I’ve argued for the removal of parking mandates, and the logic is straightforward: when cities require developers to build a fixed number of parking spaces, they raise costs, limit design flexibility, and often crowd out the very investment they say they want to encourage.

Kansas City has also taken steps to streamline development through its use of pre-approved housing plans—also something I have advocated. By offering a set of ready-to-use designs at no cost, Kansas City reduces one source of expense in the building process. For small builders and homeowners, eliminating the costs of repeatedly checking in with city staff can make the difference between a project moving forward or not.

These changes may not seem significant, but housing shortages are often the cumulative result of small policies. Pre-approved plans will not transform the market alone, but they can help at the margin by making it easier to build modest infill housing in neighborhoods that can benefit from it.

Kansas City’s pre-approved plan program is relatively limited, both in the number of designs offered and in its role within the city’s broader housing strategy. The city has not abandoned its interventionist framework that relies on subsidies, mandates, and planning requirements to shape outcomes.

Overland Park’s “Portfolio Homes” program, for example, is more ambitious. It pairs a larger number of pre-approved designs with zoning flexibility, fee reductions, and streamlined approvals. The emphasis there is not just on providing plans, but on reducing the regulatory barriers that make housing difficult to build in the first place.

Nevertheless, these changes are good news and suggest Kansas City’s leadership is beginning to absorb some important lessons. The city also stepped away from its cost-prohibitive energy codes.

Expanding housing supply will require not just targeted reforms, but a broader understanding of how regulation adds costs. City leaders still want to tinker with the market; they need to get out of the way altogether.

The post Kansas City Takes Steps Toward Better Housing Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Show-Me Institute analysts have written often about housing in these pages. Missouri doesn’t face the same affordability crisis as coastal markets, but that doesn’t mean policymakers are powerless to further reduce costs.

A recent executive order from President Trump aims to lower housing costs by reducing federal regulatory barriers. The order directs federal agencies to review environmental rules, permitting processes, and other regulations that can delay projects or raise costs.

This isn’t a new insight. A 2016 report from the Obama administration warned that regulatory barriers—especially zoning and land-use restrictions—have made it harder for housing markets to respond to growing demand.

The Trump order addresses part of that problem. But the most consequential barriers to new housing are found at the municipal level. Zoning determines where housing can be built—and how much. Minimum lot sizes, parking mandates, height limits, and single-family zoning can sharply restrict supply. When zoning allows only a small number of homes on large parcels of land, the cost of each unit inevitably rises.

Federal action also played a role in shaping these systems. Throughout the twentieth century, federal housing programs promoted local zoning and land-use regulation as tools for stabilizing property values and guiding development. Those policies encouraged the spread of zoning frameworks that remain common today.

The administration’s order stops short of addressing local land-use restrictions directly. Addressing federal rules may help at the margins, but without local reforms, many communities will continue to limit the amount of housing that can be built.

Supporters of strict zoning sometimes argue that land-use decisions should remain entirely local. Local authority is important, but it does not eliminate the broader consequences of housing shortages, and it should not be used in a way that violates individual property rights. When cities restrict construction, as Kansas City did with rigid energy code standards, the effects ripple across regions through higher rents, longer commutes, and constrained labor markets.

If policymakers in Kansas City, St. Louis, or anywhere else want to make housing more affordable, they should start with the rules that determine whether housing can be built at all.

The post Trump Executive Order Targets Some Housing Regulation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2019, I argued that Kansas City’s debate over “luxury” apartments missed a basic point: housing markets are connected. When higher-income households move into new buildings, they leave something behind. Those vacancies matter. New research now makes that case with concrete evidence.

A recent piece in The Atlantic detailed the study. Researchers studied a 43-story condominium tower in Honolulu and tracked what economists call “vacancy chains”—who moved into the new units and who moved into the homes they left. The results were measurable and citywide.

The building’s 512 units generated at least 557 vacancies elsewhere. On average, residents moving into the tower left homes that were 38 percent cheaper per square foot. One step further down the chain, homes were 44 percent cheaper than the new condos. Each new market-rate unit created roughly 1.6 vacancies elsewhere in the city.

