To measure affordability, researchers divided the median house price within a region by the median household income. Regions scoring under 3.0 are considered affordable. The regions examined don’t just include cities; researchers examined metropolitan statistical areas, often including the several counties surrounding an urban area. So the Kansas City and St. Louis regions include a number of more suburban municipalities as well.

Rochester, New York earned the best score out of the major housing markets, with a score of 2.5. St. Louis was tied for fourth most affordable with a score of 2.8. (This is up from St. Louis’s 2010 score of 2.6.) Kansas City fell within the top 20 with a score of 3.3 among major housing markets, but this too is an increase from previous years. In 1990 and 2015, Kansas City’s scores were 2.3 and 2.9., respectively.

Missouri’s cities have often benefitted from relatively low costs of living, driven largely by housing costs. This is due in part to a lack of a certain kind of land-use regulations that became prevalent in cities in places like California, Oregon and Washington. Missouri and its cities ought to be congratulated for avoiding these pitfalls.

As Kansas City and St. Louis seek to increase housing affordability, they ought to remember that their successes so far stem largely from avoiding overregulation. Many policies, despite being well intentioned, only increase costs by restricting availability.

For more information on housing affordability, read our 2016 study on Kansas City or our 2012 study on St. Louis.

The post Good News on Housing Affordability in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Imagine ordering the usual for dinner at your favorite restaurant. When the check arrives, you are surprised to find a $2 surcharge for “movie tickets.”

When you demand an explanation, the waiter says the local theaters were losing money. Moviegoers did not want to pay higher ticket prices, so to save the theaters, they decided to make restaurant patrons pay for their tickets.

If the waiter’s explanation seems outrageous, it might interest you to know a new ballot initiative uses the same logic to pay for transportation. The initiative, which the private group “Missourians for Safe Transportation and New Jobs” supports, proposes a 1 percent sales tax on all businesses for 10 years. Its purpose is to raise $8 billion for the cash-strapped Missouri Department of Transportation, or MoDOT, to use on transportation — mainly road — projects. MoDOT needs the cash because during the last decade its road construction costs have rapidly risen while gas tax revenues fell. In 2012, MoDOT’s expenditures outstripped its funding by more than $300 million. If something is not done, MoDOT might not have the funds to maintain, much less improve, more than 33,000 miles of state roads.

MoDOT might need money, but implementing a state sales tax is the wrong policy. The fundamental problem with MoDOT funding, which a sales tax would only exacerbate, is that people who use the roads are paying less than their fair share. With a sales tax, those who use public transportation, ride their bike to work or simply drive less end up subsidizing those who use roads more often. Aside from being fundamentally unfair, the policy incentivizes individuals to drive more and shop less, because road use is artificially cheap and shopping is artificially expensive. That behavior results in increased congestion and pollution.

The real solution to MoDOT’s funding problems is simple: Make drivers pay for the roads. Aside from the fairness issue, charging users for the amount of road used will discourage overuse of highways and create a sustainable funding structure for MoDOT. Faced with higher gas prices and tolls, people will drive less or opt for fuel-efficient vehicles. This reduces congestion, road degradation and pollution.

At 17 cents a gallon, Missouri has one of the lowest gas taxes in the country. This is not automatically a bad thing, but it is an issue when state road maintenance is underfunded. If Missouri simply raised its rate to adjust for the inflation since the tax was set in 1996, MoDOT calculated it would get additional revenues of more than $150 million per year.

Another option is to toll new or improved roads. Other states, such as Texas and Oklahoma, have low gas taxes, but they finance roads with toll revenue. Tolling Interstates 70 and 44, along with new bridges such as the proposed Washington, Mo., bridge over the Missouri River, could greatly defray project costs. Missouri could find financing for roads and bridges in the private sector by auctioning the right to build or operate those tollways.

Implementing a 1 percent sales tax would encourage congestion, incentivize pollution and unfairly burden those who drive less. MoDOT might need more funds, but a sales tax does more harm than good. Missouri should alter its constitution to create a sustainable transportation tax structure that makes economic sense and enshrines the concept of fairness.

