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.

For more than a decade, Kansas City leaders treated Sun Fresh at 31st and Prospect as both a grocery store and a public policy tool to address food access and economic development. According to KCUR, the city has invested  $17 to $21 million since 2015, plus a $750,000 operating and security appropriation in May 2025. Yet customer traffic reportedly fell from about 14,000 a week to roughly 2,000–4,000 by mid-2025 (sources differ by date and estimate). According to The Washington Post, the store’s insurance costs rose 45% year-over-year, thefts mounted, and by this summer the store’s shelves were bare. Less than three months after the latest infusion of taxpayer money, the store closed.

This should not have been a surprise. I wrote as early as 2015 that the effort would fail. I saw this not because I’m imbued with a mystical power of prediction, but because I’m roughly familiar with some basic economic principles.

Friedrich Hayek described the price system as “a mechanism for communicating information” that enables millions of separate decisions to coordinate without central control. Prices, sales, and profit margins signal what customers want and whether a business can supply it sustainably. Subsidies blur those signals. Falling sales normally push owners to change their product mix, improve service, or close. If government funds fill the gap, a business may avoid—or delay—those choices until the underlying problems are too great to fix. This is exactly what happened with Sun Fresh.

Ludwig von Mises argued that without real market prices, decision-makers cannot allocate resources rationally. A subsidized store like Sun Fresh is insulated from these tests. Are prices too high? Is the product selection wrong? Are operating costs out of line? In a subsidy environment, these questions may go unanswered because survival depends more on political approval than on customer satisfaction.

And what do politicians want?  Ribbon cuttings and pretty pictures. Sound economics doesn’t photograph so well.

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, warned that the interests of producers and the public often diverge. A subsidized grocery may fulfill a political need to “do something” about food access, but it may not deliver what shoppers actually want at prices they will pay. If a store cannot sustain itself even with taxpayer support, the model—not the market—is the likely problem.

Supporters of the subsidies might argue that they were necessary to correct a market failure, and that the store’s closure proves even more support was needed. But the record suggests the opposite: prolonged subsidies masked underlying weaknesses, delayed inevitable closure, and diverted resources from other food-access efforts such as mobile markets, independent co-ops, or smaller-scale grants. Subsidies likely harmed other grocery stores as well, such as an ALDI on Prospect within about 1.5 miles.

Markets provide important information that no city hall central plan can replicate. Public funds cannot replace this information; they can only distort it. It’s true of sports stadia, entertainment districts, and the hotel industry. When those signals are ignored, the cost falls not only on taxpayers but also on the communities policymakers aim to help.

Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, this debacle is an example not only of the city doing what it shouldn’t, but also failing to do what it should. Many of the challenges the shopping center endured—theft, prostitution, open drug use, and violence—were the result of the city failing to do something we (should) all agree is a basic function of government: public safety.

Even if one believes subsidized stores could work, nothing can succeed amid the bedlam surrounding this store.

I wrote of this project in 2015: “When [the grocery store] fails, the city and its residents will be no better off than before, just poorer. And the infrastructure, crime, and education issues that really need to be addressed will be that much worse.” This is exactly where we are now.

The post Sun Fresh Failed Because of Subsidies, not Despite Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Patrick Tuohey, co-founder and policy director of the Better Cities Project, has been critical of the Sun Fresh project. He says the store looks “great on paper” but does not have demand to support it. Plus, he noted, the neighborhood has other options because of a nearby Aldi store and the independent Happy Foods Center.

Kansas City officials hoped that subsidizing the grocery store would revitalize a long-neglected corridor. Ten years later, with the store on the brink of closure, city leaders are asking what went wrong. But they needn’t look far: the answers were visible from the start—and many of them were detailed in the very Show-Me Institute blog posts I wrote at the time.

Since 2015, I’ve chronicled the Sun Fresh project and argued that its shortcomings were structural, not situational. Here are the key arguments made then, all of which remain relevant now.

