The federal government has spent billions on internet expansion and hasn’t connected a single new home. California has increased its high-speed rail budget from $33 billion to $135 billion and still hasn’t laid down any track fifteen years after the program began. It’s insanity.

Another huge federal program with local implications that has failed miserably is the program to install thousands of electric vehicle chargers across the nation. $7.5 billion was appropriated toward this goal in 2021 as part of the bloated stimulus package, and by the end of 2023, zero chargers had been installed.

2024 has witnessed the installation of a few new chargers. As of this summer, the program is up to eight. All of this for something the private sector could provide. But if you leave it to the private sector, they might not install chargers exactly how the federal government wants them to, and that’s (apparently) the problem. The federal rules are so unnecessarily yet intentionally complex that they are the cause of the delays. As Reason magazine writes:

Why so little progress? Alexander Laska of the center-left Third Way think tank told Autoweek’s Jim Motavalli that the federal cash “comes with dozens of rules and requirements around everything from reliability to interoperability, to where stations can be located, to what certifications the workers installing the chargers need to have.”

Who cares what certifications the workers have as long as the chargers work? And who cares where they are located as long as they are located somewhere a car can get to? The federal government cares, of course, because the complexity of the rules is exactly what gives bureaucrats their power and allows officials to reward supporters.

EV charging mandates, subsidies, and regulations, are all unnecessary. Where there is a demand for chargers, the private sector will supply them. This is no more complex than the gas stations that have been filling up cars for over a hundred years. (Did you know that the first gas station in America was in St. Louis? I didn’t.)

$7.5 billion for eight EV chargers in three years. So typical.

The post Charging Nothing and Liking It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Event Information

This is a virtual event.

In a time when some people argue that Big Tech has gotten too big, Robby Soave’s message is simple: don’t panic. In his new book, Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future, Robby argues that whatever challenges the future holds, we will be better prepared to handle them as a country, as a society, and as individuals if the government hasn’t vaporized social media via some giant, metaphorical “Unfriend” button.

Robby is a senior editor at Reason and has also been published in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, and U.S. News & World Report. Named on Forbes’ “30 Under 30” list in 2017, he became well known for his correction of a Rolling Stone article on sexual assault at the University of Virginia and his correction of the highly reported incident concerning Catholic high school students at the Lincoln Memorial in 2019.

Please join the Show-Me Institute and Reason for an evening of conversation. The webinar link will be sent to you after you register.

Register

The post What Should We Do About Facebook? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Join Robby for a virtual event on Thursday, October 21 for a discussion about big tech, cancel culture and more. Details and registration information here.

Robby’s latest book is Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future 

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Podcast: America’s Big Tech Panic with Robby Soave appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a time when some people argue that Big Tech has gotten too big, Robby Soave’s message is simple: don’t panic. In his new book Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future, Robby argues that whatever challenges the future holds, we will be better prepared to handle them as a country, as a society, and as individuals if the government hasn’t vaporized social media via some giant, metaphorical “Unfriend” button.

Please join the Show-Me Institute and Reason for an evening of conversation. Register to receive the Zoom link.

Register

The post October 21 Event: Tech Panic – Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future with Robby Soave appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

And that’s why it was exciting to see Arizona take a big step toward that ultimate policy goal of greater licensure reciprocity, by putting forward “universal licensing” legislation. From the Reason write-up:

A bill introduced Monday in the Arizona General Assembly would allow anyone with an occupational license from a different state to automatically qualify for the same license in Arizona without having to retake classes and pass tests again—though they would have to pay a fee to the state board that administers the license, and would have to demonstrate that they were in good standing with the licensing authorities in their previous state. So-called “universal licensing recognition” would make it easier for licensed workers to move to Arizona and would do away with time-consuming and expensive requirements for license-holders who want to move across state lines…

Arizona already recognizes licenses from beyond its own borders for military families, and the new bill would extend that same privilege to other workers.

Last month the bill passed out of the Arizona House on a bipartisan vote, and it’s now before the Arizona Senate for further consideration.

