A version of the following commentary appeared in the Mound City Messenger.

A bad idea doesn’t get better with age. Bad ideas aren’t wine, jeans, or your high school memories. The tax subsidies for the Post-Dispatch building redevelopment in downtown St. Louis were a bad idea back in 2019 when the development was proposed, and they are a bad idea now.

Using tax subsidies for economic development rarely benefits the public. Instead, it lowers the risk and increases the returns for private investors. Under a capitalist system, the relationship between risk and reward for investors can be a wonderful thing, but in recent decades the government has somehow decided the public should get involved in private business dealings through tax subsidies and incentives. Taxpayers in St. Louis were left holding the bag for the failed St. Louis Marketplace tax increment financing (TIF) plan, the tax subsidy package for the Renaissance Hotel that was literally sold on the courthouse steps, and numerous other failed, subsidized enterprises. Most economic development schemes are like an expensive game of musical chairs in which the taxpayer is always the one with nowhere to sit.

The tax subsidy package for the old Post-Dispatch building at 900 N. Tucker on the northern edge of downtown St. Louis was approved by the Board of Aldermen in 2019. It primarily consisted of a $12 million TIF package. The summary included with the legislation featured the normal jargon required for such bills, and it included a statement that the development “will have approximately 1,250 jobs with an average salary of $76,500.”

How has that jobs promise worked out? Well, OK at first. The most recent annual TIF report (2024) filed by the developers with the state auditor repeated the same number of 1,250 estimated jobs created. It also listed 830 jobs created so far. There are two ways to look at that number, and both are accurate. The first is that, once again, developers exaggerated their job creation in order to get the subsidies they wanted. That often happens, and it may have happened here. The second is that getting to two-thirds of the promised jobs is actually better than many other subsidized developments, and maybe the developers deserve some credit. Not enough credit to justify all the subsidies in the first place, but, you know, some.

Except that recent actions indicate that the development is highly unlikely to ever get to 1,250, and it may quickly move in the other direction. The largest tenant in the redevelopment at 900 N. Tucker is Block, formerly known as Square. As you may have read, Block recently announced that it was laying off 4,000 people companywide, almost half of its total workforce. How many of those layoffs will be in St. Louis in unknown at this time, but the company previously announced much smaller layoffs in Missouri in both 2024 and 2025, so it seems unlikely that its St. Louis office will be unscathed.

I am not judging the company about the layoffs. If artificial intelligence is making some employees obsolete (the company’s stated reason for the move) then those people should be let go so they can do something else with their lives. That’s the creative destruction of capitalism. But this situation is a perfect example of why cities and counties should not give subsidies to private companies based on promises of employment, growth, renewal, or whatever the vibe of the moment is.

Numerous economic studies have disproved the belief that tax subsidies lead to economic growth. If tax subsidies worked, the City of St. Louis would already be awash in riches. Tax incentives have been piled on top of tax subsidies under every acronym under the sun for decades. None of it has worked. The city should focus on keeping tax rates level and low for everyone, not high for most and low (because of special exemptions) for the politically connected. A reliance on subsidies rewards cronyism, over-promising, and political grandstanding, but it doesn’t lead to real economic success. Just ask the Block employees who may be laid off soon.

The post Tax Subsidies Are a Mistake We Can’t Seem to Learn From appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

They say that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is now. That about sums up my opinion on the City of St. Louis’s one-percent earnings tax, the continuation of which is before St. Louis voters on the April ballot. The best time to start phasing out the earnings tax really was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is still now.

The 20 years in the saying is particularly appropriate in this case, as the Show-Me Institute released its first study on the earnings tax almost exactly 20 years ago. Professor Joseph Haslag, then at the University of Missouri, documented how the earnings tax reduces overall income and employment in the city by encouraging businesses and individuals to locate outside of the city. Additional studies conducted by Show-Me Institute analysts and others have found similar results regarding the harms of local income taxes generally.

Haslag didn’t just demonstrate the harm of the earnings tax; he also recommended a strategy to replace it in order to maintain necessary city services. Haslag suggested changing state laws to allow St. Louis to institute a land tax, which is simply a property tax on the value of the land only. Pittsburgh is one city that had beneficial results from implementing land taxation in the 1980s. Alas, while land taxes are popular with economists and fiscally beneficial, they are politically unpopular to say the least. Needless to say, land taxes have never been adopted in St. Louis (nor has state law been amended to allow them). But the harms of the earnings tax have continued to help drive St. Louis’s population and economy lower, and those fiscal harms were exacerbated during the pandemic.

An easier change (legally, if not politically) than a land tax would have been to start phasing out the earnings tax 20 years ago while increasing a combination of property and sales taxes over time to replace the lost revenues (while cutting spending where possible as well). Poor decision-making over the past two decades has made that already-difficult change almost impossible. Damaging special sales taxes such as community improvement district (CID) taxes are now ubiquitous throughout shopping areas in the city. Primarily used as a smokescreen for harmful corporate welfare, CIDs and other special sales taxes have driven sales tax rates sky high. While the sales taxes have gone up, commercial property values have plummeted. According to the St. Louis Business-Journal, downtown St. Louis office buildings have lost 19 percent of their assessed value since 2019, and even more if you go back further. The largest office building downtown, the AT&T building at 909 Chestnut, paid $5.5 million in property taxes in 2009. It paid just $200,000 in 2024. While that is the most extreme example, similar examples can be found throughout downtown.

The economic situation in the city was already bad, and the tornado that hit in May made it even worse. It was the type of disaster that could make people consider radical changes, and perhaps the land tax is the type of radical change the city needs. (For the record, the Show-Me Institute’s offices were destroyed in the tornado, and while we’re a nonprofit, our office building is subject to property taxes.)

As large parts of the Central West End and the Northside are still recovering from the tornado, St. Louis city government has commendably allowed homeowners with damaged homes to reduce their tax payments, but the long-term impacts on city tax revenues may be significant. The population of New Orleans still hasn’t recovered from Hurricane Katrina and, while the damage to St. Louis was not that severe, the risk is the same.

I suggest it is time to change state law to allow for a land tax, including on land owned by larger “nonprofits” like Barnes Hospital. The land tax could be imposed on the value of the land throughout St. Louis at a level that would gradually increase to make up for revenue lost as the earnings tax is phased out over a period of 10 years (or more). (Other changes would be necessary, including ending the tax subsidies the city gives out.) What makes land taxation so beneficial is that as homeowners and businesses rebuild their damaged property, they aren’t hit with higher taxes for the home or building. The tax is set to the land, which can’t be altered, rather than the building. So, return to the city, rebuild your home or business, make it even larger—do whatever you want—and you won’t be punished with higher taxes.

Pittsburgh in the 1970s was experiencing economic difficulties just as St. Louis is now. Land taxation helped spur investment in Pittsburgh, and it could have the same effect on St. Louis. The city has been hemorrhaging population, jobs, and wealth for decades. Honestly, at this point in its history, what does St. Louis have to lose?

The post It’s Time to Phase Out the Earnings Tax. Honestly, Nothing Else Has Worked . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Elias Tsapelas, and I’m the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, Missouri-based think tank that advances sensible, well-researched, free-market solutions to state and local policy issues. The ideas presented here are my own and are offered in consideration of proposals that will affect tax credits in Missouri.

Senate Bill 1079 consolidates Missouri’s existing film and series production tax credit sub-caps into a single $16 million pool for both, leaving the state’s total commitment the same. The only substantive effect of the bill would be to give the Film Office more flexibility in how the same dollars are allocated. That flexibility does not address the fundamental problem with this program.