• In May 2015, I wrote that “Kansas City government is going into the grocery business,” a move I called “a stunning development.” I noted that the city would lease the property to Sun Fresh for just $1 per year and that the entire project was heavily subsidized—a sign that market demand alone wasn’t enough to support it.
• In the same 2015 post, I argued that grocery demand was already being met in nearby areas: “people who make a living running grocery stores by investing their own money do not think this [Sun Fresh investment] is a good idea.”
• The next week, I conducted some shoe-leather reporting by driving around the supposed food desert. I found several grocery stores with well-stocked produce aisles, and marveled about how, due to the city’s use of various taxing jurisdictions, food in some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods was more expensive than in wealthier areas.
• In May 2016, I updated the story of the subsidized grocery store, noting costs were ballooning, ending with: “In short, it appears that city leaders are planning to lose money investing in an already-failed venture in order to pursue a policy that has no evidence backing its effectiveness.”
• The next month, I wrote that the USDA was becoming skeptical of the “food desert” idea itself. I also noted research showing that the mere availability of healthy food was not sufficient to solve the problem of unhealthy diets.
• In March 2017, I pointed out that project costs continued to rise.
• In December 2017, I summarized new research showing that the “food desert” premise was deeply flawed.
• In October 2018, I highlighted a Kansas City Star piece indicating grocers are in the business of giving people what they want, not what someone else thinks they ought to have. The Sun Fresh store director told the paper, “You can pick apart any store that you want to on what they have or don’t have, but it’s about if people request these things or not . . .  We’re going to give our customers what they want. Not just what looks good.”
• In July 2019, I wrote that there were signs the project was already failing. “Despite city-funded construction and dramatically subsidized rent, the store cannot pay its bills. The question now seems to be whether taxpayers should further fund this failing enterprise.”

The city’s logic was clear enough: offer fresh food options in a historically underserved area, and hope it drives neighborhood investment. The Star quoted then-Mayor Sly James as saying the Sun Fresh Market would be the “beginning of the revitalization of this entire corridor.” He was wrong. The policy approach ignored fundamental questions of market feasibility and safety. Even when intentions are noble, taxpayer subsidies cannot manufacture demand where it doesn’t exist.

Supporters may argue that this was an experiment worth trying. But experiments should come with contingency planning and humility—not endless subsidies. The city’s willingness to absorb risk that private firms declined should have been a warning, not a point of pride.

The real tragedy is that Kansas City could have directed those resources toward improving public safety, supporting neighborhood-scale entrepreneurship, or partnering with existing grocery providers willing to operate without public subsidy. All of those approaches would have been more fiscally responsible and, most likely, more sustainable than what the city did.

As policymakers consider next steps, they would do well to revisit the early warnings and lessons from Sun Fresh. The problem was never just about food access. It was about how we define, diagnose, and address the challenges facing our neighborhoods.

This was a foreseeable failure. Hopefully, our policymakers learn from it.

The post Sun Fresh’s Struggles Were Predictable—and Predicted appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to read testimony on the Show-Me Sports Investment Act.

Click here to read testimony on Senate Bill 3 and property tax adjustments.

Watch Patrick Tuohey’s Testimony

Watch David Stokes’ Testimony

The post Testimony: The Show-Me Sports Investment Act and Senate Bill 3 on Property Tax Adjustments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There wasn’t anything new in the testimony. It included romantic nostalgia for bygone players and the pride we have in our teams, claims about all the economic impacts that these subsidies will drive, and, of course, fears that the teams will leave if we don’t give them what they want.

Toward the end of the supporters’ testimony, Wes Rogers, a Kansas City councilmember and former state legislator, rose to speak in favor. His remarks included the following:

I make my living selling and leasing commercial dishwashers to restaurants. Already, no matter where the Royals and Chiefs go, Kansas is kicking our butt. I install more dishwashers in the state of Kansas than I do in the state of Missouri, period. And there’s a whole bunch of reasons for that I’m happy to talk about later. But I promise you this, if we put this stadium or the Chiefs stadium in Kansas, my guys are going to be to Kansas more than they are to Missouri and that’s going to continue. And so we can say this doesn’t have an economic impact. I know it does because I’m paying 20 guys to go to Kansas instead of Missouri to work and that number is going to increase.

