Voice For Liberty

Tag: Entrepreneurship

  • In Wichita Planeview neighborhood: Yes, we have!

    Developers of a proposed Save-A-Lot grocery store in Wichita’s Planeview neighborhood have made the case that without two forms of subsidy, the store won’t be profitable and won’t be built.

    There is a counterexample, however. On Hillside, just south of Pawnee and just across the street from Planeview, sit two grocery stores that together occupy 13,000 square feet of space. This is close in size to the proposed Save-A-Lot store’s 16,500 square feet.

    While the developer says the Save-A-Lot store can’t be profitable without over $800,000 of taxpayer subsidy, the existence of these grocers proves that it can be done. They are in business, earning a profit, and doing so without government subsidy. The City of Wichita, apparently, is not aware of these success stories, or doesn’t care.

    Reviewing the September 14th meeting of the Wichita City Council gives us an idea of how little the city cares how its actions affect existing business.

    At that meeting, Rob Snyder, developer of the proposed Save-A-Lot store, said he has “researched every possible way” to make the project work. Without the subsidy, he said, there won’t be a grocery store. But the existence of several grocery stores in or near Planeview, operating profitably without government subsidy, shows that Snyder’s claims are false.

    I’m not claiming that Snyder intentionally lied to the city council about the necessity of subsidy for his store. But he has an $800,000 motive to get the council to approve his subsidy. And there’s evidence that corporate welfare like what Snyder requests is not necessary to open and operate a successful grocery store in this part of Wichita.

    During his talk to the council, it became apparent that Snyder thinks corporate welfare is a wise business and political strategy. Snyder lamented the fact that earmarks are now unpopular with the American public and not available to finance his proposed grocery store. An earmark — that is to say, a grant of money paid for by U.S. taxpayers — was used as a large part of the financing for the other Save-A-Lot in Wichita at 13th and Grove. An article by James Arbertha tells of the roll earmarks played in the opening of that store.

    While it may be necessary for Snyder’s store to be propped up by taxpayer subsidy, citizen Wendy Aylworth told council members of the several grocery stores already operating in the Planeview area. Mayor Carl Brewer appeared surprised to learn of these stores and asked Aylworth for their locations.

    The mayor’s surprise is evidence that the city simply does not care about the impact of its corporate welfare policies on existing business. Several people have pointed out to me that these existing stores — with the exception of one large supermarket — are ethnic grocers, although most carry a wide variety of food and household items.

    Is the CID tax necessary?

    One of the issues relating to CIDs is their very necessity. If a business feels it needs to generate additional revenue, why not simply raise its prices? Why is it necessary to have the government collect taxes in order to generate additional revenue for the merchants in the CID?

    Ron Rhodes, who developed the existing Save-A-Lot store in Wichita, addressed the Wichita city council that day. Rhodes referred to the “people who have ability to pay” an extra sales tax, and those who don’t have the ability to pay. Listening to him I couldn’t help be reminded of another slogan: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

    Rhodes also spoke of neighborhood pride. But how proud can a neighborhood be when merchants have to rely on corporate welfare to open a store there?

    In later questioning, Rhodes said that a Save-A-Lot store can’t raise its prices due to a “price deck” policy that says that most prices should be uniform in Save-A-Lot stores. This is an internal business policy of Save-A-Lot that should not bind the City of Wichita. It is not relevant to the formation of public policy in Wichita.

    The issue of tax increment financing

    At the same meeting, Greg Ferris, a lobbyist for Snyder, told the council that “there will not be a building on that corner if this is not passed today. There will not be any tax revenue, so we are not taking away any tax money away from schools, police, fire, etc.” He said we have “spent months” trying to figure out how to finance a project in that area. He said that “a grocery store is not going to move into the Planeview area to service those people,” alluding to how a grocery store did not move to the 13th and Grove area until the city subsidized it.

    Ferris contended that there is no city tax money going in to this project that is taken from something else.

    While presenting himself as speaking for the public interest, Ferris is a hired lobbyist for Snyder, the developer of the proposed grocery store. He is being paid to present Snyder’s interests, and those alone. He invokes the standard argument of those seeking corporate welfare through tax increment financing: the “but for” argument. This is the claim that without the benefit of the TIF district, nothing will happen.

    It may be true that without the corporate welfare provided by the TIF district and the CID, Snyder won’t develop the Save-A-Lot store. But that doesn’t mean that it is not possible to run a successful grocery store in that part of town, as we have evidence that it is.

