Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute Director of Municipal Policy David Stokes about his new paper in the Free-Market Guide to Missouri Municipalities series on planning and zoning. They discuss how fragmentation among local governments can limit overly strict zoning, how zoning rules affect housing affordability, and why “last house syndrome” poses risks for Missouri’s future growth. From accessory dwelling units and minimum parking requirements to the debate over multifamily housing, Stokes explains how smart reforms can protect property rights and keep housing costs down.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Planning and Zoning in Missouri
02:35 The Impact of Fragmentation on Zoning
05:24 Housing Affordability and Zoning Regulations
08:22 The Role of Municipalities in Housing Development
11:18 Challenges of NIMBYism and YIMBYism
14:21 Accessory Dwelling Units and Short-Term Rentals
17:00 Planning and Infrastructure in Missouri
19:57 Future Papers and Conclusion

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Thank you, David Stokes, so much for being on the podcast this morning. You have a new paper out with the Show Me Institute. Well, it’s actually part three of an existing series on your free market guide to Missouri municipalities. And this one is on planning and zoning. So thanks for joining us to answer some questions about it. Great. I do have one question that I was just saying before we started recording. I’ve seen this paper a few times.

David Stokes (00:19)
Delighted to be here.

Susan Pendergrass (00:26)
And one thing that I noticed up front is that I complain about the number of school districts in St. Louis County and how fragmented it is. And other folks have also said similar things, too many small municipalities. But it seems to be the case that when we’re talking about things like planning and zoning and permitting and regulations, that can be a good thing. Is that right?

David Stokes (00:46)
Absolutely. Because it’s harder to enact comprehensive planning, zoning, major things like urban growth boundaries—the extreme things like an urban growth boundary that we don’t have in Missouri. But it’s harder to enact that the more governments you have to get in line to agree to it in the first place. So it’s definitely—I don’t want to say it’s a causation. I don’t think the data is there to—

Susan Pendergrass (00:47)
What?

David Stokes (01:14)
But it’s definitely a—I would say it’s a truism—that there’s a strong connection between the metropolitan areas that have less strict zoning around the country. And over the past decade, we’ve really changed a lot in American local public policy to realize the harms of overly strict zoning. Until the past decade or so, it was just sort of assumed that strict zoning was a good thing. So now that we recognize the harms of it, we see that the places like St. Louis—and to a lesser extent, Kansas City—that have more fragmentation. St. Louis by any measure nationally has extreme fragmentation, meaning a whole lot of local governments, be they cities or school districts or fire districts or streetlight districts. I mean, we can really get into the obscure ones here in Missouri, but the more you have of that, the less strict zoning you’re going to have. And then that results in lower housing prices.

Susan Pendergrass (02:00)
You—

David Stokes (02:10)
What is the good that comes from that in the end? I think there’s lots of goods that come from it and some harms too. But the real good—the point of this paper, and the good for somebody who doesn’t care about public policy or libertarian thoughts or anything and just wants to be able to buy a nice house at an affordable price—is: the less strict zoning you have, the more fragmentation you have, the more you see that in lower housing costs.

Susan Pendergrass (02:35)
Yeah, and if you were starting a business too and one municipality, let’s say Clayton, has really high restrictions on what you can build, where you can build a health office and be—I don’t know if they do or don’t—but then you could just simply go next door to the next place and pick a different place that has fewer restrictions.

David Stokes (02:52)
You can, and that does happen. One of the ways they’ve solved that dilemma in St. Louis County especially is they do a lot more code enforcement and permitting at the county level than at the municipal level. Because nobody wants to have to get—if I’m going to be a plumber—nobody wants to have a plumbing license in 88 different cities. So they do that at the county level. You get your county license and it’s good throughout all of St. Louis County. Now, there are good aspects of that—mostly that you have to get one license instead of 88, which is an obvious good—but it’s also subject to abuse as well. It’s sort of the counterargument to the benefits of fragmentation in that it’s easier for special interest groups, like in this case, say the plumbers union, to capture licensing in St. Louis County if they only have to dominate one board as opposed to 88 boards. So there are two different ways to go—there’s the good and then the part of it that might not be quite as good.

Susan Pendergrass (03:59)
Yeah, so you make the point in this paper that while St. Louis does not necessarily have a housing affordability issue—or maybe even Missouri—it’s still worthwhile for folks who are working at the municipal level, like if you’re working as a newly elected Board of Aldermen or newly elected county board official, to educate yourself on what is and isn’t possible to make sure that you avoid what you just described as the pitfalls of over-regulating.

David Stokes (04:28)
Absolutely. A lot of this paper is about—in the not very scientific term—sort of low-hanging fruit. Just because zoning in Missouri may be less strict than in other states… there’s actually, I discovered in researching this paper—I’d always understood and known that zoning in Missouri and in St. Louis and Kansas City was less strict than in many other parts of the country—but then I discovered that there is actually an index out of the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania that ranks metropolitan areas by zoning strictness. And St. Louis is the least strict for zoning of any metropolitan area in the country in this ranking. And Kansas City is sort of in the middle. But then you see that Kansas City on the Missouri side is closer to St. Louis, and it’s the Kansas side that is more strict and puts them in the middle. So we really do have not-strict zoning.

Susan Pendergrass (05:05)
That’s hilarious.

David Stokes (05:24)
And that’s a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t mean that cities shouldn’t make some of these reforms that are coming nationwide that would still benefit Missouri, such as abolishing minimum parking requirements, allowing smaller lot sizes, allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their own property. It’s a great reform focus—from the Show Me Institute’s perspective—because these are changes that can be made that enhance people’s own property rights and what they can do with their own property, while at the same time giving people more choice. And in the long run, if you do more of these, you’ll help keep housing prices down even more for people. And in a good way—you’re not doing this through mandates or rules; you’re just saying we’re going to allow people to build even more. And I’m not against every limit on every property thing ever. There are some that are reasonable—particularly in Missouri we have floodplain limits on where you build that are very reasonable in many cases—but there’s still a lot of good stuff we can do.

