Voice For Liberty

Tag: Tax abatements

  • Wichita Penalizes Companies Through Taxation

    Five years ago, the City of Wichita granted Big Dog Motorcycles industrial revenue bonds (IRB). The benefit of these bonds is that the company escapes paying property tax (and often sales tax) on the property purchased with the proceeds from the bonds.

    At the December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, the council reviewed the tax abatement to see if the company had lived up to the projections and promises it made as part of its application for the IRBs. Unfortunately for this company, their fortunes have reversed, and while at one time their employment was above what they committed to, their present employment is less than half what it was five years ago.

    There are two illuminating things to take from this video clip. First, council member Jim Skelton wonders why the benefit-to-cost ratio for Sedgwick County is negative, but city staff still recommends approving the tax abatement. Allen Bell, Wichita’s director of urban development, didn’t know why. No council members except for Skelton seemed to be bothered by this.

    But what’s really troubling is this quote from Bell: “I don’t think it would be productive at this time to further penalize them — as the market has already penalized them — by putting them back on the tax rolls at this time.”

    So is taxation by the City of Wichita equivalent to a penalty? That’s what Mr. Bell seems to be saying.

    Further, the fact that the council voted to extend the tax abatements because this company is going through lean times is tacit recognition that property taxes are bad for business. I wonder how many companies have gone out of business because Wichita’s taxes were too high? And how many companies are never formed, or have put off expansion plans because of Wichita’s taxes? Here’s an example of one: Wichita Taxes Cancel Development.

  • Downtown Wichita Arena TIF District Still a Bad Idea

    Say no to expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment tax increment financing (TIF) District.

    Remarks to be delivered at the December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council. Watch the video here.

    Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council:

    It is the case the the City of Wichita is proposing to limit this TIF district spending to things like streets, intersections, landscaping, and lighting. But these are still things that developers working outside of TIF districts generally have to pay for themselves.

    This is the real function of TIF districts: 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. This is accomplished through a confusing arrangement that hides the reality and size of the subsidy given to TIF developers. I’ve come to realize that this confusion serves a useful purpose to this council, because if the people of Wichita knew what was really happening, they’d be outraged.

    The proposed TIF district, while smaller than previously proposed, is still large. Very large. Has anyone calculated what share of the retail and restaurant trade in Wichita would have to be captured by this district in order for it to be successful?

    Has anyone performed a market study to see if obtaining this market share would be feasible? And if feasible, what effect would this have on existing business and development in Wichita? Specifically, what effect would this have on other development in downtown, such as Old Town and Waterwalk? We’ve seen that when city-subsidized business is in financial trouble, this council is willing to fund a bailout.

    We’re at a point, Mr. Mayor, where entrepreneurs may not be willing to work in Wichita without a taxpayer subsidy, or at least not in competition with subsidized development. I am aware of a commercial development in Wichita that has been canceled because of Wichita’s tax environment. Some developers have told me that they are reconsidering whether to do any more business in Wichita simply because of our property tax environment. This situation has recently worsened, as we voted ourselves a large tax increase last month. At the state level, spending cuts or tax increases loom as the state’s budget situation deteriorates.

    Then, consider reporting in the Wichita Eagle this summer, which found this: “City and county tax records show that nearly $159 million in public money has been spent on Wichita’s tax increment financing districts, to get roughly $150 million worth of new development.” That’s not a good deal for city taxpayers.

    Also, evidence of the effectiveness of TIF districts for cities as a whole is not good. A study from the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois finds that “cities, towns, and villages that had TIF districts actually grew more slowly than municipalities that did not use TIF.”

    Finally, Mr. Mayor, you’ve referred to some people as the “naysayers.” I don’t know if you were talking about me. It would be presumptuous of me to think so. But I don’t say “nay” to development, even to downtown development. What I say “no” to is taxpayer-subsidized development, planned and managed by government.

    Saying “no” to that, in turn, lets us say “yes” to the rich diversity of human individuality instead of a collectivist vision driven by government bureaucracy. It means saying “yes” to free people cooperating voluntarily through free markets. That is what is disappearing as more and more of our city’s development is subsidized and managed by government.

  • Does Kansas Economic Development Work?

    A commentary by AFP’s Alan Cobb (Yes, but it’s only $1.3 billion) reports that Kansas economic development efforts are not working.

