According to The Kansas City Star, the city has not yet formally applied for funding under Missouri’s Show-Me Sports Investment Act. State participation is a central piece of the financing plan, and city officials are already considering ways to secure up to $600 million in local support.

Negotiations of this scale are complicated. City, state, and team officials may simply still be working through the details. But the delay raises an obvious question. If the public financing package is as straightforward as supporters suggest, why are the numbers still unavailable? (The same could be asked of the Chiefs deal in Kansas.)

One possibility is that the arithmetic is becoming more difficult as officials move from press announcement to actual financing plans.

When the stadium was announced, the Royals indicated that roughly 60% of the project’s estimated $1.9 billion cost would come from public sources. That implies well over $1 billion in taxpayer support. Yet the Show-Me Sports Investment Act places meaningful limits on state assistance. As I noted previously, available estimates suggest the state’s contribution may be closer to $250 million than the much larger figures that have circulated publicly.

If state support is lower than hoped, the remaining public contribution would need to come from Kansas City taxpayers through various tax diversions and subsidies. It won’t be cheap.

The political environment may become even more challenging if voters get a chance to weigh in. Opponents of the project have submitted signatures seeking a public vote on the city’s participation. That effort remains uncertain, but financing proposals acceptable to elected officials may not be acceptable to the public—as we learned in 2024.

To make matters more confusing, the Star previously reported:

Mayor Quinton Lucas told reporters that the city has projections for how much tax revenue a new stadium could generate based on what Kauffman Stadium in the Truman Sports Complex produces now — which city officials say is roughly $5 million a year.

That $5 million is currently going into the city’s coffers and used to fund police, infrastructure, and other public goods. Moving the team downtown and then returning that money to the Royals is not a wash—it’s a $5 million hit to the budget each year. And that does not include the cost to the city if the stadium fails to generate enough money to cover the bond payments—because the city will issue the bonds and back them up.

This project is bad for taxpayers and bad for the city. The delay from the city and the state in providing financing details suggests that elected leaders are beginning to understand exactly how bad it will be.

The post Kansas City Mum on Royals Ransom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But wait, there’s more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I found gratifying is that a great deal of voters, regardless of their own political views, seemed to understand that the economic impact claims made by the proponents of stadium subsidies were simply not true. Show-Me Institute analysts have been making this point since our founding.

Read Timothy Lee’s post from 18 years ago, Stadium Proposal Unfair to Taxpayers, and you will see the exact same arguments I made in 2024. The basics of good public policy do not change, they may just take a while to catch on.

The post Sometimes, Sanity Wins appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Chiefs are putting in a relatively small amount of money for renovations. According to Kansas City PBS affiliate KCUR:

The total cost of the proposed renovations is estimated at $800 million. Chiefs Chairman Clark Hunt says the Hunt family would pay $300 million of that total. Jackson County taxpayers would be on the hook for the remainder . . .

Got that? Taxpayers are putting up the lion’s share of the renovations to a stadium owned by billionaires. It gets worse. As if learning that taxpayers will fund the majority of the Chiefs’ plans isn’t bad enough, Chiefs President Mark Donovan chose to insult voters’ intelligence. Again, according to KCUR:

Unlike the Royals, who last year cited structural concerns at Kauffman Stadium as one of the main reasons for building a new downtown facility, the Chiefs intend to stay in the same arena bowl over the long haul. Arrowhead opened in 1972, one year before Kauffman Stadium.

Donovan chalked the contrast up to construction differences.

“Believe it or not,” Donovan said, “One team got a good batch of concrete, one team didn’t.”

This is more ridiculous than it sounds because we already know, thanks to KMBC News, that Kauffman Stadium is perfectly fine:

The Royals have repeatedly said the concrete has an issue, but a study reveals that Kauffman Stadium is in “satisfactory condition,” consistent with a “first-class” MLB baseball stadium.

Jackson County voters are being asked to support a new tax because John Sherman, the billionaire owner of the Royals, wants a new stadium in downtown Kansas City. The Chiefs don’t need a new tax. The existing Royals stadium isn’t falling apart. The deal won’t add value to downtown or be good for residents. This press conference made it fair to wonder how much of this is just a power play for personal gain.

The post Arguments for a New Stadium Fall Apart Like Bad Concrete appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs released a joint statement Friday to stay in Jackson County, pending voters’ approval of a sales tax extension.

The statement comes amid the Royals’ plans to build a new $2 billion ballpark district as they look at locations in both Jackson County and Clay County.