Susan Pendergrass (06:33)
Yeah, I saw recently last week that in the upcoming election cycle, housing affordability is a top issue for folks. This is really bubbling up the list of priorities because it’s gotten so expensive and, you know, I keep reading about why people can’t afford to move, and they can’t afford to sell their home, or they can’t afford to buy a home. And certainly some markets—like you mentioned in the paper, like Portland—and you mentioned this briefly: Portland’s got a brown zone and a green zone, and you can’t build in the green zone. You have to stay in the brown zone, and it makes it very prohibitively expensive to build new housing stock in Portland, and the prices have gone up dramatically. We do not yet have that problem in St. Louis, but I know that it’s on a lot of people’s minds and certainly, statewide, we still have some concerns about having enough affordable housing for everybody. I do think it’s important to make sure that we don’t let regulation creep happen so that we find ourselves raising our prices artificially.

David Stokes (07:36)
And you see this in disputes in our exurban areas now in, say, St. Charles and Jefferson County—surrounding counties of St. Louis—and on the Kansas City side as well. Last year, for example, in St. Charles County, a big new subdivision was rejected in a wooded part of the county—I think it was near Weldon Spring. They’re also allowing some, but—

Susan Pendergrass (07:56)
Was it Weldon Spring, or what was that?

David Stokes (08:02)
And that’s the dilemma that people face: as places like St. Charles and Jefferson County grow and get more full, there’s going to be inevitable pressure from the people there now to stop new building. It’s called last-house syndrome: “Great, my new home here is great. Now don’t build any more because I got the house and it’s perfect.” You see that everywhere, and you understand the concerns. I try not to completely ignore the concerns of the folks, because they’re not always wrong—of course, we’ll go back to the floodplain issue—but you’ll have people worry. It’s the people there now: concerns about traffic and overbuilding and destruction of wooded areas and too dense and all those things. But you want people to realize that other people probably said the same thing before they built your house, and it was a good thing that people in most instances really said no to that, and it allowed that construction to continue. And I really want people to realize that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:34)
Yeah. That’s right. ⁓

David Stokes (09:00)
If we go—it’s not about any one subdivision, because look, there probably are certain instances in certain places where the new zoning is too dense, whatever it may be—it’s not that every rejection is always completely wrong. But if you start in Missouri making a pattern of this in the outer areas of Kansas City and St. Louis, where you start turning down a lot of these new subdivisions to preserve whatever it is that people moved out there for 20 years ago, then housing prices are going to increase in Missouri. They will increase substantially, and it won’t take that long if you really do stop the building. So that’s one of the takeaways from this paper: to the largest extent possible, we need to keep allowing the building of these new homes or apartments. And obviously a big part of the paper is that apartments should be generally allowed in more places too. That’s how we’re going to continue to have low housing costs, and that’s the benefit of it. It’s not about one subdivision in one space, but if it becomes a trend, it’s really going to be a problem—the trend being protecting it.

Susan Pendergrass (10:15)
Yeah, and the multifamily for sure. What are your findings around that? People don’t seem to want to have to look at apartment buildings. Is that right?

David Stokes (10:25)
They don’t—there’s just some natural rejection against it. And it’s frustrating to see. In some spots—I remember in the City of St. Louis; this is one where, when you lived in St. Louis, you lived near there—at the corner of Skinker and Delmar there was a proposal for a large apartment building right there, and it got a lot of opposition, and it has not moved forward. It was stopped. I hope it comes back because it’s a perfect lot for an apartment building. It’s just an empty lot—it was a chicken restaurant for many, many years and a popular one—but it’s been vacant forever. And it’s right near public transit. So it’s the perfect idea where you should be able to build there, and you shouldn’t have generous or extensive—

Susan Pendergrass (10:59)
An abandoned empty lot, right?

David Stokes (11:18)
—parking requirements for those buildings, because one of the projects—

Susan Pendergrass (11:21)
That’s what people were kind of freaking out about though, was the parking. Like, where are all these cars going to go? And there was one across the street and they had only put in like one parking space for every two units or something, and they figured that people would use public transport. Anyway, I remember the pushback on that. And it’s this NIMBYism–YIMBYism thing, right? It’s so hard to push people to YIMBYism—yes in my backyard—because of things they don’t… I don’t… These same people often talk a lot about housing affordability, so I don’t mean to overgeneralize, but there are some of the very same people who are so concerned about it who don’t want to look at apartment buildings.

David Stokes (11:50)
Right, don’t want to—and you understand. That’s a very liberal area that we’re talking about. If you were to define the politics of that area, you’re right: many of the residents of those communities in both the city and in University City right there would, in theory, in the big picture, probably agree, but then, “Oh, we don’t want this development here.” And it was a perfect place for a new apartment. Again, of all the St. Louis area, it’s one of the best areas served by public transit—

Susan Pendergrass (12:06)
Yes.

David Stokes (12:31)
—with buses and MetroLink and the WashU shuttles, because so many people who would be in those apartments would be WashU students. They’ve got that extensive shuttle system. But it was rejected, and I hope it comes back. And that’s just one of many, many examples of it.

Susan Pendergrass (12:31)
Yeah, yeah. What about the—what part of zoning and planning is this push in the City of St. Louis, anyway, to try to get people to move downtown? Is that something that’s coded in? I feel like they’re trying to get people to go downtown.

