Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita city government

  • Wichita Chamber of Commerce makes case for interventionism

    In a talk to the Wichita Pachyderm Club on Friday April 24, 2009, Bryan S. Derreberry, President and CEO of the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, laid out the case for government management of our area’s economic and community development. The title of the talk was “The Basis for Economic Partner Selection and Collaborative Efforts.” The slide presentation is available at the end of this article.

    While the Chamber is, strictly speaking, not an arm of government, it receives a large amount of government funding. Additionally, many of the incentives that it offers to companies require governmental action and funding to implement.

    One of the things I learned — I had suspected this, but now it is confirmed — is that “economic and community development are now the same.” The Chamber views their mission as more than just economic development.

    Moreover, there’s a lot of competition in the economic development field. There are 361 MSA (metropolitan statistical areas) in the United States. There are 18,000 economic development organizations in the United States. All are looking to attract and retain business, just like the Wichita Chamber is.

    The prize being sought — the really large expansion or relocation — is relatively rare, as Derreberry said there are just 200 expansions or relocations that feature 500 or more employees each year.

    Some of the important tangible things companies are looking at, in order of decreasing importance, are highway access, low labor costs, low occupancy and construction costs, tax exemptions, availability of energy and its cost, availability of skilled labor, state and local incentives, fair corporate tax rates, low union profile, and available land and buildings.

    One of the slides Derreberrry presented dealt with the intangible factors that, if aren’t nailed down, “the competition will beat you every time.” These include:

    • Risk minimization for expanding or relocating employer
    • Cooperative, enthusiastic, positive, and sincere public and private leadership — sophisticated and wanting of the project
    • Consultative economic development experts
    • Solutions-oriented negotiations (“we’ll find a way”)
    • Tireless momentum that overcomes obstacles

    Other intangible qualities of a location include attributes such as vitality, earning, learning, social capital, cost of lifestyle, “after hours,” and “around town.” Many of these fall in to what our mayor and others refer to as amenities. It’s now the duty, it seems, of a city to plan for and provide entertainment for its citizens. Among the economic development planners, this is known as the “third place” beyond home and work: Are there other places I can go and feel good about the community I’m in?

    Two years ago Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal wrote an important article titled “Tax Chambers.” I’ve commented on it before in Tax Chambers of Commerce, Right Here in Kansas and The Decline of Local Chambers of Commerce. I used this article as the foundation for a question, which went something like this:

    “In February 2007, Stephen Moore wrote a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In it he said ‘Thanks to an astonishing political transformation, many chambers of commerce on the state and local level have been abandoning these goals. They’re becoming, in effect, lobbyists for big government. … In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper.’ Mr. Derreberry, the Wichita Chamber has supported tax increases, subsidies, centralized government planning, and what I call crony capitalism. Do you think this is valid criticism of this chamber?”

    He replied that the Chamber opposed a tax increase for education in 2002. The Chamber will support “responsible” taxes, he said. He recognized that a high tax and regulatory environment will inhibit the ability to grow communities. He didn’t address subsidy or centralized government planning, and he didn’t agree that this criticism applies to the Wichita Chamber. Something tells me he doesn’t get asked questions like this very often.

    Granting the incentives that the Wichita Chamber wants to offer is expensive. It requires government to pay subsidy directly to companies, or, as is often the case, grant companies relief from paying taxes. Sometimes a company is allowed to use its taxes for its own exclusive benefit, instead of funding the general operations of government.

    All these courses are costly.

    There’s also some question as to how important these subsidies are to companies. Last year, it was reported that North Carolina offered Cessna $200 million to build a new plant there. Between Kansas, Sedgwick County, and the City of Wichita, Cessna received an offer of $35 million, and decided to build the new plant here. To me, it looks like Cessna left $165 million on the table. Is building a new plant in Wichita worth that much? If they left $165 million on the table, would they have left, say, $185 million there too? The cynic in me says that Cessna never seriously considered building the plant outside Wichita, but they nonetheless wanted a reward for being a good corporate citizen.

    The planning that Mr. Derreberry talks about requires government expansion and interventionism on a grand scale. In a newspaper op-ed a few years ago, he mentioned the entrepreneurial spirit of Wichita. Government planning like the downtown revitalization effort underway in Wichita strangles entrepreneurship. So does the public-private partnership.

    Since there’s so much competition in economic development, and since Wichita doesn’t have picturesque mountains or seashore, why don’t we try something really different? We could make Wichita and Kansas a laboratory for economic freedom. That would be something quite unusual these days. There’s no telling to what level of prosperity we might advance.

