Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita Downtown Development Corporation

  • Despite allegations, Wichita’s Dave Burk remains favored

    As Wichita proceeds with the redevelopment of its downtown, one developer seems to be on the cutting edge of harvesting corporate welfare — despite his past behavior. Last year this person, Dave Burk of Marketplace Properties, acted in a way the Wichita Eagle described as deceptive in order to reduce his property taxes. Yet, Burk remains a favored developer at city hall, and he’s soon going to ask taxpayers to pay higher taxes for his benefit. These are the same taxes he himself doesn’t like to pay. The following article from February 2010 explains.

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains a story about a well-known Wichita real estate developer that, while shocking, shouldn’t really be all that unexpected.

    The opening sentence of the article (Developer won tax appeal on city site) tells us most of what we need to know: “Downtown Wichita’s leading developer, David Burk, represented himself as an agent of the city — without the city’s knowledge or consent — to cut his taxes on publicly owned property he leases in the Old Town Cinema Plaza, according to court records and the city attorney.”

    Some might say it’s not surprising that Burk represented himself in the way the Eagle article reports. When a person’s been on the receiving end of so much city hall largess, it’s an occupational hazard.

    And when you’ve been the beneficiary of so much Wichita taxpayer money, you might even begin to think that you shouldn’t have to pay so much tax anymore.

    At the state level, you might seek over a million dollars of taxpayer money to help you renovate an apartment building.

    Burk has certainly laid the groundwork, at least locally. A registered Republican voter, Burk regularly stocks the campaign coffers of Wichita city council members with contributions. These contributions — at least for city council candidates — are apparently made without regard to the political leanings of the candidates. How else can we explain recent contributions made to two city council members who are decidedly left of center: Lavonta Williams and Janet Miller? Burk and his wife made contributions to their campaigns in the maximum amount allowed by law.

    This is especially puzzling in light of Burk’s contributions to campaigns at the federal level. There, a search at the Federal Election Commission shows a single contribution of $250 to Todd Tiahrt in 2005.

    It’s quite incongruous that someone would contribute to Tiahrt, Williams, and Miller. Except Williams and Miller can — and have — cast votes that directly enrich Burk. Politicians at the federal level don’t have the same ability to do that as do Wichita city council members. Well, at least not considering Wichita city business.

    So which is it: is Burk a believer in Republican principles, a believer in good government, or someone who knows where his next taxpayer handout will come from?

    Burk’s enablers — these include Wichita’s lobbyist Dale Goter, Wichita Downtown Development Corporation president Jeff Fluhr and chairman Larry Weber, Wichita City Manager Robert Layton, Wichita economic development chief Allen Bell, and most importantly Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and various city council members — now have to decide if they want to continue in their efforts to enrich Burk. Continuing to do so will harm their reputations. The elected officials, should they run for office again, will have to explain their actions to voters.

    At the state level, the bill that will enrich Burk will likely be voted on in the Kansas Senate this week. Then, similar action may take place in the Kansas House of Representatives. Let’s hope they read the Wichita Eagle in Topeka.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday June 1, 2011

    Transportation planning. It’s been the assumption in America over the last half-century that transportation needs — roads, bridges, buses, subways, etc. — must be planned by government in a top-down fashion. But the Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole disagrees: “Should transportation be funded and planned from the top down or bottom up? Top-down advocates, such as the Brookings Institution’s Robert Puentes (writing in the May 23, 2011 Wall Street Journal) argue that only central planners can have a ‘clear-cut vision for transportation’ that will allow them to target spending ‘to make sure all those billions of dollars help achieve our economic and environmental goals.’ Advocates of bottom-up funding, such as the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and Heritage Foundation, respond that public and private transportation providers better serve our needs when they are responsive to the fees people pay for various forms of transportation. In fact, most of the problems with transportation today, from an antiquated air-traffic control system to deteriorating bridges to empty transit buses, are due to top-down planning.” O’Toole goes on to explain the problems with federal funding of local transportation projects, concluding “No matter how well intentioned, top-down transportation planning quickly turns into a combination of social engineering and pork barrel. It is time to return to a bottom-up funding system that rewards transport agencies and companies for reducing costs and increasing mobility.” … In Wichita, the bus transit system is running a deficit, and the city manager has warned that cuts to service may be made. Most people would be surprised that in 2009, the fares paid by passengers covered just 22.5 percent of the bus system’s total cost, according to Michael Vinson, Director of Transit for the City of Wichita. The Wichita Eagle recently reported the figure as just 20 percent. The rest of the cost is covered by a variety of local, state, and federal grants. … Is it a coincidence that Wichita’s bus service is a top-down government-planned service? And what does this foretell for the future of other government-planned and provided transit, which is said by government planners like the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation to be necessary for the revitalization of downtown Wichita

