Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita city government

  • Kelo abandonment holds lesson for Wichita

    In New London, Connecticut, developers wanted to build a new business complex on land owned by a number of homeowners, including Suzette Kelo. She didn’t want to sell, and the case eventually wound its way to the United States Supreme Court. In the decision, the court ruled in favor of the ability of cities to use eminent domain to take property from one party and give to another private party for economic development.

    Locally, at least one Wichita bureaucrat was relieved. According to Wichita Eagle reporting:

    City economic development director Allen Bell lauded the Supreme Court decision.

    “I’m relieved to know that we’ll continue to have an important tool for implementing economic development and urban redevelopment projects here in Wichita,” Bell said. “But this is a tool we do not use lightly. The city of Wichita has never sought to use eminent domain except in very rare cases when there is no alternative to keep a project alive and further the overall needs of the city.”

    So what has happened in New London? Nothing. In fact, worse than nothing, as the planned development has been abandoned. Paul Jacob of the Citizens on Charge Foundation gives an excellent wrap-up of the situation in The politics of government usurpation, post-Kelo.

    Eminent domain was used to assemble the property where the WaterWalk development stands in downtown Wichita. This development is emblematic of the failures of public-private partnerships. Is its failure the result of its foundation built on eminent domain?

    As Wichita prepares its plans for downtown revitalization, freedom-loving citizens need to insist that the city forgo the use of eminent domain, especially the threat of its use. On its face, it appears that Kansas has a strong law prohibiting the type of eminent domain takings that the Supreme Court authorized in the Kelo decision. Kansas law says that the legislature must pass a law allowing the use of eminent domain on a specific parcel of property, if the purpose is to give it to another private party.

    But it is the threat of the use of eminent domain that remains the real problem. We can easily imagine a scenario where the City of Wichita decides it needs a parcel of property for some public-private use. Mayor Carl Brewer may make the case that the property is needed so that Wichita can create hundreds, perhaps thousands of jobs. The economic future of our city hangs in the balance, he’ll say. Dale Goter, Wichita Governmental Relations Manager, will make the case to legislators that Wichita really needs the property. By the way, legislator from Overland Park, won’t your city also want to use eminent domain someday?

    The poor property owner, who in the past would have been faced with a small battle in the Kansas district court, now has to lobby the entire Kansas legislature to protect his property.

    This is why it is important for Wichitans to insist the the plans for downtown Wichita revitalization specifically state that eminent domain — not even its threat — will be used.

    This summer I traveled to Anaheim, California to learn about a redevelopment district where the city decided not to use eminent domain. The article Anaheim’s mayor wrote about this planning effort is titled “Development Without Eminent Domain: Foundation of Freedom Inspires Urban Growth.” It’s very informative.

  • Carlos Mayans addresses state and local issues

    Last Friday immediate past Wichita mayor Carlos Mayans addressed members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    Speaking of his experience as a member of the Kansas House of Representatives, Mayans said that Kansas state spending must be brought under control. Having served under governors from both parties, he said that Republicans spend as much as Democrats. Some people change after they get elected, he said, acting differently in office from how they campaigned. It’s important to hold these people accountable.

    Turning to Medicaid, Mayans said the federal government requires a certain minimum level of coverage. Then, there are 33 optional things that states may decide to cover. Kansas offers 23 of these. Further, the health care bill in the Senate will expand the number of people that are eligible for Medicaid.

    On local issues, the City of Wichita has some challenges ahead, he said. Our local governments are spending too much money with very little accountability to the taxpayers and that tax increases will be suggested to balance the budget.

    Mayans corrected the record over allegations that his actions drove away a Bass Pro Shops store from the struggling WaterWalk development in downtown Wichita. Mayans said that he cut $3 million from a $33 million project: $2 million from the parking garage, and $1 million from the canal. The cuts to the canal made it not as deep and enabled it to be heated in winter, he said. Nothing else was cut by his administration, but now the project is $42 million. Noting the current state of the project, Mayans asked: “And has anything else happened? No.”

    He also reminded the audience that council members Paul Gray, Sue Schlapp, and now-mayor Carl Brewer voted for this plan.

    Mayans said he can understand WaterWalk developer Jack DeBoer’s frustration. At one time DeBoer wanted to tear down the Wichita Boat House to make room for new development. Mayans advised his that the people of Wichita would not go along with this plan, but DeBoer wouldn’t listen.

    There’s also been talk of shifting the plan for WaterWalk to a “civic center,” to include non-profit organizations and museums. Mayans said this would be contrary to the original intent of the city and its representation to taxpayers when the city acquired the land.

