Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city council

  • Wichita tourism fee budget

    Wichita tourism fee budget

    The Wichita City Council will consider a budget for the city’s tourism fee paid by hotel guests.

    If you stay at a hotel in Wichita, you’ll pay sales tax of 7.5 percent, hotel tax (transient guest tax) of 6.00 percent, and since 2015, a tourism fee of 2.75 percent. The tourism fee arises from the city’s creating of a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID), with boundaries matching those of the city. 1 Funds collected from this fee go to Visit Wichita, the city’s visitor and convention bureau. (Of note, the TBID ordinance specifies that if the tax is itemized on hotel bills, it is to be called the “Tourism Fee.” Everyone pays, even those who are not tourists.) (Also, some hotels are in Community Improvement Districts, charging up to another 2 percent.)

    Coming to Wichita for business. (Click for a larger version.)

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider the budget for the use of this tourism fee revenue. 2 City documents (the agenda packet) show actual results and goals for economic impact. As can be seen in the nearby excerpt, for leisure travel in 2017, Visit Wichita claims $81,343,227 in economic impact. This figure comes from summing identifiable dollars, which comes to $20,433,737. Then a multiplier is applied to produce the economic impact. All this results in a return of investment of $53 dollars for every dollar of investment (“Media Leisure Investment”), Visit Wichita says. (This is for the “leisure” market segment only. There are separate goals and statistics for group travel, which is meetings, conventions, or sporting events.)

    This data represents what is called “incremental” travel, for which Visit Wichita takes credit: “The rate of travel by those who are ‘unaware’ is considered the base rate of travel, which would have been achieved if no advertising were placed. Any travel above this base by ‘aware’ households is considered influenced — or the rate of incremental travel.” 3

    As for the performance of the overall Wichita hotel market, growth is slow. Looking at growth in hotel tax collections, only two of the ten largest markets in Kansas have grown slower than Wichita. This is since January 1, 2015, which was when the tourism fee started. (Hotel tax collections collected by the Kansas Department of Revenue do not include local taxes like the city tourism fee.)

    Further, if we were expecting a boost in hotel sales from the recent hosting of NCAA basketball tournament games, that didn’t happen. See Effect of NCAA basketball tournament on Wichita hotel tax revenues.

    Kansas transient guest tax collections are available in an interactive visualization here.

    Example from the visualization. Click for larger.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita, Ordinance No. 49-677. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/CityClerk/OrdanicesDocuments/49-677%20TBID%20Ordinance%20-%20version%204.pdf. ↩
    2. Wichita city council agenda packet for May 1, 2018. ↩
    3. City council agenda packet. ↩
  • Free standing emergency department about to open in Wichita

    Free standing emergency department about to open in Wichita

    A project in Wichita received substantial subsidy from taxpayers. How have public policy issues been reported?

    Free standing emergency rooms are a recent trend in medical care. This is a facility that has equipment, personnel, and capability like a traditional hospital emergency room, but is not connected to a hospital. The first in Wichita is nearly ready to open, on Twenty-first Street east of Webb Road.

    Regarding the Wichita facility, the Wichita Business Journal quoted Malik Idbeis, chief information officer for Kansas Medical Center: “We see a lot of patients from the northeast side of Wichita. We thought it’d be nice to bring our style of care closer to them. There are a lot of neighborhoods and families in that area.” 1

    Here, the spokesman is promoting that facility is located convenient to (affluent) families in northeast Wichita. That wasn’t the argument made to the Wichita City Council last year when the facility applied for tax relief through the Industrial Revenue Bonds program. At that time, the facility was pitched as an attraction that would serve many out-of-town customers. City documents reported: “The current Economic Development Policy requires medical facilities to attract at least 30% of patients from outside the Wichita MSA. Kansas Medical Center reviewed the location of patients utilizing the emergency room in Andover, which revealed that 37% come from outside the Wichita MSA.” 2

    It seems a stretch to assume that the demographic characteristics of a hospital in Andover would also apply to an emergency room in Wichita, but the city council accepted this reasoning.