The teams said Friday they are committed to staying in Jackson County — and provid[ing] over $200 million in economic benefits — if voters approve a 40-year extension of the 3/8th-cent sales tax in April.

The sales tax extension will help the Chiefs renovate Arrowhead Stadium at the Truman Sports Complex and assist with the Royals’ new stadium in downtown Kansas City.

It wasn’t news that the Chiefs planned to stay put. Driven in part by the Royals’ public relations disaster, the Chiefs had confirmed months ago they indeed intend to remain at Arrowhead (despite flirting with Kansas two years ago), and it was clear the football team was only waiting on the baseball team to make its decision. The Chiefs’ involvement at this juncture also puts a more popular brand in front. Frankly, the baseball team is probably better off with Chiefs superstar and Royals co-owner Patrick Mahomes leading the final charge to the ballot box rather than majority owner John Sherman, who’s helmed the Royals’ push to this point. I’m sure Sherman would agree.

Will taxpayers accept this rose? It won’t come for free. Now that the Royals have decided on Jackson County as their first choice, it will now (likely) be up to voters to decide in April whether to continue subsidizing not one, but two sports teams into 2071—that is, nearly to the 22nd century. Where will that baseball stadium be? Unlikely at its current site, where the taxpayer-financed and recently upgraded Kauffman Stadium seems destined for the wrecking ball. At least two new Jackson County sites are in contention, and a final site announcement may be weeks or months away, if it comes before the vote at all. In the meantime, we wait.

In the interest of balance, I will say that the Royals’ behavior—though misguided and wrongheaded—is consistent with the behavior of countless other private businesses, in and outside the professional sports industry, when it comes to tax incentives and public financial support. The Royals want something for free, regardless of whether they’re owed it. That’s their prerogative, and it’s up to taxpayers to finally say, “No, our tax dollars should go to legitimate public services and not to a private entertainment operation.”

But odds are that Jackson County taxpayers won’t say no—they’ll likely approve the tax extension for the Royals’ (and Chiefs’) benefit, even as other notable local challenges, like murder, remain unaddressed. Taxpayers can do better. I hope they do.

The post Royals Officially Probably Staying in Jackson County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That said, I should make and reiterate a few points about the Royals’ stadium issue, now that it’s back in the news.

• The stadium renderings are cool. It’s easy to poo-poo big-dollar construction proposals as being sales jobs of dubious eventual reality, but that doesn’t make the prospect of something new any less interesting. The eventual financing plan for the stadium will likely be bad policy, but it’s understandable why people might get excited at what a future ballpark might look like. That’s obviously why they had the press conference this week: to stoke support and excitement.
• But cool renderings don’t change the fact that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for professional sports stadia. The renderings for these stadia could have put a helicopter port on the roof, a rocket ship in the parking lot, and a theme park in center field, but a cool drawing doesn’t make giving tax dollars to rich baseball tycoons an appropriate “investment” by the public. Developments like this generally do not expand the pie of disposable income in a region; instead, they tend to redirect spending that was previously being spent by consumers at other restaurants and entertainment options in the region. Ask bar owners in Westport what they think the immediate impact of the Power & Light District was on their traffic and you’ll get a sense of the potential risks of subsidizing new competition to existing businesses this time around.
• The “$2.8 billion” construction impact figure presented by the Royals is not a game changer. As I told KMBC 9, I believe that the Royals believe their numbers and that stadium construction would create “$2.8 billion” in economic activity in and around the ballpark. But what’s that really mean, other than to repeat the obvious? When the team is promising $1 billion in private financing to go along with $1 billion in public support, yeah, those are two giant wheelbarrows of cash being dumped into one spot that get you pretty close to the headline number. But that doesn’t change the fact that half of the spending would be coming from the public to create a district that would compete with other entertainment districts, including Westport and the Power & Light District.
• And speaking of the taxpayer-subsidized Power & Light District, it hasn’t and won’t ever pay for itself. One of the biggest public spending projects in the last couple of decades was the Power & Light District in Kansas City’s downtown. From the beginning, the city was on the hook to pay off the bonds for the property if tax revenue from the district wasn’t high enough. The result? Over the last 16 years, Kansas City taxpayers paid the nearly $170 million gap between what the district costs and what the district generates in tax revenue to pay the bonds. It’s easy to make promises of success when the cost of failure is borne by someone else, and there’s no guarantee taxpayers—whether in Jackson County or Clay County—won’t get soaked this go-around, too.

