Voice For Liberty

Tag: Carl Brewer

Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer

  • David Burk, Wichita developer, overreaches

    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.

  • Wichita city council signals possible change in economic development incentive policy

    At today’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, discussion by council members and their vote may signal a change in the city’s stance toward economic development incentives.

    At issue was a request for extension of economic development incentives for a Wichita company. Five years ago the city council approved an economic development package for the company that included a tax abatement. As is the city’s policy, the council revisits the issue in five years to see if the company has meet its goal commitments. In the case of this company, one commitment — the building of a new facility — was met. The other commitment — creation of a certain number of jobs — was met early on during the period of the tax abatement, but employment has been declining in recent years, and employment is currently 100 jobs below the goal.

    Recently the city council adopted new guidelines for companies that are not meeting their goals at the time of review. These guidelines make it easier for companies to qualify for the extension of the abatement. If the WSU Current Conditions Index has declined since the awarding of the incentives, the company will qualify for an extension if a majority of the goals are met. A company will also qualify for extension if their peak job creation numbers exceeded the goal, even if the number has fallen, as is the case with the company under consideration today.

    Based on the new guidelines, city staff recommended to approve the extension of the incentives.

    Council member Lavonta Williams asked if it was possible if, as an company receiving an incentive, could “I hire five people today and fire them by Friday and then meet my criteria?” The answer by city economic development director Allen Bell is that the policy contains no such guideline as to minimum period of employment.

    Wichita city manager Bob Layton interjected that staff’s recommendation to approve the extension is a difficult one to make, as this company is in a declining pattern of employment. Additionally, the newly calculated benefit-to-cost ratios are low, and he said he is uncomfortable with that: “We’re actually subsidizing this business, so to speak, or others are subsidizing or bearing their load for debt service.”

    Council member Sue Schlapp asked a question not covered by policy: if we deny the extension today, and next year the company improves its situation, could they come back and ask for the extension of the tax abatement then? There is no definitive answer to this question at this time, according to Bell and Layton.

    Schlapp added that it seems like we’re “lowering the bar all the time” as to the granting of incentives.

    Council member Paul Gray remarked that the council makes itself look bad in these situations, as it always grants extensions even though the city has created policies that should hold companies accountable to their committed goals. The reason for awarding the incentives, he said, was for the increase in employment, and that employment level has not been kept. “We need to start taking a harder stand on this, as we’re going to run out of money if we keep giving it all away.” Vice mayor Jim Skelton agreed.

    No one from the public was there to speak on this matter.

    Wichita mayor Carl BrewerWichita Mayor Carl Brewer was on the losing end of a 6 to 1 vote.

    Gray made a motion to deny the staff recommendation of approval of the extension. Mayor Carl Brewer said that this vote, if it proceeds in the direction it appears to be going, will change the direction of many things that affect businesses in Wichita. He said that the intent of the council is to start holding individuals accountable, and there’s not been a track record of that. It’s been worse since the economy entered the recession, he said. He urged council members to make sure they know which way they’re going with this action. “This will be the direction that we’ll be going as we start working on policy, and it will be effective for everyone, whether it be large or whether it be small. … Just making sure that when we press that button and we head down this path, that we know what we’re doing.”

    The vote was 6 to 1 in favor of Gray’s motion, with the mayor being the lone “No” vote.

    Analysis

    This action by the Wichita city council, being nearly unanimous, is very much different from its action just one week ago, when it employed one new method plus several existing methods to heap millions in subsidy on a downtown hotel developer.

    Today’s discussion is another illustration of just how difficult it is to pick winners and losers, and how difficult it is to choose which companies the city should invest in. This is why I have recommended that Wichita grant tax abatements on all new capital investment.

    Today’s action is especially cruel to the subject company. In the past, city staff has argued that withdrawing tax abatements when a company is struggling is harmful. In December 2008, economic development director Bell said this regarding a company that had not met its performance commitments: “I don’t think it would be productive at this time to further penalize them — as the market has already penalized them — by putting them back on the tax roles at this time.” This is further evidence that taxes are harmful to business and economic growth.

    Council member Williams’ question about hiring and then quickly firing employees indicates that she must not be familiar with the costs of hiring and firing. Furthermore, a company’s unemployment insurance premiums are based on its history, and actions like this would certainly raise premiums by a large amount.

    Extension of EDX Tax Exemption (Sharpline Converting, Inc.)