    Aside from this, the Wichita Business Journal article contains problems in its reporting of public policy issues. The reporter wrote: “Last summer, the Wichita City Council authorized issuing industrial revenue bonds for the project to help finance land and construction costs. With IRBs, the city serves as a pass-through entity for developers to obtain a lower interest rate on projects. IRBs require no taxpayer commitment.” (For background on IRBs in Kansas, see Industrial revenue bonds in Kansas.)

    It’s not likely the facility will save on interest costs with IRBs. It might save if the bonds were non-taxable, but these bonds are taxable, according to the agenda packet for this item. The article is correct in that IRBs require no taxpayer commitment — at least superficially. Here, I believe the reporter is letting readers know that the city makes no guarantee as to the bond repayment. If the city guaranteed repayment, that would help the borrower obtain a lower interest rate. But there is no guarantee.

    Instead, the benefit of the IRB program is lower taxes. The city estimates the first-year property tax savings to be $61,882, allocated this way: City of Wichita: $17,226. State of Kansas: $792. Sedgwick County: $5,520. USD 259 (Wichita public school district): $28,345. Savings like this would be realized for five years, plus another five years if employment commitments are met.

    This property tax forgiveness is, in many ways, a “taxpayer commitment.” If we don’t recognize that, then we must reconsider the foundation of local tax policy.

    In Wichita, as in most cities, the largest consumers of property tax dollars are the city, county, and school district. All justify their tax collections by citing the services they provide: Law enforcement, fire protection, education, etc. It is for providing these services that we pay local taxes.

    But through the Industrial Revenue Bond program, properties don’t pay property tax. (In the case of this facility, the property tax abatement is limited to 88 percent of the full tax burden.)

    Yet, this new facility will undoubtedly demand and consume the services local government provides — law enforcement, fire protection, and education. But it won’t be paying property tax to support these services (except for the 12 percent not abated). Others will have to pay this cost.

    We’re left with an uncomfortable and awkward circumstance. City officials tell us that we must pay property tax so the city can provide services. (In fact, last year the Wichita city manager recommended increasing property taxes to pay for more police officers.)

    At the same time, however, the city creates special classes of people who use services but don’t pay for them.

    Often the justification for economic development incentives is economic necessity, that is, the project could not be built without the incentive. That argument was not made for this project.

    Free standing emergency rooms

    Free standing emergency departments are controversial. The notes to this article hold references to news articles and academic studies looking at the costs and usage of these facilities. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Researchers note that the emergency rooms are much more expensive than traditional doctor offices or urgent care facilities, yet many of the diagnoses made at the ERs are the same as made at non-emergency facilities.

    —
    Notes

    1. Heck, Josh. Medical group sets opening date for free-standing ER. Wichita Business Journal. Available at https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2018/04/06/medical-group-sets-opening-date-for-free-standing.html. ↩
    2. City of Wichita. Request for Letter of Intent for Industrial Revenue Bonds (E Wichita Properties, LLC/Kansas Medical Center, LLC). City Council agenda packet for June 6, 2017. ↩
    3. NBC News. You Thought It Was An Urgent Care Center, Until You Got the Bill. Available at https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/you-thought-it-was-urgent-care-center-until-you-got-n750906. ↩
    4. Carolyn Y. Johnson. Free-standing ERs offer care without the wait. But patients can still pay $6,800 to treat a cut. Washington Post, May 7, 2017. Available at http://wapo.st/2pUCskD?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.21bb76a447aa. ↩
    5. Rice, Sabriya.Texans overpaid for some medical services by thousands, study says. Dallas Morning News. Available at https://www.dallasnews.com/business/health-care/2017/03/23/texans-overpaid-medical-services-thousands-study-said. ↩
    6. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. Rice U. Study: Freestanding Emergency Departments In Texas Deliver Costly Care, ‘Sticker Shock’. Available at https://www.bcbstx.com/company-info/news/news?lid=j0s5sm9d. ↩
    7. Alan A. Ayers, MBA, MAcc. Dissecting the Cost of a Freestanding Emergency Department Visit. Available at https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ucaoa.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Alan_Ayers_Blog/UCAOA_Ayers_Blog_FSED_Pricin.pdf. ↩
    8. Michael L. Callaham. Editor in Chief Overview: A Controversy About Freestanding Emergency Departments. Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 70, Issue 6, 2017, pp. 843-845. Available at http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(17)31505-6/fulltext. ↩
    9. Ho, Vivian et al. Comparing Utilization and Costs of Care in Freestanding Emergency Departments, Hospital Emergency Departments, and Urgent Care Centers. Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 70 , Issue 6 , 846 – 857.e3. Available at http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(16)31522-0/fulltext. ↩
    10. Jeremiah D. Schuur, Donald M. Yealy, Michael L. Callaham. Comparing Freestanding Emergency Departments, Hospital-Based Emergency Departments, and Urgent Care in Texas: Apples, Oranges, or Lemons? Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 70, Issue 6, 2017, pp. 858-861. Available at http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(17)30473-0/fulltext. ↩
  • Wichita baseball consulting contract extension may have no discussion

