Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city council

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday December 27, 2010

    This week at Wichita City Council. This week, as is the usual practice for the fourth Tuesday of each month, the agenda for the Wichita City Council features only consent items. These consent items are thought — at least by someone — to be of routine and non-controversial nature, and the council votes on them in bulk as a single item, unless a council member wishes to “pull” an item for discussion and possibly a separate vote. One such consent item is “Payment for Settlement of Claim — Estate of Christopher Perkins.” As Brent Wistrom reports in the Wichita Eagle’s, Wichitopekington blog, “A police car en route to an emergency call smashed into a Saturn coup last December, killing the coup’s 30-year-old driver, Christopher Perkins. Perkins’ family filed a negligence claim, and, on Tuesday, Wichita City Council members will vote to settle the case for $300,000.” The agenda packet is at Wichita City Council, December 28, 2010. … Also, the city will vote whether to spend $400,000 for an analysis of nine aging fire stations and what repairs and upgrades they might require. Whatever work is found to be necessary would cost much more, presumably. The cost of the analysis is being paid for by borrowing money through general obligation bonds. … Usually these “fourth Tuesday” meetings are followed by a workshop, but as of this moment, no agenda is available. … The Sedgwick County Commission will not meet this week.

    Kansas schools’ unspent funds. Perhaps this will be the year in which Kansas schools — along with other state agencies — will publicly confront the reality of their budgets and unspent funds. Kansas Watchdog takes a look on Truth Emerging on Unencumbered K-12 Education Funds .

    Which Brownback will govern? The Lawrence Journal-World looks at the future of incoming Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and wonders how he will govern. Perhaps the most telling observation is that of Wichita State University professor H. Edward Flentje: “Then Brownback got elected to Congress as a budget-taming conservative, Flentje said. But the budget couldn’t be tamed, and Brownback morphed into the social conservative for which he is most well-known, or, as Flentje describes it, ‘wearing his faith in the public square.’” So now I’m wondering: Can this year’s Kansas budget be tamed? … On the role of national politics: “Kansas University political science professor Burdett Loomis said that although Brownback is known for his social conservative views, he may be moderated somewhat by national aspirations.”

    Rapidly rising costs at Kansas Universities criticized. Tuition at our state’s two flagship universities — The University of Kansas and Kansas State University have risen much faster than inflation, writes John R. LaPlante, educational policy fellow the Kansas Policy Institute in a letter to the Topeka Capital-Journal. Rapidly rising administrative costs are one reason, he writes. But costs can be controlled: “Cutting administrative expenses isn’t just a nice thing to do, it is possible. Iowa State, Texas A&M and the University of Missouri actually reduced their administrative expenses. It should be no surprise that they had smaller tuition increases than every other university in the conference, save Texas Tech.”

    States and their pension problems. George Will in the Washington Post writing on the problem with under-funded state employee pension plans: “The nation’s menu of crises caused by governmental malpractice may soon include states coming to Congress as mendicants, seeking relief from the consequences of their choices. Congress should forestall this by passing a bill with a bland title but explosive potential.” Will goes on to describe a bill in Congress that would mandate transaprency of just how bad the problem is: H.R. 6484: Public Employee Pension Transparency Act. … In Kansas, efforts to merely describe the severity of the problem result in attacks on the messenger. In Wichita, the head of Service Employees International Union Local (SEIU) 513 appeared before the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, in order to denounce the reports and what he claimed where the political motives behind it. See video at KPERS report sparks backlash from Wichita SEIU.

    Airport security found lacking. From the ABC News report Gaping Holes in Airline Security: Loaded Gun Slips Past TSA Screeners: “But the TSA did miss [the loaded gun], and despite what most people believe about the painstaking effort to screen airline passengers and their luggage before they enter the terminal, it was not that unusual. Experts tell ABC News that every year since the September 11 terror attacks, federal agencies have conducted random, covert “red team tests,” where undercover agents try to see just how much they can get past security checks at major U.S. airports. And while the Department of Homeland Security closely guards the results as classified, those that have leaked in media reports have been shocking.”

    Compact strategy against Obamacare outlined. From the Weekly Standard: “An issue of interest to two or more states can lead to a compact. It works this way: State legislatures approve a proposal, the states agree on the parts of mutual concern (such as buying insurance across state lines), then the compact is dispatched to Washington for ratification by Congress and the president (though the need for White House assent isn’t spelled out in the Constitution). Ratification turns the compact into federal law. However, there’s a bigger reason for forming a compact against Obamacare. By banding together, states would have far more political clout in Washington.”

