Voice For Liberty

Tag: TIF districts

  • Kansas law requires Wichita to hold another public hearing

    Recently, the Wichita city council passed a resolution announcing a public hearing on a TIF district and its project plan. The city then, on the day before the hearing, substantially changed the plan. This change means that the city must hold another public hearing.

    Kansas statute 12-1772 says in paragraph (c)(3)(f) that substantial changes to the project plan require a new public hearing. The changes the Wichita city council made less than 24 hours before the public hearing nearly doubled the planned spending. Further, the new spending is of a different character. These are substantial changes that require a new public hearing.

    This post on my blog, which was printed as an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle, explains the situation: Wichita TIF Public Hearing Was Bait and Switch.

    Others agree that there were changes to the plan. Randy Brown argued for another public hearing (Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing). The Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman noticed the problems with the Wichita city council’s action (The Process Should Be Most Important). Interim Wichita City Manager Scott Moore acknowledges defects in the process (Wichita Public Hearing Action Not Evidence of Leadership).

    Citizens can’t have trust and confidence in government when business is conducted this way. This action, along with another high-profile breakdown in the processes at city hall (Wichita City Hall Confusion Leads to Evaporation of Confidence), should chasten the city to move cautiously and with due regard to process and respect for citizens. Holding another public hearing on the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district, would let the city start the process of regaining the trust of its citizens.

  • Some Wichita communications breakdowns are more important than others

    At the December 16, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, Mayor Carl Brewer scolded interim city manager Scott Moore for failure to communicate effectively with council members. The process, according to the mayor, “made a complete mockery of the entire process and everything we actually do.”

    He also said “We cannot afford as a city to create an environment where citizens have question or they have doubt as to what we’re doing.”

    It’s puzzling to me as to why the mayor is upset about this incident that featured a breakdown in communications, when events surrounding a December 2, 2008 public hearing are more egregious. In that case, citizens were left in the dark. A public hearing was conducted with substantial changes having been made without reasonable notice to citizens. Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer’s Selective Outrage provides more information and background.

  • Sedgwick County Commission fails citizens

    At yesterday’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, Commissioners Tom Winters, Tim Norton, and Dave Unruh failed to take an opportunity to stand up for good government.

    By ratifying the City of Wichita’s defective public hearing, notice is given that it’s open season on citizens. Their concerns are shoved aside. Commissioners say they were constrained by a very narrow range of action permitted by law. The reasons they voted against this TIF district in August are still there, though present in smaller measure.

    The problem is that these politicians want something so badly that they’re willing to overlook major problems in procedures that are designed to give citizens a voice. Newspaper editorial writers aren’t helping. They’re usually at the forefront of “good government” efforts. But not the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, who wrote this in today’s lead editorial: “Yes, as some argue, the city should have done a better job of allowing public input on the arena TIF district. The late changes to the Dec. 2 City Council agenda left the public and at least one council member unfamiliar with the plan to add $10 million for future parking needs, arming critics and fueling public distrust of local government generally.” But, she’ll go along with this action anyway.

    Nothing that this TIF district can build is as important as destroying citizen confidence and procedures designed to give them a voice.

    Thank you to Commissioners Gwen Welshimer and Kelly Parks for voting for the interests of citizens instead of those of Wichita’s political entrepreneurs.

  • Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer’s selective outrage

    At the Tuesday December 16, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, Mayor Carl Brewer expressed his displeasure with the way city staff handled its investigation of a developer the city was preparing to do business with. The problem, it seems, is largely one of communications. City staff didn’t present the council members with relevant information. The process, according to mayor Brewer, “made a complete mockery of the entire process and everything we actually do.”

    The mayor’s fault-finding is quite selective. The December 2, 2008 meeting of the council was marked by something that, in its own way, is worse. That’s when the council, having published notice of a public hearing, substantially changed the plan that was the subject of the hearing. That, to borrow a phrase from the mayor, made a complete mockery of the public hearing. Why wasn’t the mayor upset about that?

    Previous coverage:
    Wichita Public Hearing Action Not Evidence of Leadership
    Problems with Open Government in Wichita
    Wichita TIF Public Hearing Was Bait and Switch
    Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing
    Letters to Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission Regarding Downtown Wichita TIF District

  • Jeff Fluhr decided

    A few weeks ago in the post Jeff Fluhr’s Decision I wrote that the the new president of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation had a choice to make: “Mr. Fluhr needs to decide if he’s on the side of open and transparent government, or whether he’s in favor of crony capitalism and the good ol’ boy network.”

    When Mr. Fluhr testified at yesterday’s Sedgwick County Commission meeting, I learned the answer. It’s crony capitalism, all the way.

    Background: As defined by Wikipedia, “Crony capitalism is a pejorative term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businessmen and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.”