    Wichita baseball consulting contract extension may have no discussion

    The City of Wichita proposes to extend a baseball consulting contract without public explanation or discussion.

    Wichita city leaders want a better baseball team, not to mention a new stadium. To help find a minor league baseball team, the city engaged a consultant last October. 1 That contract called for a spending limit of $50,000. 2

    You may have noticed that there has not been an announcement of a team. It also appears that the $50,000 spending cap of the October contract has been reached (or nearly so). So next Tuesday the city council will consider spending (up to) another $50,000 with the same consultant. 3

    Why the need for a contract extension? City documents explain: “Over the course of the past six months, Beacon has made successful inroads into the affiliated baseball community presenting the opportunities for MiLB and its teams. Due to the success in attracting the interest of affiliated baseball, staff believes it is imperative to further pursue affiliated baseball discussions with the assistance and expertise of Beacon Sports Capital Partners, LLC.”

    I’m afraid I just don’t understand. The consultant’s effort has been successful, says the city, but yet there is no team. It’s really puzzling because last August Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell was confident there would be an announcement before the end of 2017:

    “By the end of this calendar year, we feel confident that we will be able to announce a team, who the team is, all of the above,” Longwell told The Eagle Tuesday afternoon. “We hope that we can complete all of those conversations by the end of this year and be able to announce a contract in place.” 4

    That confidence was expressed before the engagement of the consultant in October.

    Consent agenda, again

    The city council will deal with this matter on its consent agenda. A consent agenda is a group of items — perhaps as many as two dozen or so — that are voted on in bulk with a single vote. An item on a consent agenda will be explained and discussed only if a council member requests the item to be “pulled.” If that is done, there will be discussion. Then the item might be withdrawn, delayed, voted on by itself, or folded back into the consent agenda with the other items.

    “Pulling” an item is uncommon, as items on consent agendas are not controversial, at least according to the city’s reasoning. I suppose that applies to this item, as the first contract with this consultant was also handled on the consent agenda. And on March 27 the council authorized the spending of over $7 million on a consent agenda item. 5

    —
    Notes

    1. Weeks, Bob. A consultant to help Wichita’s confidence factor. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/consultant-help-wichita-confidence-factor/. ↩
    2. “MiLB Baseball Consultant Contract.” Wichita City Council Agenda packet for October 24, 2017. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/10-24-2017%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
    3. “MiLB Baseball Consultant Contract Amendment.” Wichita City Council Agenda packet for April 10, 2018. Agenda Report No. II-15. Available at <a href=”http://www.wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/04-10-2018%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
    4. Salazar, Daniel. Expect affiliated baseball team announcement by end of 2017, Wichita mayor says. Wichita Eagle, August 29, 2017. Available at http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article170095417.html. ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, spending semi-secret. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-spending-semi-secret/. ↩
  • Wichita property tax rate: Down

    Wichita property tax rate: Down

    The City of Wichita property tax mill levy declined for the second year in a row.