David Stokes (13:03)
They are. And thankfully, I don’t think zoning is preventing that. Of all the reasons people may or may not be choosing to move downtown—fear of crime and businesses leaving downtown, the jobs—as somebody who lived downtown in the late 1990s and early 2000s, to move down there when many of the jobs have left—fear—it’s a harder thing to convince. But I don’t think there’s— I don’t think it’s difficult or has ever been difficult for the loft developers of the ’90s to get permission to take an empty commercial building and turn it into lofts. There might have been a lot of issues they had to deal with, but zoning—I don’t believe—was one of them. Thankfully that’s a very good thing. But it’s one of the fun parts about this paper, right? We’re talking in the other papers and in the ones to come about the best ways to do public safety and public works and a lot of things. In most of these instances we all agree somebody has to do this service, and it’s just a question of: does the city provide it themselves? Do they contract with a neighboring municipality to do it—such as a small city contracting with a neighboring city to do police service? Should you let the private sector do it in a regulated manner, like utilities? But we can all agree it has to be done. Whereas I started this paper saying: despite the fact that it may be incredibly common, cities don’t actually need planning or zoning—life can exist without it. And that’s where the current HOA options come into play. And the history of HOAs in St. Louis, in the private place model, is such an interesting part of that. So there’s a little bit of the historic discussion of all of this in the paper too.

Susan Pendergrass (14:53)
So where do Missouri municipalities for the most part right now stand on things like—two questions I’m going to ask you—accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals or Airbnbs? Where do they stand on ADUs?

David Stokes (15:06)
Well, slowly but surely, we’re starting to permit ADUs. We haven’t had any sort of statewide, to my knowledge, overarching legislation. And that’s where the fact that we have low housing costs in Missouri matters. I don’t think we’re going to see the California situation that had to go statewide because none of the municipalities would agree to it. I don’t think we’ll see that here because there’s not the tremendous high-cost-of-housing crisis to push that. But slowly but surely, cities are starting to allow more ADUs, and that’s a very good thing. When you get out into rural areas—and in some places that don’t even have zoning in the first place—you can do any ADU you want to, or the zoning is so loose that of course you can build an apartment above your garage if you’d like to. Why are you even asking? But the cities have the rules against it.

Susan Pendergrass (15:52)
That’s where I live.

David Stokes (16:03)
Slowly but surely moving in the right direction there. And then it’s going in the opposite way with short-term rentals. Slowly but surely most cities are instituting short-term rental limitations. I’m not automatically opposed to that in every case. I get it: if you have a neighborhood and all of a sudden there’s a house where big parties are being thrown every weekend because they’re renting it out to different groups of people to throw parties, you’re going to hate that, and that’s going to impact the quality of your life. So I’ve been saying for a few years now that the short-term rental regulations I support would generally be things that don’t go to a blanket prohibition. I think that’s too far—and most cities aren’t doing that—but rather really focus on punishment of the property owner for repeated rule-breaking. One party is maybe one party, but if there’s a trend where you own the property and the people you’re renting to are consistently out of control, then the fines should be increased. I wouldn’t be opposed to them getting fairly steep up to a point too—that if it happens too often, you would lose your business license to operate that short-term rental. Because I do think that if you’re doing it a lot—if you’re routinely renting it out—you should be treated a little more like a hotel. We don’t want to give short-term rentals an advantage over the hotel-motel industry. You want that playing field to be as level as possible, especially for people who are renting their houses or condos or whatever out a lot. So then pull that license if it’s an abuse that’s happening consistently. But let’s try to—

Susan Pendergrass (17:55)
Well, I had that on my street.

David Stokes (17:56)
—go to a method through crackdown on rule-breaking, not blanket prohibitions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:00)
Yeah, we had that on my street in St. Louis, and it was a street of, I don’t know, three- or four-bedroom houses, and they somehow had eight bedrooms and a pool, which was very rare in my neighborhood. So they mostly just rented it out to college students and got called all the time—the police got brought in all the time for noise complaints. And there wasn’t really a good mechanism in place at the time to prevent it from happening. So I agree that there should be some limitations around them, but not to make it so strict that people can’t use it as intended. I mean, I stay in Airbnbs all the time. I like having them, but—

David Stokes (18:36)
Now, that police dilemma—that’s something in St. Louis and probably Kansas City, a few big cities, where the cops just have better things to do than break up parties. I mean, they’ve got violent crimes to address. That’s an issue: how are they going to take it seriously enough? In the average Missouri suburb or mid-sized cities, the police are going to take that a little more seriously, I would think. And a good comparison I like is in Lake of the Ozarks, where some cities have instituted strict rules against short-term rentals, while others, like Osage Beach—at least as of our research—hadn’t instituted anything and took a much more free-market approach: “We’re a tourist area; we want tourists to come here.” So it’ll be a good natural experiment over time to see how it affects property values, how growth is affected, as different comparable cities in the Lake of the Ozarks region choose different paths to move forward. So I definitely look forward to following that.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37)
Well, then I’ll know—another component to this paper is on planning. I think you just said a city doesn’t have to do planning if they don’t choose to, but are Missouri cities or municipalities planners? I mean, is that a planned thing, or are we more like anything goes?

David Stokes (19:56)
Most Missouri cities have plans. Right?

Susan Pendergrass (19:57)
I’ve been to New Town, by the way. I just want to say I have visited New Town, so—before you start talking.

David Stokes (20:03)
Well, that’s the architectural planning—how do we want to design it? Then there’s the legal, defined planning. And luckily, again, I really don’t think Missouri cities need to do any planning outside of general infrastructure planning. So I shouldn’t say they don’t need to do any planning—there’s the general infrastructure planning that pretty much everybody supports, meaning you should have an idea of how growth is going to go in your city and where you’re going to put sewers and sidewalks and streets. You want a general long-term plan for that, even if that plan is—as it should be—thoroughly adjustable and can be changed as growth happens naturally. But then you get into planning like we mentioned with Portland earlier—urban growth boundaries—where the planners really start to say, “You can live here; you cannot live here; you can build here; you cannot build here,” and it gets to be really extreme. We don’t really have that in Missouri. Thankfully, the plans that cities do adopt can be easily amended by any city council. They can be changed. When I worked at St. Louis County, we dealt with the county planning commission for the parts of the council district I worked in that were unincorporated, where the planning commission had a lot to say on that. So elected officials can and should be able to change that plan as they go. And then the biggest—let’s say you permitted a development that’s against your plan, but the elected officials want to do it anyway—I usually don’t have a problem with that. The fact that it’s inconsistent with your plan would generally be something that, if locals want to sue to stop the development, they would cite in the lawsuit—that it was inconsistent with your process and your plan—and then it would be determined by judges and the whole legal process. But planning in Missouri is something that, outside of basic infrastructure planning, cities shouldn’t really do. And to the extent that they do it, it’s easily amended and changed. And that’s a good thing.

