Although there has been progress, cronyism and the swamp may be renewed in Washington.
Right under the nose of a president who promised to drain the swamp, one of the government’s shadiest handouts to large banks and big companies looks like it will be renewed for another 25 years. It will not get adequate oversight and congressional review. All it will take is the approval of two out of three U.S. Export-Import Bank directors, who are political appointees.
That entity is called the Private Export Funding Corporation, or PEFCO.
Veronique de Rugy is a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. She goes on to explain that PEFCO acquires Export-Import Bank loans from private lenders. (The Ex-Im Bank is its own universe of cronyism.) It gets complicated, but the upshot is that many people are earning fees and interest without assuming risk, as taxpayers assume all the risk.
Many government programs guarantee loans. But as de Rugy notes: “The Export-Import Bank has been criticized for its cronyism, but PEFCO adds insult to injury because most of its shareholders are also its customers.”
Click for largerPEFCO and the Export-Import Bank represent cronyism — the swamp — at its height. In her commentary, she notes: “Although PEFCO is ostensibly a private institution, its activities incur no risks for itself or its private shareholders.” In the nearby chart from PEFCO’s 2019 annual report, we can see that the country with the largest balance of loans is China. In other words, U.S. taxpayers are on the hook should China default on these loans.
In the commentary, de Rugy closes with these recommendations:
In light of the current economic crisis, some may feel that now is not the time to reconsider or even reform PEFCO. But not even the most pessimistic economic scenarios assume that the current crisis will last 25 years. Assuming that the liquidity argument holds, if the guarantee agreement between the Ex-Im Bank and PEFCO is renewed again, it should be renewed for only one year, at the end of which the need for, or appropriate role of, PEFCO should be revisited in light of prevailing economic conditions. In the meantime, the Ex-Im Bank should review the appropriateness of its exclusive relationship with PEFCO.
In addition, PEFCO should under no circumstances be allowed to pay dividends to its shareholders, since they have zero capital at risk.
Finally, to signal a ceiling on the level of support that US taxpayers will provide to PEFCO’s shareholders, the Ex-Im Bank should not expand its guarantee for the interest payments that PEFCO owes on its secured notes, as has been proposed.
There are eight major lessons for Wichita voters when they cast their ballots on or before November 5, 2019, concerning the revelations of favoritism involving the mayor, apparently a majority of the city council, and a number of Wichita businesses and businessmen concerning a proposed massive city water plant contract that is close to half a billion dollars.
The Wichita Eagle’s detailed reporting on this proposed contract, Mayor Longwell’s role deserves scrutiny at several different levels.
Let me begin with full disclosure. Both Mayor Longwell and I are registered Republicans, and also GOP precinct committeemen in our respective west Wichita precincts. The mayor is now one of the most prominent Republican mayors in the entire country. In 2012, then-city council member Longwell ran against me in the Republican primary for the Sedgwick County Commission. He lost. Subsequently, in 2015, Jeff Longwell defeated Sam Williams in the non-partisan general election for Wichita mayor.
Finally Exposing Improper City Contract Conduct
The Wichita Eagle deserves credit for researching city records following an expensive KORA records request. The paper also deserves credit for reporting the story about favoritism, cronyism, and how public-private partnerships” actually have been operating as part of the proposed new water plant at city hall.
However, this story implicitly treats this type of conduct as new. In reality, there is an extensive history of similar conduct going back for years at city hall. That raises the question, why now?
News Hole
The huge volume of space the Wichita Eagle initially provided to cover this front page, above the fold story on a Sunday paper is remarkable. It was extremely large. I doubt that the 1969 moon landing, the 9-11-2001 Islamist terrorist attacks, or pick any of the presidential campaign election results since the 1960s had as much space with as many words above the fold on the front page, and followed with two full pages inside the Sunday paper, and editorial commentary as this city hall story. As a percentage of the total news hole in the paper, a higher percentage was probably contained within this edition of the paper.
I believe that you would probably need to go back to the JFK assassination for coverage that may have included more space than this Sunday, September 29, 2019 story received.
This is quite a contrast in local news coverage from past examples of city contracts that were handled in a similar way over many years. Let’s look at why this might have occurred.
