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.

Let’s say this is an April election. What happens in the initial petition process is not that the City Council just sits around and twiddles its thumbs, right? We can pass ordinances just like broadly the public can through an initiative petition process. All of these words I’m saying is, no, this will not thwart development of Kansas City Royals stadium.

We’ve actually thought about all of this. We’re going to get the necessary deals done expeditiously to make sure that the Royals can be prepared to open the stadium by opening day of 2030. That requires, I think, dirt moving really by the end of this year at least on the demolition process or very early in 2027. And if you’re looking at it, it takes about 30 days to the election authorities anyway to get the election certified. So, you know, this is not a threat to that.

He made similar comments to The Beacon. It seemed weird to me that, once a petition has been validated, a legislative body like the council could just rush through all sorts of things before the vote, and then tell petitioners, “Hey, sorry. You’re too late.” I’m not alone in thinking this; Dave Helling wrote something similar on the Kansas City Stack.

And, if one cares about the Missouri Supreme Court, the court thinks similar conduct at the state level is weird, too. The Supreme Court didn’t just find it weird—it found it unconstitutional!

In February 2015, the court ruled in Earth Island Inst. v. Union Elec. Co. that the state legislature cannot tweak things to effectively eviscerate a pending vote. They wrote:

The only issue is whether the legislature may negate in advance an initiative petition that has been approved for circulation but prior to the time it is adopted by the people at an election.  It may not.  If a proposed initiative is adopted by the people at an election, then a statute enacted by the legislature during the interim between the initiative’s approval for circulation and its passage is impliedly repealed to the extent of any conflict between the two measures.

It would seem that if such a petition can repeal “a statute enacted by the legislature during the interim between the initiative’s approval for circulation and its passage,” then won’t it repeal a contract or financial agreement enacted by a city council in the same circumstance?

That same decision cited an earlier 1922 Missouri Supreme Court case, State ex rel. Drain v. Becker:

There, while the proposed referendum was pending but before it had been voted on by the people, the legislature purported to repeal the legislation that was the subject of the referendum and to enact a new statute that retained the essential terms of the former legislation. It then argued that this new statute could take effect, regardless of what the people voted on the matter referred, because it was later adopted and was not itself subject to the referendum.

This Court properly rejected this attempt at an end run around the referendum. It held that, once the right of referendum has been invoked, the legislature “is divested of all power in regard to the matter referred until the action of the people has been exercised by a vote upon same.”

That last sentence is the kicker. The court has held that, pending a vote of the people, the legislative body is powerless on that particular matter. So yes, Mayor Lucas, the council may be twiddling its thumbs while the petition process plays out.

The real impact of the petition, however, may not be on the council. I can easily imagine an attorney for a builder, lender, or investor advising their client to steer clear of the project until the petition matter is resolved either by a vote of the people or by months or years of litigation. What company wants to find itself attached to a financing package that voters may yet reject? And the city would be foolish to sign contracts that it may not be able to live up to because of the results of a vote.

It would not surprise me if, despite his dismissive language now, Lucas and the current council vote to put the petition on the ballot themselves, arguing that any delay will just add to the cost of the project. They’ll count on the Royals and their supporters to fund another political campaign. The question then becomes: Are John Sherman and the Royals ownership willing to risk another election defeat?

The post No, Kansas City Cannot Rush Royals Financing to Beat a Petition Vote appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s not often that there is good regulatory news out of Kansas City, but today there is.

Recently, the city council passed Ordinance No. 260144, repealing and replacing the city’s residential energy code provisions and loosening several of the most burdensome elements of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) implementation. Under the new ordinance, the code will allow lower insulation requirements, a more flexible performance compliance threshold (measured via Home Energy Rating System and Energy Rating Index scores), and the removal of mandatory duct leakage testing when ducts are within the building envelope.

These aren’t just technical tweaks. They speak to the central concern I raised in 2024: that rigid energy mandates can act as a hidden tax on housing supply, particularly at a time when the ability to build more homes quickly and affordably matters to families across the metro.

