Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city council

  • Community Improvement Districts discussed in Wichita

    At yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, council members approved the start of the process to create two Community Improvement Districts in Wichita. Yesterday’s action sets August 10 as the date for a public hearing.

    CIDs are a creation of the Kansas Legislature from last year. They allow merchants in a geographic 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. More background may be read in the article Wichita community improvement districts should have warning signs.

    In my remarks to the council, I asked the city to consider consumer protection and education regarding CIDs. I noted that just by crossing a street and shopping within the boundaries of a CID, consumers will have to pay higher sales tax. How would consumers know this in advance?

    Council member Paul Gray noted that by crossing a street, consumers might enter a different municipality and have to pay more sales tax. While this is true — the neighboring city of Andover is considering a one-cent city sales tax — the Wichita city council can’t control what its neighbors do. But it can control what happens within the boundaries of Wichita.

    Gray said that he didn’t want to create community improvement districts and then handicap them with further government regulation. I agree. But the proper way to avoid this extra regulation is to avoid government intervention in the first place by forging the creation of community improvement districts.

    But perhaps the most important 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?

    City council members and city staff did not provide an answer to this question.

    Gray did not vote on this measure as a family member is employed by the business seeking this CID. Council member Lavonta Williams was absent. All other council members voted to approve the petition and set a public hearing on August 10.

    Wichita Eagle reporting on this issue is at Public hearings set on sales tax districts at WaterWalk and Central and Oliver. Wichita Business Journal reporting is at City Council moves forward on two CIDs.

  • Wichita community improvement districts should have warning signs

    At today’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, council members may approve the start of the process to create two Community Improvement Districts in Wichita.

    CIDs are a creation of the Kansas Legislature from last year. They allow merchants in a geographic 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.

    In Wichita, one CID is limited to a Fairfield Inn hotel being built downtown. That CID proposes to collect an additional two cents per dollar sales tax. The second is a retail and office development of about two blocks at Central and Oliver that asks to collect an additional one cent per dollar.

    There are a few problems associated these CIDs. One is this: How will potential tenants of a CID know that they will have to charge their customers higher sales tax? I asked this question earlier this year at a council meeting, and no answer was given.

    But more importantly, how will consumers considering purchases from a merchant located in a CID know that they’ll have to pay higher sales tax?

    The City of Lawrence is considering how to deal with this problem. Normally I’m cautious of adopting ideas coming out of Lawrence, although that is where I received my university education.

    In Lawrence the mayor and some city council members are concerned for the welfare of consumers, according to reporting in the Lawrence Journal-World. According to the article: “Commissioners said they have heard multiple concerns from residents who fear they may buy products at locations without knowing they are paying the extra tax.”

    That’s a problem. Most people are generally aware of their state’s sales tax rate, and of that in the city where they live. But shoppers are just starting to realize that different stores in a city may charge different sales tax rates. And it’s not in the interest of merchants located in CIDs to publicize that their customers will spend more by shopping in a CID.

    So mandated warning signs might be the answer to this issue of consumer protection and education.

    Some might say this isn’t much of a problem, as the extra sales tax is just one or two cents. But it’s more than that. It’s an additional one or two cents per dollar spent. Since the sales tax in Wichita is now 7.3 cents per dollar, an increase of one cent per dollar is 13.7 percent more paid in sales tax.

    Or, in the case of the Wichita hotel CID, it’s two cents per dollar, or 27.4 percent more sales tax.

    Proponents of economic development tools like CIDs often attempt to justify their use by arguing that the proceeds can be used only for certain eligible costs. Because of this restricted use, it’s not like we’re simply giving money to the CID, they argue.

    This type of doublespeak actually makes sense to some people. But as long as the CID proceeds pay for something that developers must pay for anyway, these restrictions have no meaningful economic effect.

    It’s as if I gave someone $100 with the stipulation that it can be spent only on Mondays. Who could deny that I have not enriched that person by $100, even considering the restriction? As long as the person was going to spend at least $100 on any Monday, the restriction is without meaning.