The Arizona bill could go further in its reforms than it currently does. First, the bill’s provisions apply to “a person who establishes residence in [Arizona]”; incidental contact by an out-of-state practitioner, as might happen in a telemedicine context, isn’t enough to enjoy the licensing relief of the bill. Second, the bill still allows Arizona regulators to impose some financial and examination burdens on these workers, so time will tell whether the regulatory state in Arizona will be defanged here, or whether in practice these licensing boards will just get more creative in enacting barriers to professional entry.

Arizona’s bill is an incremental reform, but as increments go, it would be a pretty sizable chunk of better policy. It will be interesting to see if the bill becomes law, and if it does, how many states follow suit shortly thereafter. Missouri policymakers should keep a close eye on this legislation. It isn’t perfect, as I’ve noted, but it could be a good starting point for truly universal and reciprocal licensure reform.

The post Arizona is Pushing Universal Licensing? Yes Please! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Obama administration’s guidelines had come under criticism as more and more individuals accused of sexual assault came forward to argue that their due process rights were being violated.

The “Dear Colleague” letter (and subsequent communications by the Department of Education) offered several bits of problematic guidance. First, the letter directed universities to follow what is called a “single investigator” model when pursuing these claims, meaning that a university employee would, as Emily Yoffe of the Atlantic wrote, act as “detective, prosecutor, judge, and jury” for the case. There is a reason why we separate those responsibilities in our court system.

Standard rules of evidence that we would expect any court of law to follow did not have to be followed. Because of the opaque nature of these investigations, those accused did not have a right to submit evidence on their own behalf or cross-examine witnesses or experts. In fact, those accused of these crimes did not even have to be notified of the specific complaint against them. It was a recipe for disaster.

At the core of all investigations is the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the accusers. As both Yoffe and Robby Soave of Reason.com have documented in heartbreaking detail, current processes have failed both of these groups. Due process helps to ensure that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are not. With an issue as serious as sexual assault, it is that much more important that fair and transparent procedures are followed. Let’s hope that this period of public comment brings them back into balance.

The post Education Department to Revisit Title IX Guidelines for Sexual Assault Investigations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For many years, Stein was a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where I am an adjunct fellow and Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar in the social sciences. Last week, Dr. Murray attempted to give a speech at Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont, and well, you’ve probably heard how that went.

It was the most violent instance in the recent trend of out-of-control protesters on college campuses silencing speakers with whom they disagree. Just days after Dr. Murray’s talk, the philosopher Peter Singer, who I think can fairly be put at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Dr. Murray, had a lecture shouted down by students with megaphones.

This cannot continue. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I think the events at Middlebury represent a turning point in the free speech battle on college campuses. My perusal of the media coverage of the event shows near universal condemnation of the students’ actions. From the New York Times to National Review, educated people of all political stripes have opposed it. Dr. Murray himself has praised the administration at Middlebury, which is rightfully embarrassed and has committed to fixing the problem.

Time will tell, and the concrete steps Middlebury takes will be important, obviously. But I think the tide is turning. If you follow writers like Kat Timpf at NRO or Robby Soave at Reason, it seems like not a week will go by without some speaker that deviates even a tiny bit from the orthodoxy on some issue getting shouted down. Liberals are being protested, conservatives are being protested, and seemingly apolitical folks are being protested. It’s like that scene from Oprah’s “favorite things” episode when she gave everyone a car: “AND YOU GET A PROTEST! AND YOU GET A PROTEST!”

Ironically, the upside is that it isn’t just conservatives who are being shouted down anymore. This has the effect of widening the group of people who oppose the protests. It’s easier to be a bystander when you disagree with the person who is being protested. It’s harder when you feel your own tribe is under attack.

Things that cannot continue, won’t. This has to end, and the sooner the better.

The post L’Affaire Middlebury appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is that issue, you ask? Is it that puppies are cute? That apple pie is delicious? That Ken Bone is the hero we desperately need?