Dennis Shriver of Hearthside Homes told me the regulatory rollback could reduce new home costs by an average of $15,000.

The bill, sponsored by councilmember (and former Show-Me Institute intern) Nathan Willett, takes effect now that the deadline for Mayor Lucas’s veto has passed.

The original regulation should never have passed, of course, but it is no small victory that despite the damage done to housing construction in the interim, the council had the courage to reverse itself.

The post Kansas City Reverses Costly Energy Code Legislation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Across Missouri, public officials routinely delay, dodge, or deny access to information that taxpayers are entitled to. They charge outrageous fees, cite vague exemptions, lose track of requests, or hide behind non-disclosure agreements, treating transparency as a nuisance rather than a requirement.

Years ago my colleagues wrote about the prohibitively high fees municipalities sought just to turn over the most basic financial data—the city checkbook. That’s just the beginning.

Consider Kansas City’s downtown ballpark negotiations. Mayor Quinton Lucas indicated he was willing to share details, so I took him up on it. I filed an open records request through the city website. Having received no response for almost two weeks (state law requires action be taken within three days), I followed up only to be told that the request had been wrongly assigned and had been sitting idle. A city employee resolved the issue, adding, “Let’s keep our fingers crossed” that it works this time. Two weeks later I was emailed: “All responsive records pertaining to this request are closed records pursuant to Sec 610.021(12) because such records are related to negotiations for a contract prior to its execution.”

The Kansas City Star reports that the city is again in negotiations with the Royals to subsidize a downtown park. Elected leaders are apparently eager to make sure the deal is not only kept secret, but also that it avoids any public vote.

In August 2025, I asked the Kansas City Streetcar Authority for records about the construction costs of its new Main Street extension—reported to be the most expensive streetcar line in the country at over $100 million per mile. My request was redirected to city staff who told me the matter was under review. I followed up in late October and was told the city would contact me by the end of that week. It’s been almost three months with no update.

In one recent case, a state employee told me the data I needed would take just 20 minutes to find—but only after a formal Sunshine Request was submitted and processed. This person did not know how long that would take. I got the information five days later, and I was grateful. But it underscored a troubling reality: a process meant to promote transparency is now often used to delay it.

Then there are the NDAs. The director of Missouri’s Department of Economic Development signed one with both the Royals and Chiefs—and indicated in a legislative hearing that she may not be able to answer questions. PortKC even requires companies sign an NDA in its application. While sealed bids may serve public interest in competitive contracting, secrecy around subsidies undermines the very idea of public oversight.

Missouri’s Sunshine Law could be a valuable tool, but it needs to be refreshed and its exceptions narrowed. Doing so would not merely combat waste, fraud, and abuse, but would also encourage better public policy.

The post Missouri’s Sunshine Law Needs More than Good Intentions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Startling to me, anyway. None of the legislators on the committee seemed bothered.

Is there any public benefit to this secrecy?

There can be when vendors are bidding competitively for a state contract—say, road construction. Protecting proprietary financial or technical details in that context may encourage better bids and serve the public interest.

But stadium subsidies are different—there’s no obvious reason why secrecy is necessary or helpful. When public officials negotiate deals to hand out taxpayer money, the public deserves transparency. Teams may want discretion. State representatives may want to negotiate without tipping off competing states. But neither, in my opinion, is a good enough reason to give it to them.

Yet secrecy has become the norm. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas won’t release the city’s proposal for a downtown stadium to the Royals—even though Clay County released its proposal. The city also kept its 2017 Amazon HQ2 bid under wraps, while many other cities disclosed theirs.

Judging by the lawmakers’ lack of reaction, non-disclosure agreements are now standard operating procedure. They shouldn’t be. Even if elected officials are fine being left in the dark, the public shouldn’t be.

The post Why Is the Department of Economic Development Keeping Secrets? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

How bad is crime in Kansas City? If you believe recent international headlines, we’re a “Mad Max-style hellhole,” a reference to the post-apocalyptic movie franchise. Ouch.