Current and Past Tax Credit Failures

Despite the Missouri film tax credit’s recent revival, our state has a long history with this troubling incentive. Until its sunset in 2013, Missouri’s previous iteration made promises similar to what supporters are touting today. Missouri’s own Tax Credit Review Commission recommended the credit be eliminated because it served too narrow an industry and failed to provide a positive return on investment.¹

Research confirms that pattern holds nationally. Film tax credits have not resulted in job growth, have not affected market share or industry output, and have produced only short-term wage gains for those already in the industry.² Credits in many states generated just cents on the dollar. As one Tax Foundation analyst notes, “non-favored activities and businesses remain on the hook to bear the full impact of the state’s tax code.”³

The Missouri Film Office has pointed to the number of projects approved and production spending in the state as evidence the program is working, but that is not the right measure for determining whether the program is a good investment for state taxpayers.⁴ The relevant question is how much the state receives back in tax revenue and broader economic activity—and by that measure, the research is consistent: film tax credits do not generate a positive return.

The Competitiveness Argument Doesn’t Hold

Supporters of SB 1079 argue that pooling the sub-caps will make Missouri more competitive for productions. Even setting aside the ROI question, that argument doesn’t hold.

Steven Conrad, the showrunner who created a new HBO series set in St. Louis and filmed it entirely in Atlanta, recently suggested that governments may not be well-served by chasing the film industry at all.⁵ His observation reflects a structural reality: Georgia has spent two decades building the studios, crews, soundstages, and production infrastructure that make large productions possible. Missouri has not. No reallocation of $16 million changes that.

Georgia’s own state auditor found that even Georgia’s fully developed, deeply established program returned just 10 cents to the state for every dollar of credit granted, producing a net revenue loss of $602 million in a single year.⁶ If one of the most mature film-incentive programs in the country cannot generate a positive return on investment, a program at a fraction of its scale operating in a state without comparable infrastructure has no prospect of doing so.

Targeted Credits Are Poor Economic Policy

Targeted economic development tax credits are just another way for lawmakers to pick winners and losers, a job that is better left to consumers in the market. When tax breaks are given to some, other taxpayers have to make up for the lost revenue. The impulse to do something to support an industry is understandable, but tax credits are a poor substitute for the conditions that make industries thrive organically. A dollar of film tax credits reduces state revenue by exactly the same amount as a dollar of direct appropriations—the difference is that credits bypass the appropriations process and receive less scrutiny.

Prioritize Tax Relief That Benefits All Missourians

Missouri is already a national leader in state spending in the name of economic development. Over the past few decades, Missouri has forgone billions in state tax revenue in favor of a host of narrow incentives that have consistently shown poor results. In FY2025 alone, Missouri redeemed more than $961 million in tax credits—nearly double the $521 million redeemed in 2010.⁷ The General Assembly is simultaneously weighing whether to eliminate the state income tax, a reform that would deliver broad economic benefits to every Missourian. The legislature should consider whether a growing tax credit portfolio is consistent with that goal. Expanding targeted credits that erode the income-tax base works against broad-based tax relief, and Missouri would be better served by pursuing the latter.

The film tax credit is a small program, but it exemplifies the approach to tax policy that makes comprehensive reform harder to achieve. Tax credit programs have not been successful in Missouri in the past, there is little evidence to suggest the film tax credit is succeeding now, and there is no reason to believe this program will perform differently under a restructured allocation. If increasing economic opportunity is the goal, the research is clear: Instead trying to manufacture more opportunities at the expense of taxpayers, lawmakers should provide broad-based tax relief to every Missourian.

NOTES

1. “Report of the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission.” Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission. 2010; https://www.semissourian.com/files/tcrcfinalreport113010.pdf.
2. “Lights, camera and no action: How state film subsidies fail.” USC Press Release. August 18, 2016; https://pressroom.usc.edu/lights-camera-and-no-action-how-state-film-subsidies-fail.
3. Loughead, Katherine. “Illuminating the Hidden Costs of State Tax Incentives.” Tax Foundation. 2021; https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-incentives-costs.
4. “Made-in-Missouri Film and TV Productions Spent $40.7 Million in 2025.” Missouri Department of Economic Development. February 2026; https://ded.mo.gov/press-room/made-missouri-film-and-tv-productions-spent-407-million-2025.
5. Neman, Daniel. “HBO’s DTF St. Louis has a dream cast, but it wasn’t shot here.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 26, 2026; https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/movies-tv/article_cfa2d34c-435a-40fd-9fa5-75933d716915.html.
6. “Impact of the Georgia Film Tax Credit.” Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Division. Report No. 18-03B. January 2020; https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/23536.
7. “Fourth Quarter Tax Credit Report, Fiscal Year 2025.” Missouri Department of Revenue. 2025; https://dor.mo.gov/public-reports/documents/Fourth-Quarter-FY25-Tax-Credit-Report.pdf.

The post Senate Bill 1079: Film Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Elias Tsapelas, and I’m the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, Missouri-based think tank that advances sensible, well-researched, free-market solutions to state and local policy issues. The ideas presented here are my own and are offered in consideration of proposals that will affect tax credits in Missouri.

House Bill 2142 consolidates Missouri’s existing film and series production tax credit sub-caps into a single $16 million pool for both, leaving the state’s total commitment the same. The only substantive effect of the bill would be to give the Film Office more flexibility in how the same dollars are allocated. That flexibility does not address the fundamental problem with this program.

Current and Past Tax Credit Failures

Despite the Missouri film tax credit’s recent revival, our state has a long history with this troubling incentive. Until its sunset in 2013, Missouri’s previous iteration made promises similar to what supporters are touting today. Missouri’s own Tax Credit Review Commission recommended the credit be eliminated because it served too narrow an industry and failed to provide a positive return on investment.¹

Research confirms that pattern holds nationally. Film tax credits have not resulted in job growth, have not affected market share or industry output, and have produced only short-term wage gains for those already in the industry.² Credits in many states generated just cents on the dollar. As one Tax Foundation analyst notes, “non-favored activities and businesses remain on the hook to bear the full impact of the state’s tax code.”³

The Missouri Film Office has pointed to the number of projects approved and production spending in the state as evidence the program is working, but that is not the right measure for determining whether the program is a good investment for state taxpayers.⁴ The relevant question is how much the state receives back in tax revenue and broader economic activity—and by that measure, the research is consistent: film tax credits do not generate a positive return.

The Competitiveness Argument Doesn’t Hold

Supporters of HB 2142 argue that pooling the sub-caps will make Missouri more competitive for productions. Even setting aside the ROI question, that argument doesn’t hold.

Steven Conrad, the showrunner who created a new HBO series set in St. Louis and filmed it entirely in Atlanta, recently suggested that governments may not be well-served by chasing the film industry at all.⁵ His observation reflects a structural reality: Georgia has spent two decades building the studios, crews, soundstages, and production infrastructure that make large productions possible. Missouri has not. No reallocation of $16 million changes that.

Georgia’s own state auditor found that even Georgia’s fully developed, deeply established program returned just 10 cents to the state for every dollar of credit granted, producing a net revenue loss of $602 million in a single year.⁶ If one of the most mature film-incentive programs in the country cannot generate a positive return on investment, a program at a fraction of its scale operating in a state without comparable infrastructure has no prospect of doing so.

Targeted Credits Are Poor Economic Policy

Targeted economic development tax credits are just another way for lawmakers to pick winners and losers, a job that is better left to consumers in the market. When tax breaks are given to some, other taxpayers have to make up for the lost revenue. The impulse to do something to support an industry is understandable, but tax credits are a poor substitute for the conditions that make industries thrive organically. A dollar of film tax credits reduces state revenue by exactly the same amount as a dollar of direct appropriations—the difference is that credits bypass the appropriations process and receive less scrutiny.

