Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city council

  • Health and Wellness Coalition of Wichita Asks Candidates a few Questions

    Note to raders: I made an error in the original article when I relied on a source’s representation that these questions came from the YMCA. They are actually from the Health and Wellness Coalition of Wichita. The YMCA is just one of several dozen members of this group.

    Here are the questions asked of candidates:

    • Describe the connection between the built environment and community health.
    • What is city government’s role in creating a more pedestrian/bike friendly environment?
    • How can a city get engaged in promoting healthy eating?

    The last question is especially troublesome.

  • Wichita Center City South TIF Changes Slip Through

    At the December 16, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, a major revision to the development plan of a downtown Wichita TIF district was made. This TIF district is a project of Real Development, whose principals Michael Elzufon and David Lundberg are commonly known as the “Minnesota Guys.”

    The changes to this plan were not made in secret, but the document describing them was buried in the 675-page agenda report (or “green sheets”) for that meeting. These changes escaped the notice of any local news media (at least my searches show no stories being reported), including the Wichita Eagle and Wichita Business Journal. At the city council meeting, no one from the public spoke or asked questions. No council members did, either.

    The original plan dates from July, 2007. Highlights of the changes from then to now include:

    1. Changing from condominium ownership to rentals.

    2. Property acquisition costs are now $3,000,000, up from $2,250,000 in the original plan. The city is reimbursing Real Development for these costs as part of the TIF. Probably a primary reason for this increase is that another building is being bought by the city for the developers.

    3. The cost of the parking garage is now $6,300,000, up from $3,750,000 in the original plan. This again is paid for by the TIF.

    As stated in a document titled “FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR EXCHANGE PLACE PROJECT PLAN December 16, 2008” in Section 2: “The amount of Eligible Project Costs is hereby increased from Six Million Five Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars $6,580,000.00) to Ten Million One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($10,180,000.00).” This represents an increase of 54.7% from the original plan.

  • At Wichita City Council, why are some doors open, and others closed?

    Steve Compton, owner of the Eaton Steakhouse in downtown Wichita, spoke to the Wichita city council on the public agenda at its February 3, 2009 meeting.

    (The public agenda is where anyone can speak about any topic for up to five minutes.)

    Mr. Compton said he chose a bad time to start a business a year and a half ago. His business is just as important as others, he said, and he wants the city council to consider small business when making their plans as to which businesses to help. He said his business has 28 employees. He asked the city council for its support and consideration, without asking for anything specific.

    Readers of the Voice For Liberty in Wichita know that I oppose subsidy to business. Therefore, I oppose Mr. Compton’s efforts. His request, however, illustrates the problems that arise when government chooses to subsidize some firms at the expense of others. This request is sort of the opposite case of the warning that Wichita Interim City Manager Ed Flentje issued to the council last summer regarding a loan interest subsidy made to the Warren Theater: “There are in this community much larger businesses with much larger employment who may see this opening as something that will open a door for those businesses to come and say, ‘You’ve done it before, you can do it for us.’”

    Mr. Compton didn’t ask for a subsidy, but he must want something from the city. The problem is that the city — assuming it wants to — will have a hard time finding a basis on which to decline this request. That is, a basis that springs from any sense of equity, as it seems that Mr. Compton’s business doesn’t fall into any of the categories of economic development incentives Wichita has to offer.

    The city dishes out economic favors at nearly every council meeting. For example, at today’s meeting the council is granting three Wichita companies a big favor, forgiving them from paying property tax on some of their property. These actions are being taken without any discussion except for the presentation made by Allen Bell, the city’s economic development director.

    So why is the door open for some companies, but not others?

  • Ask What Questions About Downtown Wichita YMCA Deal?

    Remarks to be delivered to the February 3, 2009 meeting of the Wichita city council.

    When considering the sale of city-owned land, the city has an obligation to get the best deal possible for the actual owners of the land, which are the citizens of Wichita.

    But it seems, according to the agenda report, that the city has already decided on a single buyer for this land, the YMCA. With only one buyer and a seller whose leader has stated that it is “seeking a partnership” with that buyer, citizens are entitled to wonder if their interests will be protected. Citizens should ask if these negotiations are going to be at arm’s length.

    (A side question: What does a partnership with the YMCA mean? Is the city planning to do something else besides selling it the land?)

    So how can Wichitans be sure that the city strikes a good bargain for its citizens?