Weakened Local News Media
The news organizations in Wichita have been decimated by digitization. The digital world has dramatically changed the environment for print and broadcasting, whether it is radio or TV. All of these organizations are smaller, have reduced staffs, and lack the ability to do extensive and expensive research needed to provide any sort of investigative reporting. That is why the Eagle’s reporting on this story is remarkable since the room for news in this shrunken paper is a small fraction of what it was 10 or even just five years ago.
The Eagle’s reporting is also notable because its parent company, McClatchy Corporation (MCN), is in severe financial distress, with a corporate capital base hovering around $20 million while the firm’s indebtedness is many times larger. Recently, the Eagle announced that it was discontinuing daily publication, and will be printed six times weekly beginning in November.
McClatchy Corporation stock is now under $3 a share despite having a reverse stock-split that dramatically reduced the number of shares (1 for 10) in this financially distressed firm. To raise cash, McClatchy recently sold their Kansas City Star building. The details of this transaction that included a 15-year leaseback, indicate a company suffering severe financial difficulties.
Despite these cash flow problems, the resources needed to write this story were provided. The Wichita broadcast news media is now following, and reporting this story too.
However, this type of reporting could have occurred years ago and wasn’t. Why not?
Vote for the Leftist With A Chance
The very liberal Wichita Eagle editorial page is nothing new. When Knight-Ridder owned the eagle, the paper did an in-your-face endorsement of the liberal Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election to its readers in Republican-voting Kansas.
Now the Eagle knew that their endorsement would not matter. Kansas had not voted for a Democrat for president since 1964, or before that, 1936 when Kansas’ favorite son, Alf Landon, was defeated by FDR. Despite this, they endorsed a Massachusetts leftist who went on to lose in a national landslide, as well as a Kansas landslide in this state. Even if a Republican loses a national election, Kansans overwhelming voted for Bob Dole every time his name appeared on the national election ballot.
State and local newspaper endorsements are different. This is where the Eagle’s endorsements have had more influence in races where voters may not know as much about the candidates. This is more of a factor in primaries where even less is known about candidates and their positions, than in general elections.
Now the Eagle’s defenders will take exception to this claim about liberal endorsements. Eagle defenders will claim that the paper has endorsed some Republicans, and occasionally even a conservative. It is true, this has occasionally occurred but only under a narrow set of circumstances. These non-liberal endorsements only occur when it was clear that the conservative was likely to win, and usually would win big regardless of who or how the paper endorsed. The Eagle’s editorial endorsement policy is usually to endorse the most liberal candidate with a reasonable chance to win, and has been in place for more than 40 years I’ve lived in Wichita.
As the paper’s financial and news resources have weakened, the ability to endorse has diminished with their diminishing circulation but still has substantial influence in low-turnout elections that especially include primaries, and down-ballot races.
Voice for Liberty Records It
Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer with major campaign donor Dave Wells of Key Construction. Evidently, Wichita city code did not prohibit Brewer from voting to give millions in contracts and subsidy to Key.The Voice for Liberty website at wichitaliberty.org pictured former Mayor Carl Brewer, a liberal Democrat, holding a big fish while standing next to a prominent local businessman David Wells of Key Construction Company. Next to this picture Weeks included a Brewer letter on city hall letterhead praising Key Construction Company and identifying it as the special construction company with city hall connections.
Bob Weeks and Voice for Liberty did everything possible to call out this situation. Interest in the local news media, from the Wichita Eagle to the broadcasters can be described in one word: crickets. Nada, nothing, ain’t going to go there was the Wichita news media reaction. But there are more city hall purchase contract shenanigans, and it is more recent.
Wichita Eagle Skews
In July 2012 the city council voted to give a large, nine-figure construction contract to a Michigan company with their select Wichita partners to replace the Wichita Airport terminal. The Michigan company and their local partners, including Key Construction, weren’t the low bidders. The lowest bidder was a Wichita construction company.
The Michigan company partnered with Key Construction and won the city council vote on this contract. Then-city council member Jeff Longwell voted to give this large contract to the Michigan/Key construction group.
The day before the city council and Longwell voted the Michigan construction company’s top management and many of their spouses made maximum donations allowed by law to the Longwell for County Commission Campaign. The day after Longwell voted to give them this $100 million-plus contract more maximum legal level donations rolled into the Longwell campaign from the Michigan company’s management and their spouses.
This all became public record when these were reported on campaign finance reports about 10 days before the election. Naturally, my campaign responded to this outrageous misconduct. Interest from the news media in general, and the Wichita Eagle, which had endorsed the less conservative candidate in this race, Longwell, had no interest in reporting on these outrageous events on their front or editorial pages.