    Pompeo, Huelskamp ‘no’ on debt limit. U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Wichita Republican serving his first term, voted “no” to increasing the U.S. federal debt limit, which currently is about $14.3 trillion dollars. In a statement, Pompeo said; “I voted no on raising the debt ceiling. No to more debt without a change in behavior. No to increasing the credit card limit when the Obama Administration has zero commitment to reducing the unsustainable rate of spending. No to business as usual in Washington, D.C. … With this debt ceiling vote, my colleagues and I are putting down a marker on behalf of the American people. Americans have rejected the status quo and sent me along with 86 other Republican Freshmen to Congress to reverse course. Earlier this year, the President presented a spending plan to Congress for 2012. Unfortunately, that plan proposed 10 straight years of deficits in excess of $1 trillion. That is a recipe for disaster and one which we cannot accept on behalf of the Americans who sent us here to rein in out-of-control government spending.” … In explaining his intent to vote against the bill, Tim Huelskamp, who represents the Kansas first district, said: “The President’s request to increase the debt limit without cutting spending is irresponsible and fiscally reckless, therefore I plan to vote against it. The acquisition of more debt while failing to deal with Washington’s addiction to spending only sustains Washington’s unhealthy behaviors. It puts the country on the path of Greece. We owe it to the American people and to future generations to deal with overspending once and for all.” Lynn Jenkins and Kevin Yoder, the other representatives from Kansas, also voted against raising the debt limit. … Proponents of federal spending insist that we must increase our debt limit or financial markets will tank and economic activity will come to a halt. The Concord Coalition writes: “Approval of a debt limit increase is necessary to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States government. Failure to approve an increase would not be an act of fiscal responsibility, unless it can be said that deadbeats are fiscally responsible because they refuse to pay their bills. It would result in the United States defaulting on the commitments it has already made, including Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits, vendor payments, tax refunds, student loans and interest payments on outstanding debt.” The Cato Institute counters: “A temporarily frozen debt limit could instead signal U.S. lawmakers’ resolve to get our fiscal house in order. It may even reassure investors about long-term U.S. economic prospects. … For too long, analysts and politicians have balked at the massive political impediments to reforming the federal budget — especially entitlement programs. Many now concede, actually, that no prudential reforms are likely unless there is an imminent ‘crisis.’ On the other hand, political liberals argue that there is no real ‘crisis’ — and so no need for real reforms. … Indeed, investors should be fearful of the opposite: an increase in the debt limit without a serious challenge from reform-minded lawmakers. This only signals business as usual for U.S. fiscal affairs.”

    This Week in Kansas. Recently the KAKE Television public affairs program This Week in Kansas started placing episodes on its website. On the most recent episode, Malcolm Harris and I join host Tim Brown for a discussion of the Kansas Legislature and economic development topics. Also, Meteorologist Jay Prater contributes a segment on storm preparation.