    Can the same be said about Wichita’s?

  • 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?

  • Kansas Giveaways to Wealthy Homeowners

    A Wichita Eagle news story (Help with historic houses, July 4, 2008) describes two apparently wealthy College Hill homeowners who plan to benefit from Kansas tax credits. These credits are given to people who own homes that have a historic designation.

    If you own such a historic house and plan to, for example, replace the windows or the roof, the State of Kansas will give you a tax credit of up to 25%.

    Sounds like a good program, doesn’t it? Tax credits — do they cost the state anything when given? Tax credits mean that your taxes are reduced. Suppose you spent $5,000 replacing windows. 25% of that is $1,250, so with a tax credit, your Kansas income tax would be reduced by $1,250. If your taxes were going to be $4,000, after the tax credit you’ll pay only $2,750.

    (This is much better than a tax deduction, which reduces your taxable income and taxes, but by a much smaller amount. The highest Kansas personal tax rate is 6.45%, so reducing your income by the $5,000 spent on windows means a tax savings of $322.50. Not nearly as good for the homeowner as a credit of $1,250.)

    The problem with all this is that unless the state reduces its spending by the amount of the tax credits, someone else has to make up the difference.

    So, average hard-working Kansans of all income levels will pay more taxes so that gifts — wait, I mean tax credits — can be given to wealthy homeowners living in historic homes.

    Now does this seem like a good program? The irony is that liberals (or “social progressives”) are usually in favor of historic preservation laws, while at the same time decrying tax giveaways to the rich, who do not pay their fair share, they say. Go figure.

  • Wichita and the Old Town Warren Theater Loan

    Remarks to be delivered to the Wichita City Council, July 1, 2008.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we are potentially beginning a journey down a road where there are two classes of businesses in Wichita.

    There are business owners who seek to earn their profit through market entrepreneurship, that is, by meeting the demands of their customers and the marketplace. That’s a difficult thing to do. An entrepreneur must sense customer demand and desires, and then commit resources to satisfying customers. If entrepreneurs are correct in their judgments and successful in their execution, they earn profits.

    There are other business owners who, through TIF districts, tax abatements, and outright subsidy as in the case of the proposed loan agreement before you today, earn their profits by pleasing politicians such as the members of this council. They practice political entrepreneurship. The people they must please are a majority of this council. Investments — to the extent that government spending can be called that — will be made based on political, rather than marketplace, considerations.

    We have a proud history of market entrepreneurs in Wichita; men whose names are known not only in Wichita, but across the world. There are many other men and women in Wichita who, although their names are not famous, successfully meet customers’ demands in the marketplace and have built successful businesses.

    Mr. Warren is, by all accounts, a talented entrepreneur who earns profits by pleasing customers at his theaters located on Wichita’s west and east sides and in other cities.

    The fact that this theater — operated by a person with great experience in running successful theaters — is not profitable tells us all we need to know about the wisdom of investment in this business. If Mr. Warren and his partners wish to run it as a hobby, let them do so with their own money. The citizens of Wichita, however, need to be able to make their own investments in ways that they believe will earn a profit — that profitability being the one sure test of the success of an investment. When government makes “investments” based on political calculation, the people of Wichita are less able to make their own private investments.

    The council made an unwise decision some years ago when it established the TIF district for this theater. While the city is bound to pay to retire the bonds that were issued, that is the only obligation we have. The fact that a bad decision was made in the past should have no bearing on the decision to be made today. This is especially true as a decision to make this loan steers Wichita firmly towards the path of less private entrepreneurship and more government control of investment in Wichita.

  • Warren Old Town Wichita Theater: Good Money After Bad?

    This letter is from my friend Darrell Leffew. Not everyone seems to understand the folly of throwing good money after bad. “Taxpayers are already on the hook” is Wichita city council member Jeff Longwell’s opinion as expressed in a Wichita Eagle article. Mr. Longwell, I realize you weren’t a member of the council when we taxpayers were placed on the hook, but don’t help us on another, please.

    Let us not throw more good money after bad. The Wichita City Council has approved a business loan to the Limited Liability Company that owns the Old Town Warren Theater.

    That same company was quoted in an Eagle article earlier this month as saying the remodel paid for by the loan would cut the losses. No mention of ending the losses, just reducing. What are the exact estimates? Taxpayers should be fully informed.