The Wichita Eagle advertisement. Click for larger.My county commission campaign tried to buy a newspaper ad in the Eagle and publicize this outrageous financial misconduct at city hall. The Wichita Eagle’s advertising staff did everything they could to assist my campaign in this ad purchase. However, the rest of the Eagle editorial, management, and news staff attempted to censor my text, and prevent my ad from running in the form it was being used in our other campaign efforts. Eventually, my campaign did run an ad, but without all of the language that we wanted to use, in exposing this financial misconduct on the city’s airport construction contract.
This story did get to some voters, but only because my county commission campaign successfully mailed this information into voters’ hands, although roughly 40 percent of the voters had already cast ballots before my campaign material could be distributed. I beat Councilman Longwell with over 56% of the vote in the August 2012 GOP county commission primary contest.
However, when Sam Williams tried to raise this issue in the 2015 mayor’s race, it was treated as ancient history and not reported. Sadly, this history of cronyism at city hall wasn’t reported prior to the primary, and I believe that this would have made Lyndy Wells advance to the general election ballot. Most recently, this is especially true in the way the city has handled the destruction of Lawrence Dumont Stadium, and the sale of approximately 4 acres for $1 an acre around the stadium for the ownership group of an out of state, minor league baseball club. Special city favors for special people within the public-private partnership paradigm is the way municipal government operates here.
More Wichita Eagle Skews
This wasn’t the only example of city hall financial transgressions and shenanigans. In 2013 the city was involved in the city-owned land sale for the west bank apartment project, the same sort of financial shenanigans occurred. The city went with their politically favored firm, and Jeff Longwell voted with the majority to go his business buddies, in another example of this “public-private partnership.”
Sadly, Mayor Longwell continues to defend the “public-private partnerships” model for city development in this latest example of how Wichita city hall operates. This did not receive Wichita Eagle coverage like the most recent example that occurred with 3 weeks away from advanced voting in the 2019 mayor’s race begins, and roughly 5 weeks before the November 5 election day.
For many Wichitans, “public-private partnerships” is just a politically correct phrase describing cronyism, for ethically conflicted projects, for the special favors for special people environment in Wichita’s city government. Profits are privatized while loses land in taxpayer’s laps. This is what happens without clearly specified bidding, and without procedures for selecting, and protecting the low, winning bidders who meet clear project specifications.
City Purchases and City Scandals
Government scandals aren’t limited to city hall. Purchasing scandals have occurred at all levels of government.
After I joined the Sedgwick County commission in 2009, I was informed about past purchasing scandals in Sedgwick County government. These had all occurred in the last century. This occurred as I began officially reviewing county financial operations. County staff was proud of the protections and safeguards built into the county’s bidding and bid board process.
That is why almost all county bids were handled as routine, often consent agenda items. That’s how the county had created its bid board, and how there was a major effort to protect taxpayers. This transparent process treated all potential bidders fairly, whether they were local, or not; whether they knew or didn’t know county officials; and it was an open, transparent process. The city needs to move to a clear, transparent, and fair model like the county has enjoyed for several decades.
Conclusion With a Warning for the Future
Financial shenanigans have a long history in Wichita city hall. Lack of detailed news coverage of these shenanigans is a hidden story that this non-reporter is going to try and disclose for if nothing else, the historical record now. This is sad that this history has to be provided by a frustrated, non-media, Wichitan who, while I did enjoy an elevated county courthouse observation position for eight years, could only observe these city crony cases from the other side of Central Ave.
Additional details about these crony stories mentioned here are contained in the Voice for Liberty archives. This information is accessible to everyone on this site. Even the news media.
Now, this most recent example of city cronyism has received a large amount of well-deserved, and in fact remarkable, huge coverage by the Wichita Eagle. While I am a major critic of the Eagle, I will state that this paper deserves credit for breaking this story.
This must be placed in the context and contrast with often the lack of interest in the past, especially if the Eagle’s politically favored officials were involved. The major news story is not the continuing cronyism at Wichita city hall but the fact that cronyism was exposed, received major negative news attention, and now continuing news coverage.
Sadly, I expect that the bottom line is that little or nothing to change the public-private cronyism model that is encased in political concrete in city hall. This model also seems to be encased in Wichita media concrete too. Sadly, this defective economic model enhancing cronyism is likely to prevail regardless of who wins in the mayor’s election contest, or the other city council elections, November 5.
