The city is suffering under a $55 million operating deficit. The mayor pointed out in a 2023 budget letter that “The demands of a City this size in square miles and infrastructure age far exceed affordable options for residents and available resources.”

What to do? The answer is obvious: dedicate more public tax dollars to private corporations. And not just baseball, but women’s soccer, too!

Kansas City leaders are once again proposing public subsidies for a sports facility. This time, the beneficiary is the Kansas City Current and the continued development of the Berkley Riverfront.

According to reporting by The Kansas City Star, the city may create a new tax-increment financing (TIF) district and issue up to $235 million in bonds to support expansion of CPKC Stadium and surrounding development. The project would increase stadium capacity from 11,500 to 18,000 seats and add parking, retail, and mixed-use development to the riverfront.

Why? Why is it the responsibility of taxpayers to fund this? Projects like this can be good. They can even be great! But it’s not on par with, say, public safety or infrastructure, or education—which will all lose money because of the subsidy.

Supporters of the proposal point to the team’s success. Lucas told Fox4 that Kansas City must position itself for future events such as a potential Women’s World Cup and noted that there are limits to what an 11,500-seat stadium can host. He also emphasized that the proposed financing would not come from the city’s general revenue fund.

Let’s be careful about that last point. TIF does not create money out of thin air. Without a deal, the Current owners would pay taxes on their development—just like you and me. The proposal is to change that and let them keep that money. Money that we are told the city doesn’t have enough of.

Perhaps the most revealing thing is that Lucas can’t even be bothered to make a coherent defense of this spending. When asked about public subsidies for the Current, he told Fox4, “We’ve been through this before with another professional team that plays in Kansas City.”

But in an April 17, 2026, live interview with the Kansas City Stack Substack, Lucas said about public financing for a Royals ballpark: “this is like the incentive arrangements that we’ve done in other places. Probably the most stadium-like discussion is the stadium we built on the riverfront for the Kansas City Current. That, of course, was an incentive arrangement where you had votes at city council at one of our incentive agencies, that being the Port Authority, and you had state participation. I expect that to be the same.” [3:36 mark]

In other words, we’re giving public money to the Current because we’re giving money to the Royals because we gave money to the Current. That’s his argument.

I was reminded recently of other reporting from Fox4 in which Lucas defended himself for accepting secret gifts from the Royals, among others, to pay for tuxedos and trips to the Super Bowl. He said, “my goal is always to save taxpayer dollars.”

Lucas may have lots of reasons for accepting gifts. But given his willingness to spend public funds on stadiums, it’s hard to believe he cares about saving taxpayer dollars.

The post Kansas City Mayor’s Circular Reasoning on Stadium Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri House Speaker Jonathan Patterson suggested to Fox4 news in Kansas City that Missouri’s contribution to a Royals stadium could reach around $700 to $900 million. Patterson said:

“I think if you look at the numbers, and there was an audit in 2023, the teams generate almost $60 million, and so if you take half of that, then it would be $30 million, then times 30 years, it could be that number. I think those are good estimates that you’re working with.”

That number is way off.

In 2025, during a special legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, Senate Bill (SB) 3, the Show-Me Sports Investment Act. While the bill does not specify a bonding formula, it does set limits: that state spending “shall be no greater than . . . baseline year state tax revenues,” that appropriations may “not exceed thirty years” and that “the net bond proceeds . . . shall not exceed fifty percent of the total costs of the project.” In setting those boundaries, the bill also limits revenue to that “derived directly from the facility.”

Patterson’s estimate of stadium revenue is from a 2023 Jackson County Sports Complex audit, which reports $55 million in tax revenue generated by both teams (the Chiefs and the Royals). But that figure includes all tax revenue collected by state, county, and local jurisdictions. Of that $55 million, only $34,929,233 went to the state—which is what SB 3 covers.

But SB 3 further limits potential support for the Royals to revenue generated only at Kauffman Stadium. Let’s assume half that number, $17 million, is from the Royals’ Kauffman Stadium,* which aligns with estimates provided by Governor Mike Kehoe. If that entire amount were bonded at 6% interest over 30 years, Missouri would be able to give the Royals $234 million.

Another news outlet assumed a 4.5% interest rate over 30 years and concluded the state would be able to give the Royals about $274 million.

Either way, it’s a far cry from $900 million.

There is a lot more to learn about this deal, but SB 3 provides real constraints on what can be counted and borrowed against. Based on the legislation, the 2023 Jackson County audit, and different interest rates, Missouri could contribute roughly $234 to $274 million toward a downtown ballpark. That’s a lot, but only a small portion of what many believe to be a nearly $2 billion project.

