At tomorrow’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, consideration of a plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita is on the agenda. Before the city goes down this path, we ought to become aware of some of the difficulties with this type of planning.
Any who say they can write a comprehensive, long-range plan for a city or region necessarily presumes that
they can collect all the data they need about the values and costs of the land, improvements, and proposed and alternative projects in the planning area;
they can accurately predict how those values and costs will change in the future;
they can properly understand all the relationships between various parts of their region and activities in those areas;
they can do all this quickly enough that the plan is still meaningful when they are done; and
they will be immune to political pressures and can objectively overcome their own personal preferences.
What are the technical barriers to the success of planning? O’Toole lists these:
The Data Problem: Planning requires more data than can be collected in time for it to be useful to planners;
The Forecasting Problem: Planners cannot predict the future;
The Modeling Problem: Models complicated enough to be useful for planning are too complicated for anyone to understand; and
The Pace of Change Problem: Reality changes faster than planners can plan.
Are we in Wichita about to take on an impossible task?
Two recent events have led me to suspect that as part of the plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, we’re going to see a sales tax proposed.
The first is Phillip Brownlee’s editorial in last Friday’s Wichita Eagle, which carried the title Taxes are lower than many think. While this editorial focused on property taxes, it’s easy to see this as an argument that Wichitans can bear the burden of more taxation. Softening up the electorate, so to speak.
Then, there’s this email sent to the Wichita city council and Sedgwick county commission members:
I recently received the attached information on Oklahoma City’s next plan for their downtown area. This is their MAPS program that spurred their downtown developed. I thought you might find this of interest.
http://www.okc.gov/maps3/
Sincerely,
John Rolfe
President and CEO
Go Wichita Convention & Visitors Bureau
MAPS — that’s the program that funded Oklahoma City’s downtown improvements through a sales tax, with a second version funding school projects — will be voted on in December. If approved, a 1% sales tax will raise funds for more downtown projects. This email, without saying so directly, endorses the idea of a sales tax for downtown development.
What’s the sales tax in Oklahoma City, you may be wondering? It’s 8.375%. It won’t change if the new MAPS plan is approved by the voters, as a current 1% tax will expire.
That sales tax was billed as “temporary,” and it does appear that it will expire as planned. But, city leaders are recommending approval of the new sales tax. This is similar to the sales tax for the downtown Wichita arena, when as that tax was nearing its end, Sedgwick County Commissioner Tim Norton “wondered … whether a 1 percent sales tax could help the county raise revenue.” (“Norton floats idea of 1 percent county sales tax,” Wichita Eagle, April 4, 2007)
The sales tax for Wichita is 6.3%.
City leaders are likely to use the the Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita as an example of a successful project funded through a sales tax. But any assessment of the success of this project is about two years away. The fact that the arena exists is evidence of a minimum level of competence. It will be some time before we know whether the arena can support itself without being a drain on taxpayers, despite the provisions of the SMG management contract.
In Wichita, we’re going to have to be watchful. The drumbeats of new taxation have started.
Last Friday a selection committee selected one company from four finalists to lead the planning effort for the revitalization of downtown Wichita. If some city leaders and a few citizen elites had their way, citizens of Wichita wouldn’t be able to see the company’s proposal document until after the city council makes a decision to follow — or not — the recommendation of the selection committee. But thanks to city manager Robert Layton’s decision, this document is now available for all to read. (Thanks also go to council member Jim Skelton, for his unsuccessful effort to release the documents.)
This proposal is available because I requested it (and paid for it) under the provisions of the Kansas Open Records Act. The Wichita Eagle requested it too, and as of the time I received my copy, only that newspaper and I had requested it (along with the other three proposals from the finalists).
I didn’t scan all the pages, leaving out a section about the personnel involved and an appendix of related articles. Still, there’s 109 pages to read — but there are a lot of pictures. Click on
Goody Clancy Proposal for Downtown Wichita Revitalization Master Plan to view or print the document.
(Update: The Wichita Eagle has obtained and posted a much better version of the proposal. It’s complete and in color. Click here and here.)
There are danger signs all over this document. Under the heading “Fiscal Responsibility,” for example, we see “Know the full range of effective public-private finance tools at hand.” Which means, of course, that developers will have their hands in the pockets of taxpayers through devices such as TIF districts, grants, tax credits, abatements, and other forms of subsidy.
Another sign: as a challenge to downtown, the document cites “The impact of relatively low development costs (inexpensive land, tenant-borne special assessment districts for infrastructure) at Wichita’s perimeter have a direct impact on Downtown land value and infrastructure economics.” (emphasis added)
What’s wrong with this statement? First, inexpensive land is a good thing. It means more people can afford what they want.
Second, note that people developing on the perimeter pay their own infrastructure costs. This statement hints that downtown developments won’t be expected to pay theirs.
