Remarks delivered to Wichita City Council, May 6, 2008. Listen here.

Smoking ban supporters claim that they have the right to go to bowling alleys, bars, and other such places without having to breath secondhand smoke. That's false. No one has the right to be on someone else's property on their own terms. The property owner controls those terms. If the bar owner lets the band play too loud (or maybe not loud enough), or the restaurant is too dimly lit, or the floor of the steakhouse covered with discarded peanut shells, do we want to regulate these things too?

Some have compared a smoking section in a restaurant to a urinating section in a swimming pool. This comparison is ridiculous. You can't tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone peed in it. You can tell, however, upon entering a bar or restaurant if there is smoking going on.

Some make the argument that since we regulate businesses for health reasons already, why not regulate smoking? Without agreeing with the need for these regulations, the answer is this: First, these government regulations don't necessarily accomplish their goal. People still become ill from food, for example. But there is some merit here. Just by entering a restaurant and inspecting the dining room and the menu, you can't tell if the food is being stored at the proper temperature in the restaurant's refrigerators. But you can easily tell if there's smoking going on.

A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property. Markets -– that is, people freely making decision for themselves -– will let property owners know whether they want smoking or clean air.

The problem with a smoking ban written into law rather than reliance on markets is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm. That's why we have laws against theft and murder. But it's different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking. For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision.

This is not a middle-ground position, as there really isn't a middle ground here. Instead, this is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority -- no matter how lop-sided -- make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as someone said, will "tick off everybody." Who benefits from a law that does that?

Remarks delivered to the Wichita City Council, April 15, 2008. Audio is available here.

Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, I ask that you not vote to approve this request for a tax abatement, and that you cease this practice altogether. Alternatively, I ask that you adopt a practice that will help realize the costs of these actions.

It is no doubt difficult to compete with other states when they offer huge gifts to companies in order to lure them to their state. That's a problem that needs to be addressed at a different level of government.

The matter before you now, however, is not the same. This company is not threatening, to my knowledge, to leave our area if the tax abatement is not granted. It appears they would build this facility even if the tax abatement is not granted.

The harmful effect of this tax abatement is this: When someone escapes paying taxes, someone else has to make up the difference. While the tax abatement being considered at this moment is relatively small, many are large, and when companies appear before this body week after week asking for tax favors, it adds up.

This same effect applies to the other governments that are affected: Sedgwick County, the Wichita public school district, and the State of Kansas. When one person does not pay, someone else has to pay more.

These special tax favors expose an inconsistency: business and government leaders tell us all the time that we must "build up the tax base." Granting these tax favors destroys that base.

Now I don't blame this company for asking for this tax favor. When councils, commissions, and legislatures indicate their willingness to grant these, businesses respond. So this company, of which I am a shareholder, by the way, is simply responding rationally to its environment.

But some of these companies that are asking for tax favors have problems with consistency. The president of this company has testified in favor of higher taxes to pay for building a facility that his company will benefit from. Now his company asks for relief from paying the taxes he wants others to pay.

As long as this body is willing to grant tax abatements and other special tax favors, I propose this simple pledge: that when the City of Wichita allows a company to escape paying taxes, that it reduce city spending by the same amount. By following this simple rule, the City can be reminded of the cost of granting special tax favors, and the rest of us won't have to pay for them.

Following are remarks I delivered to the Wichita City Council, asking them to not approve tax increment financing (TIF) for a project in Wichita. The council approved the financing by a vote of six to one. Thank you to council member Paul Gray for his dissenting vote.

Mr. Mayor and members of the Wichita City Council, I ask you to not approve this TIF financing request, and to cease this practice in the future.

We need to allow markets to channel capital and investment to where people value it greatest. The profit and loss system provides that guidance.

By asking for the TIF financing, developers are sending us a signal that without the special tax favor, their project would not be economically feasible. They evidently have judged that it would not be profitable. They must feel that they will not be able to sell or rent at prices that will cover their costs of developing this project.

This means that proceeding with the project is investing capital somewhere other than its most-valued use. We know that because developers build other things in Wichita without receiving a subsidy, and they are able to earn a profit.

Now this project may satisfy the political goals of some people who believe that not enough development is happening in their politically-desired part of town. But these people are not spending their own money to accomplish this goal.

If these developers want to build something in this area, they need to figure out what will appeal to people, what will fill enough of a need, that the project is profitable on its own. That's how we will know that this investment is wise. They won't have to appear before governmental bodies seeking approval for their plans. They can just do it.

That's market entrepreneurship. It is the way that wealth is created. These developers, instead, are practicing political entrepreneurship, where they seek to please various governmental bodies, rather than satisfying consumers who express their desires through the mechanism of markets.

This leads to a corrosive environment where nearly every week someone appears before this council requesting special treatment, that favor paid for by the rest of the the community. This is harmful.

Supporters of TIF explain them in a way that makes it seem as though there is no cost involved in granting the subsidy. But there is. Why would these developers want them, and why would this council not grant them to everyone if there were no cost?

I propose a pledge that this council could take that will help our community become aware of the cost of these subsidies, and will also alleviate some of the inequity. When the City of Wichita grants special tax treatment, it must reduce its spending by the same amount. By following this simple rule, the City can be reminded of the cost of granting special tax favors, and the rest of us won't have to pay for them.

In a column in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle ("Smoking ban issue not one to negotiate"), columnist Mark McCormick quotes Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of Tobacco Free Wichita, as equating a smoking section in a restaurant with "a urinating section in a swimming pool."

This is a ridiculous comparison. A person can't tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it. But people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking.

Besides this, Mr. McCormick's article seeks to explain how markets aren't able to solve the smoking problem, and that there is no negotiating room, no middle ground. There must be a smoking ban, he concludes.

As way of argument, McCormick claims, I think, that restaurants prepare food in sanitary kitchens only because of government regulation, not because of markets. We see, however, that food is still being prepared in unsanitary kitchens, and food recalls, even in meat processing plants where government inspectors are present every day, still manage to happen. So government regulation itself is not a failsafe measure.

Markets -- that is, consumers -- do exert powerful forces on businesses. If a restaurant like McDonald's serves food that makes people ill, which do you think the restaurant management fears most: a government fine, or the negative publicity? Even small local restaurants live and die by word of mouth. Those that serve poor quality food or food that makes people ill will suffer losses, not as much from government regulation as from the workings of markets.

But I will grant that Mr. McCormick does have a small point here. Just by looking at food, you probably can't tell if it's going to make you ill to eat it. Someone's probably going to need to get sick before the word gets out. But you easily can tell if someone's smoking in the bar or restaurant you just entered. Or, if people are smoking but you can't detect it, I would image that the danger to health from breathing secondhand smoke is either nonexistent or very small.

The problem with a smoking ban written into law rather than reliance on markets, is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm, as is the case with laws against theft and murder. But it's different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking. For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision.

This is not a middle-ground position. It is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority -- no matter how lop-sided -- make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as Mr. Claycomb stated in another Wichita Eagle article, will "tick off everybody." Who benefits from a law that does that?

Other articles on this topic:

Property Rights Should Control Kansas Smoking Decisions
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/619

Testimony Opposing Kansas Smoking Ban
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/618

In the past few weeks a handful of companies in Wichita have asked to be exempted from paying property taxes on investments they have made. This week Wichita may decide to grant special tax treatment to a large development in downtown Wichita.

Is it wise for the City of Wichita to grant these special tax favors?

Because capital for investment is in short supply, it is important that our economy allocate it where it does the most good, where it is valued most. Markets do a very good job of this when they operate free of government meddling. When government intervenes, however, decisions about how to allocate investment capital will be made for all sorts of non-economic reasons.

