Listen to the Podcast or read the transcription below!

SAM: Thanks, Charlie. 

JASON: Thank you.

CHARLIE: Today we're here to talk about the priorities of Missouri REALTORS® and how they fared in the legislative session. We're going to talk about the legislative wins of Missouri REALTORS®, both big and small on offense and defense. In fact, a couple of those are legislation to remove restrictive covenants, which the General Assembly passed, and also clear title legislation to address vacancy issues in the City of St. Louis was also passed. We had two defensive wins, protecting the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and the initiative petition process that Missouri REALTORS® used so successfully, in 2010, to ban transfer taxes in the state of Missouri, and in 2016, to prohibit sales tax on services. And we'll also get a feel for this year's legislative session, which was distinct, to say the least. So Sam and Jason, would you start us off by talking about what were Missouri REALTORS®' priorities going into this legislative session?

SAM: There was a non-discrimination act, prohibition on eviction moratoriums, ensuring that low-income housing tax credits stay the way they are, and the ability to remove restrictive covenants from the recorded document. Then, of course, we got into the whole issue of initiative petition reform and the material that St. Louis REALTORS® brought to us. And I must confess, I was talking to some people, and they said, "What does this do?" And I said, "you know, I'm not sure. But people that know a lot more about the issues in the St. Louis area than I do say, ‘It's a good thing. It will help reduce vacancies,’ so pass it." And they believe me because they did.

CHARLIE: Well, Sam, that's fantastic. So that's six issues you had on the plan that came from the Missouri REALTORS® Advocacy Committee and the St. Louis REALTORS® Advocacy Committee. So let's go through those one-by-one. So MONA, the Missouri Non-Discrimination Act. And for our listeners, if you want to go back and learn more about MONA, we did an episode in March of 2021. So, Sam, this was the 24th year since MONA was filed?

SAM: Something like that. It simply provides the same protections that everyone else enjoys to people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In the current climate in the General Assembly of Missouri, it is a problematic issue even to discuss. I have had all sorts of people speaking very strongly that they don't understand why we're involved in this, and I explained to them that it's simply an issue of how we will continue to grow the state. If corporations look at Missouri and decide that our laws are unfriendly to some of their people, that's it. It does not even say, "Yeah, we agree with what these folks are doing." Some people have significant religious and social objections to it, but I'm not going to get into that. What it is, is that everyone is treated equally. That's it. No more, no less. Jason, do you want to do evictions?

JASON: Sure! Before the pandemic, I don't think any of us envisioned a situation where local governments would take it upon themselves to institute a moratorium on eviction proceedings. Obviously, with what we saw with the CDC at the federal level, and anecdotally, most notably in some of our more urban areas here in Missouri. There are localities and elected officials of local governments and judges, for that matter, who have taken it upon themselves to institute and enforce eviction moratoriums. And in fact, I believe the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis has nothing to do with the pandemic whatsoever. Still, he has his own eviction moratoriums that run towards the end of November through the beginning of January every year. And so we found several elected officials in the General Assembly who felt this was an inappropriate action of local governments and decided to file some bills. We had Chris Brown from Kansas City, Jim Murphy from St. Louis County, and Senator Andrew Kainic, also in St. Louis County. They each filed individual bills on that issue, specifically prohibiting local governments or courts from imposing or enforcing an eviction moratorium. None of those bills as a standalone made it to the governor's desk. Some of the provisions were amended to various bills throughout the session. And unfortunately, the one bill that had almost all of the REALTORS® priorities for this session, 1662, contained the eviction moratorium language in the Senate substitute. But it was stripped off during debate in the Senate and ultimately did not make it to the governor's desk.

CHARLIE: Alright, those are two issues we were trying to pass that we were unsuccessful in passing. But now we've got four priorities that we did find success in passing. So let's kick it over to Sam and Jason to talk about LIHTC and where we successfully protected the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.