Susan Pendergrass (21:55)
Mm-hmm. So the first two papers in your series were taxation, right?

David Stokes (22:20)
Taxation was number two, and the first one was just sort of the structure of municipal government in Missouri. It had a lot to do with city managers. And then the fragmentation issue was addressed as well in the first one that we discussed here, because that’s a part of that, obviously.

Susan Pendergrass (22:23)
Introductory. Okay. And taxation. And this is zoning and planning. Right. And then what’s on deck? What’s the next one?

David Stokes (22:41)
We don’t actually know yet what number four will be—germinating. Most of them are ready to go pretty quickly, so I think the next one will be released within the next two months—certainly this year. And I think it’s going to be on public works. But we have papers coming on public works, public safety, parks and recreation—which is one I’m really going to enjoy. You go to Forest Park and there’s all the great things in St. Louis’s Forest Park, and then you realize that many of the wonderful things there are actually done under contract with the private sector, either for-profit businesses like the Boathouse and the ice rink that pay the city to operate, or nonprofit businesses like the Muni that have been in the park for a long time. So it’s a great option to talk about all the different ways to provide parks and recreation services.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18)
Yeah.

David Stokes (23:35)
But those are at least three of the upcoming ones. And then there’ll be a concluding, summarize-it-all-up section as well.

Susan Pendergrass (23:41)
I look forward to hearing more about those, and thanks for coming on to talk about planning and zoning. It’s going to be a great series when it all gets put together. Thanks.

David Stokes (23:48)
Thank you very much, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A Free-Market Guide to Zoning with David Stokes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But urban decline isn’t unique to Missouri. People all over the United States are voting for suburbs and exurbs with their feet. Giving tax dollars to a few more bars and restaurants won’t change that.

In their paper, “Beyond Gentrification,” researchers Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox lay out the case that:

The spurt of urban core growth that occurred immediately after the housing bust was short lived. The preponderance of metropolitan growth has returned to the suburbs and exurbs, as had been the case at least since the late 1940s.

Kotkin and Cox make their case with census data: Suburbs are growing much faster than urban areas. Claims by urbanists such as Richard Florida that “creative class” millennials would come to cities and stay were wrong, as Florida himself admits. Unfortunately, cities like Kansas City and St. Louis spent billions of dollars exacerbating the problems of gentrification through subsidies, and continue to do so, chasing a myth.

If city leaders only understood that they are swimming against a nationwide current, they might be a bit more circumspect in their distribution of taxpayer dollars. But whether it’s misplaced faith in the promises of urban developers or the allure of campaign contributions from those same companies, something is compelling policymakers to invest taxpayer dollars in projects that benefit the developers at the expense of the communities where they are undertaken. Meanwhile, organizations such as the Downtown Council in Kansas City vacuum up tax dollars and spit out absurd population growth claims.

Kotkin and Cox point out what any close observer of Missouri’s urban politics already knows:

It seems clear that gentrification has not benefited the poor and may well have harmed them by spiking housing prices and, perhaps less obviously, restructuring urban economies in ways that hurt blue collar workers. Reporters and politicians might swoon over the latest “hip” urban manifestation, but the poverty rate is still two-thirds higher in urban cores than in the suburbs.

Beyond Gentrification then focuses on three cities—Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles—to flesh out what is happening in cities across the country. These things are happening in Kansas City and St. Louis, too. And no convention hotel, trolley, or new stadium will turn this around. We know, because other cities are pinning their hopes to developments like these, and it isn’t working. It won’t work for us, either.

City leaders across Missouri need to understand their cities’ competitive advantages and promote them. (The Show-Me Institute has already catalogued some for both Kansas City and St. Louis.) They need to deliver on infrastructure, public safety, and basic services efficiently and effectively. And they need to resist diverting tax dollars in pursuit of urban development that often does more harm than good to the surrounding communities.

The post Kansas City and St. Louis Battling National Trends appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is clear, though, is that the north–south MetroLink expansion isn’t the panacea advocates claim it is.

It isn’t a solution to automobile dependence. Saint Louis’s low population density and dispersed employment centers make the city a bad fit for light rail. Popular, cost-effective light rail systems require population densities upwards of 20,000 people per square mile, but Saint Louis City has fewer than 5,000 per square mile. And experience with existing MetroLink routes demonstrates our region’s preference for the car. Today, a lower percentage of Saint Louisans use transit than in 1990, before MetroLink even operated. Even more embarrassing, MetroLink has lower ridership today than it did in 2005, the year before the Shrewsbury line opened.

It isn’t a solution to poor transit service, either. Firstly, the proposed north-south line operates along a route already served by numerous bus routes. Secondly, the reason less than 4% of Saint Louisans commute on transit isn’t because they have trouble going from North City to downtown. It’s because the antiquated “hub and spoke” model Metro uses makes travelling from North City to employment centers in Central and West County a multi-transfer odyssey. If regional leaders truly want to improve mobility, they’d do better by advancing bus-rapid-transit (BRT) lines. BRT uses sleek, rail-like vehicles, well-appointed and generously-spaced stations, and exclusive rights-of-way to deliver service comparable to light rail. For just a fifth of the local cost of expanding MetroLink, the region could construct the five BRT lines in its long-range transportation plan.