    Wichita mill levy rates. This table holds only the taxes levied by the City of Wichita and not any overlapping jurisdictions.
    In 1994 the City of Wichita mill levy rate — the rate at which property is taxed — was 31.290. In 2017 it was 32.667, based on the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the Sedgwick County Clerk. That’s an increase of 1.377 mills, or 4.40 percent, since 1994. (These are for taxes levied by the City of Wichita only, and do not include any overlapping jurisdictions.)

    In 2016 the mill levy was 32.685, so the mill levy dropped by .018 for 2017. That’s a drop of 0.06 percent, and while small, it’s a refreshing change. It’s also the second year in a row for a decrease in the mill levy.

    Wichita mill levy rates. Click for larger version.
    The Wichita City Council does not take explicit action to set the mill levy rate. Instead, the rate is set by the county based on the city’s budgeted spending and the assessed value of taxable property subject to Wichita taxation.

    While the city doesn’t have control over the assessed value of property, it does have control over the amount it decides to spend. As can be seen in the chart of changes in the mill levy, the city usually decides to spend more than the previous year’s mill levy generates in taxes. Therefore, tax rates usually rise.

    Change in Wichita mill levy rates, year-to-year and cumulative. Click for larger version.
    It’s more common for the mill levy to rise rather than to fall. In those years, the council does not take responsibility to the rise. It will be interesting to see if council members take credit for the falling mill levy this year.

    An increase of 4.40 percent over two decades may not seem like much of an increase. But this is an increase in a rate of taxation, not tax revenue. As property values rise, property tax bills rise, even if the mill levy rate is unchanged.

    The total amount of property tax levied is the mill levy rate multiplied by the assessed value of taxable property. This amount has risen, due to these factors:

    • Appreciation in the value of property
    • An increase in the amount of property
    • Spending decisions made by the Wichita City Council

    Application of tax revenue has shifted

    Wichita mill levy, percent dedicated to debt service. Click for larger version.
    The allocation of city property tax revenue has shifted over the years. According to the 2010 City Manager’s Policy Message, page CM-2, “One mill of property tax revenue will be shifted from the Debt Service Fund to the General Fund. In 2011 and 2012, one mill of property tax will be shifted to the General Fund to provide supplemental financing. The shift will last two years, and in 2013, one mill will be shifted back to the Debt Service Fund. The additional millage will provide a combined $5 million for economic development opportunities.”

    In 2005 the mill levy dedicated to debt service was 10.022. In 2017 it was 8.511. That’s a reduction of 1.511 mills (15.1 percent) of property tax revenue dedicated for paying off debt. Another interpretation of this is that in 2005, 31.4 percent of Wichita property tax revenue was dedicated to debt service. In 2017 it was 26.0 percent.

    This shift has not caused the city to delay paying off debt. This city is making its scheduled payments. But we should recognize that property tax revenue that could have been used to retire debt has instead been shifted to support current spending. Instead of spending this money on current consumption — including economic development spending that has produced little result — we could have, for example, used that money to purchase some of our outstanding bonds.

  • In Wichita, spending semi-secret

    In Wichita, spending semi-secret

    The Wichita City Council authorized the spending of a lot of money without discussion.

    At its March 27, 2018 meeting, the Wichita City Council passed a resolution authorizing the spending of funds for the River Vista development on the west bank of the Arkansas River in downtown.

    The agenda packet for the meeting gave the details: “The overall project budget is $7,862,999 with STAR Bonds financing $4,750,000 of the costs and the City financing $1,050,000. The balance of the project costs will be assessed against the Improvement District.”

    (STAR bonds are a mechanism whereby future sales tax revenue is routed to the project developer, rather than paying for the cost of state and Sedgwick County government. The “Improvement District” is the development itself, and the “City” is, of course, the taxpayers of Wichita.)