Here in Wichita, for example, there are some who believe that downtown Wichita suffers from underinvestment when compared to some of the city's outlying areas. These people -- many of them holding political office or a quasi-governmental position -- seek to use government and its ability to tax (or not to tax) to achieve their goals. They have passed measures like the sales tax to fund the downtown Wichita arena. Downtown developers and businesses are given tax breaks, tax abatements, and they may obtain low-interest loans backed by the credit of the City of Wichita. A special tax district overlays downtown, with the proceeds being used to promote downtown's interest in receiving more governmental largesse. Downtown is also filled with special tax increment financing or TIF districts, where property tax revenues that would normally be used to fund the general operations of government are instead diverted to enhance the profitability of the developer's project.

All this favorable treatment means that projects that would not be feasible on their own merits are undertaken because they satisfy a political agenda. This results in misallocation of scare capital. It's also not fair to those who risk their own capital without receiving special government favor, meaning that we may have less investment overall in Wichita because of reluctance to compete with tax-favored investors.

This interventionism is also harmful in that it creates a special class of firms: those firms who have asked for and received government favor. They gain a competitive advantage over their direct competitors. As Karl Peterjohn of the Kansas Taxpayers Network has taught me, these firms also have a competitive advantage over other firms of all types in Wichita. That's because firms of all types that don't receive special tax favors have higher overhead, and therefore may not be able to compete with the tax-favored firms in paying attractive wages to obtain employees.

This interventionism is harmful again because it creates a class of political entrepreneurs rather than market entrepreneurs. Instead of seeking to create products and services that please customers, they seek to please politicians and bureaucrats. This behavior, called rent-seeking, produces nothing of value to the economy as a whole.

Furthermore, if what those who seek special tax treatment say is true, that is, that the projects they propose would not be feasible if they had to pay their taxes, we have a serious problem: we have taxes that are so high that they inhibit private investment.

Finally, when government reduces someone's tax and doesn't reduce its own spending, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference.

I propose a partial solution to this problem that will help our leaders become aware of the cost of this problem, and will also alleviate some of the inequity. When the City of Wichita (or any other taxing authority) grants special tax treatment, it must reduce its spending by the same amount. By following this simple rule, the City can be reminded of the cost of granting special tax favors, and the rest of us won't have to pay for them.

On Tuesday December 4, 2007, Sedgwick County hosted the formal groundbreaking ceremony for the downtown Wichita arena. While local government leaders and news media hailed the event as a transforming event in the history of Wichita, this writer does not share their enthusiasm.

The building of this arena is government interventionism at its worst. Stakeholders in the arena, such as Bob Hanson of the Greater Wichita Area Sports Commission, demonstrate the harm of rent-seeking, as they seek to obtain, at taxpayer expense, a large and expensive playhouse for their pleasure. Supporters dressed their arguments for the arena in the language of public goods and economic development. But Henry Hazlitt and others have explained that the money spent on the arena is money that wasn't spent somewhere else, with the attendant loss of jobs and economic activity somewhere else. (See my review of Economics in One Lesson at wichitaliberty.org/node/226, and my article "Prepare for Sales Tax-Induced Job Effects Now" at wichitaliberty.org/node/31, also printed in The Wichita Eagle.) As local governments consider an expensive plan for development of the surrounding area, that money -- just like the money collected through the sales tax -- is money that citizens won't be spending somewhere else of their own choosing.

Even the most basic economic arguments given for the arena were flawed. I found out that the estimated operating budget for the arena was defective, as officials were not aware of, or did not care to disclose, the proper government accounting standards the arena would be required to use. (See my articles "Arenas' Financial Statements Not Complete" at wichitaliberty.org/node/13 and "WSU Study on Downtown Wichita Arena Not Complete" at wichitaliberty.org/node/12.)

Government, too, is not qualified to build and own assets like this arena. Consider the status of the Kansas Coliseum, which having opened in 1978 is only 29 years old. Yet three years ago we were told that it required extensive renovation for continued use, that poor condition being the stick used to promote the downtown arena. (Century II, not much older, is often described in the same terms.) So can you spot the irony in Sedgwick County Commission Chairman Dave Unruh's statement at the groundbreaking? "I think probably most everyone here...will have a story they can tell their children and grandchildren on how they had a part in changing the profile and character of our community." If this new arena suffers the same fate as the Coliseum, one generation from now we'll be building another.

Further, government and its officials are not allowed to campaign for the arena as they did. Kansas Attorney General Opinion 93-125 states: "…public funds may not be used to promote or advocate the position of a governing body on a matter which is before the electorate." If you examine news media accounts of the debate before the election in November 2004, you will see that our local government officials and their quasi-governmental surrogates were working in full force for the passage of the arena and its tax, in direct violation of this regulation. See my article "Government Funds Promoting Downtown Wichita Arena" at wichitaliberty.org/node/342.

Finally, by building a government arena, we lose the opportunity to have a privately-owned arena. A private arena, you say? Wouldn't it have to be owned by greedy capitalists, only seeking to exploit our town just to earn a profit? But in the absence of government coercion or intervention, a business can earn a profit only by meeting customers' needs, and doing that efficiently. Governments and their bureaucrats do not have this powerful motivating factor. The absence of the computation of profit and loss means that we will never know whether the resources spent on the arena were spent wisely. See my article "A Public or Private Downtown Wichita Arena, Which is Desirable?" at wichitaliberty.org/node/284.

From John Todd.

City of Wichita Mayor and Council Members
455 N. Main
Wichita, Kansas 67203

Subject: Testimony in Opposition to Funding for the current New Communities Initiative Area (tract known as 67214 Target Area) or New Urban Renewal Target Area.

Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,

My name is John Todd. I am a Wichita area real estate broker and developer, and I am here to speak as a private citizen. I speak in opposition to the city’s $250,000 Funding proposal for the current New Communities Initiative Area, because I believe this program in reality, represents the resurrection of the failed government Urban Renewal housing programs of the 1960-70’s.

An article in The Wichita Eagle “Plan offers hope for city's troubled heart” (November 14, 2007) reports on the development of a plan named New Communities Initiative, its goal being the revitalizing of a depressed neighborhood in Wichita. The saddest thing in this article is the realization that there is consideration of a plan for large-scale government intervention to solve problems that are, to a large extent, caused by government itself.

The article laments low high school graduation rates and the low proficiency in math and reading. We should make sure we remember that almost all these children have gone to public schools, that is, schools owned and run by government. Plans to improve public schools almost always call for more spending. While education bureaucrats do not like to admit this, spending on government schools in Kansas has been increasing rapidly in recent years. The results of these huge spending increases are just being learned, but it is unlikely that it will produce the dramatic results that are needed.

There is a simple solution to improving schools that won't cost more than what is already spent, and should cost even less: school choice. In parts of our country where there is school choice through vouchers -- or better, through tax credits -- it is low-income parents who are most appreciative of the chance for their children to escape the terrible public schools. Further, there is persuasive evidence that when faced with viable competition, the public schools themselves improve.

In Kansas, however, there is little hope that meaningful school choice will be implemented soon. Although Winston Brooks, superintendent of Wichita schools, says he is open to competition and accountability, it is a false bravado. The political climate in Kansas is such that it is nearly impossible to get even a charter school application approved, much less any form of school choice with real teeth. (See "What's the Matter With Kansas," January 3, 2007 Wall Street Journal.) As the government schools consume increasing resources, parents find it even harder to pay taxes and private school tuition. So the government schools, responsible for graduates who can't read and calculate, extend their monopoly.

A continual problem in depressed areas of cities is low employment. Government again contributes to this problem by creating barriers to employment, most prominently through the minimum wage law. People have jobs because their employers value the work the employees perform more than what they pay them in wages and benefits. When government says you must pay a higher wage than what the potential employees can contribute through their labors, these low-productivity workers won't be hired. As the minimum wage rises, which it is on the federal level, it becomes even more difficult for the least productive workers to find jobs.