Missouri makes the restaurant patron pay for his meal and the moviegoer pay for his theater ticket; it is time to make drivers pay for their roads.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Ballot Initiative Lets Motorists Off Hook appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There also was good news for some teachers in Dieckhaus’ 2011 legislation. The proposal called for the best teachers to be paid at least twice as much as the poorest-performing teachers. While this may seem like common sense (why not pay the best teachers more, as a reward for their effort?), it runs contrary to the current system of paying Missouri public school teachers.

The 2011 legislation did not pass. However, Dieckhaus is considering submitting tenure reform legislation again this year. The bill is not yet available, but I have listed two areas of reform that are needed to help improve student academic achievement in Missouri. Our priority should be educating  children, not rewarding those who happen to have been teaching for the longest period of time.

Let’s pay good teachers more: In Missouri, teachers are paid under what is known as a “teacher salary schedule.” Broadly, teachers who have more years of experience and higher levels of education are paid more (here is an example). At many school districts, these are the only components of teacher pay — teachers who teach difficult subjects, at-risk students, and teachers who have the best track record of helping students learn do not get a pay boost.

Teachers who do a poor job of teaching students can actually earn more than the good teachers if the poor teachers have a higher education level and/or more years of teaching experience.

Dieckhaus told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2011 that “It’s time we move away from paying people based on how long they’ve been teaching and what piece of paper they have hanging on the wall.” I certainly agree.

Paired with the issue of teacher compensation is the question of how to deal with teachers who have a track record of failing to teach students. Right now, those teachers can stay at a district for years, if not indefinitely.

Let’s help school districts get rid of bad teachers: State law awards teachers “indefinite contracts” if they have taught at the same school district for at least five years. These “permanent teachers” can be terminated, but only through a lengthy process. If a school district terminates a teacher (after going through all of the notification requirements specified by state law), that teacher can appeal the termination, triggering a court case. If the teacher wins in court, the school district must pay that teacher all of the compensation he or she would have received had he or she stayed at the district during the period of appeal.

I suppose that if you are trying to discourage teacher termination, the above makes sense. But, as a state, our concern should not be to hire and keep on as many teachers as possible. We should instead be concerned with how to provide quality education to students. Allowing failing teachers to continue to teach students does nothing to help students, and may be hurting them.

It is an uncomfortable truth, but one we must acknowledge. As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan put it, “We can no longer pretend that all teachers or all principals are from Lake Woebegone where everyone is above average.” Many academic studies have shown that teacher quality matters. Eric Hanushek, an education economist at Stanford University, has shown that good teachers can teach students three times as much as bad teachers — in a single year. Improving student academic achievement can be achieved in part by attracting more good teachers to the profession, and encouraging the bad teachers to leave the field.

I hope that the 2012 teacher tenure reform legislation can help enable school districts to have more autonomy when it comes to rewarding good teachers and terminating the worst teachers. When the full text of the bill becomes available, I will post my take on it here.

The post It Is Time To Reform Teacher Tenure In Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A online shout-out to former intern Phil for bringing this story to my attention.

The post You Are Now Free to Move About Franklin County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My first Show-Me Daily post, appropriately enough, deals with my hometown, Poplar Bluff, and its never-ending quest to banish that devil methamphetamine. From Poplar Bluff’s Daily American Republic:

A request by police chief Danny Whiteley to adopt an ordinance requiring the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine by prescription only was moved by the Poplar Bluff City Council to its Dec. 21 voting session.

Whiteley told council members Monday night the proposed ordinance is based on one enacted July 6 in Washington, Mo.

“This will give our city another tool to fight the ongoing battle against methamphetamine in Poplar Bluff and Butler County. We are all aware of the destructive nature it has on society, families and our children,” Whiteley said. “Adopting this ordinance would be a significant step in thwarting the individuals who manufacture methamphetamine in our area.”