    Ferris’ claim that no tax money from something else will go into this project is false, too. Will the Save-A-Lot store pledge to forgo the use of police, fire, and other city services? As this store wants to escape paying the same taxes that others have to pay, the rest of Wichita has to pay to provide services that Snyder doesn’t want to pay for.

    TIF is not a wise policy. Research on tax increment financing indicates that TIF is a zero-sum game. When someone wins, others lose an equal amount. TIF does not increase the total amount of development that takes place in a city. It simply transfers development from one part of the region to another. This intervention by government may actually decrease the amount of development in a city.

    In the case of Snyder and Ferris, the city’s actions in favoring a politically-connected developer and lobbyist with taxpayer-funded welfare may result in small ethnic grocers and one large established supermarket going out of business. How is this progress?

    The moral hazard

    In visiting with the owner of the large building and one of the grocery stores on Hillside, I asked him if he sought government assistance when developing that property. He answered no, that he didn’t know — speaking in his broken English — “where to dig the money” at that time.

    Now he knows to get a shovel.

    This creates an increasing cycle of dependence on government, particularly Wichita city government, for managing economic development. Entrepreneurship is replaced by bureaucracy and politics, not only for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, but across the city too.

  • Will the real robber barons please stand up?

    By Helen Cochran.

    At the April 13th meeting of the Wichita City Council a request from downtown developer Real Development will be made for an additional $2.2 million taxpayer subsidy for its condo project Exchange Place, located at Douglas and Market. With two weeks to go before this public hearing there is still time for council members to read The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsom. Folsom’s easy-to-read 134-page narrative lays out the case for entrepreneurship in America and can be read in one evening. It’s a history lesson worth reading by all.

    Folsom highlights two kinds of business developers: “political entrepreneurs” and ‘market entrepreneurs.” And while Folsom focuses on the larger-than-life entrepreneurs of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the lessons gleaned have far reaching implications and relevance, even on a local level.

    According to Folsom, “political entrepreneurs” are those that seek government/taxpayer subsidy, public private partnerships, protective tariffs, special privileges, etc. Folsom makes a sound case that economic development fueled by political intervention invariably fails and undermines the very ideology it purports to serve.

    On the other hand “market entrepreneurs” are those that obtain their successes by producing a product that is better and of more value to the consumer, unbridled by the government controls and restrictions that come with subsidy. No one can argue that it is the market entrepreneurs that create the wealth in this country.

    Despite the anti-business rhetoric spewed by most historians and reinforced in school curriculums across this country, Folsom offers concrete evidence that the likes of Commodore Vanderbilt, John D Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, the Scrantons of Pennsylvania, James J. Hill, and Charles Schwab should be revered because of the consumer benefits achieved when free markets are allowed to flourish without government involvement. Folsom contrasts these successes with failure-after-failure of those in the same respective industries that received government subsidy. Government cannot do it better and most certainly cannot do it cheaper.

    In Wichita, Real Development is one of several downtown “political entrepreneurs.” What was originally a $27.8 million project with an approved $9.3 million subsidy from the City of Wichita is now a $51.5 million project seeking an additional $2.2 million subsidy from the City. Real Development boasts that with approved additional City subsidy they will be able to qualify for a $30 million loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development — a government guaranteed loan. This “guarantee” is none other than you and me. Our taxpayer dollars are lost if this project fails.

    According to Goody Clancy, the City’s downtown development consultant, there is a market for downtown development in Wichita. Specifically, Goody Clancy consultants found that downtown Wichita demand for residences is 1,000 units over the next five years.

    If such a market truly exists where are the market entrepreneurs and why are they not clamoring to develop? Why are local banks not willing to loan these political entrepreneurs money without a government guarantee? Michael Elzufon, one of the principals of Real Development, states this is a “low risk deal.” Yes, it’s a low risk deal for Elfuzon but I suggest it is a very high-risk deal for the taxpayer.

    The Wichita City Council, as with as many city councils nationwide, continues to insist that economic development in downtown Wichita requires government subsidy. Fear mongering becomes a tactic used when justifying subsidies offered to private enterprise to locate or expand here: “Everyone else is offering them” or “If we don’t subsidize, Company X will go elsewhere or relocate” or “Without subsidy this won’t happen.” Millions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in the name of economic development or downtown revitalization and when projects fail, millions more are spent in an attempt to salvage the project.

    Development succeeds when market entrepreneurs perceive a need and are willing to risk their own capital for success. Anything short of that has historically failed.

    The Myth of the Robber Barons is a must read for anyone interested in the writing on the wall but especially for those with the power to commit taxpayer money to projects that are better left to market entrepreneurs.

