Voice For Liberty

Tag: Regulation

  • Under Goossen, Left’s favorite expert, Kansas was admonished by Securities and Exchange Commission

    Under Goossen, Left’s favorite expert, Kansas was admonished by Securities and Exchange Commission

    The State of Kansas was ordered to take remedial action to correct material omissions in the state’s financial statements prepared under the leadership of Duane Goossen.

    During the administration of Governor Mark Parkinson, the State of Kansas issued eight series of bonds raising $273 million. Regarding these, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has determined that the state failed to adequately inform investors of significant, material, negative information.

    In a nutshell, according to the SEC: The Kansas Public Employee Retirement System (KPERS) was in terrible financial condition compared to other states, and Kansas did not adequately disclose that to potential bond buyers. That violated the Securities Act. In 2011 Kansas implemented reforms to the SEC’s satisfaction.

    Duane Goossen biography
    Duane Goossen biography
    Of interest to current Kansas public affairs is that the head of the Kansas Department of Administration at the time the SEC found these violations was Duane Goossen. In its findings, the SEC specifically criticized the Department of Administration for its preparation of financial statements included in bond offerings — statements that were missing materially important, and negative, information.

    Since his departure from Kansas government, Goossen has remained active in shaping Kansas policy, first as vice president for fiscal and health policy at Kansas Health Institute. 1 In 2015 Goossen joined Kansas Center for Economic Growth as Senior Fellow. 2 In announcing Goossen’s appointment, KCEG executive director Annie McKay noted his “wealth of expertise and knowledge.”

    KCEG advocates for more taxes on Kansans, with the Goossen announcement mentioning “unprecedented and unaffordable tax cuts.” Goossen added he was excited to continue “contributing to the conversation across Kansas about the importance of budget and tax policy and the consequences of drastic tax cuts on everyday investments critical to Kansans.”

    It’s ironic that Goossen mentioned “investments,” as we now know that under his leadership Kansas violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, materially misleading bond investors while other states made full disclosure.

    While critics of current Kansas government — including Goossen 3 — use KPERS underfunding as evidence of failure, this incident shows that KPERS has had funding problems for a long time, under leadership of both parties, and of both conservatives and moderates.

    The SEC findings

    According to a press release from the Securities and Exchange Commission, the State of Kansas “failed to disclose that the state’s pension system was significantly underfunded, and the unfunded pension liability created a repayment risk for investors in those bonds.” 4

    The nature of the SEC’s inquiry involved “the disclosures surrounding eight bond offerings through which Kansas raised $273 million in 2009 and 2010.” 5

    In its order, the SEC found: “The failure to disclose this material information in the Official Statements resulted from insufficient procedures and poor communications between KDFA and the Kansas Department of Administration (“KDA”), which provided information to KDFA for inclusion in the Official Statements, including preparing the State’s financial statements that were included as part of the Official Statements.” 6 (emphasis added)

    The SEC also found that Kansas was an outlier among the states in failing to disclose negative information: “Kansas’s practice of not disclosing the underfunded status of KPERS became increasingly inconsistent with the practice of most states issuing municipal securities, which generally provided disclosure in their CAFRs or the body of their Official Statements regarding the financial health of their pension funds. By 2008, with the exception of Kansas, the overwhelming majority of the Official Statements for state-level bond issuances at a minimum disclosed the UAAL or funded ratios of the associated state-level pension plans, particularly if those plans were significantly underfunded.”

    Prior to a new issue of bonds in November 2011, the SEC found that the State of Kansas instituted satisfactory policies and procedures regarding disclosure of material information.

    1. Kansas Health Institute. Budget director leaving for new post. Available at www.khi.org/news/article/budget-director-leaving-new-post. ↩
    2. Kansas Center for Economic Growth. Duane Goossen joins Kansas Center for Economic Growth. Available at realprosperityks.com/media/press-releases/duane-goossen-joins-kansas-center-for-economic-growth/. ↩
    3. Duane Goossen. The FY15 Budget Is Not Fixed Yet. Kansas Center for Economic Growth. Available at realprosperityks.com/duane-goossen-fy15-budget-fixed-yet/. ↩
    4. SEC.gov. SEC Charges Kansas for Understating Municipal Bond Exposure to Unfunded Pension Liability. Sec.gov. Available at www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370542629913. ↩
    5. ibid. ↩
    6. SEC. Administrative proceeding file no. 3-16009. Order instituting cease-and desist proceedings pursuant to section 8a of the Securities Act of 1933, making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist Order. Available at www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2014/33-9629.pdf. ↩
  • What else can Wichita do for downtown companies?