This research builds on earlier national work, which found that new market-rate construction prompts substantial movement out of below-median-income neighborhoods. As households move up, older units filter down. The process is gradual but observable.

Kansas City is not Honolulu. Our housing stock is less geographically constrained, and our prices are lower. But the economics of supply do not change by region. When we restrict new multifamily construction—through zoning caps, parking mandates, or prolonged approval processes—we constrain mobility.

Mobility allows households to adjust to new jobs, schools, and changing family needs. Nationally, residential mobility has fallen sharply over the past half-century. Culture plays a role, but so does housing availability. Fewer vacancies mean fewer options.

Kansas City faces a quieter risk: complacency. Because our prices have not reached coastal extremes, it is easy to assume supply is sufficient. Yet rents and home prices have risen faster than incomes in recent years. If we make it harder to build—luxury or otherwise—we should expect fewer vacancies and higher prices over time.

Certainly, luxury housing construction should not be subsidized. Much of the local controversy over “luxury” projects arises when developers seek public incentives. But housing construction at all levels is welcome. Today’s Class A building becomes tomorrow’s middle-income housing. Aging is built into the market.

The real question is not who benefits from the first occupant of a new building. It is who benefits over the next decade.

If Kansas City wants more affordable options tomorrow, it needs more housing—of all kinds—today.

The post Luxury Housing Still Helps Lower-Income Renters appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On December 2, Jabal Companies and Calvary University filed a federal complaint alleging that the City of Belton discriminated in rejecting a proposed 252-unit affordable housing project on city-owned land. The plaintiffs argue that public opposition included racially coded language and that the city council’s decision violated the Fair Housing Act by relying on stereotypes about prospective tenants.

The project was modest in scale, encompassing just over eight acres near Westover Road and Bong Avenue, across from Calvary University and adjacent to a public golf course. Plans included a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, along with amenities such as a pool, playgrounds, and a community clubhouse. The site had remained undeveloped for decades.

Belton’s own community development staff had described the parcel as “an underutilized property not being used for its highest and best use.” The city was expected to contribute nearly seven acres, with Calvary selling an adjacent one-acre parcel. Jabal Companies had already secured low-income housing tax credits and begun engineering and design work.

Public opposition quickly emerged. During rezoning hearings, residents raised concerns about crime, school overcrowding, and declining property values—common themes in debates over subsidized housing. According to the lawsuit, many of these objections, and the council’s response to them, reflected coded language around race and socioeconomic status.

Whether the legal claims succeed remains uncertain. But from a policy standpoint, this case illustrates a broader challenge: what political scientist Francis Fukuyama termed a “vetocracy,” in which a small number of actors can block change, even when there is widespread recognition that change is necessary.

Across the country, similar dynamics play out in neighborhood meetings, zoning boards, and advisory councils. These forums are intended to enhance democratic participation. In practice, they often amplify the voices of politically engaged homeowners who oppose new housing near their properties.

In Belton, the developers spent months working with city officials and cleared several early procedural steps. Yet because no binding approvals had been secured, a single up-or-down vote by the city council effectively killed the project—despite prior staff support and what the plaintiffs contend was a complete and compliant application.

These decisions carry real consequences. Projects that are blocked or delayed leave more families searching for housing that doesn’t exist. Each additional layer of discretionary approval adds uncertainty and expense, discouraging developer investment.

The current system also distorts the market. Developers recognize that affordable housing proposals often face the most resistance and may instead pursue higher-end projects with fewer political risks—or leave the market altogether. Or, as is too often the case, developers seek public subsidies to offset the additional costs of delays and red tape. In contrast, cities such as Raleigh, North Carolina, which have restructured local review boards and relaxed zoning restrictions, have seen measurable increases in “missing middle” housing options such as duplexes and townhomes.

Community input remains essential, and many developers are willing to engage with residents. But Missouri’s approval process, which features duplicative reviews, ambiguous standards, and politicized hearings, is simply too burdensome.

