Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita city government

  • Wichita Residential Property Tax Relief Requested

    Following are remarks that Wichita businessman Craig Gabel delivered to the February 10, 2009 meeting of the Wichita city council. I think Gabel’s idea has some merit. One thing I don’t quite understand is his proposal for “a credit on each residential property owners’ tax statement.” I will ask him for clarification as to how this would work. More information about the Proposition K that Gabel refers to can be found here.

    After Gabel spoke, council member Paul Gray expressed the desire to start discussions on this matter now that the new city manager is in place. Mayor Carl Brewer expressed concern about the benefits and long-term impact of Proposition K. Gray pointed out to Brewer that some of the cities the mayor thinks Wichita should emulate have lower property taxes than we do, but at the cost of higher sales tax. In this exchange, it seems that the mayor realizes that higher taxes are bad for business — at least the aircraft business.

    Here are Gabel’s remarks and the video of his presentation:

    I come before you today to ask you to place a 1% sales tax ordinance, on the April City election Ballot, for city of Wichita residential property tax relief. I am not asking you to reduce mill levies or limit your ability to fund City budgets.

    I ask that we give voters an opportunity to vote on a 1% sales tax that would show as a credit on each residential property owners’ tax statement. In addition in your packet you can find an outline for a property tax relief known as Proposition K. It calls for a freeze on property values, and an annual increase of 2%, for our purposes we are only dealing with residential properties.

    The people of our great city are ready for this change. I have talked to literally thousands of people in Wichita and Sedgwick County and this subject is foremost on their minds. The reasons are many. Some are senior citizens that have seen virtually no income growth over the past decade. Most are working age adults that have seen a meager 30% increase in income while appraised values have increased 100% and property taxes have seen a 97% increase. All are ready to share the burden of the cost of local government.

    There are several other advantages that make this proposal extremely attractive.

    • With property values possibly decreasing due to the economic crisis, this would stabilize the City tax base.
    • The 2% annual increase would allow for limited budget growth and cost of living increases.
    • Homeowners would be more inclined to make home improvements, thus stimulating the local housing market and getting contractors back to work.
    • Laid-off workers would see some small relief on their home mortgages as a result.

    Finally in addition to asking you for this property tax relief I am scheduled to ask the Sedgwick County Commissioners for the same relief at the County level on Wed Feb. 18.

    Other news coverage can be found here:
    Wichita Council Wants To Discuss Sales Tax Verses Property Tax (KWCH Television)
    Wichita to discuss new sales tax to reduce property tax (Wichita Eagle)

  • Health and Wellness Coalition of Wichita Asks Candidates a few Questions

    Note to raders: I made an error in the original article when I relied on a source’s representation that these questions came from the YMCA. They are actually from the Health and Wellness Coalition of Wichita. The YMCA is just one of several dozen members of this group.

    Here are the questions asked of candidates:

    • Describe the connection between the built environment and community health.
    • What is city government’s role in creating a more pedestrian/bike friendly environment?
    • How can a city get engaged in promoting healthy eating?

    The last question is especially troublesome.

  • Wichita Municipal Judges Need to be Elected

    Here’s a letter from citizen activist John Todd to Wichita City Council candidate Ken Thomas. The election of Wichita municipal court judges is important for reasons John makes clear in his testimony to the Kansas Legislature from 2004, which follows.

    I am pleased that you are making the election of Municipal Court Judges by the people a campaign issue. Since 1999 three different local state legislators introduced bills in the legislature in an attempt to achieve municipal court reform, primarily by allowing the people to elect municipal court judges. All efforts at municipal court reform on the state level have failed. I am not an attorney, but I am now of the opinion that the city of Wichita could legislate the election of Wichita Municipal Court judges by Charter ordinance through their Home Rule powers as allowed by the Kansas Constitution.

    Attached for your information are copies of testimony I presented before House and Senate legislative committees in 2004 regarding the need for the election of municipal court judges. I believe the arguments for the election of municipal court judges by the people I presented at that time are still applicable for today.

    This information is intended to help you in your attempt to make the election of Wichita Municipal Court judges a reality. Please let me know if I can provide additional information. Former Wichita Municipal court judge Bruce Brown who was recently elected as a judge in the 18th Judicial System would be a good source of information regarding the election of municipal judges.

    Here’s John’s testimony:

    February 18, 2004
    To: Members of the House Ethics and Elections Committee
    Subject: Support for the passage of HB#2811, Election of Municipal Court Judges by the People.