    Some on the Wichita city council, like council member and Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell contend that since some taxes — like the extra sales tax on hotel rooms in a CID — are paid mostly by visitors to Wichita, they’re a wise economic development strategy.

    We ought to consider, however, that once visitors to Wichita examine their hotel bills and realize how much sales tax they’ve paid, they’re not going to feel happy about Wichita. The high sales tax rate expressed on the hotel bill may give visitors the impression that is the sales tax that applies to the entire city. Is that the impression we want to leave with our visitors?

    Or, if visitors realize they paid extra tax by staying in a hotel located in a certain geographical district, they may regret their decision. They may also wonder why a city allows certain merchants to collect tax at such a high rate.

    I have one question: If merchants feel they need to collect additional revenue from their customers, why don’t they simply raise their prices?

    Is the answer as simple as this: that it’s preferable for merchants to blame the state for high prices?

  • Wichita, other city elections on horizon

    Next spring Wichita and other cities in Kansas will hold elections for city council members, school board members, and perhaps mayor.

    The filing deadline for candidates is January 25, 2011 at noon. The primary election is on March 1, and the general election is April 5.

    These elections are non-partisan, meaning that candidates don’t run as members of a political party. Instead, the top two vote-getters in the primary advance to the general election.

    The election calendar is a problem. Kansans presently have their political attention focused on our August primary, in which there are many hotly-contested battles. After that comes the November general election, which is likely to feature several races that generate intense interest and participation. Then comes the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season, when few want to think about politics.

    Right after that is the filing deadline for city elections, and then quickly, the primary and general elections. It’s a schedule designed for incumbents.

    In Wichita, there are three city council positions and the mayorship that are up for election. In district two, (click here for a map of districts), which is primarily the east side of Wichita, incumbent council member Sue Schlapp can’t run again because of the law limiting council members and the mayor to two four-year terms.

    In district four — south and southwest Wichita — Paul Gray has also served two terms and can’t run again.

    In district five — west and northwest Wichita — incumbent council member and Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell is in his first term and can run again if he chooses. He hasn’t revealed his plans publicly.

    Mayor Carl Brewer is also in his first term and can run again. I’ve not heard him reveal his plans.

    So far three candidates have publicly declared their intent to run. Former Executive Director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party Jason Dilts has been actively running for the fourth district position for several months.

    In April securities broker and tea party activist Lynda Tyler announced her intent to run in district five against Longwell.

    Last week Galichia Heart Hospital CEO Steve Harris threw his hat in the ring for city council district two.

    There are others — well-known and not — that are considering running.

    Expect these issues to dominate the campaigns: First, downtown development — especially how to pay for it — is likely to be a dominant topic, as the Goody Clancy final plan is scheduled to be completed this fall. We can expect tremendous amounts of campaign funds to be directed to those candidates who favor taxpayer support and subsidy for politically-favored developers.

    As many Wichita political and civic leaders speak admiringly of the city sales tax that has funded downtown redevelopment in Oklahoma City, we might even see a sales tax question on the primary or general election ballot.

    The issue of taxpayer-funded economic development — whether downtown or elsewhere — may receive discussion too. Both Longwell and Brewer believe that Wichita doesn’t have enough “tools in the toolbox” for dishing out subsidy and tax breaks.

    Water is likely to be an issue too, as Wichita’s water rates are going up.

  • Letters on Wichita Bowllagio

    Letters recently appeared in the Wichita Eagle regarding the proposed Bowllagio project, a west side entertainment destination. Bowllagio is planned to have a bowling and entertainment center, a boutique hotel, and a restaurant owned by a celebrity television chef.

    The developers of this project propose to make use of $13 million in STAR bond financing. STAR bonds are issued for the immediate benefit of the developers, with the sales tax collected in the district used to pay off the bonds. The project also proposes to be a Community Improvement District, which allows an additional two cents per dollar to be collected in sales tax, again for the benefit of the district.