    What else can Wichita do for downtown companies?

    With all Wichita has done, it may not be enough.

    Within a month, these two headlines appeared in the opinion pages of the Wichita Eagle:

    Investment in downtown Wichita is impressive 1

    State and local leaders need to help meet Cargill’s needs 2

    The second headline was in response to the news story “Cargill plans to move its Wichita headquarters — but where?” 3 In this story, Carrie Rengers reports “Cargill is looking to move its Wichita headquarters, but whether that’s within downtown, where it already is, or outside of it or even outside of Kansas is unclear. … City and state officials are working in full gear to make sure Wichita — downtown specifically — is the option Cargill selects.”

    Rengers reports that Wichita city officials say no specific incentives have been offered to Cargill, but “any incentives likely would involve infrastructure help, such as with parking, or assistance with easing the process for a new building, such as with permitting.” Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell says “cash incentive won’t be an option,” according to Rengers.

    A Cargill official says that the company needs to attract millennials and younger people, who are not attracted to “traditional office space and office-type buildings.”

    Now, consider the first opinion headline: “Investment in downtown Wichita is impressive.” In this op-ed, Phillip Brownlee writes “It’s encouraging that investment in downtown Wichita is continuing — and that it is mostly privately funded. A vibrant downtown is important to the city’s image and to attracting and retaining young adults. More than $1 billion in private and public investment has occurred downtown in the past decade. About $675 million of that investment has been privately funded, and $411 million has been public projects, according to Wichita Downtown Development Corp.”

    Brownlee goes on to note other investments, such as 800 new apartment units “in the works.”

    On the importance of downtown, Brownlee writes “City leaders have long recognized the value of a healthy downtown. Besides the symbolic importance of not having a lot of empty buildings, many young adults prefer an urban environment. That makes downtown important even for businesses not located there, because it can help or hurt their ability to recruit and retain young professionals.”

    I see a discontinuity. Our city’s leaders — opinion, elected, and bureaucratic — brag about all the investment in downtown Wichita, public and private, yet it doesn’t seem to be enough to retain a major Wichita employer in downtown.

    At least editorialist Rhonda Holman recognizes the problem in her column: “It’s concerning that Cargill’s stated intentions to relocate and consolidate have not included a commitment to remain downtown or even in Wichita or Kansas.” What is her solution? “Elected and business leaders need to be creative and assertive in helping Cargill meet its needs.”

    I share Holman’s concern. It’s very troubling that with $411 million in private investment over the past decade, downtown Wichita still isn’t attractive enough to retain Cargill, if the company’s intent to move is real and genuine. And advising the same group of people who have been in power during the decline of the Wichita economy to be “creative and assertive” is a solution?

    What’s even more disconcerting is that the person who has overseen much of this downtown spending has been promoted. Now Jeff Fluhr of Wichita Downtown Development Corporation is president of Greater Wichita Partnership, with responsibility “to grow the regional economy.”

    Forgive me if I’m underwhelmed.

    Regulation
    One of the things that may be offered to Cargill, according to Rengers, is “assistance with easing the process for a new building, such as with permitting.” This is a big red flag on a very tall flagpole. If the city has regulations so onerous that they are a consideration as to whether to locate in Wichita, this is something that must be fixed immediately. But the instinct of the Wichita City Council and city bureaucrats is to create more regulations covering everything from the striping of parking lots to the personal hygiene of taxi drivers.

    Cash incentives
    Mayor Longwell says there will be no cash incentives offered to Cargill. Instead, something like help with parking may be offered. This might take the form of building a parking garage for Cargill. We should ask: What is the difference between giving cash to Cargill and building a parking garage for Cargill’s use? There really isn’t a meaningful difference, except for Cargill. That’s because cash incentives are taxable income. Free use of a parking garage isn’t taxable. 4 5

    Further, Cargill may qualify for PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas.6 This program allows companies to retain 95 percent of the payroll withholding tax of employees. The original intent of this program was to lure companies to locate in Kansas, but in recent years the program has been expanded to include incentivizing companies to remain in Kansas. While this is a state program and not a city program under the mayor’s control, PEAK benefits are more valuable than cash.