There are just a few hopeful signs: “Indeed, WaterWalk might be struggling to fill its space because it has, simply put, hit a ceiling: it is focusing on food and fun, and perhaps there is room for only one such district (Old Town) in Downtown Wichita. The Arena could help in this regard, but until the publicly subsidized WaterWalk is a rousing success, it might not make sense to split the pie still further.”
Indeed. While we’re at it, let’s etch the names of the developers of WaterWalk on a large monument somewhere downtown, so that they are properly excluded from any further consideration as beneficiaries of the taxpayer. (Here’s the list, in case this monument isn’t built.)
But if there’s not demand for another food and fun district in Wichita, what about the promise of all the food and fun surrounding the Intrust Bank Arena? (A campaign piece from that election reads “It [the arena] will enrich our quality of life as new restaurants, shops and clubs spring up in the area …”)
It’s unknown how seriously the city council will take the steering committee’s recommendation. The council plans to vote on October 13.
At tomorrow’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, approval of more travel is on the agenda.
Tomorrow’s agenda item is this: “Approval of travel expenses for Mayor Brewer, Council Member Schlapp, Council Member Gray, and Council Member Williams to attend the NLC Congress of Cities in San Antonio, Texas, November 10-15, 2009.” This is all the information that is available.
The reaction of citizens to council member Janet Miller’s junketeering to France has been overwhelmingly against this type of wasteful travel. Now we have four members of the council traveling for five days to a National League of Cities event.
What is the value of this conference? Citizens might be excused for assuming that an organization with such a lofty name acts only in the interest of citizens. In reality, the NLC is a special interest group, and its interests are not always in line with citizen concerns. For example, this position paper outlines its stance on the use of eminent domain for economic development. It’s a position, as you can imagine, in favor of cities’ rights to take property for economic development.
At Tuesday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, I asked a question about council member Janet Miller and her travel and got a bigger response — from the mayor, the Wichita Eagle and other news media, and the public — than I expected. Some issues are still unresolved, however.
First, I was surprised that this matter was reported on so prominently by the Wichita Eagle, as it turned into a front page story. It involves, as I noted in my testimony to the Wichita City Council, a relatively small amount of money. Furthermore, it wasn’t the most important matter I testified about that day. The secrecy surrounding the downtown redevelopment proposals is, I believe, a more important issue, as are things like TIF districts, special assessment financing, and other issues I’ve brought up before the council.
But those matters are more difficult to comprehend. Junkets are easy to understand.
Second: the behavior of council member Miller is an issue that citizens need to know about. The approval of this travel appeared on the August 18 city council agenda. I wrote to Miller on August 15, asking for the cost of the trip. Over the next several weeks, I left several telephone messages and sent at least one other email message. It was Van Williams, the city’s public information office, who promptly responded to my requests and supplied me with the figures.
Miller didn’t respond to my inquiries until I received an email message at 8:11 the morning of the council meeting. And you know what? There are some mitigating factors, such as the host organizations providing many meals and covering other expenses.
So why didn’t Miller respond to my requests earlier? I don’t live in her district, so maybe that’s a reason why. I endorsed her opponent earlier this year, so maybe that’s why.
A more cynical explanation that has been suggested to me is this: She wanted me to make my case in public, and then let Mayor Carl Brewer tell me all the ways I’m wrong — using information that I asked for, but was not given (at least not until right before the meeting). This strategy — if in fact it was used here — has been used against myself and other activists by a variety of governmental bodies.
Another observation is the bizarre analogy the mayor used, that one doesn’t get a divorce to save money just because a marriage is having trouble. Besides not making sense on any level, the mayor made these remarks as he was sitting next to Vice-Mayor Jim Skelton, who is in the process of divorce. As the mayor spoke about this, Skelton expressed astonishment. Eventually the mayor looked at Skelton and smiled. I made a motion towards my microphone, wanting to ask why he was looking at the vice-mayor. But as the mayor reminded me, he had given me my time to speak, and I could not speak again.
(I might remind the mayor that he is not a benevolent dictator who “gives” time to citizens to speak. City statute does that. He doesn’t have a choice or say in the matter.)
There are still some questions to be asked:
First, why is the city paying some expenses for Kelly Harper, president of the Wichita Sister Cities? The mayor forgot to address this.
Second, why isn’t the mayor — instead of Miller — attending the International Cities Conference?
Third: The mayor said that these conferences are important for the city’s economic development. If so, why are we sending the most junior council member, in office for just five months, on such an allegedly important mission?
Finally, the most important question I asked was not addressed at all by the mayor: why can’t citizens see the downtown redevelopment proposals? Vice-Mayor Skelton intervened on my behalf, but was not successful.
(In the video below, I didn’t include Vice-Mayor Skelton’s brief remarks due to YouTube’s ten minute length limitation.)
On today’s public agenda of the Wichita City Council, I have two things to discuss with the council. One is the city’s refusal to make public proposals submitted by planning firms wishing to be awarded a contract by the city. Background is here: Downtown Wichita proposals not available to citizens.
