Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city government

  • To George Kolb, regarding urban renewal in Wichita

    To Wichita City Manager George Kolb, Regarding Urban Renewal in Wichita
    By Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director Kansas Taxpayers Network

    Today, city government plays a large role in this city’s life. The most recent municipal budget is in the neighborhood of $1/2 billion. That massive sum does not seem to be large enough for many of the city leaders since there is now an effort underway to recreate one of the major mistakes of the 20th century: Urban Renewal.

    Urban renewal was a major issue in the middle of the 20th century. Cities across the country attempted to improve and revitalize themselves using urban renewal. They wanted to improve their community and remove dilapidated and blighted properties. Despite the best of intentions, urban renewal failed. The failure took a number of forms and was very costly. Minority and low income citizens were hurt badly. Housing costs rose massively while the choices available for low income citizens were reduced. At that time, this was a national program and a significant part of the urban renewal costs were paid for by the federal government. Today, that is not the case. In addition, beneficiaries of urban renewal were often more affluent citizens who positioned themselves to take advantage of this program.

    Ironically, much of the city’s land that has been provided for the east bank/Waterwalk redevelopment project in downtown Wichita was originally acquired by the city back in the urban renewal era. Cost figures on what the city paid for this land were not available when I sought that information during the public hearings over the Waterwalk project. It is a sad fact that much of this city owned land simply stagnated economically during the close to half a century that the city has exercised control over this property. In addition, the city’s need to be able to condemn private property by using eminent domain has raised the risk of property owners, diminished property rights, and made this community less competitive by expanding the public sector over the private.

    Recently, the city manager and some other local leaders have been looking at establishing another layer of local government by setting up a new redevelopment authority. I heard that you were outspoken in support of this concept at the August meeting at the Hughes Center. This is the first step in recreating urban renewal in Wichita.

    The presentation that the city council had June 27, 2006 indicates the close ties between the proposed redevelopment authority in the 21st century that relies upon the 1950’s era K.S.A. 17-4712 et seq. as well as 17-4757 and 12-2904 urban renewal statutes as the legal authority for creating this authority. These statutes indicate that Sedgwick County will also be involved in this new layer of local government too.

    What is the city going to do to avoid repeating the numerous and myriad mistakes made roughly a half century ago?

    The academic literature (a partial reading list is provided below) is clear in pointing out the mistakes and failures made with the urban renewal efforts half a century ago. A major, but unspecified, increase in taxing authority will be needed to finance this new layer of local government.

    As an organization representing taxpayers, we see that the growth of local government is a major burden stifling development locally and statewide. Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that Kansas is near the bottom of the 50 states in private sector job growth. Adding a new layer of bureaucracy is likely to hurt this community’s economy, not help it.

    City Manager Kolb and other proponents for a new “Redevelopment Authority” need to provide a clear road map on how this new governmental body will avoid repeating the very expensive and harmful mistakes made during the urban renewal era from the 1950’s. Citizens of Wichita need to know how this expensive new entity will be paid for. Will the city council want to pay for it with higher property taxes? Or sales taxes? Or some new tax?

    Our organization’s position on raising taxes is clear: voters must be able to decide this issue at the ballot box. Let’s not make Wichita worse with more expensive red tape, bureaucracy, and resurrecting urban renewal. There are many ways to improve Wichita, but recreating urban renewal is not one of them.

    Urban Renewal Reading List:
    1) The Unheavenly City, Edward Banfield.
    2) The Federal Bulldozer, A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal 1949-1962, Martin Anderson.
    3) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs.
    4) Race and Economics, Thomas Sowell.
    5) The Art of Community, Spencer MacCallum.
    6) Beyond the Melting Pot, Nathan Glazer & Daniel Moynihan.
    7) The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Paul C. Roberts & Lawrence M. Stratton.

  • Resurrecting urban renewal in Wichita?

    Thank you to John Todd for this excellent article.

    Resurrecting Urban Renewal in Wichita?
    By John Todd

    On August 22, 2006, the City of Wichita hosted a Visioneering Committee “Public Forum on Community Revitalization” featuring Mr. Richard Baron, Chairman and CEO of McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) of St. Louis, Missouri in the Sudermann Commons Room at the Wichita State University Hughes Metropolitan Complex. An August 14, 2006 letter from City Manager George Kolb explains, “This forum is part of the City’s commitment to and participation in a prisoner reentry initiative to help transform not only the lives of returning ex-offenders, but also to transform the communities/neighborhoods into which they will return.”

