Voice For Liberty

Category: Sedgwick county government

  • Sedgwick County Taxpayer Relief?

    This was received from a friend, and was also printed in the Wichita Eagle. The writer accuses the Sedgwick County Commission of doing something “questionable.” He is being much too kind to the commission with his choice of words.

    I read with great interest “Sedgwick County budget halts jail plans” (July 17 Eagle). What really caught my eye was the opening sentence, stating that this was a “move that would save taxpayers money.”

    Why all of a sudden, after taking our tax money for two years for this purpose, did Sedgwick County Commission Chairman Tom Winters decide that we “can’t build our way out of a jail problem”? Why was this not discussed and concluded before commission members asked for a raise in the mill levy by 2.5 mills back in 2006 (for the aviation training school as well as the jail expansion), at an annual cost of $28.75 on a $100,000 home?

    Since the money was not used for the purpose intended, shouldn’t the taxpayers be reimbursed for the taxes paid so far? Instead, I guess we are supposed to be overjoyed at the 1 mill that is to be given back to us now.

    This is very questionable — taking money and not using it for the intended purpose and then giving back only a portion of our money taken.

    I believe that every one of the county commissioners should be replaced just as soon as possible with new blood, and, I hope, with people who will think before they act and will do things honestly and above reproach.

    DEL LOPEZ
    Wichita

  • No New Sedgwick County Sales Tax Without Property Tax Elimination: Taxpayer Protection is Needed

    A press release from the Peterjohn for County Commissioner campaign

    23 July 2008

    The Wichita Eagle’s lead story July 23 mentions a new county proposal to raise a new local sales tax to cover a variety of new spending programs. A variety of new or expanded county spending projects were mentioned in this article.

    There is a history of trying to shift taxes. Sometimes this has been done to intentionally raise additional revenue (see 1992 statewide tax hike) or to shift from property to sales tax (1984 in Sedgwick County) and expand other spending. Sadly, the net effect in almost all of these case has been expanding tax revenues for government. This is a reason why we need to proceed carefully and with a detailed plan.

    “There should not be any new local sales tax until the following steps occur,” said Karl Peterjohn, candidate for the 3rd district county commission seat. “First, any new local sales tax should eliminate the county’s current 31.3 mill property tax. By my rough estimate this would require a sales tax of approximately 1.5-to-1 5/8 cents to be revenue neutral for the county. At the same time protection must be provided to taxpayers to prevent property taxes from rising again.”

    “Voter protection can be provided by a requirement that all county taxes receive voter approval before being raised. The county cannot raise sales taxes without voter approval. This protection for taxpayers must also be provided for all other new or existing county taxes too,” said Peterjohn.

    “Second, the county must go to the state to receive authorization before it could implement this tax shift from property to sales (or tax on capital to one on consumption). That can’t happen until the 2009 legislature. I believe that a county wide sales tax that eliminates the existing county mill levy would be a net positive for economic growth in our community by cutting total property taxes by over 25% for most taxpayers in our county.

    “Many businesses currently seek property tax abatements due to the high level of property taxes in our county. Eliminating the county’s property taxes would be very economically stimulative and would provide an overall property tax reduction for all homeowners, farmers, and businesses. Roughly 10-to-15% of retail sales in this county occur from purchases made by folks who do not live in Sedgwick County,” Peterjohn said.

    “Sadly, there are a number of cases where shifting from property to sales taxes has provided a permanent increase in sales taxes and only temporary property tax relief. One example is just up the road in Shawnee County. That is why it is imperative that any new local sales tax hike contain ironclad provisions to protect county taxpayers. It is also imperative that we should eliminate the county’s property tax with any new local sales tax proposal.”

    Donations to the campaign can be mailed to the address listed below. A paypal account is available to accept on line donations at the karlpeterjohn.com campaign web site. There is a limit of $500 per person or business for contributions made until the August 5 primary.

    Peterjohn for County Commissioner
    PO Box 8734
    Wichita, 67208
    316-312-1585
    karlpeterjohn.com

    Discolsure: I am one of the campaign co-managers for this candidate.

  • Wichita and Sedgwick County Candidate Websites

    I’ve started a page that lists candidates for election in the Wichita and Sedgwick County area, containing links to candidate websites. It’s not quite finished, but it’s a start. The link is here: Wichita and Sedgwick County Candidate Websites.