    —
    Notes

    1. Brownlee, Phillip. Investment in downtown Wichita is impressive. Wichita Eagle. March 5, 2016. Available at www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article64129977.html. ↩
    2. Holman, Rhonda. State and local leaders need to help meet Cargill’s needs. Wichita Eagle. April 1, 2016. Available at www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/now-consider-this/article69534982.html. ↩
    3. Rengers, Carrie. Cargill plans to move its Wichita headquarters — but where? Wichita Eagle. March 29, 2016. Available at www.kansas.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/carrie-rengers/article68700517.html. ↩
    4. Journal of Accountancy, (2009). Location Tax Incentive Not Federal Taxable Income. Available at: www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2009/apr/locationtaxincentive.html. ↩
    5. American Institute of CPAs, (2015). Federal Treatment of State and Local Tax Incentives. Available at: www.cpa2biz.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/Newsletters/Articles_2008/CorpTax/Federaltreat.jsp. ↩
    6. Weeks, Bob. In Kansas, PEAK has a leak. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-peak-leak/. ↩
  • In Wichita, revealing discussion of property rights

    In Wichita, revealing discussion of property rights

    Reaction to the veto of a bill in Kansas reveals the instincts of many government officials, which is to grab more power whenever possible.

    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.
    — Frederic Bastiat

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s veto of a bill that gives cities additional means to take blighted property has produced reaction from local officials in Wichita. The bill is Senate Bill 338.

    As has been noted in numerous sources, cities in Kansas have many tools available to address blight. 1 What is the purported need for additional power?

    In remarks from the bench, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) said there is no intent to be “aggressive in taking people’s property.” 2 But expanding the power of government — aggression, in other words — is what the bill does. Otherwise, why the need for the bill with its new methods and powers of taking property?

    And once government is granted new powers, government nearly always finds ways to expand the power and put it to new uses. Even if we believe Meitzner — and we should not — he will not always be in office. Others will follow him who may not claim to be so wise and restrained in the use of government power.

    In particular, government finds new ways to expand its powers through enabling concepts like blight. Did you know the entire suburban town of Andover is blighted? 3 Across the country, when governments find they can take property with novel and creative interpretations of blight, they do so. 4

    It’s easy to sense the frustration of government officials like Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell. In his remarks, he asked opponents of SB 338 “what they would do” when confronted with blight. That is a weak argument, but is often advanced nonetheless. Everyone has the right — the duty — to oppose bad legislation even if they do not have an alternate solution. Just because someone doesn’t have a solution, that doesn’t mean their criticism is not valid. This is especially true in this matter, as cities already have many tools to deal with blight.

    Proponents of SB 338 also make unfounded accusations about the motivation of opponents of the law. Because someone opposes this law, it doesn’t mean they are in favor of more blight. Those who fight for freedom and liberty are used to this. Advocating for the right to do something doesn’t necessarily mean that one is in favor of actually doing it.

    The nature of rights

    Much of the discussion this issue concerns the rights of people who live near blighted property. People do have certain rights, but rights have limits. Regarding property, Roger Pilon writes: “Thus, uses that injure a neighbor through various forms of pollution (e.g., by particulate matter, noises, odors, vibrations, etc.) or through exposure to excessive risk count as classic common-law nuisances because they violate the neighbor’s rights. They can be prohibited, with no compensation owing to those who are thus restricted.” 5

    Note that Pilon mentions “excessive risk” as something that injures a neighbor. Some of the activities the city wants to control are things like drug dealing, drug usage, and prostitution that may take place on blighted property. And, I suppose it is a risk to have gangs dealing drugs out of the house across the street, blighted or not. But these activities are illegal everywhere, and there are many laws the city can use to control these problems. There is no need for new laws.

    It is important to draw a bright line as to where property rights end. Pilon: “By contrast, uses that ‘injure’ one’s neighbor through economic competition, say, or by blocking ‘his’ view (which runs over your property) or offending his aesthetic sensibilities are not nuisances because they violate no rights the neighbor can claim. Nor will it do to simply declare, through positive law, that such goods are ‘rights.’” 6

    In today’s world, however, where new rights are seemingly created from thin air, people want to exercise their purported right to control how their neighbor’s property looks. But we have no such right, writes Pilon: “The principle, in fact, is just this: People may use their property in any way they wish, provided only that in the process they do not take what belongs free and clear to others. My neighbor’s view that runs over my property does not belong free and clear to him.” 7

    Opposition in the Legislature

    When the Kansas House of Representatives and Senate voted on this bill, several House members submitted explanations of their vote. In the Senate, David Haley filed a protest and message explaining his opposition to the bill. These statements follow.