I grant in the piece that the headline came from a news outlet known for being sensationalist, but as Kansas City prepares to host the World Cup in 2026, our international reputation is important.

Speaking to Pete Mundo on KCMO Talk Radio the morning of May 23, Mayor Quinton Lucas, just back from a junket to Qatar, said this [at 2:32]:

Of course the Qataris were very interested in saying, “we can send people over, free of charge, to come help you.” I’ll make sure I have a chat with [KC Police] Chief Stacey Graves and some of the others before we do that, but, [it’s a] well-resourced country.

That statement came right after a discussion about transportation, but Chief Graves does not handle city transportation, nor does she serve on the board of KC2026, the committee formed to organize efforts to host the 2026 FIFA event. It appears the mayors’ understanding was that the Qataris were expressing a security concern and offering to send assistance.

Federal law does not permit foreign nationals to exercise any police powers on U.S. soil. While there may be plenty of coordination among governments and their law enforcement agencies prior to events like the World Cup, I doubt that would be handled by the hosting city’s police chief.

Just as Mayor Lucas would have been in no position to coordinate security with a foreign entity, it’s possible that the Qatari making the offer was in no position to provide it. I don’t know.

What is clear, even if Lucas doesn’t realize the implication of the offer, is that Kansas City is seen internationally as a place that cannot provide public safety to its own citizens or international visitors. That won’t be solved by advertising on buses in London, but by competent management of city resources—something we have yet to see.

The post Is Kansas City a Public Safety Charity Case? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Royals, who have spent more than three years insisting they will vacate the K after their lease expires in 2030, face a conundrum: they have no new stadium site selected, no clear funding source, and no legislative momentum. Missouri lawmakers are on track to adjourn without approving any stadium funding bills. Kansas, meanwhile, has not yet extended the STAR bonds meant to lure the team across the border.

The Royals’ 2024 pitch for an East Crossroads stadium fell apart when Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected a new 40-year sales tax. Since then, the team has gone quiet. They have options—North Kansas City, Washington Square Park, and previously Overland Park—but each presents new complications. Land assembly, tax votes, and public skepticism loom large.

According to Friestad, the Royals do have the option to extend their lease at Kauffman for up to 10 additional years, through 2041. The provision, part of their 2006 lease, only requires 12 months’ notice and a clean track record with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority.

That means the team isn’t nearly as cornered as some may think. And as experts in Friestad’s piece explain, the ticking clock shouldn’t pressure local officials into bad deals.

“This point just means your current agreement ends,” said Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado-Denver professor who studies sports economics. “Nothing bad happens at this point.”

Indeed, Propheter compares it to a standard lease renewal in the housing market—if both parties want to keep the arrangement, they’ll find a way. That’s an important reminder in Kansas City, where both major sports franchises have long benefited from generous public terms. Royals critics, such as former City Councilwoman Becky Nace, argue that the team already enjoys the best deal they’re likely to get: a dedicated sales tax for stadium maintenance and operations, covering hundreds of millions in costs. Proposals in Kansas and downtown Kansas City would cover only construction, not ongoing upkeep.

The article also touches on the broader context. MLB relocations are rare and messy. Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas are often floated as threats, but relocating to any of those locations would involve significant political or financial headwinds. Economist Victor Matheson called such leverage “overstated,” pointing to the Oakland A’s relocation saga—the team is now stranded in a minor league stadium with uncertain funding for a Vegas move.

What emerges is a portrait of slow-motion bargaining. The Royals’ ownership may still prefer a new stadium, but they’re learning what voters and lawmakers have long suspected: urgency doesn’t equal necessity, and options, while limited, do exist.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has floated a revised package between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion for either a new stadium or a Kauffman renovation, though specifics remain scarce. Meanwhile, voter fatigue and fiscal realism continue to grow.

The takeaway is clear: a looming lease expiration should not be confused with a deadline for action. Kansas Citians rejected a rushed deal last year. If there’s a better one to be had, it will take time, transparency, and trust to get there.