This is odd testimony in favor of subsidies as a source of economic development because the Chiefs and Royals already have stadia in Missouri. Yet (despite this?) he argues “Kansas is kicking our butt,” and he is seeing more business on the Kansas side. Redirecting taxpayer dollars toward new or refurbished facilities won’t change that.

I suspect Rogers knows that the real reasons for Kansas outperforming Missouri are the “whole bunch of reasons” he alludes to. For example, the high tax rate and low level of services Kansas City provides—in large part because of taxpayer-funded subsidies, such as those for sports teams, being such a huge drain on city coffers.

Earlier in his testimony, Rogers offered, “I’m actually reading economic studies about baseball, which I’ve never done before.” This is good news, but if the statement above is a reflection of his grasp of the material so far, he needs to do more reading—and rereading.

The post The Miseducation of Kansas City Councilman Wes Rogers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2020, Kansas City became the first major U.S. city to eliminate bus fares entirely. At the time, city leaders leaned on a slapdash four-page “mini report” that promised an $11 million local GDP boost. To put it mildly, it was wrong.

Since then, ridership dropped, assaults on drivers went up, and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) is now staring down a $10 million budget gap. The COVID money that kept KCATA afloat runs out next year. KCATA’s new leadership is asking to study whether fares should return. That’s where we are now: back at the beginning, but with less credibility and fewer resources.

The New York proposal has the same weaknesses. The author estimates a 23% increase in ridership, a 12% increase in speed and billions in economic gains—all for the low, low cost of $600 million in forgone fare revenue. But his math is speculative, his benefits are theoretical, and like in Kansas City, the costs are very real.

The problem isn’t just financial. Prices matter. Fares aren’t only about revenue—they’re also a tool to manage demand, discourage misuse, and incentivize better service. Eliminate them and you get overuse, fewer behavioral constraints, and more wear on already stretched systems. You also change the customer’s relationship with the service. When it’s free, expectations fall—for riders and for the agency.

Proponents talk about fairness. But there’s nothing fair about asking everyone to pay for a system that primarily serves a few. The better solution is targeted subsidies for those who need the help, which would preserve incentives, protect the system, and respect taxpayers.

Kansas City tried fare-free transit. It failed. New York doesn’t have to make the same mistake.

The post Free Buses, Costly Lessons appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On August 7, Patrick Tuohey joined Mundo in the Morning on KCMO to discuss the recent Missouri elections and whether they have any impact on the Kansas-Missouri border war over stadium subsidies for the Chiefs and Royals.

The post Do the Election Results Change the Border War? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Patrick Tuohey, Senior Fellow at the Show-Me Institute, about the Missouri-Kansas border war over economic development incentives. They discuss how the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals reignited the subsidies battle between the states, the history of the feud, the effects on local economies, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Chiefs and Royals Restart the Border War with Patrick Tuohey appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

-A report on the legislative session
-An education policy win for Missourians
-Bad transportation policy in the Show-Me State
-The folly of subsidizing professional sports stadiums
-Missouri’s looming budget disaster
-Are teachers in Missouri getting the right education?

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s June 2024 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s economy has lagged much of country over the past decade. And for more than twenty years, Missouri has been a national leader in awarding tax credits for private gain in the name of “economic development.” If issuing tax credits were a good way to spur growth, our state would have one of the fastest-growing economies in the country. But it’s not, so we don’t.

Unfortunately, despite years of evidence that economic development tax credits don’t work, state policymakers appear to be doubling down on this wrongheaded approach. After more than a decade dormant, Missouri’s film tax credit is on the path to returning. The Senate approved a bill rebooting the program, and a House committee recently voted out a separate measure including the credit. All of this for a program that was so bad our elected officials got rid of it in 2013.

Countless reports, studies, and audits reached the same conclusion: the program is a horrible investment. It serves too narrow of an industry to help grow a state’s economy. Much of the credit’s benefit goes to out-of-state companies and workers. And further, the tax credits do not generate sufficient tax revenues to justify the subsidy. While it is true that many other states currently offer some form of film subsidy, that is not an excuse for Missouri to rejoin this race to the bottom.

As we enter the second half of this year’s legislative session, there’s still time for our elected officials to reverse course. It’s understandable that policymakers would be interested in finding policies that would help get Missouri’s economy back on the right track, but government picking winners and losers isn’t the way to do that.