  • Wichita Old Town TIF district illustrates cost and harm of subsidy

    At this week’s meeting of the Wichita City Council there was an item of good news: the closing of the Old Town tax increment financing, or TIF, district. But the expressed attitude of city council members towards TIF districts indicates that citizens must be concerned that the council will attempt to use this harmful form of developer and corporate welfare in the future.

    Citizens need to be made aware of the uninformed and misinformed views of council members, particularly Janet Miller, who was the primary speaker on this item Tuesday. Most of the other city council members, however, also share these views, even those who consider themselves conservative and opposed to intervention in the economy.

    While Miller expressed a correct view of the mechanics of TIF districts, she — and the other council members too — always miss the economic meaning of these districts.

    In her remarks, Miller disagreed with a citizen who said that the TIF district “helped out” the property owners in the district. Miller said: “In tax increment financing districts, it is the property owners’ taxes that they pay, that pay the cost of the public improvements in that area. … The taxes that they paid in on their increased valuations in property have paid for the improvements.”

    She also said that with careful planning the community benefits from TIF districts, and that we should look forward to “future great things that are going to come from this kind of initiative and creativity.”

    It’s quite easy to see the mistakes and fallacies in Miller’s remarks. Do TIF districts help out the favored developers? Of course they do. Why else would the city create them?

    A typical scenario is that a developer has an idea to build something, but claims a “gap” between the financial resources at their disposal and what the project costs. City staff checks the developer’s arithmetic and agrees. So the city creates a TIF district, and the project is able to proceed.

    So the TIF financing filled the gap. How can this be interpreted as doing anything but helping the developer?

    The city and council members like Jeff Longwell regularly claim that TIF districts don’t cost the city anything. We can easily see the errors in this thinking. Over the past 17 years, did Old Town require any attention from the police department? Of course it did. Old Town consumes vast police resources. In 2008 Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams was quoted in the pages of the Wichita Eagle: “Williams said that as Old Town changed from a warehouse district to an entertainment district, it has presented a ‘tremendous challenge’ to public safety.”

    As was brought forth in Tuesday’s city council meeting, Old Town does pay some property taxes that go into the city’s general fund and can be used to pay for the police protection that Old Town requires. The valuation before the TIF district was formed was said to be $1 million dollars. Now it’s $9 million. So the city’s general fund has received taxes on $1 million in property valuation to pay for all the services Old Town requires. The property taxes paid on the other $8 million in valuation are directed back to the district for the benefit of the property owners.

    So yes, TIF districts like Old Town do cost the city. Someone has to pay for the cost of police protection and other government services in Old Town. Its property taxes don’t even come close.

    That’s what the city council doesn’t understand (or maybe it does, see below): The entire purpose of TIF districts is to benefit the property in the district.

    How TIF districts benefit recipients

    Here’s how it works. When using tax increment financing, a geographic district is formed. The property taxes being paid by a property in the district at the time of formation is noted and called the base. Usually this property is not very valuable, so this base is a low value. In the case of Old Town, it was $1 million.

    Then a development plan is created. Based on that plan and the property taxes that the completed project will likely pay, the city will borrow money and give it to the developers. While cities like to say that TIF funds can be used only for things with a public purpose like infrastructure, this doesn’t make any difference. (If the expenditures had a truly public purpose, why wouldn’t the city pay for them without a TIF district?)

    After the project is completed, the tax appraiser notices that there’s something new and valuable where there wasn’t before, and he levies a higher tax bill on the property. The difference between the original taxes — the base — and the new taxes is called the increment.

    Under normal conditions when new property comes on the tax rolls, the tax revenue is used to provide public services such as police and fire protection. The school district is usually a recipient of a large portion of the new tax revenue, which might be used to pay for the schooling of residents of the new housing in the district, for example.

    But in a TIF district, what happens to this new tax revenue — the increment?

    Recall that the city borrowed money and gave it to the developers. The new property taxes — the increment — is used to pay off these bonds.

    So council member Miller is correct, in a way. Old Town property owners paid increased property taxes.

    But when these increased taxes are used to pay off bonds that exclusively benefit Old Town, how is this any different from not paying?

    Consider development not in a TIF district. Developers may borrow money to build something. Then they have to make loan payments and higher tax payments.

    But TIF developers pay only higher taxes. There are no loan payments, as their increased property tax payments are used to pay off the loan.

    Public choice in action

    I wrote earlier that the city council doesn’t understand this. It may be possible that council member Miller, the mayor, and others do understand this, but they decide to go ahead and create TIF districts and other forms of developer subsidy and welfare nonetheless.

