Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sharon Fearey

  • A look at a David Dennis campaign finance report

    A look at a David Dennis campaign finance report

    It’s interesting to look at campaign finance reports. Following, a few highlights on a report from the David Dennis campaign. He’s a candidate for Sedgwick County Commission in the August Republican Party primary election. The report was filed July 25, 2016, covering the period from January 1, 2016 through July 21, 2016. These reports are available online at the Sedgwick County Election Office website.

    Keith Stevens, $200
    A longtime Democrat community activist, always on the side of higher taxes and more government spending.

    Suzanne F. Ahlstrand, $250
    Gary & Cathy Schmitt, $100
    Jon E. Rosell, $100
    Charlie Chandler, Maria Chandler, $1,000 total
    Al and Judy Higdon, $500
    James & Vera Bothner, $250
    Lyndon O. & Marty Wells, $500
    All are, or have been, affiliated with the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce in various roles, including paid staff and leadership. At one time local chambers of commerce were dedicated to pro-growth economic policies and free markets. But no longer. The Wichita Chamber regularly advocates for more taxes (the 2014 Wichita sales tax campaign was run by the Wichita Chamber), more spending, more cronyism, and less economic freedom. It campaigns against fiscally conservative candidates when the alternative is a candidate in favor of more taxes. The Chamber says it does all this in the name of providing jobs in Wichita. If you’re wondering who ground down the Wichita economy over the past few decades, look no further than the Wichita Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates who have run Wichita’s economic development bureaucracy.

    Harvey Sorensen, $500
    Sorensen was one of the drivers behind the 2014 one cent per dollar Wichita city sales tax proposal, serving as co-chair of Yes Wichita, the primary group campaigning for the tax. In a public forum Sorensen said, “Koch Industries is going to spend a million dollars to try to kill the future of our community.”1 Wichita voters rejected that sales tax, with 62 percent of voters voting “No.”2 Since the election, we’ve learned that we can satisfy our water future needs by spending much less than Sorensen recommended, at least $100 million less.3 Part of the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce cabal, Sorensen has played both sides of the street, having donated $500 to Jeff Longwell and the same amount to his opponent Sam Williams in the 2015 Wichita mayoral election. We might be led to wonder if Sorenson makes contributions based on sincerely held beliefs regarding public policy, or simply for access to officeholders.

    Jon, Lauren, David, and Barbara Rolph, $2,000 total
    Jon Rolph was another co-chair of Yes Wichita, the primary group campaigning for the 2014 Wichita city sales tax. Since then he’s floated the idea of trying again for a city sales tax.

    Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 441 Political Action Committee, $500
    Labor unions rarely — very rarely — make campaign contributions to Republicans. Except for David Dennis.

    Bryan K & Sheila R Frye, $50
    Bryan Frye is a newly-elected Wichita City Council member who has quickly found a home among the other big-taxing, big-spending council members. He’d very much like a county commissioner who is compliant with more taxes and more spending — like David Dennis.

    Lynn W. & Kristine L. Rogers, $50
    Lynn Rogers is a Republican-turned-Democrat. As a member of the Wichita public schools board, he is an advocate for more school spending, less school accountability, and no school choice.

    Alan J. & Sharon K. Fearey, $100
    A Democrat, Sharon Fearey served two terms on the Wichita City Council. She was always an advocate for more taxes and spending, even scolding the Wichita Eagle when it thwarted her spending plans.

    Foley Equipment, $500
    Ann Konecny, $500
    Foley was an advocate for the 2014 Wichita city sales tax, contributing $5,000 to the campaign. The next year, Foley asked for an exemption from property taxes and the sales tax that it campaigned for.4 Foley wanted poor people in Wichita to pay more sales tax on groceries, but didn’t want to pay that same sales tax itself.

    BF Wichita, L.L.C., $500
    A company affiliated with George Laham. He’s a partner in the taxpayer-subsidized River Vista Apartment project on the west bank of the Arkansas River north of Douglas Avenue. Rumor is that the apartment project will be abandoned in favor of selling the land as the site for an office building.