The reason that some young people find it difficult to get jobs is that they don't have the education, training, or experience to be very productive at a job. While no one likes to work for only, say $3 or $4 per hour, working for that wage is preferable to being unemployed when the minimum wage is $6 per hour. While working for $4 per hour the worker gains experience at a specific job, and experience at holding any job in general. Soon, as workers become more productive, their wages will rise. Sitting on the sidelines not working or wasting time in a government job-training program does the workers no good.

The article mentions the plight of children whose parents are in prison. More generally, this neighborhood is plagued by crime and gangs. While I do not know the proportion of these people that are in prison for crimes related to drugs, it most surely is high. Gangs exist almost solely because of the trade in illegal drugs. The government's prohibition of drugs, then, plays a huge role in the problem of crime.

The solution is to legalize drugs. Legalize all drugs, without exception. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of drug use, as drug abuse is a serious health problem for many people. The health problems that drug abuse causes might even increase after legalization. But the crime problem would cease to exist. No longer would people be in prison simply because they are drug addicts. With legalization, the price of drugs would rapidly decline to perhaps the cost of a pack of cigarettes or a few cocktails each day. No longer would drug addicts have to raise several hundred dollars per day through crime. No longer would gangs find selling drugs profitable, and they would likely disappear. Do the owners of liquor stores shoot each other over turf wars, and do their customers engage in crime each day to pay for their fix of cheap alcohol?

The alternative to legalization of drugs is more law enforcement aimed at decreasing the supply of illegal drugs. This government action, if successful, has this consequence: by reducing the supply of drugs, it increases their price, thereby making it even more lucrative to deal in illegal drugs.

Then there is the government's war on poverty. The economist Walter Williams recently wrote this:

Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

In the same article:

There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks? ... The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Williams and Thomas Sowell, who have studied the issue extensively, conclude that it is government anti-poverty programs that are the cause of a permanent underclass. These programs should be canceled.

We see that government -- through its poor schools, the raising of barriers to employment through minimum wage laws, the prohibition of drugs, and the culture of dependency and family disintegration supported by welfare -- has been a contributing factor, probably the most important factor, in the decline of this neighborhood. It is foolhardy to believe that more government programs can reverse the damage already done by past and present government programs. While I'm sure that the intent of the New Communities Initiative and its coordinating members is noble, the reality is that government intervention is dangerous to the future of Wichita and to this neighborhood.

A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking, as it is with all issues. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property.

Not everyone agrees with this simple truth. Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of the Tobacco Free Wichita coalition, asks in The Wichita Eagle why clean air is not a right when smoking is a right. The answer is that both clean air and smoking are rights that people may enjoy, as they wish, on their own property. When on the property of others, you may enjoy the rights that the property owner has decided on.

It's not like the supposed right to breathe clean air while dining or drinking on someone else's property is being violated surreptitiously. Most people can quickly sense upon entering a bar or restaurant whether people are smoking. If you do not want to be around cigarette smoke, all you have to do is leave. That's what I do. It is that simple. No government regulation is needed: just leave. If you wish, tell the manager or owner why you are leaving. That may persuade the owner of the property to make a decision in your favor.

Employees may make the same decision. There are plenty of smoke-free places for people to work if they don't want to be around smoke.

Some think that if they leave a restaurant or bar because it is smoky, then they have lost their "right" to be in that establishment. But no one has an absolute right to be on someone else's private property, much less to be on that property under conditions that they -- not the property owner -- dictate.

Property rights, then, are the way to solve disputes over smoking vs. clean air in a way that respects individual freedom and liberty. Under property rights, owners will decide to allow or prohibit smoking as they best see fit, to meet the needs of their current customers, or the customers they want to attract.

A property rights-based system is greatly preferable to government mandate. Without property rights, decisions are made for spurious reasons. For example, debate often includes statements such as "I'm a non-smoker and I think that …" or "I'm a smoker and …" These statements presuppose that the personal habits or preferences of the speaker make their argument persuasive.

Decision-making based on personal characteristics, preferences, or group-membership happens often in politics. Wichita City Council member Jim Skelton, evidently once a smoker and opposed to smoking bans, is now receptive to bans since he quit smoking. Mr. Skelton, I ask you for this courtesy: would you please publish a list of the things you now take pleasure in, so that if you decide to quit them in the future, I shall have time to prepare myself for their banning?

Lack of respect for property rights allows decisions to be made by people other than the owners of the property. In the case of a smoking ban, the decision can severely harm the value of property like bars or restaurants that caters to smokers. This matters little to smoking ban supporters like Wichita Vice Mayor Sharon Fearey. But we should not be surprised, as her record indicates she has little respect for private property.

By respecting property rights, we can have smoking and non-smoking establishments. Property owners will decide what is in their own and their customers' interests. Both groups, smokers and nonsmokers, can have what they want. With a government mandate, one group wins at the expense of the rights of many others.

On November 6, 2007, the Wichita City Council considered and approved a request by Learjet for industrial revenue bonds. One of the benefits of IRBs such as these is that the property purchased with the proceeds is usually exempt from property tax. In this case, the period of tax abatement is ten years.

In the minutes of the meeting, under the heading "Economic Vitality and Affordable Living" we can read: "Granting an ad valorem property tax exemption and sales tax exemption will encourage the business to create new job opportunities and stimulate economic growth for the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County."

Wow! Someone in city hall realizes that a reduction in taxes is good for business, and is reducing taxes in response to that revelation.

Now if all businesses and individuals could have lower taxes -- instead of only those who lobby government for special favor -- think how nice that would be. The economic benefit that this tax reduction will bring to Learjet could be felt across our entire city.

Listen to this article in audio by clicking here.

As Wichita considers the need for a new public library, a more central and fundamental question goes unconsidered: what is the role of the public library today, and do we really want one?

Consider the difference between public and private institutions. The public institution has to satisfy only a small group of people, namely the politicians that fund it. Yes, once in a while voters get to select the politicians, but issues such as a library are usually far down the list of important topics, notwithstanding a recent Wichita Eagle editorial promoting a public library as “one of the most important cultural institutions in a community. It's an investment in our future, a symbol of our values and aspirations.”

Private institutions, or businesses, on the other hand, are voted on every day by customers, who choose one over the other for their own personal reasons. This is the idea of “consumer sovereignty.”

Public institutions, open to all, appeal to few in the end. The problem caused by unwanted “customers” at the central library is well known, and must serve to decrease its usage by some large amount.

Reading the 2006 annual report of the library, it appears that 34% of the loans made at the central branch were art, music, and video. (Due to the way the library presented the figures, I couldn't determine this number for the branches.) Disregarding the presumably small number of artworks loaned (in comparison to the number of DVDs), the library is competing with services provided by the free market, namely video rental stores.

Even the loaning of books competes with bookstores. The library reports tells us that the value of the books the library circulated -- that is, what it would cost if each person who borrowed a book had bought the book instead -- is $29,068,288. I am tempted to ask what the City of Wichita has against local bookstore owners. But the reality is that the library competes rather poorly with bookstores. It has been many years since I relied on the library for timely books in my field, computers and software engineering. I found the shelves filled with titles referring to software and computers long out of date.

Today, if you want to borrow a recently-released book, especially a bestseller, you are likely to find yourself waiting in line behind dozens of borrowers, each with up to two weeks to use the book. This makes buying the book an attractive alternative, which is often what I do.

If you want to read a classic, good luck to you. I wanted to read Capitalism and Freedom, one of Time Magazine's 100 most important books published since World War II. But, the library didn't own it.

Could a privately-owned library be what Wichita needs? Could it do a better job? How would such a library work?

As it turns out, I can't find an example of a city with a private library. That alone doesn't mean a private library couldn't work. It is, I believe, more a symptom of our increasing reliance on government instead of private solutions.