    That’s entirely possible, as TIF districts and other corporate welfare illustrate the worst aspects of public choice theory in action. In this case, we have a situation where a small group of people — the subsidized developers — have a huge and powerful motive to obtain TIF financing and other forms of subsidy. Politicians and bureaucrats want to see these things happen too, as they feel a need to justify themselves and increase their spheres of influence and power.

    Average citizens may realize that these things cost them, but it’s a relatively small amount of money — certainly in contrast to the millions that subsidized developers received — so their motive to oppose them is small. This is a reason why many people don’t bother to vote.

    Don’t forget that politicians want to receive campaign contributions, too. Developers who seek subsidy from city hall generally contribute to all city council members. It’s difficult to see how someone who has a political ideology — say fiscal conservatism — could contribute to all city council members. But they do.

    Miller has received large amounts of campaign contributions from those who have benefited from TIF financing and other corporate welfare in the past, and who plan to benefit again in the future. She’s not alone in this regard.

  • Economic freedom at decline, across the U.S. and in Wichita

    Earlier this year Robert Lawson appeared in Wichita to speak about economic freedom throughout the world. While the United States presently ranks well, that is changing. Writing this month in The Freeman, Lawson and his colleagues warn of dangerous trends — particularly the Obama Administration’s response to the recession — that pose a threat to the economic freedom that powers growth and prosperity.

    While the article is focused primarily at the national economy, there are lessons to be learned locally, too. In particular, increasing intervention into the state and local economy leads to compounding the loss of economic freedom.

    As an example, the Wichita City Council has just approved a plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita that calls for public investment to be made downtown. While the plan is promoted as a market-based plan, it is, instead, a government plan to redirect investment from where people have decided it should be to where politicians, bureaucrats, and their patrons think it should be. These patrons are sometimes called “crony capitalists,” as explained in this passage from the article (James D. Gwartney, Joshua C. Hall and Robert A. Lawson:
    The Decline in Economic Freedom    ):

    It is important to distinguish between market entrepreneurs and crony capitalists. Market entrepreneurs succeed by providing customers with better products, more reliable service, and lower prices than are available elsewhere. They succeed by creating wealth — by producing goods and services that are worth more than the value of the resources required for their production. Crony capitalists are different: They get ahead through subsidies, special tax breaks, regulatory favors, and other forms of political favoritism. Rather than providing consumers with better products at attractive prices, crony capitalists form an alliance with politicians. The crony capitalists provide the politicians with contributions, other political resources, and, in some cases, bribes in exchange for subsidies and regulations that give them an advantage relative to other firms. Rather than create wealth, crony capitalists form a coalition with political officials to plunder wealth from taxpayers and other citizens.

    We are now in the midst of a great debate between the proponents of limited government and open markets on the one hand and those favoring more collectivism and political direction of the economy on the other. The outcome of this debate will determine the future of both economic freedom and the prosperity of Americans and others throughout the world.

    In Wichita, “those favoring more collectivism and political direction of the economy” are winning. Not only are they winning the actual political votes, they are also winning the battles within their own minds. Astonishingly, many of the crony capitalists in Wichita have deluded themselves into believing that they are supporters of free markets and capitalism. But taxpayer-supported institutions like Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and Visioneering Wichita exist for the very purpose of directing taxpayer funds toward the crony capitalists. Even the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce plays a role in the plunder of the taxpayer, with its president nodding in approval as nominally conservative members of the Wichita City Council expressed their support for the collectivist, anti-market vision for downtown Wichita.

    The heads of each of these organizations, along with city council members Sue Schlapp, Paul Gray, Jim Skelton, and Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell consider themselves to be conservatives. Many of these have personally assured me they are in favor of free markets.

    The actions of the council members, not only their enthusiastic embrace of the downtown plan, but their interventions — at nearly every meeting, week after week — that interfere with the market economy and destroy economic freedom, show that none have even a basic understanding of the difference between the economic means and the political means. Writing in his recent book The Science of Success, Koch Industries Chairman and CEO Charles Koch explains the difference:

    The economic means of profiting involves voluntarily exchanging your goods or services for the goods or services of others. Parties will not voluntarily enter into an exchange unless they both believe they will be better off. Therefore, you can only profit over time in a system of voluntary exchange (a market) by making others better off.

    The political means of profiting transfers goods or services from one party to another by force or fraud. A coerced or fraudulent exchange leaves at least one of the parties worse off. Examples are stealing, committing fraud, polluting, using unsafe practices, filing baseless lawsuits, lobbying government to hamper competitors or obtain subsidies and promoting self-serving redistribution programs.