Postscript
The cronyism in Wichita and news media flaws that are discussed above are relevant but tiny compared with the egregious corruption nationally in our country. The outrages from the Clinton Crime Foundation, the recent revelations concerning the Biden overseas money schemes, the misuse of government FISA surveillance in the Russian collusion hoax, outline national abuses and governmental scandals that far exceed local government’s defects in Wichita.
My sources for these national assertions include but are not limited to the financial revelations about misconduct by both Democrats and Republicans in Peter Schweizer’s outstanding books: Secret Empire,Clinton Cash, and Extortion, are excellent. News media flaws nationally are documented by the .
Are We Rome? by Lawrence Reed is a brief, pamphlet sized outline (see Foundation for Economic Education) of our national financial and governmental challenges. Those who want to explore our national fiscal and institutional problems, I would recommend Dinesh D’Souza’s and Mark Levin’s numerous books. If we don’t get this right, Mark Steyn’s After America: Get Ready for Armageddon moves from a yellow warning light to a hideous, Venezuelan reality.
Fighting the good fight within government will be tough. Scott Walker’s Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story and a Nation’s Challenge describes the Wisconsin battle in exquisite detail. It is a valuable, but cautionary reality defenders of liberty can find incisive examples of the challenges ahead. Levin’s proposed constitutional amendments in the Liberty Amendments is also valuable reading.
Sadly, there aren’t any books like this for Kansas, let alone Wichita. Greg Jarrett has left Wichita and gone national with his excellent books. This essay is a report for the legacy of those interested in local government in the early 21st century. This also provides a report for anyone interested in the governmental legacy left for our heirs who will follow us in south-central Kansas.
Citizens may not have noticed that a campaign contributor to Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell received a large benefit from the city this week.
This Tuesday the Wichita City Council voted to amend an existing lease. In a nutshell, the city council voted to lease to a tenant 8,600 square feet of retail space for $1.00 per year.
Not $1.00 per square foot per year, but $1.00 per year for all 8,600 square feet. That’s for the first four years of the lease.
Computed as rent per square foot, which is the common way to quote rent for commercial space, the rent is $0.00. Essentially free, that is.
According to the lease, the rent will increase in future years, first to $1.16 per square foot, then to $2.33.
The Block 1 garage on East William Street in 2014.The real estate is at 360 East William in downtown Wichita. It’s on the north side of William between Broadway and Topeka. This is the first floor of the Block 1 parking garage built as part of the Ambassador Hotel project.
It’s been difficult to rent this space. According to John Philbrick, the city’s real estate administrator, half of the space has been leased to two tenants. One lease is at $4 per square foot; the other at $6. According to the Weigand Commercial Retail Forecast for 2019, for total retail space in the central business district, the quoted rent was $10.65 per square foot. Across the city, class A retail space rents for $19.81, from the same source.
Who is the new tenant that will pay essentially no rent for four years, then steeply discounted rent thereafter? It is Douglas Market Development, LLC. Its manager is Sudha Tokala. According to its annual report, the only person who owns more than five percent of the company is her.
Tokala is notable for her involvement in the redevelopment of the former state office building, the former Henry’s building (which is next to the 360 East William Street retail space), and other nearby buildings.
These developments are receiving various forms of government subsidy, which might be justified for fostering economic growth in downtown.
But free (nearly free) rent? Is that really necessary to promote development in downtown Wichita?
Then, there’s this. On March 21 of this year, a company named Natman Real Estate International LLC contributed $500 to the campaign of Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell. That’s the maximum amount allowed by law.
According to the company’s annual report, the only person who owns more than five percent of the company is Sudha Tokala. That’s the same person who is receiving four years of (almost) free rent, courtesy of the City of Wichita, Jeff Longwell, Mayor.
It’s good that buildings in downtown Wichita — or anywhere in Wichita, for that matter — are being put to productive use. We should be able to celebrate the initiative and accomplishments of entrepreneurs who do this.
But when there is such a close linkage between a campaign contribution and the conveyance of a large economic benefit — well, reasonable people will wonder. At least, they should.
Pay to play
There is no law in Wichita or Kansas prohibiting what happened here. But wouldn’t you feel better if Mayor Longwell had abstained from voting on this matter? Or if he acknowledged that he received campaign contributions from someone who is asking for a favor from the city?