The post Legal Challenge over Belton Housing Project Highlights Flawed Approval Process appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The first zoning example is in Des Peres, where the owners of a wellness and substance-abuse treatment center want to operate on the site of a recently closed hospital. Let’s repeat that. A healthcare-related business wants to open on the site of a former hospital. In a rational world, the City of Des Peres would do nothing more than say, “Welcome to Des Peres.” But, alas, nothing is ever easy. The Des Peres Board of Adjustment has decided that a wellness and treatment center is not a hospital and denied the application and permits to operate. Furthermore, city officials have said the company seeking the approval cannot appeal the decision, as it doesn’t own the property yet. The company can appeal once it finalizes the purchase of the property, but then it will be forced to make a very large investment in the site without having any idea if it will be allowed to use it after purchase. This is, of course, all completely insane.

I am not adamantly anti-zoning. Nobody here is trying to put a chemical factory into a neighborhood (or some similar hyperbolic example anti-growth NIMBYs usually make). This is a wellness and treatment center that will be located where a hospital was. The fact that the city can deny any part of this is absurd.

The other zoning example is nearby on the border of Chesterfield and Wildwood. Here, a small, tightly knit African-American community has lived for over a century, and the land has become very valuable over recent decades as the suburbs have expanded. The family that owns most of the land wants to sell its largely undeveloped property and build a lot of new, large homes there, which is exactly what has happened in the surrounding area for the past 40 years. Not so fast . . .

Among the many impediments the family is facing is the opposition of neighbors. Here is a great quote from the public hearing by an opponent of the zoning change to allow the redevelopment:

“This would certainly be a substantial change to the character of this entire area,” resident Chrissy Jurkiewicz told the city council at its Dec. 1 meeting. “The landscape would be forever altered.”

Come again? What does the speaker think happened 20 or so years ago when her own subdivision was built? Did her own house and all of her neighbors’ homes somehow not “forever alter the landscape?” Did Osage Indians roam the area in the early 1800s and see a bunch of empty houses in her neighborhood and wonder why nobody lived in them?

A while ago, the City of Chesterfield approved rezoning to redevelop the property, but the City of Wildwood (remember, it’s on the border) rejected the rezoning precisely because the Chesterfield change was “too permissive” and would “overdevelop” the land. The entire area has changed from farmland to subdivisions over the past 50 years, but a bunch of Wildwood officials who live in those new subdivisions get to tell this family that their sale would “overdevelop” the land. This is infuriating, and it’s denying this family the right to the prosperity it has earned.

Does this mean cities should have no say at all in these zoning changes and redevelopments? No. For instance, in the Chesterfield case, I think the nearby residents have legitimate concerns about water runoff if the higher land above them were to be developed. But that’s not a reason to deny the proposal; that simply means the cities should ensure a plan to address such possible harm is included. As for the eternal concerns about things such as increased traffic, cities (and counties) can use the increased taxes generated by the development to fund the infrastructure improvements it may necessitate. We used to allow people to build, and we used the expanded tax base to fund the improvements we needed. Now we either reject it or subsidize it. (Yes, I’m exaggerating, but the point stands.)

It’s great that we have more liberal city and county zoning rules in Missouri than the rest of the country. However, these examples show that there is additional room for improvement.

The post We Still Need Zoning Reform in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is a timely reminder for Kansas City officials: if the goal is to help renters and low-income residents, the most effective solution is to build more housing—not to add new layers of regulation.

Kansas City has wrestled with housing affordability and tenant protections for years. Activists often push for stricter rules on landlords. But these approaches treat symptoms, not causes. When developers can’t build efficiently due to restrictive zoning, long permitting delays, or uncertain rules, the supply crunch only worsens.

The Journal article shows what happens when supply catches up with demand: rents stabilize, landlords compete, and renters benefit. That’s the dynamic Kansas City needs more of.

Some argue regulation is necessary to prevent abuse. That is a fair point about some regulations in some circumstances. But policymakers must also weigh how each new rule might deter investment or slow construction. A better strategy is to remove barriers that prevent new housing from being built—especially infill development (building on vacant or underutilized land), duplexes, and apartments near transit.