  • Sedgwick County: please don’t ratify Wichita’s disrespect of citizens

    Remarks delivered at the December 17, 2008 meeting of the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners.

    I’m here today to ask this commission to not approve the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district. The reason I ask this of you is for reasons of good and open government, something I’m sure we can agree that all citizens are in favor of.

    There was a defect in the public hearing that the Wichita City Council held on December 2, 2008 regarding this matter. The defect in the public hearing is not the fault of this commission. That blame lies across the street at Wichita city hall.

    The undisputed facts are that the City of Wichita added a large amount of spending to the project plan less than 24 hours before the public hearing. Besides greatly increasing the size of the project, this additional spending is of a different character. Citizens, news media, and even at least one council member were not aware of this change until it was announced at the public hearing.

    Besides being disrespectful to citizens, there may very well be a legal problem with the way the City of Wichita conducted the public hearing. Kansas Statute 12-1772 requires that if a substantial change is made to the project plan, there must be another public hearing after publication of notice.

    Does roughly doubling the budget of a plan qualify as a substantial change? Does adding a new type of project, one that wasn’t mentioned in the notice of the public hearing qualify as a substantial change? Yes. I believe these are substantial changes.

    Wichita interim city manager Scott Moore admits there were problems with the public hearing. Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle recognizes them, too. And Randy Brown’s description of changes to the public hearing having been “sneaked onto the Wichita City Council’s Tuesday agenda, essentially under cover of Monday evening’s darkness” accurately captures the nature of what the City of Wichita did.

    But what the City of Wichita will not do is accept the consequence of its actions.

    A volunteer citizen watchdog like me can’t afford to file a lawsuit against the city to force them to hold a proper public hearing. The city has nearly unlimited means to defend itself. Not lost on me is the irony that my own tax dollars would be used in a legal fight against me.

    This commission has the power to stand up for good government. Please don’t consent to what’s been termed an “aggravated assault on the spirit” of the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Please vote against the downtown arena TIF and ask the City of Wichita to hold a proper public hearing.

  • Defective public hearing in Wichita. Open government needed.

    John Todd and Bill Davitt speak about the defective public hearing held at a recent Wichita City Council Meeting, and about the importance of open and transparent government.

  • 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.

  • Wichita City Council: Put better procedures in place before proceeding

    Remarks that may be delivered to the Wichita City Council at its meeting today.

    Update from city council chambers: The proposal has been withdrawn for now, so I won’t be delivering these remarks.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the council, developments surrounding the Renaissance Square project in the C.O.R.E. Redevelopment District are unfolding so rapidly that we need to step back and think about the wisdom of proceeding with the current plans. As things stand now, citizens can have little confidence in this project and the way the city has handled it.

    For example, we’re told that a new entity, Joel Associates, LLC, has been formed to develop this project. Now, what type of investigation has been performed on this new corporation? Do we have its financial statements, and statements for its principals? Does this corporation or its principals have the financial resources to back up the guaranty the city asks them to provide? How much did Joel Associates, LLC pay Grant Gaudreau for his ownership interest in ICDC, LLC?

    I would submit that a little shuffling of the ownership structure of the project is hardly assurance to Wichitans that this project is on the up-and-up. Further, what does it say about the judgment and the business acumen of the remaining owners if they thought Mr. Gaudreau’s past would not be uncovered, or when uncovered, would not be perceived as a problem?

    Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we have a problem. A noted journalist said this on a public affairs television program last week regarding this project: “This is a project the city has been working on for years, and it was absolutely astonishing to me that in a relatively short period of time I was able to come up with something — I mean, they have a development department, they have a legal department, they have a police department, they have two ex-investigative reporters on staff. So why this came to light literally on the day of the vote was just astonishing to me.”

    Reporting in the Wichita Eagle makes it clear that the City of Wichita does not have procedures in place to protect the interests of its citizens. It appears that a citizen wanting to finance an automobile or obtain a credit card is scrutinized more closely than are potential city business partners. Worse, it appears that the city is willing to enter into agreements and extend millions in financing to people who couldn’t get an automobile loan or a credit card. This does not qualify as stewardship of citizens’ resources.

    So now the ownership of the business entity behind this project has been restructured to eliminate the developer whose past problems lead to delay. But there’s still a taint on this project. Citizen confidence has evaporated.

    As reporting in the Wichita Eagle and my own investigation has revealed, there is no credit available for projects like this. Even if the city council were to approve this project this week, it would likely be some time before the project gets moving.

    Time is not of the essence. Let’s wait before proceeding. Given the confusion at Wichita city hall that the Wichita Eagle has reported, citizens can have no confidence in proceeding with any projects like this until better procedures are put in place. Then, we’re not going to take city staff’s word that these procedures are in place, as recent events give us little confidence in its capabilities or judgment. We’ll need some independent confirmation that city staff and council members are to be trusted in matters such as these.