Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kevass Harding

  • More unlikely Lavonta Williams voters

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

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

    Elder Herman Hicks. He lives in Derby.

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

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

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

  • KenMar Shopping Center, Funded by Righteousness

    Can the Lord’s work be funded by taxation? If you’re Reverend Kevass Harding, the answer is sure, why not? He might even think it’s his calling.

    Never mind that at its fundamental level, taxation takes money from one person against their will and gives it to another.

    Sure, some people will argue that taxes are “the price we pay for civilization” or something like that. Or they will say that since we all benefit from, say, police and fire protection, we all have to pay taxes.

    Even if true, these rationalizations are a long way from using taxation to support private real estate development. At least these arguments don’t invoke the name of Jesus. But Harding does in order to accomplish through government, in the form of tax increment financing, what he couldn’t through voluntary action. Is this what Jesus would do?

    The Wichita Eagle story KenMar part of pastor’s work in neighborhood tells us of Harding’s belief that “he is doing the Lord’s work, in part, in renovating the run-down KenMar Shopping Center at 13th and Oliver.”

    The story also states “The project is a private, for-profit venture, he said, but it springs in part from his spiritual vocation.”

    This taking of money, shrouded in morality and spirituality, is even more egregious than most. High atop his moral high horse, Harding believes he is doing good for the community. For the entire city, I’m sure he believes.

    Here’s something from another man of religion, C.S. Lewis, reminding us about moral busybodies: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  • Proposition K and TIF Districts Collide

    A recent story in the Wichita Eagle by Dion Lefler (Tax plan could leave city with TIF debt) illustrates the some of the problems that can happen with complex economic development efforts.

    The problem in this case lies in the interaction of Proposition K, an effort to reform property tax appraisals in Kansas, and tax increment financing, or TIF districts.

    The idea behind TIF districts is that as property is developed, its value will rise enough that the increased property taxes will pay off bonds that the city issued to benefit the developer.

    Proposition K, however, alters the way that appraised values rise. According to the Eagle’s analysis of the TIF district benefiting the Ken-Mar shopping center, under Proposition K this district will generate $4.3 million less than what is needed to pay off the bonds.

    So what would the city do if faced with this shortfall? The Eagle article suggests “The city could cut spending elsewhere or raise the mill levy to fill the gap.”

    That would be a huge windfall to the developer of this project, which is Wichita school board member and Methodist minister Kevass Harding.

    But not so fast. The city requires beneficiaries of TIF financing to make up any difference between tax revenues and what’s needed to pay off the bonds. So it appears that the taxpayers may not be on the hook, after all.

    The difference, I believe, is that the debt owed to the city would simply be an obligation of Harding and his ownership team. It’s only as good as their ability and willingness to pay. Without Proposition K, the monies needed to pay the bonds would be in the form of property taxes, and the city could take various measures to collect that wouldn’t be available otherwise.

    Isn’t this a fine mess? Last summer when this TIF district was being considered, I wondered out loud to the city council “Why don’t we strip away all the confusion and obfuscation surrounding TIF districts and just give the developers $2.5 million?” (See Reverend Kevass Harding’s Wichita TIF District: A Bad Deal in Several Ways.)

    I didn’t know then that the confusion and obfuscation would get worse.

  • 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.

  • Prudence Requires Postponement of Wichita TIF District

    Remarks to be delivered to the Wichita City Council on January 6, 2009.

    Mr. Mayor, members of the council:

    Last month it was discovered that procedures used to investigate the background of potential city business partners were lacking in some respects. It is now recognized that the process that were in place failed to give city council members information that they needed in order to make a fully-informed decision about the desirability of partnering with a certain development firm.

    Today the council is facing a similar situation. As with the previous case, the TIF district itself has already been approved. Now the actual project plan is before you.

    Also as with the case last month, these developers made application under the vetting process that this council has now realized was faulty.

    To my knowledge, no one has made any allegations that the developers before you today have problems like those that caused the postponement of the project in December. But since these developers applied for and were approved for TIF financing under a system that is now recognized as flawed, we really don’t know.