The post Royals May Stay at Kauffman Amid Stadium Inertia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The mayor is not a small player in Kansas City policing. As I argued in 2018, “No Missourian has more power over policing in Kansas City than the mayor,” so it’s a matter of concern when the mayor is promulgating incorrect numbers.

First, note that the blue columns in each chart seem to show police funding. The labels in the bottom show two years because the city’s fiscal year runs from May 1 to April 30 the following year. But the totals do not match police funding in the city’s annual reports. No explanation for the discrepancy was given.

Kansas City Councilmember (and former Show-Me Institute intern) Nathan Willett issued his own tweet regarding the mayor’s numbers, pointing out that a slightly different version of the slide failed to adjust for inflation. Were the numbers so adjusted, he pointed out, the chart would show Kansas City has yet to get back to pre-pandemic police funding levels.

One of the slides details crime numbers each year, such as homicides. Assuming that these depict calendar year crimes, as opposed to the fiscal year spending numbers on which they are superimposed, they still don’t match police crime stats.

The most embarrassing slide is the one examining priority call times. I wasn’t able to quickly find the numbers they refer to, but the times on the line chart are clearly wrong. The Priority 1 Response Times (in yellow) can’t be both 8:36 in ‘19/20 and in ‘20/21, because they are placed in different places on the line graph. And the 6:95 listed in the Priority 2 Response Times (in red) isn’t even a time.

I asked Mayor Lucas for the source of the information on the chart after the Public Safety Committee meeting on Tuesday night. He told me to file an open records request with his office. In Kansas City, that seems a polite way of saying “get lost.”

I don’t know the purpose these charts are meant to serve. But they don’t reflect a command of the facts on this issue.

The post Kansas City Mayor Gets Basic Policing Numbers Wrong appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The piece featured a quote from the mayor bemoaning the passage of Amendment 4 in Missouri, which required the city to up its spending on the police from 20% to 25%. The author begins with a quote from the mayor:

“The current system doesn’t work. We need more accountability, not less . . . We need more innovations in policing, not less.” Lucas explained that he doesn’t believe an increase in funding for the KCPD will be useful in countering rising violent crime.

This is interesting because in his latest budget, Mayor Lucas was eager for the Kansas City Police Department to significantly increase salaries for existing officers as well as new hires. Why would he want that if he didn’t think it would be useful?

The Pitch, perhaps to back up the mayor’s reaction to Amendment 4, offers the following:

A body of evidence shows that increasing police funding has no major impact on reducing local crime rates. One of the tropes used during the campaign for Amendment 4 was the need to fund the KCPD while skewing the increase in homicide rates in Kansas City to present the Lucas administration and the Kansas City Council as far-left partisans who care not for the safety of their constituents.

The first link (“body”) is to a page of Human Rights Watch. It doesn’t expressly conclude that police funding doesn’t reduce crime. Instead, it provides a two-stage yet still heavily qualified claim:

Studies show that investing in health care, housing, universal basic income, child care, universal pre-K, and public safety programs outside the criminal legal system infrastructure would reduce poverty and inequality, and research suggests, is likely to improve community safety. [emphasis added]

All of that may be true. But plenty—in fact most—people living in poverty and suffering inequality do not commit crime. Policing is about getting criminals off the street and deterring crime. And we know that the most common victims of crime are exactly those same poor people.

The second two links (“evidence shows” and “Increasing police funding has no major impact”) are about a single study of the 20 largest cities in Canada. Those may be compelling. But I suspect the dynamics of crime and policing between the United States and our neighbor to the north are sufficiently different to be unhelpful for Kansas City.

The last link (“reducing local crime rates”) has nothing to do with the relationship between crime and police funding. The article merely makes the argument that many places accused of defunding the police have actually increased police funding.

Instead, consider the conclusion of a 2018 study conducted by Princeton University, titled, “More COPS, Less Crime.” The author examined the impact that federal COPS funding (Community Oriented Policing Services) had on crime and concluded, without qualification, “one officer-year was added for every $95,000 spent by the federal government and that the social benefit associated with the ensuing crime reduction [was] on the order of $350,000.”