  • Privatization of Wichita city parks

    In a post concerning the possible privatization of City of Wichita parks maintenance, I called for, in a rather oblique way, privatization of city parks. A commenter picked up on this and wrote “I’m wondering how the parks would be decided by the market. Wouldn’t the parks have to charge an entry fee in that case?”

    It’s a good question. Broadly, what would happen if the City of Wichita decided not to provide public parks? Would there then be any privately owned parks? What would these parks be like, if there were any?

    As there are very few examples of privately-owned parks in America, we don’t really know how privately-owned parks would work. But that’s no reason we shouldn’t consider this idea.

    The first thing we need to do is to dissuade ourselves of the false notion that the present system of municipal parks means free parks. They aren’t free. They seem to be free — or nearly so — to those who use them, because there is no admission fee charged.

    One way that private parks might work is that their owners would charge an admission fee. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be an impenetrable fence surrounding the park and a toll gate at the single entrance. There could be other ways to collect admission fees.

    Another way that a private owner might generate revenue and potential profit through owning a park is by the selling of concessions. Besides the obvious selling of food and drink, some other examples come to mind. A vendor might rent lockers for the storage of bicycles, so that it would be convenient for people to drive to the park and use their bicycles.

    Vendors might rent roller skates. I rented these in college on the KU campus, and it was fun. Other things could be rented too, even paddle boats on the Little Arkansas River, as in the old days.

    A private park might offer nanny service, so parents could drop off their young children for a session of supervised play.

    A private park would probably provide security services so that its patrons feel safe. Would people be willing to pay for that?

    A private park might sell advertising or sponsorship. Philanthropy could play a role, too.

    So there could be many ways in which private parks could operate.

    While the goal of private park owners would usually be to attract many people to patronize their parks, private owners would be able to exclude people from the park. Advocates for the present parks workers say that the workers clean the public parks of needles and syringes. This indicates that at present, the parks are used for activities that most people, especially families, don’t want to be around. Would a private owner of a park have an incentive to keep his park free of illegal drug users? Absolutely — and much more so than it appears the Wichita police do. And being privately owned, the owner would have the right to exclude drug users, noisemakers, smokers, beer drinkers, panhandlers, fornicators, proselytizers, sidewalk preachers, politicians, and others from his park. He could even impose a dress code.

    (Which reminds me of a joke: A conservative said, “I am distressed by the idea of fornication in public parks.” The libertarian replied, “I am distressed by the idea of public parks.” )

    Privately-owned parks would bring benefits, the nature of which we really can’t foresee and predict. Entrepreneurs are highly motivated to discover and meet consumer wishes and demands. They can experiment to see what works. The costs of their failures are born only by them. When public officials take risks and fail, they’re criticized for wasting public funds. This is a reason why little innovation comes from government.

    By unleashing entrepreneurial creativity, there might be a tremendous diversity of parks springing up with features we can’t even dream of now.

    Entrepreneurs don’t have to go through plodding approval of long-range plans as Wichita recently did with its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) plan. This plan, according to its brochure, took 18 months to develop. How will it be funded? According to a memo accompanying the plan, “Present funding levels are insufficient to adequately cover the costs of the Department’s current facilities and programs.” I don’t sense much groundswell of support for raising revenue to increase this funding. So are we left to conclude that the method of public funding of the parks is failing? It seems so.

    Back to my post from the other day: Another commenter wrote that the views I hold are those of “free-market extremists.” To which I reply: thank you for noticing.

    This writer also wrote: “Hence, if there is no market or capitalistic value for parks, then why have them at all.”

    This is my point. If people don’t value parks enough to pay for them as they use them (or let private owners profit in ways that I described above, or in other ways), then we’re faced with the situation we have today: First the government taxes everyone. Then politicians, bureaucrats, and a small group of enthusiasts decide how much recreation the people should have, and where and in what form.

    I ask you: could anything be more extreme — not to mention counterproductive — than this?

  • Wichita Taxes Cancel Development

    Carrie Rengers’ Wichita Eagle column from yesterday (Warehouse plans near airport are called off) reports on two Wichita real estate developers who have canceled a project that would be a valuable addition to our city. The reason for canceling? Wichita’s property tax environment.

    In Wichita, we’re separating real estate development into two classes. There are those who listen to markets and consumers, and try to satisfy the needs that they sense. These are the market entrepreneurs.

    Then, there are the political entrepreneurs. These developers make use of devices such as tax increment financing (TIF districts) to offload large portions of the cost of their developments on the public. They do this by pleasing government officials and bureaucrats, not consumers.