    Kingman is the first. The office of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has announced that Kingman County, just to the west of Wichita, is the first county to participate in the new Rural Opportunity Zone student loan repayment program. This program allows residents who move into counties with declining population to escape paying state income taxes for five years. In deciding to participate in the student loan repayment program, the county and the state will participate equally in repaying student loans of up to $15,000 for college graduates who move to Kingman County. … In a statement, the governor said “I am pleased Kingman County commissioners recognize the direct benefit of partnering with the state to attract college graduates to their community. This aggressive policy move is targeted to grow our shrinking rural counties. Like the Homestead Act, ROZ offers opportunity instead of handpicking winners and losers.” While almost all welcome the ROZ program — the legislation passed 102 to 18 in the House and 34 to 5 in the Senate — the nostalgia for the glory days of small-town Kansas may not be in our best interests. In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, which has influenced Governor Brownback’s economic policy, Dr. Art Hall wrote that productivity — which should be our ultimate goal — is related to population density: “Productivity growth is the ultimate goal of economic development. Productivity growth — the volume and value of output per worker — drives the growth of wages and wealth. Productivity growth results from a risky trial and error process on the front lines of individual businesses, which is why Kansas economic development strategy should focus on embracing dynamism — a focus virtually indistinguishable from widespread business investment and risk-taking. Productivity growth tends to happen in geographic areas characterized by density. This pattern shows up in Kansas. The dense population centers demonstrate superior productivity growth.”

    Legislature is through for season. Today both the Kansas House of Representatives and Senate met for sine die, a fancy Latin term for its ceremonial last day, although action may be taken. The House made an attempt to override the governor’s line-item veto of funding for the Kansas Arts Commission, but the effort failed by a vote of 50 to 44. Two-thirds, or 84 votes, would be needed to override the veto. The Senate didn’t make an attempt. The next meeting of both chambers of the Kansas Legislature will be on January 9, 2012, although there are many committee meetings during the summer and fall months.

    Stossel looks at energy. In a recent episode of his weekly television show available to view using the free hulu service, John Stossel looks at various forms of energy and asks: Who will keep the lights on? … Early in the show, Stossel argues with Bill O’Reilly over the role of speculators in the run-up of oil prices. O’Reilly favors strict regulation of speculators, believing that the market is rigged. In a discussion with two guests, wild speculation was promoted as the cause of rapidly rising prices, with some trades by traders said to be stoned at the time. But it was mentioned that speculation carries huge risks, and if the speculators are wrong, they lose — and big. For more on speculators, see Speculators selfishly provide a public service.

  • TIF, a Wichita ‘tool,’ might be on the way out in California

    In the Wall Street Journal, Steven Greenhut writes about California’s redevelopment agencies, which are very similar to tax increment financing districts (TIF) in Kansas. California governor Jerry Brown has proposed ending these agencies. Local government officials, who are beneficiaries of the agencies, are pushing back. A controller’s report in California finds that the agencies are a “source of waste and governmental abuse — not a generator of jobs and economic growth.” This is consistent with other economic research on TIF districts.

    Greenhut correctly diagnosis the problem with these agencies or districts: “Redevelopment has attracted the Brown administration’s attention for an obvious reason: The more aggressive cities have become in using this ‘tool,’ the more they divert tax dollars from traditional public services like schools, fire-fighting and police services.” The use of the term “tool” evokes the rhetoric of Wichita city council members, who are wishing for more “tools in the toolbox.”

    As part of its approval of the Goody Clancy plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, Susan Estes asked the city council to formally disavow the use of eminent domain for the purposes of transferring property from one person to another. While the city says it does not intend to use the power of eminent domain for this purpose, the reluctance of the council to add this provision to the plan means that it is held in reserve. Mayor Carl Brewer believes it is “one of the tools that is available to the city.” And when perceived to be needed, the power of eminent domain is usually too powerful to resist.

    TIF district money is expected to be a key component of the public financing contribution to downtown Wichita redevelopment.

    Greenhut concludes: “While economic development and local control are crucial issues, it’s hard to understand why any Republican would believe that a regime of government planning and subsidy is the best way to achieve those goals. They should be standing up against the abuses of property rights and the fiscal irresponsibility inherent in the redevelopment process and championing market-based alternatives to urban improvement — even if it means defending a proposal from a Democratic governor they often disagree with.” Or here in Wichita, a liberal Democratic mayor who champions the centralized government planning of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation.