    Mr. Baron’s PowerPoint presentation had little to do with “prisoner reentry” into communities/neighborhoods, but rather the “evolution” of public housing from the failed government housing projects of the past in larger cities like St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles into the new “public-private” partnership housing projects that rely almost exclusively on loans/grants from local, state, and the federal government as well as national and local foundation support.

    Council Members Carl Brewer and Sharon Fearey toured several of Mr. Baron’s MBS developments in St. Louis, were sold on what he was doing, so they invited him to Wichita for the tonight’s presentation.

    Mr. Baron’s presentation explained how his company, working with government, and government money, was able to raze and rehabilitate failed government housing projects of the past that usually included city owned land and additional assembled “tax foreclosure” properties into a “mixed-income” MBS rental housing apartment units project that always included a public neighborhood K through 8 elementary school, a common swimming pool, park area, and a sprinkling of privately owned housing units. Mr. Baron indicated that his company transformed failed gang, drug, and crime infested public housing projects occupied by people with average annual income of $6,000 to “mixed-income” housing units with incomes ranging from around 35% under $10,000, with another estimated 35% from $10,000 to $30,000 and the balance above those numbers with around 1% over $100,000 per year. His company collected market rents through HUD’s Section 8 rental subsidy program. In response to a question, he said that about 40% of the total rents collected from the project came from the Section 8 subsidy. Mr. Baron indicated that most of his projects were on tracts of around 40 acres.

    The public forum was held from 6-8 p.m. in Sudermann Commons Room was attended by I would estimate over 100 people including, Mayor Carlos Mayans, City Council Members, Carl Brewer, Sharon Fearey, and Bob Martz, County Commissioners Tim Norton and David Unruh, City Manager George Kolb, County Manager Bill Buchannan, a couple of state legislators along with heavy attendance from government housing staff members along with staff members from several governmental agencies and members of several Wichita Neighborhood organizations. There appeared to be widespread crowd enthusiasm and support for Mr. Baron’s presentation. However, I regrettably have to say that I think those people more closely associated with government and local neighborhood associations failed to see through Mr. Baron’s super smooth “sales” presentation. He was given over an hour of time to tout his company’s success in assembling this “new” type of “public-private” housing project that involved massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy with the implication that the key to the success of these projects was his company’s ownership and management of the projects. During questioning he did finally admit that government played a key role in the condemnation and taking of private property for his projects through their eminent domain powers.

    Following Mr. Baron’s presentation, City Manager George Kolb spoke glowingly and enthusiastically to the group about the City’s plans to revitalize the Beat 44 neighborhood in northeast Wichita. At this point, Mr. Kolb failed to mention a private partner in his vision for Beat 44 revitalization, but rather a city-run project. No mention as to whether the project needed at least 40 acres to succeed, and how many houses would be razed for the cities project. Mr. Kolb indicated that the Beat 44 project would be a “model” for other city housing revitalization projects. Mr. Kolb did hint of “public takings” if needed to clean up the area, and he admitted to me after the meeting that he was a strong supporter of the City’s ability to use of its eminent domain power in those takings.

    I find it interesting to note that The Wichita Eagle has already started their support for the City’s neighborhood revitalization program with their recent front-page “blight” story. Earlier this year they printed an opinion letter from City Manager Kolb imploring the legislature to “either defeat the proposed (eminent domain) legislation or find a compromise that honors the tradition of eminent domain.” In that same April 9, 2006 newspaper, the editorial board agreed with the City Manager, “…it is important for the city to preserve its condemnation authority, which could be threatened by legislative efforts to curtail the use of eminent domain.” Since Mr. Kolb and the editorial staff have so little regard for private property protection, I wonder if the newspaper would have any problem with a city ordinance that would from time to time limit the Eagle’s freedom of the press in cases where a reporter was writing unfavorable articles about the City of Wichita that were having a “detrimental” impact on the collective “economic well being” of this community. Surely, the collective health of this community outweighs one individual reporter’s freedom to write anything in the newspaper that is not in the community’s best interest. This argument sounds like the same rational the newspaper uses to justify the taking of private property from an individual for the collective good of the community. Perhaps Mr. Kolb can convince the City Council to pass such an ordinance with the understanding that we can “trust” the city to use its power to curb the free press sparingly and city officials will always exercise “good judgment” in their use of this power. The Kansas League of Municipalities used this same “trust” argument before a legislative committee last spring in their efforts to stop the legislature from passing needed private property protection through meaningful eminent domain reform.