I’ve asked that the proposals from the four finalist firms for the downtown revitalization master plan be made available to the public. My request was denied.
The part of the Kansas Open Records Act that the city cited does not prohibit release of the proposals. Instead, it states that the city is not “required to disclose” the proposals.
So the city can share these with citizens if it wants to. And I think it should.
According to the communication I received from the city, these proposals will not be made public until the city council accepts a proposal (or rejects them all).
Since citizens won’t be able to read these proposals, they won’t be able to give any reasoned input on this matter. We don’t even know what questions to ask. I think this is intolerable. It’s offensive.
There are a few citizens who can read these proposals: a select group of downtown boosters. The interests of these people — and of the various bureaucrats who also have these proposals — I would submit, are not representative of the city as a whole.
Mr. Mayor, you can release these proposals if you want to. The citizens of Wichita would be better served if you do.
Now, to the matter of Council Member Janet Miller’s travel to France. This trip can only be described as a junket, with all the negative connotations that go along with that word. To make it worse, the city is paying for a private citizen to make the trip, too.
We’re in a tough budget time. Even in good times these trips should be avoided, but when budgets are stressed, travel should be the first thing to be cut.
I realize the cost of this trip is small when compared to the total spending of the city. It’s less than $4,000, according to the estimates I’ve been given. But that’s still money that could be saved.
Furthermore, these actions are symbolic. The city council asks citizens and employees to sacrifice, but in this case is not willing to set an example.
There’s more travel to be approved on the agenda today, along with an item that hints of more to come later on. These items should not be approved.
For Council Member Miller’s trip, I have these questions:
What is the benefit of traveling to the International Cities Conference and the Sister Cities Festival?
Why is the city paying for a private citizen, even though she is the Wichita Area Sister Cities President, to attend these events?
At tomorrow’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, approval of more council member travel is on the agenda.
The two items are:
Approval of travel expenses for Council Member Miller to attend the Annual Built Environment and the Outdoors Summit in Topeka, Kansas, October 1-6, 2009.
Approval of travel expenses for Mayor Brewer, Vice-Mayor Skelton, Council Member Schlapp, Council Member Gray, Council Member Williams, and Council Member Miller to attend the LKM Annual Conference in Topeka, Kansas, October 3-6, 2009.
(I wonder why Council Member Jeff Longwell isn’t making the LKM trip.)
As of early Monday morning, the agenda packet (that’s the detailed material, sometimes several hundred pages, that accompanies the agenda) is not available for tomorrow’s meeting. But the agenda packet usually doesn’t contain more information about these travel items.
I’ll be at the council meeting tomorrow asking that Janet Miller’s junket to France be canceled. (The city is also paying for a private citizen to take the trip with Miller.) I’ll ask that the council cancel this travel, too.
As part of Wichita’s downtown revitalization effort, city leaders decided to hire a planning firm. Four firms have been selected as finalists, and a committee is in the process of evaluating their proposals.
Whether or not you think this planning process is wise — and I happen to think it is not — it seems to be the will of the city and the special interest groups that will benefit from this type of central planning. So, it seems, we might as well make the best of it. This would include selecting a planning firm that seems most likely to respect property rights, specifically: (a) rejecting the use of eminent domain to seize property, (b) respecting existing zoning and land use rights, and (c) rejecting the use of TIF districts and other forms of public subsidy. These are the things that I learned are important from my trip to Anaheim’s Platinum Triangle, if a city wants to plan in a freedom-friendly way.
On September 22 and 23, the planning firms will be making presentations to the public. I thought it would be great for citizens to be able to read the proposals so that they would be able to ask intelligent questions at these presentations. Unfortunately, the city won’t let citizens read these proposals, and citizens will not be permitted to ask questions at the presentations.
The City of Wichita, according to Scott Knebel (Principal Planner, Advanced Plans Division, Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department), doesn’t consider the proposals to be open records under the Kansas Open Records Act. He wrote that in response to my informal request to view the proposal documents. I’ve now made a formal request to the city, and if the city denies access to the records, it will have to cite the provision in the Kansas Open Records Act on which it is relying.
Earlier I said that citizens can’t read these proposals, but that’s not entirely true. If you’re a member of a select committee, you can have them. Government shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which select citizens are allowed to see how their tax dollars are to be used, and all citizens have a right to know if government intends to take their property.
The fact that the city doesn’t want to let citizens — except those in a limited circle of downtown boosters — view these proposals and participate in the planning firm selection process is disturbing. It follows a pattern of stacking committees with people friendly to the desired goal, with no desire for dissent to be heard.
At the same time that the City of Wichita is struggling with its budget, including making layoffs, senior managers still travel.
City council members still travel too, as last week the council approved travel expenses for Janet Miller to travel to France for a sister cities meeting. It’s unclear whether the city will also pay for the Wichita Area Sister Cities President to make the trip.
Some of the trips the Wichita managers made sound like worthwhile trips. In the private sector, however, travel to conferences and such is one of the first things to be cut when budgets are stretched.