Nope, its Charter schools. Specifically that charter schools help low income and minority children.

The research literature is unambiguous. While suburban and rural charter schools are often statistically indistinguishable from their neighboring traditional public schools, urban charter schools consistently demonstrate significant positive results for their students. Yes, there is a distribution, with some performing far better than others. No, they cannot single-handedly solve every social ill of inner-city communities. But on average and in aggregate, they provide a better education for students than those children would have without charter schools in the mix.

This is why lawsuits trying to stop charter schools are bad for poor kids. This is why limiting charter schools to within the boundaries of the Kansas City and St. Louis school districts is short sighted. This is why major advocacy organizations for African-Americans taking stances against them is potentially harmful.

In a time of deep division, charter schools are an issue where we can come together. Let’s get to it.

The post Come Together, Right Now, on Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These may sound like philosophical questions, but the answers have very real consequences, as this story in the New York Times shows.

Alison Chavez, 36, who is self-employed, signed up for a marketplace plan in October 2013 that she hoped would be an improvement on her previous plan. She had recently been given a diagnosis of breast cancer and was just beginning therapy, so she was careful to choose a policy on the Covered California marketplace that included her physicians.

But in March, while in the middle of treatment, she was notified that several of her doctors and the hospital were leaving the plan’s network. She was forced to postpone a surgery as she scrambled to buy a new commercial policy that included her doctors. “I’ve been through hell and back, but I came out alive and kicking (just broke),” she wrote in an email.

Obamacare tries to treat the symptoms of a sick American health care system—the rising cost of insurance—but it doesn’t really treat the underlying sickness, the rising cost of care. And that’s ultimately what we expect when we “have health care”: care. It’s just not necessarily what people receive under the ACA.

In that context, it’s understandable that many Americans are looking for alternative care models that meet their needs, not the needs of a government bureaucrat. The “direct care” model is one of the most promising. The direct care model is simple; for a set fee, patients and doctors can contract for health care services. These care “subscriptions” guarantee access to a doctor of the patient’s choosing, oftentimes because the doctor is limiting the number of total patients he or she will take over that period. Instead of paying for insurance and getting poor care or no care at all, patients pay for care and receive . . . care. Imagine that.

An article published in Time Magazine late last year sums up what makes direct care arrangements attractive.

The driving insight here is that primary care and specialized care have two very different missions. Americans need more of the first so they’ll need less of the second. And each requires a different business model. Primary care should be paid for directly, because that’s the easiest and most efficient way to purchase a service that everyone should be buying and using. By contrast, specialty care and hospitalizations—which would be covered by traditional insurance–are expenses we all prefer to avoid. Car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes, and homeowners’ insurance doesn’t cover house paint. So why should insurance pay for your annual checkup or your kid’s strep swab? [Emphasis mine]

You can think of it as “a la carte care” or “concierge care,” or something else, but it is indisputably care—care that the patient has chosen and can actually access. The potential for direct care extends even to more specialized care, too. At the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (SCO), the surgeons post the prices of their services online, with prices oftentimes a fraction of what other hospitals and insurance companies charge patients. This 2012 video from Reason TV explains the lower-cost, and arguably more personal, SCO model.

It is no wonder several proposals now floating around the Missouri Legislature aim not only to protect direct care arrangements, but also to facilitate them. One proposal would insulate direct care arrangements from undue bureaucratic interference; another would initiate a pilot program to make direct care available to the poor. Both are well worth the consideration of Missouri legislators, especially before the legislature’s session comes to a close next month.

Direct care has the potential to help patients like Alison find and keep the doctors they want—and not have that relationship jeopardized by some middleman insurance relationship. Amidst all the problems of America’s post-Obamacare medical system, direct care represents a bright shining possibility for a better model for our health care: one that puts the patient first, not the government.