    —-
    Property rights

    Imagine paying your mortgage and taxes for many years, only to get a knock on your door one day. A real estate developer tells you he wants your land.

    That’s what happened to a couple on South Maize Road in the boundaries of the proposed Bowllagio sales-tax-and-revenue (STAR) bonds district. They were offered the county-appraised value, plus 10 percent, for their home. But they don’t want to move, as they couldn’t find a comparable property for what the developer offered.

    Now the homeowners are concerned they may be forced out of their home through the process of eminent domain. This forceful taking of property by government is one of the worst possible violations of private property rights.

    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer said that the city does not intend to use eminent domain for the proposed Bowllagio entertainment complex.

    That’s good news. The city can and should affirm this promise by writing it into the Bowllagio authorizing ordinance. Supporting private property rights is essential; the use of public funds for private projects is bad policy.

    Susan Oliver Estes
    Wichita

    —-
    Let developer fill funding gap

    Bowllagio’s representative told the Wichita City Council last week that the developer needed $13 million in public money to fill the projected funding shortfall for the project to be economically feasible. I believe the developer needs to dig deeper into his own pocket to fill this funding gap, or seek private venture capital.

    As an experienced real estate practitioner, I am aggrieved that the Wichita mayor and City Council members lack the necessary experience to properly evaluate these projects. They have proved to be little match in protecting the public treasury against sophisticated developers accustomed to using the public purse as part of their real estate funding formulas.

    The investment of public money in bowling alleys, restaurants, shops and hotels that compete with existing businesses that offer the same services is not a proper role for government to play and is wrong. It creates an unlevel playing field for those businesses that compete in the same market using their own money.

    If the Bowllagio development venture is an economically feasible project, the private developer will find the private money he needs to fund it.

    John R. Todd
    Wichita

  • Wichita Bowllagio hearing produces only delay

    Yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council featured a lengthy public hearing for a proposed west-side entertainment development known as Bowllagio. Bowllagio is planned to have a bowling and entertainment center, a boutique hotel, and a restaurant owned by a celebrity television chef.

    The developers of this project propose to make use of $13 million in STAR bond financing. STAR bonds are issued for the immediate benefit of the developers, with the sales tax collected in the district used to pay off the bonds. The project also proposes to be a Community Improvement District, which allows an additional two cents per dollar to be collected in sales tax, again for the benefit of the district.

    The Kansas STAR bond process calls for several steps: First, a local governing body, like the City of Wichita, must approve the concept and set boundaries for the project. This is what yesterday’s agenda item called for. If approved by the council, the Kansas Secretary of Commerce would examine the project to see if it meets statutory criteria. If the Secretary approves the project, the city is then required to prepare a project plan and hold another public hearing concerning whether to adopt the project plan. The project plan must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority of the council.

    One of the elements of the project plan, according to the 2010 Kansas Legislator Briefing Book, is a “marketing study conducted to examine the impact of the special bond project on similar businesses in the projected market area.” The effect of Bowllagio on existing Wichita-area businesses was a major source of concern for both council members and citizens speaking at the public hearing.

    Speaking during the public hearing, Ray Baty, who is manager of a Wichita bowling center, said Bowllagio is not a new concept, but rather one that would compete with existing programs already in Wichita. The C.A.T.S. system, a training system promoted by Bowllagio developers, is actually a portable system, Baty said.

    He contended that introduction of Bowllagio to the market will not grow the market for bowling, but will further divide the existing market, resulting in a loss of revenue and profit for existing bowling centers. He said that bowling centers lose six percent of their customers each year, a trend that he said is national.

    Frank DeSocio, owner of several bowling centers in Wichita, told the council that the bowling training promoted by Bowllagio developers already happens in Wichita at the present. He mentioned five full-time bowling teachers and coaches already working in Wichita bowling centers.

    He added that Wichita does very well in obtaining and hosting tournaments, mentioning 17 PBA live televised tournaments that took place in Wichita, 10 regional events, a BPA womens’ open, six intercollegiate championships that were televised live, and numerous Kansas state high school championships.