    The problem is that this would require unilateral disarmament by Wichita in the escalating arms race between states and cities to see who can dish out the greatest incentives. It doesn’t seem likely to happen, especially given the short time frame of most politicians — the next election campaign.

    I spoke to one activist after the talk, and he was distressed at the call for government intervention that Mr. Derreberry called for. This reaction was in the minority, as many seemed appreciate of the Chamber’s efforts.

    Another person I talked to said the Chamber’s action reminded him of a quote from Adam Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”

    Myself, I thought of a passage by Milton Friedman, which reads: “[The political system] tends to give undue political power to small groups that have highly concentrated interests; to give greater weight to obvious, direct and immediate effects of government action than to possibly more important but concealed, indirect and delayed effects; to set in motion a process that sacrifices the general interest to serve special interests rather than the other way around. There is, as it were, an invisible hand in politics that operates in precisely the opposite direction to Adam Smith’s invisible hand.”

    The basis for economic partner selection and collaborative efforts

  • Wichita city council celebrates while others face cuts

    It’s reported that the City of Wichita is facing a $6.5 million shortfall. The city’s looking at several ways to reduce costs, including closing police substations during the overnight hours ($148,000), reducing lawn mowing at parks ($100,000), and cutting back on swimming pool hours ($2,000).

    Here’s one simple thing the city could do to save money that won’t cause very many people any pain at all: cut back on celebratory luncheons.

    On Tuesday April 14, 2009, after the city council meeting, 37 guests lunched at the Hyatt Regency. The total cost of this event to the city, according to the estimate of charges that I asked for, was $1,046.99.

    The event was titled “Wichita City Council Changing of the Guard.”

    That’s not the total cost of the festivities on that day. A city council meeting was held. It was light on business, but long on sentiment. A video presentation of the highlights of departing council member Sharon Fearey’s tenure was shown. Maybe someone else will want to ask how many hours of city employee time it took to create this video.

    Even in good times I don’t think the city should be spending taxpayer funds on celebrations like this. Now the council is asking others to cut, but is spending like this on itself. It’s a mixed message that Wichitans need to remember.

  • Wichita city council endorsements

    Voters in Wichita are deciding on who should fill three city council district positions. Here’s some information to help make a decision.

    In district 1, voters can choose between the appointed incumbent Lavonta Williams and businessman James Barfield. There’s quite a contrast between these two. In my opinion, Williams supports increasing government intervention and intrusion into the lives of Wichitans. This comes in her support of policies such as a smoking ban and TIF districts, but also even in things like the city considering to start providing computer tech support to citizens.

    Barfield is opposed to many of these things, in particular TIF districts. I appreciate enough of Barfield’s positions — and as a liberty-loving Wichitan I am so opposed to many of Williams’ — that I have provided volunteer service to the Barfield campaign. I encourage district 1 voters to vote for James Barfield.

    In district 3, incumbent Jim Skelton faces Charles Dahlem. Skelton has worked hard for his district. He is often the only council member to ask some tough questions of city staff. Sometimes he has frustrated me, as he will express concern or even disagreement with a matter before the council, but he votes for it in the end. I’d like to be able to persuade him that there’s nothing wrong with being on the short end of a six to one vote.

    Also, sometimes when asking city staff members a tough question, instead of sitting still and letting staff answer the question, he may talk over his question, giving staff an easy out. Despite these reservations, I believe Skelton can grow in a second term, and if I lived in district 3, I would vote for him.

    In district 6 voters can choose between Bob Aldrich and Janet Miller. Both have a history of involvement in civic affairs. In endorsing Miller, the Wichita Eagle noted her effectiveness and leadership during her service on various boards. But her positions are wrong. A recent letter in the Eagle got it just right when the writer called her a “Sharon Fearey protoge,” meaning that there are few government programs that she would not be opposed to starting or expanding.

    While I do not agree with Bob Aldrich on all issues — TIF districts and economic development, for example — he would provide a fiscally conservative voice on the city council from a district that doesn’t often send such representatives to the council. I recommend that district 6 voters vote for Bob Aldrich.

  • Lavonta Williams still exploiting dead man

    I had thought this issue would be over, that Wichita city council candidate Lavonta Williams would revise her campaign materials and make the needed corrections. But here’s a report from a citizen:

    “I received a new mailer today from Lavonta and she is STILL using the dead man’s name as a supporter. This is clearly intentional and unacceptable.”

    Original reporting is at Wichita political endorsements from the other side and Another unlikely Lavonta Williams voter.

  • Cornejo & Sons Campaign Contributions

    A few weeks ago, Cornejo & Sons, Inc., a Wichita company, was reported to be in serious violation of agreements with the City of Wichita regarding a construction landfill.