The post What Does It Mean to “Have Health Care”? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post New Video on Public Financing for NFL Stadiums appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, notes in the video:

People like autonomy in the abstract, but they get real nervous about it. If any one of a hundred or a thousand schools does something goofy, there’s always a natural temptation to say, “Well, we’re for autonomy, but let’s have a rule that doesn’t let you do X.”

Over time, Hess suggests that these regulations mount. If not checked, the decentralized charter market could become a bureaucratic morass. So what is the right level of regulation? And is it possible for a decentralized school system to resist what Neerav Kingsland, former CEO of New Schools for New Orleans, calls “death by a thousand regulatory cuts”?

If you have seven minutes, you should check out the video.

The post What Is the Right Level of Regulation in Public Education? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1. Lyft and Uber have insurance gaps.

This statement may have had validity a few months ago, but this is no longer the case. In July, both Uber and Lyft changed their insurance policies so that cars operate under liability insurance whenever the ridesharing apps are activated. Commercial insurance becomes primary (not secondary as Mundy stated in the interview) when a passenger has been accepted. Both Lyft and Uber detail their policies, and no driver or customer needs to use these systems if they find them inadequate. But regulators and those of Mundy’s persuasion would rather legislate additional insurance (shown not to improve safety) or ban ridesharing.

2. Every time the taxi industry has been deregulated, it’s been reregulated.

This statement is empirically false, as a Reason study demonstrates.

3. Ridesharing companies do not perform adequate background checks.

Mundy claims Uber and Lyft drivers might be dangerous because they do not use the same type of background check as most cab companies. Peruse Uber’s qualifications for yourself:

According the Mundy, these tests do not go back as far as taxi checks and do not include arrests where there are no convictions. That seems like a contrived standard, and once again, customers can decide whether they feel Uber or Lyft drivers are safe. But Mundy and other regulators would rather residents did not have such options.

4. Uber and Lyft use price gouging.

Mundy, and other defenders of taxi regulations, do not like Uber and Lyft using variable pricing, such as charging more money at different times of night or when demand is higher. In reality, allowing for higher fares means drivers have a larger incentive to take fares at 2 a.m. or on New Year’s Eve. It allows the price mechanism to match supply with demand. But Mundy and other regulators would rather Saint Louisans wait hours for cabs that don’t come rather than have the choice to pay a higher fare.

5. Uber hurts the poor, because cab companies cannot cross-subsidize service.

It is well known that, despite stringent regulations, taxis around the country refuse fares and avoid depressed neighborhoods. The best protection against fare refusal and more service is a large, diverse supply of for-hire vehicles, which ridesharing can help provide. And what’s more, cities like Saint Louis spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on extensive public transit and para-transit services to serve the poor and the disabled. The for-hire vehicle market should not be regulated in order to duplicate those efforts.

If there is a common theme to Mundy’s and regulators’ arguments, it is that city officials, and not city residents, should decide whether ridesharing companies are safe enough, charge the right amount, and provide the right kind of service. But in reality, the corrective action of riders and drivers making their own decisions regarding Uber and Lyft are a far better test of all those criteria, and even Mundy admits the popularity of ridesharing where it has not been quashed by city government. The reality is that most Saint Louisans don’t see cabs as an option, because the service does not meet their needs. That’s a shame, because that hurts residents and hurts the city. But Mundy and the taxicab commission would rather keep it the way it is than let residents make their own choices.

The post Ridesharing an Option Regulators Want to Keep from Residents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Increasing the Health Care Supply to Meet Health Care Demand appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Related:

• Mike Rowe talks to ReasonTV about the high cost of college.

The post Show-Me Now! Vo-Tech: Another Educational Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here we will address the site’s claim regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Previously, we have explained that rail transit does not remove cars from the road. But NextRailKC persists in making claims that, well, confuse people who honestly seek information.

New York has lower VMT because it is extremely congested, located on water and built before World War II when cars were less prevalent on a pre-planned street grid. Even without its fantastic transit network it would still have a much lower VMT.