    Furthermore, he said that the financing of WaterWalk, because it is based on tax increment financing and sales tax anticipation districts, requires property and sales taxes to be paid in order to fulfill the bonds. Non-profit organizations don’t pay these taxes, so the result would be a continual need for subsidy by the city.

    In answering a question, Mayans said that private developers from out of state have looked at making their own, private investment in downtown Wichita. But the city bureaucracy rejected this effort. Mayans also mentioned the The Cordish Companies of Baltimore (developers of the Power & Light District in Kansas City) as possible development partners in WaterWalk. But Mayans said that Cordish doesn’t like to be involved in projects where the public sector is involved, as there is too much red tape. Also, WaterWalk developers didn’t want outsiders being involved.

    Regarding city council members and the part-time nature of the job, Mayans said that here are at least one or two council members who don’t show up until the day of the council meeting. Then they pick up a packet that may be five hundred pages long.

    On Wichita’s future water needs, Mayans said that Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery project currently under development has never been tried anywhere else. He said that Wichita should build another lake instead. Wichita sells water at high rates to surrounding cities, he said, and uses this to curtail economic development in other communities.

  • Downtown development chief to address Pachyderms

    This Friday, the Wichita Pachyderm Club presents Wichita Downtown Development Corporation president Jeff Fluhr. The topic is “Downtown Wichita’s Renaissance.”

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive ten minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • Uncertainty over Broadview’s future doesn’t bother Wichita

    Yesterday the Wichita City Council approved plans for riverbank improvements that would benefit the Broadview Hotel in downtown Wichita. The cost is $2,200,000.

    One of the problems with this action is that the renovation of the hotel is on hold, according to recent reporting. The reason given by the hotel’s owners, Drury Southwest Inc., is a problem with tax credits issued by the State of Kansas.

    These tax credits, which are in effect a free grant of money to the hotel’s owner that does not need to be repaid, could potentially be worth 25% of the renovation project’s budget of $19 million. That’s up to $4,750,000 that the taxpayers of the state would be giving to the hotel owners.

    This year the Kansas legislature realized that these tax credits are costly to the state, and facing a very tight budget, it placed a cap on the amount of tax credits that could be given.

    By all accounts, the legislature will be facing an even tougher situation in January when it returns to the statehouse for its 2009 session. With everyone scrambling to find cost savings (and new sources of revenue), the tax credits for historic renovation could face an uncertain future.

    How does the uncertainty surrounding the tax credits affect the plans for the Broadview’s renovation? I don’t know. A telephone call and email message to Drury Southwest Inc. seeking an update on its plans was not returned.

    In his remarks after the unanimous vote passing the improvements, Mayor Carl Brewer thanked representatives from Drury for attending the meeting. He noted the budget challenges at the state level, and pledged that the city will continue to work with them on the tax credits. He said he appreciates the work they’re doing and thanked them for their commitment to the city. The hotel is important to the city, he said, as commitments have already been made to lease rooms in the Broadview.

    Analysis

    Because of the uncertainty surrounding the future plans for the Broadview Hotel’s renovation, the city should have delayed these riverbank improvements.

    A problem is the shaky economics surrounding this hotel. Besides the tax credits, the hotel received a 10-year exemption from paying property taxes and a sweetheart deal on a parking garage across the street. It’s little wonder representatives from Drury traveled to Wichita for the council meeting. They have a lot of taxpayer subsidies to protect.

    If we want a thriving and vibrant downtown Wichita — including a convention hotel that can be relied on — we need to rely on something more than massive taxpayer subsidies and the mayor’s appreciation to those who receive them.

  • Former mayor to address Pachyderms

    Please note: Effective October 2, 2009, the location of Wichita Pachyderm Club meetings has changed. The new location is the Wichita Petroleum Club.

    This Friday, the Wichita Pachyderm Club presents immediate past Wichita mayor Carlos Mayans as the speaker. His topic will be “National, State, and Local Issues.”

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive ten minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • Wichita’s open records policy is contrary to the interests of citizens

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

    The Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), 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.”

    But in my recent experience, our city’s legal staff has decided to act contrary to this policy. It’s not only the spirit of this law that the city is violating, but also the letter of the law as well.

    Recently I requested some records from the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. Although the WDDC cooperated and gave me the records I requested, the city denies that the WDDC is a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act.

    This is an important issue to resolve.