    “Everything the Maxwell Group [developer of Bowllagio] claims they want to do is already being done in Wichita by the current bowling centers,” qualifying that he’s speaking only of the bowling side of the Bowllagio proposal, not the restaurants.

    In my remarks to the council, I mentioned that Wichita has had examples of restaurants or other establishments being announced — sometimes by the mayor in his annual state of the city address — but then the development failed to materialize. I expressed concern that we might commit to a large amount of STAR bond financing based on big plans that never advance beyond some small initial stage.

    Susan Estes told the council that “this is an extremely profound day” for the City of Wichita. She asked will the city help one business owner over another business owner in the same industry? She said that Bowllagio has some unique aspects, but it is a bowling alley. Its other entertainment features are also available in Wichita. We are using tax money to compete against existing businesses, she said.

    In response to a question by a homeowner in the project area, the mayor, indicating he believed he speaks for the council, said the council would not support using eminent domain to remove the homeowner from his home.

    During discussion by council members, a subject of controversy was whether approving project boundaries and forwarding the application to the Secretary of Commerce constitutes an endorsement of the project by the City of Wichita. Some council members wanted to pass an ordinance that would establish the boundaries of the district, and then have the Secretary decide whether the project meets the statutory requirements for a STAR bond project. Wichita economic development director Allen Bell mentioned that the council’s endorsement of the project might be a factor the Secretary would consider in determining whether to approve the project.

    A question from Council Member Lavonta Williams elicited Bell’s further opinion that the Secretary is “looking for a signal from the council” regarding its support for the project. Lack of local support, he added, would be taken in a “negative way.” Council Member Paul Gray agreed with this assessment.

    Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell disagreed, saying that all the Secretary needs is a geographic boundary for the proposed project. He contended that the process starts with setting the boundaries, and that other questions are difficult or impossible to answer without doing this. There are too many unknowns, he added, to give this project a formal endorsement at this time.

    Longwell also mentioned a report that showed that the south-central region of Kansas, which includes Wichita, receives fewer state economic development funds, relative to population, than the northeast Kansas region. He said we needed to “equal the playing field.”

    Longwell said he didn’t want to put together a package that would harm existing businesses, saying he wouldn’t vote for the project if an independent study showed that result would happen.

    Council Member Jim Skelton asked about the property taxes the development would pay. Bell replied that the property taxes should increase by a large amount, as the land is vacant now and is planned to receive $95 million of development. He said that while STAR bonds and Community Improvement District financing is proposed for this development, the plan does not include property tax abatements, industrial revenue bonds, tax increment financing, or any other diversion of property taxes.

    Council Member Janet Miller asked if the Kansas STAR bond statutes prohibited adding these other types of incentives to the project. The answer, according to Bell, is that these programs could be added on to this development, as has been done in some Kansas STAR bond districts.

    Later Miller referred to the “lack of information to make an education decision about the project.” She wondered why the developers would not spend “one-tenth of one percent of their $50 million dollar investment” ($50,000) to produce the studies that would give the council the information it needs to decide whether to send the project to the Secretary of Commerce with its support.

    When City Manager Bob Layton suggested a delay to gather more information from the developers, council members readily agreed. Layton said that city staff will visit with the developers, looking for an approach that will make council members comfortable with proceeding, addressing some of the information needs expressed today.

    Due to scheduling, Layton said that this matter would need to appear on next week’s agenda, or there would be a one month delay before it could be considered at a council meeting.

    The council voted unanimously to defer the item for one week, and to keep open the public hearing.

    Analysis

    An important issue to many council members is the potential harmful affect of Bowllagio on existing businesses, particularly bowling centers. Miller’s suggestion that the developers spend the money to have an independent assessment of this performed is entirely sensible.