    In deference to Mr. Baron’s approach to the new public housing projects his company is involved in, the key to his company’s financial success appears to me to be their ability to gather “public” money and then apply “private” ownership and management skills with an interest in their companies bottom line “profit.” Judging from the PowerPoint presentation, his company appears to be applying sound business skills that are necessary for a project to be financially successful. I hear that our City Manager Mr. Kolb is working to form a “Housing Authority” with limited supervision by the City Council. Kolb will be the leader of the group that owns and manages the new housing development that is being proposed in the Beat 44 neighborhood. The lack of the “profit” motive with the inherent lack personal financial “risks” makes me suspect of the ability of the new “Housing Authority” to be successful in their so-called housing revitalization. This proposal resurrects the failed urban renewal policies of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

    There are several questions that I have been unable to obtain answers for after several attempts in calling Mr. Baron’s office. How are the housing projects titled? Private company? Public entity? Public-private partnership ownership entity? Non-profit entity? And, does the project pay property taxes? Have TIF’s (Tax increment financing) been used?

  • A public or private downtown Wichita arena, which is desirable?

    (From October, 2004)

    Image what our town could be like if the Wichita downtown arena vote fails and Sedgwick County Commissioners put aside for a moment their plans for the renovation of the Kansas Coliseum.

    Suppose, instead, that arena supporters, along with those who would vote yes for the sales tax and anyone else who wants to, formed a corporation to build and own an arena.

    Instead of having paid taxes to government, arena supporters would be investors. They would own something: their shares in the arena. They would have the pride and responsibility that comes with ownership. They would have a financial stake in its success. Even taxpayer-funded arena opponents might see merit in investing in a local business rather than paying taxes.

    Instead of politicians and bureaucrats deciding what the people of our town want and need, a privately owned arena would be subject to the guidance and discipline of markets. It would either provide a valuable service to its customers and stay in business, or it would fail to do that and it would go out of business. Governments do not have such a powerful incentive to meet the needs of their constituents.

    Instead of the bitter feelings dividing this town over the issue of a taxpayer-funded arena and other perceived governmental missteps, the arena corporation would act in the best interests of its shareholders and customers. Even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be the public’s business, because after all, the corporation is formed of private individuals investing their own money.

    When individuals invest in an arena they are nurturing the virtues of investment, thrift, industry, risk-taking, and entrepreneurship, Wichita having an especially proud tradition of the last. There is nothing noble about politicians spending someone else’s money on projects like a downtown arena, or a renovated Kansas Coliseum for that matter.

    At this time in our town we have a chance to let private initiative and free markets work, or we can allow government to continue to provide for us in ways that few seem truly satisfied with. Writing about a public utility in England that was transferred to private enterprise, economist John Blundell observed:

    When it was “public” it was very private. Indeed, it was totally captured by a small band of bureaucrats. Even members of Parliament struggled to find out what was going on. No proper accounts were produced, and with a complete lack of market signals, managers were clueless as to the correct course to take. The greatest casualty was a lack of long-term capital investment.

    Now it is “private” and very public. Not just public in the sense of open, but also in the sense of accountable directly to its shareholders and customers. Copious reports and accounts are available and questioning citizens will find their concerns taken very seriously indeed.

    If we allow the government instead of private enterprise to build a new arena or to renovate the Kansas Coliseum, this is the opportunity we lose.

  • Tax increment financing in Wichita benefits few

    Recently the City of Wichita formed a TIF (tax increment financing) district to aid a developer who wishes to build in the College Hill neighborhood.

    How does a TIF district work? The Wichita Eagle reported: “A TIF district doesn’t cost local governments any existing tax money. It takes property taxes paid on new construction that would ordinarily go into government coffers and redirects it to the bond holders who are financing the project.”

