The Intrust Bank Arena management firm SMG must be wondering what it bit off in Wichita. Last night NBA professional basketball players put sneaker to floor in Wichita for the first time in 14 years, and only an estimated 8,000 fans showed up. (Estimate is by the Wichita Eagle.)
The game was held at the Charles Koch arena on the campus of Wichita State University. That arena has a capacity, according to the goshockers website, of 10,400.
Wichita downtown arena boosters told voters that if we passed the tax, we’d have lots of events like this, and lots of fans would attend. But in this trial run of big-time professional sports in Wichita, the fans that did attend would fill barely more than half of the new downtown Wichita arena.
Arena apologists are likely to come up with a variety of excuses for this embarrassingly poor turnout: It was only an exhibition game. It wasn’t at the downtown arena. It wasn’t the right teams. It was drizzling rain. There will always be excuses.
The citizens of Sedgwick County are going to have to hope that the Intrust Bank Arena can do a better job drawing fans. Even though the SMG contract puts that firm on the hook for losses, that contract has a lot of ways for SMG to wiggle out, even before its five year management term expires. Ultimately, it is the Sedgwick County taxpayer who is financially responsible for the arena, and it is they who must hope for success.
Sedgwick county commissioner Gwen Welshimer files for re-election.
Today, Sedgwick County Commissioner Gwen Welshimer filed for re-election to her position as a member of the commission. Her statement is below.
Welshimer, a Democrat, is so far the only candidate in that party. There are three Republicans who have either filed or are considering filing.
Welshimer campaigned and has voted as a fiscal conservative. I asked her given your fiscal conservatism, how will these Republicans differentiate themselves from you? Welshimer said that she’s not heard their campaign platforms. They are all city people, she said, likely to support funding of downtown Wichita.
Responding to my question about the downtown Wichita revitalization planning and the likelihood of a tax to fund it, she said that we’ve given the city a $210 million economic development tool called the downtown Wichita arena. The county has also given many years of property tax incentives, both in the past and in the future. The other 19 cities in the county have not enjoyed this treatment, she said.
In 2006, Welshimer signed a pledge to not raise taxes if elected, and she has fulfilled that pledge so far. Her opponent in that election, incumbent Ben Sciortino, received the endorsement of the Wichita Eagle. Welshimer narrowly won that election, 10,081 votes to 9,941.
Analysis
Given Welshimer’s fiscal conservatism, Republican candidates will find it difficult to run to her right. Her stand against tax increment financing (TIF) districts and subsidies to downtown developers means she’s not likely to get the support of those downtown developers who thrive on taxpayer subsidy. Those people contribute heavily to political campaigns. Additionally, her support for the dismissal of Sedgwick County Manager Bill Buchanan — a position I support — puts her at odds with the Chamber of Commerce crowd. They make political contributions, too.
In this district (district 5), my analysis of a recent voter file shows voter registration runs 29% Democratic, 40% Republican, and 31% unaffiliated. (The remainder are Libertarian and Reform party registrants.)
Considering recent voters (those who voted in an election in 2008), the numbers change a bit. In this case, 30% are Democratic, 44% Republican, and 26% unaffiliated.
Welshimer’s statement
I have filed as a candidate for re-election to the 5th District Seat on the Sedgwick County Commission. I want to continue holding the line for Sedgwick County taxpayers.
At this time, center Downtown redevelopment is the number one issue for this race. I want the tax dollars paid by Southeast Wichita, Derby, and Mulvane to be used for paving roads, drainage, infrastructure, traffic controls, township assistance, and business district enhancements in District #5. The $210 million sales tax arena and decades of property tax incentives for center Downtown have been a weight around the neck of my district. I will support redevelopment of Downtown through private investment only in the future.
I want more property tax reduction. I want to pay for it with new revenues and more efficient policies.
If re-elected, I will continue to work for safe, sensible, and reasonable alternatives to a costly new jail.
The Coliseum site has the potential for 1,000 new jobs and $10 million in new revenue over the next five years. I want to work to make this happen.
I want to continue to work for the success of the National Center for Aviation Training at Jabara Airport. This is evolving into a job training destination center for employers around the world and it offers an incredible new future for Sedgwick County.
I believe in the power of progressive new ideas. I have not been a commissioner who gives in to the out-of-touch “good old boy” network.
Today citizen Susan Morse of Bentley addressed the Sedgwick County Commission, asking that additional information about commission meetings be made available on the county’s website.
At the Wichita City Council, this information is called the “agenda report,” or the “packet,” or sometimes the “green sheets.” This is the detailed information about agenda items, such as staff analysis, maps, diagrams, contracts, proposed ordinances, and the like. The City of Wichita has been placing this information online for several years. There have been some meetings where the packet contained over 600 pages of material.
The fact that the county doesn’t make the agenda report easily available online is an omission that the county could easily and inexpensively correct. This is especially important because sometimes big issues are announced in a small way on the agenda. Earlier this year, the county’s plan to spend millions on an industrial park, with far-reaching implications, was announced on the agenda only as “LAND PURCHASE CONTRACT — Presented by Chris Chronis, CFO.”
