Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita city government

  • Wichita facade improvement plan updated

    Wichita’s facade improvement plan has recently been updated. The updated plan isn’t yet available on the city’s website, so I’ve included it at the end of this article.

    This is the plan under which a local business, Delano Barbeque Partners, LLC, is likely to receive a grant of $20,000. See Wichita to consider grant to business for more. So far that business has not returned telephone calls asking for information about its application.

    It appears that this grant program is an entitlement, in that if a business meets specified criteria, it will receive a grant. No consideration is given to the economic worthiness or need of each applicant, or to the effect that this has on the citizens and taxpayers of Wichita.

    Programs like this are government planning. It’s our city government saying that investment in certain areas of town are more desired than investment in other parts of town. Since people aren’t investing enough to fulfill the city’s plan, the city must correct this alleged market failure by giving gifts of taxpayer money.

    This type of centralized government planning is an affront to freedom, liberty, and capitalism. It’s a slap in the face to those who have invested according to their own wants and needs, rather than satisfying the needs of politicians and bureaucrats.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

  • Wichita to consider grant to business

    On Tuesday June 16, the Wichita City Council will consider whether to give a business $20,000.

    The business, Delano Barbeque Partners, LLC, is renovating a building at 579 W. Douglas in Wichita, at the corner of Sycamore Street. They’re applying for special assessment financing in the amount of $60,000. While bad public policy, this financing under the city’s facade improvement program is in the form of a loan that is to be repaid by future property taxes.

    What is truly outrageous is that the owners of this business are also asking for a grant of $20,000. This would be, if I understand the plain meaning of the word, a gift to the owners of this property.

    How is this possible? Is everyone eligible for grants like this?

    I’ve asked the city for the name of the program or law under which grants like this can be made. I’ve also asked the applicant, Delano Barbeque Partners, LLC, for comment. According to the Kansas Secretary of State’s office, the resident agent for the limited liability company is W.G. Farha II, with address of 8100 East 22nd. Street North Building 1700-2, Wichita, KS 67226.

    This illustrates a problem with Wichita city government, and other branches too, for that matter: Here it is, late Friday afternoon, and the city council agenda has been available for less than 24 hours. I just received the email from the city announcing its availability. I’ve made a few phone calls and sent a few email messages, but it’s not easy to contact people late on a Friday summer afternoon. So citizens just don’t have much time to do research and prepare for these meetings.

    The applicants, of course, have known about this agenda item for some time. They have a lot to gain by making sure this passes. $20,000 of taxpayer money, in fact.

    For convenience, I’ve excerpted the appropriate pages of Tuesday’s agenda below.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

  • Downtown Wichita revitalization on Kansas Week

    Bob Weeks discusses government-led revitalization of downtown Wichita on the KPTS public affairs television program Kansas Week on May 22, 2009.

  • Wichita arts funding: not all are happy

    Not everyone is happy with the way the City of Wichita funds the arts and culture. (City looks to improve future arts funding, May 18, 2009 Wichita Eagle)

    Mayor Carl Brewer is quoted as saying “Each year, somebody is not going to get some money, and then it is a personal issue.” I have to tell the mayor that when citizens pay taxes to support institutions that they never visit, they take it personally, too.

    The problem that the city has is that the only way to satisfy all the groups that want funding is to meet their funding requests.

    The best thing the city could do would be to cut off all these groups and institutions. Let them thrive — or not — on their own by providing exhibits, concerts, and events that people really want.

    This would create a culture supported by the people, instead of one prescribed by a set of elitists.

    Previous coverage of this issue:

    Government Art in Wichita “‘Government art.’ Is this not a sterling example of an oxymoron? Must government weasel its way into every aspect of our lives?”

    Economic Fallacy Supports Arts in Wichita “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.”

    Let Markets Fund Arts and Culture “… if the government would stop funding arts, there would be no need for government-mandated performance measures, and the outcomes that occur would be precisely what people really want.”

    How to Decide Arts Funding “There is a common tendency to judge ‘highbrow’ culture — art museums, the symphony, opera, etc. — as somehow being more valued than other culture. But what people actually do indicates something different. When people spend their own money we find that not many go to the piano recital, the symphony, or the art museum. Instead, they attend pop, rock, or country music concerts, attend sporting events, go to movies, eat at restaurants, rent DVDs, and watch cable or satellite television. I’m not prepared to make a value judgment as to which activities are more desirable. In a free society dedicated to personal liberty, that’s a decision for each person to make individually.”

    Arts Funding in Wichita Produces Controversy “… there is a very simple way to decide which arts and cultural organizations are worthy of receiving funds: simply stop government funding. Let the people freely decide, though the mechanism of markets rather than government decree, which organizations they prefer.”

  • At Wichita city council, citizens are frustrated

    Yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council provided a lesson in how frustrating it can be for citizens to interact with city government.

    You might even have to endure a slight insult from our mayor.

    The matter in question involved real estate developer Dave Burk and the city’s economic development office.

    Regarding this matter, I wrote Mr. Burk by email early Monday morning with a question. He didn’t reply. I should have followed-up with a telephone call, but I didn’t have time.