    Explanation of vote in the House of Representatives

    MR. SPEAKER: I VOTE NO ON SB 338. KANSAS ALREADY HAS SUFFICIENT TOOLS IN PLACE TO ADDRESS BLIGHT. SB 338 circumvents our current eminent domain statutes by redefining “abandoned property” and by allowing our local governments to expeditiously confiscate, seize or destroy law abiding citizens’ private property without compensation, adequate notice, and a legal property title. This is an egregious overreach that deprives some citizens of their private property rights without sufficient due process and it will cause irreparable harm to our most vulnerable citizens that do not have the resources to protect their property.
    — GAIL FINNEY, BRODERICK HENDERSON, RODERICK HOUSTON, BEN SCOTT, VALDENIA WINN, JOHN CARMICHAEL, KASHA KELLEY, BILL SUTTON, JERRY LUNN, CHARLES MACHEERS

    Protest of Senator David Haley against Senate Bill 338

    February 23, 2016

    In Accordance with Article 2, Section 10 of the Constitution of Kansas, I, David Haley, a duly elected Senator representing the Fourth District of Kansas, herein PROTEST the action of this Legislature in the promulgation and passage of Senate Bill 338: An Act pertaining to Cities.

    In my 23 years as a Kansas Legislator and as but one of only three attorneys in the Senate, this is the first PROTEST I have ever lodged on any measure of the thousands I have considered.

    This Chamber now further denigrates real property rights to which every Kansan should be heir.

    SB 338 which purports to grant authority to cities and nonprofit organizations to petition courts to possess vacant property for rehabilitation purposes will, simply, but legalize grand theft.

    The Senate Commerce committee as is its charge (and not the Senate Local Government committee where, justifiably, similar language as SB 338 had over many years failed time and time again) recognizes and advances business and financial opportunities for our State.

    First, the question of a city, redefining definitions of “abandonment” and “blight” as these terms apply to real property, land and or improvements, is the expertise of deliberations of a committee membership dedicated to the auspices of municipalities not the principles of profit.

    The principles of real property ownership should always inure to the rights of the citizen not to a developer’s bottom line or even a desire to enhance appraised valuations for tax purposes.

    Diabolical in its spawning, methodical and tenacious in its steady lurch forward, SB 338 adheres to two tiered definitions of “abandoned property;” both ingenuous and neither accurate. One definition of “abandoned property”: vacant for 365 days and having a “blighting influence” on surrounding properties; the other definition vacant for 90 days and 2 years tax delinquent.

    There are numerous every day scenarios whereby a real property owner has in no way “abandoned” their property though that same property may be vacant for 90 to 365 days, be tax delinquent for 2 years or may have need of rehabilitation to conform to a local standard, real or perceived. But SB 338 alleges “abandonment” and triggers governmental intrusion, harassment and potentially leads to a taking of real property by the government for the benefit of an organization which profits from the taking and kick back higher taxes to the city.

    “Commerce,” yes, but a shameful way to run a citizen responsive “Local Government.”

    The specious argument in favor of this legislation portends neighborhood beautification, tax viability and repopulation of or demolition and rebuilding of older houses. By eradicating “blight,” the entire community, even the city, is greatly enhanced.

    With that premise, I, David Haley, could not agree more.

    Today, with no need for warping and putting into statute time-honored definitions of “blight” and “abandonment” or presupposes new postulates for passages of time periods to correlate to real property owners’ interests or genuine concern with their legally owned land(s), there are tools already available to every municipality to address blight. “Code enforcement” departments can post notice and bring to environmental and district court negligent property owners. Subsequent to insufficient response, steep fines and even jail time can be issued now. Today in current statute, a property with two or more years of delinquent property taxes may be sold by the Sheriff of each Kansas County in a “Delinquent Property Tax Sale” also known as a “Sheriff’s” sale or as property “sold on the Courthouse steps.” Again, these are current tools available to curb or cure blight and to put real property into fiscally responsive ownership.

    The property rights of legal property owners should not be infringed upon by this Legislature.

    Marginal or fragile property owners (traditionally average income or poor property owners attempting to hold on to inherited property or an entrepreneurial hope structure as often found in inner cities) will be set upon by keen-eyed, out of county based developers sheltered by an industrious “not-for-profit” which uses the city and district court as the leverage to harass and ultimately take the land, all in the name of “civic pride” or “community betterment.” Theft.