Prioritize Tax Relief That Benefits All Missourians

Missouri is already a national leader in state spending in the name of economic development. Over the past few decades, Missouri has forgone billions in state tax revenue in favor of a host of narrow incentives that have consistently shown poor results. In FY2025 alone, Missouri redeemed more than $961 million in tax credits—nearly double the $521 million redeemed in 2010.⁷ The General Assembly is simultaneously weighing whether to eliminate the state income tax, a reform that would deliver broad economic benefits to every Missourian. The legislature should consider whether a growing tax credit portfolio is consistent with that goal. Expanding targeted credits that erode the income-tax base works against broad-based tax relief, and Missouri would be better served by pursuing the latter.

The film tax credit is a small program, but it exemplifies the approach to tax policy that makes comprehensive reform harder to achieve. Tax credit programs have not been successful in Missouri in the past, there is little evidence to suggest the film tax credit is succeeding now, and there is no reason to believe this program will perform differently under a restructured allocation. If increasing economic opportunity is the goal, the research is clear: Instead trying to manufacture more opportunities at the expense of taxpayers, lawmakers should provide broad-based tax relief to every Missourian.

NOTES

1. “Report of the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission.” Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission. 2010; https://www.semissourian.com/files/tcrcfinalreport113010.pdf.
2. “Lights, camera and no action: How state film subsidies fail.” USC Press Release. August 18, 2016; https://pressroom.usc.edu/lights-camera-and-no-action-how-state-film-subsidies-fail.
3. Loughead, Katherine. “Illuminating the Hidden Costs of State Tax Incentives.” Tax Foundation. 2021; https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-incentives-costs.
4. “Made-in-Missouri Film and TV Productions Spent $40.7 Million in 2025.” Missouri Department of Economic Development. February 2026; https://ded.mo.gov/press-room/made-missouri-film-and-tv-productions-spent-407-million-2025.
5. Neman, Daniel. “HBO’s DTF St. Louis has a dream cast, but it wasn’t shot here.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 26, 2026; https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/movies-tv/article_cfa2d34c-435a-40fd-9fa5-75933d716915.html.
6. “Impact of the Georgia Film Tax Credit.” Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Division. Report No. 18-03B. January 2020; https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/23536.
7. “Fourth Quarter Tax Credit Report, Fiscal Year 2025.” Missouri Department of Revenue. 2025; https://dor.mo.gov/public-reports/documents/Fourth-Quarter-FY25-Tax-Credit-Report.pdf.

The post House Bill 2142: Film Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Elias Tsapelas, and I’m the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, Missouri-based think tank that advances sensible, well-researched, free-market solutions to state and local policy issues. The ideas presented here are my own and are offered in consideration of proposals that will affect tax credits in Missouri.

House Bill 2058 consolidates Missouri’s existing film and series production tax credit sub-caps into a single $16 million pool for both, leaving the state’s total commitment the same. The only substantive effect of the bill would be to give the Film Office more flexibility in how the same dollars are allocated. That flexibility does not address the fundamental problem with this program.

Current and Past Tax Credit Failures

Despite the Missouri film tax credit’s recent revival, our state has a long history with this troubling incentive. Until its sunset in 2013, Missouri’s previous iteration made promises similar to what supporters are touting today. Missouri’s own Tax Credit Review Commission recommended the credit be eliminated because it served too narrow an industry and failed to provide a positive return on investment.¹

Research confirms that pattern holds nationally. Film tax credits have not resulted in job growth, have not affected market share or industry output, and have produced only short-term wage gains for those already in the industry.² Credits in many states generated just cents on the dollar. As one Tax Foundation analyst notes, “non-favored activities and businesses remain on the hook to bear the full impact of the state’s tax code.”³

The Missouri Film Office has pointed to the number of projects approved and production spending in the state as evidence the program is working, but that is not the right measure for determining whether the program is a good investment for state taxpayers.⁴ The relevant question is how much the state receives back in tax revenue and broader economic activity—and by that measure, the research is consistent: film tax credits do not generate a positive return.

The Competitiveness Argument Doesn’t Hold

Supporters of HB 2058 argue that pooling the sub-caps will make Missouri more competitive for productions. Even setting aside the ROI question, that argument doesn’t hold.

Steven Conrad, the showrunner who created a new HBO series set in St. Louis and filmed it entirely in Atlanta, recently suggested that governments may not be well-served by chasing the film industry at all.⁵ His observation reflects a structural reality: Georgia has spent two decades building the studios, crews, soundstages, and production infrastructure that make large productions possible. Missouri has not. No reallocation of $16 million changes that.

Georgia’s own state auditor found that even Georgia’s fully developed, deeply established program returned just 10 cents to the state for every dollar of credit granted, producing a net revenue loss of $602 million in a single year.⁶ If one of the most mature film-incentive programs in the country cannot generate a positive return on investment, a program at a fraction of its scale operating in a state without comparable infrastructure has no prospect of doing so.

Targeted Credits Are Poor Economic Policy

Targeted economic development tax credits are just another way for lawmakers to pick winners and losers, a job that is better left to consumers in the market. When tax breaks are given to some, other taxpayers have to make up for the lost revenue. The impulse to do something to support an industry is understandable, but tax credits are a poor substitute for the conditions that make industries thrive organically. A dollar of film tax credits reduces state revenue by exactly the same amount as a dollar of direct appropriations—the difference is that credits bypass the appropriations process and receive less scrutiny.

Prioritize Tax Relief That Benefits All Missourians

Missouri is already a national leader in state spending in the name of economic development. Over the past few decades, Missouri has forgone billions in state tax revenue in favor of a host of narrow incentives that have consistently shown poor results. In FY2025 alone, Missouri redeemed more than $961 million in tax credits—nearly double the $521 million redeemed in 2010.⁷ The General Assembly is simultaneously weighing whether to eliminate the state income tax, a reform that would deliver broad economic benefits to every Missourian. The legislature should consider whether a growing tax credit portfolio is consistent with that goal. Expanding targeted credits that erode the income-tax base works against broad-based tax relief, and Missouri would be better served by pursuing the latter.

The film tax credit is a small program, but it exemplifies the approach to tax policy that makes comprehensive reform harder to achieve. Tax credit programs have not been successful in Missouri in the past, there is little evidence to suggest the film tax credit is succeeding now, and there is no reason to believe this program will perform differently under a restructured allocation. If increasing economic opportunity is the goal, the research is clear: Instead trying to manufacture more opportunities at the expense of taxpayers, lawmakers should provide broad-based tax relief to every Missourian.

NOTES

1. “Report of the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission.” Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission. 2010; https://www.semissourian.com/files/tcrcfinalreport113010.pdf.
2. “Lights, camera and no action: How state film subsidies fail.” USC Press Release. August 18, 2016; https://pressroom.usc.edu/lights-camera-and-no-action-how-state-film-subsidies-fail.
3. Loughead, Katherine. “Illuminating the Hidden Costs of State Tax Incentives.” Tax Foundation. 2021; https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-incentives-costs.
4. “Made-in-Missouri Film and TV Productions Spent $40.7 Million in 2025.” Missouri Department of Economic Development. February 2026; https://ded.mo.gov/press-room/made-missouri-film-and-tv-productions-spent-407-million-2025.
5. Neman, Daniel. “HBO’s DTF St. Louis has a dream cast, but it wasn’t shot here.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 26, 2026; https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/movies-tv/article_cfa2d34c-435a-40fd-9fa5-75933d716915.html.
6. “Impact of the Georgia Film Tax Credit.” Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Division. Report No. 18-03B. January 2020; https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/23536.
7. “Fourth Quarter Tax Credit Report, Fiscal Year 2025.” Missouri Department of Revenue. 2025; https://dor.mo.gov/public-reports/documents/Fourth-Quarter-FY25-Tax-Credit-Report.pdf.