    Monday afternoon I called the city’s economic development office with a few questions. The person I talked to was confused by the questions I asked, and suggested that I make records requests to get what I was asking for. There wasn’t time for that.

    So I wrote by email to Allen Bell the city’s economic development director. He didn’t reply. I don’t necessarily fault him for that, as it was around 3:00 Monday afternoon when I wrote. But he still hasn’t replied, and it’s Wednesday afternoon now.

    In my questions before the council, which you can read by clicking on Wichita facade improvement loan program: questions to answer, I asked if Burk had been investigated through background checks by the city, as the city has pledged to conduct thorough background investigations of its partners. Bell replied that he had been through checks in the past with regard to other deals.

    But we now know, based on events from last December, that the checks the city conducted were cursory, and failed to uncover important facts about a developer. At that meeting, the mayor sternly scolded city staff for their lack of diligence in performing these checks.

    Bell said that Burk is “well known in the community.” It hardly bears mentioning that sitting in the Sedgwick County jail at this moment is another developer who was very well known and very highly regarded in his time. So having a familiar face is not sufficient.

    Bell also revealed that now Burk has equity partners, and the city will be vetting them. That’s too late, however. The ordinance has been passed.

    Bell said that the risk analysis has been performed. That was subject of the inquiry I made in my email to Bell. But there was no mention of that in the agenda materials, and Bell didn’t answer my email.

    Mr. Burk then spoke. He said that the fee being paid to the developer ($39,277) is not being paid to him personally, but is instead “overhead and profit for the contractor doing the work.”

    This is hair-splitting at its finest. If that money wasn’t supplied by this loan, Burk would have to pay it himself.

    He also questioned a figure of 6.5% for an interest rate that I used. That figure is from the agenda material Bell’s office prepared. If citizens can’t rely on that — and remember I contacted Burk and Bell’s office too — what can they rely on?

    Burk said that in today’s market it’s difficult to borrow adequate funds from commercial banks. There’s a reason for that, I would submit.

    He mentioned also that he’d been vetted. Again, this would have been from the time when the vetting process wasn’t rigorous enough to be meaningful.

    Additionally, any vetting process of Burk should take into account his involvement as part of the development team for Waterwalk. This highly-subsidized development in downtown Wichita is recognized as a failure by even the Wichita Eagle editorial board.

    Mayor Carl Brewer thanked Burk for answering questions, because “sometimes information is put out there that’s inaccurate and that’s the way it’s left, as being inaccurate.”

    To the extent that my questions were based on inaccurate information — and that something that’s far from true — some things could have been cleared up if my inquiries the day before had been successful. While it may seem that inquiring the day before a meeting is waiting until the last minute, the agenda and accompanying material for the Tuesday meetings of the council isn’t available until the Thursday or Friday before. So there’s not a lot of time for citizens to act.

    In the end, anything I might have said or questions I might have raised probably would have made little difference in the council’s action. Burk and his wife have made generous campaign contributions to most members of the council, including a total of $2,000 to Janet Miller’s recent successful campaign (that’s the maximum amount it’s possible for two people to contribute). If I’d paid that much, I’d probably feel like I didn’t have to answer questions from pesky citizens.

    A question to raise, and one that needs answering, is if this is a new strategy the city will use in the future: Don’t answer questions from citizens. Provide incomplete or erroneous information in the material you make available. Then, if citizens ask questions, you get to point out all the ways they’re wrong — and on television, too.

  • Wichita facade improvement loan program: questions to answer

    Remarks to be delivered at the May 5, 2009 meeting of the Wichita City Council.

    Mr. Mayor, members of the council:

    Last year, at the January 15, 2008 meeting of this council, there was the notion that city staff would conduct risk analysis of some facade improvement loans that were being considered at that time. I haven’t been able to determine the result of this analysis. Was the risk analysis to be only for the projects in consideration at that time, or is it a procedure that’s in place for all projects, such as the one before you today?

    Last December this council indicated the desire to create a system to thoroughly investigate the backgrounds of developers the city is considering partnering with. Is such a system in place? Has this developer, his company, and his partners been investigated under this process?

    Why is the developer being paid a fee of $39,227 for overhead and project management? This seems to me as though we’re paying someone to manage themselves.

    I realize that we’re not giving the developer this money. Instead, we — the taxpayers of the City of Wichita — will borrow money and then give it to them. They’ll pay back that money as part of their future property taxes.

    That leads to the risk that loaning money to this property against its future tax payments increases the financial leverage of this project to the point where it stands on shaky financial footing. Recently President Obama has warned us how highly leveraged real estate deals are a danger to the economy.

    So shouldn’t the citizens of Wichita be able to see the financial plans for this project, as well as the financial statements of the developers? After all, now the citizens are a partner in this project.

    That brings us to this question: What is the value of this loan program to the developers? Is it the ability to borrow about $700,000 at 6.5% interest, rather than 8.5% or more that private lenders might require?

    My calculations show that the difference between these loans, over 15 years, is about $800 per month.