  • Karl Peterjohn Files for Sedgwick County Commission

    On June 5, 2008, Karl Peterjohn officially filed to become a Republican candidate for the Sedgwick County Commission in district 3. I and some other local news media interviewed him afterwards.

    Peterjohn believes taxes are an important issue in Sedgwick county. “Taxpayers need additional protection in Sedgwick County. The most effective position for taxpayers is a requirement that any and all county tax hikes must be approved by voters.” “People are concerned about the growing tax problem in Sedgwick County.”

    Peterjohn said he intends to provide voters with the information they need so that they may make informed decisions about the candiates: “As I campaign in this district I find that voters need and want additional information about the positions of all of the candidates running.”

    Finally, Peterjohn believes in private property rights: “Voters are disappointed to find out the county’s position on having strong eminent domain powers at the expense of homeowners, farmers, and businesses in our community. The negative impact of government authority over property instead of having the people control their land, their homes, their businesses is an indicator of how power is shifting to the central authority of the state instead of the people. If I am elected county commissioner, this is one county policy I will change and we will expand protection of property for the people.”

    The campaign’s website is karlpeterjohn.com.

  • Sedgwick County trash franchising: on the road to economic perdition

    I received this letter to Sedgwick County (Kansas) Commissioner David Unruh “over the transom” and I thought it merited reading by the general public. The author speaks of the “road to economic perdition.” I had to use the dictionary to refresh my memory of the exact meaning of the word “perdition.” While that term seems at first to be a little strong, I believe that trash franchising, like a ban on smoking, is just the first step in the plans of our local government officials. If politicians and newspaper editorialists can convince us that we require the force of government to take care of something as simple as picking up the trash — something that works very well already – it’s an easy jump to the next level of control. So perdition seems appropriate.

    The May 21 Wichita Eagle reported that you and a number of other commissioners want to impose some sort of franchise on trash collection by cities operating in the area where Sedgwick County is responsible for trash disposal with state authorities. The Eagle quotes you as supporting a government franchise monopoly by haulers in specific areas as well as uniform terms for collection of residential refuse.

    Before joining the commission I know that you were a businessman in the car repair business. Since government monopolies and uniformity in service is apparently preferable to free markets and open competition I hope that you will want to extend government into providing uniform monopoly in car repair as well as other private sector businesses. If the county’s goal is ending duplication of services and allegedly “wasteful” competition what basis do you have for only limiting franchising to trash hauling?

    It is very clear to even the most casual consumer that there is significant variations in pricing among the folks repairing automobiles just like there are in the trash hauling business. There is a lack of uniformity in people getting their cars repaired too.

    I must also note that an Unruh repair shop near 13th St. W. and Maize Rd. is only a short distance away from Westlink Auto Service. Having two firms competing for customers is obviously as duplicative and excessive as multiple trash firms going down the same street to collect refuse.

    We have a similar situation nearby where two instances of two separate firms selling groceries are located on adjacent corners at 21st W and Maize Rd. (Walmart and Dillons) as well as Maize Rd. and W. Central (Aldi and Dillons).

    Government monopolies have also a proven track record of performance. There is a name for this when university students study 20th century governments where these types of restrictions are commonplace.

    Look how Wichita water and sewer rates have performed in the last few years and how it now appears likely that the city will be once again raising these rates significantly soon. Municipal power plants that dot many small Kansas towns also have a similar track record of costly performance for the citizens who have to pay the rates.

    The City of Wichita got out of the trash hauling business in the late 1970’s for a reason. Establishing private/public franchise monopolies is a power that should be exercised very cautiously and carefully and has failed in the past. However, if you are going to expand local government’s roles in establishing ways of eliminating duplication of services and wasteful competition, you should fully understand where this road to economic perdition leads.

  • Trash Franchising in Wichita and Sedgwick County

    Currently both Sedgwick County and Wichita are considering trash franchising.

    On the surface, “franchising” sounds like a good thing. It sounds like someone’s opening a new Subway sandwich shop.

    But what trash franchising does is to grant a monopoly to one (or sometimes a few) service providers for specific geographic areas. Under franchising, people living in an area will have either no choice, or perhaps limited choice, in choosing who picks up their trash. Rates will also be set by government.