There is a bit of deja vu here, of course; about this time in 2022, I was talking about a potential move for the Chiefs, whose lease at the Truman Sports Complex ends when the Royals does. But the takeaway now with the Royals is the same as it was with the Chiefs—sports teams should pay for their playthings themselves. The Royals may be the kings of Kauffman, but when it comes to sovereign action in the real world, public officials should reject spending tax dollars on anything but legitimate responsibilities of government. Subsidizing sports teams isn’t one of those responsibilities.

The post Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Pay for Your Own Stadium appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are innumerable instances where a city’s expenditures far exceed the tax revenues brought in by a publicly funded stadium (the Edwards Jones Dome in St Louis and Yankee Stadium in New York to name a few). It makes no sense (or cents) to promote the financing of a stadium for tax revenues when spending exceeds income.

Not only does public funding of a stadium severely hamstring city government, but a quick analysis reveals that the gains promised to the city’s economy rarely materialize. According to a 2008 study conducted by professors at Holy Cross, professional sports facilities, and even teams themselves “have little or no significant positive impacts, or even negative impacts on the local economy.” Why? Because the vast majority of fans who attend these stadium events are area residents who would likely be spending their money in the city regardless of the existence or location of the stadium. The same idea holds true for job creation. The thousands of jobs required to build a stadium are only temporary and often just taken from other projects occurring around the city.

This is not to say that professional sports franchises and their stadiums offer no benefit to cities. Sports teams promote civic pride and can unify city residents. If the Royals want to build a downtown stadium with their own resources, that’s fine. But the idea that a publicly-financed stadium will pay for itself by catalyzing economic growth is a tired, disproven argument.

In fact, Kansas City should have already learned this lesson. Almost two years ago, Patrick Tuohey detailed concerns about Wyandotte County funding a similar project for the semi-professional Kansas City T-Bones. Taxpayer subsidies could not overcome a lack of demand. The T-Bones’ failure continued and the owners are looking to sell. When it comes to subsidizing stadiums, policymakers should heed Breaking Bad’s Gustavo Fring and never make the same mistake twice.

The post New Downtown Royals Stadium Would Cost City a King’s Ransom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For now, though, downtown baseball is and should be off the to-do list. The region must deal with more urgent priorities first.

Subsidizing sports stadiums is a bad idea regardless of the timing. Recently, Saint Louis has spent an inordinate amount of time and money trying to force taxpayers to do exactly this. First, there was an effort to build a new riverfront stadium for the Rams. When that plan failed, there was a sprint to build a soccer stadium in hopes of luring an Major League Soccer team to town. Stadiums are said to generate jobs in their construction (they don’t), and drive economic development once they are built (they don’t). At best, they divert people’s disposable income from one activity to another. Stadiums only create wealth for the team owners—who don’t have to share their profits with the taxpayers underwriting their team’s overhead. (In Wyandotte County, Kansas, taxpayer subsidies likely just postpone the inevitable closing of a baseball park.)

These aren’t just the musings of free-market, small-government cranks, either. There is a robust body of research from organizations left and right and in-between that shows stadium handouts are a waste of public resources. Nor do we need to rely on academic studies. The dome formerly known as Edward Jones failed to attract the economic development or population density its boosters promised. Anyone who doubts this should just look at aerial photos of Truman Sports Complex. Much of the land around two stadiums lays un- or under-developed.

Subsidizing sports stadiums, wherever they are built, is bad public policy. Not because of timing, or because there are other more pressing matters in Kansas City, which is true. It’s bad because diverting tax dollars to help big businesses build their own buildings is wasteful of limited public resources intended to provide basic services.

The post Subsidized Downtown Stadiums, Forever and Always, a Bad Idea appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Hail to the Chiefs? City Includes Arrowhead on List of Urban Core Successes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It doesn’t work.

Richard Florida first proposed the idea that cities need to attract the so-called creative class in order to survive. His prediction was not borne out by time. But like all good economic theories, zealous adherents aren’t swayed by plain evidence. Here in Kansas City, leaders still talk about attracting this creative class with streetcars despite the fact that the evidence tells us that even the millennial-age cohort is no less likely to own cars than their peers in past generations. They act the same way any group does: They move to regions that offer jobs.

A study of successful innovation hubs even demonstrated that among those that have been successful there is no winning government strategy—success does not lend itself to a simple formula.

Boosters of Baristanomics point to the slight growth of downtown residents to show the success of the city’s profligate spending. As another high rise is proposed for downtown—and subsidized with taxpayer dollars—the high availability no doubt will drive prices into the basement. Laying aside the question of whether such modest growth is worth the huge cost to taxpayers, it is clear that Baristanomics has not produced the jobs necessary to keep people downtown. Downtown residents commute out of the core for work—something that writers elsewheredubbed Urban Inversion. Basically, Kansas City is turning itself inside out.