*Note: Although the Royals play more games at their stadium than the Chiefs, Arrowhead Stadium has a larger capacity and also hosts concerts for musicians such as Taylor Swift.

The post By the Numbers: What Missouri Might Give the Royals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now that the champagne corks have popped at Crown Center over the plans to build a ballpark there, it’s worth considering what comes next for Missouri and Kansas.

On the Missouri side, Kansas City ordinance 260339, passed on April 9, instructs the city manager to move ahead on all sorts of things regarding the deal. Section 7 provides for up to $250,000 for, among other things, “professional services, including but not limited to economic advisory services, financial advisory services, bond advisory services, legal services . . .”

That means the city is going to seek professional opinions on the deal’s feasibility. Who the city hires will tell us a lot about how committed it is to protecting taxpayers. As one person told me, “if they hire an architectural firm, we’ll know they’re not serious.”

The city has a history of relying on conflicted organizations to conduct studies, as it recently did with the World Cup. In 2016, the city paid CDFA—a trade group formed “to promote the common interest of Development Finance Agencies with respect to public policies and programs”—to measure the effectiveness of Kansas City’s subsidy culture. The laughable conclusion was “each incentive dollar invested generated $3.83 in additional tax revenue.”

In Kansas, taxpayers are still waiting on two things. First, they don’t know how big the STAR bond district will be. Previous reporting was a 293-square-mile district encompassing Wyandotte County and the western half of Johnson County. But it could be much, much bigger to make the deal pencil out. Once the district is set, the secretary of commerce is empowered to make it larger whenever he would like (see page 1) to capture more tax revenue.

Second, taxpayers are also waiting on Kansas to determine the base year, which is the year in which the state sales tax revenue is fixed, diverting every additional dollar within the district to the Chiefs’ developments. You might expect the base year to be 2026, when the legislature endorsed the measure, or whenever the project breaks ground. Or perhaps 2025, when the deal was agreed to.

But the deal actually allows the secretary of commerce to set the base year whenever he wants (see page 22). It could be set at 2015, meaning every state sales tax dollar generated over the amount collected in 2015 would go to the Chiefs.

In a deal this expensive for Kansas, the size of the district and the base year are likely to reignite howls of protest from all quarters.

As elected leaders in Topeka and Kansas City throw themselves self-congratulatory parties, the rest of us are faced with the bar tab. And the hangover.

The post Next Up on Chiefs and Royals Stadium Saga appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The package of subsidies offered to the Kansas City Chiefs by the Missouri Legislature during last year’s special session was bad.

But that bill was not nearly as bad for taxpayers as what is being offered to the team by our neighbors in Kansas. House Bill 2793—the Kansas Sports Authority Act—offers the team, well, it seems, everything.

The bill sets up a Sports Authority to administer the site of a new stadium. That in and of itself is not unique. The Truman Sports Complex, in which the Chiefs and Royals currently play, is administered by the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority. But the power and portfolio of what is being considered in Kansas is breathtaking. Consider the following:

• The authority board includes “a representative of the professional sports team” using the facility as a voting member. This means the Chiefs would have a vote on such things as negotiating its lease, financing, and operations. Having the team oversee itself is a crazy conflict of interest and uncommon in other similar authorities if not absolutely unique, for obvious reasons.
• But the Chiefs aren’t merely one of several votes on the authority. The bill allows additional sports facilities to be placed under the authority if the governing body requests it and the Chiefs also recommend it—giving them an unusual role in expanding the authority’s jurisdiction. This provision may exist because team ownership wants to make sure nobody else can siphon away public funds.

• The authority’s powers “shall not be exercised in a way that conflicts with the terms and conditions set forth in the STAR bond agreement dated December 22, 2025.” This means the authority is locked into the already-negotiated agreement with the team, limiting its ability to adjust terms later.

The three items hand the Chiefs an incredible amount of power. The bill gives the Chiefs a voting seat on the governing authority, binds that authority to the STAR bond agreement the Chiefs negotiated, and gives the team an effective veto over whether additional sports facilities are added to the authority.

But wait, there’s more!

• Contractors must use competition only “to the extent reasonable and practicable in the authority’s sole discretion.” This is a significant weakening of competitive bidding requirements, increasing the risk of opaque contracting and favoritism.

• The authority is exempt from multiple statutes including the Kansas Civil Service Act and the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, removing the standard hiring, rulemaking and administrative oversight safeguards that normally apply to public entities spending public funds.

• The authority must submit annual reports and testify if legislative committees request it. But this so-called oversight is largely after-the-fact reporting, with no routine legislative approval required for major contracts, bonds or development agreements.