    In the present case, the value of the benefit the developer sought is estimated to be worth $3.5 million to $4 million. Whether this benefit is given at no cost to existing government, as The Wichita Eagle article implies, is open to debate. If the new development does not use any local government services, then perhaps there is no cost in giving the benefit. But if that’s true, we might ask this question: if the development does not consume any government services, why should it have to pay taxes at all?

    There is evidence that TIF districts are great for the developers — after all, who wants to pay taxes — but not so good for the rest of the city and county. The article “Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development” by economists Richard F. Dye and David F. Merriman states, in its conclusion:

    TIF districts grow much faster than other areas in their host municipalities. TIF boosters or naive analysts might point to this as evidence of the success of tax increment financing, but they would be wrong. Observing high growth in an area targeted for development is unremarkable.

    So TIFs are good for the favored development — not a surprising finding. What about the rest of the city? Continuing from the same study:

    We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.

    So TIF districts may actually reduce the rate of economic growth in the rest of the city.

    There’s also evidence that TIF districts are simply a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers at large to a privileged few. In the paper titled “Do Tax Increment Finance Districts in Iowa Spur Regional Economic and Demographic Growth?” by Iowa State University economists David Swenson and Liesl Eathington, we can read this:

    There is indirect statistical evidence that this profligate practice [establishing TIF districts] is resulting in a direct transfer of resources from existing tax payers to new firms without yielding region-wide economic and social gains to justify the public’s investment.

    This analysis suggests that the enabling legislation for tax based incentives deserves revisiting. … there is virtually no evidence of broad economic or social benefits in light of the costs.

    In the present case in Wichita, the developer says that without the benefit the TIF provides, the project is not economically viable. This is the standard rationale given for the requirement of the TIF district. Without the TIF, the development would not take place.

    It may be true that this project in College Hill is not economically viable. If so, we have to wonder about the wisdom of investing in this project. More importantly, we should ask why our taxes are so high that they discourage investment and economic activity.

    It may also be that the developer simply wishes to gain an advantage over the competition by lobbying for a favor from government. As government becomes more intrusive, this type of rent-seeking behavior is replacing productive economic activity.

    There is one truth, however, if which I am certain: when businesses and individuals pay less tax, they have the opportunity to invest more. TIFs and tax abatements are tacit recognition that the cost of government is onerous and serves to decrease private economic activity and investment.

    Here’s a better idea: reduce taxes for everyone, instead of only for companies and individuals that are successful in extracting favors from our local governments.

  • Consider carefully costs of a new Wichita airport terminal

    As Wichita considers building a new terminal at its airport, we should pause to consider the effect an expensive new terminal would have on the cost of traveling to and from Wichita, and by extension, the economic health and vitality of our town.

    My reading reveals that airlines are starting to become alarmed at the high costs some airports charge airlines for using their facilities. A recent Wall Street Journal article (“Airports Start to Feel the Sting Of Airline Cost-Cutting Efforts” published on May 17, 2006) reads, in part:

    The same economic forces in the air-travel business that have created buy-your-own box lunches in coach and fully reclining seats for long flights in business class are now showing up in a split at airports. The split is creating tensions as cash-strapped airlines balk at paying for first-class airports. Air Canada, the main tenant of the new terminal in Toronto, says it can’t afford the high fees.

    Airports have long been considered economic-development tools for the communities that own them. Many, like Toronto, erected palatial terminals to showcase their cities and passed on the costs to airlines and passengers. Even as airlines have gone bankrupt, airport earnings have risen.

    Now, the combination of financial woes of traditional airlines and the explosion of low-cost competitors around the world is forcing big changes in airport design and operation. Airlines, which have already won concessions from employees, travel agents and suppliers, are now putting pressure on airports to cut costs and fees. And low-cost carriers have sparked the creation of bare-bones depots, like Schiphol’s “Pier H,” in Europe and Asia.