There are many ways a private library could work. Patrons might be charged a small admission fee. Patrons might buy monthly or annual memberships for unlimited use. There might be a fee for checking out items, perhaps based on the newness or popularity of the item and the length of the loan period. Items might carry advertising. Meeting rooms and other services could carry rental fees.

The point is that the library would be directly accountable to its customers who use the library, instead of a governing board, the city council, and the “public,” whoever that is. The library, wishing to earn a profit for its owners, would have strong motivation to provide services that people are willing to actually pay for. It would be free to act on its own to raise capital and provide these services, instead of complaining about the lack of funding, which is the case with the current library, as with nearly all other cultural institutions, too.

Plans for new libraries call for coffee shops in the mode of Starbucks. Will the refreshments served be free? Of course not. So charging for some services is okay, it seems.

What about people who can't afford even the small fees a private library might charge? We are all already paying these fees now in the form of taxes. We are already paying for a library, both those who use it and those who don't. Spreading out the costs over everyone doesn't make it more affordable for the town as a whole. As Thomas Sowell recently wrote: “This was all before politicians gave us the idea that the things we could not afford individually we could somehow afford collectively through the magic of government.”

I wish that the Wichita Eagle editorial board would consider the alternative to government provision of things like libraries, entertainment facilities, airports, arts and culture, schools, and many other aspects of life. Relying on coercive government action over individual and voluntary group initiative makes us less free as a country and city.

Payday loans are expensive, a recent Wichita Eagle articles tells us. If someone needs to borrow money and has access to a loan from almost any other source, they should avoid payday lenders. But the reality is that there are people who have poor credit and are not able to obtain credit through the usual channels such as banks, credit unions, credit cards, and family and friends. These people may have but one source for loans: the maligned payday lenders.

Why can't these people borrow from traditional, "legitimate" lenders? The answer is that making small loans to people who have a history of credit problems is expensive. Wishing it weren't so and imposing government regulation won't change this fact.

Community activists call for existing banks and financial institutions to offer small loans at reasonable interest rates. One institution in Wichita, Communities United Credit Union, did just that. But earlier this year it failed after suffering losses from bad loans, providing more evidence that it is costly to offer small loans to credit-challenged customers.

If existing financial institutions are to make small loans to credit-challenged borrowers, they should do so only with the reasonable expectation of earning profits from these loans. To do otherwise is to abandon their responsibility to their investors, and, should I learn that my bank or a bank I had invested in was making risky loans without being compensated for the risk, I would withdraw my investment in that bank.

An irony is that existing government regulation may be a contributing factor as to why payday loans are so prevalent. In an Wichita Eagle article from earlier this year, we read “Some bankers are reluctant to offer them [small loans] because their industry is so tightly regulated ...” These regulations either prohibit or add to the cost of making small loans, bankers say.

Furthermore, usury laws, which limit the interest that banks and other traditional lenders may charge, are perhaps too restrictive. If traditional banks and credit unions could charge, say 25%, 40%, or even 50% for small loans, they might find it profitable to do so. An interest rate of 50%, while high, is certainly preferable to the several hundred percent rates that payday loan borrowers who roll over their loans pay.

Those who call for a limit on the interest rate that payday lenders can charge may very well drive these lenders out of business. I suspect that is their unstated goal. If they are successful, where will credit-challenged borrowers go for loans? As shown above, traditional lenders are not serving these borrowers.

A group named Sunflower Community Action says that payday lenders prey on poor people who have few financial options. I believe this group is misinformed on two points. First, the transaction between the borrower and lender is voluntary. Neither party is coerced, so there is no "preying." Second, it is true that poor people have few options. Eliminating payday loans removes one more option, an option that evidently some people use. To its credit, this group promotes financial education and literacy, which is the best weapon to fight the cycle of poverty that some find themselves stuck in.

The Wichita Eagle reports that Mayor Carl Brewer and City Manager George Kolb received free upgrades to business class seats on a recent AirTran flight. The two are indignant over being questioned about the propriety of accepting the gift. The Eagle described Kolb as "peeved." The Mayor was moved to write a letter to the Eagle describing its reporting as a "cheap shot" with its "lapse in basic journalistic standards" a risk to "harming reputations."

The AirTran station manager who granted the free upgrade was quoted as saying "Do I expect something from those people? No!"

Wichita civic and business leaders who also traveled on the flight were bothered by the incident, according to Eagle reporting.

Who's right in this story? The answer is: everyone!

The Eagle is right to report this story. It happened; therefore it's news.

The AirTran station manager was correct in giving the upgrades to the politicians. She clearly knows who butters her bread. I presume she was being discreet when she denied expecting something from those people -- something other than the up to $7 million annual subsidy provided by the City, Sedgwick County, and the State of Kansas, that is.

The Wichita civic and business leaders are right to be miffed, as they are the ones who buy a lot of AirTran tickets, and if anyone deserves to receive a free upgrade, it's them.

The two politicians are right to be peeved about the reporting of the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's because there is a conflict of interest, since the city and other local governments give up to $7 million of taxpayer money each year to AirTran. Any relations between the airline and these governments must be analyzed in the light of the subsidy. This is symptomatic of the problems that arise when government intervenes in areas properly left to markets.

When I receive the occasional free upgrade to first class, I say "Thank you, American Airlines!" and accept it gladly, with clean conscience, knowing that I have done nothing wrong. The fact that Mayor Carl Brewer and City Manager George Kolb weren't able to do this, coupled with how their acceptance of a business courtesy caused such a stir, tells us a great deal about the problems of government interventionism.

More Taxes For Wichitans
By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

Expanding gambling in Sedgwick County will lower taxes and provide “…tax relief…,” according to casino advocates’ campaign flyer. This claim is preposterous in light of the soaring property tax hikes and spending expansion plans being generated by local government in our community.

Historically it is also ridiculous when taxes in general and property taxes in particular rose following the passage of the state lottery in the 1980s. Gambling proponents campaign does raise some key questions for this community’s tax status and overall fiscal climate.

In 2006 Sedgwick County commissioners unanimously raised their mill levy 2.55 mills despite a public outcry and uproar opposing this hike. Two commissioners were then removed from office in the 2006 elections because of the county’s property tax hike. This mill levy increase was on top of soaring property tax appraisals that provide additional taxes for the county’s proposed $386.5 million budget a 5.8 percent hike.

The City of Wichita’s 2008 proposed budget is $495.62 million and this is an increase of over $100 million from the 2006’s $390.1 million. City spending is soaring with a two-year increase of 27 percent and an increase over last year’s revised budget of slightly less than 15 percent. There are a large number of new spending proposals pending at city hall too including $24.5 million for the county’s arena project and $290 million to remodel Century II in a few years.

The Wichita public schools are now proposing a two mill property tax hike (many other Wichita area public school districts are also seeking more property taxes too). This is on top of the $24.6 million increase in state tax funds for USD 259. USD 259 plans to hire 163 new employees for a school district with a gradually declining enrollment.

Despite having an opportunity to place this issue before voters August 7, none of the districts decided to let voters have a say in deciding the fate of school tax hikes. Once again, Wichita area voters were disenfranchised. I don't recall hearing any of the school board or Wichita municipal candidates running in last April’s election campaigning on a platform of raising property taxes in particular or backing tax hikes in general at our public forums.

Wichita public schools had massive spending growth over the last few years. The district’s first budget over $300 million was in 2000-01. The first $400 million budget was in 2005-06. The first official $1/2 billion school budget is this year (but if all tax funds were included this actually took place two years ago).

If additional tax funds from Washington and pension tax funds from Topeka are added these figures are much larger. The official USD 259 proposed budget is just under $516 million but if the “off budget” tax dollars are included this figure grows to $577 million.

If all tax funds are included and enrollment remains the same as last year, spending will be close to $13,000 per FTE pupil annually. If only the “official” spending figures are used the spending will be over $11,600 per FTE pupil annually in Wichita.