    The effect of this is that the profit motive for trash haulers is dramatically modified. Under franchising, trash companies have guaranteed customers paying mandated rates. What is the likely effect of this? I refer to Walter E. Williams, who said this: “Here’s Williams’ law: Whenever the profit incentive is missing, the probability that people’s wants can be safely ignored is the greatest.”

    The use of the term “franchising” glosses over the consequences of a government mandate of who customers may choose to do business with. Citizens need a better term that accurately describes what our government is considering. Unfortunately, I am having trouble coming up with such a term, so I am asking you for help.

    So far I have these terms: “mandatory service provider selection,” “choice elimination,” “enforced selection,” and “trash service reduction program.”

    As you see, none of these terms are very artful. So please help me. You may email your suggestions to bob.weeks@gmail.com, or leave them as a comment to this article. Comments may be anonymous.

  • No Recycling Mandates in Sedgwick County, Please

    Remarks delivered at a public hearing for the Sedgwick County solid waste management plan, April 24, 2008. Sedgwick County, Kansas, home to the City of Wichita, is considering a mandatory household recycling program. Or, perhaps people won’t be forced to recycle, but they will be required to pay for the cost burden that recycling places on communities.

    You may listen to this article in audio form by clicking here.

    The economist Frederich Hayek tells us that the price system communicates all the information we need to know about the relative value of things. The price system allows people who don’t know each other to coordinate their activities in the most effective and efficient way possible. The price system is truly a miracle.

    If you want to see what happens when the price system is not allowed to work, usually because a government attempts to manage prices, just look at the former Soviet Union and other planned economies. The economist Thomas Sowell relates this story:

    The last premiere of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, is said to have asked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: How do you see to it that people get food? The answer was that she didn’t. Prices did that. And the British people were better fed than those in the Soviet Union, even though the British have never grown enough food to feed themselves in more than a century. Prices bring them food from other countries.

    The price system can do its work only when free people trade with each other freely under a system where property rights are respected. Any attempt by governments to manage prices leads to inefficiencies that manifest themselves as shortages, waiting lines, surpluses, and black markets. The emergence of these problems lead to calls for even more government interventionism to fix the very problem the government caused by interfering with the price system. It can be a never-ending cycle.

    How does this apply to recycling in Sedgwick County?

    In some cases the price system tells us that recycling is a beneficial use of resources. About 75% of automobiles are recycled, and used cardboard is often recycled in commercial settings. That’s because the price paid for these recycled items is high enough that, in these contexts, recycling can be profitable. That’s the price system at work. It tells us that the best use of an old car is to recycle it, and the same goes for cardboard boxes at the grocery store.

    A household setting is different. Households usually have to pay to engage in recycling. The prices that recyclers can get for these recycled goods doesn’t cover the cost of collecting them from households, as evidenced by the fact that in Wichita households must pay someone to pick up recyclables. That’s the price system at work again. Its sober assessment is that in the context of households, recycling is a waste of resources. That waste can be tremendous. Orange County, Florida, for example, spends roughly $3 million per year to collect recyclable goods from households, but sells them for only $56,000.

    What about running out of landfill space? If landfill space were truly scarce, the price system would tell us so, because landfill operators — if there is a free market for landfills — could charge high prices for accepting trash. But evidently, they can’t.

    So the price system tells us sometimes recycling is a good use of resources, and sometimes it isn’t.

    A mandatory recycling program or one where people have to pay fees even if they don’t actually recycle their household goods amounts to the government attempting to override the price system. It is attempting to manage the price system through government interventionism. These policies, should Sedgwick County implement them, will cause citizens to suffer the same inefficiencies that all planned economies have demonstrated, if on a smaller scale.

  • Downtown Wichita (Intrust) arena groundbreaking

    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 and Prepare for Sales Tax-Induced Job Effects Now, 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 Arenas’ Financial Statements Not Complete and WSU Study on Downtown Wichita Arena Not Complete.)

    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 Government Funds Promoting Downtown Wichita Arena.

    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 A Public or Private Downtown Wichita Arena, Which is Desirable?.

  • More taxes for Wichitans

    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.