    Today’s Wichita Eagle editorial is titled “Ask questions about YMCA proposal.” The problem is that we don’t know what questions to ask. We citizens need some help with this.

    Mr. Mayor, at your State of the City address last week you said: “This City Council wants to keep building public trust in government.” You also mentioned a desire for greater transparency. This is a great opportunity to start on that path. I can think of a few ways right now.

    One way the city can help achieve greater transparency is to release the terms of the offers received last year.

    A second way is to conduct the negotiations with the YMCA in the open. Invite news media and citizens to observe. Let citizens ask questions. Release draft agreements before they’re finalized. Televise this on channel 7. Since there is only one buyer, there is no need to keep negotiations secret. There’s no other buyer that could gain from the learning details, as there could be if there were multiple buyers.

    Measures like these will let citizens and news media ask the right questions as the negotiations proceed. Otherwise, the deal will be struck, and then it’s too late for questions.

  • From Kevass Harding to Lavonta Williams

    One of the unusual sightings on the campaign finance report filed last month by Lavonta Williams, current Wichita city council member and candidate for re-election, is two contributions totaling $1,000 from Kevass Harding and his wife. These contributions represent the maximum it was possible for two people to give at the time.

    These contributions are unusual in that the Hardings don’t show up very often on the lists of contributors to local politicians. On May 20, 2008, Kevass Harding contributed $250 to Donald Betts, Jr. in his campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives. Then on November 24, 2008, Teketa Harding contributed $50 to Kansas House candidate Cheryl McFarthing.

    So the Hardings do contribute a little bit now and then. But the $1,000 to council member Williams represents a new step forward for the Hardings.

    I have a theory as to why the Hardings made these contributions, but it will have to remain just that, as none of the parties have answered direct questions about this contribution. All that we know for certain is that these contributions were made last June, right before Harding’s application for the Ken-Mar TIF district went before the Wichita city council, of which Lavonta Williams is a member, in July and August.

    I’ve asked both parties to explain whether there was or was not a connection between the contributions and the application for the TIF district. Williams answered the question obliquely, not addressing the questions that Wichitans want the answer to (see Lavonta Williams Campaign Contributions Raise a Few Questions). Harding didn’t respond to email or telephone inquiries. But that’s not surprising, as last summer he wouldn’t return my telephone calls. That’s even though I am his constituent, as he is the at-large member of the Wichita school board.

    So we’re left to wonder.

  • Lavonta Williams campaign contributions raise a few questions

    See end of article for disclosure.

    Analysis of the campaign finance report recently filed by Lavonta Williams, current Wichita city council member and candidate for re-election, revealed a few interesting insights about her campaign.

    First: The campaign contributions are concentrated from one industry. Of the $16,550 in cash contributions raised by the Williams campaign and disclosed in this report, $10,500 (63%) came from sources that are real estate developers, or from people closely connected to them such as their spouses. These developers are often asking city hall for subsidy or favor.

    I asked council member Williams a few questions by email, such as: Can you explain why this industry supports your candidacy so strongly? Do you think there is any linkage between your support for TIF districts and other subsidies that benefit many of these developers and their contributions? (Her answer is reported following.)

    Second, this concentration of contributions by one industry may be even stronger than reported above. It appears that $1,050 in contributions are from 14 attorneys (or spouses) that work for one law firm, Hinkle Elkouri Law Firm LLC. This firm has among its clients several of the developers who contributed the 63% reported above. I asked council member Williams if there is any reason for the generosity of this one law firm.

    Third, even non-downtown developers are contributing to the Williams campaign. Near the end of June, Kevass Harding and his wife contributed a total of $1,000, the maximum allowed by law, to the Williams campaign. This was right before Harding appeared before the city council in July and August as an applicant for TIF district financing. I asked council member Williams these questions: How did Harding come to make this contribution? How did he know that you were considering a run for office? Was there any connection between the contribution and your advocacy for his TIF district?

    I received an email message from council member Williams in response to my questions. Here it is, in its entirety:

    Mr. Weeks,

    Throughout my 35+ years of service as an educator, neighborhood and community activist, I have met and worked with many people who have given back to this community and made a difference in the lives of Wichitans. Some of them are supporting my campaign, and I am grateful for that support as we continue to work together, in our various ways, to making Wichita a better place.

    I think we can say that Ms. Williams chooses not to answer the questions I asked.