• You read that correctly: the authority may issue special-obligation bonds for stadium construction and infrastructure. Although not legally state debt, political pressure often arises if revenues underperform, creating potential taxpayer exposure. If you doubt this, read up on the fiasco over Platte County and the Zona Rosa shopping center.
• In addition to capturing the increase in sales taxes in the approximately 300-square mile STAR bond district, the authority will be exempt from paying state and local sales and use taxes on purchases of materials, machinery, and services used to construct or equip the facility.

• “Insofar as the provisions of this act are inconsistent with the provisions of any other law, whether general, specific or local, the provisions of this act shall be controlling.” Yeah, that’s in the bill. The authority’s statute is designed to override conflicting state or local laws, potentially weakening local regulatory control.

• And what happens when the stadium is completed and paid for? Nothing. The statute does not include a sunset provision or dissolution trigger. That means the authority could become a permanent quasi-government entity in perpetuity.

• But at least the authority’s power is limited to the stadium, right? Nope. The authority’s purpose includes not just sports facilities and infrastructure used for it, but any “civic, community, athletic, educational, cultural and commercial activities.” “Commercial activities” seems like something that could cover, well, anything.

Kansas State Senator Mike Thompson claims that this measure will set up an unaccountable  “shadow government.” That seems like an over-the-top claim, but the provisions of this bill suggest he is at least directionally correct.

The post Kansas Sports Authority Lets Chiefs Play as Home Team, Referee and Rulebook appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new task force is modeled similarly to Tennessee’s nuclear advisory council, which I have written about extensively. This nuclear-focused group will identify strengths to leverage, highlight regulatory and practical reforms worth considering, and serve as a touch point for potential partnerships both nationally and internationally.

After forming its nuclear advisory council in 2023, Tennessee saw notable success in attracting nuclear supply-chain and research investment, as well as a new small modular reactor (SMR) project. With a similar structure now in place, I am hopeful Missouri can achieve comparable success in bringing new nuclear investment to the state.

Missouri’s Advanced Nuclear Task Force Makeup

The task force is structured much like Tennessee’s; it is composed of different stakeholders from government, higher education, and the energy sector.

The task force is currently not a permanent body, and is required to submit an annual report to the governor and the Missouri Senate and House energy committees with a list of barriers to nuclear energy deployment and actional recommendations. It is set to dissolve after the submission of its third annual report, unless it is extended or dissolved beforehand.

What the Task Force Is Charged with Doing

As outlined in the executive order, the task force will help facilitate actionable next steps and reforms for nuclear power in Missouri.

Just as importantly, it will also be tasked with identifying public–private partnership opportunities and advising the governor on regulatory, technological, and economic developments in the nuclear sector.

With significant momentum and change in nuclear energy (trust me, I had to update my recent report on nuclear energy many times), the task force will be useful in helping Missouri policymakers remain informed and competitive.

One Suggestion in Implementation

While the executive order does not explicitly require national or international experts, the governor is granted latitude to appoint additional members. That flexibility should be used. Expertise in areas such as nuclear engineering, mechanical and civil engineering, and environmental law could meaningfully strengthen the group’s work.

Hopes for the Future

Missouri has taken a meaningful step toward nuclear investment and development. If the task force is used as intended, I am hopeful that Missouri can succeed the same way Tennessee has.

The post Missouri Forms an Advanced Nuclear Task Force appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Guest hosting Mundo in the Morning on KCMO Talk Radio, Patrick Tuohey speaks with Neil deMause, editor of FieldofSchemes.com and coauthor of Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit. DeMause draws on decades of research examining billions in public subsidies for pro sports facilities, explaining why stadium deals rarely deliver economic benefits and how proposed subsidies for a Kansas City Chiefs stadium fit a familiar national pattern.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Listen: True Cost of Chiefs Stadium Subsidies with Neil deMause appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mr. Collins did not appreciate my conclusion. He called it “misleading and inflammatory,” and wrote that I was dealing in “political spin.”

I welcome the opportunity to respond. Collins wrote:

The claim that PortKC’s NDA signals secrecy is misleading and inflammatory. The NDA applies only during early negotiations, and thus, to protect complex deals before terms are finalized. That is standard in any serious public-private partnership. It doesn’t block legal disclosures, doesn’t hide information from taxing jurisdictions, and doesn’t erase public accountability. It protects taxpayers from leaks that can tank deals or drive-up costs.

PortKC literally—and I am not being figurative—requires in writing that applicants sign an NDA. I do not know what the justification is for requiring secrecy, but I do know that it is not “standard in any serious public-private partnership.” The Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City (EDCKC), which also provides a raft of public subsidies, requires no such NDA. As I wrote, I can understand why a developer would want such secrecy, but it is another thing completely to have the public body handing out taxpayer subsidies to be the one demanding discretion.

If you doubt that PortKC maintains a level of secrecy throughout its deals, search online for the terms Project Mica and Project Kestrel.