The post House Bill 2058: Film Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In his January 30 op-ed for the Post-Dispatch, Kansas political scientist Michael Smith called Governor Mike Kehoe’s proposal to cut income taxes in Missouri a “near carbon copy” of Governor Sam Brownback’s 2012 income tax cuts in Kansas.

But Kehoe’s proposal for Missouri has large and important differences from Brownback’s. It isn’t a “carbon copy” at all.

The single largest flaw in Brownback’s tax cut was a peculiar change that eliminated all income taxes on “pass-through” business entities such as limited liability corporations (LLCs) without changing the tax code for other types of businesses. Even the right-leaning Tax Foundation criticized the provision at the time. Put simply, it didn’t encourage investment; it ended income taxes for one type of business while keeping them for others.

Not surprisingly, many businesses changed their corporate structure to suddenly become pass-through entities. The Tax Foundation found that over 390,000 entities claimed the exemption by 2015, more than double what was projected. These businesses didn’t invest in the state, hire more workers, or do anything other than change their legal status. Tax revenues declined significantly, and little growth followed.

Kansas also made critical mistakes in how it implemented income-tax cuts. The state slashed its top income-tax rate by nearly 30 percent immediately in 2012, with plans to cut even further. At the same time, Kansas’s elected officials failed to rein in spending. The combination of the pass-through exemption, immediate and deep rate cuts, and lack of spending discipline during this period fostered a fiscal crisis that could have been avoided. Even worse, the timing of these actions gave the state little room to adjust when projections weren’t borne out.

Kehoe’s proposal is fundamentally different. It asks Missouri voters whether they want to eliminate the income tax. If they do, the state can then expand and adjust its sales tax to replace the lost revenue. While many details remain to be finalized (and Missourians have every right to be skeptical while awaiting those details), the plan ensures that income tax rates can only be lowered after meeting revenue benchmarks, meaning Missouri would only cut taxes when it has the fiscal capacity to do so.

Setting aside the phasing out of the income tax, addressing Missouri’s outdated sales tax system is long overdue. While states nationwide are broadening what they tax, Missouri’s system remains narrow, with much of what is sold today escaping taxation entirely. Larger exemptions like home sales and healthcare services might make sense, but other current exemptions clearly don’t.

When you buy a book in person at Barnes & Noble or have the same book delivered to your house by Amazon, you pay the sales tax. However, when you buy the same text as a download to your Kindle, you pay no sales tax. Correcting such inconsistencies in Missouri’s tax code can level the playing field while expanding the sales tax base at the same time.

Opponents can point to Missouri’s western border all they want, but Missouri has other neighbors besides Kansas. Look at Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which have all cut income tax rates significantly in recent years without any of the issues Kansas had. Look to our southeast border to see Tennessee, a state that has been growing rapidly for years thanks, in part, to having no state income tax. This isn’t surprising, as decades of economic research have shown consistently that states without income taxes grow faster economically than those with them.

As the Tax Foundation, which was highly critical of Kansas’ tax cut, wrote in 2024 about the larger picture of state tax cuts between 2012 and 2022:

In fact, far from tax cuts precipitating a Kansas-like crisis, tax collections have risen more on average in the past decade in the 25 states that cut income taxes (31.9 percent in inflation-adjusted terms) than in the four states and D.C. that raised them (27.8 percent).

The lesson from Kansas isn’t that eliminating the income tax is a bad idea, it’s that implementation matters. There’s no doubt that states without income taxes are growing faster than Missouri, and our state needs a new approach to keep pace in the national competition for families and businesses. Voters deserve the full picture, not an overly simplistic “Kansas” bogeyman, when debating our state’s tax future.

The post Missouri Doesn’t Have To Be Kansas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Festus is not alone in its debate. Nationwide, there have been significant disputes about whether communities should want data centers in their backyards. While data centers can bring investment to a community, there are concerns about electricity, water usage, and sound.

Of the hundreds of citizens participating in the recent Festus hearing, one gentleman’s comments captured my attention. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

He urged local governments to turn any revenue gain due to the new facility into lower property taxes for the general public. He also said a data center should pay for any increase in utility rates due to the extra energy usage it requires. And, he said, the city should not offer the data center any tax incentives.

I have to wonder—has this gentleman read this article I recently published?

Jokes aside, his comments convey a few key points that I think are important to keep in mind when considering a data center project in a community.

#1: Lower taxes help drive economic growth, so a reliable course of action is to return extra revenue to taxpaying citizens.

New data center revenue ought to be returned to taxpayers through lower tax rates, easing pressure on the entire tax base. Property tax abatements should not be handed out.

#2: Find innovative solutions for electricity needs.

Last year, a major energy omnibus bill, Senate Bill 4, included a provision that protects average ratepayers from “any unjust or unreasonable costs from service to such customers [such as data centers].” This should help shield average ratepayers from rate hikes to meet this new energy demand, but some burden will likely still fall on them.

While it is a state-level solution, Missouri should explore consumer-regulated electricity (CRE), which would allow new data centers and other large customers to be served by separate, independent grids. This idea could be beneficial for both ratepayers and developers. You can read more about CRE here.

#3: Remember what data center developers are prioritizing, and do not hand out subsidies.

Lastly, the actions of the biggest data center customers have made their priorities clear.

Money does not seem to be a big factor for these enormous developers. They instead seem focused on energy availability, speed to operation, and long-term stability. A clear example of this is Microsoft pouring an enormous amount of money into restarting Three Mile Island for its data centers.

Instead of handing out subsidies, a municipality could evaluate its own permitting rules. Reducing red tape could both accelerate speed to operation and signal that the community is a dependable, long-term location.

Festus will certainly not be the last community to have a heated debate about data center development. Keeping these key principles in mind, however, may help communities have productive debates on this topic.

The post The Data Center Debate Continues in Festus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But a recent news story gave another twist to the idea of cities as romantic partners.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that NorthPoint Development called off a $120 million apartment complex of over 300 units and will soon sell the site. Why? Because the city was constantly making additional demands. What started as a yes was becoming a maybe. NorthPoint backed out.

The Post-Dispatch quoted St. Louis Development Corp. Executive Director Otis Williams as saying, “if we just stuck to whatever we said we wanted to do,” the project would have continued.

Alderman Michael Browning alleged the city wasn’t “good-faith negotiators. With all of the unpredictable things in development, the city does not need to be the thing that constantly changes.”

Yes, the city needs to be consistent. But that does not mean the city should crank the subsidy spigot to full blast.

The story notes the number of projects receiving subsidies from the St. Louis Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) has dropped since 2018. The chairman of the LCRA, Matt McBride, argued that because there are so few developers wanting to work with the city, “we need to be encouraging of those who are taking the risks to do so.” I suspect by “encourage” he means, “subsidize.” The folks who hand out subsidies always want more to hand out.

Perhaps there is another way. Perhaps, instead of overregulating the market, instead of demanding ever increasing concessions, instead of imposing costly application, permitting, and approval stages, the city just got out of the way of those who want to build in St. Louis?

City leaders should work to address barriers to development rather than leaving them in place and cutting checks to offset them. They’ve already shown a willingness to do so with liquor regulations and parking mandates.

Unfortunately, Megan Green, president of the board of aldermen, wants to further increase the city’s demands of developers regarding affordable housing and community benefits. But that will just increase the costs for developers and, in turn, increase the amount of taxpayer subsidies. “St. Louis,” she says, “has been a cheap date for way too long, and we should not be a cheap date.”

It calls to mind the bawdy punchline: ‘We’ve already established that, madam. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

Unfortunately, taxpayers are picking up the tab for these dalliances. Instead of seeking more expensive dates, St. Louis should make itself a more attractive partner by ditching its baggage and focusing on stable, long-term relationships.