    There is one thing in particular I would like to know: The developers have been asked to agree to what the city calls a “Tax Increment Shortfall Guaranty.” It seems to me that this guaranty is only as good as the financial condition of the guarantor. Has the city examined financial statements of Reverend Harding and his partners, in order to determine whether they have the financial capacity to make good on this commitment, if it becomes necessary?

    I think the citizens of Wichita would sleep better at night if these developers would go through the new qualification process that the city is preparing. It’s been reported that this new process will be ready soon. Mr. Mayor, why don’t we wait a month or two and investigate these developers under the new process that is presently being developed? Then the citizens of Wichita can have confidence in this council and the project the taxpayers have been asked to subsidize.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the council, there’s another issue that I’d like to call your attention to. That’s the possibility that the city or county — perhaps both — might decide to raise their sales tax rates in exchange for lowering the property tax mill levy. If that were to happen, what would be the impact on TIF districts? The assumptions used in the projection for this TIF district assume that the mill levy in future years is the same as it is today. But if either the city or county were to reduce or eliminate its mill levy, it seems that this — and other — TIF districts would not generate enough property tax to service their debt.

  • Records Requests Sent Today

    Today, I’ve made two records requests under the Kansas Open Records Act.

    The first, to USD 259, the Wichita public school district, is this:

    All correspondence between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture and its representatives from July 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture’s email accounts at sjcf.com, and also email accounts of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture representatives such as Joe Johnson, Kenton Cox, and Ken Arnold that may not be at an sjcf.com email address.

    Then, to the City of Wichita:

    All correspondence between the City of Wichita and HH Holdings, LLC and its representatives from January 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between the City of Wichita and Kevass Harding at both business and personal email addresses, between the City of Wichita and Key Construction and its representatives at both business and personal email addresses, and between the City of Wichita and Landmark Commercial Real Estate at both business and personal email addresses.

  • Wichita School District: TIF Action Tests Accountability and Ethics

    Remarks to be delivered to the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, at tonight’s meeting.

    Regarding the Ken Mar Redevelopment District: There is simply no way to look at this TIF district other than as a transfer of $2.5 million from the taxpayers to Reverend Harding’s group. Why? According to material prepared by the City of Wichita, the development was $2.5 million short in its funding. But after the creation of the proposed TIF district, the project is fully funded.

    Furthermore, as I explained at an earlier meeting of this board, a TIF district allows developers to pay for things — using their own property taxes — that non-TIF developers must pay for themselves. If this were not so, how does the TIF district benefit the development?

    Some say that but for the creation of the TIF district, the project would not happen, and therefore no increased tax revenue would be collected. But as recently reported in the Wichita Eagle, these binary, either/or choices are rarely the actual case. For this development, it has been reported that the development already has $11 million in funding. So it appears that the TIF district is not required for something nice to happen to Ken Mar.

    The real problem with this TIF district, however, is the conduct of the applicant, who is a member of this board.

    At a meeting of the Wichita City Council, Reverend Harding told the council that he had informed his fellow school board members of what he was doing. But two members of this board have told me personally that he did not do that. So there’s a discrepancy somewhere.

    Then, I am Reverend Harding’s constituent. He has not responded to my several email and telephone messages with questions about this project.

    In meetings of the Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission, he spoke about himself and what he wants to do for the community. But he hasn’t explained why the taxpayers need to subsidize his project with $2.5 million.

    He hasn’t explained why he has voted for property tax increases, but now seeks to avoid paying some of those increased taxes. He hasn’t explained why district residents should vote to increase their property taxes — by way of the proposed school bond issue — but desires to avoid paying some of those taxes himself.

    And importantly, in his role as school board member, he hasn’t explained why the school district should forgo tax revenue just so Ken Mar can be redeveloped even grander.

    Recently the Sedgwick County Commission took up this matter even though they were not required to, just as this board is not required to. The commission heard testimony from the public. The commissioners spoke, and then they voted. Although the commission did not vote the way I asked, the matter was handled with a reasonable degree of openness and transparency.