Collins continues:

PortKC’s process requires more upfront disclosure from developer’s ownership, litigation history, financials, job creation, wage data, and community impact than many.

If this is the justification, it doesn’t appear to be working. It was only three years ago that PortKC failed to discover that a developer to which it was prepared to issue subsidies, Lux Living, had a few Securities and Exchange Commission violations in its past. So much for “more upfront disclosure.”

Separately, in its most recent financial audit, PortKC was faulted for failing to demonstrate that it searched federal databases to determine if any vendors were “suspended and debarred entities” prior to payment. Again, PortKC is not demonstrating that it carefully vets applicants.

Collins continues:

Critics, like this guy [that’s me!], also ignore that PortKC posts its full fee schedule, limits its own ability to rack up costs without approval, and requires developers to follow workforce, equity, and wage policies from day one.

Yes, PortKC posts an impressive fee schedule. I can’t say that it’s complete, but it does make quite a buck from issuing taxpayer subsidies. That’s part of the problem.

Most organizations that grow as quickly as PortKC face similar growing pains, and PortKC has taken action.

Has it, though? The financial audits of 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 all point out that PortKC failed to provide “effective internal control” of finances. One such finding may be the result of growing pains, but four consecutive findings suggest an inability or an unwillingness to right the ship.

Mr. Collins concludes:

The idea that PortKC is “insisting on secrecy” is political spin. This is about protecting sensitive financial negotiations; not hiding public subsidy. If you’re serious about transparency, deal with the facts; not headlines.

Again, it’s very clear from the PortKC application that it insists on secrecy.

I understand that Mr. Collins and others in the “public-private real estate development” industry are either happy with things just as they are or are hesitant to be critical of a scheme from which they stand to gain. But the argument that taxpayers are also benefitted by “protecting sensitive financial negotiations” from taxpayer scrutiny is just silly.

Organizations like PortKC and the groups they fund want public funds dispersed in the dark. If PortKC were serious about serving the public, its leadership would remove its NDA requirement and heed the counsel of its financial auditors. Until then, it should be viewed skeptically.

The post Responding to PortKC’s Defenders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is just the latest example over the years of City Hall favoring wealthy, connected corporations with taxpayer subsidies and special treatment.

Port KC CEO Jon Stephens framed the incentives as a “small, supportive element” aimed at ensuring Kansas City retains high-quality jobs. The project promises to add 150 jobs with an average salary of $126,000 while retaining 600 current employees. Yet no precise value for the tax exemptions was disclosed. Its not clear if PortKC attached performance requirements to the deal, but Friestad indicates there was no such discussion of it among the commissioners when the subsidies were approved.

Readers may recall Stephens backed subsidies for an independent baseball team in Kansas back when the team couldn’t pay its utilities. If nothing else, he is consistent in his apparent desire to redirect taxpayer money to private corporate interests

Such a deal is nothing new for JE Dunn. The company received a lucrative incentive package when building its headquarters in 2009. That project fell under the East Village tax-increment financing plan, redirecting $19 million in public funds for a parking garage, demolitions, and blight removal.

This latest deal follows a familiar script in which major corporations, including Cerner, H&R Block, Burns & McDonnell, and Commerce Bank have secured public funding for their private office projects. Research has indicated for years that such incentives do not significantly impact corporate decisions on location.

Port KC has repeatedly played a central role in funneling public dollars into private hands. Its recent involvement with JE Dunn reflects a long history of negotiating deals that often leave taxpayers holding the bag, such as the millions each year taxpayers must fork over to cover bond payments on the Power & Light District owned and operated by Cordish Company. (Stephens is a former manager of that project.)

As Kansas City grapples with persistent infrastructure needs, ballooning public debt, and limited funding for essential services, its continued reliance on subsidies for corporate renovations raises questions about priorities. For now, Kansas Citians can only watch as the city’s public funds are diverted to underwrite private gains.

The post KC’s Corporate Welfare: JE Dunn’s HQ Renovation Gets Public Support appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are many successful examples of outsourcing in local government in Missouri. A lot of my work at the Institute has focused on park and recreation outsourcing, so those are the examples I’ll give. Privatizing park services is obviously unpopular with residents, as few wish to sell their parks. But outsourcing park operations is more common than people may realize.

In 2021, the St. Louis suburb of Des Peres outsourced the management and lifeguard services for its swimming facilities to Midwest Pool Management (MPM). Des Peres estimated it would save between $60,000 and $80,000 per year by outsourcing the operations.  MPM operates aquatic centers for numerous cities in the St. Louis region, as well as the Springs at Tiffany Hills in Kansas City. Other recreational facilities that are ripe for contracting and outsourcing management of include (actual examples in parenthesis): tennis centers (Shaw tennis center in Clayton), ice rinks (Steinberg rink in St. Louis City), golf courses (many locations, including Forest Park in the City of St. Louis ), and restaurant facilities within parks (Creve Coeur Lakehouse restaurant in St. Louis County).