    The late Kansas City, Missouri civil rights leader Bernard Powell (1947-1979) envisioned and warned of the transfer of inner city property back into the same hands of those who fled the same a half century or more ago to the sanctity of the suburbs. Bernard Powell predicted the day would come when government, and the tools they elect and hire, will work hand-in-hand with “robber barons” to turn those out; those who have despaired in neglected, under represented, often high crime, poorly educated neighborhoods, those who have weathered poverty, hard times, civic and civil harassment but yet held a real property interest, a “piece of the pie” … to force them out. Bernard Powell spoke of prosperity returning to the inner city and nothing being tendered to the people who had paid the price for the most sought after of land.

    He called it government assisting the turning of the “ghetto into a goldmine.” How prophetic.

    Here I sit, practically alone in my opposition to this expansion of eminent domain targeted at poorer property owners ill equipped to “fight City Hall,” in this Kansas Senate and watch this unfold. Again, SB 338 came out of the Commerce committee as well it should.

    Government has redefined terms before to shape shift often dastardly need to justify ill deeds.

    I remember efforts to redefine “blight” for economic purposes in another eminent domain taking for use in building the Kansas Speedway and Legends in Wyandotte County. Succinctly, the new definition of “blight” was the ability for exponentially more taxes to be levied against the future use of the land than that which the owner who it was being taken from could be expected to pay in its current use. Remnants of that economically fascist philosophy resonate in SB 338. As more people flee the “golden ghettos” of suburbia, the inner city “ghettos” will be repopulated and turned into “goldmines” at the expense I fear, once again, of the poor and unsuspecting. Ironically, we celebrated and honored some of our Korean and Vietnam War heroes today in the Senate Chamber. Was the freedom to own real property without fear of unwarranted government intrusion something for which they fought?

    I protest the passage of Senate Bill 338 as is my Constitutional right as a Kansas State Senator under Article Two, Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution for reasons, beliefs afore-listed as well as others not so and hereby vow to continue to assist unnecessarily embattled real property owners in my home District as we together will face the challenges that this bill, when signed into law, will undoubtedly bring.

    —
    Notes

    1. Todd, John. Power of Kansas cities to take property may be expanded. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/power-kansas-cities-take-property-may-expanded/. ↩
    2. Video. Wichita City Council speaks on blight. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-city-council-speaks-blight/. ↩
    3. Weeks, B. (2012). Andover, a Kansas city overtaken by blight. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at wichitaliberty.org/economics/andover-a-kansas-city-overtaken-by-blight/. ↩
    4. Nicole Gelinas, Eminent Domain as Central Planning. (2015). City Journal. Available at www.city-journal.org/html/eminent-domain-central-planning-13253.html. ↩
    5. Pilon, Roger. Protecting Private Property Rights from Regulatory Takings. (1995). Cato Institute. Available at www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/protecting-private-property-rights-regulatory-takings. ↩
    6. ibid ↩
    7. ibid ↩

  • Wichita City Council speaks on blight

    Wichita City Council members speak in opposition to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s veto of Senate Bill 338, which would have given cities additional power to take property. April 12, 2016. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. For more on this issue, see Governor Brownback, please veto this harmful bill.

  • Wichita on verge of new regulatory regime

    Wichita on verge of new regulatory regime

    The Wichita City Council is likely to create a new regulatory regime for massage businesses in response to a problem that is already addressed by strict laws.

    During a presentation to the Wichita City Council on February 23, 2016, police officials reported on a number of investigations and arrests. In 2015, there were 22 arrests for human trafficking and other violations. The presentation did not include what comprised “other violations,” nor did it contain any information about the disposition of these cases.

    If the city is concerned about prostitution and child trafficking, the latter being a serious crime, we already have strong laws concerning this. As far as the two crimes being related: Prostitutes and pimps are already criminals, according to the law. Committing more crimes like child trafficking is just another step down the path they’ve already chosen.

    A solution is to bring prostitution out of the shadows. Stop making consensual behavior between adults a crime. Then police can focus on actual and serious crime, like child trafficking.

    But the zeal of the Wichita City Council for creating new regulatory regime is likely to overwhelm any rational thought about the problem. Now Wichita massage business owners and therapists are likely to be saddled with onerous licensing requirements. To become a newly-licensed therapist, you must possess one of several educational credentials, one of which is 500 hours of training. Existing therapists must meet similar requirements.

    City officials note that the existing local massage industry requested this regulation. That’s not surprising. The purpose of nearly all occupational licensure laws is to restrict entry to the industry so that existing practitioners can charge higher rates. That is a scam, especially against low-income people that need a masseuse or a plumber. It is also a burden to people who want to become plumbers, barbers, massage therapists, or one of the many other licensed occupations.