The post St. Louis Needs to Stop Dating and Settle Down appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Prevailing wage laws are harmful because they inflate the cost of projects taxpayers pay for or, in these cases, subsidize. Research on the subject suggests that prevailing wage laws can increase the total cost of public construction projects by as much as 25 percent. For local governments with many projects needing to be built, that could mean lower-priority but beneficial projects will go undone for lack of funding. Repeated year after year, the harm done by leaving these projects uncompleted compounds, leaving the community with fewer and inferior government services compared to what market labor rates would have otherwise allowed.

DBE programs require that a certain amount of work involved in a project go to contractors and subcontractors owned by women or minorities. DBE programs also inflate the cost of projects for taxpayers and have often been vehicles for fraud and abuse. Increasing costs and encouraging criminal activity . . . where do I sign up?

Finally, the proposed law requires that bidders offer apprentice-training programs, which are generally found in union shops. There is nothing wrong with apprenticeship programs, but instituting such a mandate is blatant favoritism for union shops over nonunion competitors. It would be a substantial burden for a typical independent, nonunion company to create an apprentice program before it could bid for a project. Whatever that burden may be, the county council has absolutely no business mandating it. This is a blatant ploy to guarantee that union companies will win all county bids.

Not surprisingly, much of the language in the bill was put in by unions, according to the Post-Dispatch story.

I am a strong opponent of tax incentives and subsidies for businesses, but imposing these types of regulations on all sorts of projects in St. Louis County is a terrible abuse of the political process. St. Louis County has no business making these rules, and, indeed, I question its legal authority to do so in some of these cases. Local government should address the major issue of incentive and subsidy abuse by saying “No” far more often. Saying “Yes, but with a bunch of new regulations and red tape” is the worst policy of all.

The post Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I will admit that calling for the privatization of the United States Postal Service (USPS) by free-market, limited-government policy people like me is hardly new. It’s a pretty standard viewpoint for people in positions like mine, sort of the libertarian equivalent of progressives calling for the government to fully fund public schools. But having said that, it really is time to privatize the post office.

In 1934, a federal law was passed that banned any entity except the USPS from placing items in any mailbox. That is the law that limited UPS and, later, FedEx, to parcel delivery. Even your neighbor is not allowed to put that party invitation in your mailbox. (If you are the type of person who reports neighbors who do so to the USPS, you probably don’t receive many party invitations in the first place.)

Until recently, the best defense of the post office monopoly was that, in all honesty, it worked fairly well. Sure, it was a monopoly that somehow managed to lose money each year, but at least the post office did a good job at its primary job of delivering the mail. You put a stamp on a piece of mail and it was delivered the next day if it was going nearby; two days later if it was going a little further; and three days if it was going a long distance. Big-picture concerns about USPS finances could be overlooked because stamps were cheap and the mail reliably went where it was supposed to go. That is, unfortunately, no longer the case.

A recent report on the post office by federal inspectors general found that, on average, on-time delivery of first-class mail has dropped 16 percent over the past year in the exact areas the post office has targeted for improvements. In St. Louis, over just two days in June at the downtown mail processing center, 2.6 million pieces of mail were delayed. There was no weather or mechanical reason for the delays, just bad operational management. Worst of all, sending mail in St. Louis puts your personal finances at risk. There have been multiple federal court convictions in the past year of St. Louis-area postal workers for stealing checks from the mail. The author knows two people who have had their identity stolen and finances ruined in this manner.

If the post office is no longer doing its main job well but is continuing to lose money, the entire system should be opened to competition. I’m well aware that FedEx won’t deliver a Christmas card for 78 cents (the current USPS rate), but if someone wants to pay more to make sure their Christmas card reaches Grandma before Christmas Day, why shouldn’t they be able to? UPS and FedEx should absolutely have a right to deliver first-class mail and place it into a mailbox where it will be better protected from rain and theft. (A reminder that you buy your own mailbox—the government doesn’t give it to you.)

USPS has long had a less-promoted role as a jobs program for political supporters and interest groups. When he was serving as a presidential advisor in the 1960s, former U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan famously recommended changing to twice-a-day mail delivery, for the sole reason that it would allow the federal government to double the number of mail carriers.

It seems that, at present, the purpose of USPS is to deliver mostly junk mail in order to fund over $400 billion in postal-retiree pension and healthcare costs. Maintaining a failing monopoly to benefit those retirees may be politically popular, but it’s hardly good public policy. As the use of mail continues to decline, hard choices have to be made. Rural post offices shouldn’t be kept open just to appease rural interest groups, and urban post offices shouldn’t be protected against competition just to appease federal employee unions.

I would favor an attempt to sell the entire post office off to private operators. In 2025, the mail is no longer a necessary function of government (I will agree that it used to be). However, simply allowing other operators to compete against USPS by removing the mailbox monopoly would be a great step, too. You get to choose which phone, television, and internet services you use. You should have choice for your mail delivery, too.

The post Let’s Privatize the Post Office appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When one thinks of no-show political jobs in Missouri government, most people (at least those with a knowledge of Missouri history) would think of the infamous Pendergast political machine of Kansas City a century ago. Giving out jobs to political supporters who rarely, if ever, were required to actually show up to work was a staple strategy of that machine (and many others). Over the past decade though, there has been another job reminiscent of the well-paid, no-show jobs of political yore: the St. Louis County Auditor.

In June, the St. Louis County Council fired the county auditor, Ms. Toni Jackson, for lack of work output after her office completed only two audits in her more than three years in the position. (The county auditor is one of the only jobs in county government that reports to the council instead of the county executive.) Jackson had been hired in 2021 after the council had fired the previous auditor, Mr. Mark Tucker, also for lack of audit output. How little work have the last two auditors been doing? A quick perusal of the St. Louis County Auditor’s Office website shows that the office has released just 13 reports since 2018. Many of these reports do not qualify as “audits.” For example, three of the 13 reports were short 2018 memos about pet adoptions.

By comparison, the St. Charles County Auditor’s Office released 13 audits in 2024 alone, many of them substantial. If you are keeping score, that is 13 audits in one year in St. Charles County, and 13 reports (including a few actual audits) over eight years in St. Louis County. As frustrating as the lack of production in St. Louis County has been, one almost has to admire the audacity of it all. In Tucker’s case, he also wasn’t properly qualified for the job, so some of the blame for hiring him was on the council. In Jackson’s case, she was well-qualified, at least on paper, so the fact that she didn’t do the work is all the more frustrating.

It’s not like St. Louis County government is so clean that it has no need for auditors. I know of at least two cases of county employees embezzling large amounts of money in the past two decades. A qualified (and courageous) auditor could have raised questions about the activities of former St. Louis County executive Steve Stenger, who went to prison for various nefarious activities right when the prior auditor was busily engaged in doing nothing. A state audit of Stenger’s criminal actions as county executive identified Tucker’s lack of qualifications and actions as one of the reasons Stenger got away with his activities for as long as he did. Stenger, a CPA himself, was well aware of Tucker’s poor record as auditor. The former county executive routinely criticized the council for hiring Tucker while quietly benefitting from Tucker’s inability (or desire) to track any of Stenger’s illicit actions.

There is a pressing need for quality audits in local government. In a review of New York State comptroller audits of New York municipalities between 2003 and 2009, 234 out of the 259 audits included reports of deficiencies and recommendations for improvements in internal controls. Twenty-five percent of those cities with internal control problems had funds missing or unaccounted for (though outright fraud or theft was likely not the reason in every one of those instances). Within St. Louis County, two unsupervised clerks were charged in 2023 with stealing $650,000 from the village of Flordell Hills.