Some jurisdictions have laws known as pay-to-play. These laws may prohibit political campaign contributions by those who seek government contracts, prohibit officeholders from voting on laws that will benefit their campaign donors, or the laws may impose special disclosure requirements.
In general, these laws prohibit officials from enriching their campaign contributors.
Kansas and Wichita have no such laws. In my experience, there are few elected officials in favor of a pay-to-play law.
Wichita city hall again places a controversial matter on the consent agenda, where it might pass without notice.
Should the City of Wichita lease part of a new park to a private entity for its exclusive use? That’s what the Wichita City Council will consider this week. But there are issues apart from the lease itself.
The subject of the item this week is Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita. The new building on the east side of the park has ground floor retail space, including a restaurant. To have an outdoor patio area in which alcohol is served, the restaurant’s patio must be fenced in. Furthermore, the proposed patio sits on park land, which requires execution of a lease.
The problem is that plans for the fenced patio were not known by the mayor, the city council, or the public until last week when the city council agenda for its September 10, 2019 meeting was released.
Not only that, the item was placed on the consent agenda. That’s a section of the meeting where a number of agenda items are considered and voted on in bulk without discussion, unless a council member asks to “pull” an item. The consent agenda usually holds non-controversial items.
But the redesign of Naftzger Park has been controversial. There was much community discussion about the design, and not everyone was happy. The park and the surrounding development have received millions in taxpayer subsidy, which adds to the controversy.
So it’s surprising that anything involving this park would be handled on a consent agenda. But in February the council considered an error in the park design, correction of which cost $115,000. That was passed on the consent agenda with no discussion.
Where is the fence? Click for larger.Now, another matter regarding Naftzger Park was placed on the consent agenda, and it is definitely controversial, as is any plan to lease city park land to private interests. Credit to Wichita City Council Member Bryan Frye (district 5, west and northwest Wichita) for objecting to the consent agenda placement, according to Wichita Eaglereporting.
The city has had other trouble with its consent agenda. This summer the lease of airport land to a hotel developer was placed on the consent agenda. The lease was found to have errors and the matter was delayed twice.
According to the minutes of the July 16 council meeting, Mayor Longwell referenced “a mistake made by staff to put this on consent agenda without the knowledge of any Council Member.”
On the same matter, the Wichita Eagle reported: “‘We really don’t like, in this case, last-second changes that are brought to us,’ Longwell said. ‘And it’s not fair to the community to have last-second changes presented to the council and then ask us to vote on it.’” A few days later the newspaper reported, “On Friday, Longwell said he plans to ask the council to change its policies so “every negotiated agreement goes on a regular agenda, not consent.”
Someone didn’t get the message, it seems.
Should the city lease part of Naftzger Park for exclusive private use? That’s an issue worthy of discussion. But two things are certain:
Any lease should have been part of the original discussion on the redesign of Naftzger Park two years ago.
And, stuff like this shouldn’t be on the consent agenda.
When a county commissioner’s questions produce a reversal of the county manager’s spending plans, you know we have good representation.
That’s what happened in 2013 when the county manager wanted to spend $47,000 to clear some trees. Commissioner Richard Ranzau thought the expense should be the responsibility of the neighborhood that would benefit from what he thought was a thinly-veiled request to shove off spending to the county.
What did the county manager say after Ranzau’s questions?
“We got out in front of ourselves without doing much critical thinking, and I take full responsibility for that,” Sedgwick County Manager Bill Buchanan said.
Good job, Richard Ranzau. You will be missed as a member of the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners.
From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Robert L. Bradley, Jr. He is CEO and Founder of Institute for Energy Research, visiting fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, and an adjunct scholar at both the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His topic at the Pachyderm Club was “The Contra-Capitalist Corporation (In Search of Heroic Capitalism).” This audio recording was made on November 2, 2018. The accompanying visual presentation may be viewed here.
The Wichita City Council will consider approval of a redevelopment plan in a tax increment financing (TIF) district.
This week the Wichita City Council will hold a public hearing considering approval of more tax increment financing (TIF) spending in downtown Wichita. The spending is for the second phase of redevelopment of the Union Station property on East Douglas. According to city documents, the total cost of this phase is $31,000,000, with TIF paying for $2,954,734. 1
This is a pay-as-you-go form of TIF, which means the city does not borrow funds as it would in a traditional TIF district. Instead, the eligible portion of the developer’s property taxes will be rerouted back to the development as they are paid.