    In the future, requests may be made for records for which the WDDC may not be willing to cooperate. In this case, citizens will have to rely on compliance with the law, not voluntary cooperation. Or, other people may make records requests and may not be as willing as I have been to pursue the matter. Additionally, citizens may want to attend WDDC’s meetings under the provisions of the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

    Furthermore, there are other organizations similarly situated. These include the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition and the Go Wichita Convention and Visitors Bureau. These organizations should properly be ruled public agencies as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act so that citizens and journalists may freely request their records and attend their meetings.

    Here’s why the WDDC is a public agency subject to the Open Records Act. KSA 45-217 (f)(1) states: “‘Public agency’ means the state or any political or taxing subdivision of the state or any office, officer, agency or instrumentality thereof, or any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by the public funds appropriated by the state or by public funds of any political or taxing subdivision of the state.”

    The Kansas Attorney General’s office offers additional guidance: “A public agency is the state or any political or taxing subdivision, or any office, officer, or agency thereof, or any other entity, receiving or expending and supported in whole or part by public funds. It is some office or agency that is connected with state or local government.”

    The WDDC is wholly supported by a special property tax district. Plain and simple. That is the entire source of their funding, except for some private fundraising done this year.

    The city cites an exception under which organizations are not subject to the Kansas Open Records Act: “Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.”

    The purpose of this exception is so that every vendor that sells goods and services to government agencies is not subject to the Kansas Open Records Act. For example, if a city buys an automobile, the dealer is not subject simply because it sold a car to the city.

    But this statute contains an important qualifier: the word “solely.” In this case, the relationship between the City of Wichita and the WDDC is not that of solely customer and vendor. Instead, the city created a special tax district that is the source of substantially all WDDC’s revenue, and the existence of the district must be renewed by the city soon. The WDDC performs a governmental function that some cities decide to keep in-house. The WDDC has only one “customer,” to my knowledge, that being the City of Wichita.

    Furthermore, the revenue that the WDDC receives each year is dependent on the property tax collected in the special taxing district.

    The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that in terms of both funding and function, the WDDC is effectively a branch of Wichita city government.

    The refusal of the city’s legal department to acknowledge these facts and concede that the WDDC is a public agency stands reason on its head. It’s also contrary to the expressly stated public policy of the state of Kansas. It’s an intolerable situation that cannot be allowed to exist.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the council, it doesn’t take a liberal application of the Kansas Open Records Act to correct this situation. All that is required is to read the law and follow it. That’s what I’m asking this body to do: ask the city legal department to comply with the clear language and intent of the Kansas Open Records Act.

  • Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and City of Wichita refuse to follow Kansas Open Records Act

    On October 15 I made a request under the Kansas Open Records Act, asking for agendas and minutes of the board meetings of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation for 2009. The City of Wichita, and later the WDDC, denied this request.

    In its denial, the city stated: “The WDDC is a non-profit organization. Such entities do not become subject to the KORA merely by the receipt of some of their funding from the City, which is used to pay for services from the WDDC.”

    It’s true that the WDDC is organized as a 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt corporation. But this is not relevant to whether the WDDC is considered a public agency as defined by the KORA.

    The statute that makes the WDDC subject to the KORA is KSA 45-217 (f)(1), which states: “‘Public agency’ means the state or any political or taxing subdivision of the state or any office, officer, agency or instrumentality thereof, or any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by the public funds appropriated by the state or by public funds of any political or taxing subdivision of the state.”

    The WDDC is wholly supported by a special property tax district. Its only other income listed on its IRS form 990 for 2008 is a small amount of interest income, presumably from investment of unspent funds. (2008 WDDC revenue was $610,214 from the tax district, and $21,953 from investment income on a balance of $530,235 [end of 2008] in savings and temporary cash investments.)

    In denying the request, the city cited two statutes:

    KSA 45-217 (f)(2)(A), which gives criteria under which bodies might not be considered a public agency, states: “Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.” The purpose of this exception is so that every vendor that sells goods and services to government agencies is not subject to the KORA for that reason alone. For example, if a city buys office supplies, that vendor is not subject to KORA simply for that reason alone.

    But this statute contains an important qualifier: the word “solely.” In this case, the relationship between the City of Wichita and the WDDC is not merely customer and vendor. Instead, the city created a special tax district that is the source of substantially all of WDDC’s revenue. The existence of the district must be renewed by the city soon. The WDDC performs a governmental function (the promotion of the city’s downtown) that some cities decide to keep in-house. The WDDC has only one “customer,” to my knowledge, that being the City of Wichita.