Thank you to Susan Morse for taking the time to appear before the county commission, looking out for the interest of citizens.
So on a campaign literature piece, the arena supporters made this claim: “With the proposed garage structures, more than 10,000 parking spaces will be available within a three-block radius of the Arena (compared with the Coliseum’s 4,500 spaces.)”
Today, on the eve of the arena’s opening, these parking garages don’t exist.
What about surface parking spaces? According to the draft version of the parking plan submitted to the city council last week, there is “available weekday parking supply at peak of approximately 3,040 spaces within the Arena District.” That district is, approximately, a three-block radius around the arena.
The parking structures promised by arena boosters might be built. The city has approved a TIF district that surrounds the arena, and there is the potential, by my reckoning, to spend around $9 million on parking structures. But at a cost of $20,000 to $25,000 per space, this money buys 450 parking spots at most.
By the way, I learned that the number of parking spaces around the arena is likely to decrease. At least that’s the goal of one of the firms who pitched their planning services to Wichita last week. That’s because if there is development of the area immediately surrounding the arena, there won’t be room for so much parking. Travel by automobile is something to be reduced, according to most of the planners, and we should rely on transit and bicycles instead.
I realize that the arena boosters who put out this information weren’t government officials (although some may have been involved). They put out a few other whoppers, too. It’s too bad that so many citizens believed them.
Arnold, a Democrat, faces an uphill battle, based on registration figures. In this district, my analysis of a recent voter file shows voter registration runs 29% Democratic, 45% Republican, and 26% unaffiliated. (The remainder are Libertarian and Reform party registrants.)
Considering recent voters — I defined this as those who voted in an election in 2008 — the numbers are worse for Arnold. In this case, 30% are Democratic, 21% are unaffiliated, and the Republican number jumps to 49%.
It’s hard to figure out what Arnold could do to persuade Republican voters to support her. Her vote for a property tax increase, her recommendation that voters approve an expensive and unneeded bond issue, and her anti-school choice stance are not positions that will appeal to conservatives and those who value freedom and liberty, be they Republican, unaffiliated, or of any other party.
If the only Republican candidate (incumbent Dave Unruh) consistently took conservative positions, Arnold might have a case to make to moderate Republicans. But Unruh’s vote for a tax increase, his support for the downtown arena tax, and his support of TIF districts and other taxpayer giveaways such as the AirTran subsidy place him firmly in the moderate Republican camp — making it difficult for Arnold to peel off potentially left-leaning Republicans or unaffiliated voters.
Top off this with the likelihood that next year could be a big year for Republicans locally and nationwide, and Arnold starts off way behind.
It’s still possible that Unruh may face a challenge in the Republican primary. Efforts have been made to recruit a candidate, and there is one well-known conservative Republican thought to be looking at the race. Last year’s take-down of moderate Republican commissioner Tom Winters in the August primary by Karl Peterjohn will be very difficult to replicate, as Unruh has shown signs that he has been preparing for the campaign.
In the campaign for the sales tax to build the downtown Wichita arena (Intrust Bank Arena), the idea of hosting NCAA men’s basketball games was promoted as something that would happen if voters approved the arena.
This week we learned that for this event, our arena has been rejected for the next three years.
Three arena boosters in particular — Bob Hanson of the Greater Wichita Area Sports Commission, businessman George Fahnestock, and Wichita Eagle sports columnist Bob Lutz — owe Wichita and Sedgwick County voters an apology.
As it turns out, Lutz was quite the visionary in a June 18, 2004 Wichita Eagle column, in which he wrote: “Imagine our city bidding for an NCAA Tournament subregional or the Big 12 Tournament.”
Here’s a message from John Todd about additional training provided by Americans For Prosperity.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 & Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Local Government 101: Learn how to get involved in Sedgwick County Government and how to influence public policy as a citizen activist.
With Special Guest Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday September 22, 2009, at the Wichita Area Builders Association meeting room, 730 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas 67203
Then, a follow-up event:
9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Wednesday September 23, 2009
Attend a Board of Sedgwick County Commission Meeting
Sedgwick County Court House, 525 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas 67202
Followed by Lunch 11:45 a.m. To 1:00 p.m.
Spangles Restaurant (Private Meeting Room)
612 S. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas 67202
Menu: Individual choices off the menu with individual tickets plus gratuity.
Please RSVP to either John Todd, Wichita AFP volunteer coordinator john@johntodd.net or (316) 312-7335, or to Susan Estes, AFP Field Director, Kansas sestes@afphq.org or (316) 269-4170
Attendees will participate in an interactive presentation of the inner workings of Sedgwick County Government and how to foster constructive relationships with elected and non-elected officials and learn ways to influence public policy. Part One is an evening session at the Wichita Area Builders Association meeting room from 7:00-9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22. In this class we will examine a typical Sedgwick County Board of County Commission meeting agenda. Part Two’s session will begin at the Sedgwick County Courthouse on Wednesday, September 23 from 9:00 – 11:30 a.m. to observe a Board of County Commission meeting, followed by a luncheon discussion at Spangles Restaurant meeting room from 11:45 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
Commissioner Gwen Welshimer used this opportunity to read into the record part of a press release she issued yesterday. The entire press release, as well as video, is at the end of this article.