    All this was approved by the city council at its meeting on July 21, 2015, under the item “Amendment to Amended and Restated Development Agreement – River Vista, L.L.C. (West Bank Apartments) and issuance of Sales Tax Special Obligation Revenue (STAR) Bonds (District VI).” It appeared on the March 27, 2018 agenda so that a resolution formalizing the arrangement could be passed.

    Was the council’s action of public business and interest? The city council didn’t think so. The item was passed as part of the meeting’s consent agenda. This is a bundle of agenda items that are voted on in bulk, with one single vote, unless a council member requests an item be “pulled” for discussion and possibly a separate vote. If no council member asks to pull an item, there is no discussion.

    No one asked to “pull” this agenda item for a discussion and vote.

    Generally, items on consent agendas are not controversial, at least according to the city’s reasoning. I suppose that applies to this item, as the spending was approved in the past.

    It might have been useful, however, to remind Wichitans of the taxpayer-supplied subsidy going to this project. Just so we’re reminded now and then of where our money is going.

    But: The principals of the apartment project are frequent seekers of taxpayer subsidy, and likely plan to ask for more — much more — in the future. Some are also big funders of campaigns, in particular that of Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell. We call this cronyism.

    So the consent agenda provides a handy place to pass laws without discussing them, hoping that no one will notice. Semi-secret.

    As it turns out, the Wichita Business Journal noticed this item and wrote the article West bank Arkansas River upgrades on City Council agenda. The article starts with “Wichita’s City Council on Tuesday is scheduled to discuss …” But because of the consent agenda and no council member believing the spending deserved attention, that discussion never happened.

  • Naftzger Park private use plans unsettled

    Naftzger Park private use plans unsettled

    An important detail regarding Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita is unsettled, and Wichitans have reason to be wary.

    In the developer agreement regarding Naftzger Park passed on December 19, 2017, there was this: “The City and the Board will cooperate with Developers, upon Developers’ request, to create an Annual Master Calendar of private and public events for the Park, with the expectation that the Developers will have the use of the Park for certain private events.” 1 (In this agreement, “Board” refers to the Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Wichita, Kansas.)

    Recently I asked the city if this master calendar had been created, or if there was a framework for determining how many private events can be held. According to the city, decisions are ongoing, and “According to Park & Recreation officials, what can be shared now is that the City will create and maintain a master calendar of events and programming. The developer will share in the programming responsibility and host several events throughout the year. Collaborating will ensure that the park is programmed well and active.”

    Wichitans should not take comfort in learning this. We can easily imagine where the developer will want to have private events often, especially if homeless people continue using the park as a gathering spot, as is their right. “TGIF kickoff, tonight at Naftzger Park! Drinks and hot hors d’oeuvre! $15 to enter, free to residents of Lofts at Spaghetti Works and partners at Martin Pringle.”

    Could this happen? How often could this happen? These are open questions, and we’re being asked to trust that city bureaucrats will negotiate a good deal for the entire city.

    A panoramic view of Naftzger Park at winter’s end. Click for larger.

    We shouldn’t trust the city to get a good deal for the average Wichitan. Even if the city strikes a deal that looks good, we should not trust the city to enforce the deal. Here’s an example to illustrate why.

    In 2012 the city negotiated a deal with a private developer regarding an apartment development. As part of the deal, the city negotiated a provision that requires the apartment developer to pay “Additional Annual Rent” if certain conditions were met. To the casual observer, that might seem like a magnanimous gesture by the apartment developer. It made it look like the city was been a tough negotiator, hammering out a good deal for the city, letting citizens profit along with the apartment developer.

    But the list of costs the developer could deduct before determining “additional annual rent” was broad, including the ability to contribute to reserve funds that would be owned by the developer. At the time, I observed, “We can be sure that if this project was ever in the position where it looked like it might have to remit ‘Additional Annual Rent’ to the city, contributions to these reserve funds would rise. Then, no funds paid to the city.” 2

    As it turns out, the city did not enforce this agreement. It didn’t even ask for the information needed. Last year I became aware that the city did not ask for, and the developers did not produce, annual reports. 3

    So might it happen that the private developments adjacent to Naftzger Park treat the park as their own? Recall that these developers have taken advantage of nearly every available program to fund their private developments. 4 Included in the list of benefits is a new benefit the city has offered only once before, to my knowledge: The city is paying the developer for parking spaces, on the theory they will be available to the public when the development does not need them.