    The economic means creates wealth by making each participant, and, therefore, society as a whole, better off. The political means, at best, merely distributes wealth. As a general system, it causes the overcoming majority of people to be worse off. (emphasis added)

  • Eminent domain reserved for use in Wichita

    As part of the plan for the future of downtown Wichita, the city council was asked to formally disavow the use of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of economic development. The council would not agree to this restriction.

    Susan Estes noted that the legislative agenda that the city council passed earlier in the meeting supported “home rule and local control as the most valid solution for recurring legislative issues.” High on the list of these issues is eminent domain.

    Estes asked that the city adopt a statement that the city will not use eminent domain to take property for someone else’s use.

    Answering her, Mayor Carl Brewer said it is the council’s record not to use eminent domain. “But,” he said, the city needs that opportunity and flexibility. He said that the city has been asked by developers to use eminent domain, but they’ve resisted. Nonetheless, he described it as one of the tools that is available to the city.

    Council member Janet Miller said that the Kansas legislature has placed restrictions on eminent domain, which she characterized as a prohibition.

    While Miller is correct — the Kansas legislature would have to pass a statute authorizing specific use of eminent domain, and the law is now more in favor of property owners than in the past — that protection, in my opinion, is weak.

    We can easily imagine a scenario where a developer — promising a grand development — wants a large tract of land, perhaps a city block or more. The mayor and others will travel to Topeka and testify that the city desperately needs the jobs and tax revenue the development will create. (Forgetting the fact that the development will probably be in a tax increment financing district and therefore not contributing increased tax revenue to the city’s general government.) The city’s lobbyist will work the halls, a case of a taxpayer-paid lobbyist working against the interest of taxpayers. The case will be made to other lawmakers that if they ever want to use eminent domain in their home towns, they’d better vote for Wichita’s request. Other forms of legislative logrolling will be in full behind-the-scenes use.

    So now property owners, instead of having to contest the city’s lawyers before a judge, have to lobby the entire legislature. The case — instead of being heard in a forum where the rule of law is respected — will be contested in a political body which in many cases has shown us that it cares little for private property rights.

    This was a moment in time where the city council could have taken leadership in protecting property owners from eminent domain abuse. The city — particularly Mayor Brewer and Council Member Miller — failed to grasp the importance of protecting this form of liberty and economic freedom.

  • Wichita should reject Goody Clancy plan for downtown

    Remarks to the Wichita City Council regarding the adoption of a plan for the future of downtown Wichita.

    Mr. Mayor, members of this council, there are many reasons why we should reject Project Downtown: The Master Plan for Wichita. I’d like to present just a few.

    First, consider the attitudes of Goody Clancy, the Boston planning firm the city hired to lead us through the process. At a presentation in January, some speakers from Goody Clancy revealed condescending attitudes towards those who hold values different from this group of planners. One presenter said “Outside of Manhattan and Chicago, the traditional family household generally looks for a single family detached house with yard, where they think their kids might play, and they never do.”

    David Dixon, who leads Goody Clancy’s Planning and Urban Design division and was the principal for this project, revealed his elitist world view when he told how that in the future, Wichitans will be able to “enjoy the kind of social and cultural richness” that is only found at the core.

    This idea that only downtown people are socially and culturally rich is an elitist attitude that we ought to reject.

    By the way, as I look at the members of this council and the city bureaucratic staff behind me, I see many people who do not live in the core area.

    In fact, looking at the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, its president, chair, and past chair live in the type of fringe, suburban developments that Dixon claims are not socially and culturally rich. Do all of you accept Dixon’s criticism?

    These attitudes reflect those of most of the planning profession — that people can’t be relied on to choose what’s best for them. Instead they believe that only they — like the planners at Goody Clancy — are equipped to make choices for people. It’s an elitism that Wichita ought to reject.

    The irony is that when we start to look at what exactly Goody Clancy is selling us, we find that we ought to reject it.

    In January, Dixon used Walk Score in a presentation delivered in Wichita. Walk Score is purported to represent a measure of walkability of a location in a city. Walkability is a key design element of the master plan Goody Clancy has developed for downtown Wichita.

    Walk Score is not a project of Goody Clancy, as far as I know, and Dixon is not responsible for the accuracy or reliability of the Walk Score website. But he presented it and relied on it as an example of the data-driven approach that Goody Clancy takes.