    Greenhut’s most recent book is Plunder: How Public Employee Unions are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation.

    Jerry Brown’s Good Deed Gets Punished

    California’s governor wants to close his state’s redevelopment agencies, which abuse property rights and breed dependency among city governments.

    By Steven Greenhut

    Forced to choose between funding public schools and subsidizing ritzy golf courses, many California officials prefer the latter. That’s become painfully clear in the past few weeks as Golden State politicians have fiercely opposed Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to shave $1.7 billion from the state’s budget deficit by shuttering California’s 400 redevelopment agencies.

    The roots of this story go back to 1945, when the California legislature allowed cities and counties to form these redevelopment agencies. Their purpose, at least in theory, was to fight urban blight. Once public officials deem an area blighted, redevelopment agencies can use eminent domain to clear old properties and sell bonds to pay for improvements.

    To pay off the bonds, the agencies gobble up any subsequent increase in tax revenue — what the state calls the “tax increment.” In addition, a portion of the sales taxes generated by the new retail and commercial centers go into city, not state, coffers. That’s the main reason redevelopment agencies are popular among local politicians, Republican and Democratic alike. (Plus, they allow pols to reward favored corporations and developers.)

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) or Pacific Research Institute (no subscription required).

  • Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer: State of the City 2011

    This week Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer delivered his annual “State of the City” address. While the Wichita Eagle editorial commenting on the mayor’s speech is titled “Cause to boast, hope,” a look at some of the important topics the mayor addressed will lead some to conclude otherwise.

    The text of the mayor’s address may be read at several places, including here.

    Economic development

    Regarding Wichita’s economic development, the mayor said that the city’s efforts saved 745 jobs and created 435 jobs, for a total impact of 1,180 jobs. To place those numbers in context, we note that American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates the labor force in Wichita is 191,760 persons. This means that the economic development efforts of the City of Wichita affected a number of jobs equivalent to 0.6 percent of the city workforce.

    This small number of jobs impacted by the city’s economic development initiatives is dwarfed by other economic events. Additionally, these efforts by the city are counterproductive — if our interest is creating a dynamic economy in Wichita. Analysis by the Kauffman Foundation finds that it is new firms — young firms, in other words — that are the primary drivers of job creation. But the economic development policies of cities like Wichita are definitely biased toward older, established firms. The cost of these economic development efforts, which are paid for by everyone including young businesses firms struggling to grow, means that we prop up unproductive companies at the expense of the type of firms we need to really grow the Wichita economy.

    In particular, the mayor’s proudest achievement — he nearly burst with pride when speaking of it — pours a large amount of state, county, and city funds into Hawker Beechcraft, an old-line company that is shrinking its employment in Kansas. This deal with Hawker Beechcraft should not be viewed as a proud moment for Wichita and Kansas. Instead, we should view this as succumbing to economic blackmail by Hawker, based on a threat that may not have been genuine. We responded by making in investment in an old-line, shrinking company, apparently the first time that the state has invested public funds in a downsizing company.

    Furthermore, the investment in Hawker comes on the heels of an analysis that says Hawker should divest itself of all its lines of business except for one. The analysis paints a grim future for Hawker: “In addition, backlogs are dwindling, R&D budgets are miniscule, employee pensions are underfunded by $296 million and the prospects of paying down its long-term debt are remote. At this point, it would be a monumental task just to roll-over the debt, let alone pay it off entirely. At the root of the problem is the state of Hawker Beechcraft’s business jet product lines. … At the heart of HBC’s current strategy is the assumption that a market recovery will fix what’s ailing the company, and that is just not true. The company’s business aviation products are seriously underperforming with new products relegated to minor upgrades due to a token R&D budgets based on an across-the-board derivative strategy.”