Assets such as municipal golf courses, skating rinks, and tennis centers can be primarily funded by user fees instead of general taxes. Instead of spending tax dollars to operate these amenities, cities can enhance revenue and focus on core services by outsourcing recreational assets to companies that specialize in those areas. For example, the City of St. Louis received $402,260 in 2021 in lease payments from private operators to operate the golf courses in Forest Park (page 21 in link document).  Similarly, St. Louis leased out its Forest Park ice rink for $45,000 per year to a private operator. These arrangements provide better services for customers and a better result for taxpayers. In every example I’ve given above, local government still owns and is ultimately responsible for the asset.

According to the primary survey on this subject, about 25 percent of local governments outsource their facilities management operations. So, while it may not be standard, it isn’t rare. St. Louis County has a responsibility to negotiate hard for the taxpayers and be sure the contract isn’t too long. While the article on the deal makes it seem that the county is paying more in outsourcing, the numbers in it don’t include the long-term pension and health-care costs for government employees, and that is where savings from outsourcing really come in. As one guide on this topic put it:

Outsourcing can mitigate the long-term structural challenges faced by governments with regard to health care and retirement benefits.

In this particular instance, the county is simply having trouble filling these jobs as it is, so this outsourcing example is as much out of necessity as a choice. (It is hard for the county just to give its facilities employees a raise without giving all county employees larger raises, and that would really hit taxpayers hard.)

Local governments should privatize, outsource, or share services with other governments as much as they can. Residents, taxpayers, and voters (most people are all three, of course) all benefit from it.

The post Outsourcing Is Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

St. Louis was ranked as the fourth-most affordable housing market in the country in one survey, and Kansas City ranked 13th. Another study ranked St. Louis as the third and Kansas City as the 11th-most-affordable metro area out of 94 major metros internationally.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of things those cities—and all cities across Missouri—can do to keep costs low and encourage housing construction. The Housing Supply Accelerator Playbook, a collaborative effort by the American Planning Association (APA) and the National League of Cities (NLC), provides some solutions. It is designed to support local governments and community planners in developing effective strategies to increase the quantity and quality of housing.

Key recommendations (with some of my own thoughts) include:

Model Practices and Ordinances: The playbook provides detailed policies that support housing construction. These include zoning reforms, land use policies, and development regulations aimed at reducing barriers to development.

Innovative Financing Solutions: The playbook encourages public–private partnerships for using federal funds to finance housing projects. Any approach like this would need to be well defined and limited—too often we’ve seen these so-called public–private partnerships devolve into either crony capitalism or operate in a way that protects developers from market forces.

Regulatory Reform: Existing regulations impede housing development and drive up costs. The playbook recommends removing barriers through reforms such as streamlining permitting processes and revising outdated ordinances.

Collaboration and Partnership: The authors place a significant emphasis on the importance of collaboration among local governments, community planners, builders, financial institutions, and housing policy associations. Of course, collaborations should not undermine market forces.

Community Engagement: The playbook stresses the importance of engaging with community members to ensure that housing policies benefit all residents. As with financing, this can be a thorny issue. Community engagement should not be used to limit anyone’s property rights or blunt the market forces that spur innovation and bring prices down.

Kansas City and St. Louis do not have many of the housing challenges other cities have, thankfully. But where barriers exist, this report can help identify opportunities to improve housing policy.

The post New Policy Playbook May Help Cities Realize More and Better Housing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Phil Davis: [sighs] I don’t know what he’s up to, but he’s got that Rodgers and Hammerstein look again.

Betty Haynes: Is that bad?

Phil Davis: Not bad, but always expensive.

I’m afraid things are about to get more expensive with the Royals:

The Royals had previously announced a decision on a new Kansas City ballpark by the end of September. Now, as of Sept. 21, the team is looking to push off a decision as negotiations continue with both Jackson County and Clay County officials over the cost and funding of the projects. If the team goes downtown, the new ballpark would be located in the East Village near the downtown loop, on a 27-acre site bounded by 8th Street to the north, 12th Street to the south (where the main entrance would be located), Charlotte Street to the east to Cherry Street to the west; if the team does go with North Kansas City, an 18th Avenue and Fayette Street ballpark location would be part of the 90-acre site. The target date for both locations: 2028.