Nor is MetroLink a cure for anemic urban development. Despite claims of rail advocates, the economic consensus is that light rail is not a catalyst for economic growth. Even putting aside the wildly inflated figures touted by rail advocates, we can see with our own two eyes that MetroLink has failed to spur development in Saint Louis. Far from rejuvenating depressed areas, MetroLink has even failed to prevent decline in areas that seemed to be on the rise in 1994 when the first lines opened, like Union Station and Laclede’s Landing. Nor did it ever bring the fantastically improbable golf course to East Saint Louis.

And MetroLink will not solve historic segregation or achieve the nebulous goal of “connectedness.” There simply is no evidence, save the endless, unfounded repetition of rail advocates, that light rail is a solution to economic, social, or racial segregation. (Just think: how might riding a train downtown, where so few jobs exist, make life better for an average North City resident?) And if “connectedness” means residents and visitors have the ability to travel from North or South County to downtown, then we’ve achieved it, as these areas are already connected by bus and bikes routes, streets, and sidewalks. No, these areas are not connected by rail—but if the argument is that we need rail because we don’t have rail, then advocates are running in circles.

Soon, the Mayor and rail proponents will stop begging the question and start begging for money. When they do, Saint Louisans should carefully consider what benefits could possibly justify a $2 billion MetroLink expansion, and whether or not it’s just an expensive “remedy” to treat problems for which we already have more sound solutions. 

The post North-South MetroLink Expansion: Snake Oil for Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Assuming other types of public transportation service (such as buses) are unaffected, the addition of a North–South MetroLink line could increase the speed and quantity of public transportation in the Saint Louis region.  Light rail is generally much faster than standard buses, so more rail can mean faster transit and more riders. However, light rail is not the only way to improve public transportation, and Saint Louis needs to consider light rail as just one option among many, perhaps not the most prudent one.

As we’ve discussed many times before, Saint Louis is a dispersed region, both in terms of where people work and where they live. Most residents live and work outside of Saint Louis City, and more people commute into Saint Louis County than Saint Louis City for work. The area in the region with the most employees and the highest payroll is not downtown, but West County. Nevertheless, the North–South MetroLink plan would route riders in and out of downtown Saint Louis, as if the year were 1904. In terms of population density, most of Saint Louis City (and nearly the entire planned route of North-South MetroLink) has less than 5,000 residents per square mile. Cost-effective light rail systems generally have population densities nearing 20,000 people per square mile around stops.

Saint Louis’s existing MetroLink lines already encounter ridership problems, despite serving areas with more employment and population than the proposed North-South line would. After spending more than $2 billion building the current system, a lower percentage of Saint Louisans use transit now than did in 1990. And, despite the hopes of transit activists, the situation is not getting any better. Both MetroLink and MetroBus ridership peaked in 2008, and even as better economic times have come to Saint Louis in the last few years, MetroLink ridership continues to stagnate. The result of this failure to draw more riders is that, accounting for all light rail costs since 1992, the MetroLink has cost Saint Louis nearly $10 for every passenger that has ever stepped on board, with a one-way fare of only $2.50. The bottom line is that the existing MetroLink has, despite the investment, failed to achieve meaningful progress toward promoting transit ridership or generating urban development. There is little reason to believe that an expansion will yield better results.

Fortunately for the region, adding more rail is not the only way to improve public transportation. Saint Louis could, for far less than a billion dollars, improve its poorly managed bus system or implement bus rapid transit, both options made much easier by the incredibly low traffic levels on Saint Louis’s highways and arterial roads.

However Saint Louis officials move forward, they would do best to consider public transportation plans that take the city as it is, and not how transit activists want it to be. If they don't the system will continue to operate as it does today: expansive yet inefficient, expensive yet resource-poor, overbuilt yet under-ridden. 

The post Light Rail a Losing Proposition for Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For instance, if we go back to 1990, Jackson County, which contains the Kansas City core, contained more than half of all employment in the Kansas City area’s most populous counties (Jackson, Johnson, Clay, and Wyandotte). Johnson County (KS) was a distant second, with about a quarter of the region’s employment. Johnson County could even have been considered a bedroom community, with more people commuting out of than commuting into the county.

Flash forward to 2013 and the situation had changed radically. While Jackson County still housed about the same number of workers as it did in 1990, Johnson County added nearly 120,000 jobs. More workers still commute from Johnson County to Jackson County than vice versa, but the gap narrowed significantly. Johnson County is also now a net importer of workers. Jackson County’s share of employment among Kansas City’s largest counties dropped from 52% to 44% in the period, while Johnson County’s share reached 36%.

Residents in the Kansas City region are more likely than ever to work in, and not just live in, the suburbs. Unfortunately, Kansas City officials still have a tendency to channel investment to the downtown area to a degree that is disproportionate to its actual economic importance and promote transportation plans (public and otherwise) that would be more appropriate to 1920 than to 2020. The region would be better off planning for the city it has rather than an outdated image of the past. 

The post Working in Kansas City: The Rise of Johnson County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The commission rightfully pointed out that for those who do not have access to a personal vehicle, the Saint Louis region can be difficult to navigate. Few jobs are easy to get to via a short transit trips, and car ownership can be costly. The commission’s recommendations, channeling Samuel Gompers, can mostly be described as “more.” The group specifically recommended a North-South MetroLink expansion.

Unfortunately, the commission’s report does not get at the reasons why public transportation is of so little use in Saint Louis, reasons that will make a billion-dollar plus MetroLink expansion more window dressing than beneficial reform.