    But I don’t think a study of that scope can be performed in one week. As it is now, the city will probably rely on information provided by the developers. It must be recognized that they have a $13 million incentive to produce information favorable to their cause. In his remarks, Gray recognized that proof that Bowllagio will not harm existing businesses will not come from “somebody advocating for the project.” It would require a third-party, independent analysis, he said.

    As of now, it is difficult to see how information that will satisfy council members can be produced by next week’s meeting.

    In my opinion, the local bowling center operators are justifiably concerned that a subsidized competitor will harm their business. They were able to show that many of the purportedly unique aspects of the Bowllagio concept are already available in Wichita, and have been for some time.

    Further, it’s not only direct competitors such as bowling centers that we need to be concerned for. Since the development is proposed to include a Mexican restaurant, what will its impact be on existing Mexican restaurants? And not only restaurants offering that cuisine, but all other restaurants?

    In a broader sense, a subsidized business competes with all other businesses in the market for employees and other goods and services that all business firms purchase.

    Longwell’s contention that we can still “kill” the project at a later date if reports come back showing negative impact on local businesses is, in my opinion, an empty promise. If the Kansas Secretary of Commerce approves this project, it would be very difficult for the council to vote against Wichita receiving $13 million in state tax dollars, especially in light of Longwell’s argument that the Wichita area doesn’t receive nearly enough of this economic development money.

    While council members such as Schlapp say they’re in favor of free markets, she and the other council members nearly always vote in favor of intervention in markets. The fact that the city council members have so many questions about the proposal tells us that this plan is, in fact, a form of centralized planning by government.

    As I remarked to the council, developments such as this are portrayed as a success story, in that someone has confidence in Wichita because they’re investing here. But I wonder why these people won’t invest in Wichita unless they receive millions in payments or tax forgiveness from the city, county, school board, and/or state.

    Aren’t the real heroes in Wichita the people — many of them small business owners — who invest in Wichita without the benefit of TIF districts, tax abatements, STAR bonds, or other forms of subsidy or incentive?

    These people, besides facing subsidized competition, additionally have to pay the taxes that make the subsidies to others possible.

    Regarding the mayor’s statement that eminent domain will not be supported for this project: Kansas law does not prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire property in a STAR bond district (K.S.A. 12-17,172).

    If the city wants to assure property owners that their property will not be subject to seizure by eminent domain, the city can add language to that effect in the ordinance. With four city council positions — including the mayorship — up for election next spring, it’s possible that a future city council might not be opposed to the use of eminent domain. This change could take place during the time Bowllagio developers are acquiring property. An ordinance would help prevent this from happening.

    Similarly, if it is not the intent of the developers to seek additional forms of subsidy such as tax increment financing or property tax abatements, appropriate language could be added to the authorizing ordinance.

  • Wichita Warren Theater groundbreaking raises policy issues

    Friday’s groundbreaking of a new Warren Theater and renovation of the existing theater in west Wichita provide an opportunity to revisit some of the public policy issues surrounding Wichita city government and its intervention in the economy in the name of economic development.

    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell claim that the economic development incentives or subsidies offered to Warren do not cost Wichita taxpayers anything.

    Reading comments left to stories at various media outlets, there is definitely a problem with citizens understanding the nature of the city’s industrial revenue bond program. There is no money being lent by the city, as many citizens seem to believe. Instead, the benefit of the program is the escape from paying property taxes and possibly sales taxes. The fact that tax forgiveness is mixed in with a private loan or bond purchase is definitely a source of confusion. The city should seek to simplify this program, if it intends to continue this practice.

    But what about the claim that tax forgiveness does not cost other taxpayers? Will the new theater make use of city services such as fire and police protection? Will employees of the theater send their children to public schools? Vice mayor Longwell says that the city is not adding new police officers because of the new theater, so there is no additional cost for police protection. At the margin, that may be true — each additional house or building does not require a new policeman be hired. But at some time, additional city services and personnel will be required.

    The city’s practice of liberally granting tax abatements goes against the constant refrain that we must “build up the tax base.” The city’s position is that by “investing” in tax breaks, the city will gain more revenue in the future.