    It’s clear that this exception does not apply to the WDDC.

    The city also cited KSA 45-221 (a)(20) which defines a category of records that a public agency shall not be required to disclose as follows: “Notes, preliminary drafts, research data in the process of analysis, unfunded grant proposals, memoranda, recommendations or other records in which opinions are expressed or policies or actions are proposed, except that this exemption shall not apply when such records are publicly cited or identified in an open meeting or in an agenda of an open meeting.” I’m not sure why the city cited 45-221(a)(20). It doesn’t seem pertinent.

    A few years ago the Topeka Capital-Journal asked for records from Schools for Fair Funding, a non-profit organization established by some Kansas public school districts, and funded by those school district’s tax revenues. SFF claimed that it was exempt from the KORA. In a settlement before trial, SFF agreed to comply with the KORA and to provide the records the Capital-Journal requested. Furthermore, SFF agreed to contribute $12,500 to the Sunshine Coalition for Open Government. (“Paper, group settle lawsuit” Topeka Capital-Journal, March 6, 2007)

    While this settlement is not binding precedent, SFF realized that it was, in fact, a public agency according to the KORA, and it decided to comply with the law.

    The Wichita Downtown Development Corporation would be wise to come to the same realization.

    Larry Weber, Chairman of the WDDC, in what he termed an effort to foster cooperation, stated to me that if I would name a specific issue or item that I want information on, he would be “better able to address my request.”

    But that’s not the way the law works. The citizens of Wichita are entitled to all the records of the WDDC that fall within the scope of the KORA.

    The refusal by the WDDC and the City of Wichita to comply with the Kansas Open Records Act leads me to ask these questions:

    What is the true reason for the refusal of the WDDC and the City of Wichita to turn over the requested records?

    Does the WDDC or the City of Wichita have something to hide from citizens?

    If the WDDC will not follow the Kansas Open Records Act, should we trust this organization with the planning for the revitalization of downtown Wichita?

    What is the position of the mayor and each city council member on this issue? What is the position of each board member of the WDDC? Are they supportive of the WDDC and the City’s refusal to obey the law?

  • Press availability: WDDC refuses to follow Kansas Open Records Law

    Recently Bob Weeks submitted records requests to the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. While organized as a non-profit corporation, the WDDC, because it receives its funding from property taxes, is subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.

    But the WDDC and the City of Wichita have refused to recognize the fact that the WDDC is a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act, and therefore must follow that law.

    Weeks will be at a press availability event tomorrow to provide more information and answer questions about his requests. The event will be at 2:00 Tuesday October 27, in front of the offices of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation at 507 E. Douglas in Wichita.

    For more information, call Bob Weeks day or evening at 316-708-1837.

  • If Wichita truly seeks community input in downtown planning …

    As Wichita begins to plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, city leaders say they want everyone to be involved. All ideas are welcome and appreciated, they say.

    In a recent city council meeting, Mayor Brewer said “we need every person’s ideas, recommendations, and their opinion. … Being quiet and then complaining about it later isn’t going to be good for you or the community.”

    Recently Wichita Downtown Development Corporation president Jeff Fluhr said “We want to make sure we do a holistic outreach with this project.”

    I wonder if they — especially Mayor Brewer — really mean it. In the past Brewer said “The naysayers have gotten too much media attention while those who are engaged and do the hard work are too often ignored and criticized.” Just last week he was quoted in the Wichita Eagle as saying this: “We cannot be intimidated. … I know for a fact that the citizens of Wichita believe we should do what we need to do to accomplish this. …We need to take a bold stance. If they’re not right and they’re not telling the truth, then create an environment where we can get the message out.”

    The mayor sends out conflicting messages.

    Here’s what Mayor Brewer and the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation could do, if they’re really interested in public engagement and hearing from all citizens, no matter what their ideas might be: The city could sponsor a one-day forum where alternatives to the top-down, centralized method of government planning are presented. I think we could do this with a budget of maybe $10,000 or so. That’s just two percent of the amount we’re spending on the Goody Clancy plan. When you add the budget of the WDDC and what the staff in Wichita city hall are spending on this effort, it’s a mere pittance.

    There are some very interesting speakers that are willing to come to Wichita and present their ideas. One is Cato Institute policy scholar Randal O’Toole, author of the book The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.

    Will those in charge of Wichita’s future consider sponsoring a forum where alternatives are expressed? The answer to this will let us know just how much they value alternative opinions, and if they’re willing to back up their words with action.