SAM: LIHTC is always somewhat of a problem child because people don't understand it. It was designed by Republican President Ronald Reagan and Republican officeholder Jack Temp to take from the government the role of building and managing housing, which they don't do a very good job at. I'm sure most of the folks in the audience have heard of or even remember Pruitt Igo, an absolute disaster. And it simply helped developers to do small spots and projects around an area for low-income families, substantially a lot of elderly folks and low-income workers. It's been used throughout the state and in numerous projects in the St. Louis area that have proven very effective. The problem is everybody sees the money going out and doesn't see it, or they pretend not to see the value. Governor Greitens basically shut the program down. After Governor Parson came in, he opened up the program on a limited basis. The tax credits are limited to 70% of the federal credit. And they have done, I think, a remarkably good job in making those credits work. We have a choice. We can either you've got to put people someplace and people, some people don't have any place to go. So you've got to either have the government build it, which is a horrible idea. Or you have to have private developers build it, and they need some help to keep rent low. The argument has been while they build these things to last and yes, they do because they must keep them operating for 30 years. So you don't put in the cheapest components you can find because then you're going to be spending a whole lot of money on redoing them. There have always been bills to make it make the 70% statutory. We'd like to keep that an administrative thing, so we can do it rather rapidly if we find a grave need for more tax credits, rather than wait for the General Assembly to come in, argue for weeks, and perhaps do nothing. 

JENNIFER: We'll be right back. And now, I'd like to welcome our 2022 platinum sponsor, USA Mortgage. Here to tell us more is Katie Otto, Vice President of Realtor Relations.

KATIE: Thank you, Jennifer, at USA Mortgage. We absolutely love our partnership with St. Louis REALTORS®, we have so many of the same values, and we love supporting the REALTORS® community and their initiatives of fair housing and personal property rights. USA Mortgage is local. We're just down the street at Olive and 270 here in St. Louis. In April, we celebrated our 21st birthday! We're a completely employee-owned company, so I think that really makes us unique in our culture. And because we are local, we do everything in-house, so if any of the REALTORS® want to reach out to me at any time to learn more about the awesome resources we have available. We have a phenomenal marketing department where we do a lot of co-marketing, including print and digital. We have a full staff of graphic designers and a brand strategist. Part of our culture at USA Mortgage is that we really embrace marketing and technology, helping the REALTORS® and their clients get through the loan process from start to finish. We can do that entire process digitally. So make sure you reach out to your USA Mortgage loan officer for more information because we want to help you get your clients into the home of their dreams. That's what we do at USA Mortgage. We are the home of possibility.

JENNIFER: And now back to the show.

CHARLIE: So next up, we had a big win that crossed the finish line just in the last hours of the session, which is the ability to remove restrictive covenants, particularly racially restrictive covenants, from deeds. And this was actually a recommendation from the presidential advisory group, or PAG, that met last year at St. Louis REALTORS®. If you want to learn more about that, you can find an episode on that from January of this year. But Sam and Jason want to talk about the importance of this legislation. Man, you guys just did a fantastic job getting that over the finish line there, just under the wire.

JASON: With regard to restrictive covenants, we had Representative Craig Fishel from Springfield file the bill for us. And specifically, what the bill was intended to address were restrictive covenants that are placed in deeds, and this was predominantly prior to the 1950s. In fact, in 1948, the United States Supreme Court and a landmark case, Shelly vs. Kramer, struck down the covenants that would limit occupancy or ownership based on race, ethnicity, and or religious background. Craig filed the bill for us, a single-subject consent bill. Oddly enough, Craig is also the chairman of the House Consent Committee. It was unanimously approved by both judiciary in the House and then the Consent Committee in the House. It went over to the Senate, where it languished like so many other pieces of legislation for literally weeks upon weeks. We were very fortunate to have Senator Andrew Kainic handle the bill for us in the Senate. And in doing so, he incorporated several other very beneficial provisions related to the REALTORS® Association. These included the prohibition on homeowners associations, prohibiting the postage of for-sale signs, and limited local government's ability to regulate home-based businesses that are of no impact, meaning that you basically can't see the activity that's going on from the street. It's obviously a lawful, otherwise lawful business. And then obviously, the restrictive covenants as well, and then the clear title legislation brought to us by the St. Louis REALTORS®.

SAM: The home-based business, which by the way, passed the House 98-to-something, significantly upset the Missouri Municipal League. And I'm not sure why because I think it's pretty benign. Craig Fishel had been a city councilman, or whatever they call them in Springfield. So, he got calls from both the city manager of the city of Springfield and the mayor of the city of Springfield, fairly firmly asking him not to carry the bill forward. And other people got calls as well. We discussed it, and Greg decided to move forward with the bill. There was a lot of anxiety about what was going to happen. I made an absolute pest of myself with several members of the General Assembly, but that's my job. And finally, what was that, Jason? About two o'clock?