    The mayor also touted an agreement with Bombardier Learjet for the company to produce a new jet in Wichita. This deal required that the state issue bonds to raise money to give to Bombardier. The bonds will be paid off by the company’s employee withholding taxes. That’s money that would normally go to the state’s general fund. Instead, this deal raises the cost of government for everyone else.

    The mayor said of these deals: “As I suggested at the time of the Hawker deal, this was a declaration that Kansas and Wichita will fight to keep its aircraft industry. As I said then, ‘You’re not going to take what’s most important to us, and that’s our aviation industry.’ Simply put, we will not lose these jobs. Period.”

    Unfortunately, the mayor’s declaration is an invitation to Kansas companies of all types to seek public funds just as these two companies did, and as others have across Kansas. The result is increased costs of government and a state and city less inviting to the dynamic and innovative young companies that we now know are the engine of prosperity and job growth.

    The mayor also lauded the use of “revenue bonds” used for the construction of a IMAX movie theater in west Wichita. Focusing on the bonds allowed the mayor to gloss over the large measure of property tax forgiveness — corporate welfare — granted to the Warren Theater. The theater’s owners have received corporate welfare before from the city.

    Plans for downtown

    On the master plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, the mayor said the plan will “lead us to a point where ultimately the private investment exceeds public investment by a 15 to 1 ratio.” At the time agitation for a downtown plan started two years ago, research indicated that the ratio of private to public investment in downtown was approximately one to one. It’s quite a stretch for the mayor to promise an eventual 15 to one ratio, especially since the Goody Clancy plan recently adopted by the city council calls for — over the next 20 years — $500 million in private investment supported by $100 million of public investment. That’s a five to one ratio, not the 15 to one mentioned by the mayor. Even then, it will be surprising if anything near a five to one ratio is achieved.

    The mayor also promoted the decision by Cargill to build a new facility downtown as a sign of success. This facility, however, required over $2.5 million in various subsidy from state and local governments. It hardly seems a measure of proud success when companies are able to extract this level of corporate welfare in exchange for locating facilities in Wichita.

    Accountability and transparency

    In his address, Mayor Brewer promoted the city’s efforts in accountability and transparency, telling the audience: “We must continue to be responsive to you. Building on our belief that government at all levels belongs to the people. We must continue our efforts that expand citizen engagement. … And we must provide transparency in all that we do.”

    This an instance in which the actions of the city do not match with Brewer’s rhetoric. A small example is from last fall when the city had a stakeholder meeting to discuss the city’s community improvement district policy. While the term “stakeholder” is vague and means different things to different people, you might think that such a gathering might include representatives from the community at large. Instead, the meeting was stacked almost exclusively with those who have an interest in extracting as much economic subsidy as possible from the city. Often we find that meetings of this type are designed so that no dissenting voices are present.

    More importantly, the City of Wichita has failed to follow a fundamental law that provides accountability and transparency: the Kansas Open Records Act.

    I have made requests for records from three quasi-governmental agencies, two of which are under the city’s direct influence: Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition. Each of these organizations denied that they are public agencies as defined in the KORA, and therefore refused to fulfill my requests.

    Two times last year I appeared before the city council when the city was considering renewal of its contract with Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau. I asked the mayor that as a condition of renewing the contracts, the city ask that the agencies follow the law. But the mayor and the city rely on an incorrect interpretation of the KORA from city attorney Gary Rebenstorf and refused to act on my request. It should be noted that Rebenstorf has been wrong several times before when issuing guidance to the council regarding the Kansas Open Meetings Act, which is similar to the Open Records Act. He’s taken the blame and apologized for these violations.

    The Kansas Open Records Act in KSA 45-216 (a) states: “It is declared to be the public policy of the state that public records shall be open for inspection by any person unless otherwise provided by this act, and this act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote such policy.” Governments in Kansas should be looking at ways to increase availability of information. Instead, the City of Wichita uses a narrow — not liberal — interpretation of the records law restrict citizen access to records. At some time I believe the city’s legal position will be shown to be wrong.