Without jobs—baristas, hotel concierges, and restaurant staff notwithstanding—any measure of success will be short lived if Kansas City isn’t attracting jobs. In fact, the growth of residential development is coming at the cost of commercial and industrial growth potential as one-time office buildings and warehouses are converted into trendy lofts. Furthermore, many of those living spaces were built or renovated with tax abatements or subsidies that will make them much less attractive in 25 years when they end.

Cities do not form around coffeeshops and large entertainment venues. (If they did, where is the development around the Truman Sports Complex? There are barely hotels over there.) People generally live where they work, and if Kansas City continues to be an unattractive place to build a business, all the hip speakeasies and entertainment subsidies will amount to nothing more than curious finds for future archeologists.

The post Kansas City Embraces Baristanomics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Funkhouser said the city can’t duck the budget problem or it will only get worse next year.

“You can’t wait for a better time,” he said. “The consequences of not acting will be worse than the consequences of acting.”

So now that I see the mayor at least intends to address the issue head-on, let’s discuss the suggestions as laid out by the article (all bullet points below are direct quotes from the article, and all emphasis is added):

• Cutting the $2 million city contribution to the Truman Sports Complex or subsidies to other regional assets such as Liberty Memorial, Starlight Theater and the zoo. Funkhouser says he’s not advocating a stadium cut in the next budget, but he does think regional assets should be funded regionally.

Why doesn’t Kansas City consider a zoo-museum taxing district, along the lines of what Saint Louis has, to fund these things regionally? That is one thing that works well here.

• Closing the city jail, saving about $4.8 million, or privatizing the service to save part of that amount.

This deserves careful consideration. In Saint Louis County, the privatization of the jail’s pharmacy services has worked well, but the use of entirely privatized prisons for Missouri has not fared as well. I am referring here to the infamous video of Missouri convicts getting the crap beaten out of them by guards in a Texas private prison, for no reason except to torment the prisoners. And trust me, I am not one to normally side with the prisoners, but those scenes were terrible.

• Cutting part of the $2 million that Kansas City spends on bulky-item pickup.

Bulk pickup is highly overrated. It’s easy enough to borrow a friend’s truck or just hire a hauler. This sounds like a good cut to me.

• Reducing spending on city planning services and things like dangerous-building demolition.

Amen to the first part. Government central planning is a waste of time and money on anything beyond the basic levels of zoning, and similar areas. If anyone in Kansas City government is working feverishly at "transforming Kansas City into (insert hyperbole here)," which they are, that can be cut out. Markets and investors should be making these decisions — not government planners who can’t even be trusted to know what it is that they don’t know. The dangerous-building demolition should be kept in full, though. Those abandoned places that nobody except the curious ever go can be dangerous.

• Reducing spending on youth initiatives or neighborhood mediation efforts, which could save about $1 million.

I have to guess there are both things that need to be maintained in full and some options for cuts in this list, but I can’t say which are which without seeing more information.

• Reducing spending in the City Council and mayor’s offices.

I am sure there is plenty of opportunity for cuts here, but in the end it would probably add up to a small portion of the projected deficit. It should still be done, though. The mayor stated in the article that the Council needed more legislative analysts, rather than fewer. If the Council can’t trust the information from its own city manager, who is supposed to be non-partisan and unbiased, and needs more legislative analysts, that is a problem with the city manager — not a legitimate call to grow staff. (Please note, I said "If"; I am not making a judgment in the dispute between the mayor and the city manager.)

• Laying off up to 100 people, which could save about $5 million. Some council members recoiled at that idea. Funkhouser and Ford said they want to streamline city departments and reduce the number of middle managers, but focus more on empty positions than actual people.

We finally get to the real solution. Way too many people in government think there is some sort of right to a government job. This question should really be asked before even talking about money and budgets. First of all, do the government workers you have all work solid 40-hour weeks of actual work? If they don’t — and there probably isn’t one government in the world where they do — then many of them should be let go. I am very familiar with the history and role of political machines in government, and I would be stunned if a city such as Kansas City did not have far more city employees on the payroll than are actually needed. Some councilmembers want to protect their own employees first, whether or not they are needed or can be afforded. That is not surprising, but it is exactly the type of governance that gets a city into a budget problem in the first place.

The post Cut the Budget or Raise Taxes? Kansas City, Make Your Choice … appeared first on Show-Me Institute.