In our community government growth is on tax steroids while the private sector struggles with the same growing energy, health insurance, and utility costs that are the justifications being used to raise taxes. Big government in Wichita puts us at a competitive disadvantage compared to similar sized communities in our neighboring states where voters decide the fate of tax increases. This increases the risk and uncertainty for Wichita firms, while it limits economic growth in our community.

Recently two editorials appeared in The Wichita Eagle promoting government spending on the arts because it does wonderful things for the local economy. The writers are Rhonda Holman and Joan Cole, who is chairwoman of the Arts Council.

I read the study that these local writers relied on. The single greatest defect in this study is that it selectively ignores the secondary effects of government spending on the arts.

As an example, the writers in the Eagle promote the study's conclusion that the return on dollars spent on the arts is "a spectacular 7-to-1 that would even thrill Wall Street veterans." It hardly merits mention that there aren't legitimate investments that generate this type of return in any short timeframe.

So were do these fabulous returns come from? Here's a passage from the study that the Eagle writers relied on:

A theater company purchases a gallon of paint from the local hardware store for $20, generating the direct economic impact of the expenditure. The hardware store then uses a portion of the aforementioned $20 to pay the sales clerk’s salary; the sales clerk respends some of the money for groceries; the grocery store uses some of the money to pay its cashier; the cashier then spends some for the utility bill; and so on. The subsequent rounds of spending are the indirect economic impacts.

Thus, the initial expenditure by the theater company was followed by four additional rounds of spending (by the hardware store, sales clerk, grocery store, and the cashier). The effect of the theater company’s initial expenditure is the direct economic impact. The subsequent rounds of spending are all of the indirect impacts. The total impact is the sum of the direct and indirect impacts.

Relying on this reasoning illustrates the problem with the Eagle editorials: they ignore the secondary effects of economic action, except when it suits their case. The fabulous returns erroneously attributed to spending on the arts derive from this chain of spending starting at the hardware store. But what the authors of this study and the Eagle editorial writers must fail to see is that anyone who buys a gallon of paint for any reason sets off the same chain of economic activity. There is no difference -- except that a homeowner buying the paint is doing so voluntarily, while an arts organization using taxpayer-supplied money to buy the paint is using someone else's money.

The study also pumps up the return on government investment in the arts by noting all the other spending that arts patrons do on things like dinner before and desert after arts events. But if people kept their own money instead of being taxed to support the arts, they would spend this money on other things, and those things might include restaurant meals, too.

The fact that these editorials have been printed might lead me to suspect that government-supported arts organizations and Eagle editorial writers might feel a little guilty about using taxpayer funds. They should. To take money from one group of people by government coercion and give it to other people, especially when that purpose is to stage arts events, is wrong. It's even more so when the justification for doing this is so transparently incorrect.

Arts organizations need to survive on their own merits. They need to produce a product or service that satisfies their customers and patrons just as any other business must.

It may turn out that what people really want for arts and culture, as expressed by their own selections made freely, might be different from what government bureaucrats and commissions decide we should have. That freedom to choose, it seems to me, is something that our Wichita City Council, Arts Council, and Wichita Eagle editorial writers believe the public isn't informed or responsible enough to enjoy.

This history lesson from Karl Peterjohn of the Kansas Taxpayers Network tells the story of what might have been for downtown Wichita, and shows how close Wichita came to losing a company very important to our local economy, even if they're not located downtown.

In the 1960’s the urban renewal redevelopment project that became Century II used eminent domain and forced a medium sized, private company in the petroleum business out of their office building and corporate headquarters on the south side of W. Douglas just east of the river.

This business was in transition with the founder handing off control to a young relative who had been living and working out-of-state. This firm’s two major business assets were outside of Kansas so the firm’s geographic ties to Wichita were not strong either. At that time, I’ve been told that this business had gross sales around $250 million a year and possessed their own multi-story office building downtown. That sales figure is understated and would be a lot more if measured in the inflated 2007 dollars.

Local leaders in Wichita had decided that they knew what was best for downtown and using the urban renewal redevelopment program’s eminent domain powers, acquired a large chunk of downtown (as well as many other parcels across this community -- see Wichita Business Journal’s most recent list of biggest local taxpayers that still prominently includes the City of Wichita).

The medium sized petroleum company left Wichita after losing their building. This company relocated a couple of miles north of the Wichita city limits back then (they were eventually annexed back into the city many years later) but could have easily relocated elsewhere. Conversely, imagine what downtown Wichita would be like if this firm had remained there. You may have guessed that I’m referring to Koch Industries and their 1,800 local employees.

Thank you to The Wichita Eagle for printing this letter in today's newspaper.

An incumbent, a candidate endorsed by another incumbent, and a past president of the teachers union: these are three of the four endorsements by The Wichita Eagle for the Wichita Board of Education. These endorsements represent satisfaction with our schools' current condition. But what do we find when we look at our schools?

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only one-third of Kansas eighth-graders (Wichita figures are not separately available) are considered “proficient” in mathematics, reading, and writing.

A recent study of high school transcripts by the same organization found that students are taking more college-prep courses and receiving higher grades in these courses, yet math and reading test scores for these students are falling to as low as they've been since the early 1990s.

Closer to home for a newspaper, a recent study by the American Institutes for Research found that “over half the graduates of four-year colleges and three-quarters of the graduates of junior and community colleges could not be categorized as possessing these 'proficient' skills.” At what skills are they not proficient? Understanding newspaper editorials was one such skill.

Change is needed for the sake of our children. Three of the candidates the Eagle did not endorse -- Karl Peterjohn, John Stevens, and Cindy Duckett -- would, each in their own way, bring different perspectives to the Wichita Board of Education. That is something that would be truly good for Wichita schoolchildren.

Did you know that a study used to promote the economic development benefits of gambling in Wichita has casino workers paying for a large part of the social costs of gambling?

There is a document titled "Economic & Social Impact Anlaysis [sic] For A Proposed Casino & Hotel" created by GVA Marquette Advisors for the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and the Greater Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, dated April 2004. One presentation concludes that the average cost per pathological gambler is $13,586 per year. Quoting from the study in the section titled Social Impact VII-9:

Most studies conclude that nationally between 1.0 and 1.5 percent of adults are susceptible to becoming a pathological gambler. Applying this statistic to the 521,000 adults projected to live within 50 miles of Wichita in 2008, the community could eventually have between 5,200 and 7,800 pathological gamblers. At a cost of $13,586 in social costs for each, the annual burden on the community could range between $71 and $106 million.

If all we had to do was to pay that amount each year in money that would be one thing. But the components of the cost of pathological gamblers include, according to the same study, increased crime and family costs. That is, people are hurt, physically and emotionally, by pathological gamblers. Often the people harmed are those such as children who have no option to leave the gambler.

But this study makes the argument that the economic benefits of gambling will more than pay for this social misery: "While this community social burden could be significant, its quantified estimate is still surpassed by the positive economic impacts measured in this study."

How does the report make this conclusion? The largest components of the positive economic impacts are employee wages ($37 million), additional earnings in the county, and state casino revenue share, along with some minor elements. Together these total $142 million, which is, as the authors point out, larger than the projected costs shown above.

But this analysis is flawed. Casino employee wages can't be used to offset the social costs of pathological gamblers, as these employees probably want to spend their wages on other things!

Economic impact studies like this often assume that any economic activity the proposed development might create is due solely to its existence, and that these monies can be used to pay for whatever problems or costs the development causes.

Just ask the prospective casino employees where they want their wages to go: into their own pockets, or be used, as this study uses them, to pay for the social costs of gambling.

... it is our opinion that public funds may not be used to promote or advocate the position of a governing body on a matter which is before the electorate. However, this does not mean that public funds may not be expended to educate and inform the electorate.