    It is both shocking and disappointing to realize that Wichita city bureaucrats and council members do not realize these economic realities. Another economic reality is that when licensing requirements are strict, the quality of service that many people receive declines. When investigating the demand for licensed plumbers, researchers found this:1

    This proxy assumes that the more stringent are the barriers the higher will be the cost of licensed service and the smaller will be its quantity. These two effects increase the motivation of consumers to substitute their own services for those of trained professionals. This substitution process should show up in rising retail sales of plumbing supplies in more tightly restrictive states since licensed plumbers will generally purchase supplies wholesale. The implicit assumption is this causal chain is that self-service is on the average of lower quality than could be obtained from even a marginally trained journeyman plumber.

    When presented with a convincing but fake credential, how diligently with Wichita officials investigate?
    When presented with a convincing but fake credential, how diligently with Wichita officials investigate?
    In other words, when strict licensure requirements make plumbers expensive, more people do their plumbing work themselves, and this work is likely to be of lower quality. It’s quite a stretch (literally and figuratively) to apply this reasoning to do-it-yourself massage, but here’s another economic reality: The more difficult it is to achieve a credential, the greater is the incentive to cheat. You don’t have to search very far before you find vendors advertising their services like this:

    We are one of the oldest and most trusted seller of fake diplomas on the web. We use real diploma paper, the same paper that most major universities and high schools use. We also use professional security paper for our fake transcripts. We have more than 12 years experience in printing fake diplomas. You can rest assured that your fake diploma or fake transcript will look very authentic. We offer many different types of fake diplomas and fake certificates such as, FAKE GEDs, fake college diploma, fake university degree, fake high school diploma, fake college degree, or fake high school transcripts and fake skill certificate.

    How diligently will Wichita’s bureaucratic machinery investigate when presented with a fake diploma certificate and transcript? The city’s record is not good. After the city passed new taxicab regulations, somehow the regulation that prohibited convicted sex offenders from receiving licenses was not implemented effectively. The city granted a taxi driver license to a man who was on the state sex offender registry. He raped a passenger.

    The city council should reject these regulations and devote the city’s resources to protecting people from actual crime.

    Limiting economic opportunity

    Kansas occupational license requirements, with proposed Wichita massage therapists. Click for larger.
    Kansas occupational license requirements, with proposed Wichita massage therapists. Click for larger.
    The Wichita City Council is concerned about human trafficking for the purposes of prostitution. That’s good. But the response the council is considering — which is licensing massage therapists — is not needed. We have strict laws already on the books that make human trafficking a serious criminal offense, which it is. The proposed Wichita regulations will simply make it more difficult for honest people to become massage therapists. Criminals will operate illegally. They are criminals, after all. Or, they will easily obtain false credentials.

    Kansas already has many burdensome occupational licensure requirements that limit economic opportunity and protect entrenched interests. Nearby is a chart of the number of days training or experience required to obtain a license to work in various fields, according to Institute for Justice in 2012. 2 I’ve added the proposed Wichita massage therapist requirements. As you can see, it will require more than twice as much education to become a massage therapist as is required to become an emergency medical technician. How does that make sense?

    Comparing the proposed Wichita requirements to the nation, we find that the Wichita standard is quite lax. 39 states license massage therapists, with the average education or training requirement being 139 days, with the range being from 117 days to 327 days3. Wichita is proposing 83 days, which might inspire one to ask this question: If the Wichita City Council is truly concerned about protecting Wichitans from getting a bad massage, why is it proposing such minimal requirements, compared to other states?

    In reality, the high barriers to becoming a massage therapist in many states is testimony to the massage industry’s success in erecting barriers to entry. By making it difficult to become a massage therapist, the supply is lower than it could be, and prices are higher. Consumers lose. Upward economic opportunity is lost.

    The purpose of nearly all occupational licensure laws is to restrict entry to the industry so that existing practitioners can charge higher rates. That is a scam, especially against low-income people that need a masseuse or a plumber. It is also a burden to people who want to become plumbers, barbers, massage therapists, or one of the many other licensed occupations.

    —
    Notes

    1. Carroll, Sidney L., and Robert J. Gaston. “Occupational Restrictions and the Quality of Service Received: Some Evidence.” Southern Economic Journal 47.4 (1981): 959–976. ↩
    2. Institute for Justice, (2012). License to Work. Available at: ij.org/report/license-to-work/ Accessed 29 Feb. 2016. ↩
    3. ibid ↩
  • Governor Brownback, please veto this harmful bill

    Governor Brownback, please veto this harmful bill

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback should veto a bill that is harmful to property rights, writes John Todd. For more about this issue, see Power of Kansas cities to take property may be expanded.