    At any time the mayor could ask — and it could have been written into their contracts — that these agencies comply with the Kansas Open Records Act. The mayor’s refusal to do so indicates an attitude of accountability and transparency on the city’s terms, not on citizens’ terms and the law.

    Citizen response

    At many levels of government, when the chief executive makes an annual address like this, time is provided for someone to make a response, usually someone with a different point of view. This is the practice at the federal level, and also in Kansas when the governor delivers the state of the state address.

    The City of Wichita ought to do the same.

  • In Wichita, who is to plan?

    In presenting the plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, Wichita’s planners routinely make no distinction between government planning and private planning. In their presentations, they will draw analogies between the wisdom of individuals or businesses creating and following a plan and government doing the same.

    An example is Wichita Downtown Development Corporation President Jeff Fluhr, who told the Wichita Pachyderm Club that the development of downtown is like the planning of an automobile trip, so that we don’t make major investments that we later regret.

    But government and the private sector are very different, facing greatly different constraints, motivations, and access to information. As a result, the two planning processes are entirely different and not compatible.

    In the following excerpt from Planning for Freedom: Let the Market System Work. A Collection of Essays and Addresses, Ludwig von Mises addresses this issue. As Mises writes, the choice is not between planning or no planning. The choice is who is to plan.

    “Conscious Planning” versus “Automatic Forces”

    As the self-styled “progressives” see things, the alternative is: “automatic forces” or “conscious planning.” It is obvious, they go on saying, that to rely upon automatic processes is sheer stupidity. No reasonable man can seriously recommend doing nothing and letting things go without any interference through purposive action. A plan, by the very fact that it is a display of conscious action, is incomparably superior to the absence of any planning. Laissez faire means: let evils last and do not try to improve the lot of mankind by reasonable action.

    This is utterly fallacious and deceptive talk. The argument advanced for planning is derived entirely from an inadmissable interpretation of a metaphor. It has no foundation other than the connotations implied in the term “automatic,” which is customarily applied in a metaphorical sense to describe the market process. Automatic, says the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means “unconscious, unintelligent, merely mechanical.” Automatic, says Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, means “not subject to the control of the will . . . performed without active thought and without conscious intention or direction.” What a triumph for the champion of planning to play this trump-card!

    The truth is that the choice is not between a dead mechanism and a rigid automatism on the one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is: whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself or should the paternal government alone plan for all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is spontaneous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.

    Laissez faire does not mean: let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: let individuals choose how they want to cooperate in the social division of labor and let them determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion.

    Under laissez faire, says the planner, the goods produced are not those which people “really” need, but those goods from the sale of which the highest returns are expected. It is the objective of planning to direct production toward the satisfaction of “true” needs. But who should decide what “true” needs are?

    …

    The various planners agree only with regard to their rejection of laissez faire, i.e., the individual’s discretion to choose and to act. They disagree entirely on the choice of the unique plan to be adopted. To every exposure of the manifest and incontestable defects of interventionist policies the champions of interventionism always react in the same way. These faults, they say, were the sins of spurious interventionism; what we are advocating is good interventionism. And, of course, good interventionism is the professor’s own brand only.

  • Wichita’s vision, by the urbanist elites

    Why are some in Wichita so insistent on pushing their vision of what our city should look like, and why are they willing and eager to use the coercive force of government to achieve their vision? In the article below, Randal O’Toole, using a work by Thomas Sowell, provides much insight into understanding why.

    Reading this post, I couldn’t help think of Wichita: the “manufactured crisis” of too much driving and too little walking; the desire by many, including several Wichita City Council members — even self-styled conservative members — to expand the power and reach of government; and the denial of responsibility for obvious failures like Waterwalk.

    We should remember that the plan for downtown Wichita developed by Boston planning firm Goody Clancy is a plan developed by and for self-styled elites. We only need to remember when David Dixon, Goody Clancy’s principal, told Wichitans that in the future, Wichitans will be able to “enjoy the kind of social and cultural richness” that is only found at the core. That’s an insult to the vast majority of Wichitans, but the elites in Wichita evidently believe it, or are willing to tolerate this insult in order to achieve their vision.

