A month ago, I editorialized about the recent defeat of a proposed sales tax extension for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri. Led by a group called KC Tenants, the “no” vote secured a 58% majority. Their message was why subsidize venues for billionaire-owned, for-profit sports teams when Kansas Citians cannot find affordable housing? The message resonates on both sides of the state line. However, it did not resonate with the Kansas Legislature. In their recent special session, they passed a scaled-down tax cut bill at the request of the governor, as well as a package of incentives meant to lure the Chiefs and/or Royals to Kansas. Nothing was done about affordable housing.

The housing problem is complicated, which may explain why legislators avoid it. They missed a great opportunity to form a bipartisan, intersession task force to research the issue and develop recommendations for the 2025 session. Here are some ideas they could have considered.

First, the Legislature could take a hard look at passing state laws limiting the ability of municipalities — particularly wealthier suburbs — to block the construction of new housing through zoning codes. Such codes have their place when it comes to managing traffic, not overloading water lines and sewers, being mindful of water runoff, and so forth. Yet there is a long history of suburbs and homeowners associations abusing these in order to zone out reasonable attempts to create needed, multifamily housing or even detached houses on smaller lots. The recent dustup in Prairie Village over Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, is a case in point. Among other places, ADUs can be constructed in one’s backyard. Thus, the groundswell of opposition literally embodies NIMBY (not in my backyard) politics.

It may also be time to consider statewide building codes rather than a patchwork of local regulations which bottleneck the process of new construction with a torturous process of permit applications and slow-walked approvals. Permits to renovate existing housing must also be expedited, since new construction alone cannot keep up with current demand.

A task force could also consider our massive glut of commercial real estate. Working at home and shopping online did not end with the COVID pandemic, and the workforce itself is shrinking. Older, fully or partially empty commercial buildings with loads of deferred maintenance and no historic value could come down. With the right incentives and zoning changes, apartments, townhouses, or other housing could take up these vacated spaces.

While new home construction is welcome, incentives for those who maintain older homes and apartment buildings must be part of the solution, too. It is particularly important to make a distinction between the positive contributions of local small businesspersons who invest in “flipping” houses by rehabilitating them, on the one hand, and out-of-state interests who simply buy houses and apartment buildings, then sell them for more without making any improvements — or worse, rent them out as absentee slumlords.

Finally, a low-interest bridge loan program could help those who want to move but cannot due to the current high interest rates. This includes empty nesters who want to downsize but cannot afford to give up the low interest rates on their pre-2021 mortgages, as well as potential new homebuyers who need a little extra boost.

This list is only brainstorming. Other, perhaps better ideas could emerge once policymakers decide to take housing seriously. Unfortunately, that will not be today. For now, legislators have once again chosen sports team owners over the will of the voters.

— Michael Smith is a professor of political science at Emporia State University.