    Automation Plus, $500
    Sheryl Wohlford, Vice President, is a longtime progressive activist, a member of Wichita Downtown Vision Team. In short, someone who knows how to spend your money better than you.

    Steven E. Cox, Janis E. Cox, $1,000 total
    Owners of Cox Machine, this company regularly applies for and receives taxpayer-funded incentives, including the forgiveness of paying sales tax. Yet, this company contributed $2,000 to the campaign for the 2014 Wichita city sales tax.

    Leon or Karen Lungwitz, $500
    Owner of company where Wichita mayor Jeff Longwell once worked.

    Slawson Commercial Properties, LLC, $500
    Socora Homes, Inc., $500
    New Market 1, LLC, $500
    Buildings 22-23-24, LLC, $500
    All are Slawson companies, advocates of and beneficiaries of taxpayer-funded subsidies.

    Carl & Cathy Brewer, $200
    The Democrat former mayor of Wichita. Enough said about that.

    Tom Winters, $250
    Winters is emblematic of the big-taxing, big-spending Republican officeholder who believes he knows how to spend your money better than you. Karl Peterjohn defeated Winters in the August 2008 primary election.

    Timothy R. Austin, $150
    We might label Austin as “engineer for the cronies” based on his frequent appearances before governmental bodies advocating for taxpayer-funded subsidy for his clients.

    —
    Notes

    1. Ryan, Kelsey. Comment on Koch involvement in sales tax heats up debate. Wichita Eagle, October 29, 2014. Available at www.kansas.com/news/local/article3456024.html. ↩
    2. Sedgwick County Election Office. November 4th, 2014 General Election Official Results — Sedgwick County. Available at www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/election_results/Gen14/index.html. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, the phased approach to water supply can save a bundle. wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-phased-approach-water-supply-can-save-bundle/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, campaigning for a tax, then asking for exemption from paying. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/campaigning-for-tax-then-asking-for-exemption-from-paying/. ↩

  • In Wichita, corporate welfare not needed, after all

    Last fall the City of Wichita awarded two forms of economic development subsidy to a proposed Save-A-Lot grocery store to be built in the Planeview neighborhood. The developer of the store was able to persuade Wichita economic development officials and city council members that the store could not be built without public assistance. But now a different developer is going ahead with the project — without any of the subsidies Wichita approved, raising questions as to whether the city’s original offer of public assistance was genuine economic development, or just another instance of corporate welfare.

    The subsidies approved were in the form of a tax increment financing district (TIF) and a Community Improvement District (CID). Over a period of years, the two forms of subsidy were estimated to be worth $900,000 to the developer.

    Kansas law allows affected counties and school districts to veto the formation of a TIF district. The Sedgwick County Commission did just that, and the developer said he would not proceed with the project.

    But now, according to Wichita Eagle reporting, a different developer is proceeding with the project, and without subsidy, according to the article. While TIF is not available, it seems the authorizing ordinance for the CID is still in effect, and could be used by the new developer, if desired.

    Economic development, or corporate welfare?

    That the Planeview Save-A-Lot grocery store is able to proceed, and in a larger and more expensive form than originally proposed, tells us that the arguments of its supporters — that economic development assistance was absolutely required — were not true. Actually, these arguments might have been true in the mind of Rob Snyder, the original developer. Developers who seek public subsidy have a powerful incentive to make the case to local governments that their projects need financial assistance. In this case, Snyder was able to convince Wichita city staff that there was indeed a “gap,” according to city documents, of “approximately $950,000 on a total project cost of over $2,000,000.” In other words, the purported “gap” was nearly half the total project cost.

    But in the hands of a different developer, that gap has evaporated, and the project is able to stand on its own without public assistance.