Dallas has a lower VMT because congestion is much more severe. Worsening congestion to lessen VMT is a perverse policy goal. Further, Dallas is the poster child for how not to build rail. Despite populations increases and the addition of a light-rail network, fewer people take transit in Dallas in 2013 then before the light-rail network was built. When a region spends billions to build transit and the total number of people commuting by transit declines, you have made some major mistakes.

Kansas City’s population and density are not like the population and density in New York or Dallas. Additionally, Kansas City’s needs are different. We cannot look to New York or Dallas for any meaningful prediction of the impact of rail in Kansas City. The comparisons are absolutely meaningless, to the point of being misleading.

Perhaps most indicative of the city’s lack of desire to engage seriously with taxpayers is that officials NextRailKC can’t even be bothered to develop their own misleading infographics — instead, they chose to borrow Charlotte’s.

The post Streetcars (Still) Do Not Reduce Miles Driven In Cars appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Before the law was repealed, any potential new moving company had to submit an application to the state government to start the company. Existing moving companies then had the opportunity to say, “No thanks, we don’t want any more competition. You can’t start your business here. Sorry I am not sorry!”

Essentially, existing home moving companies were protected against fair competition from outsiders. By restricting competition, companies had more control to set prices for their services. They unfairly cast off competition that would allow Missourians to have more choices. And, entrepreneurs were excluded from making a living in their preferred occupation.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation did not pass the first time around. Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst David Stokes wrote in 2011 about Missouri reducing home mover licensing requirements. However, the governor vetoed that particular bill in 2011.

This time around, it looks like there is real change for the home mover business. Markets and customers can now make the decision of who will provide services. The government may think it is doing a good service by imposing certain restrictions, but occupational licensing often results in harmful effects to citizens and the economy.

The post Moving Companies, Start Your Engines! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This seems like as good a reason as any to remind everyone about the Show-Me Institute’s School Choice Week event tomorrow. The Show-Me Institute is sponsoring a showing of The Cartel at the Tivoli Theater (6350 Delmar) in Saint Louis on Thursday, Jan. 27, at 6:30 p.m. (registration starts at 6:00).

The documentary (you can watch the trailer at the film’s website) examines the failures of New Jersey’s public school system, which spends more per student than that of any other state but is still home to a frighteningly large number of failing schools. Director Bob Bowdon traces how money is frequently diverted from classrooms, and flows instead to administrators, union coffers, and political patronage positions. Although Bowdon focuses on New Jersey, the problems he uncovers are often the same as those we find here in Missouri and across America.

The special screening will be followed by a panel discussion featuring two Missouri state representatives at the forefront of the education issue in our state: Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (R), the chairman of the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education, and Rep. Tishaura Jones (D), assistant minority floor leader and also a member of the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education. They will share their views on the issues that come before this important committee, and on which of those may find their way into legislation during the 2011 session.

The event is free, but if you would like to come, please RSVP to our public relations representative, William Kay.

The post The Case for School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Eight million Americans cut up their credit cards this year, according to new data out from credit bureau TransUnion. Some of those plastic deserters were folks who faced scary economic conditions and decided to voluntarily cut back on debt spending. But for others, it wasn’t a matter of choice.

Millions of customers found themselves unceremoniously ejected from the ranks of the card-worthy thanks to last year’s Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, or Credit CARD Act. The new rules were supposed to “protect American credit card holders” by stopping “unfair rate increases.” Instead, credit card companies prepared for their new straitened circumstances by booting customers who would no longer be profitable (read: poor people and other risky borrowers), and hiking interest rates for others. American Express even offered $300 bonuses to customers willing to pay off their cards and close their accounts—a deal designed to entice the kind of cash-strapped customers AmEx was soon to find less lucrative.

But as the new rules make it less appealing for credit card companies to offer their services to certain segments of the population, most of those people don’t revert to a cash-only state of nature. The appetite for credit doesn’t vanish when credit cards are harder to get. Instead, customers turn to options like installment plans, layaway, and payday lending for quick credit—and the fees they pay for those options are as high or higher than the credit card costs Congress and the White House found so objectionable. And in an economy that runs on plastic, debit cards replace credit cards for everyday purchases.