Another paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2020 concludes, without qualification, “Each additional police officer abates approximately 0.1 homicides.”

Issues surrounding crime and law enforcement are not easily settled. They are made even more complicated by partisan politics. I suspect Mayor Lucas knows better than what he claimed, and The Pitch should be a little more thorough with its facts and research.

The post The Pitch’s Half-hearted Crime Research appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to a report released by Populous in 2022, a stadium design firm that’s done work for nearly all MLB teams, The K suffers from severe structural issues that would cost more to fix than a new stadium would be to build.

The link included in that text, however, is no longer available. It now defaults to a splashy artists’ rendering of a downtown ballpark.

That report became an issue again when the Royals announced they wanted to leave Kauffman Stadium. The findings from the Populous report run counter to another publicly available engineering report that found Kauffman to be in satisfactory condition, with no mention of any significant concrete issues.  According to a January 31 story in The Kansas City Star:

When The Star asked a team spokesman about the discrepancy, the Royals issued a statement that said those annual assessment reports and the one Populous produced for the team are not comparable.

“The shortest and simplest answer is that these are two very different reports aimed at very different objectives. One is an annual repair plan and the other is about long-term viability,” the Royals said. “The study referenced in the public meeting came from a leading structural engineer of sports facilities. This firm knows our building well after working on the 2008 renovation. We asked them to evaluate long-term structural issues and the feasibility of extending the existing structure for 40 more years.”

Jackson County Executive Frank White asked the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, which oversees the Chiefs and Royals stadia, to conduct an investigation. It declined.

At the March 19 library event, Mayor James held up a stack of paper when referring to a study of Kauffman Stadium. I asked for and received what he held up. Ms. Tourville, a spokeswoman for the Royals, previously referred to a report from 2007 “that has shown significant deterioration and concrete cancer.” Indeed, what Mayor James handed me are two reports dated 2007. (The scanned document is available here.)

But what about that Populous report mentioned in the media?

When Mayor James handed me the report, there were two brightly colored sticky notes on the report. On each was written “Populous studies.” (Photographs available here and here.) But the documents themselves were not the Populous study.

The Royals seemed to drop the claims of faulty concrete pretty quickly. On a March 27 discussion on Sports Radio 810, Royals President Brooks Sherman said, “We need a new stadium to be competitive with our peers” (found at 38:26 in the audio here). Later on that same program, Executive Director of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority Jim Rowland said, of the teams, “They’ve kept the buildings in first class condition” (found at 1:13:35).

Hopefully the Royals will release whatever study Populous conducted on Kauffman in the name of transparency. If it found “severe structural issues” with Kauffman Stadium as claimed, it would be a significant development. Otherwise, this episode seems to be one of many examples of a poorly conceived and poorly run effort to get Jackson County voters to part with their money.

The post Where Is That Populous Report on Kauffman Stadium? 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.

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.

For those who aren’t aware, PPP was created by Congress to give forgivable loans to businesses and nonprofits affected by the coronavirus. As governments across the country shut down schools and businesses, Congress realized that it needed to provide support or businesses would go under, costing millions of jobs and carving deep scars into the American economy.

The first part of the story is important. Government shut these businesses and schools down. PPP was not a “bailout,” rewarding businesses that had acted poorly or were floundering. Businesses and schools had little say in whether or not they would be able to serve customers and did not deserve to be harmed as a result.

Lots of schools took PPP loans. This shouldn’t surprise us. As Dean Johnson, leader of the Crossroad Academies charter schools in Kansas City told The Kansas City Star, “I understand the economic realities, but one way or another we need to be able to meet our expenses, and if we’re trying to provide a more complex learning model what we certainly can’t be doing is laying off staff.”

But here is where the Star’s PPP story went off the rails. Rather than examining the effects of the coronavirus on local schools and their budgets, the author decided to pit charter and private schools against the Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS), making the case that it was unfair that charter and private schools could get PPP support while KCPS couldn’t. The article PPP-shamed them. It includes the predictable jabs at Rockhurst High School’s tuition ($15,000 for the upcoming year), and a quote from the local teachers union leader taking a dig at Betsy DeVos.