In fact, turning around Missouri’s economy doesn’t have to be as difficult as our elected officials are making it seem. If taxes are too high for the film industry to consider Missouri, instead of subsidizing Hollywood, policymakers should focus on lowering the tax burden for all Missourians. At the very least, our elected officials need to stop advancing policies that we already know don’t work. Bringing back the film tax credit is not just a bad idea—it’s an insane one.

The post Tax Credit Insanity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Perhaps the thing that makes bad legislation into terrible legislation is when legislators try to implement programs that have clearly proven to be failures elsewhere (or previously). This is exactly the case for a few bills I have been following closely that seem close to passing this year.

There are many poorly designed tax credit and subsidy plans. Out of all of them, film tax credit programs are among the most studied, probably because of their more high-profile nature. People find films to be more interesting than soybeans, I guess. Those studies are clear in their conclusions: film tax credits do not succeed in growing the economy and do not generate the tax revenues to justify the subsidies. Missouri used to have a film tax credit program and we removed it—how often does that happen?—because it was clear it was not working. Yet, once more, there is legislation moving to reinstate a failed program. Why in heaven should Missourians pay millions of dollars to watch Ben Affleck drink coffee on Main Street for a few days? Missouri is better off without film tax credits. If the people of Georgia or California want to subsidize the shows and movies we watch, go ahead and let them. (Related bills are SB 961 & SB 732, primarily SB 961 at this point.)

Closely related to the zombie-like film tax credit program is the proposed Entertainment Industry Jobs Tax Credit that will provide tax subsidies for businesses that provide rehearsal and touring studios in Missouri. This entire program is aimed at one new company opening in Chesterfield, one that has already received other state and county tax subsidies. Apparently, that is not enough, as this proposal would have taxpayers further fund this new studio and entertainment center. It is simply awful policy for the state to decide that this particular type of business deserves a subsidy as opposed to a thousand other types of businesses. Taxes should pay for public goods such as parks, police, and transportation. There are other public goods, too, but however you define it, a private recording studio doesn’t make the cut. A new business coming to Missouri and, first and foremost, investing in a massive lobbying effort to get taxpayers to fund its operations represents everything that is wrong with our current system. (Related bills are SB 961 & SB 733, primarily SB 961 at this point.)

Another program that has consistently failed in Missouri is land banks. Show-Me Institute researchers produced significant work years ago on how the St. Louis land bank succeeded in accumulating property, not disposing of it (as was the plan), and empowered local politicians further by politicizing the land bank decisions. When Kansas City wanted to institute a land bank, Institute analysts warned those failures would be repeated there. According to investigative reports by the Kansas City Star, that is precisely what happened. The Kansas City land bank has favored local politicians at the expense of local communities, among many other problems. Despite that record, there are bills to now allow any city or county in the state to institute a land bank. This bill would empower local governments to proactively seize or purchase private property under the guise of assisting development. This would be highly troubling even if land banks had a successful track record, but the track record is terrible in St. Louis and Kansas City. (Related bills are HB 2177, SB 1089, and SB 724, primarily HB 2177 and SB 724 at this point.)

In government, nothing succeeds like failure. There is nothing quite as frustrating as watching legislators—many of whom would consider themselves supporters of limited government—trying to pass bills that propose policies with a proven record of failure.

I like a nice vineyard and a good glass of wine as much as anyone, but for these spoiled grapes, I’m hoping they all die on the vine in the last week of the session.

The post Death on the Vine in Jeff City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Property Tax Bills are Here, MO’s Business Climate, and Elon on Subsides appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From the story:

The city’s new mayor vetoed two developer tax breaks that she said were too generous. And then she held up final approval of incentive packages for two other projects that had long enjoyed almost unwavering political support — the City Foundry food hall complex and another phase of development in the Cortex tech district.

We have commended these changes to the old way of doing business. For too long, the city has pumped subsidies into the parts of the city that need them the least. So, points given for being more disciplined with the subsidies.

However, it seems that the quick and easy way for developers to get the subsidies they want is simply to make a “donation” to affordable housing. From the story (emphasis and note added):

Of the deals negotiated so far by the Jones administration, a theme has emerged: developers who want incentives are likely to be pushed to include a contribution to affordable housing.