To start, it is important to understand that fast and effective transit relies on high workplace and population density. But in Saint Louis, employment and population are spread out across a wide geographic area, much of which the existing transit system (Metro) does not serve. The majority of residents do not live or work in the city’s urban core and most commutes are suburb-to-suburb. While this situation describes many American cities, in Saint Louis the problem is particularly acute. Saint Louis’s may rank 17^th nationally in terms of total metro population, but it is only 31st largest when we look at population within 10 miles of city hall.  Despite the population dispersal, Saint Louis’s public transportation system is geared towards moving people into and around the city core, not between suburbs. It should come as no surprise that most people, even the economically disadvantaged, do not find the system useful.

What effect will a MetroLink expansion have on this situation? Saint Louis already has an extensive (and expensive) public transportation system. That system is most readily available in the areas the proposed MetroLink expansion would serve, as the map below shows:

If the goal is providing new access to employment centers outside of the city center, the plan has little value. The line would of course speed up travel for some (and convince some who don’t use transit to ride more often), but that will mean only marginally lower commute times for transit users who do not live and work near the MetroLink.

While its impact on employment access will be low, the cost of a MetroLink expansion will be high, likely more than a billion dollars. Worse yet, if history is any guide, the expansion will be funded with general sales taxes, which are known to be regressive. If regional mobility and opening up more of the region to the poor is what the commission cares about, more bus routes with better service and more destinations are orders of magnitude less expensive to create. Rail enthusiasts often accept this cost disparity because rail lines are part of a grand urban rebirth vision, with immediate mobility gains taking lower priority (or ignored altogether). That the commission did not attempt to search for new transit solutions more germane to the problems at hand is disappointing.

The post What the Ferguson Commission Gets Right and Wrong About Public Transportation in Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In terms of population distribution, only around 216,000 residents live less than five miles from city hall, whereas the average city of Kansas City’s metro population has close to 400,000 residents living within the first five miles. Cincinnati, the 27th largest city by total metro population, has more than double the total population density of Kansas City within the first two miles outside of city hall, with just over 316,000 residents living within five miles of its city hall.

Kansas City’s low population near its city hall results in low population density at the city core. Similar to Saint Louis, Kansas City’s average population density is lower within two miles of its city hall than it is slightly further away from downtown, as the map below demonstrates:

Also like Saint Louis, the story of Kansas City’s development is actually one of decreasing density. Aside from the area right around city hall, Kansas City’s core (within eight miles of city hall) lost both population and population density on average between 2000 to 2010. Steady population growth only accrued in the city center and in low-density areas further than eight miles from city hall.

Many individual areas close to downtown are doing well. However, much like Saint Louis, those gains are outweighed by losses in other areas equidistant from Kansas City’s downtown. Furthermore, they are decreasing in precisely the areas where residents most rely on transit.

These types of population movements are not exclusive to Kansas City. City governments (especially Kansas City) often spend hundreds of millions adding amenities and subsidizing development downtown. And while the most visible parts of the city show modest improvement, structural problems in the city’s competitiveness and broad economic forces continue to erode population in traditionally poor, working-class, and middle-class neighborhoods.

Whether city hall can alter these trends is debatable. What is not contested is that, despite some increased density right downtown, Kansas City has a comparatively low population density that shows little evidence of rapid, or for that matter any, increase. When it comes to providing public services that depend on high densities to function efficiently, like transit, if the city plans under the pretense that it is as dense and centralized as, say, Cincinnati, it may end up providing worse service to the vast majority of residents, even as it favors certain sections of the city.

The post Ditching City Hall: A Kansas City Development Story appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We have shown census tracts representing Saint Louis’ population distribution before. However, a different way to view the data is to consider metro population within certain distances from a central point (in this case city hall), allowing easier city-to-city comparisons. When we compare Saint Louis to cities of similar population, we observe that the city has abnormally low population density in its core. According to 2010 Census figures, Saint Louis had the 18th largest MSA population (2,812,896), but only the 31st largest population within 10 miles of city hall. For example, compared to Baltimore, with a slightly smaller population than Saint Louis (2,710,489 in 2010), Saint Louis has a larger metro area but much lower densities close to the city center.

In fact, the area within a mile of the Saint Louis city hall has a lower population density (5,020 per square mile) than most of the rest of the city. This is atypical among peer cities, which have their highest densities downtown (averaging 9,000 per square mile). The map below shows population density in Saint Louis in concentric one-mile rings radiating from city hall:

In addition, contrary to the narrative of a rebounding core, the city’s population density fell most in Saint Louis City from 2000 to 2010, as the map below demonstrates:

Population did increase in certain neighborhoods in the central corridor and in the heart of downtown Saint Louis. And the growth downtown is somewhat misleading because of the incredibly low base it grew from: in 2000, the population density less than one mile from the courthouse was a mere 3,870 persons per square mile. And in the city as a whole, notable neighborhood gains are more than made up for by loses in areas to the north, south, and east of those improving neighborhoods. Looking at the region as a whole, outside of the heart of downtown, population density only showed steady growth in areas further than 25 miles away from city hall.

Saint Louis’ low population density and abnormal population distribution has important implications for the provision of public services. For example, when the type of service provision relies on density (such as with transit), it may be better for the city to model its service on other cities with similar densities rather than ones with similar MSA population totals. In addition, the pretense that Saint Louis’ downtown is (or should be) the dense economic engine of the region that drives much of regional planning may be inappropriate and result in misaligned public services.

However, the abnormal situation of Saint Louis’ downtown is also a reason to hope. Other cities show that there is a market for downtown living, and perhaps if the officials focus on safety and service instead of big-bang projects, organic growth will take hold. Or maybe they’ll build a new football stadium instead.

The post Ditching City Hall: A Saint Louis Development Story appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why the marked differences in population growth between Missouri’s two major cities and their surrounding areas? Undoubtedly, there are a number of factors involved, like housing prices, amenities, and school quality. But what about taxes? Specifically, what about the 1 percent earnings tax that both cities impose on everyone who works there and on everyone who lives there even if they work someplace else? A new study by Howard Wall, commissioned by the Show-Me Institute, suggests that the earnings tax could be impeding the population growth of both cities.