  • No Kansas subsidy to Northern Flyer

    When it comes to government money, there’s no shortage of people who have ideas on how to spend it. One group that has grand ideas of how government should spend your money is the Northern Flyer Alliance. This group promotes passenger train service in our area. Currently they’re promoting extension of rail service from Oklahoma City to Wichita.

    The problem with this group, as alluded to above, is that they seek to accomplish their goal by using government. As reported in the Wichita Eagle (Group seeks support for train service through Wichita), “The director of a group seeking expanded passenger rail service through Wichita today asked City Council members to pass a resolution urging the state to include in its upcoming transportation plan a new Amtrak line stretching from Oklahoma City to Wichita and on to Kansas City.”

    So this group is asking Wichita (and many other towns and cities) to apply pressure to the State of Kansas to subsidize this rail line. This group is another example of political entrepreneurship in action. Instead of practicing market entrepreneurship — that’s where you develop and deliver services and products that people actually want enough to pay for — this group seeks to accomplish its goals by influencing politicians and bureaucrats. They were successful in Oklahoma.

    If we want passenger train service that is truly successful, this group should work to raise private capital rather than seeking government subsidy. This is the only way we’ll know whether this train service is something that truly adds value, or whether it is just another “amenity” the government provides by taxing one person to subsidize someone else.

  • Wichita’s Naysayers Are Saying Yes to Liberty

    Wichita politicians, newspaper editorial writers, and sometimes just plain folks are fond of bashing those they call the “naysayers,” sometimes known as CAVE people. An example is from a recent Opinion Line Extra in the Wichita Eagle:

    An acquaintance in another city refers to the anti-everything people as “CAVE” people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything). I fear the GOP voters of western Sedgwick County have selected the ultimate CAVE person in Karl Peterjohn.

    Naysayers, too, can’t be happy, according to a recent statement by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer: “And I know that there’s always going to be people who are naysayers, that they’re just not going to be happy.”

    If you read all of Mayor Brewer’s remarks at Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, August 12, 2008, you’ll learn that without government management of economic development in Wichita, we’d be back to the days of covered wagons. (I’m not kidding. He really said that, and I think he really believes it.)

    Wichita’s news media, led by the Wichita Eagle, continually expresses a bias in favor of government. Even in news reporting this bias can be seen, as shown in the post The Wichita Eagle’s Preference For Government. On the Eagle’s editorial page, we rarely see an expansion of government interventionism opposed by the editorial writers. I can’t think of a single case.

    But saying no to government doesn’t mean saying no to progress. It does mean saying “no” to the self-serving plans of politicians and bureaucrats. It means saying “no” to the dangers of collectivist thinking, as expressed in The Collectivism of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

    It means saying “no” to Wichita’s political entrepreneurs, who seek to earn profits through government coercion rather than meeting the needs of customers in the marketplace. It means saying “no” to the public-private partnership, where all too often it is the risk that is public and the profit that is private. It means saying “no” to a monopoly on the use of public money in the education of children, and “no” to an expansion of that monopoly through a new bond issue.

    So yes, I guess I and Wichita’s other naysayers are saying “no” to a lot of things.

    But what we’re saying “yes” to is liberty and freedom. We’re saying “yes” to the rich diversity of human individuality instead of government bureaucracy. We’re saying “yes” to free people cooperating voluntarily through free markets rather than forced government transfers from taxpayers to favored individuals and programs.

    We’re saying “yes” to consumers choosing which businesses in Wichita thrive, rather than politicians on the city council choosing. We’re saying “yes” to people making their own choices, rather than government “incentivizing” the behavior it desires through TIF districts and tax abatements, those incentives being paid for by taxpayers.

    So let me ask you: what do you say “yes” to?

  • Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer saves us from covered wagons

    On August 12, 2008, at a meeting of the Wichita City Council, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer delivered remarks that I found … well, I’m still trying to find the words that fully describe my astonishment. You can read my transcription of his remarks in this post: Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, August 12, 2008.

    The context of these remarks is that John Todd and I had just testified against the city establishing a tax increment financing (TIF) district that benefits a local developer. Mayor Brewer believes it is the city’s firm duty to guide and subsidize economic development. His remarks on July 1, 2008 (Mayor Brewer Warren Theatre [sic] Statement) leave no doubt about this. So I wasn’t too surprised that the mayor ignored John’s and my advice and supported the formation of this TIF district.

    What surprised me was when the mayor said that without the city’s “role in guiding and identifying how the city was going to grow … we would still be in covered wagons and horses.”