That's the opinion of the Kansas Attorney General Robert Stephan from 1993. In this opinion, the Attorney General cited this court opinion:

It would be establishing a dangerous and untenable precedent to permit the government or any agency thereof, to use public funds to disseminate propaganda in favor of or against any issue or candidate. This may be done by totalitarian, dictatorial, or autocratic governments but it cannot be tolerated, directly or indirectly, in these democratic United States of America. This is true even if the position advocated is believed to be in the best interest of our country. To educate, inform, to advocate or promote voting on any issue may be undertaken, provided it is not to persuade nor to convey favoritism, partisanship, partiality, approval or disapproval . . . of any issue, worthy as it may be.

Now, look back at the actions of our elected government leaders in the months leading up to the November 2004 election.

Were they presenting educational material about the benefits of a new arena? Were they promoting an open and honest debate of a new arena's merits?

Or were they cheerleading and advocating for the arena, using their offices and government resources?

I submit that our local governments, our elected officials, and their quasi-governmental surrogates were working in full force for the passage of the arena and its tax.

That's not just my opinion. Others noticed it too.

An editorial by Phillip Brownlee, published in the Wichita Eagle on September 5, 2004, read in part: "If the plan is to pass, city and county elected officials -- supported by business leaders -- must continue their strong leadership and high-profile support for the arena."

After the election, another Wichita Eagle editorial by Rhonda Holman published on November 4, 2004 stated in part: "What made the difference this time, in addition to the effective marketing campaign and all those pennant yard signs, was the unified show of political will on the part of Wichita and Sedgwick County officials. Their willingness to declare the need for such a facility, then argue for raising taxes to meet that need, helped attract necessary support from the businesses that backed the campaign, and finally from voters asked to pay for the arena with a 30-month, 1- percent sales-tax increase."

The Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, led by its president Ed Wolverton, was a prominent booster for the arena. Do you know where this organization receives its funds? It is funded through property taxes and its contract with the City of Wichita. Other taxpayer funded institutions, such as the Greater Wichita Convention & Visitors Bureau, the Greater Wichita Area Sports Commission, the Hyatt Regency Wichita, and even the Kansas Turnpike Authority contributed money or in-kind resources to the pro-arena Vote Yea campaign, and most of these institutions campaigned for the arena, too.

In a television story about Wichita city manager George Kolb, the reporter said: "Some things Kolb says he filled the council in on were ... helping get the downtown arena passed." The clear meaning of this is that city manager Kolb was proud of how he and the Wichita city council worked to help pass the downtown arena tax. Now if Mr. Kolb had talked about how he helped educate the electorate on the issues surrounding the arena tax ballot measure, that would be acceptable. Instead, he and other government leaders are proud of how they worked to ensure passage of the arena tax. That behavior is contrary to how the Kansas Attorney General said they should act.

I asked our District Attorney to look into this issue of government advocacy for the arena. That office decided, even in light of all this and more evidence, that there was no wrongdoing by our leaders.

Does this seem a correct conclusion by the district attorney, in light of these facts about the behavior of our local government officials?

Were local government officials, especially the Sedgwick County Commission, presenting educational material, or were they campaigning for the arena?

I believe the only conclusion we can make is that they were all campaigning -- and campaigning vigorously -- for the arena, in spite of what Kansas Attorney General Opinion 93-125 says is acceptable behavior for government officials and the expenditure of public funds.

Today the Wichita City Council votes on granting $4.5 million in tax increment financing to a developer. Here's an article from August 17, 2006 that explains why the council should not approve this gift.

(Note to The Wichita Eagle: Why not report stories like this a little earlier than the day the council is voting?)

Recently the City of Wichita formed a TIF (tax increment financing) district to aid a developer who wishes to build in the College Hill neighborhood.

How does a TIF district work? The Wichita Eagle reported: "A TIF district doesn't cost local governments any existing tax money. It takes property taxes paid on new construction that would ordinarily go into government coffers and redirects it to the bond holders who are financing the project."

In the present case, the value of the benefit the developer sought is estimated to be worth $3.5 million to $4 million. Whether this benefit is given at no cost to existing government, as The Wichita Eagle article implies, is open to debate. If the new development does not use any local government services, then perhaps there is no cost in giving the benefit. But if that's true, we might ask this question: if the development does not consume any government services, why should it have to pay taxes at all?

There is evidence that TIF districts are great for the developers -- after all, who wants to pay taxes -- but not so good for the rest of the city and county. The article "Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development" by economists Richard F. Dye and David F. Merriman states, in its conclusion:

TIF districts grow much faster than other areas in their host municipalities. TIF boosters or naive analysts might point to this as evidence of the success of tax increment financing, but they would be wrong. Observing high growth in an area targeted for development is unremarkable.

So TIFs are good for the favored development -- not a surprising finding. What about the rest of the city? Continuing from the same study:

We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.

So TIF districts may actually reduce the rate of economic growth in the rest of the city.

There's also evidence that TIF districts are simply a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers at large to a privileged few. In the paper titled "Do Tax Increment Finance Districts in Iowa Spur Regional Economic and Demographic Growth?" by Iowa State University economists David Swenson and Liesl Eathington, we can read this:

There is indirect statistical evidence that this profligate practice [establishing TIF districts] is resulting in a direct transfer of resources from existing tax payers to new firms without yielding region-wide economic and social gains to justify the public's investment.

This analysis suggests that the enabling legislation for tax based incentives deserves revisiting. ... there is virtually no evidence of broad economic or social benefits in light of the costs.

In the present case in Wichita, the developer says that without the benefit the TIF provides, the project is not economically viable. This is the standard rationale given for the requirement of the TIF district. Without the TIF, the development would not take place.

It may be true that this project in College Hill is not economically viable. If so, we have to wonder about the wisdom of investing in this project. More importantly, we should ask why our taxes are so high that they discourage investment and economic activity.

It may also be that the developer simply wishes to gain an advantage over the competition by lobbying for a favor from government. As government becomes more intrusive, this type of rent-seeking behavior is replacing productive economic activity.

There is one truth, however, if which I am certain: when businesses and individuals pay less tax, they have the opportunity to invest more. TIFs and tax abatements are tacit recognition that the cost of government is onerous and serves to decrease private economic activity and investment.

Here's a better idea: reduce taxes for everyone, instead of only for companies and individuals that are successful in extracting favors from our local governments.

I received this letter written to Wichita Mayor Carlos Mayans and members of the Wichita City Council. The author makes excellent points about the harmful effects of special tax treatment for special interests. A better goal would be to work to reduce taxes for all companies and all people. This way, each company and individual can decide how to make best use of their own funds, instead of the Wichita City Council deciding for us. That is, in effect, what tax breaks like this do. It is the government deciding that resources should be allocated in a way different than how the market has decided. Our experience tells us that governments aren't as smart as markets, and that governments almost always allocate resources inefficiently.

Mayor Carlos Mayans
Wichita City Hall
455 N. Main St.
Wichita, KS 67202

Dear Mayor Mayans:

Item 27 on the Wichita City Council's December 12, 2006 agenda would have the city council approve a $99 million bond issuance for Cessna Aircraft Co. This is based upon the total $800 million Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRB) for Cessna Aircraft Company authorization approved earlier this year by this council.

If that is the case, the $99 million issuance (100% abatement) being sought will reduce city property tax revenues by my calculations almost $800,000 a year, or roughly $4 million to the city over five years. The total value of the tax break when all units of government are included is much larger.

That is a large tax break for Cessna Aircraft Company. This is a sizable reduction when city property tax revenues were projected at $89.5 million for 2006. According to the largest taxpayer list from the Wichita Business Journal, Cessna Aircraft Company paid $2,484,343 in property taxes in 2005. The abatement being sought is the equivalent of almost 32% of the property taxes paid by this company in 2005.