    Walk Score data for downtown Wichita, as presented by planning firm Goody ClancyWalk Score data for downtown Wichita, as presented by planning firm Goody Clancy. Click for a larger view.

    The score for 525 E. Douglas, the block the Eaton Hotel is in and mentioned by Dixon as a walkable area, scored 91, which means it is a “walker’s paradise,” according to the Walk Score website.

    But here’s where we can start to see just how bad the data used to develop these scores is. For a grocery store — an important component of walkability — the website indicates indicates a grocery store just 0.19 miles away. It’s “Pepsi Bottling Group,” located on Broadway between Douglas and First Streets. Those familiar with the area know there is no grocery store there, only office buildings. The claim of a grocery store here is false.

    There were other claimed amenities where the data is just as bad. But the chairman of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation told me that Walk Score has been updated. I should no longer be concerned with the credibility of this data, he told me through a comment left on this website.

    He’s correct. Walk Score has been updated. Now for the same location the walk score is 85%, which is considered “very walkable.” The “grocery store” is no longer the Pepsi Bottling Group. It’s now “Market Place,” whose address is given as 155 N. Market St # 220.

    If someone would ever happen to stroll by that location, he’d find that address, 155 N. Market number 220, is the management office for an office building whose name is Market Place.

    Still no grocery store. Not even close.

    Again, David Dixon and Goody Clancy did not create the Walk Score data. But they presented it to Wichitans as an example of the data-driven, market-oriented approach to planning that they use. Dixon cited Walk Score data as the basis for higher real estate values based on the walkability of the area and its surrounding amenities.

    But anyone who relies on the evidence Dixon and Goody Clancy presented would surely get burnt unless they investigated the area on their own.

    And since this January reliance on Walk Score was made after Goody Clancy had spent considerable time in Wichita, the fact that someone there could not immediately recognize how utterly bogus the data is — that should give us cause for concern that the entire planning process is based on similar shoddy data and analysis.

    I also question whether we have the bureaucratic and political will to actually do what this plan says. For example, the public financing portion is to be limited to things that have a genuine public purpose, such as parking. Financing, if I understand correctly, will be limited largely to tax increment financing districts and historic preservation tax credits.

    But look at what this city has done.

    In January, Goody Clancy, in its market findings report, told us there is a thriving market for downtown hotel rooms. But right after that the city awarded several millions in subsidy to the Fairfield Inn Hotel, in addition to the benefit it already received from being in a TIF district.

    Goody Clancy’s report also states: “Strong occupancy and revenue rates at hotels and a relative undersupply of rooms compared to office space suggest a market opportunity for more hotel rooms.”

    But just recently, this city awarded yet another form of subsidy to the many millions already awarded to the Broadview Hotel.

    So I wonder if we have the bureaucratic and political will to limit ourselves to the types of public subsidy that the plan calls for.

    Finally, Mayor and members of the council, we already have market-driven development in Wichita. Just because some people don’t agree with the results the markets have produced, that does not constitute a market failure that requires government correction.

    We already have community engagement in Wichita by people who are actually accountable for the decisions they make and the actions they take.

    Now we are considering replacing the dynamic and truly market-driven approach to building our city with what is — despite the claims of its backers — a political and bureaucratic system.

    This is a mistake we should not make.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Sunday December 12, 2010

    This week at Wichita City Council. This Tuesday, six speakers have signed up to appear on the public agenda. This is a portion of the meeting where citizens may speak on nearly any topic. Five are speaking on the city’s proposed trash plan, while one is speaking on a city-wide recycling project. … Approval of the city’s legislative agenda will be considered. Probably the greatest threat to economic freedom is this plank: “City of Wichita supports continued use of effective private-public partnerships and the appropriate intervention of state and local governments to spur economic development.” Also the city expresses support for highly subsidized, expensive, and little-used passenger rail service. … Also the council will consider amending the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan to include Project Downtown: The Master Plan for Wichita. This is the plan that consulting firm Goody Clancy developed for the revitalization of downtown Wichita. The complete agenda report is at Wichita City Council, December 14, 2010.

    Sedgwick County Commission this week. On Wednesday the Sedgwick County Commission will vote on its legislative agenda. The agenda, or platform, is not law, but expresses the sentiment or desire of the commission. Last year Commissioner Karl Peterjohn shepherded through the requirement that voters approve all tax rate increases. This year the same language is proposed, but it may not pass. (The proposed language is this: “All local sales tax increases must be approved by voters under Kansas law. All property tax increases that raise the mill levy should also be required to receive voter approval.”) Some commissioners believe that voters elect them to use their judgment to make decisions on taxes, while other commissioners believe voters should have the final say on something as important as this. The agenda and backup material for Wednesday’s meeting is at Sedgwick County Commission, December 15, 2010.