    Many of these benefits to the developer appeared only after the Wichita city manager said the development would not proceed, as the Wichita Eagle reported: “Plans to tear up and rebuild Naftzger Park downtown have been shelved indefinitely, after developers who own neighboring property pulled out of working with the city, Wichita City Manager Robert Layton said Friday [November 17, 2017].” 5 Somehow the deal was quickly revived, with even more taxpayer-funded benefits to the developer.

    Should Wichitans trust the city to negotiate a good deal, and if it does, to enforce it? In my experience, the answer is no.

    —
    Notes

    1. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between the CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, SENECA PROPERTY, LLC, and SUNFLOWER WICHITA, LLC Dated as of January 19, 2018. Section 3.12. In the agenda packet for the December 19, 2017 Wichita city council meeting. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Wichita WaterWalk apartment deal not good for citizens. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-waterwalk-apartment-deal-not-good-for-citizens/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Wichita WaterWalk contract not followed, again. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-waterwalk-contract-not-followed/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Naftzger Park project details. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/naftzger-park-project-details/. ↩
    5. Lefler, Dion. Naftzger Park won’t be torn down, rebuilt after Spaghetti Works developer pulls out. Wichita Eagle, November 17, 2017. Available at http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article185304103.html. ↩
  • Wichita city council public agenda needs reform

    Wichita city council public agenda needs reform

    Recent use of the Wichita City Council public agenda has highlighted the need for reform.

    At meetings of the Wichita city council, non-council members generally have two opportunities to address the council members. One is as each agenda item is considered. There is (usually) an opportunity to speak only on that topic. If you want to speak about something else, there is also an opportunity near the start of the meeting called the public agenda.

    The council has policies regarding the public agenda, particularly the need to sign up before the meeting, and far in advance: “Members of the public desiring to present matters to the council on the public agenda must submit a request in writing to the office of the city manager prior to twelve noon on the Tuesday preceding the council meeting.” 1

    The practical problem is this: If the council takes action on Tuesday that inspires someone to address the council on the public agenda, that probably can’t happen at the next council meeting, if the policy is followed as stated. For one thing, the council might not take action until after noon, so the deadline for speaking at the next meeting has passed by then. But more likely and most importantly, many people are not able to watch the council meeting live. Instead, they may view a delayed broadcast on cable television, watch the meeting through the city’s website, or read news reporting. By the time any of these happen, the deadline for the next meeting’s public agenda has passed.

    Why is this important? In Kansas cities of the first class, a law is not “officially passed” until it has passed on “second reading.” 2 This is a procedure whereby an ordinance that has passed “first reading” is voted upon again, and if it passes, it then may become law. Often second reading happens at the next council meeting, one week later. (“First reading” is what people see in meetings and is reported in news stories. A proposed ordinance is explained, usually by city staff. Then there may be discussion from the public and among council members, and then a vote.)

    So if a person has a problem with an ordinance that passed first reading and wants to speak to the council before the second reading of the ordinance, that probably won’t be possible, for timing reasons explained above.

    There’s the related issue that the second reading is placed on the consent agenda. A consent agenda is a group of items — perhaps as many as two dozen or so — that are voted on in bulk with a single vote. An item on a consent agenda will be discussed only if a council member requests the item to be “pulled.” If that is done, the item will be discussed. Then it might be withdrawn, voted on by itself, or folded back into the consent agenda with the other items. Generally, consent agenda items are considered by the city to be routine and non-controversial, but that is not always the case.

    It is very rare for the second reading of an ordinance to be “pulled” from a consent agenda for discussion and separate vote. It may have happened, and if so, I can’t recall when. So even if you spoke on the public agenda regarding an ordinance at the meeting where that same ordinance appears on second reading, your speech might not mean much unless a council member “pulls” the item from the consent agenda for discussion and possibly, an individual vote.