    The Wichita Eagle story Cornejo landfill along K-15 taller than permitted reports the contemporary details. My post Cornejo & Sons campaign contributions history recaps some of this company’s problems with political campaign contributions in the past.

    Undoubtedly this company and its landfill will be in front of the Wichita city council before too long. Voters may want to know to whom has Cornejo or its associates contributed recently. Here’s what my inspection of campaign finance reports shows:

    Lavonta Williams (candidate in district 1) received a contribution of $300 from company president Ron Cornejo on April 17, 2008. Another $500 was received on March 4, 2009.

    Bob Aldrich (candidate in district 6) received a contribution of $200 from company president Ron Cornejo on January 28, 2009.

  • More unlikely Lavonta Williams voters

    I don’t want to emphasize this too much, as these cases are not in the same league as listing an endorsement from a dead man (Wichita political endorsements from the other side and Campaign mailer listed endorsement from dead man ).

    But for completeness — possibly, who knows — here’s the rundown on a few more people who are listed on Lavonta Williams’ campaign literature under the heading “Join us in voting WILLIAMS on April 7:”

    Elder Herman Hicks. He lives in Derby.

    Reverend Kevass Harding. He lives in Bel Aire, outside the Wichita city limits. But he works at a church in district 1, and is involved in Wichita taxpayer-subsidized real estate development there, too. But he can’t vote in district 1.

    Brother Clifford Easiley. He lives in precinct 224, in city council district 2. (It’s spelled “Easily” on the mail piece.)

    Reverend Lincoln Montgomery. He lives in precinct 218 in the exclusive Willowbend neighborhood. That’s a long way, figuratively, from the inner-city church he serves in district 1.

  • Another unlikely Lavonta Williams voter

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains a story that provides some detail behind something readers of this blog already knew. The Eagle story Campaign mailer listed endorsement from dead man tells how Val Jackson, a prominent Wichita businessman who died in 2002, came to be listed as someone who will be voting for Lavonta Williams.

    Sharp-eyed readers who received that mailing might notice another name that doesn’t belong in a list of those who will be voting for Lavonta Williams: John Kemp.

    A look at the voter file shows there’s no one with a name close to this registered to vote in district 1.

    There is, however, a John Kemp active in city politics in his role as a member of a District Advisory Board. But he lives in and serves on the DAB for district 3.

    Since he doesn’t live in Williams’ district, it’s hard to see how he’ll be voting for her.

    While it would be easy to brush off these mistakes as trivial, this sloppiness in Williams’ campaign material is the same sloppiness we’ve become accustomed to in city hall. Whether intentional or not, it’s a cause for concern.

    It further raises the issue of who is really pulling the strings on the Williams campaign team. Is it the candidate herself, or her advisors such as Beth King, with ties to those who seek subsidy from Wichita city hall? The post Williams — King — Minnesota Guys connection raises concern supplies details of one such connection.

  • Williams — King — Minnesota Guys connection raises concern

    There’s a triangle of influence and connections that should raise flags of caution as voters decide the makeup of the Wichita city council.

    At the center is Beth King, a Wichita public relations executive. She’s well known in city hall, having managed the mayoral campaign of Carl Brewer in 2007. She’s said to be a close advisor to him. Her name is so familiar that when her emails are forwarded among department heads in city hall, she’s referred to as simply “Beth.” No last name is necessary.

    The connection that voters should be aware of is this: King is the campaign manager for Lavonta Williams, who is seeking election to the district 1 council seat she holds after being appointed to fill the remainder of Brewer’s term after he was elected mayor.

    King is also the public relations consultant for Real Development. This firm — best known for its principals the “Minnesota Guys” — is a beneficiary of Wichita taxpayer dollars in the form of TIF districts and facade improvement loans paid back by special tax assessments.

    Lavonta Williams voted for each of the programs the Minnesota Guys wanted. Enthusiastically.

    The Minnesota Guys will be asking for more TIF financing, according to Wichita Eagle reporting.

    Lavonta Williams, should she be elected to a new term on the council, will be voting on whether to give the Minnesota Guys access to more Wichita taxpayer funds.

    Who will advise Williams how to vote? Beth King, her campaign manager, with financial ties to the Minnesota Guys?

    It’s a relationship too close for taxpayer comfort.

  • Wichita political endorsements from the other side

    A recent mailing by Wichita city council candidate Lavonta Williams contains an endorsement that seems a bit implausible.

    I don’t know anything about the politics of Val Jackson, a prominent Wichita businessman who, in Williams’ recent mailer, is listed under the heading “Join us in voting WILLIAMS on April 7.”

    But I do know he died in 2002.