    My name is John Todd. I am a self-employed real estate broker from Wichita. I am here to speak as a private citizen in favor of the passage of House Bill No. 2811 that would allow the people to elect their Municipal Court Judges in the same manner and at the same time that they elect their City Council Members and Mayors.

    I have been studying the Wichita Municipal Court since 1997. As a frequent visitor to the Court I have witnessed the workings of the Court, and I have had the opportunity to visit with citizens who have appeared before the Court. The Municipal Court has more power over citizens than most people know about. The Court can levy hundreds of dollars in fines against citizens, and can send them to jail for up to one year.

    One of my first surprises was that there is no stenographic record of the Court proceedings. The Judge and the Prosecuting Attorney, both appointed city employees, can therefore say or do anything they wish with impunity! I heard one Municipal Court Judge refer to his docket as the “cattle call”. On another occasion I observed a citizen threatened with 5 years in prison if he didn’t follow the Judges wishes even though the Court jurisdiction only allows a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

    I discovered that the Wichita Municipal Court Judges are actually appointed by the City Council. They actually work at the pleasure of the City Council from whom they receive their salary. There is no separation of power between the City Council (the Legislative Branch) and the Judge (the Judiciary Branch) of city government. The Municipal Court is therefore not independent from the influence of the City Council. In the late 1990’s the Municipal Court Judges were actually required to sign employment contracts with the City Council. Can anyone imagine the how difficult it would be for a citizen to protect their rights and receive due process of law in a Federal or State Court if Federal and State Court Judges worked at the pleasure of Congress or the State Legislature!

    There are those who contend that the Municipal Courts are a revenue source for cities and towns with little thought of justice or doing what the law requires. One could see how a Municipal Court Judge who is appointed by the City Council might come under pressure from City Councils to raise money. A Wichita Eagle article reported that Wichita Municipal Court revenues increased from approximately $3 million to $9 million over a period of 6 years. That is an increase of approximately 300%. It is interesting to note that during the same time period that Court fines increased, news media accounts gave no mention of a 300% increase in the crime rate. Does anyone really suspect that the Wichita Municipal Court was more interested in collecting revenue than in dispensing justice?

    Why is the election of Municipal Court Judges so important? I would estimate that a huge majority of our citizens who have their day in Court do so in the Municipal Court system in our towns and cities across the state. Is it important that people receive a fair trial in a free and independent Court? Absolutely yes! Is the citizen’s impression and perception as to the quality of justice that is dispensed important? As public servants, I believe you all know the answer to that question.

    The election of Municipal Court Judges is the right thing to do. It returns control of the Municipal Courts to the people and makes the Judiciary branch of city government accountable to them. Please support the passage of House Bill No. 2811.

  • Wichita Center City South TIF Changes Slip Through

    At the December 16, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, a major revision to the development plan of a downtown Wichita TIF district was made. This TIF district is a project of Real Development, whose principals Michael Elzufon and David Lundberg are commonly known as the “Minnesota Guys.”

    The changes to this plan were not made in secret, but the document describing them was buried in the 675-page agenda report (or “green sheets”) for that meeting. These changes escaped the notice of any local news media (at least my searches show no stories being reported), including the Wichita Eagle and Wichita Business Journal. At the city council meeting, no one from the public spoke or asked questions. No council members did, either.

    The original plan dates from July, 2007. Highlights of the changes from then to now include:

    1. Changing from condominium ownership to rentals.

    2. Property acquisition costs are now $3,000,000, up from $2,250,000 in the original plan. The city is reimbursing Real Development for these costs as part of the TIF. Probably a primary reason for this increase is that another building is being bought by the city for the developers.

    3. The cost of the parking garage is now $6,300,000, up from $3,750,000 in the original plan. This again is paid for by the TIF.

    As stated in a document titled “FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR EXCHANGE PLACE PROJECT PLAN December 16, 2008” in Section 2: “The amount of Eligible Project Costs is hereby increased from Six Million Five Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars $6,580,000.00) to Ten Million One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($10,180,000.00).” This represents an increase of 54.7% from the original plan.

  • At Wichita City Council, why are some doors open, and others closed?

    Steve Compton, owner of the Eaton Steakhouse in downtown Wichita, spoke to the Wichita city council on the public agenda at its February 3, 2009 meeting.

    (The public agenda is where anyone can speak about any topic for up to five minutes.)

    Mr. Compton said he chose a bad time to start a business a year and a half ago. His business is just as important as others, he said, and he wants the city council to consider small business when making their plans as to which businesses to help. He said his business has 28 employees. He asked the city council for its support and consideration, without asking for anything specific.