    “Many airport monopolies still operate in the dark ages. And our patience has worn out,” says Giovanni Bisignani, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the airline trade group that has spearheaded an attack on airport charges in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

    Closer to home, and very relevant to Wichita’s desire to attract additional low-cost carriers such as Southwest Airlines, we learn from the same article that Southwest is quite sensitive to the costs it faces:

    Denver International, which was attacked for its high fees when it opened in 1995, has since cut costs and reduced fees, winning back low-cost Southwest Airlines. And some airports, such as Schiphol and the Cologne Bonn Airport in Germany, have moved ahead by luring new airlines with low operating costs. In the low-margin airline world, a savings of a few dollars per passenger can turn an unprofitable flight into a money-maker, especially among discount airlines charging less than $100 per ticket.

    “Nowadays if you start to build a new terminal, you are no longer able to build a castle,” says Michael Garvens, chairman of the Cologne Bonn Airport, which opened a terminal for low-cost airlines in December 2004.

    We certainly don’t want to be placed in the position of Seattle, where Southwest cut its service there because of costs. From the article “Airport costs climb” from the Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) on March 5, 2004 we can read this:

    The $587 million cost of the South Terminal expansion at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is driving away at least one of the very carriers it was intended to attract. … But Southwest Airlines in January cut its daily flights between Seattle and Spokane from eight to five, reducing its overall daily flights through Sea-Tac to 36. According to Southwest manager of properties Amy Weaver, the move was largely due to the airport’s rising per-passenger costs for carriers.

    Talking to some people and reading some remarks, it seems as though not many are too concerned about the costs of a new terminal, as it will be paid for by federal money and airline fees. But someone pays those federal tax dollars, and now we learn that airlines, especially discount carriers, are sensitive to the fees they must pay to use airports.

    The Wichita Eagle recently reported that Wichita airport officials have been talking with the airlines, and the airlines are “happy with the prospect of a new terminal.” That is directly contradictory to the reporting contained in the two articles cited above.

    Local business leaders tell us that we must have an airport that makes a good first impression for Wichita. A grand airport terminal is impressive until you realize who pays for such things. I have been in terminals in fine cities — Denver and Salt Lake City come to mind — where the gate area is quite spartan, being built from corrugated steel in the manner of a warehouse. And if I remember correctly, in Salt Lake City the concourse I used was not even sealed to the elements.

    In Cincinnati, Comair, part of the Delta network, has its own remote gate area. That building is plain in its construction, but worked very well. (As Delta and Comair no longer fly to this destination from Wichita, I guess it doesn’t matter now.) I appreciated these facilities for what appeared to be their concerted effort to hold down costs.

    In Wichita, we should remember that fewer passengers used our airport in 2005 than did in 2004. In 2006, each month’s traffic has been less than that for same month from last year. We are told not to worry about this, that air traffic is down nationwide, but the decline in Wichita is several times that of the nationwide trend.

    (From the ATA Monthly Passenger Traffic Report, enplanements nationwide are down 0.6% for the first five months of 2006, compared to the same months from 2005. In Wichita, enplanements for the first five months of 2006 are 284,848, compared to 300,169 for the first five months of 2005. That is a drop of 5.1%.)

    At the same time our airport traffic is rapidly declining, AirTran, the local discount carrier, is experiencing increased passenger counts, meaning that we are becoming increasingly dependent on a discount carrier. (For the first five months of 2005, AirTran’s share of traffic in Wichita was 6.7%. For the first five months of 2006, AirTran’s share is 10.6%.)

    As the articles cited above tell us, these low-costs carriers are very sensitive to the cost of using airports. AirTran may not be concerned, at least not regarding its cost in using the Wichita airport, as our local governments reimburse AirTran for its losses.

    Airport officials tell us that fixing what is wrong with our existing terminal will cost nearly as much as building a new terminal. It is difficult for me to believe this. We must find a way to hold down the costs that airlines and travelers face when flying to and from Wichita. Our current airport officials do not seem to agree.

  • Remarks to Wichita City Council Regarding the AirTran Subsidy on July 11, 2006

    Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council:

    You may recall that I have spoken to this body in years past expressing my opposition to the AirTran subsidy. At that time we were told that the subsidy was intended to be a short-tem measure. Today, four years after the start of the subsidy, with state funding planned for the next five years, it looks as though it is a permanent fixture.

    Supporters of the subsidy have made a variety of claims in its support: that the subsidy and the accompanying Fair Fares program are responsible for $4.8 billion in economic impact, that being a pioneer in subsidizing airlines is equivalent to the role that Kansas played in the years immediately prior to the Civil War, and that we would have a mass exodus of companies leaving Wichita if the subsidy were to end.

