between long-term and short-term rentals. And don’t forget about bed-and-breakfasts. They are regulated differently, and maybe they shouldn’t be.

Some neighborhoods want to maintain a total ban on STRs. An ordinance being considered by the Council would render about 80 percent of city residences ineligible for any kind of STR. Is that fair? Or even legal? One Constitutional law professor at UMKC says it is not.

Given the different approaches to these matters across Missouri, it seems likely that the matter will end up before the General Assembly, as was the case with ride-sharing. Rather than creating a new patchwork of regulations, taxes, and fees, legislators need to think broadly about how private property ought to be regulated. The sharing economy is blurring the lines between personal and business, residential and commercial. We should be prepared for a larger discussion.

The post To Airbnb or Not to Airbnb? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.