The fact that negotiations are continuing with both counties is concerning, precisely for the reason Quentin Lucas mentioned at the outset when Clay County’s bid was announced: the longer this bidding war goes on, the worse served local taxpayers are going to be. It’s hard to envision a circumstance where longer negotiations would decrease the amount of money shoveled over to the Kansas City Royals at the end of this process, so moving the decision date from late September to late October is a very unwelcome development.

Again, no public money should be going to a project like this, but if it is, it would be far better for that decision to be made sooner and not later. The decision coming later than was promised should concern all taxpayers.

The post Royals Put Off Stadium Decision Another Month appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Seeking Multiple Bids for the Sewer System Would Benefit Crystal City and Festus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City Mayor Quentin Lucas declared that “Kansas City will not now engage in an intrastate regional race to the bottom that ultimately does little more than fleecing our taxpayers”—which is the right policy position to take! Meanwhile, Jackson County executive and former Royal Frank White echoed similar sentiments, suggesting county taxpayers deserved “loyalty” from the Royals.

In relationship terms, the snap response by Kansas City civic leaders had the tone of a bad breakup and a badly spurned partner. But that tone shifted in recent weeks, after the Royals’ management team confirmed that a second site was also under consideration just east of Kansas City’s downtown, within KC’s city limits.

For a moment, it seemed like a longshot attempt at making up was afoot. Yet, the Royals haven’t said much more to the public about the potential Kansas City plan . . . and apparently they haven’t said much to city leadership about it, either:

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said Friday the Kansas City Royals need to flesh out details for a downtown ballpark.

Lucas said to KMBC’s Micheal Mahoney on Friday that no one is hearing enough details about the Royals’ downtown plans.

“Here are the things that need to be shared with the citizens of Kansas City — and in my view — today,” Lucas said. “Why the need for a move? What’s the plan for, perhaps, wherever they’re going? And what’s the funding idea?”

Lucas said the longer those questions are unanswered, the more challenging it becomes for the plans to be successful.

The fact that Mayor Lucas suggests that the Royals should stay in Kauffman Stadium is itself somewhat jarring if you know what direction the team was heading in the last few years and what the mayor himself was supporting. From a story in November:

Kansas City, Missouri, Mayor Quinton Lucas predicts a new Royals stadium will be in and near downtown Kansas City. (emphasis mine)

Lucas spoke with reporters minutes after Royals owner John Sherman announced plans to move the team from Kauffman Stadium.

“The Royals will be somewhere, I’m predicting, between the river,” Lucas said. “North of 31st Street, but let’s be even clearer, probably north of the train tracks that are about at 22nd Street. And then probably somewhere between the state line and of course, I would say Woodland (Avenue).”

Take from that what you will. The Royals should pay for their own stadium wherever they go, and if they stay in the Truman Sports Complex, they should pay their way there, too. But for the last year, the Royals staying put has not been what the city has been preparing for. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But while city leaders have every right to ask what a professional sports team is going to want from the public, the public has every right to ask its elected officials what taxpayer resources they’re willing to give away. And that definitely applies here, where city and county representations in private to the team have, to date, not been made public.

Here are some questions Kansas City’s (and Jackson County’s) leaders need to answer about their plans for the stadium:

• How much could subsidizing a new stadium for the Royals cost taxpayers?
• Are the city and county committed to massive new spending on both the Kansas City Royals and the Kansas City Chiefs, or are there fiscal limitations that city and county leaders won’t violate?
• What are those limitations?
• What city services will be affected by these tax expenditure choices?
• And why should Kansas City and Jackson County taxpayers continue to be on the hook for an amenity that the entire region enjoys?

To reiterate, no public money should go to a project like this, but if money is being spent on private sports teams, Kansas City and Jackson County taxpayers deserve respect and transparency. Taxpayer money spent on sports stadiums is a waste, and it also takes away from other vital public services such as policing

Maybe Kansas City and the Royals will kiss and make up, or maybe the team and the city are in an uncanny valley before an inevitable break up. But whether it’s a make up or a break up, billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

Update: Royals owner John Sherman told media today: “No one is waiting on us. We are the urging party.”

The post Kansas City’s Courtship of the Royals Is Getting Awkward appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last year, we made one of the largest investments in broadband expansion across our state. Thanks to our efforts, nearly 70,000 under-served homes and businesses across our state Now have broadband. But we know we can’t stop now. That is why we are investing an additional $250 million dollars to do even more. If we can put electricity in every home, we can do the same with broadband today. We are not done until every home, every school, every business, and every farm has access to quality internet.

Most Missourians have access to high-speed internet. For those who don’t—who are primarily in very rural areas—the lack of internet can indeed be an issue. Using federal stimulus funds intended for broadband expansion in Missouri to address that problem is fine with me, but it needs to be done the right way.