  • Government spending does not create prosperity

    In his op-ed Don’t buy canard about spending, Alan Cobb of Americans for Prosperity writes about the illusion that government spending creates economic growth.

    It’s an important topic, as we’ve just been through nearly a year of Obama stimulus spending, and people are wondering if the effort has paid off. Locally in Kansas, spending advocates argue that reducing Kansas state spending will cause economic growth to suffer. Even more locally in Wichita, city council members and city hall bureaucrats argue that government is responsible for managing economic development in Wichita, some going so far to proclaim that free people and free markets have failed and can’t be trusted.

    In yesterday’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita businessman Fred Berry takes issue with Cobb, and this disagreement provides a useful illustration of the difference between government and private action.

    Cobb wrote this: “If I take $20,000 from my neighbor and hire a gardener, the economy certainly hasn’t grown by $20,000. It’s simply been a shift of money.” Cobb is illustrating the effect of government spending.

    Berry wrote: “But let me use Cobb’s example in a different way. Suppose he and his neighbor decided to share a gardener, because neither needed one full time. Because Cobb’s garden was twice as large as his neighbor’s, he agreed to pay two-thirds of the cost.”

    What’s the difference between the two examples? It’s simple: Cobb is illustrating a government-coerced transaction, while Berry uses a voluntary transaction.

    There’s a world of difference between the two. Voluntary transactions are the way that wealth and prosperity are generated. These transactions happen because both parties believe they will be better off if the transaction takes place.

    This leads to what John Stossel has termed the “weird double thank you moment” when people engage in voluntary trade: One party says “thank you,” and so does the other. This happens at the grocery store and nearly everywhere people are making voluntary exchanges that benefit both parties.

    But when you pay your taxes, do you say “thank you?”

    Milton Friedman has written and lectured extensively on the topic of free markets. Here’s an example from his monumental work Capitalism and Freedom:

    Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion — the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals — the technique of the market place.

    The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary — yet frequently denied — proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed.

    Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy — what we have been calling competitive capitalism.

    It’s surprising to me that a businessman — here I specifically do not use the word “capitalist” — like Fred Berry would fail to recognize the distinction between free markets and government coercion. I guess I should not be surprised, as Berry made large campaign contributions to the Wichita school bond campaign in 2008, and the public schools are definitely unfriendly to capitalism. In addition, he has made contributions to enemies of capitalism like Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and city council member Janet Miller.

    For more explanation of how free markets work from Milton Friedman, view the video below.

  • Mark Gietzen should be compensated by Wichita

    In 2000, a bridge was built by the City of Wichita near Mark Gietzen’s house. Vibration from the construction process damaged Gietzen’s house. Nearly ten years later, Gietzen has not been compensated for damages.

    It’s not that Gietzen hasn’t tried to receive payment for his damages. The mayor of Wichita at the time assured Gietzen that he would be compensated. There’s been a number of lawsuits. But so far, that hasn’t happened.

    According to Wichita city attorney Gary Rebenstorf, the city has no responsibility for damage. That lies with Dondlinger & Sons Construction, the city’s contractor.

    Besides Gietzen’s house, there are three other houses that are damaged, according to Gietzen. Two houses are owned by Vietnamese immigrants who don’t speak English. They’ve not been compensated for their damage, either.

    Some of the evidence of wrong-doing is striking. For example, the company performed a soil test on Gietzen’s property. The soil they took to test, however, was topsoil that had been placed there during landscaping.

    Gietzen has an estimate of $96,000 for repairs. Besides that, he’s been harmed in other ways. He hasn’t been able to refinance his mortgage to a lower interest rate. If he had wanted to sell his house, there would have been problems.

    Gietzen believes that when the city treats citizens as he’s been treated, it’s bad for the city’s image. He also believes that his political activism — he’s a noted pro-life activist, very dedicated to his cause — is hurting his case.

    When Gietzen brought this issue to the attention of the council at the November 3, 2009 meeting, former Wichita Mayor Bob Knight spoke on behalf of Gietzen. (Knight was mayor at the time of the incident. Most of his testimony that day is available below.) Summarizing the case, Knight said: “His house has been severely damaged by a public works project of this city that I love, and to cast Mr. Gietzen, with his resources, against government, against a large corporation … I happen to think Mr. Gietzen has been caught in a catch-22. I have confidence enough of this council, and manager Layton, and Gary Rebenstorf to figure out a solution to this, and to hold him harmless. He should be held harmless.”