    Wichita Eagle: Adopt downtown plan. Today’s Wichita Eagle editorial calls for passage of the downtown master plan recently developed by planning firm Goody Clancy. Rhonda Holman argues that a “busier, richer core” will benefit the town economically, adding that “downtown matters too much to be left to chance.” The idea that the core is essential to progress is taken as a given, but when downtown supporters are questioned, no evidence to support this nostrum is given. Also, this concept of “chance” that Holman doesn’t trust could also be described as a dynamic marketplace of ideas and capital, with many diverse players with dispersed knowledge acting to advance their own self-interest by creating things people will freely buy, all coordinated through the magic of the price system. What Wichita — with Holman’s support — plans to do is to replace this with the bureaucratic and political system.

    City planning by “Those Who Know Best.” “While the fixations of trendy planners might not register on the list of things that average Americans think about, these new utopian land-use ideals are filtering down into government agencies and city councils, and might eventually impact the way we all live.” Writing in the Orange County Register, Steven Greenhut quotes the definition of New Urbanism: “New Urbanism is the most important planning movement this century, and is about creating a better future for us all. It is an international movement to reform the design of the built environment, and is about raising our quality of life and standard of living by creating better places to live. New Urbanism is the revival of our lost art of place-making, and is essentially a reordering of the built environment into the form of complete cities, towns, villages and neighborhoods …” He warns: “Whenever some ideologue claims to offer the most important thing since sliced bread and then promises to reorder my life around it, we should all get nervous.” (The downtown Wichita planners do not use the term “New Urbanism,” but they share the same characteristics and goals.) And even more strongly: “The New Urbanists claim to want to give our lives meaning by creating superior urban forms of living, yet they miss the most meaningful things in life because they emphasize architecture over people. Like all totalitarians, they assume that what they prefer is so good and noble that they have the moral right to impose it on everybody else. The rest of us need to take notice now, so there is still time to oppose it.”

    Anderson appointment criticized. KU political science professor Burdett Loomis criticizes the appointment of Steven J. Anderson to be the new Kansas budget director, branding him an “ideologue” that has made “broadside attacks on public education.” Anderson believes in limited government, and his “attacks” on public — let’s be clear here — government schools are advocating school choice through vouchers. In states where vouchers are used, evidence is that public schools improve in response to the competition from private schools that parents can now actually afford. Plus, the state saves money, too. Loomis also criticizes Anderson for uncovering the large unspent fund balances in many Kansas agencies, balances that Loomis seems to doubt exist. Overall, Loomis presents an argument for the status quo in Kansas government, and the potential for change in the direction of restraining its growth has Loomis — in his own words — “concerned — worried, even.”

  • For Wichita city government, open records are not valued

    As a condition of renewing its contract with the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, I asked that the Wichita City Council require that the agency comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. As has been the case before, the city council and city staff say they are in favor of open records and government transparency, but their actions indicate that they are not.

    After my remarks, which are presented below, City manager Bob Layton said that my attack on the city attorney was unfair, that it was not he who made this decision not to comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. Instead, he said the decision was made by the Convention and Visitors Bureau’s own attorney. John Rolfe, the Bureau’s president, said he believes that his organization has been open in their explanations of how they spend their funds, at least to the City.

    Rolfe also repeated his mistaken belief that I’ve discussed with the Bureau’s attorney how I might gain access to the information that I’ve requested. These discussions have not happened. That’s not the way the Kansas Open Records Law works. Citizens do not negotiate with agencies to gain access to records. The law says that citizens make requests, and agencies comply.

    Furthermore, the duty of the Bureau’s attorney is to protect and advance the interests of his client, not the interests of the public. The fact that the city council and the city manager are comfortable with this arrangement is disturbing.

    Any member of the city council could have followed my suggestion to make a motion that the city ask that the Convention and Visitors Bureau to simply agree that they are in fact a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act. But none of them did.

    Council member Jim Skelton asked questions several times seeking to find out how the agency spends its funds, but he did not give “how” a specific meaning. The city and most agencies would like to present simple and broad budgets or income statements to account for their spending. But this level of disclosure, which is what the Convention and Visitors Bureau provides to the public, is not sufficient.

    Here’s an example why: Last year a trustee for Labette Community College noticed that a check number was missing from a register. Based on his inquiry, it was revealed that the missing check was used to reimburse the college president for a political contribution. While it was determined that the college president committed no crime by making this political contribution using college funds, this is an example of the type of information that citizens may want regarding the way public funds are spent.