JASON: Oh yeah, it was. If it wasn't the last bill that was truly agreed to and finally passed by the legislature, it was the next to the last bill. We sat there with our fingers crossed, just hoping that the floor leader was going to bring the bill up because we knew we had the votes. It was just a matter of whether or not there was a willingness on the part of leadership and our bill sponsor at that point to actually up for a vote.

SAM: And we did, and it passed, at like 94. There were several Republicans who had been in city offices before that voted against it, I assume substantially because of the home-based business stuff. Almost all, I believe, of the Democrats voted against it, but that's their right. I'm not sure why they did. But then again, they have the authority to do that. It's got a lot of good stuff in it. I mean, the whole issue of restrictive covenants is, I think, a major win for the association. I think the material that the St. Louis Association brought, although I admit I don't understand it, but people that do that sort of thing for a lot of time for a lot of years, do and say it's good. And anything we can do to help the city, reduce the vacancies, and bring it back to what it used to be, I think is an absolute plus. And it provided a home for a lot of little things. There is now a provision that requires the marital status of the grantor to be listed on the recorded documents, and I assume that's so somebody doesn't get into a situation where dower rights are involved. It's a good bill, and I'm very proud of it. But restrictive covenants, I think, were a huge win for the association.

CHARLIE: Sam, I think you're exactly right about that. And St. Louis REALTORS® are very grateful for the work that you guys did and for getting the clear title legislation across the finish line. That was one that was filed for the first time last year and was the product of a clear title working group with a vacancy collaborative, so St. Louis REALTORS® was very happy to be able to assist in making that happen. It's critical that we reduce the vacant properties in the City of St. Louis. We know vacant properties tend to be a magnet for crime and other bad things. And in a time when we've got an inventory shortage, anything we can do to get these properties where they have clear title, where somebody can buy them from the land reutilization authority, or LRA, and get them back in private hands. That's good for realtors, that's good for neighborhoods, that's good for bankers, that's good for everybody. So that was just a fantastic win, and we're very appreciative of that. All right, I think the last one we have on our list is initiative petition reform. Tell us about that defensive way.

SAM: For the last several years, there have been members of the General Assembly who strongly believe that something needs to be done. The definition of something is fairly broad, about initiative petitions. I think what really got the Republican caucus was the passage of Medicaid expansion and, to a lesser degree, the right to work. But I think in some cases, they may be a little bit correct because we've got, we're getting a fairly fat constitution, simply because up until probably the puppy Melville, which was ten years ago, roughly. If something passed as a statutory initiative, then the General Assembly typically left it alone. They said, the people who spoke on we're not going to fiddle with it, let it happen. After puppy mill, that changed it. So now, if you're going to spend the money that it costs, the time, effort, and energy that it takes to do an initiative petition, you're going to amend the Constitution because that cannot be undone by the General Assembly, except by another vote of the people. That being said, some of the proposals were fairly far out there. I asked the National Association of REALTORS® to do a poll on the subject, and I wanted it to be a very accurate poll. I did not want it to be slanted in any way. And they did that, and they did a great job. It showed that while the General Assembly thinks initiative petition reform is needed, most of the public does not. It was striking to me that 45% of those polled believed this, of about an 800 sample, because they used phone and online interviews. Jeanne Evans and I were talking, she was a member of the General Assembly, a realtor, and now a lobbyist, and we were talking about the issue in the rotunda. And she looked at me, she said, Are you doing a poll? I said, "yeah, she is." I think I answered it last night. I didn't ask her what she said. 

45% of the people polled said they would be less likely to vote for a member of the General Assembly who supported the initiative petition reform, versus approximately 18%, who would be more likely to vote for them, and the rest simply don't care. We had a proposal that was significantly trimmed down. Initiative petition reform passed the House in two forms and came to the Senate. Senator Sandy Crawford, Chairman of Elections, worked on it. We worked with Senator Crawford, had a meeting of the Advocacy Committee, and then a subsequent vote by the Executive Committee to be neutral on not supporting or opposing the proposal. Their proposal was essentially that you had to have 60% of the vote if it were to raise taxes, do a new tax or fee, or cause the state to spend more than $10 million. The Senate discussed that for about five hours, I think, laid it over, and it wasn't seen again. It will be back. It's one of the Dean's priorities. We will try to work with the Dean and the other people over the interim and see if we can't come to a conclusion that is not totally destructive.