Like great Kansas City jazz, it’s the notes that it didn’t play that are the most revealing.

First, it left out the fact that KCPS receives more public funding than local charter schools, and even more per pupil than most private schools. According to the state of Missouri, KCPS spent $15,137 per student in 2019. Seems like an important detail to put in the story. KCPS is hardly in penury. It is certainly not “underfunded.”

Second, as Mayor Quinton Lucas pointed out on Twitter, in Clay County, federal CARES Act dollars were allocated to support the North Kansas City and Liberty public school districts. Jackson county could do the same for KCPS but hasn’t. Maybe someone should ask them why not.

Third, the article fails to mention that if private and charter schools were to close due to the economic effects of the coronavirus (as more than 100 private schools already have), it would be terrible for KCPS. State and local governments are already reeling from decreased tax revenue due to depressed economic activity; flooding schools with hundreds or thousands of new students would put tremendous strain on KCPS or any other public school district. If public school advocates could see beyond their immediate, narrow interests they would understand that charter schools and private schools are doing them a favor.

The disappointing thing about the Star’s article is that if it were not framed as adversarial, but as a system of schools wrestling with a shared problem, we might be better able to find solutions. Judging from the social media reaction, most readers walked away from the story angry at private and charter schools, not interested in how to help all children in Kansas City get a good education in the time of the coronavirus. That’s a shame.

The post The Star PPP-Shames Kansas City Private and Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kansas City Star reported that smaller businesses previously considered nonessential will be able to open but,

will have to follow the city’s new rules, dubbed “10-10-10,” for the foreseeable future: They must operate at 10% of their normal capacity or have 10 people in the establishment, whatever is greater. That includes the employees needed to run the business.

Businesses or gathering places with more traffic, such as restaurants, libraries, community centers and gyms, will stick to the May 15 opening date but must also follow the new rules.

The plan also requires that “customers who are in a business for more than 10 minutes will have to register their name and contact information.” The requirement of registering names caused an outcry and on May 5 city leadership reversed the rule, making registration merely a recommendation.

Even without a government mandated collection of names, restaurants cannot operate at 10 percent capacity. The mayor apparently had not consulted with restaurant owners before promulgating the plan. Restaurant owners objected, and on May 11, the Star reported that the city again retreated:

In a notice to its members Sunday night that was obtained by The Star, the Greater Kansas City Restaurant Association said it had worked with Lucas to ensure restaurants were subject to a social-distancing requirement rather than a limit on their capacity.

Under the new rules, tables must be spaced 10 feet apart and/or parties must be seated six feet apart — “as measured from back of chair to back of chair.” Workers and patrons who are exhibiting coronavirus symptoms must be turned away.

Of course, essential—and potentially crowded—businesses such as grocery stores are not subject to any parts of the 10-10-10 rule. And the list of what constitutes an essential business seem pretty broad. In his May 4 proclamation, Mayor Lucas wrote (page 5),  “Essential Businesses’ include, but are not limited to, for-profit, non-profit, and educational entities, regardless of corporate or entity structure, which provide services in,” twenty-three different subcategories. This includes, “xvii. Businesses that supply other essential business with the support or supplies necessary to operate.” That seems like a pretty big loophole.

Any well-meaning business owner can and should be forgiven for running afoul of these Byzantine rules and standards. It doesn’t help that city leaders imposed impossible regulations on some businesses without bothering to consult with them first. If city leaders want their orders adhered to, they should do a better job drafting them.

The post 10! 10. 10? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri American Water, naturally, is supportive of the plan and is confident it can deliver the same services to Peculiar residents they receive now and at a lower rate. A webpage in support of the proposal shows the recent rates in Peculiar compared to other American Water customers across Missouri, including Kansas City neighbors Platte County, Lawson, and St. Joseph. (Incidentally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims, “the average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day at home” or around  9,000 gallons per month.) 