In 1947 the Missouri Legislature authorized cities with populations of 70,000 or more to levy an earnings tax, capped at 1 percent. Only Saint Louis and Kansas City chose to impose this tax. But earnings taxes are known to have bad economic side effects. A study by Dr. Joseph Haslag of the University of Missouri–Columbia found that Saint Louis and Kansas City’s earnings taxes help explain the decline in personal income in those cities relative to the surrounding non-taxed metro areas during the first part of the 2000s. Wall, the director of the Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise and the Center for Economics and the Environment at Lindenwood University, tackles a different question: Does the imposition of earnings taxes help explain differences in population growth across cities?

Wall conducted his investigation using population growth rates for 185 cities (population 25,000 or more) over the period 2000 through 2010. Seventy-nine of the cities included in his study levy an earnings tax. Nineteen Missouri cities are included, of which only Saint Louis and Kansas City have an earnings tax.

After controlling for other factors that might explain differences in population growth, Wall finds that having an earnings tax has a statistically significant, negative effect on population growth. And the impact is not small: A 1 percentage-point increase in the earnings tax is associated with about a 4 percentage-point reduction in population growth over a decade.

What does that mean for Saint Louis and Kansas City? Based on his results, Wall suggests that the earnings tax in Saint Louis accounts for about half of the population decline experienced over the decade. For Kansas City, the earnings tax may have cut its population growth in half.

The effects of the earnings tax apparently do not stop at city borders. Wall finds that there are negative metro-wide effects emanating from the central city’s earnings tax. The population loss of Saint Louis City dwarfs the population increase in its ring cities, yielding a net reduction in the metropolitan population. The effect is similar for Kansas City. There are substantially fewer residents living in the metro area than there would have been were it not for Kansas City’s earnings tax. Employing an earnings tax has adverse effects on population growth for the taxing city that spill over into surrounding communities.

Even though the earnings tax produces such negative effects, how would cities replace the lost revenue if they were removed? One option is to reorder tax priorities. Wall notes that, on average, property taxes account for about 17 times as much in revenue as income taxes in cities across the country. In sharp contrast, Saint Louis and Kansas City rely more heavily on taxing income. In Saint Louis, the earnings tax revenue is more than twice that from property taxes; in Kansas City it is a little over 1.5 times as big.

The evidence in Wall’s study and in previous research lends credence to the view that shifting priorities from taxing income to taxing property may be the answer to reversing the negative economic effects of the earnings tax on Missouri’s major cities.

R. W. Hafer is the distinguished research professor of economics and finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and a research fellow at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Taxing a Population: Saint Louis and Kansas City’s Earnings Tax Draw People Away appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Contrary to the rhetoric, millennials are relatively immobile and have lower incomes than generations that preceded them. This most likely is an effect of the credit crunch and economic downturn, which has left many millennials without steady incomes to spend or credit to buy new housing.

Also contrary to rhetoric, millennials are not upending the dominance of the car in American travel. In 2000, 5.4 percent of workers ages 16-34 used public transportation for their commutes. In 2010, that number increased to 6.1 percent. That is an increase for sure, but a rather small one considering the expansion of transit systems in the 2000s and the wealth-reducing effects of the recession. The vast majority still drive. Most trends point to a “car light” preference among young people rather than a dramatic move to transit reliance.

When millennials do move, it appears to be for economic reasons, not whether a city is considered cool or has a streetcar. The list of top 20 millennial destinations (of which Kansas City is No. 14), contains some cities with lots of public transportation (Portland, Washington, D.C.), but also many cities that are derided for urban sprawl (Houston, Atlanta, etc.). While the transit correlation may be spurious, all of the cities popular with millennials are among the top performing metro areas in economic growth. The obvious conclusion is that millennials, like the generations that preceded them, chase economic opportunity, not transit. As a millennial who has moved to cities for jobs multiple times, my experience is that the number of sports teams or streetcar lines matters very little in the decision-making process.

If Kansas City planners really want to attract millennials, they will stop trying to make Kansas City cool and focus on creating more opportunity. The millennials will bring the cool with them. Instead, Kansas City officials use a millennial straw man as support for a fabulously wasteful streetcar and other large government projects. And if we believe an author at the Kansas City Star, the only problem is the city hasn’t approved streetcar expansion fast enough. When it comes to looking cool, Kansas City spares no expense. That is, of course, until those millennials buck the plan and want to rideshare with Lyft. Then it’s more important for the city to protect taxi companies than to look cool.

The post The Illusive Millennials: Kansas City’s Hunt For The Perfect City Dwellers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City feels Saint Louis’ pain. Like Saint Louis, Kansas City has undertaken a series of urban redevelopment plans of its own that, again, have focused on attracting the “hip” class to the city center, oftentimes with significant tax incentives. And as has become commonplace, the hip have come, but the jobs have not.

A report released […] by the Brookings Institution said that in 2010 just 16.9 percent of the area’s jobs were in the core, defined as within three miles of Kansas City’s downtown. That’s down from 20.5 percent in 2000.

Dragged down by the Great Recession, the raw number of jobs in the central core also shrank from 180,000 in 2000 to 140,000 in 2010, according to the study.

For areas between 3 and 10 miles from the city center, the number of jobs also dropped. But between 10 and 35 miles from the central business district? As in Saint Louis, the total number of jobs rose — and in Kansas City’s case, they rose significantly.

The chart below, created by the Kansas City Star, tells the decade-long tale.

Indeed, all of the regions in Kansas City were buffeted by the Great Recession. Notably, the 10- to 35-mile band was still shy of its intra-decade high as of 2010. But the downtown Kansas City job figures tell a pretty unambiguous tale: jobs have been falling in Kansas City’s central core. Like Saint Louis, population in downtown Kansas City rose over the decade, but . . . (emphasis mine)

. . . new residents hadn’t translated directly to job creation in the core by the time the Brookings information was compiled.