One of the recent St. Charles County audits identified several county-operated phone lines that the county was improperly paying phone taxes on. (As a government agency, it is supposed to be exempt from those taxes.) The audit identified the oversight and the matter was corrected. Have the last two St. Louis County auditors saved taxpayers money with insightful analysis and helpful digging? Since it is impossible to identify problems by audits when you don’t do any real audits, we all know the answer to that question is “no”.

Unreliable auditors have compromised the effectiveness of St. Louis County government in recent years. While outside auditors have reviewed the county’s annual financial statements for accuracy, the lack of a proactive internal auditor has deprived county residents and taxpayers of the watchdog they need and deserve.

Tom Pendergast may have mastered the use of the no-show political patronage job, but it was auditors who helped end his reign and send him to prison for tax evasion. Government auditors aren’t going to detect waste, fraud, or errors with taxpayer dollars if they don’t show up to do the job in the first place. Hopefully, that simple requirement will be understood by whomever the council hires next.

The post In St. Louis County, Who Will Audit the Auditors? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When asked why they want school choice, families often cite safety as their number one reason, which makes sense. How is a child supposed to learn if they’re afraid to be at school? Under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), students trapped in persistently dangerous schools are supposed to have a way out. It’s called the Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO). Unfortunately, Missouri has all but ignored this protection—and that needs to change.

ESSA requires every state to identify persistently dangerous schools and offer students the right to transfer to a safer public school. This is not a suggestion; it is federal law. Yet in Missouri, no school has ever been labeled as “persistently dangerous,” and no families have ever been notified of this option. Either Missouri schools are perfectly safe—which is unlikely—or the state’s criteria are so vague and restrictive that no school could ever qualify.

But let’s look at that more closely. Consider Poplar Bluff High School. According to data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), there were 12 violent incidents at the school in 2022, 19 in 2023, and 10 in 2024. In that same three-year period, there were 266 out-of-school suspensions. A “violent incident” in a Missouri school is one in which “a student uses physical force with the intent to cause serious bodily harm to another person.” It seems hard to believe that a school with these levels of violence would feel safe to students.

And then there’s University City Senior High School. From 2022 to 2024, according to DESE, there were 51 violent incidents and 21 weapons violations at the school. That is a lot of weapons being brought to school, and it certainly doesn’t sound like a safe environment to me. Last year in St. Louis Public Schools, teachers at Vashon High School sent a petition to the district claiming that they were teaching in a dangerous situation. In fact, one teacher had to use pepper spray on a crowd of students to get them under control.

There is no substitute for giving families an immediate exit from a dangerous situation. Additional funding, new programs, or behavior contracts might help improve school safety in the long run—but they do nothing for the student being bullied today, or for the child afraid to walk the halls because of fights, weapons, or harassment. For these families and students facing these problems, the only meaningful solution is the freedom to exercise their current legal right to transfer to a safer school.

In Missouri, for a school to be considered persistently dangerous it must have experienced at least one violent incident or one weapons violation in two out of the past three years. At least 30 schools in the state meet that criterion. However, the school must also have expelled at least five students (ten if the school enrolls more than 250 students) in each of the past three years. No school has met that criterion since the law was enacted. What if the Missouri definition were changed from violence/weapons and expulsions to violence/weapons or expulsions? Thousands of Missouri students could move to a safe learning environment—which should be the minimum standard.

Parents deserve honesty. It’s absurd to suggest that there are no unsafe schools in the state. If a school is unsafe, the state must acknowledge it and provide families with options—not pretend the problem doesn’t exist. If the state refuses to define what “persistently dangerous” means—or sets the bar so high that no school ever qualifies—then the federal requirement becomes meaningless in practice.

It’s time for Missouri to adopt clear, reasonable criteria that reflect real risks to students and activate the USCO in schools that meet those criteria. Every Missouri child deserves to attend a safe school, no matter where they live. Families in struggling districts should not be forced to wait years for conditions to improve—or worse, accept that their child’s school is unsafe with no way out.

The Unsafe School Choice Option was designed to give families an emergency exit from these situations. Missouri leaders must stop ignoring this law and start empowering parents to protect their children.

The post Missouri Families Need the “Unsafe School Choice Option” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Taxes are going down, right? That’s a good thing, right? My answers are “yes,” and a hesitant “maybe?”

I like low taxes, but I like low taxes evenly spread out for everyone. How we tax is almost as important as how much we tax. Whether they are income, property, or sales taxes, and whether they are at the national, state, or local government level, too often lately we are cutting taxes for some people in some instances for some things. These highly targeted cuts might work out overall, but often they are done because they make good politics, not good public policy. Taxes should be broadly based for several reasons, including fairness, certainty, and administrative ease. This is the opposite of what is happening.

Congress seems likely to pass changes to federal income tax rules that would exempt income from tips and overtime from taxation. This is absurd. The airport skycap who works a 50-hour week should be admired for his hard work, but his tax treatment should not be any different from that of the woman processing tickets behind the airline counter for 40 hours per week. This proposal treats things that are, essentially the same—regular, tipped, and overtime wages—as entirely different things for taxes. That’s a dangerous road to travel.

Staying in the same realm, one of the most hotly contested items in the ongoing federal tax debate is whether to raise the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Currently, the SALT cap is $10,000 per household. This means that you can deduct state income taxes, local property taxes, etc., up to $10,000 from your federal income taxes. Currently, congressmen from higher-tax states are fighting to significantly increase the SALT deduction cap. The latest number is $40,000. That means that high-tax states would be able to continue increasing taxes knowing that their taxpayers would in part be subsidized by other federal taxpayers. California (or any high-tax state) would get to keep the tax money, and Missouri taxpayers would get to subsidize California taxes. This is preposterous.

The same things are happening locally in Missouri. A few years ago, legislation was passed allowing counties to freeze the property taxes of senior citizens. Scores of counties in Missouri have since done so. As a result, the wealthiest sector of the population gets its property taxes frozen upon turning 62. Younger families working and raising kids will see their taxes continue to rise, and those taxes will almost certainly rise more than they otherwise would have without the senior tax freeze. This is insane.

Another example includes Missouri’s sales tax rules. The legislature passed a law removing sales taxes from diapers and feminine hygiene products. We can all sympathize with the aim here. But adding more products to the sales tax exemption list will increase pressure to raise sales tax rates (or institute entirely new sales taxes) on the other products that are still taxed. Your diapers will have cost less due to reduced taxes, but your infant’s clothes will cost a little more with the new sales taxes on them.

Each of these targeted tax changes will have unseen, harmful effects. High-tax states will continue to get away with tax increases if the SALT deduction is raised. More workers will see their pay come via high-pressure “tips” instead of typical wages. Seniors will avoid beneficial downsizing simply for tax purposes. As fewer goods are subject to regular sales taxes, new special taxing district sales taxes will be added onto everything else. These targeted taxes will likely succeed for purposes of short-term politics, but they are going to fail by any longer-term fiscal measure.

Is there anything going right with tax policy? Sure. Keeping the federal tax rates from rising by passing those parts of the “big, beautiful bill” will benefit everyone, although the entire plan needs further spending cuts. In Missouri, the state income tax rate has been steadily coming down for everyone over the past decade as revenue targets are hit. Finally, the sales tax base has been broadened by taxing online sales and legal marijuana in the past few years. All of those moves are consistent with good tax policy.

If you are a wealthy California homeowner over 62 who still works for tips on overtime while buying diapers online for your Missouri grandkids, you may benefit from all of these changes. But if you are like most people you will benefit from maybe one while being hurt by the others. Of course, the one you benefit from will be clear and obvious, while the multiple ways you are harmed will be small and harder to detect. You will think you’re a winner in this game of tax politics. But in reality, you won’t be, and neither will the government’s fiscal condition.