    I believe there is no doubt that fares are lower than what they would be if not for the subsidy. That points to the subsidy’s true achievement: government-imposed price controls. Its effect is to force many airlines to price their Wichita fares lower than they would otherwise. If it didn’t do that, there would be no reason to continue the subsidy.

    Economists tell us — and human behavior confirms — that when the price of any good is held lower than it would be in a free market, the result is a reduction in the quantity supplied.

    We see this happening. Earlier this year the Wichita Eagle reported that there are fewer daily flights supplied to and from Wichita, from 56 last year to 42 at the time of the article. It has been explained that the financial woes of Delta and NWA are to blame for this reduction. This is demonstrably false, as NWA recently added a daily flight to Wichita, and both airlines have added (and dropped) flights on many routes while in bankruptcy. Furthermore, even though in bankruptcy, theses airlines still desire to operate as profitably as possible.

    Now we learn that the legacy airlines — those established, older airlines that take pride in their comprehensive nationwide networks of routes — are revising their strategies. A Wall Street Journal article from earlier this year (“Major Airlines Fuel a Recovery By Grounding Unprofitable Flights” published on June 5, 2006) tells us that the legacy airlines are beginning to look at the profitability of each route and flight. They are not as interested as they have been in providing flights just for the sake of having a complete nationwide network.

    When we couple this change in airline strategy with our local price controls, I believe that we in Wichita are in danger of losing more service from the legacy airlines. If AirTran — a new-generation airline with low labor costs — can’t earn a profit on its Wichita route at the fares it charges, how can the legacy airlines be expected to do so? And if they can’t earn a profit on a flight to or from Wichita, and if they are beginning to scrutinize the profitability of each flight, can we expect them to continue providing service in Wichita?

    No government has ever been able to successfully impose price controls without the people suffering harmful consequences. As economist Thomas Sowell wrote in a 2005 column:

    Prices are perhaps the most misunderstood thing in economics. Whenever prices are “too high” — whether these are prices of medicines or of gasoline or all sorts of other things — many people think the answer is for the government to force those prices down.

    It so happens there is a history of price controls and their consequences in countries around the world, going back literally thousands of years. But most people who advocate price controls are as unaware of, and uninterested in, that history as I was in the law of gravity.

    Prices are not just arbitrary numbers plucked out of the air or numbers dependent on whether sellers are “greedy” or not. In the competition of the marketplace, prices are signals that convey underlying realities about relative scarcities and relative costs of production.

    Those underlying realities are not changed in the slightest by price controls. You might as well try to deal with someone’s fever by putting the thermometer in cold water to lower the reading.

    This is my fear, that someday I will open the newspaper and learn that American, United, Delta, Northwest, or Continental has reduced or even ceased service to and from Wichita. That day, when it becomes difficult to travel to or from Wichita at any price, that is the day we will feel the harm the subsidy causes.

    On a personal level, my job as software engineer requires me to make from ten to twenty airline trips each year. Some of the places I travel to — Jackson, Mississippi and Lexington, Kentucky, for example — are not served by AirTran. If I am not able to travel there, no matter what the price, I will either have to find a different job or move from Wichita.

    Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I urge you to reconsider your support of the AirTran subsidy. Even though the legislature and governor have agreed to pay for most of the subsidy, I believe the subsidy is not in our long-term interest. We need to let the price system, operating in a free market, do its job in guiding the allocation of scarce resources for both producers and consumers. The result may be more expensive fares. The alternative, which is the very real possibility of greatly reduced service to and from Wichita, is much more harmful.