    Readers of the Voice For Liberty in Wichita know that I oppose subsidy to business. Therefore, I oppose Mr. Compton’s efforts. His request, however, illustrates the problems that arise when government chooses to subsidize some firms at the expense of others. This request is sort of the opposite case of the warning that Wichita Interim City Manager Ed Flentje issued to the council last summer regarding a loan interest subsidy made to the Warren Theater: “There are in this community much larger businesses with much larger employment who may see this opening as something that will open a door for those businesses to come and say, ‘You’ve done it before, you can do it for us.’”

    Mr. Compton didn’t ask for a subsidy, but he must want something from the city. The problem is that the city — assuming it wants to — will have a hard time finding a basis on which to decline this request. That is, a basis that springs from any sense of equity, as it seems that Mr. Compton’s business doesn’t fall into any of the categories of economic development incentives Wichita has to offer.

    The city dishes out economic favors at nearly every council meeting. For example, at today’s meeting the council is granting three Wichita companies a big favor, forgiving them from paying property tax on some of their property. These actions are being taken without any discussion except for the presentation made by Allen Bell, the city’s economic development director.

    So why is the door open for some companies, but not others?

  • Ask What Questions About Downtown Wichita YMCA Deal?

    Remarks to be delivered to the February 3, 2009 meeting of the Wichita city council.

    When considering the sale of city-owned land, the city has an obligation to get the best deal possible for the actual owners of the land, which are the citizens of Wichita.

    But it seems, according to the agenda report, that the city has already decided on a single buyer for this land, the YMCA. With only one buyer and a seller whose leader has stated that it is “seeking a partnership” with that buyer, citizens are entitled to wonder if their interests will be protected. Citizens should ask if these negotiations are going to be at arm’s length.

    (A side question: What does a partnership with the YMCA mean? Is the city planning to do something else besides selling it the land?)

    So how can Wichitans be sure that the city strikes a good bargain for its citizens?

    Today’s Wichita Eagle editorial is titled “Ask questions about YMCA proposal.” The problem is that we don’t know what questions to ask. We citizens need some help with this.

    Mr. Mayor, at your State of the City address last week you said: “This City Council wants to keep building public trust in government.” You also mentioned a desire for greater transparency. This is a great opportunity to start on that path. I can think of a few ways right now.

    One way the city can help achieve greater transparency is to release the terms of the offers received last year.

    A second way is to conduct the negotiations with the YMCA in the open. Invite news media and citizens to observe. Let citizens ask questions. Release draft agreements before they’re finalized. Televise this on channel 7. Since there is only one buyer, there is no need to keep negotiations secret. There’s no other buyer that could gain from the learning details, as there could be if there were multiple buyers.

    Measures like these will let citizens and news media ask the right questions as the negotiations proceed. Otherwise, the deal will be struck, and then it’s too late for questions.

  • From Kevass Harding to Lavonta Williams

    One of the unusual sightings on the campaign finance report filed last month by Lavonta Williams, current Wichita city council member and candidate for re-election, is two contributions totaling $1,000 from Kevass Harding and his wife. These contributions represent the maximum it was possible for two people to give at the time.

    These contributions are unusual in that the Hardings don’t show up very often on the lists of contributors to local politicians. On May 20, 2008, Kevass Harding contributed $250 to Donald Betts, Jr. in his campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives. Then on November 24, 2008, Teketa Harding contributed $50 to Kansas House candidate Cheryl McFarthing.

    So the Hardings do contribute a little bit now and then. But the $1,000 to council member Williams represents a new step forward for the Hardings.

    I have a theory as to why the Hardings made these contributions, but it will have to remain just that, as none of the parties have answered direct questions about this contribution. All that we know for certain is that these contributions were made last June, right before Harding’s application for the Ken-Mar TIF district went before the Wichita city council, of which Lavonta Williams is a member, in July and August.

    I’ve asked both parties to explain whether there was or was not a connection between the contributions and the application for the TIF district. Williams answered the question obliquely, not addressing the questions that Wichitans want the answer to (see Lavonta Williams Campaign Contributions Raise a Few Questions). Harding didn’t respond to email or telephone inquiries. But that’s not surprising, as last summer he wouldn’t return my telephone calls. That’s even though I am his constituent, as he is the at-large member of the Wichita school board.

    So we’re left to wonder.

  • Lavonta Williams campaign contributions raise a few questions

    See end of article for disclosure.

    Analysis of the campaign finance report recently filed by Lavonta Williams, current Wichita city council member and candidate for re-election, revealed a few interesting insights about her campaign.