Back in October, my co-blogger Chaya Kristen Chopra pointed out that a similar ban in Union, Mo., would force people with nasal problems to seek out expensive prescriptions for what is for most people a very common problem. I would add that given the expense — both in time and money — of a doctor’s visit, most people would simply be inclined to drive to a neighboring town to purchase pseudoephedrine. Obviously, this will create a huge inconvenience for anyone suffering from a routine cold.

But, more to the point, the ban will not succeed in its goal of reducing methamphetamine use. If someone wants to cook meth badly enough, they will also drive to the next town (and the next, and the next) to purchase enough pseudoephedrine to cook their batch. But suppose the law were extended to cover all of Missouri, or even the country. Would that stop people from getting meth? It seems unlikely. There are no coca or poppy fields in this country, yet the supplies of cocaine and heroin never seem to disappear. The more likely scenario would be for production to get pushed into Mexico, where methamphetamine could be mass produced. In fact, that is what has already happened, to a large degree.

Where there is demand, there will be a supply. Poplar Bluff’s efforts to control methamphetamine are Sisyphean, and have been ever since I can remember. The police department constantly claims victory is around the corner, but they seem no closer to eradicating it than when I was in high school and people did lines in the back of shop class. All this law will succeed in doing is making one of the most common and effective forms of health care available, pesudoephedrine, vastly more expensive for honest citizens.

The post Keep on Pushing That Boulder, Sisyphus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Commercial farms, in a lot of ways, are like Walmart (yeah, they got rid of the dash). A lot of people have a problem with Walmart, whether it be the low wages or the way they treat their employees, many people opt out and choose to shop at other, smaller, local places — like, say Schnucks. But, on the other hand, there is also that large portion of people who choose to shop at Walmart regardless of what they hear. The externality costs, to them, are outweighed by Walmart’s low prices.

Now, large commercial farms, like those described in the article, are a lot like Walmart. They are good at what they do, raising healthy animals to slaughter. And lots of them, too. Just like some people have a problem with the way Walmart treats its employees, many have a problem with how these farms treat the animals they raise. Yet, for many people, these costs are still offset by the cheaper price of meat. Going to Sam’s Club and buying your own weight in ground beef at a low price sounds very appealing to many people.

Now, I’m not saying these commercial farms are wrong or evil, or what-have-you. Heck, I’m an econ major. I’m always the unpopular guy in the argument, defending Walmart and outsourcing. Economics, after all, is the study of choices. People always have a choice. If you don’t agree with commercial farms, there are always smaller options, such as Williams Brothers. While the prices sometimes don’t match Wally-World, you know the cow or hog you are eating was raised locally and as humanely as possible.

It’s all about choices. You have to weigh the costs and benefits and decide which is best for you.

I think the difference between commercial farms and Walmart is fairly obvious: people vs. animals. Walmart employees have people to speak out for them, whether they be unions or lawyers, these people have a voice. With the animals being raised at these farms, it almost seems like people are waiting for some sort of Lorax-type character to appear and speak for the animals. On the other hand, I’m sure the commercial farm industry would love to find an animal like the Dish of the Day from Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe — a cow that not only wants to be eaten, but is vocal about which parts of his body taste the best, and which sauces go well with them.

Now, hopefully, I have plugged Williams Brothers enough so that I can score some free pulled pork sandwiches next time I stop by.

The post ‘I Speak for the Meats’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now, being away at college and working in the Clayton office of the Show-Me Institute every day, it’s not surprising that I can forget my roots. So, when checking John Combest today, I was surprised to see my li’l old hometown, Washington, Mo., smack on top of today’s news. Washington’s newpaper, The Washington Missourian, has gone green and officially supports Proposition C — the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative.

Though the article is, not surprisingly, lenient toward the proposition (it claims there is no downside, even though rates will initially rise by a small percentage), it is good to know that even the people in my small hometown are taking time to find the best solution to the energy situation. Honestly, I guess the move toward renewable energy is not too surprising, considering just how many people in WashMo can see the Labadie coal plant from their backyards.

The post WashMo Endorses Renewable Energy Initiative appeared first on Show-Me Institute.