    By the way, one speaker said that the council’s policies meant there could be only 20 speakers per month. I think the arithmetic behind this comes from the council’s policy of five speakers per meeting and four meetings per month. It’s actually less than that. As explained on the council’s web site, the fourth meeting of a month is a “workshop” meeting. At these meetings the council considers consent agenda items only, along with information presentations (the workshop). There is no public agenda at these fourth Tuesday meetings, and the council doesn’t meet on fifth Tuesdays.

    (You may be wondering: Does second reading ever happen in the fourth Tuesday meetings where there is no public agenda? Yes. It happened on January 23, 2018, for example.)

    Would reform of the council’s public agenda make a difference? Do council members listen to and consider the opinions of speakers on the public agenda?

    That’s a good question!

    —
    Notes

    1. Wichita City Council. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC AGENDA REQUEST FORMS. Accessed March 20, 2018. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Council/CityCouncilDocument/PUBLIC%20AGENDA%20REQUEST%20FORM.pdf. ↩
    2. Myers, Bob. Drafting of City Ordinances and Resolutions In Kansas. Available at http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/hugowall/Outline%20-%20Res%20and%20Ord%20Drafting.pdf. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: John Todd and the fight against blight

    WichitaLiberty.TV: John Todd and the fight against blight

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: John Todd explains how cities in Kansas are seeking additional power to seize property, and tells us why we should oppose this legislation. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 188, broadcast March 17, 2018.

    Shownotes

  • Property under attack in Kansas

    Property under attack in Kansas

    Local governments in Kansas are again seeking expanded power to seize property.

    In Kansas, officials of many city governments feel they don’t have enough power to deal with blight. This year, as in years past, there is legislation to expand the power of cities to seize property. 1 2

    John Todd, along with Paul Soutar, made a video to explain the bill and the surrounding issues. It’s just five minutes in length. View it below, or click here to view at YouTube. Todd’s written testimony to the Kansas Legisalture has photographs and examples. It may be viewed here.

    Background

    Presently, tools are in place. Cities already have much power to deal with blight and related problems. Last year Todd and I, along with others, had a luncheon meeting with a Kansas Senator who voted in favor of expanding cities’ powers. When we told him of our opposition, he asked questions like, “Well, don’t you want to fight blight? What will cities do to fight blight without this bill?” When we listed and explained the many tools cities already have, he said that he hadn’t been told of these. This is evidence that this bill is not needed. It’s also evidence of the ways cities try to increase their powers at the expense of the rights of people. 3

    The Governor’s veto. A similar bill passed the legislature in 2016. Governor Brownback vetoed that bill, explaining, “The right to private property serves as a central pillar of the American constitutional tradition.” 4

    The Governor’s veto provoked a response from Wichita government officials. It let us know that they are not as respectful of fundamental rights as was Brownback. 5

    For example, 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.” 6 But expanding the power of government — aggression, in other word — 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.

    Government expands and liberty recedes. Government continuously seeks new ways to expand its powers through enabling concepts like blight. Did you know the entire suburban town of Andover is blighted? 7 Across the country, when governments find they can take property with novel and creative interpretations of blight, they do so. 8

    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 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.

    —
    Notes

    1. Kansas Legislature. HB 2506. Rehabilitation of abandoned property by cities. Available at http://kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/hb2506/. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Power of Kansas cities to take property may be expanded. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/power-kansas-cities-take-property-may-expanded/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. In Kansas, the war on blight continues. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-war-blight-continues/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Governor Brownback steps up for property rights. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/governor-brownback-steps-property-rights/. ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, revealing discussion of property rights. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/wichita-revealing-discussion-property-rights/. ↩
    6. Video. Wichita City Council speaks on blight. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-city-council-speaks-blight/. ↩
    7. 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/. ↩
    8. Nicole Gelinas, Eminent Domain as Central Planning. (2015). City Journal. Available at www.city-journal.org/html/eminent-domain-central-planning-13253.html. ↩