    An Eagle article of November 2004 talked about revenues related to the TIF, which funded Old Town development, being woefully short. How many millions of taxpayer dollars are already at risk? And if the business goes into foreclosure before the loan is repaid, we the taxpayers have first claim on a failed, debt ridden property.  Our interim City Manager advised against the loan.

    Our elected officials are not just offering commercial banking now but BAD commercial banking. And the “Open for Business” sign is bright neon.

    Has our City Council overstepped its authority? Voters will decide at the polls.

  • Wichita city manager’s warning is too late

    On Tuesday June 16, 2008, the Wichita City Council agreed to lend the Old Town Warren Theatre’s owners $6 million so they could keep the theater open. (City agrees to loan Warren $6 million June 18, Wichita Eagle).

    Wichita Interim City Manager Ed Flentje issued this warning to the council: “There are in this community much larger businesses with much larger employment who may see this opening as something that will open a door for those businesses to come and say, ‘You’ve done it before, you can do it for us.’”

    Dr. Flentje, I hate to break the news to you, but the door is already wide open. Not so much for loans directly from the city to business entities, but for all sorts of TIF districts and tax abatements. These arrangements generally let developers use the property taxes they pay — taxes that would normally go to fund the operations of the city and other governments — to pay for the development itself. Developers who don’t receive tax favors have to pay property taxes, and also must pay for the types of things that TIF districts funds pay for.

    These special tax favors are now dispensed freely by the Wichita City Council. As I stated at a public hearing before that body not long ago: “It is now apparent that TIF districts and tax abatements are entitlements that developers in politically-favored areas of town can count on receiving, while everyone else pays.” See Tax Abatements in Wichita.

    Whether a developer receives a low-interest loan, or an outright gift, or the privilege of having your property taxes returned right back to you, these special favors serve to distort the free allocation of capital according to what people really want. Instead, capital, in the form of tax dollars, is allocated according to the desires of politicians.

    Bill Warren and the theater’s other owners know very well the benefits that TIF districts can bring to a development. The theater in question benefited from a TIF district established in 1999. That district is, according to the article, the only tax district in Wichita that doesn’t generate enough tax revenue to pay for the bonds issued for it.

    The problems with this TIF district benefiting the Warren Theater are not new. The Wichita Eagle reported on November 14, 2004 (“Old Town tax district misses goals: Plaza falls short”) that “A special tax district set up to pay for millions of dollars of public spending in the Old Town Cinema Plaza is generating less than half the revenue it’s supposed to — and taxpayers citywide will have to pick up the tab.”

    Also see Warren bailout poses dilemma.

  • Tax Abatements in Wichita

    Remarks to Wichita City Council, June 3, 2008.

    A few months ago I spoke before this council asking that you not grant a tax abatement. At that time I was told that granting a property tax abatement doesn’t have any impact on City of Wichita spending.

    I found this quite remarkable, that new homes and buildings can be built but not consume any additional resources that the city and other local governments supply. If this is truly the case, why should a new development of any type at any location have to pay any property tax at all?

    There is a cost to the city and other local governments in granting tax abatements. Actually, the cost is born by the taxpayers who don’t achieve the favored status that these developers are seeking. These non-favored taxpayers — homeowners and businesses alike — have to pay for the services this development will consume but will not pay for because they seek to avoid paying their property tax.

    Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, if there were no impact on city spending, no cost to the taxpayers of the City of Wichita when a TIF district is created or tax abatements given, why would we not grant these benefits to anyone building anything in any part of town?

    It is now apparent that TIF districts and tax abatements are entitlements that developers in politically-favored areas of town can count on receiving, while everyone else pays.

    The granting of these benefits to developers working in certain parts of Wichita amounts to central government planning. It is government, instead of people trading freely in markets, deciding to direct capital from one part of town to another for political, instead of economic, reasons. In effect, this council says to entrepreneurs who chose to invest their capital somewhere else in Wichita — somewhere that doesn’t qualify for tax abatements — that they made a mistake. And they will pay for that mistake, as they pay the property tax that these developers will escape paying.

    It may be that this project is not economically viable unless it receives the tax abatement. If so, we should ask why our taxes are so high that they discourage investment and economic activity.