    The fallacy of the city’s investment philosophy can easily be seen. When the city grants tax abatements, there is a cost-benefit analysis that accompanies the proposal. The rationale of this analysis that by giving up tax revenue now, more will flow in at some future time.

    That’s the source of the fallacy. The return to the city and other governmental units is more tax revenue. Is it the purpose of the city to generate more and more tax revenue? Is it productive to grant one taxpayer favored status so that other hapless taxpayers can be soaked instead?

    When a business invests, it does so in order to increase its productive capacity so that it can earn higher future profits, those profits — or losses — being the measure of success of the investment. Government has no ability to calculate profit and loss, and therefore has no way to judge whether its investment has been wise and productive.

    There is also, of course, the concept that private business investment is voluntary, while the action the city takes is not voluntary. Citizens must comply.

    The companies that receive tax breaks are often prominent companies that ask for large tax abatements. It is worth considerable time and effort — and campaign contributions — for these companies to pursue these benefits. Small companies, however, often don’t fit into the various programs the city has. Instead, they face additional taxes to pay for the taxes the city doesn’t collect when it grants incentives and subsidies.

    Recently Alan Cobb wrote of the harm that targeted incentives cause, using Detroit as an example: “While state and local government poured incentives into the Big Three’s trough, the marginal costs of doing business for everyone else crept up.” See Wichita targeted economic development should end.

    An aspect of the incentive or subsidy package granted in this case is a fixed, negotiated, growth in property taxes the renovated theater will pay. There are a few points that deserve discussion. First, the base taxable value for the theater is the present value. The theater owner, however, is spending several million dollars on a renovation of that theater. This, according to the Sedgwick County Appraisers Office, would increase the taxable value of the theater by a large amount.

    But based on the deal struck with the City of Wichita, this increase in value will not figure into the base taxable value and therefore, will not affect the taxes (PILOT, actually) the theater owner will pay.

    Further, the rate of growth in value, 2.3 percent per year, is lower than what might be expected for commercial property to increase in value in many years. This fixed, predictable rate of growth is reminiscent of last year’s Proposition K proposal. The Wichita Eagle rejected this proposal, editorializing: “Over time, this system could result in significant disparities and a disconnect from actual market values, thus likely violating the Kansas Constitution’s requirement of a ‘uniform and equal basis of valuation.’”

    But in this case one politically-favored business was able to receive this benefit. These special deals breed justifiable cynicism and distrust of not only City Hall politicians and bureaucrats but businesses that seek this form of pork-barrel spending through the tax system.

    Finally, the payments the existing theater will make are not taxes, but payment in lieu of taxes, or PILOT. These payments are different in character from regular property taxes. Instead of falling under the Kansas property tax law regarding payment and possible sale of the property to pay taxes if the taxpayer falls behind for long enough, PILOTS are more in the form of a contract between the city and the taxpayer. If the taxpayer were to fail to pay, the city would have to sue for breach of contract. If the city should prevail in such a suit, it would stand in line with other creditors instead of taking a preferred position as in a tax sale.

    This is, of course, assuming the city would choose to pursue such a lawsuit. Nothing would require it to do so. As the city has in the past bailed out this theater owner with a no-interest and low-interest loan, we could easily imagine the city deciding to let these missing or late PILOT payments slide by.

    This too assumes that failure to pay PILOT payments as agreed would become public knowledge. The Sedgwick County Treasurer’s office prints lists of delinquent property taxpayers. There is no corresponding list of delinquent PILOT payments.

  • Southwest Airlines topic of Wichita Eagle article

    Sunday’s Wichita Eagle carried a story featuring local elected officials’ reaction to the possibility that Southwest Airlines would start service to Wichita. (City, county officials cautiously weigh subsidy for Southwest Airlines, May 30, 2010)

    A source of controversy is over the payments of public funds that are thought to be necessary to acquire the service. The Eagle article quotes an unnamed source as saying it would take about $3 million in public funds to “get the service up and running.” It is not disclosed whether this is a one-time requirement, or if this is $3 million per year for some specific period, or perhaps forever.