What is the right way? It’s to focus on the small number of Missourians who truly have little to no internet access. What is the wrong way to address it? The wrong way is to allow the money to be used by cities and towns to create their own municipal internet companies that will compete with the private sector in communities that the private sector is already serving, like in Marshall, Missouri.

Government-owned networks are subsidized by taxpayers by definition and they have often been a failure when tried around the country. Kentucky is the poster child for this at the state level. Local government in Missouri should not be in the broadband business except as a provider of last resort. Local government is poorly suited to providing services in a rapidly changing, highly technical field like broadband and internet services. For most of Missouri, the private sector has been providing perfectly fine internet services for years. Having cities or counties create their own, taxpayer-subsidized, tax-exempt internet companies will easily be a net negative throughout Missouri.

Get it, “net negative?”

The post The Right Way to Expand Broadband appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Don Soifer is Chief Executive Officer of the National Microschooling Center, America’s comprehensive resource center, movement-builder and authority for the most exciting new education movement in a generation. He co-created and co-directed the Southern Nevada Urban Micro Academy, the nation’s first public–private partnership microschool with the City of North Las Vegas, delivering unprecedented academic growth with a previously underserved population of families under pandemic operating conditions.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post How to Start a Microschool with Don Soifer appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While the team appreciates its history with Arrowhead, Chiefs president Mark Donovan acknowledged on Tuesday that the franchise has considered other options for when their lease expires in 2031. Donovan said that the team has specifically considered options in Kansas, as it has been pitched stadium offers [by] developers in the state, via Kevin Clark of The Ringer.

Upon seeing what Donovan said, Kansas City mayor Quinton Lucas quickly issued a response via Twitter.

“Kansas City has proudly hosted the Chiefs since the early 1960s,” Lucas said. “We look forward to working with the Chiefs, our state of Missouri partners, and local officials to ensure the Chiefs remain home in Kansas City and Missouri for generations to come.”

As a Chiefs fan, the idea of the team leaving the place they’ve called home for 50 years is disappointing. While only Lambeau Field and Soldier Field are older, Arrowhead Stadium is nonetheless an updated and modern (publicly owned) facility that could easily serve fans and the region for many decades to come. But that may be my sentimentality speaking. I was also aghast when the New York Yankees tore down the House That Ruth Built in 2010 and replaced it with the new Yankee Stadium. Old habits die hard.

The good news for Chiefs fans is that the alternate site being discussed is also in the region, albeit across the state line in Kansas. And while public money and tax incentives didn’t come up in the original story, you can rest assured that if the Chiefs made such a move, the package from Kansas would be worth billions. Like I told Pete Mundo the other day, teams wouldn’t threaten to leave if threats didn’t get them more money from taxpayers. It’s certainly the Chiefs’ right to try to get as much money from the public as they can get.

But that doesn’t mean the Kansas City and Missouri governments need to acquiesce. Even if the Chiefs moved to Kansas, the team would continue to be a regional asset and, likely, would still be easily accessible by Interstate 70—in this case, 15 minutes west of downtown in Kansas rather than 15 minutes east of downtown in Missouri. Simultaneously, the Royals have also started talking about a stadium in downtown Kansas City—a good business idea and a bad tax incentive idea! If that’s coming and it gets taxpayer support, it’d put the city on the hook for potentially two new stadiums in the span of about a decade should it keep the Chiefs on Missouri soil, too.

If Kansas wants to spend money to help carry the cost of the region’s professional sports franchises, more power to them. It’s bad policy, of course, but my focus is on Missouri policy and decision making.

As far as Missouri policy is concerned, my perspective for the Chiefs is straightforward: if you want a new stadium in Missouri, build it yourself, as any other business would. I’ll be cheering the Chiefs on wherever they are in the region, and even for a traditionalist like me, I’ll admit that a new stadium may add some excitement to an already exciting team. But there’s no reason to force single moms paying the earnings tax, or frankly any city taxpayer paying any tax, to underwrite such an amenity.

Hail to the Chiefs . . . but with all due respect, pay for the stadium yourself.

The post Hail to the Chiefs! And Pay for Your Own Stadium appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The key to successfully operating a small city, town, or village (Greendale is a village) is to not try to do everything yourself. Small towns need to contract out, share services, or privatize as many services as they can. These are valuable strategies for all cities, but they are vital for microcities such as Greendale, Champ, Lichtenstein, or Sealand.

Greendale is reopening its police contract for a nearby department to bid on providing police and court services for the village’s people. I understand those services are currently being provided by Normandy, but best practices are to rebid contracts like this at regular intervals. The most important thing is that Greendale is not attempting to provide its own police services. Whether a neighboring city such as Normandy, the St. Louis County police department, or the new North County police cooperative win the bid is not the point. The point is that Greendale deserves credit for this municipal policing strategy. There are plenty of other towns in Missouri that bid out services, but even more should.