The TIF district was established in 2014. The council this week considers a redevelopment plan, which authorizes spending TIF funds on a specific project. Redevelopment plans must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the council. While overlapping jurisdictions like counties and school districts can block the formation of a TIF district, they have no such role in the approval of a redevelopment plan.
Of note, this public hearing is being held after the fact, sort of. City documents state: “A development agreement was approved by the City Council on August 7, to allow for the developer to begin non-TIF eligible improvements in order to meet deadlines for a new tenant.” The city documents for the August 7 meeting hold this: 2
The Developer has requested that the development agreement be approved now, prior to adoption of the project plan, to allow work to begin on the Meade Corridor improvements in order to complete the project in time for the tenant to move in. The Development agreement is drafted to allow for the Meade Corridor improvements to occur following adoption of the agreement, however, any work or reimbursement for TIF is contingent on City Council adoption of the project plan following the September 11 public hearing.
Citizens have to wonder will the September 11 public hearing have any meaning or relevance, given that on August 7 the city gave its de facto approval of the redevelopment plan.
Following, more information about tax increment financing.
Tax increment financing disrupts the usual flow of tax dollars, routing funds away from cash-strapped cities, counties, and schools back to the TIF-financed development. TIF creates distortions in the way cities develop, and researchers find that the use of TIF means lower economic growth.
How TIF works
A TIF district is a geographically-defined area.
In Kansas, TIF takes two or more steps. The first step is that cities or counties establish the boundaries of the TIF district. After the TIF district is defined, cities then must approve one or more project plans that authorize the spending of TIF funds in specific ways. (The project plan is also called a redevelopment plan.) In Kansas, overlapping counties and school districts have an opportunity to veto the formation of the TIF district, but this rarely happens. Once the district is formed, cities and counties have no ability to object to TIF project plans.
Figure 1.Before the formation of the TIF district, the property pays taxes to the city, county, school district, and state as can be seen in figure 1. Because property considered for TIF is purportedly blighted, the amount of tax paid is usually small. Whatever it is, that level is called the “base.”
Figure 2.After approval of one or more TIF project plans the city borrows money and gives it to the project or development. The city now has additional debt in the form of TIF bonds that require annual payments. Figure 2 illustrates. (There is now another form of TIF known as “pay-as-you-go” that works differently, but produces much the same economic effect.)
Figure 3.Figure 3 shows the flow of tax revenue after the formation of the TIF district and after the completion of a project. Because buildings were built or renovated, the property is worth more, and the property tax is now higher. The development now has two streams of property tax payments that are handled in different ways. The original tax — the “base” — is handled just like before, distributed to city, state, school district, and the state, according to their mill levy rates. The difference between the new tax and the base tax — the “increment” — is handled differently. It goes to only two destinations (mostly): The State of Kansas, and repayment of the TIF bonds.
Figure 4.Figure 4 highlights the difference in the flow of tax revenues. The top portion of the illustration shows development outside of TIF. We see the flows of tax payments to city, county, school district, and the state. In the bottom portion, which shows development under TIF, the tax flows to city, county, and school district are missing. No longer does a property contribute to the support of these three units of government, although the property undoubtedly requires the services of them. This is especially true for a property in Old Town, which consumes large amounts of policing.
(Cities, counties, and school districts still receive the base tax payments, but these are usually small, much smaller than the incremental taxes. In non-TIF development, these agencies still receive the base taxes too, plus whatever taxes result from improvement of the property — the “increment,” so to speak. Or simply, all taxes.)
The Kansas law governing TIF, or redevelopment districts as they are also called, starts at K.S.A. 12-1770.
TIF and public policy
Originally most states included a “but for” test that TIF districts must meet. That is, the proposed development could not happen but for the benefits of TIF. Many states have dropped this requirement. At any rate, developers can always present proposals that show financial necessity for subsidy, and gullible government officials will believe.
Similarly, TIF was originally promoted as a way to cure blight. But cities are so creative and expansive in their interpretation of blight that this requirement, if it still exists, has little meaning.
The rerouting of property taxes under TIF goes against the grain of the way taxes are usually rationalized. We use taxation as a way to pay for services that everyone benefits from, and from which we can’t exclude people. An example would be police protection. Everyone benefits from being safe, and we can’t exclude people from benefiting from police protection.