At a time of increasing water rates in Kansas City, it might be worth considering such a deal here. Kansas Citians already look to private—albeit heavily regulated—companies for their electrical power and natural gas. Why not water too? And if such a sale here would include an upfront payment to the city as well as potentially improved management and lower rates over the long run, city leaders have a responsibility to consider the offer.

All of this hinges on a serious and substantive audit of the Water Department, as Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has called for previously. That is a necessary first step so that taxpayers and any interested buyers know exactly what is at stake. Even without a looming financial crisis, Kansas Citians should be looking to shed costly burdens that can be better and more cheaply provided by others.

The post A Peculiar Solution for Ever-Increasing Water Rates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A 2017 KCPT documentary detailed the effect of the increases in water rates—240 percent since 2000—on many Kansas Citians, and the apparent inability—or unwillingness—of local leadership to do anything about it. All of this is due to a settlement with the EPA, which cited Kansas City for multiple violations of the Clean Water Act and forced the city to agree to extensive upgrades to its water and sewer system.

Taking the violations and the need to address them at face value, it is still fair to ask what is going on with the water department. How is it spending its money and are there opportunities to be more efficient? Here there might be an opportunity. In its 2019 endorsement of Quinton Lucas’s mayoral effort, The Kansas City Star editorial board quoted Lucas as saying at a prior candidate debate, “I’m not just open to a conversation on a state audit; I think we need a state audit of the water department.” This is welcome, especially since the previous mayor denied requests by the Missouri State Auditor to conduct an audit of the water department.

It may very well be that the city-run water department is a model of efficiency and that these frequent increases are necessary. If that is the case, there may be other opportunities to address rising costs in a way that does not so burden those among us who are at the most risk of losing service. Mayor Lucas, the city council, and indeed those at the water department should all welcome an audit, be it by the Missouri State Auditor, a private and completely independent firm, or both.

The post Audit the Kansas City Water Department appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Goldman Sachs predicts the United States gross domestic product (GDP) will shrink by a quarter. Thousands of people in the Kansas City region are losing their jobs, and the mayor just issued a shelter-in-place order. City revenue is about to plummet. We can safely say that revenues from the earnings tax and sales taxes will decline significantly.

Who knows what sort of bailout will be available to cities, if any. But this is not a time to be funding a film office whose function is to subsidize the likes of Netflix. Kansas City has been a high tax city for years. And not satisfied with spending those revenues, we have continued to increase our public debt. This may be a time of reckoning.

A city council that convenes online and votes virtually out of concern for a global pandemic must demonstrate that it truly understands the difference between basic, necessary services and those things that are merely nice to have. Is Visit KC, the city’s convention and visitors bureau, necessary in the next few months? Is the streetcar? Is the Economic Development Corporation (EDCKC) a vital need in the next quarter? The city council should act as they have asked Kansas City residents to act, supporting only “essential services.” Everything else, for now, needs to be set aside.

The post The Kansas City Budget Amid Coronavirus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City, Missouri, made news around the country last month with reports that city officials had done away with fares on its municipal bus system. But neither the announcement nor the results the city can expect are as clear-cut as they first seem. The reality is that Kansas City has not adopted a fare-free bus system, nor has it considered the broader implications of doing so. In fact, city leaders have no idea how they will pay for it.

What actually happened: Kansas City’s City Council instructed the city manager to work with transit officials on a policy that would “include a funding request in the next fiscal year budget to make fixed route public transportation fare free within the City.” The city’s next fiscal year does not begin until May 1, 2020.

One reason for all this is the 2.2-mile streetcar the city completed in 2016. Its operations and administration are independent from the bus system and are funded through sales taxes, assessments on property along the route, and additional support from the city’s general fund.

The streetcar, which is free to ride, also receives $2 million from sales taxes meant to fund regular transit. It’s viewed by many as a free party bus for tourists, operating alongside buses that low-income workers must pay to use for trips to work and school.

Advocates of the free-fare transit proposal argue that the move to ditch fares on the bus system would address inequality without risking a drop in ridership that a streetcar fare would cause.