Many people in Warson Woods went nuts when the city proposed merging police services with neighboring Glendale, even though the two towns had shared fire services for decades. That very modest proposal to share services failed. Hopefully, the Greendale plan is the future for St. Louis County instead of the Warson Woods reaction.

The post Municipal Contracting Is What Missouri Needs More Of appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The biggest problem with the Loop Trolley is that nobody wants to ride it. During its 13 months of operation, ridership was under 10 percent of expectations, which led to equally depressing revenue shortfalls. Time and again, trolley management turned to taxpayers to fill its budget gaps, ultimately pouring $51 million of other people’s money into the project. One of those funders, the Federal Transit Administration, issued an ultimatum to the Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (LTTDD): either restart the trolley or pay back $37 million in federal grants.

Show-Me Institute analysts have been issuing warnings about a taxpayer-funded trolley with minimal demand for more than a decade, so this is not your average “I told you so.” But now that Bi-State has decided to clean up the Loop Trolley’s mess, let’s hope it has a good plan.

Bi-State should do what it can to reduce the overall taxpayer burden. As of now, trolley funding will come solely from the LTTDD’s sales tax on loop shoppers, which will not be enough to run the trolley for long. One way to potentially reduce taxpayers’ burden is to sell advertisement spots on the trolley. (Yes, even park bench personal injury lawyers—somebody needs to represent the owners of the cars the trolley kept managing to hit last time).

Bi-State can also lessen taxpayer burden by charging passengers to ride the trolley. Currently, Bi-State is considering letting passengers ride for free. If the thinking is that this revenue would be too small to make a difference, Bi-State should remember that people voluntarily paying to ride the trolley is better than reaching into the pockets of people who don’t ride the trolley. Charging fares from the start would be better, but if Bi-State decides not to do that, it should at least try to boost ridership to the point of charging fares. Whether that’s seasonally themed rides, reaching out to business and marketing students at Wash U for consulting, or any other novel idea, boosting ridership to the point of charging for fares should be the goal.

The trolley is coming back whether we like it or not. Let’s hope Bi-State finds a way to get taxpayers off the hook.

The post What I Would Like to See from the Resurrected Trolley appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While members of the council had different reasons for rejecting the proposal, one question from the head of the council board summarized the objections nicely:

“Why is it always other people’s money?”

Other local officials were fine with the trolley receiving the grant, as long as no taxpayer money from their respective municipalities would be dedicated to the trolley and Bi-State Development assumed its operation. Others objected to the idea of Bi-State operating the trolley, arguing that its responsibility is to provide public transportation, not manage tourism projects.

Show-Me Institute analysts have argued for years that the Loop Trolly should not be subsidized by public tax dollars. It’s good to see regional leaders taking the same approach.

It’s unknown what comes next for the trolley. Trolley backers could seek out private funding, either from investors or from Loop businesses who see a benefit to having the trolley run. Whatever the trolley’s future, hopefully the next ask will be to private sector investors, not taxpayers.

The post Trolley Grant Rejection Summed Up in One Question appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri State Auditor’s office has documented numerous flaws in CIDs. At the public meeting on the Ferguson CID last week, one of the speakers even encouraged the city council to review one of these audits to give the city guidance. (I would be surprised if the city did that, but I’d love to be wrong.) Among the many issues with CIDs: lack of transparency; improper oversight once established; failure to follow required rules for dealing with tax dollars, including lack of public bids and private use of tax funds; and erroneous tax collections. Perhaps the largest problem with CIDs is that they are frequently used to fund private entities with public tax dollars. Things such as private business parking lots should be—and until very recently were—considered private items to be funded by businesses, not taxpayers.

The proposed CID in Ferguson is a new tax for only one parcel of land that will authorize a sales tax for the new stores going into the development. Essentially, this project will use public tax dollars for private purposes. The board of the CID consists mainly of representatives of the developer, so the private interests of the developer will be their focus, not the proper use of tax dollars. (To be clear, two of the five members of the board are public representatives, but—despite being no math genius as best I can telltwo is less than half of five.) The developers claim that this parcel is blighted, which is highly questionable. It is adjacent to the very nice campus of Florissant Valley Community College. There is no public vote on this CID—it is a mail-in ballot voted by only the property owner(s), who will likely vote to support the new, surreptitious tax on their own customers that will be used to benefit the property owners.

This proposed CID will have no public vote, little public benefit, and very limited public oversight. This is not the way to go forward for Ferguson. CIDs like these should be stopped and the state should make substantial reforms to the CID rules.

The post Ferguson, Missouri Will Not Be Improved by More Special Taxing Districts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.