    Wichitans may want to remember that the subsidy paid to AirTran started small and was promoted as a temporary measure until the airline could establish itself in Wichita. The program, however, has grown to a combined $7 million annual payment from the state, county, and city. It seems unlikely that this number will ever drop.

    At one time Wichita was a city known for its entrepreneurs. But recently the New York Times noted that Wichita is known as a “pioneer in the business of paying airlines to continue service.”

    An interesting tidbit in the Eagle story is Wichita City Council Member Sue Schlapp making a distinction between a “subsidy” and an “incentive.” What we offer to Southwest would be an incentive, not a subsidy, she said.

    The overall tone of the article is that Wichita City Council Members and Sedgwick County Commissioners are making a show of concern, wanting to be “realistic,” desiring more details and something “reasonable and feasible.”

    Despite this show of concern and prudence, if this matter comes before these bodies, I’ll be surprised if even one member votes against it.

    One thing this article did not mention is that Charleston, South Carolina was able to lure Southwest without having to pay a subsidy.

    By way of comparison, the Wichita metropolitan area population is 612,683 (2009 estimate), while the Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, metropolitan area populations is 659,191. In 2008, there were 780,756 enplanements at the Wichita airport, while there were 1,174,667 at the Charleston airport.

    According to reports, the Charleston Convention and Visitors Bureau estimates a $139 million economic impact with the arrival of Southwest. An economic impact analysis has been prepared for the City of Wichita, but Wichita officials will not release it, citing an exception in the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA).

  • North Dakota TIF video informative, reminiscent of Wichita

    The North Dakota Policy Council has a video on YouTube that explains the mechanics of tax increment financing (TIF) districts and the public policy problems associated with TIF.

    The video is presented in three sections. The material in the first section is different from the way TIF districts work in Kansas, but the other two sections are very similar to the way the law works in Kansas.

    At the start of part 3 (“Problems with TIFs”) the narrator states the problem succinctly: “Tax increment financing negatively affects everybody’s property tax bill by taking the tax revenue from increased taxable valuations on the properties in the TIF areas and putting that into TIF accounts.”

    She then presents an illustration showing how the property taxes for non-TIF properties have to rise to make up for the fact that taxes from TIF properties do not go towards paying for city, county, or school district services. While Wichita doesn’t use the term “TIF accounts” as used in this video, the economic effect is the same.

    The video also mentions politically-favored developers being the beneficiaries of TIF districts, specifically mentioning “a friend of the city who might own property that is struggling.” I wonder: is the North Dakota Policy Council aware of the situation in Wichita, where many feel that the city is bailing out Real Development (also known as the “Minnesota Guys”) by not only granting TIF financing to them, but increasing the amount of TIF financing against the recommendation of its independent consultant?

    When you add the fact that our city manager’s girlfriend has the Minnesota Guys as a client and the city — specifically Mayor Carl Brewer — will not forthrightly explain this situation and the city’s response to citizens, we have a problem in Wichita.

    Compounding the problem is the obvious lack of understanding of the economic effects of TIF districts by members of the Wichita City Council, and possibly by city hall bureaucrats, too. Wichita vice mayor Jeff Longwell has complained to the Wichita Eagle that the public doesn’t understand tax increment financing. We should be questioning Longwell’s own understanding, and that of council member Janet Miller, too.

    Longwell and Miller — the rest of the council too, for that matter — are aided by newspaper reporters like the Wichita Eagle’s Bill Wilson, who is dismissive and hostile towards free markets and those who advocate for them, calling reliance on markets “intellectually shallow” and a “thin ideological argument.”

  • Wichita mayor speaks on economic development

    At last week’s Wichita City Council meeting, Mayor Carl Brewer spoke in favor of the city’s economic development policy, specifically as it related to a downtown Wichita development partly financed with tax increment financing, or TIF.