    This board now faces a test of accountability, openness and transparency, and most importantly, ethics. So I ask that this board consider a resolution vetoing the formation of this TIF district. Those members with a conflict of interest may then recuse themselves, and the remaining board members can vote. This must be done tonight, as any delay means automatic consent to the formation of the TIF district.

    If this is not done, the citizens of the Wichita school district will wonder if the fix is in, if a political insider used his position and connections for personal gain. They will be justified in wondering.

  • Being Open and Transparent: A Sedgwick County Commissioner’s View

    Yesterday (August 27, 2008) I testified briefly at a meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission opposing the formation of a tax increment financing (TIF) district that will benefit a Wichita political insider. My concern that I wanted the commissioners to be aware of is was that the applicant, Wichita school board member Reverend Kevass Harding, has not acted in an open, transparent, and ethical manner.

    Commissioner Dave Unruh said that he had thought that Harding was being open and transparent. I suppose if you’re a full-time county commissioner who, presumably, thinks about these matters on a full-time basis, and you have a staff of well-paid professionals to prepare reports and other documents for you, and you have an applicant who is seeking $2.5 million in taxpayer subsidy and would do just about anything to secure that sum, you probably don’t have any problems finding out what you want to know.

    But for average citizens who don’t watch county commission meetings on television, who don’t pour over the minutes of the meetings, and who may not read the sketchy coverage of this matter in newspapers, they won’t be aware of what’s going on.

    This is another example of how many members of the Wichita City Council and the Sedgwick County Commission are out of touch with the citizens they govern. Three of the last three county commissioners to face the voters for re-election have been defeated. A fourth faces an opponent this November.

    My remarks from yesterday:

    The concern I have with the formation of this TIF district is that the applicant may be using his political connections for profit, and he has not been forthright with his constituents and the community.

    The Wichita school board, of which Reverend Kevass Harding is a member, is required, as is this commission, to consent to the formation of this TIF district. The problem is that since no vote is required by the school board, how can we ask him to declare his conflict of interest and recuse himself from discussion and a vote?

    He told the Wichita City Council that he had told city staff and his colleagues on the school board of what he was doing, but it’s not to them that he has en ethical obligation. Instead, his obligation is to the residents of Sedgwick County, the City of Wichita, and USD 259. It is to them that he has the ethical obligation to make sure that this matter is handled with openness and transparency. To my knowledge, he has not done that.

    This smacks of a political insider using his connections for personal profit.

    Furthermore, the applicant has not been responsive to community concerns over this TIF district. I am Reverend Harding’s constituent, as he is the at-large school board member for USD 259, and I am a resident of that school district. He has not returned my several telephone calls and email messages regarding this matter.

    For these reasons, I urge this commission to veto the formation of this TIF district. Let the applicant apply again, this time being open and forthright with the citizens of Sedgwick County, and perhaps this matter can be viewed differently.

  • Will George Fahnestock Vote For the Wichita School Bond Issue?

    Wichita’s mysterious “Boondoggler” posted today that George Fahnestock, the businessman selected to lead the campaign for the proposed bond issue for USD 259, the Wichita public schools, doesn’t live in the Wichita school district. The post is Fahnestock’s Motivation? A map of his house, along with school district boundaries, may be viewed here.

    Earlier this year, USD 259 board members Lynn Rogers and Kevass Harding made an issue of the fact that a mailing address used by Citizens For Better Education, an anti-bond group, was in the Maize school district. A “fact check” sheet on USD 259’s website raised the same issue. You can almost feel the glee school district officials must have felt when they learned this.

    So when it turns out that the celebrity spokesman for the bond issue doesn’t live in the Wichita school district, I wonder what the board’s reaction will be.

    To me, it’s not a very substantive issue. There are many more important reasons to oppose this bond issue. But it raises these questions:

    Shouldn’t a celebrity spokesperson for an issue at least be able to vote on the issue? Fahnestock, by not living within the boundaries of USD 259, isn’t eligible to vote for the bond issue.

    Then, what is Fahnestock’s motivation for wanting the bond issue passed? As part or whole owner of two companies that work in the heating and air conditioning field, would that be any motivation?

    Why is business support for this bond issue so weak that a businessman who lives within the district can’t be found to speak up for the bond?