    Other Voice For Liberty in Wichita articles on this topic:

    The AirTran Subsidy and its Unseen Effects
    As Expected, Price Controls Harm Wichita Travelers
    AirTran Subsidy Is Harmful
    Wichita City Council Meeting, April 19, 2005
    Wichita Eagle Says “AirTran Subsidies Foster Competition”
    AirTran Subsidy Remarks
    The Downside of Being the Air Cap by Harry R. Clements. This article makes a striking conclusion as to why airfares in Wichita were so high.
    Letter to County Commissioners Regarding AirTran Subsidy
    Open Letter to Wichita City Council Regarding AirTran Subsidy
    Stretching Figures Strains Credibility

  • Reporting on Wichita’s new terminal

    A Wichita Eagle article published on June 29, 2006 explores the need for a new terminal at the Wichita Airport. I have some issues with the reporting in this article, as it is quite biased in favor of those advocating the new terminal. When you combine people eager to spend others’ money with sloppy newspaper reporting we have a situation where reason — not to mention sanity — is not likely to prevail.

    An example of the sloppy reporting is when it is noted that the existing terminal was dedicated in 1954, and the director of airports is quoted as saying the terminal “is functionally obsolete.” Never mind that the terminal has been expanded greatly and reworked and remodeled several times since then. Now I can understand the director of airports wanting a shiny new terminal to work in, perhaps even to be named for him after he retires. Neither is a good reason for building it, however.

    Advocates for a new terminal say we need one because the present terminal “Doesn’t have space for adequate security.” If this defect is actually present, I recommend we close the airport immediately! We can’t have an airport without adequate security. I hope no one from out of town — certainly no terrorists, at least — is reading this article.

    In the article, a photograph was captioned “Fliers must wait in line at the ticketing counter, then in another line at the checkpoint. A larger terminal, officials say, would lessen crowding.” I might ask, is there any airport where there are not separate lines for ticketing and security? Or are there plans for airports to be built that integrate check in and security? I realize that newspaper reporters are merely quoting someone, but to print a statement like this implies that a new terminal will somehow fix this problem.

    Also, many people today check in at home or office through the airlines’ websites, and therefore are able to bypass the ticket counter entirely if they don’t have checked baggage.

    Another photograph was captioned “The baggage claim area can get crowded very quickly, airport officials say, and there is no space available in the existing terminal to expand it.” I might remark that the baggage claim area is crowded not with travelers, but with the people who came to greet them. This is also a problem at the Wichita airport as arriving passengers depart the secure area. The throng of greeters makes it difficult to get by, sometimes. But a little remodeling might fix this.

    Also, advocates say the present airport “Doesn’t give visitors a good first impression of the city.” I guess whether this is true or not depends on one’s viewpoint. When I travel, I appreciate facilities that look like they were built economically and are operated efficiently, as I know it is I, the traveler and taxpayer, who pays for these things.

    Advocates claim that no local tax money will be spent to build a new terminal. They may be correct. But someone has to pay for it, be it the federal taxpayer or Wichita Airport user, and there is bound to be much local tax money spent on infrastructure improvements surrounding a new terminal. If airline tickets were itemized like hotel bills and rental car bills, showing the various taxes and charges that fliers pay, we would be more aware of who will pay, and how they will pay, for a new terminal.

    We should also remember that travelers to our city pay a lot of tax. As I travel, I am very aware of the huge taxes I pay when I use hotels and rental cars. As an example, a recent hotel bill in Pennsylvania with a room rate of $109 swelled to $124 with taxes. A car rental bill there for $409 really cost $532 after taxes, fees, and other charges imposed by local governments, taxing authorities, and airports. Many local governments, ours included, use these taxes to painlessly raise revenue, they say, as locals rarely pay them. But visitors do pay them, and they leave a bitter impression about the local governments that levy them.

  • What’s Good for Gander Not Good For Goose

    The July, 2006 issue of Budget & Tax News reports that Gander Mountain is opposing the giving of tax breaks to its competitors. A quote from the article:

    Fairness Is Questioned

    However, Gander Mountain and its developer, Oppidan Investment Co., argue granting special favors to any one retailer leads down a slippery slope. “If you give [a tax break] to a Wal-Mart, should you give it to Target? If you give it to Home Depot, then should you give it to Lowe’s? And if you give it to Bass Pro, shouldn’t you give it to Cabela’s and Gander Mountain? How about we just don’t give it to anybody?” Oppidan CEO Mike Ayers said to the Toledo Blade for a March 22 article.