    Senate Bill 338 has been passed by the Legislature and is now on its way for Governor Sam Brownback to consider. The Governor should veto this bill. This bill gives cities, in conjunction with their preferred nonprofit organizations, the ability to take possession of unoccupied residential houses that the property taxes are currently paid in full. This bill will clearly place vulnerable senior citizens and less affluent property owners in the position of being victimized.

    Cities in Kansas have all the powers they need to deal with property issues through current law. Over the past few years, the City of Wichita has bulldozed hundreds of houses for housing code violations. Enhancing the power of cities and their appointed nonprofit redevelopment organizations to take privately owned properties they do not own without compensation is wrong.

    I urge Governor Brownback to veto this bill!

    John Todd
    Wichita

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Bob’s shaking his head, Wichita water woes, and the harm of teachers unions

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Bob’s shaking his head, Wichita water woes, and the harm of teachers unions

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: There are a few things that make Bob wonder. Then, a troubling episode for Wichita government and news media. Finally, the harm of teachers unions. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 114, broadcast March 27, 2016.

  • In Wichita, the phased approach to water supply can save a bundle

    In Wichita, the phased approach to water supply can save a bundle

    In 2014 the City of Wichita recommended voters spend $250 million on a new water supply. But since voters rejected the tax to support that spending, the cost of providing adequate water has dropped, and dropped a lot.

    The events surrounding the need for a new water supply is a troubling episode in the history of Wichita government. During the prelude to the November 2014 election, citizens were presented with a gloomy scenario that could be fixed only with a sales tax and the spending of $250 million. After voters said no to that, new plans emerged that are much less expensive. Lily Tomlin once said “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.” This episode shows Wichita city leaders — both in and out of government — reinforcing the truth of Tomlin’s observation.

    On December 1, 2015, the Wichita City Council held a workshop on the topic “Phased Approach for New Water Supply.”1 Alan King, Director of Public Works and Utilities, was the presenter. King emphasized that the impetus for a new water supply was for drought protection: “We presently have enough water with our current water resources to last us through our planning period of 2060, without drought.”

    He continued: “When we come and talk to you about additional water resources, it is really only for one purpose, and that is drought protection. If there was no drought, we have no need. The water resources that we come in and are talking to you about, the only value they have for us is in drought protection.”

    But a city document leading up to the sales tax election presented a different scenario. It threatened a lack of water for even residential use: “Building a new supply, along with conservation efforts, is the lowest cost option for providing sufficient water through 2060. Significant conservation will be needed if the current supplies are the sole sources of water for the coming decades; sever [sic] conservation requirements could be harmful to local businesses and quality of life. Adding a new water supply would provide enough water for future growth for the community’s residential, commercial, and industrial base.”2

    This is an important point. We have sufficient water except for a period of extended drought. Even in that case, there is sufficient water for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The purpose of a new water supply is to avoid restrictions on outdoor watering, and in the most extreme drought, a savings of 15 percent of indoor water usage.

    In his December presentation to the council, King presented several phases that the city can take. The first three have no cost, and King said these are underway.

    After that, the city can spend $23 million for new wells and rehabilitation of existing wells at the ASR site.

    After that, there is the possibility of “operational credits,” which involve a change to state regulations. If the state approves, the city can receive credits for sending ASR water directly to Wichita instead of recharging it in the Equus Beds. If not approved, the city could spend $47.2 million for new recharge wells in 2022. If these wells are built, the cost rises to $70.2 million. (On January 22 King made a presentation to the Equus-Walnut Regional Advisory Committee on this topic.3)

    Phased Approach for New Water Supply. Click for larger.
    Phased Approach for New Water Supply. Click for larger.
    There is also the matter of the parallel pipeline. The existing pipeline from the Equus Beds and ASR to the city’s downtown water plant is old and won’t support higher rates of water transmission. The proposed parallel pipeline provides not only redundancy of a major part of our water infrastructure, but also increased capacity. The cost of this, estimated in 2014 at $86 million, was included in the $250 million price tag for ASR expansion. If the parallel pipeline cost is added to the previous phase costs, the cost rises to either $109 million or $156.2 million, depending on the fate of the operational credits regulation reform.

    Either way, the cost is much less than the $250 million the city asked voters to consider in November 2014. And I think I’m being charitable of motives when I say “consider.” The clear and revealed preference of the city council and the city’s political class was passage of the sales tax, meaning the city would spend $250 million to achieve something the city now says can be provided for $109 million or $156.2 million. (Well, everyone except then-city council member and now-mayor Jeff Longwell, but his vote against placing the sales tax on the ballot was a naked political calculation.)