    The mayor disagreed with those who have appeared at city council meetings to testify against the use of TIF. He told of how the city called mayors’ associations and the National League of Cities, and they said that most large cities use incentives. He learned that cities use some incentives that that Wichita has not yet heard of, which undoubtedly will give city staff some additional tools in the toolbox in the future.

    He said “Incentives are available, and we’re on the right track.”

    The mayor mentioned that Harvard and Yale experts said that Wichita had too much parking downtown. This is in agreement with the Goody Clancy proposal presented to the city last October. Wichita selected that firm to lead the planning process for the revitalization or redevelopment of downtown Wichita.

    He said that in a recent meeting of mayors he attended, he learned that the mayors of other cities are trying to figure out how to use incentives and recruit business. They’re not turning their backs on incentives, he said, adding that “What we’re doing is nothing new.”

    He told the audience that “We as a city are going to have to endure change, and we as a city are going to have to understand any time there’s change, there is going to be some pain.”

    He added that he appreciated input from those who oppose the various subsidies and incentives the city gives to developers, and the city did check to see if the information they provided to the city was correct.

    Commentary

    The National League of Cities, one of the organizations the mayor consulted with regarding the use of incentives for the purpose of economic development, promotes an expansion of the powers of cities to engage in taxpayer-funded economic development subsidies. Its mission statement sounds noble: “Its mission is to strengthen and promote cities as centers of opportunity, leadership, and governance.” But citizens should not be deceived. It promotes interventionist practices rather than economic freedom. An example is its celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which the Wall Street Journal described as “one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development.”

    The mayor’s refusal to embrace economic freedom — which he has described as a “philosophy” that is not viable in the real world — means that Wichita is likely to continue to engage in the same competitive practices as do almost all other cities. It means that deals like the subsidy granted to Real Development is a template for other taxpayers-funded giveaways. As Council Member Paul Gray has warned, the plans for the redevelopment of downtown Wichita are likely to require many millions — perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars — of public assistance or investment. Since there isn’t enough tax increment financing available to pay for this, we can expect to see proposals for tax increases, such as a new city sales tax of perhaps one cent on the dollar, to pay for downtown redevelopment.

    A sales tax is the model for economic development in Oklahoma City. This has been promoted to Wichita and Sedgwick County leaders as a good idea for Wichita to pursue.

    What Wichita is missing out on is a way to truly distinguish itself from all the other cities and counties that are all using the same economic development tools. Presently about all we can do is offer subsidies that are larger than what other cities offer. But if we decided to forgo the use of the usual economic development subsidies and incentives, that would be something very unusual. It could really put Wichita on the map as a place to locate to.

    Since these economic development incentives and subsidies require other taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, to pay for their cost, Wichita could reduce the cost of doing business in Wichita for everyone. A company considering locating to Wichita could be confident that it would be operating in a low-tax environment. It wouldn’t have to hope that it fits into the city’s economic development policy guidelines. It wouldn’t have to hope that politicians and bureaucrats view its application favorably.

    Further, once a company locates here, it wouldn’t have to worry that other companies will receive incentives and subsidies that it will have to pay for. It would not need to worry about the other costs that subsidies impose, such as subsidized companies having lower overhead and are therefore better able to compete for employees.

    Eliminating interventionist policies from city hall could have other benefits. Is there a “good ‘ol boy” network of insiders that use Wichita city hall as their personal piggy bank? By eliminating the practice of granting incentives and subsidies, we could reduce or eliminate the cynical attitude of many citizens towards city government.

    We wouldn’t have to worry whether the campaign contributions made by those seeking favor from city hall were made in the interest of good government, or made in the hopes of getting a TIF district or other subsidy passed through the council.

    These ideas, however, are not seriously considered by the mayor or any city council members, at least to my knowledge. Instead, we in Wichita are doomed to finance an escalating economic development arms race. The economic freedom of Wichitans will decline.

    This is noteworthy in light of the mayor’s curious assertion in his remarks that we will have to “endure pain” caused by change. We’ve changed nothing.