Earlier this year Mr. Jack Pelton, the President and CEO of Cessna Aircraft Company, provided public testimony in support of raising property taxes in Sedgwick County almost 10 percent. That is certainly a position that both Mr. Pelton and his company may take. According to Textron's 2005 annual report (www.textron.com/resources/textron_annual_report_2005.pdg), the Cessna Aircraft earnings for this publicly traded company were $457 million so they could certainly afford to pay their share of this increase. In fact, they can afford to pay this tax with greater ease than almost every other Wichitan or Wichita based company.

This week Mr. Pelton and Cessna Aircraft's ordinance for this large property tax reduction/IRB for this firm will be in you and your city council colleagues' hands. You and your council colleagues need to know that this tax break demonstrates rank hypocrisy from both Cessna Aircraft and Mr. Pelton. This council item conflicts with Cessna's support for higher property taxes countywide this summer. Mr. Pelton and Cessna Aircraft Company want special property tax breaks that the rest of the citizens in Wichita do not receive.

Two recent national surveys indicate that Kansas has high property taxes. The Tax Foundation (see Special Report 146, Nov. 2006) and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (Small Business Survival Index 2006) have both issued reports showing that Kansas has the overall highest property taxes on a statewide basis of the five states (KS and surrounding states) in our region. Nationally, Kansas was among the top 25 percent of property taxes measured both as a percentage of income or on a per capita basis. Neighboring Oklahoma, in contrast, scored as the 4th lowest among all 50 states.

Kansas has high taxes in general and high property taxes in particular. However, the tax abatement for Cessna Aircraft does not eliminate the tax burden. This tax is shifted onto the backs of homeowners, farmers, and small and medium sized businesses in this community who lack the political clout to receive a property tax abatement. The total tax break for Cessna from all levels of Kansas government is almost $3 million a year or just under $15 million over the next five years (assuming current mill levies). Ironically, all national surveys indicate that small business is more successful in creating jobs than large firms.

So Cessna Aircraft will soon receive another special tax break. This is on top of earlier IRBs issued on their behalf by the city. Other employers will have to pay their property tax plus the share shunned by Cessna Aircraft. Cessna Aircraft's overhead costs are reduced with the property tax abatement. As a result Cessna Aircraft is able to pay employees more and be more selective in hiring. After all, these overhead costs have been shifted onto the rest of the taxpaying community. Businesses without the property tax abatements have to pay higher overhead costs (in the form of higher property taxes) and are at a competitive disadvantage for hiring workers from within this community if they compete with Cessna (or other firms with these tax breaks) in hiring workers.

Special tax breaks for special firms hurt the smaller businesses that compete for labor against these firms. This provides a major warning sign to outside firms that might consider relocating into Wichita. These special tax breaks raise the risk and uncertainty for firms without these breaks in this community. This is a major reason why it is hard to attract firms into the Wichita market.

It is clear that Cessna Aircraft Company's concern about high property taxes does not extend beyond the company's property line. In addition, the cyclical nature of Cessna Aircraft's business has meant sizable and substantial changes in the company's employment. Despite these sizable tax breaks, Cessna's Wichita employment is much lower in 2005 with 8,500 employees than it was five years earlier when Cessna had 12,509 employees. Cessna Aircraft's employment figures have changed dramatically according to the Wichita Business Journal's employment figures. The numbers change substantially annually.

That is another reason why Cessna Aircraft Company needs to shift their overhead costs onto the rest of the community. Companies that engage in widespread "hiring/firing" binges have a harder time attracting and keeping workers. This is especially true for skilled and highly educated workers. If they pay the same overhead costs as the other firms seeking Wichita area workers, they have a problem finding workers. Cessna needs to be able to offer extra wages and/or benefits to attract workers into this type of cyclical company.

There is no reason that Cessna Aircraft Company's self imposed problems should be shifted onto Wichita area taxpayers at large. Cessna Aircraft Company has testified in support of raising property taxes in this community. The Wichita city council should reject their request for an additional property tax abatement, and welcome them into the high property tax environment that they supported in front of the Sedgwick County commission this summer. Help Cessna Aircraft Company end their policy of tax hypocrisy and their plan to shift higher taxes onto the non-abated firms and the rest of the citizens in this community.

News reports say that former Wichita mayor Bob Knight may be considering a bid for that same office. Here's a Voice For Liberty in Wichita article from January 25, 2005 regarding Mr. Knight.

The Motivations of Politicians

Presently Mr. Bob Knight of Wichita, a private citizen, is promoting the building of a casino in Park City, Kansas. These articles from The Wichita Eagle have reported Mr. Knight's position on casino gambling in Kansas when he was the mayor of Wichita:

"GOP governor hopefuls stake their positions" (July 3, 2002) "Knight and Kerr said they oppose gambling but would consider voter approval."

"Trump has no plans for local casino" (May 9, 2003) "Last year, Ruffin said, he approached former Mayor Bob Knight about the possibility of relocating the track to downtown and adding a casino if lawmakers approved. Knight was not interested, he said."

"Gambling on the slots" (May 22, 2002) "Wichita Mayor Bob Knight, seeking the Republican nomination, said gambling is an unreliable source of revenue. 'I don't think it fits my sense of how you build and sustain a strong state,' he said."

The cynic in me imagines Executive Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy of the television show Law and Order with Mr. Knight on the witness stand asking -- justifiably indignant -- "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

But I do not know Mr. Knight, and there may be other explanations. It may be that as mayor of Wichita, he wasn't being very careful or thorough in forming his opinions. A Wichita Eagle editorial "Plan requires serious look" states in part: "He [Knight] acknowledged that as mayor he had opposed an earlier casino plan for Wichita. But after studying this project, he said, he became convinced that a true destination casino could pay off handsomely for the Wichita area and region." Mr. Knight has been out of the mayor's office for less than two years. What about the Wichita area has changed in that time that makes a casino a good bet (so to speak) now?

Or, has a casino always been a good idea, but Mr. Knight either didn't know that when he was mayor, or he just didn't want the citizens of Wichita gambling on his watch?

I do not know the answer to these questions, and given our collective experience with politicians, I probably wouldn't believe Mr. Knight if he answered them. Such is the credibility of the motivations of politicians.

Thank you to John Todd for this material. John has much experience in real estate, and cares deeply about the rights of property owners.

Subject: Comments and concerns regarding the proposed changes for the Housing Code of the city of Wichita.

The city’s housing code has problems. Here is an overview of the problems. Some suggested improvements follow.

General concerns covering the Housing Code ordinances and enforcement.

1. Has a “crime” actually been committed if a property owner owns a property in which a board and paint separate (peel) in violation of the Housing Code? Are folks who are found in violation in front of the city’s municipal court becoming part of the growth in the population in the county jail sometimes?
2. Is there “selective enforcement” of the existing ordinance? Does peeling paint receive the same attention in Reflection Ridge as it does in Midtown?
3. Are city, county, and school district owned properties subject to the same code? Are code violations on government owned properties subject to no penalties?
4. Is “blight” the cause of neighborhood crime or is the lack of enforcement of criminal activity in certain neighborhoods creating the neighborhood flight and subsequent need by property owners to secure their properties by boarding up windows and doors?
5. Is the Municipal Environmental Court free and independent from the legislative (City Council) and executive functions (City Manager) of the City? Does the setup of the Municipal Court meet the “separation of powers” doctrine we expect from government?

Recommendations to improve Wichita housing and the city’s housing code:

1. Reports of prospective housing code violation complaints need to be in writing with copies of the signed complaint given to the property owner and to the person reporting the alleged violation. Nothing undermines a sense of community more than government allowing one group of people to anonymously “snitch” on another group.
2. Mediation between the aggrieved parties should be required before the complaint goes to court. The Wichita Bar Association has a system of mediation already in place.
3. City Code Enforcement Officials should be licensed, and be required to have at least five years of prior “hands-on” building experience.
4. Municipal Court Judges need to be elected by the people rather than appointed by the City Council. The City Council could handle this through the passage of a Charter Ordinance.
5. Blight needs to be defined in the ordinance.
6. City owned properties should comply with the ordinance just like privately owned property.