So when we pay property tax — or any tax, for that matter — people may be comforted knowing that it goes towards police and fire protection, street lights, schools, and the like. (Of course, some is wasted, and government is not the only way these services, especially education, could be provided.)
But TIF is contrary to this justification of taxes. TIF allows property taxes to be used for one person’s (or group of persons) exclusive benefit. This violates the principle of broad-based taxation to pay for an array of services for everyone. Remember: What was the purpose of the TIF bonds? To pay for things that benefited the development. Now, the development’s property taxes are being used to repay those bonds instead of funding government.
One more thing: Defenders of TIF will say that the developers will pay all their property taxes. This is true, but only on a superficial level. We now see that the lion’s share of the property taxes paid by TIF developers are routed back to them for their own benefit.
It’s only infrastructure
In their justification of TIF in general, or specific projects, proponents may say that TIF dollars are spent only on allowable purposes. Usually a prominent portion of TIF dollars are spent on infrastructure. This allows TIF proponents to say the money isn’t really being spent for the benefit of a specific project. It’s spent on infrastructure, they say, which they contend is something that benefits everyone, not one project specifically. Therefore, everyone ought to pay.
This attitude is represented by a comment left at Voice for Liberty, which contended: “The thing is that real estate developers do not invest in public streets, sidewalks and lamp posts, because there would be no incentive to do so. Why spend millions of dollars redoing or constructing public streets when you can not get a return on investment for that”
This perception is common: that when we see developers building something, the City of Wichita builds the supporting infrastructure at no cost to the developers. But it isn’t quite so. About a decade ago a project was being developed on the east side of Wichita, the Waterfront. This project was built on vacant land. Here’s what I found when I searched for City of Wichita resolutions concerning this project:
Figure 5. Waterfront resolutions.Note specifically one item: $1,672,000 for the construction of Waterfront Parkway. To anyone driving or walking in this area, they would think this is just another city street — although a very nicely designed and landscaped street. But the city did not pay for this street. Private developers paid for this infrastructure. Other resolutions resulted in the same developers paying for street lights, traffic signals, sewers, water pipes, and turning lanes on major city streets. All this is infrastructure that we’re told real estate developers will not pay for. But in order to build the Waterfront development, private developers did, with a total cost of these projects being $3,334,500. (It’s likely I did not find all the resolutions and costs pertaining to this project, and more development has happened since this research.)
In a TIF district, these things are called “infrastructure” and will be paid for by the development’s own property taxes — taxes that must be paid in any case. Outside of TIF districts, developers pay for these things themselves.
If not for TIF, nothing will happen here
Generally, TIF is justified using the “but-for” argument. That is, nothing will happen within a district unless the subsidy of TIF is used. Paul F. Byrne explains:
“The but-for provision refers to the statutory requirement that an incentive cannot be awarded unless the supported economic activity would not occur but for the incentive being offered. This provision has economic importance because if a firm would locate in a particular jurisdiction with or without receiving the economic incentive, then the economic impact of offering the incentive is non-existent. … The but-for provision represents the legislature’s attempt at preventing a local jurisdiction from awarding more than the minimum incentive necessary to induce a firm to locate within the jurisdiction. However, while a firm receiving the incentive is well aware of the minimum incentive necessary, the municipality is not.”
“This paper conducts a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of Chicago’s TIF program in creating economic opportunities and catalyzing real estate investments at the neighborhood scale. This paper uses a unique panel dataset at the block group level to analyze the impact of TIF designation and investments on employment change, business creation, and building permit activity. After controlling for potential selection bias in TIF assignment, this paper shows that TIF ultimately fails the ‘but-for’ test and shows no evidence of increasing tangible economic development benefits for local residents.” (emphasis added)
In the paper, the author clarifies:
“To clarify these findings, this analysis does not indicate that no building activity or job crea-tion occurred in TIFed block groups, or resulted from TIF projects. Rather, the level of these activities was no faster than similar areas of the city which did not receive TIF assistance. It is in this aspect of the research design that we are able to conclude that the development seen in and around Chicago’s TIF districts would have likely occurred without the TIF subsidy. In other words, on the whole, Chicago’s TIF program fails the ‘but-for’ test.