Since then, “we’re seeing some small businesses locate in the Crossroads and the like, but they don’t employ that many,” said Jeff Pinkerton, economist at the Mid-America Regional Council. “And we haven’t had any major employer move downtown recently.

“The fact is that jobs follow rooftops, and housing is growing in the suburbs.”

As has been explained before, “the hip crowd” does not typically have much in the way of jobs coattails. Unfortunately, it seems, Saint Louis and Kansas City know this all too well.

The post Part Five: The Smallness Of The Potentially ‘Hip’ Core appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a study published last week, the Brookings Institution found that Saint Louis’ “central core” — which Brookings defines as the 3-mile radius around a city’s central business district — lost almost 28,000 jobs between 2000 and 2010. That is the equivalent of almost one-in-six jobs disappearing from the downtown area in one decade. Areas just a bit further outside the central core fared similarly. Between 3 and 10 miles from the city center, the Saint Louis region lost almost 39,000 jobs.

The only area that saw growth in Saint Louis was the 10- to 35-mile ring, which gained a paltry 572 jobs. The math is not in hip developments’ favor, despite what some consultants might say.

But the math also makes another conclusion inevitable: that Saint Louis’ central core — the area where the “hip” development disproportionately predominates — lost employment market share to its outer-ring rival between 2000 and 2010. Today, only 13 percent of Saint Louis’ regional jobs are in the central core, about half the national average; meanwhile, more than 60 percent of the region’s jobs are between 10 and 35 miles away, compared to the national average of 43 percent. Saint Louis is now the fifth-most decentralized city in the country in terms of regional job distribution — behind only Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.

While the resident population in downtown Saint Louis has grown, the number of jobs in the 3-mile ring around Saint Louis’ central business district has actually fallen. And again, all the while, the overall population of Saint Louis city has declined. This does not sound like an urban development plan that is working. City centers were built to facilitate commerce. In Saint Louis, that commerce appears to be bleeding out into some of the furthermost stretches of its region.

But Saint Louis is not the only major Missouri city experiencing a job drain. Stay tuned.

The post Part Four: The Smallness Of The Potentially ‘Hip’ Core appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is odd to hear serious discussion of expanding MetroLink when the Metro system faces a $50 million shortfall and has been forced to cut back on existing services. Nevertheless, Metro is pressing ahead with a plan to expand services dramatically in the long term, including new light rail lines that would span Saint Louis city from north to south and reach all the way to Interstate 270 at four different points. Although the expansions would no doubt benefit some commuters, they would also prove exorbitantly expensive and likely attract few new riders. Rather than planning fanciful new light rail lines, Metro should implement more fiscally sound solutions to the area’s mass transit woes, such as expanded and improved bus service.

When Metro began planning the Cross-County MetroLink Extension in November 2001, it projected the cost at $550 million, with $43 million included for contingencies. However, according to a state auditor’s report in 2008, by that point the expansion had already cost $676.8 million, with total expenses expected to reach as high as $686 million. Although some of these extra costs were unique to the project — such as the extraordinary expense of building rail lines underground near Washington University — government projects are incessantly dogged by these kinds of unexpected expenses. It would be nearly miraculous if such a large undertaking as the proposed expansion were completed on budget.

Furthermore, the expanded lines will likely have lower rates of ridership than those serving the central city. In his groundbreaking 2005 book Sprawl, the historian Robert Bruegmann estimated that in order for public transportation to be used extensively, a city needs a population density of at least 10,000 people per square mile. Saint Louis city is well below that mark, with fewer than 6,000 people per square mile, but at least at this density, the MetroLink can operate at a manageable loss. Saint Louis County is barely a third as dense as Saint Louis city, at 1,950 people per square mile. With ridership levels roughly correlating with population density, we can expect to see far fewer passengers on the new lines than those serving the central city. This will force down the percentage of Metro’s operating expenses paid through fares, which already stands at a dismally low 25 percent, according to the auditor’s report, and will increase the system’s dependence on tax dollars.

In the heyday of urban Saint Louis in the 1920s through the early 1950s, the city boasted an impressive network of streetcars that ran all the way from downtown to Clayton and Washington University. The city was still very densely packed — almost 13,000 people per square mile at its height — so the streetcars provided an efficient means of getting around, and the system even turned a profit most years. However, as every level of government called for the construction of an increasing number of parkways and highways, the population of the city spread into the suburbs, and private automobiles and buses replaced the streetcar. It might be possible to make convincing counterfactual arguments that the political and business leaders of the past should have pursued a more balanced approach to transportation, instead of one that focused almost entirely on automobiles. Regardless of the virtue of those decisions, however, we must now live with the city and infrastructure that they left us, and no matter how much money is poured into new light rail lines, the population densities necessary to support them are not coming back.

The question then becomes: What is the best method of serving the transportation needs of area residents, given area dynamics as they already exist? Light rail suffers from high construction and maintenance expenses without the flexibility of automobiles or buses. Light rail is well-suited as a method of transport for traveling to large attractions such as Busch Stadium and the airport, but it will never be able to serve efficiently the multitude of smaller locations found throughout such a sprawling metropolitan area as Saint Louis. We would obtain a much greater benefit at a significantly lower cost if we instead focused our public transportation dollars on new, higher-speed bus lines, which are cheaper and far more adaptable than light rail. Although the expansion of light rail into every reach of suburbia may promise an end to traffic congestion and the revitalization of the city, it will ultimately entail spending huge amounts of money in order to transport far fewer additional passengers than are served by the lines already in existence.

John Payne is a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

The post Adding New MetroLink Lines Too Costly, Inefficient appeared first on Show-Me Institute.