If Kansas City is serious about affordability, it needs to stop chasing complex fixes and start enabling more housing.

The post Want Cheaper Housing? Create More Units, Not More Rules appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Researchers at the University of Denver found that parking mandates significantly limited multifamily housing. Removing them could increase housing output by about 12.5%—roughly 460 additional units per year in Denver. Each mandated space often adds tens of thousands of dollars in construction costs, inflating rents or home prices. Give developers flexibility, and more money goes into housing, not concrete.

The economics are straightforward. Requiring parking regardless of demand drives up costs, reduces flexibility, and wastes land. A one-size-fits-all rule—one space per unit, no matter the neighborhood—locks inefficiency into the system.

Missouri has already started down this road. St. Louis exempts its Central Business District from parking minimums, showing that alternatives work here too. Still, much of the state relies on rigid, outdated rules rooted in mid-20th-century, car-first planning. These no longer reflect how people live or commute.

What would change if Missouri relaxed parking mandates statewide? Development would get cheaper. Land would shift toward housing instead of empty lots. Supply would grow—and housing would also become more affordable. Cities would also reduce red tape, giving builders room to respond to actual demand.

Some concerns are valid: What about spillover parking? Transit deserts? Residents who rely on cars? Eliminating mandates isn’t a ban on parking—it simply lets developers decide. Local governments can still manage parking through pricing, permits, or optional caps, without locking in costly minimums.

Missouri cities should audit zoning codes, identify outdated requirements, and revise them accordingly, while monitoring neighborhood effects.

In St. Louis, Kansas City, and beyond, this change could be a cornerstone of affordable housing policy. It would cut regulatory burdens, shift spending toward housing, and allow the market to work.

Denver shows it can be done. Missouri should take the cue: Scrap parking minimums, unlock housing supply, and let developers meet real demand.

The post Missouri Should Scrap Parking Minimums to Reduce Housing Costs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Then, interest rates went up.

In a well-functioning market, the process should have reversed itself. The higher interest rates pushed the total price of purchasing a home back up, which surely lowered demand. At the same time, with house prices still far above the pre-pandemic level, builders should have been building like mad to bring homes to the market. These two forces should have resulted in a housing price correction. But this is not what happened. The higher interest rates have cooled demand, but prices remain high. Below is a chart I created using the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) system. It shows the trend in the median U.S. home price since February 2020, just before the pandemic. The average price of a home in the United States grew by roughly $120,000, or about 38 percent, from the first quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2022. It has declined modestly of late, but not much.

The bizarre thing is that builders haven’t responded to the higher prices. In fact, FRED data show new housing starts today are lower than before the pandemic. Meanwhile, many existing homeowners are “locked in” with low-rate mortgages and reluctant to move, further constraining supply. Even with tempered demand due to the combination of high prices and high interest rates, the lack of supply is keeping prices elevated.

But what are the builders doing? They should be falling all over themselves to bring new houses to the market. Think of it this way: If it was profitable to build homes in Q1-2020, it should have been even more profitable by Q3-2022, continuing until today.

A recent issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) brings together several groups of economists to weigh in on the housing market. I read the issue with great interest. One of the most striking findings is that in many major markets, the price elasticity of housing supply is very low, which means builders barely respond to rising prices with new construction. This is odd. Normally, suppliers should respond strongly to higher prices, which put more money in their pockets. In fact, the invisible hand of the free market depends on it.

The articles discuss several reasons builders have responded so weakly to higher prices. With respect to the recent situation specifically, one might initially blame it on rising construction costs, but the articles suggest this is not the primary explanation. Rather, they emphasize the role of regulations and zoning. Local land-use rules, approval processes, and other restrictions make it slow and costly to build, even when market prices suggest that building more housing should be profitable.

Another interesting finding from the research is that we don’t need to focus on building low-income housing to make housing affordable. If we build higher-end homes, people will move into them from less desirable homes, which will then become more affordable. The effect of building homes at the higher end of the market cascades down.