• The City Foundry deal required the developer to contribute $1.8 million to the city’s affordable housing trust fund, which helps finance affordable projects around the city. [Three other examples follow in the article.]

We love our subsidies in Missouri for affordable/low-income housing. At the state level, low-income housing tax credits have been abused for years. Now the city’s affordable housing trust fund is all the rage. But you know what? St. Louis (and Missouri) don’t have an affordable housing issue. In fact, a report just came out that says that St. Louis is the only metro area in the country where rents are declining. From the report:

There is one outlier among major American cities bucking this trend. Rents fell 4 percent in St. Louis, and it was the only metro to see a decrease in rent in October compared to a year earlier.

The low housing costs here are a result of many factors, both good (limited land-use regulations) and bad (high crime, etc.). But increasing the subsidies for affordable housing is the least of our region’s needs. And that, come to think of it, may be exactly the point. Solving crime in a high-crime area is very hard. Addressing housing costs in an area with low housing costs is, well, easy.

There are many good reasons for the City of St. Louis to substantially tighten up the tax subsidy process. Using it as a pressure point to get added “donations” to a fund that purports to solve the one problem the city doesn’t have is not one of them.

The post Changes to Tax Incentives in the City of St. Louis? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So what do some in the Missouri Legislature want to do with this burgeoning market? Subsidize it, of course. A bill prefiled in the Missouri House would subsidize Missourians for a purchase many are already making by giving out a thousand-dollar refundable tax credit for each EV purchase.

This is so redundant and unnecessary that even Elon Musk wouldn’t support it.

In a recent interview, Musk favored ending subsidies of any kind for all vehicles, whether gasoline or battery-powered.

When asked about the possibility of an up-to $12,500-per-EV tax credit being considered in Congress, Musk criticized it as unnecessary. While most makes of electric vehicles still qualify for the existing $7,500 federal tax credit, Tesla’s cars—which made up over two thirds of all EV purchases this year—haven’t for several years. Admittedly, Musk’s market power may account for some of his opposition to EV tax credits.

Musk also criticized the $7.5 billion dedicated to building EV charging stations in the recently passed federal infrastructure bill, saying that if gas stations don’t need support, EV charging stations shouldn’t either. If he doesn’t support these subsidies, I can’t imagine he’d support Saint Louis-area governments mandating new construction and property renovations being built with EV charging stations.

If the godfather (or Dogefather?) of electric vehicles thinks EV tax credits and subsidized charging stations are unnecessary, shouldn’t we?

The post Even Elon Musk Wouldn’t Support Missouri’s EV Tax Credit Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dierbergs has decided instead to use the TIF that was approved for the site in 2016 for a different developer but was never acted on. The previously approved TIF is for $15 million, a slightly higher amount than the one in Dierbergs’ proposal. But TIF projects can only be active for a maximum of 23 years, and because this one was approved in 2016, it will only have 18 years available. It appears that there will still not be a request for funds for the residential portion of the development

The 2016 proposal also included a $5 million CID and $5 million transportation development district (TDD). A Dierbergs representative said the company will be asking for a CID that is less than $5 million and will not use both a CID and TDD to develop this site. If this remains true, the overall size of the subsidy package will be slightly smaller than the overall $25 million proposal in 2016. But it’s possible that this new avenue will give Dierbergs access to even more taxpayer dollars than its proposal from a few months ago.

It’s unfortunate that taxpayer dollars are being used to develop this area at all. Sure, there’s a shorter timeframe for the TIF and no subsidy for the residential portion, but that’s small consolation. What was true in 2016 is still true today: A TIF at this location is just a way for lawmakers to look like they are “doing something” about this long-empty location at the expense of taxpayers.  Hopefully in the future, Crestwood can do better for taxpayers by not offering their dollars to developers at all.

The post Crestwood TIF Update appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the developers of the Hotel Bravo plan are back requesting subsidies from the council. They have not amended the plan, and because of the TIF commission’s 2019 rejection, the developers will need a supermajority of the Kansas City City Council to approve (9 votes out of 13) for it to pass. One would hope that there are five members of the council, including the mayor, who are opposed to a $47 million tax subsidy for another hotel in downtown Kansas City. Even the region’s tourism agency, Visit KC, has opposed new tax subsidies for more hotels because its own analysis concluded there were too many already.