    In information the city presented to voters in the run up to the November 2014 election, the city promised large water bill increases if the sales tax vote failed, writing: “If a new water supply is funded only through water rate increases, the capital cost portion of the rate will increase an estimated 24%. This is in addition to anticipated annual rate increases.”4

    Possible water bill increases. Click for larger.
    Possible water bill increases. Click for larger.
    King’s 2015 presentation to the council showed increases of nine percent for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.5

    Citizens ought to wonder what lessons may be learned from this. Furthermore, I don’t believe there has been any coverage of this in the city’s mainstream news media. That is a problem, too. For more on this problem, see Wichita Eagle, where are you?

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita workshop. Phased Approach for New Water Supply. Video available at https://youtu.be/mNQ26-VZBSA. ↩
    2. Building A Better Future: A Proposed Sales Tax for Basic Services, City of Wichita, June 13, 2014. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/Finance/FinancialDocuments/Sales%20Tax%20Proposal%20for%20Basic%20Services.pdf. ↩
    3. Equus-Walnut Regional Advisory Committee Meeting Notes. Available at http://www.kwo.org/RACs/2016_RAC%20Notes/doc_EQW_Min_January_012216_mu.pdf. ↩
    4. Plans & Background on Proposed 1¢ Sales Tax, City of Wichita, 2014. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97azj3TSm9MS0lCQncxQkp4ODg/. ↩
    5. Phased Approach for New Water Supply, Presentation to Wichita City Council, December 1, 2015, page 30. Available at http://wichita.gov/Government/Council/Agendas/2015-12-01%20Phased%20Approach%20for%20New%20Water%20Supply.pdf. ↩
  • Power of Kansas cities to take property may be expanded

    Power of Kansas cities to take property may be expanded

    A bill working its way through the Kansas Legislature will give cities additional means to seize property.

    The bill is SB 338, titled “Rehabilitation of abandoned property by cities.” This bill has passed the Senate by a vote of 32 to eight. It has had a hearing in the House of Representatives.

    Wichitan John Todd is opposed to this bill and provided oral and written testimony this week to a House committee. In his testimony, Todd made these points, among others:

    • Senate Bill 338 appears to provide local governmental units with additional tools that they don’t need to “take” properties in a manner that circumvents the eminent domain statutes that private property rights advocates fought so hard to achieve in 2006.
    • The total lack of compensation to the property owner for the deprivation or taking of his or her property is missing in the bill.
    • Allowing a city or their third party take possession of vacant property they do not own and have not obtained legal title to is wrong.
    • Please take a look at a comparison between a free-market private sector solution as contrasted to a government mandated program to achieving affordable housing and the impact highly subsidized government housing solutions are having on adjacent home owners.

    Instead of being a problem, houses like these can present economic opportunity, says John Todd.
    Instead of being a problem, houses like these can present economic opportunity, says John Todd.
    In closing his testimony, Todd remarked: “In summary, cities in Kansas clearly have all the powers they need to deal with property issues through current law. By enhancing the power of cities and their appointed non-profit community redevelopment organizations to ‘take’ privately owned properties without compensation in an involuntary manner violates the individual private property rights that are essential for the rule of law and liberty to prevail.”

    Click here to view Todd’s written testimony and visual exhibits.

    Empty lots in northeast Wichita. Click for larger version.
    Empty lots in northeast Wichita. Click for larger version.
    Separately, Todd supplied a map of a portion of northeast Wichita. He remarked:

    I am told that there are over 100 vacant lots in this neighborhood represented by green color. It also shows “Poor” and “Very Poor to Unsound” properties in tan and yellow. SB 338 was touted to provide a tool to deal with blight. The point of this map is to demonstrate how the City of Wichita has been using existing law to deal with blighted properties, and how this law has facilitated the destruction of huge numbers of houses. Many had economic value, but there was no compensation to the property owners. My conclusion was that given the existing law, coupled with tax foreclosure sales, there was no need to give cities additional tools.

    What we have under existing law is actually a regulatory taking of private property with no compensation to property owners. Passage of SB 338 would expand those tools to allow cities or their chosen non-profit entities to seize vacant properties they do not have legal title to. The result for a property owner is a “regulatory taking,” ordered by the Kansas Courts with no compensation, allowing the city or the non-profit time to seek title through a mandated court order and judicial deed. Both are methods of forced government transfer and are wrong.