    This is the type of information that I have requested. It is what is needed to perform effective oversight. Three agencies — Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, and Wichita Downtown Development Corporation — have all refused to comply with requests like this. The city council members and staff have agreed with their positions.

    This is not transparency. This is not accountability.

    When citizens believe that agencies are not complying with the Kansas Open Records Act, they have three options. One is to ask the Kansas Attorney General for help. But the policy of the Attorney General is to refer all cases to the local District Attorney, which is what I have done. The other way to proceed is for a citizen to pursue legal action at their own expense.

    The Sedgwick County District Attorney has had my case since December 17 of last year. That office has been working on the case, and a decision is expected soon.

    No matter which way the District Attorney decides, the City of Wichita, its quasi-governmental taxpayer-supported agencies, and their hostility to open records is a matter that the Kansas Legislature should notice. We need a better records law.

    Following are remarks I delivered today to the Wichita City Council regarding the city’s compliance with the Kansas Open Records Act.

    I’m recommending that the city not renew its contract with the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau until that organization decides to follow Kansas law, specifically the Kansas Open Records Act.

    I’ve requested records from this agency. Its response is that the agency is not a “public agency” and therefore is not subject to the open records law.

    Here’s why the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau is a public agency subject to the Kansas Open Records Act. KSA 45-217 (f)(1) states: “‘Public agency’ means the state or any political or taxing subdivision of the state or any office, officer, agency or instrumentality thereof, or any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by the public funds appropriated by the state or by public funds of any political or taxing subdivision of the state.”

    The Kansas Attorney General’s office offers additional guidance: “A public agency is the state or any political or taxing subdivision, or any office, officer, or agency thereof, or any other entity, receiving or expending and supported in whole or part by public funds. It is some office or agency that is connected with state or local government.”

    According to its 2008 annual report, 89% of Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau’s revenue came from the transient guest tax. I suggest that this qualifies as supported “in whole or in part” by public funds.

    The Kansas Open Records Act has an exception, but that does not apply to this agency. There’s no rational or reasonable basis for the this agency’s assertion that it is not a public agency subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.

    Mr. Mayor and council members, look at the plain language of the Kansas Open Records Act, as I’ve explained. Look at the intent of the Kansas Legislature as embodied in the statute: “It is declared to be the public policy of the state that public records shall be open for inspection by any person unless otherwise provided by this act, and this act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote such policy.”

    The policy of the state is that records should be open. Governmental bodies shouldn’t be looking for excuses to avoid complying with the law, as has the City of Wichita and this agency, and has two other similar agencies. Especially when the reasons the city legal staff has used are wrong, both in terms of the letter of the law and its intent.

    Now I realize that Mr. Gary Rebenstorf, the Wichita City Attorney, disagrees with my contention that this agency is in fact a public agency as defined by the Kansas Open Records Act. Mr. Rebenstorf has been wrong several times before when issuing guidance to this council regarding the Kansas Open Meetings Act, which is similar to the Open Records Act. He’s taken the blame and apologized for these violations. He was quoted in the Wichita Eagle as saying “I will make every effort to further a culture of openness and ensure that like mistakes are avoided in the future.”

    But with regard to my records requests, he’s advised this council to keep records closed when the law and the public policy of this state says they should be open.

    He, or perhaps whoever is instructing him as to what opinions to write, is hostile towards towards open records and citizens’ right to know.

    Mayor, you’ve spoken about “building public trust in government” and working to achieve greater transparency. Manager Layton has as a goal “Promoting transparency by providing timely, accurate and relevant information.”

    This is a chance for the political leadership of this city to make a decision: does the city promote transparency by deciding itself what information to release, or does it agree to citizen-driven accountability, where citizens are in charge?

    It’s not only this agency. The Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition are similarly situated.

    As a condition of renewing the city’s contract with the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, I ask that this council instruct the Bureau to follow the Kansas Open Records Act.

  • Wichita Community Improvement District policy to be decided

    Tomorrow the Wichita City Council is scheduled to decided the city’s policy on Community Improvement Districts (CID).

    CIDs are a creation of the Kansas Legislature from the 2009 session. They allow merchants in a district to collect additional sales tax of up to two cents per dollar. The extra sales tax is used for the exclusive benefit of the CID.

    One of the main issues to be decided is the issue of warning signage. Some have recommended that consumers be protected from unknowingly shopping in stores, restaurants, and hotels that will be adding extra sales tax to purchases. Developers who want to benefit from CID money say that merchants object to signage, fearing it will drive away customers. Imagine that: people don’t want to pay any more tax than necessary!