Locally, the idea has been making inroads for a while. Free bus passes became the norm for veterans two years ago, and last year the system offered the same to students. The Authority claims that over the past few years, 23 percent of riders have paid no fare.

Making the entire system free may be attractive to transit advocates, but it’s a move with risks—risks that seemingly haven’t been assessed. This was underscored when, in an interview with local newspaper The Pitch, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority CEO Robert “Robbie” Makinen offered, “Just because nobody else is doing it, that’s not a reason for us not to do it. What’s wrong with trying it? What’s the worst thing that happens? It doesn’t work, and Robbie gets fired.”

But the idea isn’t new, and that’s not the worst that can happen.

Other cities have tried fare-free bus service—and abandoned it. A 2002 study by Jennifer Perone and Joel Volinski of the Center for Urban Transportation Research concluded:

. . . (A) fare-free policy might be appropriate for smaller transit systems in certain communities, but is ill-advised for larger transit systems in major urban areas because experience shows that in larger systems, a tremendous amount of criminal activity, as well as a sharp increase in ridership, caused higher maintenance costs, labor costs, and operational costs and drove away existing riders.

In a 2012 book, “Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems,” Volinski detailed a fare-free pilot program in Austin, Texas. Ridership increased by as much as 70 percent, but there were issues of, “overcrowded buses, disruptive passengers, and unhappy bus operators.” The program was discontinued. Denver tried a similar program, saw the same results, and discontinued the effort.

Riders get it. According to a 2019 TransitCenter surveys of passengers around the country, “most low-income bus riders rate lowering fares as less important than improving the quality of the service.” (KCATA is undertaking its own “comprehensive review and redesign of transit service,” which included a survey, but as of this writing, KCATA has not completed the review or shared with me any questionnaire of passengers.)

Then there is the cost of going fare-free, estimated between $8 million and $12 million annually in Kansas City.

Given the ridership increase in other places that have tried it, the transit authority will need to cover not only its current fare box revenue, but also the costs of serving increased demand. During legislative discussion on the resolution, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas suggested returning the $2 million currently diverted to the streetcar. Councilwoman Kathryn Shields offered an amendment, adopted by the Council, that also instructs the city manager also to report how this potential budget outlay will impact other city services.

Again, none of this is known.

Good policies go beyond good intentions—they serve a public need with as few negative consequences as is possible. Our national experience with large-scale, fare-free transit has been a bumpy ride. Kansas City needs to consider all the options and trade-offs before adopting such a significant policy change. Reporting on the matter suggests that this has not yet been done.

The post Fare Free Public Transit? Not so Fast appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Commission diverted from its usual rubber-stamping to say no to an outrageous request to subsidize a luxury hotel downtown.
• A vote to approve a proposal to dump a bunch of public money into an office tower has been repeatedly delayed by the city council. Not only is this a speculative risk for the city, the numbers used by proponents are wrong.
• More recently, and immediately after the Show-Me Institute published a call to do so, the deal to bring the USDA to Kansas City was reworked to cap public investment by reducing the port authority’s windfall.
• More promising for the long term, Mayor Lucas appointed former councilmember Alissia Canady to head the TIF Commission as well as appointing some current council members to the commission. Putting elected officials on the commission should make the commission more responsive to voter concerns, and Canady herself has been consistent in her willingness to oppose some incentive projects.

There is a great deal more to be done to rein in the incentives culture in Kansas City. Among other things, we need a legitimately independent study of incentives and their impact, the recent city effort having been an absolute debacle. But based on the past few weeks, there is reason to be guardedly optimistic.

The post Some Positive Signs on Economic Development Incentives in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The city council may still approve the subsidies, which will require 9 of 13 votes to pass. As The Star noted, however,

The [Commission] vote reflects a growing skepticism about the value [of] local economic development subsidies. During his campaign earlier this year, new Mayor Quinton Lucas was frequently critical of incentives for new development, particularly for luxury projects or those in prospering areas like downtown.

We hope that common sense will again prevail and that city leaders will start saying no to more proposals to spend public money on private developments.

The post “Sometimes Common Sense Does Prevail” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.