Congress has destroyed credit card access for many low income individuals, but many states have already eliminated second- and third-best options like payday loans, and there is pressure for Missouri or its localities to follow suit. For instance, in this editorial from the Springfield News-Leader, Pastor Roger Ray argues that Springfield should ban payday loans because “on a per capita basis, no state takes such reprehensible advantage of the desperate poor, fueling drug and alcohol addiction and gambling addiction with easy-to-get but hard-to-pay-back loans.” The rest of the editorial is packed with evidence-free assertions, overblown rhetoric, and enough fallacies that it would take a book to refute them all, so I will confine myself to the consequences that would follow from such a ban.

As I showed in my op-ed about this subject earlier this year, restricting payday loans leads to more bounced checks, complaints to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt collectors, utility shutdowns, and higher rates of bankruptcy. Payday loans are far from the best form of credit, but, in some cases, they are the best available to people. If Pastor Ray wants to eliminate payday loans in his community, I would encourage him and his congregation to start a fund to lend to low-income individuals at lower interest rates (or for free). If enough people share his sentiment, the payday loan industry can be eliminated without the force of law because very few people will opt for a more expensive loan over a cheaper one.

However, if the city government eliminates the loans by law, debtors will be forced to turn to even worse alternatives. I’m relatively certain Ray believes that a ban on payday loans would improve the lot of the poor, but that is an empirical question that most studies of the issue have answered with a resounding “no.” So, in the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

The post Helping the Poor by Denying Them Access to Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Private Property and the First Thanksgiving appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Radley Balko, of Reason magazine, recently wrote about the reprehensible actions of Montgomery officials in Slate. From the article:

Over the last decade or so, dozens—perhaps hundreds—of homes in Montgomery have been declared blighted and razed in a similar manner. The owners tend to be disproportionately poor and black, and with little means to fight back. […]

Alabama state law actually forbids the use of eminent domain for private development. Instead, Montgomery deems property blighted based on a section of state law that gives code inspectors wide leeway. The owner must then correct the problem to the satisfaction of the inspectors, or the city will […] [r]aze the property, bill the owner for the demolition, and then sell the property off to developers if the owner doesn’t pay. If you can’t afford repairs, you may well lose your home.

Terrifying. Not only will the city bulldoze your home for ordinance violations, but you will then have to pay for the destruction, and try to figure out what to do with your newly vacant land. As Balko points out in the article, this is actually worse than eminent domain. If the city takes your property through eminent domain, it at least has to pay for it.

The city of Montgomery has the power to do this by first issuing an ordinance violation citation, and then blighting the property, which enables the city to begin the condemnation process. That blight designation is key. Unfortunately, vague statutory language can enable overzealous city officials to blight property otherwise in good condition.

I used to think of “blight” as a word reserved for the very worst properties — those that are falling down, or, in the case of the city of Saint Louis, buildings that have been hollowed out by brick thieves. However, the city of Saint Louis recently demonstrated that a property can be blighted for any number of reasons. My favorite example, from the massive blighting done to enable the award of $400 million in tax increment financing for a large development project,  is that of New Roots, an urban farm in north Saint Louis that was deemed blighted because of “excessive vegetation.” Also on the egregious blighting list is the ABC news station on 13th Street, which was blighted because the building is more than 30 years old, though the property is appraised at nearly $700,000.

Missouri state statute defines a blighted area as an area which may have:

[…] predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use;

Some of the above definitions of blight are fairly concrete, but others are excessively vague. For example, what exactly “constitutes an economic or social liability”? What is a “menace” to “morals”? The vagueness in the referenced statute allows for the blighting of property such as the ABC news station for something pervasive in an old city — older buildings.

Bottom line: The city of Montgomery is a perfect illustration of the fact that a blight designation is not harmless. It can be a step in the direction of taking, or even bulldozing, a person’s home.

The post Yikes! Blight! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.