The post The Wrong Direction on Tax Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With a new mayor taking office, St. Louis begins yet another chapter in its long, uneven push toward revitalization. The challenges are familiar: population decline, economic disparity, fractured politics, and struggling public institutions.

But the most daunting task ahead may not be solving those problems—it may be changing how the city is perceived.

A recent national study published in the Journal of Business Venturing Insights surveyed more than 500 entrepreneurs and prospective employees on how they evaluate U.S. cities when deciding where to live, work, or launch a business. The researchers, Kaitlyn DeGhetto and Zachary Russell, didn’t just ask about taxes or economic conditions. They asked how people feel about cities—how safe, stable, and welcoming they seem. And in those perceptions, St. Louis landed in a troubling middle ground: not the most dangerous or dysfunctional, but clearly among the cities seen as risky, especially when it comes to safety and governance.

Out of 25 major U.S. cities, St. Louis was ranked 10th in perceived safety risk—where #1 is the most dangerous. Respondents were asked about “the likelihood that individuals’ security and physical well-being will be endangered due to the normalization of aggression and criminality.”

St. Louis fared better on other measures. It ranked 13th in perceived social risk—how inclusive or equitable a city feels—and 17th on political risk, which the study defined as the threat of erratic or self-serving government action. Still, for a city that has had three mayors in eight years, that perception may be hard to shake.

These findings won’t surprise many locals. But they carry weight outside city borders. Perception—fair or not—influences investment decisions. Employers notice. So do renters, families, and job seekers trying to choose between St. Louis and cities like Charlotte, Austin, or Nashville.

This is the modern challenge for post-industrial cities. It’s no longer enough to compete on cost of living or square footage. Cities are now judged on vibes—by the headlines they generate, the stories residents share on social media, the narratives that take root far from City Hall. And while that may seem superficial, it’s anything but. In an economy increasingly driven by talent and mobility, a city’s reputation can make or break its efforts to attract the very people and businesses needed to fuel a turnaround. The difference here is that St. Louis must deliver not with soccer stadiums or entertainment districts, but with basic services.

We can and should debate the objective data—what’s truly happening on our streets, whether crime is up or down, and how we compare nationally. In the immediate past, St. Louis has seen reductions in certain types of crime. But the more difficult task—the one that falls squarely on the shoulders of the new administration—is shaping what people believe about the city in the first place.

There will be a temptation to reach for slogans or launch rebranding campaigns. But what’s needed is substantive progress—not just on public safety, but in how city government performs. That means competent service delivery, clear budgeting, and leadership that resists the pull of yesterday’s political fights in favor of building civic trust and shared purpose.

In the DeGhetto and Russell study, entrepreneurs ranked safety risk as their top concern—above taxes or regulatory burdens. Conservative respondents emphasized crime and political dysfunction. Liberal respondents focused more on social inclusion. That tells us something important: Everyone is watching, but they’re seeing different things.

For St. Louis, that means the mayor can’t govern just for applause from any one audience. The challenge is to build broad confidence. Do people believe this city is safe? Do they believe it’s run competently? Do they see a place where they and their children can thrive?

The answers may be shaped as much by tone and transparency as by policy. But they begin, inevitably, with what city leaders do to promote public safety—and just as importantly, what people think they’re doing.

Perception isn’t everything. But for a city trying to reverse decades of loss, it’s not enough to make progress—it has to look like progress, too.

The post St. Louis Crime Reduction: Progress, Pitfalls, and the Path Forward appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Every English city uses this basic framework, ensuring all elements of city life are working together to benefit everyone’s well-being. [emphasis added]

If New York City and Houston do not have a comprehensive plan, then our Missouri municipalities don’t need one either. As Jane Jacobs said about urban planning, “The pseudoscience of planning seems almost neurotic in its determination to imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success . . .”

There is general agreement that some type of infrastructure planning is required by municipalities. As cities grow or change, there need to be plans in place for the installation of sewers, gas and water pipes, electrical lines, sidewalks, and roads. But urban planners rarely maintain focus on those needs. Planners frequently and disappointingly mandate the mundane. The growing sameness of so many American communities is a direct result of municipal plans requiring a consistent look in a community. When you realize that most zoning codes were copied (the literal cut-and-paste prior to computers and copy machines) from other cities, that most cities use the same (or very similar) building codes, and that zoning codes limit the options available for many lots, nobody should be surprised by the loss of distinct urban aesthetics across the nation. As Cody Lefkowitz wrote about the depressing sameness of urban areas now:

Before the rise of zoning and consolidation of development, the country was full of special places with wonderful vernacular architecture. These were cities and towns built by many hands. Cities and towns that aged gracefully through generations of stewards iteratively building from the foundations of their predecessors. New Orleans, that much-loved city, is one of the most exceptionally beautiful places one can imagine, with an identity as unique as it is mystifying. When you’re there, you could never mistake yourself for being anywhere else.

Municipal planning commissions are empowered to establish comprehensive plans for their cities and to approve changes, amendments, and variances to the current plans or zoning codes. They are largely advisory. The city council can easily approve a change the planning commission rejects, like in Kansas City when the council unfortunately approved building height limitations for the Country Club Plaza. In Creve Coeur in 2013, the city council approved changes to allow a new grocery store that the planning commission had rejected. City councils can also reject changes the planning commission approves.

The point is not that elected officials should be subservient to the planning commission members; far from it. The point is to overcome the idea that planning is some kind of urban science with a large public benefit. The planning process is wholly subject to the same political aims, interest group pressures, and regulatory capture that all of government is. Furthermore, the process institutionalizes and legislates the bias toward uniformity and present-day assumptions. Counties and municipalities should limit their use of planning to necessary infrastructure issues and refuse to engage in it otherwise.

The post The Last Thing Missouri Needs Is More Urban Planning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of these reforms is a subject of contention right now in St. Louis. In the 1940s, the office of the City of St. Louis Personnel Director, in charge of hiring most city employees, was made almost entirely independent of elected officials. That was understandable at the time, as that was a period of significant political corruption in American cities.

Over time, though, a wise move to limit corruption has petrified—as so often happens in bureaucracies—into a position designed to protect the status quo. Between 1942 and 2021, only four people held the job. Yes, they may have been very good at it. But it was inevitable that they became protectors of the system and of the other people within the system, particularly other city employees who live in the same social and cultural circles. If they weren’t there to protect the status quo, why else would a retired personnel director be taking advantage of intricate knowledge of city charter rules to prevent the current mayor from getting her person into the position now?

Former Personnel Director Rick Frank, who held the job for 17 years before retiring in 2021, has reapplied for his old position. And the current director, Sonya Jenkins-Gray, on Nov. 15 granted his request to be placed on an eligible reemployment list, according to Frank and a copy of the letter he shared with the Post-Dispatch.

That, Frank said, means the mayor would have to at least interview him should the personnel director position open up. And she wouldn’t be able to pick an interim for the job while that list exists.

“If her intent were to put a provisional appointment in there, there’s a problem per the charter and the rules,” he said.

Remember that a major city employee union sued to prevent Mayor Jones from being able to select her chosen person for the position during a prior vacancy.

H.L. Mencken said that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” When people vote for change, the newly elected officials deserve the chance to institute that change, within reason. That includes putting the people they want into important positions. The voters can then judge those elected officials later at the ballot box.

Civil service rules preventing mass firings after every election are good, in that democracy functions better with such rules than without them. Rules that give local government personnel directors some independence from politics in hiring are also good.

However, when these rules ossify into a system where a former city employee applies for a job in a move that looks as if he is simply trying to obstruct the hiring decisions of the mayor, I’d say the rules have gone too far and need to be changed.