    And, if according to the gap analysis mentioned in the agenda material, the project is not feasible without this relatively minor assistance, I would submit that the financial feasibility of this project hangs by a mere thread. It’s not something the taxpayers of the city of Wichita should get involved in.

    I’d like to see the city ask for this loan to be personally guaranteed by the developers.

    Schemes like this lead to the broader question: Will any project in downtown Wichita ever be accomplished without the taxpayer being involved?

    That’s what people — at least me — are criticizing. I’m not against downtown development, Mr. Mayor. I’m against the taxpayer being dragged into deals like this that may or may not work.

    It’s entrepreneurs who have the ability to assume and manage risk. They have the potential to earn profits if they do a good job. But the city and its taxpayers don’t have this ability and profit potential. That’s why we need to keep out of these arrangements.

  • Wichita police chief addresses gangs, budget

    Speaking to members of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on May 1, Wichita police chief Norman Williams spoke about the history and present of gangs in Wichita, the police department budget, and took questions from the audience.

    The serious gang problem in Wichita dates from 1988, when gangs from California, Illinois, and Oklahoma moved into Wichita. Their initial purpose was to establish trade in drugs.

    From 1988 to 2009, there have been 601 homicides in Wichita. Of these, 254, or 42%, were gang-related. This has had a tremendous impact on our community.

    In Wichita, there are 1,679 active gang members. To this, add 718 associates, for a total of about 2,300 gang members and associates.

    Gangs use terror and violence to control the drug trade.

    A traffic stop in 2006 lead to a complex investigation called the “Cold Case” investigation. It involved many law enforcement agencies.

    From this investigation, 65 individuals were indicted. 28 were charged under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act. So far 20 have been convicted, 7 are waiting trial, and one was found not guilty. 71 federal search warrants were executed. 10 houses, 26 cars, and over $200,000 cash was seized.

    The Wichita police force has also worked to find illegal aliens.

    Of the 435 police officers in Wichita, about 71 are committed to gang suppression. Williams said this is a very high level of commitment, compared to other communities.

    It takes a community effort, he said, to fight the gang problem. It takes three things — intervention, prevention, and suppression — to control gangs. Law enforcement has placed emphasis on the suppression side.

    Parents and others need to stand together to intervene at early ages to shape the character of children. Otherwise, gangs establish a value system of violence. Children must be held accountable for their actions early on. We need more mentors, volunteers, after school activities, and we need to address the drop out rate.

    The key is connecting all the resources in this community. Children may fall between the cracks otherwise, he said. No one person can do everything, Williams said, but each one of us can do something to bring about change in a young person.

    With regard to its budget, Williams said the department is facing a challenge. The department has been asked to cut $500,000 from its $71.2 million budget. To make this cut, the department recommended to delay the start of the next recruit class ($200,000 savings), not filling two positions vacant due to military service ($80,000), and closing four patrol substations between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. Police officers will continue to work at the stations, but clerical positions will be moved downtown ($147,000).

    The department has also applied for federal stimulus money, applying for funds to hire ten police officers. The grant would provide funds for three years. Then the city would be required, by the terms of the grant, to fund the officers for one more year.

    A question from the audience asked about the challenges to the police department of more activity in downtown Wichita. Chief Williams responded that the department has submitted a proposal to create a new bureau downtown. This proposal is pending.

    Another question asked what does it mean to be a gang member? Williams answered that in 2006, the Kansas Legislature established the legal definition of a gang member and gang associates.

    I asked this question: Since the gangs earn so much from illegal drug trade, if we could put aside the morality and public health issues of drugs, what would be the effect on crime of ending the war on drugs, which would mean legalizing drugs?

    In reply, Williams said he’s not in favor of legalizing drugs. He said that yes, you may run the gang members out of business, but they will figure out a way to do something illicit to earn money. Gangs have become more complex in recent years, becoming involved in identity theft, prostitution, mortgage fraud, and tax violations. The illegal drug trade is not the gangs’ only business.

    If I had a follow up question, I might ask Chief Williams if these other crimes (with the exception of prostitution) involve the type of street violence that terrorizes and harms residents of our city.

    Later I asked about the mayor’s proposal to have — as one person termed it — “free range drinking” at festivals and in areas of Wichita like Old Town. Will this lead to more law enforcement issues?

    Access to alcohol increases the challenges to public safety, the chief said. Can the department handle the challenge? The department has no choice but to deal with it, he said.

  • Wichita covered with tax-advantaged districts

    Here’s a map of improvement and development districts in Wichita and Sedgwick County.

    Sometimes critics of tax increment financing districts (TIF districts) say things like “If TIF districts are good for development, why not make the entire city a TIF district?” Maybe we’re headed that way.

    Wichita Improvement and Redevelopment Districts, April 2009

  • Wichita police chief to speak at Pachyderm

    This Friday Wichita police chief Norman Williams will speak at a meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    All are welcome to attend. Lunch is $10, or you may attend the meeting only for $3.

    At Pachyderm meetings, there’s usually plenty of time for the speaker to take questions from the audience. The meeting starts at noon, although those wishing to order lunch are encouraged to arrive by 11:45. The location is Whiskey Creek Steakhouse at 233 N. Mosely in Old Town.