    We need to realize that the “gap” analysis performed by the City of Wichita is not thorough. There’s an imbalance of power in the relationship between city officials and developers. As mentioned above, developers have powerful financial motives to present their projects in a way that makes them eligible for public assistance. Government officials want these projects to happen. Economic activity is good for everyone, after all. So the motives of local economic development officials and elected representatives to turn over a lot of rocks — examining deals too closely — is weak. As a result, we’ve seen examples where outsiders brought information to the City of Wichita that would not have been considered otherwise.

    In one instance a former Wichita City Council member was unhappy that the Wichita Eagle uncovered negative information about a potential recipient of Wichita public assistance.

    Wichita officials and council members need to take a look at their economic development programs and decide whether the city is willing to — and wants to — distinguish between real and valid economic development programs and corporate welfare. In the case of Wichita’s public assistance offer to Rob Snyder’s Save-A-Lot grocery store, recent developments confirm what a few people suspected at the time — it was corporate welfare, plain and simple.

  • Wichita city council celebrates while others face cuts

    It’s reported that the City of Wichita is facing a $6.5 million shortfall. The city’s looking at several ways to reduce costs, including closing police substations during the overnight hours ($148,000), reducing lawn mowing at parks ($100,000), and cutting back on swimming pool hours ($2,000).

    Here’s one simple thing the city could do to save money that won’t cause very many people any pain at all: cut back on celebratory luncheons.

    On Tuesday April 14, 2009, after the city council meeting, 37 guests lunched at the Hyatt Regency. The total cost of this event to the city, according to the estimate of charges that I asked for, was $1,046.99.

    The event was titled “Wichita City Council Changing of the Guard.”

    That’s not the total cost of the festivities on that day. A city council meeting was held. It was light on business, but long on sentiment. A video presentation of the highlights of departing council member Sharon Fearey’s tenure was shown. Maybe someone else will want to ask how many hours of city employee time it took to create this video.

    Even in good times I don’t think the city should be spending taxpayer funds on celebrations like this. Now the council is asking others to cut, but is spending like this on itself. It’s a mixed message that Wichitans need to remember.

  • YMCA – Wichita conflict of interest

    A local non-profit organization, held in high esteem, seeks to purchase property owned by the City of Wichita. So what’s the problem?

    During his State of the City address for 2009, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer revealed his plan for a partnership between the city and the YMCA. So far this partnership has revealed itself in the city’s plan to sell some city-owned land at First and Waco Streets to the YMCA.

    Council members Jeff Longwell and Sharon Fearey were appointed to represent the city in negotiations.

    The problem is that Longwell is a member of the advisory board for the northwest branch YMCA. This is possibly a conflict of interest. It certainly is the appearance of a conflict of interest, and for that reason, Longwell should step away from the negotiations.

    At the same time, the YMCA should request that Longwell be replaced with another council member.

    I’m not accusing the YMCA of any wrongdoing.

    I’m also not accusing council member Longwell of any wrongdoing.

    But I’ve talked to several elected officials and many citizens about this, and only one has thought there wasn’t a problem with this arrangement.

    This is especially confounding to me in that I’m sure there is probably no actual conflict of interest — at least as these things go — but its appearance is beyond doubt in the minds of most citizens.

    A representative of the YMCA told me that the board Longwell serves on is an advisory board with no decision-making authority.

    I asked Longwell if he could understand how people might think there is a conflict of interest, and he said he could appreciate that position. He added that’s why there is more than one city council member representing the city, and, of course, it takes four votes on the council to take any action.

    Furthermore, he told me that he was out of town and missed a meeting, so he hasn’t been present at the negotiations.

    I’ve talked with several people who have reminded me of the good things the YMCA does for Wichita and the surrounding area.

    So why can’t the YMCA and the city conduct these negotiations in a way that eliminates even the slightest whiff of any appearance of a conflict of interest?

    People are wondering, especially when it is likely that the land will be sold for much less than what some believe it to be worth.