Later on, for emphasis:
“While the findings of this paper are clear and decisive, it is important to comment here on their exact extent and external validity, and to discuss the limitations of this analysis. First, the findings do not indicate that overall employment growth in the City of Chicago was negative or flat during this period. Nor does this research design enable us to claim that any given TIF-funded project did not end up creating jobs. Rather, we conclude that on-average, across the whole city, TIF was unsuccessful in jumpstarting economic development activity — relative to what would have likely occurred otherwise.” (emphasis in original)
The author notes that these conclusions are specific to Chicago’s use of TIF, but should “should serve as a cautionary tale.”
The paper reinforces the problem of using tax revenue for private purposes, rather than for public benefit: “Essentially, Chicago’s extensive use of TIF can be interpreted as the siphoning off of public revenue for largely private-sector purposes. Although, TIF proponents argue that the public receives enhanced economic opportunity in the bargain, the findings of this paper show that the bargain is in fact no bargain at all.”
TIF is social engineering
TIF represents social engineering. By using it, city government has decided that it knows best where development should be directed. In particular, the Wichita city council has decided that Old Town and downtown development is on a superior moral plane to other development. Therefore, we all have to pay higher taxes to support this development. What is the basis for saying Old Town developers don’t have to pay for their infrastructure, but developers in other parts of the city must pay?
TIF doesn’t work
Does TIF work? It depends on what the meaning of “work” is.
If by working, do we mean does TIF induce development? If so, then TIF usually works. When the city authorizes a TIF project plan, something usually gets built or renovated. But this definition of “works” must be tempered by a few considerations.
Does TIF pay for itself?
First, is the project self-sustaining? That is, is the incremental property tax revenue sufficient to repay the TIF bonds? This has not been the case with all TIF projects in Wichita. The city has had to bail out two TIFs, one with a no-interest and low-interest loan that cost city taxpayers an estimated $1.2 million.
The verge of corruption
Second, does the use of TIF promote a civil society, or does it lead to cronyism? Randal O’Toole has written:
“TIF puts city officials on the verge of corruption, favoring some developers and property owners over others. TIF creates what economists call a moral hazard for developers. If you are a developer and your competitors are getting subsidies, you may simply fold your hands and wait until someone offers you a subsidy before you make any investments in new development. In many cities, TIF is a major source of government corruption, as city leaders hand tax dollars over to developers who then make campaign contributions to re-elect those leaders.”
We see this in Wichita, where the regular recipients of TIF benefits are also regular contributors to the political campaigns of those who are in a position to give them benefits. The corruption is not illegal, but it is real and harmful, and calls out for reform. See In Wichita, the need for campaign finance reform.
The effect of TIF on everyone
Third, what about the effect of TIF on everyone, that is, the entire city or region? Economists have studied this matter, and have concluded that in most cases, the effect is negative.
“TIF districts grow much faster than other areas in their host municipalities. TIF boosters or naive analysts might point to this as evidence of the success of tax increment financing, but they would be wrong. Observing high growth in an area targeted for development is unremarkable.”
So TIF districts are good for the favored development that receives the subsidy — not a surprising finding. What about the rest of the city? Continuing from the same study:
“If the use of tax increment financing stimulates economic development, there should be a positive relationship between TIF adoption and overall growth in municipalities. This did not occur. If, on the other hand, TIF merely moves capital around within a municipality, there should be no relationship between TIF adoption and growth. What we find, however, is a negative relationship. Municipalities that use TIF do worse.
We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.” (emphasis added)
In a different paper (The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development), the same economists wrote “We find clear and consistent evidence that municipalities that adopt TIF grow more slowly after adoption than those that do not. … These findings suggest that TIF trades off higher growth in the TIF district for lower growth elsewhere. This hypothesis is bolstered by other empirical findings.” (emphasis added)
“This article addresses the claim by examining the impact of TIF adoption on municipal employment growth in Illinois, looking for both general impact and impact specific to the type of development supported. Results find no general impact of TIF use on employment. However, findings suggest that TIF districts supporting industrial development may have a positive effect on municipal employment, whereas TIF districts supporting retail development have a negative effect on municipal employment. These results are consistent with industrial TIF districts capturing employment that would have otherwise occurred outside of the adopting municipality and retail TIF districts shifting employment within the municipality to more labor-efficient retailers within the TIF district.” (emphasis added)
These studies and others show that as a strategy for increasing the overall wellbeing of a city, TIF fails to deliver prosperity, and in fact, causes harm.
—
Notes
Wichita city council agenda packet for September 11, 2018. ↩
Wichita city council agenda packet for August 7, 2018. ↩