In short, we just need to get out of the way of the market.

So, the next time you hear complaints about high home prices or a shortage of low-income housing, remember the biggest obstacle is the rules we’ve chosen for ourselves. Deregulating housing construction, and thereby expanding supply, offers the clearest path to putting homeownership in reach for more Americans.

The post What’s Wrong with the Housing Market? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2001, a group of very libertarian-minded activists launched the Free-State Project, which encouraged thousands of libertarian believers in minimal government to move to New Hampshire. The overall success of the project has been limited, for a variety of reasons, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I’d like to see people in Missouri flatter the Granite State and try to do a similar thing here in one of our many cities.

What would such a limited-government, free-market oriented municipality look like in Missouri? To start with, it should be modeled on successful, small-government municipalities like Weston, Florida, and Sandy Springs, Georgia, which provide many local services by contracting with the private sector. It should not be based on the more radical, no-government “utopias” like Grafton, New Hampshire, where the removal of almost all government services led to an increase in bear attacks.

How many limited-government activists would it take to create a free city in Missouri? Not very many. There are hundreds of existing municipalities here with less than a hundred residents where, at most, a few dozen show up to vote in local elections. If, say, 50 true free-market believers moved into one city, what types of changes could they make to create that desired free city?

To start with, they could remove all municipal planning and zoning rules and replace them with private contracts managed by property-owner associations where allowed. Those property-owner associations could manage issues like short-term rentals, trash collection, and home-based businesses.

Municipalities, especially small ones, could focus on contracting with larger cities or counties to provide many services, like policing or building inspections. The new free city could contract with private companies to provide many other services, like trash collection and recreation management. It could similarly contract with nonprofits for some other services where profit opportunities are limited, such as animal shelters. If it had municipal utilities, it could privatize them into regulated, private utilities. The free city could reduce local code requirements, permitting rules, and occupational licensing to the largest extent possible. The important ones, like fire codes and elevator inspections, could be kept, while arbitrary or obsolete regulations, like television repairman licenses and pool-table taxes, could be thrown out.

None of these examples are farfetched. Every one of the above examples is already in place in a city somewhere in Missouri. Private utilities provide water, gas, and electricity to millions of Missourians. Cities contract with counties and other cities for services all over the state. In St. Louis County, every municipality (88 at last count) contracts with the county for at least some inspection services. Nonprofits provide important services to the public, like Pinnacles Youth Park near Columbia, and operate many animal-care facilities. Private businesses operate city-owned golf courses and manage municipal swimming pools throughout the state.

How would a free city fund these services? It would maximize private contracts between residents and companies and enact user fees to the largest extent possible. Low general sales and property taxes could fund the rest, along with revenues shared from other sources, like the gas tax. Importantly, such a city would avoid special deals such as tax abatements or tax-increment financing, for some businesses or people. Making the sales and property tax bases as wide as possible would allow the rates to be as low as possible for everyone. This free city would absolutely avoid the errors of a local income tax such as exist in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Overall, a Missouri free-city project would create a municipal government system not all that different from those in many rural, unincorporated parts of Missouri. It would just be in a more urban or suburban setting. It may seem unrealistic to expect hundreds—or even dozens—of people to make such a move based on political philosophy. But as a model of quality, low-tax local government, it is perfectly realistic. While no city may have enacted all of these ideas, each of them has been enacted with success somewhere. We just need the right number of people to put it together all at once.

I vote we try it somewhere near the Lake of the Ozarks.

The post The Free-City Project for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Three: Planning and Zoning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Three: Planning and Zoning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Why America Can’t Build Enough Housing with Edward L. Glaeser appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The story is similar to a piece published almost a year ago by Flatland, an online news source operated by Kansas City PBS that claims to be “committed to providing context” to the region’s challenges. The breathless piece was titled: “5 Companies Own 8,000 Kansas City Area Homes, Creating Intense Competition for Residents.” That claim comes from a 2023 study from the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), which states: “Nearly 14,000 single-family homes in the region are owned by 33 companies. Of these, five companies own nearly 8,000 homes.”