Commissioner and Chairman Kelly Parks mentioned that he has been disturbed with some headlines in the Wichita Eagle recently, and that the media has “not checked out some of the headlines they’ve put out.”
It should be noted that reporters generally don’t write the headlines for their stories.
Regarding this matter, it may be that the parties are quarreling over relatively minor details of events and the meaning of words.
For example, Welshimer’s press release states “Reporter Bill Wilson’s latest article stated that the City of Wichita knew nothing about the County’s plans.” The article referred to (“County scouting locations for site to ease jail crowding” August 20, 2009 Wichita Eagle) states, in part: “The county’s search is unwelcome news to city officials …” (emphasis added)
Editorialist Rhonda Holman‘s August 21 piece repeats this idea: “It reportedly was news to city officials and downtown leaders that county commissioners were discussing the possibility of locating such a facility and hadn’t ruled out the core.” (emphasis added)
Does this all boil down to what the meaning of “news” is? Does “unwelcome news” mean that someone has never heard of an item before, or does it mean “Yes, I am aware of this item, and I don’t like it?”
Following is the full text of the press release issued by Gwen Welshimer on August 25, 2009.
Either the Wichita Eagle knew they were putting out false information on their jail annex stories or they didn’t know for sure and printed their stories recklessly. Their August 20, 21, and 23 articles and editorial, claiming the County Commission had been reviewing properties in Downtown Wichita for a jail annex, were not true. The Eagle’s actions caused considerable concern for Downtown business owners. No commissioner has looked at any Downtown buildings with any real estate agent for the purpose of housing detainees. A retraction and an apology are due to the county from the Eagle.
The Eagle reporter who wrote the stories quoted me erroneously and had not interviewed me. Eagle editorialist, Rhonda Holman committed an egregious act with her August 21 editorial in which she scolded the commission for having the intent to put jail detainees Downtown. Reporter Deb Gruver showed a lack of professionalism by her participation in this deed.
Reporter Bill Wilson’s latest article stated that the City of Wichita knew nothing about the County’s plans. That was also not true. On July 29, the Wichita Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Sedgwick County Commission Chairman and I met at City Hall. The topic of conversation was that the County’s prison farm on McLean and Harry would need to be replaced in the future. This facility is currently being used to house work release detainees who go to their jobs and return there for the duration of their sentence. The Mayor said he would see if the City had a building that could be used for this purpose.
The truth is that Chairman Parks and I took one short afternoon to see two buildings with a real estate agent. We were shown warehouse properties, one off south Southeast Boulevard and one off north I-135. These properties had no potential of filling our needs. The next day the Eagle reported that we were scouting for a site in Downtown Wichita and attempting to do harm to Downtown redevelopment plans. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
I believe the Eagle is angry because of the county’s decision not to continue funding the needs of Downtown and give more consideration to the future of Sedgwick County. County commissioners did put their political careers on the line to raise the money and build a $210 million economic tool for Downtown. I have not witnessed appreciation for this effort. What I have witnessed is a constant demand for more. It appears that we will continue to be harassed by the Eagle, until we bring out the checkbook.
Gwen Welshimer
Chairman Pro-Tem
Sedgwick County Commission
A small bridge west of Garden Plain in Sedgwick County, Kansas has not one, but two bronze plaques memorializing the circumstances of its creation.
Even though they’re large and in some cases bright bronze, you might not notice them as you drive by. Slow down a little, and you’ll see that bridges in Sedgwick County boast handsome commemorative plaques.
These plaques serve a useful purpose. They display essential information such as the name of the bridge, the year of its construction, the bridge’s inventory number, and the load standard to which the bridge was built.
But the rest of the information, particularly the names of the county commissioners, is superfluous. It may even be harmful, as commissioners or other public officials who know their names will be prominently displayed on public works may call for design or aesthetic features beyond what is actually required.
If you look at bridges built by other agencies, you’ll see they have much smaller markers that display only the essential information.
The county public works department told me that the plaques are “subsidiary” pay items, meaning that the bridge contractor is required to provide the plaques, and there is no line item that details their cost. In answering my questions, the department contacted a local vendor who makes similar plaques, and they’re estimated to cost $500 each.
The 29th Street Bridge is about as wide as it is long, yet it gets the full, two-plaque commemorative treatment.
There are two plaques on all the bridges that I examined, for a cost of $1,000 per bridge. Since all bidders for a bridge project face roughly the same cost to provide these plaques, this is a cost passed directly to county taxpayers.
Why does the county spend so much on plaques for bridges that, in some cases, are barely longer than they are wide? It’s a small matter — sort of like a few extra sprinkles on the icing of a cake — but these issues are symbolic of government’s attitude towards costs, and of some officials’ view of their own self-importance.