The post Civil Service Reforms Can Go Too Far appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The proposal rests on shaky assumptions about the effectiveness of economic development subsidies. Tax credits and similar incentives have a long history of overpromising and underdelivering—even according to analyses from people supporting the projects!

These programs often enrich developers without producing significant long-term benefits for the communities footing the bill. Take, for example, the myriad subsidies for corporate headquarters and downtown stadiums in Kansas City. Despite their hefty price tags, these deals leave taxpayers shouldering higher costs with little to show for it in terms of jobs or economic growth. St. Louis risks again following the same path—throwing public money at developers while failing to address the underlying issues.

A major problem with subsidies like this is that they create a false sense of market demand. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes one of the bill’s sponsors, Missouri Senator Steve Roberts, as saying, “The demand for more downtown residential is clear.” If that were true, private investors should already be stepping up. Developers should not need government support to pursue profitable opportunities.

Subsidy programs also suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability. Often, there are no robust safeguards to measure their success or clawback provisions when promises go unfulfilled. Without clear benchmarks and regular public reporting, these programs devolve into blank checks for developers.

St. Louis should focus on making the downtown area a desirable place to live by prioritizing public safety and basic city services. Addressing crime, for instance, would do far more to draw new residents and businesses than funneling public money into speculative real estate projects.

A smarter approach to revitalizing downtown St. Louis would let market forces lead the way. City leaders can play a supportive role by streamlining permitting processes and reducing regulatory barriers, making it easier for developers to pursue worthwhile projects. (There are some small, hopeful signs St. Louis is heeding this call.) At the same time, investments in public safety, infrastructure, and essential services would lay the groundwork for organic growth that benefits everyone—not just developers.

Yes, St. Louis needs more residents. Yes, increasing the downtown population would have all sorts of positive economic effects. But right now, too few people want to live there, and nothing will work until that changes first.

The post Downtown St. Louis Doesn’t Need Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Among the many things that Missourians will vote on in November is Amendment 6, which if passed would reinstitute a fee on court filings in Missouri to fund a larger pension for sheriffs and prosecutors in Missouri. (The fee was previously $3 before it was overturned by Missouri courts.) There are many troubling aspects of Amendment 6 that I hope Missourians consider before they vote, because the proposed amendment would have effects that go beyond the understandable desire to support law enforcement.

Locally, this amendment is especially bad public policy for St. Louis County residents. St. Louis County has by far the largest number of court filings due to its status as the largest county by population in Missouri and the presence of CT Corporation Systems in Clayton, which is the largest registered agent company in Missouri. What’s more, the St. Louis County sheriff is not a law enforcement agent and is therefore the only sheriff in Missouri who does not participate in the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System in the first place. So, to be clear, St. Louis County residents would pay the largest amount of fees into the fund—probably several hundred thousand dollars a year—while at the same time receiving the least benefit of any county. Coincidence? Perhaps. Fair? Definitely not.

Every person in St. Louis County who seeks redress in court, who files for a domestic order of protection, who has to pay a traffic fine, or is in court for any other reason, would have to pay this reinstituted fee to increase the pensions of primarily rural sheriffs and prosecutors. (The St. Louis County prosecutor might be included in this plan, so that’s one person in a million, for a position that is already well-compensated with a generous pension.)

The ballot language for Amendment 6, as is so often the case, is highly misleading. A typical voter will read the language proposing to “levy costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for current and former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys . . .” and understand that to include the many dedicated deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors around the state. It doesn’t. This new fee will only benefit the elected sheriff and prosecutor in each county (and not even the sheriff in St. Louis County). That’s two people per county. Deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors have their pensions funded separately and are not affected by this proposal.

As if the misleading language and targeting of one county wasn’t enough to object to, the fact is that funding pensions by court fees is a bad policy. That is why previous attempts to fund a sheriff’s pension in this manner were thrown out as unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. Imposing court fees that make it harder to seek justice in court, or harder to pay fines ordered by court—especially when those fees financially benefit the law enforcement officials who impose some of them—creates a perverse incentive. Funding for the salaries and benefits of sheriffs and prosecutors should come from general local taxation, and there should be no financial incentive for increased fines, arrests, and so on. But instead of trying change their proposals to address these constitutional objections by judges and others, supporters of Amendment 6 are attempting to do an end-run around the law by changing the constitution. Supporting law enforcement by going around the law is an ironic way to accomplish their goals.

Furthermore, any increase in the retirement benefits of elected sheriffs and prosecutors should be accomplished by an expansion of defined-contribution plans available to them rather than an increase in their defined-benefit pensions. Expanding the opportunities for these well-compensated elected officials to participate in 457 retirement plans [which are like 401(k) accounts but for public employees] or similar alternatives is a better way to allow them to save for retirement without further burdening taxpayers.

Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors deserve our support, but Amendment 6 is not the way to show it. There are several good reasons for all Missourians to reconsider their typical support for law enforcement in this case, and for the people of St. Louis County, this choice should be easier than rooting against Stan Kroenke’s Rams in the Super Bowl.

The post Court Fee Increase Would Negatively Impact St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am confident that the media will get that information, and I am as interested as anyone to learn more. But let’s be honest here–what we already know about the program makes it clear that this “grant” program smells like a racket. Let’s look at what this program is giving away as part of this $32 million “grant” program.

A former state representative is getting $1.5 million to expand her consulting company to create more affordable housing and grow the economy by two—that’s right, two—new jobs.

A former mayor is getting two grants for a total of $125,000 to expand and improve the bar he owns in the city.

Sweetie Pie’s restaurant is getting $1.5 million to expand operations, despite some recent problems with management and operations at the restaurant.

Non-profits are included too, and perhaps that is more understandable, but one non-profit that was only created after the program was announced last year is in line for over $700,000. Surprisingly, the director of that non-profit is connected to a politically influential family. I know, you’re shocked . . .

The list goes on. When the program was announced, officials claimed it was a way to invest in North St. Louis. But it isn’t investing in infrastructure or things that can benefit the public. The program simply seems to be a way to give away tax dollars to North Side businesses. That’s it. There is no way this should be legal.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Consider the comments of one business owner who, admittedly, did not receive funding:

“The whole process has just been problematic from day one,” said Tameka Stigers, who applied unsuccessfully for a grant to expand her hair salon, Locs of Glory, on Delmar Boulevard and has been rallying other disgruntled business owners to lobby SLDC for reconsideration. “It’s a genuine money grab from the city to give the money to their friends.” [emphasis added]

I couldn’t have said it better myself. We will have more to come on this issue, I assure you.

The post The North Side “Grant” Program is a Racket appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But regardless of what is being celebrated, events like these point to a vibrant city.

Sadly, this may not be the case on the other side of the state in St. Louis.

On July 25, St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones was on hand to help hype the “Q in the Lou” barbecue festival, scheduled to be held on the grounds of the Gateway Arch in early September. Jason Hall, CEO of Greater St. Louis, a non-profit dedicated to revitalizing the city, was triumphal in saying that bringing this “signature national festival back to downtown St Louis is showing how this community is answering that call taking action and making us stronger.”

Apparently not.

Q in the Lou has been canceled. According the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Sean Hadley, one of the organizers of the event, confirmed the cancellation Monday afternoon, citing trouble garnering corporate sponsorship and VIP ticket sales — and public safety concerns disputed by the mayor’s office.

“We’re seeing a lack of support,” Hadley said. “It’s not there.”

This truly is a shame. St. Louis has a real problem with public safety and the public perception. Subsidized events and buildings won’t change that. It can only be solved by the slow and difficult work of public policy, including increasing public safety, keeping the city clean and orderly, maintaining infrastructure, and doing all of this in a cost-efficient manner.

There is no shortcut, no matter how good the ribs are.

The post STL Q Down the Loo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.