Okay. Is that a lot? How many single-family homes are there in the region? The MARC report doesn’t say. Flatland, despite its commitment to context, provides none. Neither does the Star.

I’ve reached out to MARC for these data, but while I’m waiting, I did some basic calculations. The Census estimates there are 969,534 housing units in the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area. Nationwide, about 74% of housing units are single-family residences. Data provided by the Greater Kansas City Regional Housing Partnership indicate there are 682,546 single-family homes in the region. If 14,000 are owned by institutional investors, that amounts to 2% of the market.

Are we being asked to believe that large firms and investors owning 2% of the housing market is “contributing to rising prices” or “creating intense competition?” Really?

The worst part is that, according to the Star, Missouri legislators are considering an effort to bar corporations from buying residential real estate.

While it may be ideologically satisfying to cast corporate landlords or institutional investors as the real enemy, it does nothing to actually solve the problem. The truth is that housing affordability is driven more by restrictive government regulations that impede the ability of the free market to meet demand. Zoning restrictions, burdensome regulations, neighborhood NIMBYism, and slow permitting and approval processes are the actual drivers of housing costs. Addressing those problems requires real policy work.

Using legislation to tinker with who is permitted to buy homes may feel like progress, but it is more likely to reinforce the problematic status quo in housing—too many rules and not enough houses.

The post Reporting on Housing Fails to Ask Basic Question appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Take Missouri’s 2018 decision to remove the 174-day minimum school year requirement. The goal was to give school districts greater flexibility in structuring their academic calendars. It worked. By 2023, nearly one third of Missouri districts had adopted four-day school weeks. The policy also had an unintended consequence—students now spend significantly less time in school.

While schools are still required to meet the minimum 1,044-hour requirement, Institute research shows that the average Missouri student is going to school 17 to 29 fewer hours per year than before. Over the course of an entire K–12 education, this equates to losing nearly a quarter of a school year.

This phenomenon is not unique to education policy. Unintended consequences abound in economic and social policies.

• Raising the Minimum Wage: The intention is to help low-income workers earn a living wage. In practice, however, higher labor costs often lead businesses to cut jobs, reduce hours, or replace workers with automation—hurting the very people the policy was meant to help.
• Housing and Zoning Regulations: Efforts to control urban development often result in reduced housing supply, making homes and apartments more expensive. In places with strict zoning laws, such as California and New York, these regulations have contributed to skyrocketing housing costs and homelessness crises.
• Corporate Tax Increases: Policymakers impose higher taxes on corporations to generate more government revenue, but companies respond by moving operations overseas, reducing investment, or passing costs onto consumers.

Public policies are often crafted with the best intentions, yet they reshape human behavior in unpredictable ways. When policymakers overlook economic incentives and fail to anticipate secondary effects, the result is often worse than the problem they set out to fix.

As Missouri’s school calendar experiment shows, flexibility in education policy may be valuable, but policymakers must exercise caution. Legislators should weigh not just the direct outcomes of a policy but also the unintended consequences that ripple through society.

The post Unintended Consequences: When Well-Meaning Policies Backfire appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, the city announced in June that it would not be moving forward with any of the six proposals that were submitted. These proposals would have offered downtown Kirkwood new retail storefronts, additional parking, and residential spaces.

So why would the city of Kirkwood reject all six proposals? Frustratingly, the city council hardly offered any reasoning other than general opposition to large developments in the downtown area. Parker Pence, a Kirkwood native who has written about the rejected proposals in his blog, the Kirkwood Gadfly, quotes a newly elected council member in a comment to one of his pieces:

One of the main promises of my campaign was a promise to stop large developments in our downtown and I am delighted to inform everyone that the current council voted unanimously against any new large developments and advised the city staff to tell all developers that we are not moving forward with any proposals for those parking lots.