    O’Toole visited Wichita last year and presented a fascinating lecture.

    The Vision of the Urbanites

    By Randal O’Toole

    As the Antiplanner has traveled and visited people all over the country, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon. Though I’ve met thousands of suburban and rural residents who are very happy with their homes and lifestyles, I’ve never met one who thinks the power of government should be used to force others to live in the same lifestyle. Yet I’ve met lots of urban residents who openly admit that they believe their lifestyle is so perfect that government should force more if not most people to live in dense, “walkable” cities.

    Do cities turn people into liberal fascists? Or do liberal fascists naturally congregate into cities, and if so, why?

    A general description of the phenomenon I’ve observed can be found in Thomas Sowell’s 1995 book, The Vision of the Anointed. Sowell says that America’s liberal elites view themselves as smarter or more insightful than everyone else, and thus qualified to impose their ideas on everyone else. The process of doing so, says Sowell, follows four steps (p. 8):

    First, the anointed identify or, more usually, manufacture a crisis. Sowell’s book reviews three such crises: poverty, crime, and teen pregnancy, all of which were declining in the 1960s when the liberals turned them into crises. The crises relevant to this blog include such things as urban sprawl (totally manufactured as in fact it is not a problem at all) and auto driving (while some of the effects of driving are negative, these are easily corrected while the overall benefits of driving are positive).

    Second, the anointed propose a solution that inevitably involves government action. Sowell makes it clear that the the leadership of the elites go out of their way to define or manufacture the crises in ways that make it appear the government action are the only solutions. In other words, their real goal is to make government bigger, not to solve problems. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it doesn’t really matter; what matters is they propose the wrong solutions to problems that often don’t really exist.

    Third, once the solution is implemented, the results turn out to be very different, and often far worse, than predicted by the anointed. Crime, poverty, and teen pregnancy went up, not down, when government stepped in to “fix” these problems in the 1960s. In the case of urban planning, anti-sprawl policies made housing unaffordable and led to the recent mortgage crisis. Anti-automobile policies make congestion worse and therefore waste even more energy and produce more pollution.

    The final stage is one of denial, in which the elites claim that their policies had nothing to do with the worsening results. Other factors were at work, they claim; in fact, the results might have been even worse if their enlightened policies had not been put into effect.

    Sowell notes that the anointed use several tactics to promote their ideas. For example, “empirical evidence itself may be viewed as suspect, insofar as it is inconsistent with that vision” (p. 2). Whenever the Antiplanner uses data to show that there is no urban sprawl crisis or rail transit doesn’t work in a debate with an urban anointed, the inevitable response is some version of “figures don’t lie but liars figure.” “Statistics can be used to show anything you want,” is another version. These comforting words leave the anointed free to dismiss any data and all that conflict with their vision.

    A second fundamental tactic is to presume that they have the moral high ground. “Those who accept this vision are deemed to be not merely factually correct but morally on a higher plane,” says Sowell. “Put differently, those who disagree with the prevailing vision are seen as being not merely in error, but in sin” (pp. 2-3). The term “smart growth” is a classic example of this tactic, used solely to bludgeon any dissenters with the claim that they must favor “dumb growth.”

    Relying on tactics like these, the anointed avoid confronting the fraudulent nature of their crises and the failures of their solutions. “What is remarkable is how few arguments are really engaged in, and how many substitutes for arguments there are,” says Sowell (p. 6).

    While The Vision of the Anointed describes the situation, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of why people think that way. A partial answer is provided by Sowell’s 1987 book, A Conflict of Visions, in which Sowell traces two different world views back to the late eighteenth century. One view, expressed by Adam Smith, is that humans are imperfect and so we should design institutions that work even if the face of these imperfections. The other view, proposed by William Godwin, is that humans are perfectable, which suggests that the benign hand of government authority should be used to guide people to that perfection.