    First: The campaign contributions are concentrated from one industry. Of the $16,550 in cash contributions raised by the Williams campaign and disclosed in this report, $10,500 (63%) came from sources that are real estate developers, or from people closely connected to them such as their spouses. These developers are often asking city hall for subsidy or favor.

    I asked council member Williams a few questions by email, such as: Can you explain why this industry supports your candidacy so strongly? Do you think there is any linkage between your support for TIF districts and other subsidies that benefit many of these developers and their contributions? (Her answer is reported following.)

    Second, this concentration of contributions by one industry may be even stronger than reported above. It appears that $1,050 in contributions are from 14 attorneys (or spouses) that work for one law firm, Hinkle Elkouri Law Firm LLC. This firm has among its clients several of the developers who contributed the 63% reported above. I asked council member Williams if there is any reason for the generosity of this one law firm.

    Third, even non-downtown developers are contributing to the Williams campaign. Near the end of June, Kevass Harding and his wife contributed a total of $1,000, the maximum allowed by law, to the Williams campaign. This was right before Harding appeared before the city council in July and August as an applicant for TIF district financing. I asked council member Williams these questions: How did Harding come to make this contribution? How did he know that you were considering a run for office? Was there any connection between the contribution and your advocacy for his TIF district?

    I received an email message from council member Williams in response to my questions. Here it is, in its entirety:

    Mr. Weeks,

    Throughout my 35+ years of service as an educator, neighborhood and community activist, I have met and worked with many people who have given back to this community and made a difference in the lives of Wichitans. Some of them are supporting my campaign, and I am grateful for that support as we continue to work together, in our various ways, to making Wichita a better place.

    I think we can say that Ms. Williams chooses not to answer the questions I asked.

    Fourth, there are some peculiar aspects of this campaign finance report regarding dates. The cover sheet states the report covers the time period April 1, 2008 through July 16, 2008. A check with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission confirmed that the report should have covered through December 31, 2008, as did the reports for other candidates for city council.

    That office told me they had checked with the Williams campaign, and that the campaign said there were no contributions from the middle of July to the end of December. It seems strange that there would be a flurry of contributions to the campaign in June and July, and then nothing — not even one contribution — for the remaining months of 2008.

    A curious omission from the list of contributors is anyone connected to Real Development.

    It won’t be long before another campaign finance report will be due. It will be interesting to see if council member Williams can broaden the base of her supporters.

    Disclosure: I am a supporter of James Barfield, an opponent of council member Williams, and have provided volunteer service to his campaign.

  • Term Limits in Wichita

    In Wichita, city council members and the mayor are limited to serving two four-year terms. Last February the Wichita Eagle reported that some council members were considering a measure to end term limits. The main reason for wanting to do away with term limits is the perception that time and experience are required in order to become an effective council member. But under term limits, the tenure of experienced council members is artificially cut short. The public, therefore, doesn’t get the benefit of these experienced council members.

    At a recent Wichita Pachyderm Club meeting, council member Paul Gray spoke. I asked him about term limits — he has about two more years to serve before his limit expires — and he expressed opposition to term limits as he did last year.

    “I think it’s an arbitrary barrier that puts more power in the hands of bureaucracy and staff than it does in elected representatives,” he said. He added there’s not enough support on the city council to pass a resolution that would then appear on a ballot that citizens would vote on.

    Kansas Senator Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, Democrat from Kansas City, expressed similar concerns to me. He said it takes experience to become a good legislator. With high turnover in the Kansas legislature, he said we don’t make the best decisions that we could make.

    Underlying these arguments is the assumption that we need experienced, effective legislators, county commission members, city council members, and school board members. If your goal is to expand the power and influence of government, maybe so. But if you seek to limit the power of government and tip the balance back towards individual liberty, experienced and powerful elected representatives are not what we need.

    The argument that we need experienced elected officials to provide a counter to powerful staff members and bureaucrats can be eliminated by, well, eliminating powerful staff and bureaucrats. If we seek a limited government, we need to reduce the number and power of these. In the meantime, elected representatives should pass laws that give more power to them, rather than to staff and bureaucrats.

    There is one argument against term limits that is persuasive to me. If we view voting as an act of speech, then term limits are a limitation on that speech. I asked a noted term limits opponent at the national level about this, and he’d never heard that argument before. So it’s novel, and perhaps I’m not thinking though this argument thoroughly.

    I do know, however, that if the power and intrusiveness of government were limited, it wouldn’t matter as much who holds office.

    For more information on term limits, see these resources:
    U.S. Term Limits
    Citizens for Term Limits
    Real term Limits: Now More Than Ever
    A Brief History of Term Limits