Our former colleague, Patrick Tuohey, covered the issue of Kansas City hotel subsidies with gusto during his time here. I highly recommend reading or watching his work on the topic.

This should not be complicated. $47 million in tax subsidies for a high-end hotel in a saturated market (according to Visit KC) is insane. Vast evidence on the subject indicates that subsidy-based economic development doesn’t work. Local economic development officials can’t predict the future and are influenced by politics in their choices.

The TIF commission made the right decisions when it rejected the proposal in 2019. The city council should once again decisively say November Oscar to Hotel Bravo.

The post Kansas City Council Should Say November Oscar to Hotel Bravo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Chesterfield is a vibrant, popular, and growing area. The idea that tax subsidies are needed for businesses there is absurd. So, what does St. Louis County do when a new studio wants to build a production facility there? Well, give away the store, of course. This week the county council unanimously passed a subsidy worth between $88 and $130 million for the new business in one of the most successful and wealthy parts of the state. This is insanity.

In years past, I was honored to be able to testify in favor of tax-increment financing (TIF) reform before the state legislature alongside other reform supporters from Dierbergs Markets. So, who is now asking for a major TIF in Crestwood, another prosperous St. Louis County suburb with no need to give away tax subsidies? Dierbergs, of course. It wants $17 million in subsidies to open a grocery store just down the block from a competing grocery store. Crestwood giving away this money would be insanity.

Hopefully, the St. Louis County TIF Commission will reject this wasteful TIF, just as County Executive Page’s TIF appointees admirably did with the Maryland Heights floodplain TIF monstrosity that was rejected in early 2020.

Finally, despite Mayor Jones’ efforts, St. Louis City commissions keep approving subsidy upon subsidy, including a new $92 million subsidy for a downtown hotel that already received a separate TIF a few years back. If the first subsidy doesn’t work, just give them another, I guess. Hopefully, Mayor Jones will oppose this proposal, too.

Just like the Fast & Furious franchise, the plotlines for tax subsidies keep getting recycled over and over. Recent tax subsidy vetoes and rejections by the Jones and Page administrations give me some hope, but sometimes it feels as if the cruise ship is sinking and all one has is a small bucket to bail with.

The post Tax Subsidy Spurious—St. Louis Grift appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The main veto was for a new 300-unit apartment complex right by St. Louis University. The new apartments will be marketed toward students, of which there are many nearby because it is right next to a major university. The developers were asking for a 10-year, 95 percent tax abatement. A 95 percent tax abatement on an $80 million project is a lot of money for the developers, and that money will inevitably be offset by higher taxes on other residents and businesses. The idea that a development such as this at this location needs a huge tax subsidy is absurd. I commend Mayor Jones for these two vetoes and hope it sends a signal for the rest of her administration.

Don’t get me wrong. I think taxes in the City of St. Louis are too high. But if Mayor Jones and the new generation of city leaders can substantially reduce tax subsidies for the lucky few and expand the tax base by doing so, then we might be able to get a tax cut for everyone. If the taxes on commercial development are too high, then lower the commercial property tax surcharge for all businesses. Giving away generous tax abatements to some (who, shockingly, tend to be politically connected) is not the solution.

This is a positive step for Mayor Jones’ term.

The post The New Mayor Vetoes Two Tax Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2016, $25 million in government assistance (including TIF and special taxing districts) was approved for this site but the developers never moved forward with the plans. It’s not yet clear exactly what developers will be asking for this time, but whatever it is, it’s too much. Crestwood is not a blighted community and even if the property is an eyesore, there is no reason for government to be giving out incentives for this property. There’s already a Schnucks and an Aldi right across the street. Do we really need subsidies to build another grocery store in this area? And is it fair to the existing stores to have the government subsidizing their competition?

Using taxpayer dollars to fund private projects isn’t a good idea. Developers aren’t going to quit asking for these unfair advantages, but lawmakers need to stop giving them out

The post If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.