    When I heard him say that, I thought he’s just using a rhetorical flourish to emphasize a point. But later on he said this: “… then tomorrow we’ll be saying we don’t want more technology, and then the following day we’ll be saying we don’t want public safety, and it won’t take us very long to get back to where we were at back when the city first settled.”

    So I think it’s fair to say that the mayor believes that without the city’s role in economic development, we would soon return to the stone age (okay, there I exaggerate a bit).

    Many people in Wichita, including the mayor and many on the city council and county commission, believe that the public-private partnership is the way to drive innovation and get things done. It’s really a shame that this attitude is taking hold in Wichita, a city which has such a proud tradition of entrepreneurship. The names that Wichitans are rightly proud of — Lloyd Stearman, Walter Beech, Clyde Cessna, W.C. Coleman, Albert Alexander Hyde, Dan and Frank Carney, and Fred C. Koch — these people worked and built businesses without the benefit of public-private partnerships and government subsidy.

    Today this rugged heritage is disappearing in favor of the public-private partnership and programs like Visioneering Wichita. We don’t have long before the entrepreneurial spirit in Wichita is totally extinguished. What can we do to return power to the people instead of surrendering it to government?

  • Downtown Wichita Arena TIF District

    Remarks to Wichita City Council, August 5, 2008.

    When I’ve been talking to people in Wichita, I find there is great confusion about the way that TIF districts work. This confusion serves to obfuscate what really happens with TIF districts: the TIF developers get to use their own property taxes to pay for things that non-TIF developers have to pay for out-of-pocket, or through special tax assessments on top of their regular property taxes.

    It is really this simple. To deny this is to deny simple arithmetic.

    Then, do TIF districts perform as promised? One of the troubling things I learned from recent Wichita Eagle reporting is that in the past four years, assessed valuations in the downtown TIF areas have grown at 14.9 percent per year, just 1.4 times the rate of all commercial property. A few weeks ago I was assured by one council member that the taxes paid by property owners in TIF districts grows “exponentially.” But now we have evidence that the growth is quite modest.

    I was going to say that I have no doubt that the members of this council have good and noble intentions in wanting downtown Wichita and the area around the arena to succeed. But establishing this TIF district is not good for the arena district or the city as a whole.

    Entrepreneurs in Wichita, or anywhere for that matter, have a difficult enough job to do in predicting what consumers want. For government to step in and create special tax-favored districts adds another measure of uncertainty and risk. It distorts the market allocation of capital. Investment will be driven by government incentives rather than market considerations.

    This is also a blow to those who have invested elsewhere. It is the city telling them they made a mistake, that they invested in the wrong part of town.

    For the arena district to succeed, it needs to be because entrepreneurs, using their own capital, decide that it is a worthwhile place to invest.

  • In Wichita, is Economic Development Proven Public Policy?

    In a statement read by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and released on the city’s website at Mayor Brewer Warren Theatre [sic] Statement, the mayor states “Economic development is proven public policy.” The word “proven” was used several other times in the statement.

    (I don’t know who wrote the title to the statement, but it combines the mayor’s name with theater developer Bill Warren’s name in a way that is, I am sure, unintentionally humorous. Mayor Brewer Warren? Who is he?)

    The Warren Theater economic development project is one example of economic development that has proven not to work, despite the mayor’s claims.

    But that is only my opinion. The definition of success, I realize, could mean different things to different people. To me, I would expect that once a development is given a huge head start with millions of dollars in subsidy provided through tax increment financing, that after a few years it would at least be breaking even. Certainly, I would hope — and I think the people of Wichita agree — that the project does not become a continual drain on the resources of the people of Wichita, as the Old Town Warren Theater has become.

    But it appears that Mayor Brewer and council member Sharon Fearey have a different definition of success. To them, tax increment financing is not a subsidy to a developer. It’s an investment by the city. All it’s used for, according to Fearey, is to pay bonds: “Under a TIF, the additional property taxes generated by new development are used to repay bonds. No dollars go to private developers.” (Sharon Fearey: Warren loan is an investment in future, July 1, 2008 Wichita Eagle)

    Ms. Fearey, may I ask this question: the proceeds from the bonds that were issued: how are they spent?

    An interest-free or reduced-interest loan is not a subsidy according to the mayor, it’s “targeted economic development.” It’s a “public-private partnership.” Without it, our taxpayer dollars would not be protected.

    John Todd tells me that there is a groundswell of resentment building in Wichita over this loan. I hope that in the coming months this increased interest in the economic development activities of the Wichita city government leads to more discussion of what path we want to pursue in Wichita. Do we want more private initiative and entrepreneurship, or do we want more politicians and bureaucrats?