    Today, the Tea Party represents the descendants of Adam Smith, while urban planners are descendants of Godwin. As University of California planners Mel Webber and Fred Collignon wrote more than a decade ago, urban planners were “heir to the postulates of the Enlightenment with its faith in perfectibility.”

    The question still remains: why are urbanites more susceptible to the vision of the anointed? Perhaps part of the answer is that the constant friction between strangers that cities impose on their residents leads to a desire for government authority to protect people from those frictions. But a larger part of the answer may be that the role of government is far more visible in cities than elsewhere, and far larger in cities today than in the past, so residents of those cities cannot imagine living without it — and those who want more government are attracted to those cities. In any case, everyone in general and urbanites in particular should be wary of any ideas that make government bigger, as they are probably just part of some elitist scheme to coercively impose their vision on everyone else.

    The link to this article at O’Toole’s site is The Vision of the Urbanites.

  • Government is not business, and can’t be

    As Wichita begins its implementation of the plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, stakeholders like to delude themselves that the plan is “market-driven,” that the city will make prudent use of public “investment,” and that the plan’s supporters really do believe in free markets after all. It’s a business-like approach, they say.

    But government is not business. The two institutions are entirely different. Government cannot act as a business does — the incentives and motivations are wrong. But some refuse to accept the distinction between the two, insisting that just because an organization — say the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation — is entirely supported (except for a little private fundraising one year) by taxpayer funds, it’s not the same as a government institution.

    The City of Wichita suffers from all the problems cited in this excerpt from Central Planning Comes to Main Street by Steven Greenhut, which appeared in the August 2006 issue of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. As our city moves away from development based on markets to development based on government planning, and away from a dynamic free market approach to economic development towards political and bureaucratic management of our destiny, we can expect these problems to become more ingrained.

    Problems with Incentives

    By Steven Greenhut

    Most city managers and economic-development officials that I’ve talked to fancy themselves as CEOs of companies, and they argue that what they are doing is no different from what private companies do: maximizing revenues. “Why wouldn’t a libertarian support what we’re doing given that you value private business and understand the importance of profit?” I’ve often been asked.

    The answer is simple. Cities are not businesses. They take the tax dollars of residents and make decisions about land use that are backed by police powers. They do not operate in a market; they do not have voluntary stockholders. Despite the delusions of city managers, the city staff usually is not as sophisticated or as skilled as corporate staff, which means cities often get a poor deal when negotiating with rent-seeking corporations.

    When cities insert themselves into the economic development game, either with carrots or sticks, they:

    • Shift decision-making from individuals to governments;
    • Take money from taxpayers and redistribute it to individuals and companies;
    • Undermine property rights and other freedoms;
    • Encourage a class of rent-seekers, who learn to lobby city officials for favors and special financial benefits;
    • Put unfavored businesses at a competitive disadvantage with those who are favored; and
    • Stifle political dissent, as companies that are dependent on the city for lucrative work become reluctant to speak their minds about any number of city issues.

    Despite what city managers will tell you, the choice is not between economic development and letting a city rot. The choice is between central planning, empowering officials to decide which businesses are worthy of their help, and the good old free market, which lets free people decide which business should succeed or fail.

    City officials like to be “proactive,” as they say, and help with economic development. There is something they can do. They can get out of the way, by lowering tax rates, deregulating, ending zoning restrictions, and eliminating exclusive contracts with utilities and developers. It’s not out of the question. The city of Anaheim is doing just that, with remarkable results.

    Mackinac’s LaFaive puts it well in a 2003 article: “The best business climate is one in which government ‘sticks to its knitting’ and does its particular assignments well, at the lowest possible cost while creating a ‘fair field with no favors’ environment for private enterprise.”

    Not a bad template. Sure beats a world of central planning, where city officials can choose who gets handouts and even who gets driven out of town.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wichita should reject Goody Clancy plan for downtown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Still no grocery store. Not even close.

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

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

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

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

    But look at what this city has done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is a mistake we should not make.