Comments on: Wichita city council discusses economic development incentives

By: Wichita mayor speaks on economic development

Wichita mayor speaks on economic development — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:20:30 +0000

[...] that that Wichita has not yet heard of, which undoubtedly will give city staff some additional tools in the toolbox in the [...]

By: Wichita's Jeff Longwell on TIF districts, tax abatements

Wichita's Jeff Longwell on TIF districts, tax abatements — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:14:33 +0000

[...] who along with Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer complains that Wichita doesn’t have enough “tools in the toolbox” for dishing out economic development incentives to politically-connected city hall insiders, will [...]

By: Wichita Warren Theater IRB a TIF district in disguise

Wichita Warren Theater IRB a TIF district in disguise — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:44:43 +0000

[...] member Jeff Longwell, and the city’s economic development chief Allen Bell — have complained that the city doesn’t have enough “tools in the toolbox” when it comes to dishing out economic development [...]

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:16:26 +0000

No, I think I understand exactly what is happening, said, implied, intimated, yada, yada. If an alternative such as Universal Tax Incentive is someone’s agenda, then promote it in a productive and meaningful way as a viable alternative and solution to the economic tools that the city utilizes today. But that is not the case here, not on a Libertarian blog.

By: CRAIG

CRAIG — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:55:27 +0000

Pat if we are going to remain in the incentive business we should do as BOB suggests implement a Wichita Universal Tax
Incentive. After all what educational experience do Council members have to pick and choose the winners and losers for Tax Abatement.
I think you all missed the real point to this exchange. Nearly every Council member supported helping only the businesses that need help. One thing I learned in business if you don’t have what it takes to get started you sure as heck don’t have what it takes to weather the tough times. Any time you help a renter or home buyer get into a home you can bank on the fact you are going to have to help them all the way. Part of the process for starting a new business is funding, resources, planning, and execution. You notice there is no “beg for public assistance” in this list.

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:16:53 +0000

Until everyone in the nation is out of the game of providing incentives, then Wichita needs to remain in the game. A number of good questions have been raised and deserve further thought. That said, this particular application doesn’t appear to have qualified for IRB funding anyway. Not every incentive or tool in the tool box is appropriate for every situation. A hammer doesn’t do any good when a saw is required.

Providing incentives is not a philosophical discussion for the council nor should it be. Incentives should be used when appropriate and when applicants meet qualifying criteria. In the past, too often applicants were not evaluated as to their abilities, financial resources, management, etc. I would expect the new manager to implement policies that help reduce the risk to the public and to assure that incentives when used are used wisely and to the benefit of the city.

By: Brent Davis

Brent Davis — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:37:48 +0000

Corrections to above:
1. “government’s”
2. (Note to the venture capitalist point) Excess tax revenues that can be made “gifts” to business should lawfully be returned to the taxpayers.
3. By tax burden, I mean the responsibility for paying for the infrastructure which will either result in rising taxes or reduced levels of maintenance or a surplus of funds that should be returned to the taxpayers.
4. This also unfairly shifts the risk of business ventures to taxpayers who have not agreed to shoulder this risk. The businesses should have to apply to insurance companies with stockholders who have agreed to shoulder the risk.
5. Not for profits should probably bear more of the burden they create on the infrastructure.

By: Brent Davis

Brent Davis — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:29:04 +0000

There are reasons that city tax funds are being collected: to pay for community public services such as roads, sewage systems, weed and open area maintenance, police and fire services and other necessary costs of operating a city. Now if these can be privatized and paid for privately, which is possible, then we should do so, but if they are publically serviced then tax money must be spent to properly maintain this infrastructure. Any monies not used in the frugal maintenance of public properties is not the governments to use to function as pretend “venture capitalists.” That money belongs to the taxpayers who paid it in to use for whatever projects they have in mind. When we give gifts to businesses who are building then we shift the tax burden to the tax-paying citizens and companies. This same shift occurs with “not-for-profits” who are somehow more noble because they do not contribute to the tax base. Further, when businesses are building and expanding they put a heavier than normal load on the infrastructure. All this reduced level of maintenance and the cost of upkeep must be born by the other tax-paying entities, including retirees on fixed incomes as well as business owners who might also expand were it not for onerous taxation. It is not the role of government to pick the winners or losers in business to build political capital–that is absolutely immoral. It is the business of business investors and workers of all stripes to decide the proper use of their money and therefore which busniesses succeed or fail.

By: Charlotte

Charlotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:58:53 +0000

I was watching when this happened. We need to keep an eye on this one as Jeff Longwell could do some arm twisting when this comes back and get it approved because it is in his district.