These lots are zoned in the Central Business District, which, according to the Kirkwood Municipal Code “seeks to encourage mixed-use development with commercial services, retail facilities, and residential uses that complement each other and attract customers from outside the district.” This type of blanket opposition to “any new large developments,” is the opposite of productive for this area.

Pence investigates how much money Kirkwood stands to lose by rejecting these proposals. He notes that Clay|Adams estimates that the city forfeits nearly $90,000 in additional sales tax revenue and $145,000 in property tax revenue by turning down its proposal. Developer assessments should be taken with a grain of salt, but this still provides a ballpark idea.

Furthermore, proposals that include apartments, such as the Clay|Adams proposal, could even boost housing affordability by providing higher-density housing. For many, apartments are likely to be more affordable than the median half million-dollar single-family home found in Kirkwood.

It is disappointing to see Kirkwood pass on such an opportunity with its vague opposition to large developments. I hope that in the future, Kirkwood and other cities will objectively and transparently evaluate the economic growth and community benefits these types of developments could bring.

The post Kirkwood Rejects Development Proposals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Single-room occupancy units, otherwise known as SROs, are small, furnished rooms that are rented out. SROs are definitely not five-star hotels or luxury apartments, but they do provide the homeless with a roof over their head, a bed, and a hot shower until they can afford a better living situation. St. Louis, and many other municipalities, severely restricts the construction of SROs. On the other hand, some cities such as St. John entirely prohibit the construction of such facilities.

An alternative to SROs is building more multifamily dwellings. By increasing the supply of multifamily dwellings, the price of these housing units will decrease, making housing more affordable for the homeless (and anyone else interested in these units) and providing them with an alternative to SROs or a homeless encampment. Unfortunately, cites such as Sunset Hills have shot down efforts to change the zoning code to allow for the development of more multifamily dwellings. However, Kansas City has seen a growth in housing options.

You may ask, “How can the homeless afford SROs or multifamily dwelling units?” SROs or multifamily housing become affordable through employment and through housing and utility assistance programs such as Beyond Housing.

There is no silver bullet for solving homelessness, but making housing cheaper is a great place to start. By changing zoning regulations to allow for the construction of more SROs or multifamily dwellings, we may be able to provide housing for many who need it.

The post How to Help the Homeless with Housing Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2022, Maryville University planned to redevelop the Woods Mill Center into a complex featuring an e-sports arena, among other amenities. While the plan faced substantial public backlash, it was recommended to the board of alderman by the Town and Country Planning and Zoning Commission. However, Maryville ultimately withdrew the proposal in 2023. The school was hesitant to spend any more money on a plan that it felt was likely to be denied by the board.

Earlier this year, McBride Homes submitted applications for rezoning and preliminary site development plan approval to redevelop Woods Mill Center into an 80-home development. Unlike the Maryville proposal, McBride’s “Woods Mill Crossing” received significant public support, especially after the plan was revised to have slightly fewer homes in response to public concerns. Nonetheless, Town and Country’s Planning and Zoning Commission failed to recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary site development plan.

After discussion during multiple board of aldermen meetings, McBride withdrew its plan. According to reports, McBride wants to revise its plan to address some officials’ concerns and resubmit on July 19.

McBride’s biggest hurdle? Density. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that “the new neighborhood would have been the highest density residential development in the affluent west St. Louis County suburb.” Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission think increased density would hurt the character of the city. But should increasing density in Town and Country really be met with such consternation?

Increases in housing density are shown to have various positive impacts. Higher-density housing can make providing services more efficient and improve housing affordability. For example, while the median home price in Town and Country is around $1 million, the homes in the proposed development would be priced between $600,000 and $700,000. In addition, there are environmental benefits to higher-density housing including decreased automobile usage and, of course, less land usage. On top of that, the Woods Mill Crossing proposal is to redevelop already developed land, meaning there won’t necessarily be a loss of green space, as is often the concern with new developments (see another of McBride’s developments in St. Charles).

McBride’s proposal has the potential to make smart use of underutilized land, something that many residents want for the city of Town and Country. We will see if officials accept a revised proposal and the benefits of higher-density housing are realized in this community.

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