    Fourth, there are some peculiar aspects of this campaign finance report regarding dates. The cover sheet states the report covers the time period April 1, 2008 through July 16, 2008. A check with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission confirmed that the report should have covered through December 31, 2008, as did the reports for other candidates for city council.

    That office told me they had checked with the Williams campaign, and that the campaign said there were no contributions from the middle of July to the end of December. It seems strange that there would be a flurry of contributions to the campaign in June and July, and then nothing — not even one contribution — for the remaining months of 2008.

    A curious omission from the list of contributors is anyone connected to Real Development.

    It won’t be long before another campaign finance report will be due. It will be interesting to see if council member Williams can broaden the base of her supporters.

    Disclosure: I am a supporter of James Barfield, an opponent of council member Williams, and have provided volunteer service to his campaign.

  • Term Limits in Wichita

    In Wichita, city council members and the mayor are limited to serving two four-year terms. Last February the Wichita Eagle reported that some council members were considering a measure to end term limits. The main reason for wanting to do away with term limits is the perception that time and experience are required in order to become an effective council member. But under term limits, the tenure of experienced council members is artificially cut short. The public, therefore, doesn’t get the benefit of these experienced council members.

    At a recent Wichita Pachyderm Club meeting, council member Paul Gray spoke. I asked him about term limits — he has about two more years to serve before his limit expires — and he expressed opposition to term limits as he did last year.

    “I think it’s an arbitrary barrier that puts more power in the hands of bureaucracy and staff than it does in elected representatives,” he said. He added there’s not enough support on the city council to pass a resolution that would then appear on a ballot that citizens would vote on.

    Kansas Senator Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, Democrat from Kansas City, expressed similar concerns to me. He said it takes experience to become a good legislator. With high turnover in the Kansas legislature, he said we don’t make the best decisions that we could make.

    Underlying these arguments is the assumption that we need experienced, effective legislators, county commission members, city council members, and school board members. If your goal is to expand the power and influence of government, maybe so. But if you seek to limit the power of government and tip the balance back towards individual liberty, experienced and powerful elected representatives are not what we need.

    The argument that we need experienced elected officials to provide a counter to powerful staff members and bureaucrats can be eliminated by, well, eliminating powerful staff and bureaucrats. If we seek a limited government, we need to reduce the number and power of these. In the meantime, elected representatives should pass laws that give more power to them, rather than to staff and bureaucrats.

    There is one argument against term limits that is persuasive to me. If we view voting as an act of speech, then term limits are a limitation on that speech. I asked a noted term limits opponent at the national level about this, and he’d never heard that argument before. So it’s novel, and perhaps I’m not thinking though this argument thoroughly.

    I do know, however, that if the power and intrusiveness of government were limited, it wouldn’t matter as much who holds office.

    For more information on term limits, see these resources:
    U.S. Term Limits
    Citizens for Term Limits
    Real term Limits: Now More Than Ever
    A Brief History of Term Limits

  • Walking Door-to-Door with Marcey — ummm — Lavonta?

    Wichita city council member Lavonta Williams just launched the website that supports her campaign for re-election.

    It’s a nice website, but it has a little mistake that gives us a clue as to who might be running Williams’ campaign.

    Her “Get involved” page lists this as one of the ways you can help Williams: “Walking door-to-door with Marcey.”

    Marcey? Who is this Marcey? How could someone make the mistake of using the name “Marcey” when it should be “Lavonta?”

    I don’t know, but last year the campaign for Sedgwick County Commissioner of Marcey Gregory, mayor of Goddard, was managed by Wichita public relations personality Beth King. Could there be a connection?

  • Wichita City Council Candidate James Barfield Addresses Activists

    At Monday’s combined meeting of Campaign For Liberty and Hope For America Coalition, candidate for the Wichita city council district 1 seat James Barfield spoke to the 40 or so activists who gathered.

    “Wichita has a gang problem. A legalized gang operating at 455 N. Main. It’s time for a gang intervention.”

    He went on to remark that government was not designed to take private tax dollars and bail out private enterprise. But that’s what our local city government is doing. Government takes money from taxpayers and gives it to developers, he said. “I despise people who think they can come to the public trough.”

    Barfield believes that Wichita city council members are in the pockets of developers, and the taxpayers pay for that. He told the crowd “We don’t have a voice. We have little say in what they do.”