    When the CEO of Gander Mountain was asked why the company doesn’t take subsidies he replied:

    We believe in the American system of free enterprise and consider these demands to be anti-competitive and fundamentally inappropriate. We cannot in good conscience go down that road and maintain our integrity as a good corporate citizen. We think it’s wrong. So we are unwilling to accept the “everyone is doing it” argument and become part of the problem./blockquote>

    More from the Gander Mountain CEO:

    Resources that could be used for education or true economic development are being wasted on private retail developments. Communities have been paying big money to bring in low-paying retail jobs. Buda, Texas, for instance, gave Cabela’s subsidies worth $61 million, or about $271,000 for every full-time job, according to our estimates. Reno, Nevada spent $54 million, or $208,000 for every job. It also should be noted that incentives to lure retail into a community often do harm to businesses already located in the area. Local stores and other national firms like Gander Mountain, who don’t seek subsidies, are placed at a competitive disadvantage by this practice. Studies have also demonstrated that the promises of increased revenue, jobs, and economic growth are seldom fulfilled.

    I was quite astonished to read these articles, as Gander Mountain certainly received a lot of aid from Wichita. To be precise, I believe the aid that Wichita gave to Gander Mountain was not in the form of a tax break. Nor was it a subsidy, if by subsidy we mean an ongoing series of payments.

    Instead, Gander Mountain received an outright gift from our city and a sweetheart lease. Now that this company has apparently changed its mind about receiving government handouts, should Wichita ask for its money back?

    Update, July 8, 2006

    I received a communication from a representative of Gander Mountain seeking to correct a mistake I made in this article. It was the developers of WaterWalk, not Gander Mountain directly, that received the subsidy from the City of Wichita. That subsidy undoubtedly let the developers offer Gander Mountain an “attractive lease rate,” as the Gander Mountain representative wrote.

    I apologize for this mistake. It is, in my opinion, a distinction without a difference. Giving money to one party so that they can give it to another is still a subsidy, and the introduction of a middleman probably added to what the city had to pay.

    Also, the City of Wichita built a parking garage for the use of Gander Mountain customers, as well as customers of other businesses, should any appear. This was reported to cost $2.1 million.

  • What to do with others’ money

    Writing from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    In a June 20, 2006 Wichita Eagle editorial, Rhonda Holman writes about the WaterWalk project in Wichita.

    Evidently there is controversy over the public not knowing the name of the “destination restaurant” that is being courted and favored with a gift of $1 million. To me, the controversy is not the identify of the restaurant or when and how the city should conduct its negotiations, but that we are paying for a restaurant to be built.

    We are not lacking for fine restaurants in Wichita. On both the east and west sides of town (and other parts, too), many excellent restaurants have been opened recently, and more are being built as I write. The Eagle has even reported on their astonishment at how many there are.

    The problem is, I believe, that these restaurants were not built where Ms. Holman and our local government leaders feel they should have been built. But that’s not a problem, except to her and them.

    The people who built these restaurants did so by investing their own money, or the money that others entrusted to them. These people did so voluntarily. They presumably built their restaurants where they thought they could earn the best return on their investment. And having invested several million dollars of their own money in the restaurant, they have a strong incentive to make the restaurant a success.

    But that’s not good enough for Ms. Holman. Evidently she does not appreciate the sacrifice that people have made in order to accumulate the funds needed to make these spectacular investments. She may not be aware of — or maybe she does not respect or value — the tremendous effort and work it takes to run a successful restaurant.

    Just because these people did not build their restaurants where she (and our local government leaders) thought they should have been built, she wants to tax them — and the rest of us, too — and give the proceeds of that tax to a new competitor.

    Is this the type of behavior by our local government and our town’s leading newspaper that is likely to lead to other new private investment?

    Ms. Holman’s editorial stance, along with the actions of our local government leaders, constitute a slap in the fact for those who have been foolish enough (we can now conclude this) to invest money in any industry in which the government is likely to set up their competitor.

    This harmful attitude is summarized in this plea to get the WaterWalk project moving faster, “… so that citizens not only can see where their money is going but also soon start enjoying more of their investment.”

    Making an investment, I might remind Ms. Holman, is something that people do voluntarily because they believe it is in their interest.

    The WaterWalk project and the new downtown restaurant are being paid for by taxes. The expenditure is being made to serve the interests of politicians, subsidized developers, and people like Ms. Holman who believe they know best what to do with others’ money. There is a tremendous difference between the two.