CHARLIE: And Missouri REALTORS® has had great success using the initiative petition process in 2010, banning transfer taxes in the state of Missouri, and in 2016, prohibiting sales tax on services. I mean, those are two significant victories for our members and for a lot of other professions that Missouri REALTORS® was able to secure via the native petition process.

SAM: Yeah, it's work for us.

JASON: And the proposal that was before the legislature in front of the Senate, actually that Sam and I worked to negotiate some of the language on would have preserved the REALTORS® ability. Had that been in place at that time to use the initiative petition process to gain voter approval for those various measures.

CHARLIE: Alright, of our six priorities you guys talked about, we had four wins, two that we'll be back fighting again next year, and another minor victory or two regarding HOAs. And for sale signs. But this session was distinct and 43 bills passed. That's the lowest number in modern history. 98% of the bills that were filed failed. The Senate ended the day early, which from what I hear, is the first time that's ever happened since we had that constitutionally mandated date where the session ends. And remarkably, we were still successful in getting some things passed. But, can you guys give us a little bit of flavor about what that legislature was like this year? So I've been in the capitol not nearly as long as Sam has, but it was certainly the most unique session I've ever witnessed. The animosity in the Senate, there were personal attacks from Senator to Senator, Senator to another senator's staff.

JASON: I mean, just things that previously would have never even been contemplated. Because of many animosities, there was relatively no action on the Senate's part for the majority of the first two-thirds of the legislative session. I recall going to spring break, and I think there was, I believe, one bill that had passed, and it was the Supplemental Appropriations Bill. And at that point, maybe three Senate bills had made it to the House, which is unfathomable. It was an exciting climate to work in because, at times, it felt as if you were speaking with one legislator, then suddenly you became another legislator's enemy. Even though Sam and I are just there to represent the interests of the REALTORS®, it was very divisive. And we had to do a lot, I think strategically, to try to put ourselves and our proposals in the best position possible, hoping there would be a thawing of relations at some point later in the session. And with the hope that we would be optimally positioned to land some provisions on the governor's desk hopefully. Now we'll let Sam go ahead and tell you how it really was.

SAM: Yeah, I've been doing this for a long time, and I've never seen it like this. It used to be, you know, the senators would get on the floor and fight each other and then go to the senator's office and perhaps have a chat or an adult beverage. There were a couple of times when I expected gunfire to erupt. I don't know how hard I expected it. But it was scary. I mean, it really was. I have never seen people with that much animosity and all about a map! The proposal was to have a seven-one map or a six-two map. We ended up with a six-two map. But yeah, it was not fun. It wasn't. You had to watch your step and didn't want to say anything poor to anyone. And by that, I mean, she didn't want to say hi to one senator while you're talking to another senator because they may be at that point "better enemies." And they took that stuff seriously. I have no idea what's going to happen next.

CHARLIE: That map Sam's referring to is the Congressional Redistricting Map, which was the center of this contention. And one of the things that I think was wild is that there are 34 senators in Missouri. We have a pretty small Democratic caucus that's not always the most relevant, although they indeed wield more power in the Senate with the filibuster. But, a lot of this Republican on Republican infighting where the Democrats just got to grab a piece of popcorn and watch the show, where you had the Senate leadership and what sometimes was called the Republican regulars vs. the Conservative caucus. That was the flashpoint on a lot of this. So I think that maybe wasn't what everybody might expect when we think about, you know, "fireworks in the Senate," so to speak.

SAM: No, it was. It was genuinely fascinating. I will say that the Senate leadership pulled a rabbit out of the hat on the last day of the session, which was the second of the last day of everybody else's session, by just discharging that bill from the committee and going directly to. It upset several people, but that's okay.

CHARLIE: Jason and Sam, thanks so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it.

SAM: Thank you, Charlie. It's been it's been fun. 

JASON: Thanks, Charlie.

CHARLIE: You guys did remarkable work this year. With the REALTORS® that joined you guys in the Capitol on REALTORS® days and with the fantastic efforts of your lobbying, we were able to get two significant victories in terms of legislation passed, two major victories in terms of legislation defeated, as well as a couple of smaller wins. Truly fantastic work! We appreciate it. Take care!