Here are the detailed comments on the proposed changes in the city’s housing code.

1. Comments concerning the new term “Resident Agent” are discussed below.
2. Section 20.04.055 The Minimum requirements for maintaining vacant dwellings.

Proposed Section 11 Vacant Structures. The phrase used to describe the material used to board windows and doors shall now in addition to having a protective coating now must be “matching the predominant color of the structure”. The question of what is a matching color leaves wide latitude on the part of the city code enforcement official deciding what is matching. Perhaps a contrasting color might be appropriate? And, perhaps after a damaging weather event, unpainted plywood or OSB board should meet the requirement?

3. Section 20.04.200 the penalty section.

Existing Section. Since the notice of violation that the city issues to a property owner refers to a “uniform criminal complaint”, perhaps the word “crime” should be added after the word “misdemeanor” or suggested “misdemeanor crime”?

Existing Section. The penalties discussed in the existing section seem adequate and allow the Municipal Court Judge what might be considered extreme additional latitude if he or she invokes the provision in the existing ordinance, “Each day that any violation of this ordinance continues shall constitute a separate offense and be punishable hereunder as a separate violation.” Also, jail time for a Municipal Court is limited to “a period of not exceeding one year”. Invoking this provision of the existing ordinance would potentially allow multiple years jail time to be assessed in excess of this maximum “not exceeding one year”.

Proposed Section. The new proposed ordinance essentially doubles existing fines. Before increasing the fines, several questions need to be answered. How is the current fine schedule working? Are convicted property owners paying the fines? What is happening to property owners who do not have the money to pay the fines? Are there property owners who are being assessed fines people who could pay for the repair of their property if they had money they are being fined to do the repair(s)? Is jail time being assessed against property owners? Who bears the costs associated with incarceration? Are the additional fines actually a new “revenue source” for the city? The new proposed ordinance also requires the “mandatory” imposition of fines by Municipal Court Judges with a provision requiring alternative community service in lieu of the fines for defendants who are financially unable to pay the fines imposed. Several questions, relating to “mandatory” and alternative “community service” for the poor need to be answered before this ordinance is passed. Don’t “mandatory” fines take away the need for judgment on the part of the Municipal Court Judge when dealing with property owner defendants in his or her court in seeking compliance with the housing code ordinance? Are there not circumstances where defendant property owners that are physically, mentally, as well as financially unable to care for their properties due to age, loss of employment, disability, or other extenuating circumstance who needs “judgment” on the part of a judge rather than mandatory fines or community service? Could not a defendant property owner be earning money to repair his or her property or actually doing the repair during the time imposed for “community service”? Does the registering of a defendant property owner’s property with the Superintendent of Central Inspection comply with “equal protection under of the law” that has been a requirement under our legal system?

Chapter 20.04.010 the Definitions are amended. The definition of “Resident Agent” is created.

Proposed Ordinance No._______Section 30.01.020 of the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas. The responsibilities and potential liabilities of the “resident agent” might be troublesome. Would a licensed real estate broker or salesperson be exempt from this ordinance due to provisions enumerated in the Real Estate License Act? Is it legal for an agent to be held responsible for the action or inaction of his client property owner? Why would an agent be willing to take on responsibilities for the actions or inactions of his client property owner? Is this a “can of worms” for a “resident agent”?

To Wichita City Manager George Kolb, Regarding Urban Renewal in Wichita
By Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director Kansas Taxpayers Network

Today, city government plays a large role in this city’s life. The most recent municipal budget is in the neighborhood of $1/2 billion. That massive sum does not seem to be large enough for many of the city leaders since there is now an effort underway to recreate one of the major mistakes of the 20th century: Urban Renewal.

Urban renewal was a major issue in the middle of the 20th century. Cities across the country attempted to improve and revitalize themselves using urban renewal. They wanted to improve their community and remove dilapidated and blighted properties. Despite the best of intentions, urban renewal failed. The failure took a number of forms and was very costly. Minority and low income citizens were hurt badly. Housing costs rose massively while the choices available for low income citizens were reduced. At that time, this was a national program and a significant part of the urban renewal costs were paid for by the federal government. Today, that is not the case. In addition, beneficiaries of urban renewal were often more affluent citizens who positioned themselves to take advantage of this program.

Ironically, much of the city’s land that has been provided for the east bank/Waterwalk redevelopment project in downtown Wichita was originally acquired by the city back in the urban renewal era. Cost figures on what the city paid for this land were not available when I sought that information during the public hearings over the Waterwalk project. It is a sad fact that much of this city owned land simply stagnated economically during the close to half a century that the city has exercised control over this property. In addition, the city’s need to be able to condemn private property by using eminent domain has raised the risk of property owners, diminished property rights, and made this community less competitive by expanding the public sector over the private.

Recently, the city manager and some other local leaders have been looking at establishing another layer of local government by setting up a new redevelopment authority. I heard that you were outspoken in support of this concept at the August meeting at the Hughes Center. This is the first step in recreating urban renewal in Wichita.

The presentation that the city council had June 27, 2006 indicates the close ties between the proposed redevelopment authority in the 21st century that relies upon the 1950’s era K.S.A. 17-4712 et seq. as well as 17-4757 and 12-2904 urban renewal statutes as the legal authority for creating this authority. These statutes indicate that Sedgwick County will also be involved in this new layer of local government too.

What is the city going to do to avoid repeating the numerous and myriad mistakes made roughly a half century ago?

The academic literature (a partial reading list is provided below) is clear in pointing out the mistakes and failures made with the urban renewal efforts half a century ago. A major, but unspecified, increase in taxing authority will be needed to finance this new layer of local government.

As an organization representing taxpayers, we see that the growth of local government is a major burden stifling development locally and statewide. Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that Kansas is near the bottom of the 50 states in private sector job growth. Adding a new layer of bureaucracy is likely to hurt this community’s economy, not help it.

City Manager Kolb and other proponents for a new “Redevelopment Authority” need to provide a clear road map on how this new governmental body will avoid repeating the very expensive and harmful mistakes made during the urban renewal era from the 1950’s. Citizens of Wichita need to know how this expensive new entity will be paid for. Will the city council want to pay for it with higher property taxes? Or sales taxes? Or some new tax?

Our organization’s position on raising taxes is clear: voters must be able to decide this issue at the ballot box. Let’s not make Wichita worse with more expensive red tape, bureaucracy, and resurrecting urban renewal. There are many ways to improve Wichita, but recreating urban renewal is not one of them.

Urban Renewal Reading List:
1) The Unheavenly City, Edward Banfield.
2) The Federal Bulldozer, A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal 1949-1962, Martin Anderson.
3) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs.
4) Race and Economics, Thomas Sowell.
5) The Art of Community, Spencer MacCallum.
6) Beyond the Melting Pot, Nathan Glazer & Daniel Moynihan.
7) The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Paul C. Roberts & Lawrence M. Stratton.

Thank you to John Todd for this excellent article.

On August 22, 2006, the City of Wichita hosted a Visioneering Committee "Public Forum on Community Revitalization" featuring Mr. Richard Baron, Chairman and CEO of McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) of St. Louis, Missouri in the Sudermann Commons Room at the Wichita State University Hughes Metropolitan Complex. An August 14, 2006 letter from City Manager George Kolb explains, "This forum is part of the City's commitment to and participation in a prisoner reentry initiative to help transform not only the lives of returning ex-offenders, but also to transform the communities/neighborhoods into which they will return."

Mr. Baron's PowerPoint presentation had little to do with "prisoner reentry"