  • Prudence Requires Postponement of Wichita TIF District: The Video

    Bob Weeks recommends postponing approval of a Wichita TIF district until new procedures are put in place. Plus, a question about future mill levies, with a response from council member Sharon Fearey. The remarks in printed form are at this link: Prudence Requires Postponement of Wichita TIF District.

  • Sharon Fearey doesn’t appreciate the Wichita Eagle

    At the December 16, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, Sharon Fearey expressed her displeasure with reporting done by the Wichita Eagle.

    In this clip, she mentions the Wichita Eagle reporting of the history of Grant Gaudreau. Fearey implies that the Eagle knew that he had been removed from the Renaissance Square project over a month ago. But just two weeks ago, Allen Bell, development director for the City of Wichita, referred to Gaudreau as “principal developer.” So Fearey’s accounting of the facts isn’t even close to Bell’s.

    Is there a communications breakdown at city hall? It seems obvious.

  • “Thank You, Wichita Eagle”

    Mustering all the sarcasm she can, Sharon Fearey says “Thank you, Wichita Eagle.”

    Speaking from the bench at the December 16, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, she’s referring to reporting that newspaper did that uncovered problems in the past of the person referred to as the principal developer of a project.

    Wichita city council member Fearey simply does not understand the concerns of the citizens of Wichita. Combined with her tasteless joke a few weeks ago (see Sharon Fearey’s Bad Joke for video), Wichitans can be thankful that term limits are bringing an end to her time on the city council.

    I and most of the citizens of Wichita are truly thankful for the reporting the Wichita Eagle has done on this matter.

  • No Diligence in Wichita City Hall

    Rhonda Holman’s Wichita Eagle editorial today (Need vetting of City Hall partners) correctly states that city staff “missed the mark in vetting negotiator Grant Gaudreau.” Or is the proper title “principal developer,” as stated by Wichita’s director of urban development Allen Bell? (See Wichita’s Faulty Due Diligence for video.)

    There’s a lot of confusion over this matter, and times like this let us get a closer look at what’s going on in city hall. We can also learn a lot about the attitudes of government officials and city staff. For example, a Wichita Eagle news story reported this:

    “Grant was never a big money player in this,” Fearey said. “He’s always just been the person who had time to come to the city and work through things and also knew a lot about who to go to in the city and how to work the system.”

    First, note the disparity between Allen Bell’s “principal developer” and Wichita city council member Sharon Fearey’s “never a big money player.” But what’s really troubling is that Fearey acknowledges that there’s a “system” at city hall that someone knows “how to work.” This doesn’t say a lot for openness and transparency in Wichita city government. It also perpetuates the realization that there’s a network of insiders who know how to milk the halls of government power for their own benefit.

    Then, the Eagle news story contains this: “[Wichita Mayor Carl] Brewer said he wants to ensure that developers can complete the project in a reasonable time and that there are no other problems.” If our mayor can figure out some way to eliminate the risks that entrepreneurs take, more power to him. If successful, I might consider voting for him, should he decide to run for re-election.

    The fact is, however, that real estate development is a tremendously risky endeavor. Entrepreneurs — people with their own money at stake, with their ears to the ground every day and the experience, power, and discretion to alter plans as the situation dictates — are the people best suited to assume and negotiate this risk. Politicians operate in a different environment with a different set of incentives.

  • Sharon Fearey’s Bad Joke

    At the Tuesday December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, a property owner was present. This man, owner of the Nifty Nut House, a popular store for nuts and treats, was in front of the council when council member Sharon Fearey asked this question:

    “Do we all get free nuts or anything?”

    (Laughter from the council and audience.)

    “Just kidding! You can’t buy our vote!”

    It’s troubling to me when elected officials think things like this are funny. Why was she even thinking of this? The Nifty Nut House has great products. I was thinking about them as I sat in the audience at this meeting. But why did council member Sharon Fearey think it would be funny to suggest that the council members get free nuts?

    Incidents like this are why citizens have a poor attitude towards government and its officials.