    City staff has recommended that a website be used to notify customers of CIDs. This form of notification is so weak as to be meaningless.

    One of the follies in Wichita government economic development policy is the categorization of costs into eligible and non-eligible costs. The proceeds from programs like CIDs and tax increment financing may be used only for costs in the “eligible” category. I suggest that we stop arbitrarily distinguishing between “eligible costs” and other costs. When city bureaucrats and politicians use a term like “eligible costs” it makes this process seem benign. It makes it seem as though we’re not really supplying corporate welfare and subsidy.

    As long as the developer has to spend money on what we call “eligible costs,” the fact that the city subsidy is restricted to these costs has no economic meaning. Suppose I gave you $10 with the stipulation that you could spend it only on next Monday. Would you deny that I had enriched you by $10? Of course not. As long as you were planning to spend $10 next Monday, or could shift your spending from some other day to Monday, this restriction has no economic meaning.

    The rise of CIDs is an example of the city working at cross-purposes with itself, as many of the CIDs are for the benefit of hotels and other tourist attractions. Now we have the situation where we spend millions every year subsidizing airlines so that airfares to Wichita are low. Then we turn around and add extra tax to visitors’ hotel bills and perhaps the shops and restaurants they visit. Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell approves this as a wise strategy.

    Developers say that Wichita will lose deals if businesses don’t have the ability to charge extra sales tax without the prior knowledge of customers. I would suggest we lose deals because of another reason: our high business property taxes. According to the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, commercial property in Wichita is taxed an an effective rate of 2.801 percent per year. The national average is about 1.9 percent, meaning the rate in Wichita is 47 percent greater.

    These high commercial property taxes have driven developers such as Colby Sandlian and others out of Wichita. They continue to develop properties outside of Wichita and Kansas — in Sandlian’s case, over $100 million in commercial development outside of Kansas since 1989.

    These high business taxes mean that the state and cities must concoct schemes like CIDs and other economic development giveaways in order to attract business to Wichita. This places governmental bodies like the Wichita City Council in the position of selecting which business firms it will invest in, when there’s no way the Council has the knowledge and incentive structure needed to make these decisions.

    If we will lose deals because a special class of merchants can’t charge extra sales tax, then we have a big problem.

    If we will lose deals because we’re afraid to notify consumers — in advance — of the taxes they will pay, we have a big problem.

    Finally perhaps the simplest public policy issue is this: If merchants feel they need to collect additional revenue from their customers, why don’t they simply raise their prices? Why the roundabout process of the state collecting extra sales tax, only to ship it back to the merchants in the CID?

  • Perhaps an end to legislative time-wasting

    Politico reports that the practice of issuing proclamations and similar matters during sessions of the U.S. House of Representatives may end. Says the story: “Republicans are moving to get rid of House votes on symbolic resolutions and are planning to post their internal conference rules online, two minor yet politically important changes to the party’s operating guidelines. … The GOP next Wednesday is set to adopt a new set of Republican Conference rules that will place tight restrictions on who and what the House can honor, a bid to cut time they consider wasted on the floor.”

    This would be a great step forward. Not only do these resolutions, etc. waste time, they serve as taxpayer-funded, continual advertisements for the glory of government and all its trappings. It happens not only in Washington, but in Topeka and other state capitals across the country. It happens at county commission meetings. It happens at city council meetings and school board meetings.

    At Wichita City Council meetings, there have been cases where the meaningful business of the council has not started until nearly one hour after the start of the meeting. The hour has been consumed by proclamations, awards, remarks by council members, etc.

    While this happens, citizens with business before the council wait. And wait. They’re wasting their time and money. Their attorneys, representatives, or employees may be there with them, racking up legal bills and wasting time and money while listening to the mayor or other official read proclamations.

    Sometimes this period before the start of the meeting’s meaningful business is given over to business-like activities that government owns and that compete with private sector business. For example, Sedgwick County Commission meetings feature promotion of events upcoming at the Intrust Bank Arena, which the county owns. Can you imagine being the owner of a business that competes with the arena — and almost any business involved in entertainment, sports, or leisure competes for consumers’ disposable entertainment dollars — and having to listen to these advertisements, paid for by taxpayer dollars?

    We need to dedicate these public meetings to public business. Members of Congress, legislators, council members, and school board members, and commissioners need to be respectful of citizens’ time, and of their own and that of the government staff that must attend these meetings.