    Knight also said that Dondlinger’s legal counsel may be doing what’s legally correct, but there’s more at stake than that. It’s the credibility of our city, he said.

    At the November 3 meeting, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, with support from several council members, asked Wichita city manager Bob Layton to look into this matter. On Saturday, Gietzen received the city’s response, which is to deny liability for damage.

    Gietzen will bring this issue before the council at its meeting tomorrow.

    Analysis

    Gietzen and the other homeowners that suffered damage should be compensated for their damage. The fact that the other homeowners are immigrants who don’t speak English is a new factor in this case. Hopefully they will be able to seek redress for their damages, too.

    Mayor Knight is absolutely correct in his assessment of this case. For the City of Wichita to hide behind contracts that shield it from liability is unconscionable. If Dondlinger (or its insurer) won’t take responsibility for its action, it seems that the city needs to revise its contract, or find a responsible contractor.

    The fact that Gietzen’s politics may play a role in this is troubling, too. The original Wichita Eagle story reporting on the November 3 city council meeting carried a headline that referenced his anti-abortion activism. I don’t imagine that Mayor Brewer is a fan of Gietzen’s politics and his activism. That, however, should play no role in the settlement of this case.

  • Wichita city council discusses economic development incentives

    Last week a Wichita company that’s expanding made an application for industrial revenue bonds and accompanying property tax abatements. The company’s application wasn’t timely, and for that reason is not likely to receive the requested help. The discussion surrounding the item provides insight into city council members’ ideas about the role of the city in economic development.

    Industrial revenue bonds, or IRBs, are not a loan from the city, and the city does not make any guarantee that the bonds will be repaid. The primary benefit to the recipient of IRBs is that the property purchased with the bonds will generally be exempt, in whole or in part, from property taxes for some period. Also, the company may not have to pay sales tax on the property purchased with the bonds.

    The agenda report for this item is at Request for Letter of Intent for Industrial Revenue Bonds, Michelle Becker, Inc. (District V).

    In introducing the item, the city’s economic development chief Allen Bell said that because the project has already started construction, it falls outside the guidelines for the city’s IRB program. The construction is 85% to 90% complete.

    A question by council member Sue Schlapp established that if the company had made application before the building was started, the application would have been approved as routine.

    She also asked that if we approve this action today, will we have to go back and look at other businesses that are in the same place? Wichita City Manager Bob Layton asked that the council establish guidelines that if a project has already started, a project is not eligible for this type of assistance.

    There was also some discussion about whether this company would move away from Wichita if the tax abatement was not granted. Since the building is already under construction, Bell said this is evidence that the company is intending to stay in Wichita. “It’s difficult to think of an incentive as something that’s given after the fact,” he said.

    A question by council member Paul Gray established that there have not been many cases where companies have asked for tax breaks retroactively, according to Bell’s answer. Bell also said that he didn’t think that approving the current application would spur an avalanche of similar requests.

    Gray also noted that we can create economic disparities between companies by granting incentives, so how do we justify doing this? Bell’s answer was that an important consideration is bringing business from out of state instead of taking business away from other local companies.

    Layton added that an important consideration is whether the project can more forward without public assistance.

    Council member Jeff Longwell remarked that “we really don’t have that many tools in our toolbox for emerging businesses.” Bell agreed.

    In later discussion, Longwell said “I hate to penalize this emerging company … I should have got them in on this process long before we did and we wouldn’t even be having this argument. So I suppose I am at fault in part of this delay.”

    Gray said that because we’re not competing against another community for this company — the normal use of incentives — he can’t support this application.

    Council member Janet Miller said that the appropriate time to look at incentives is, as the manager said, when we think a company can’t move forward without the incentive. She also noted that we’re being asked to approve an action for which we’re going to soon have a policy against.

    Schlapp, indicating a desire to approve the incentive, asked for justification: “We have a company here that doesn’t need an incentive but wants an incentive … can somebody justify that?”

    Longwell said it’s not as simple as a need and a want. He said the applicant is a smart, well-managed company. But we shouldn’t use the qualifier of helping only the companies that couldn’t succeed without the city’s help. “Why not reward some some of those companies that are very well managed and run smart and have the ability to grow even more with our help than without it?” Again he referred to the lack of tools for emerging businesses. “We ought to be helping these types of companies that we think can truly prosper even more with our help … I think they fully warrant our help because they’re successful …”

    Mayor Carl Brewer said that we have a proven track record of trying to help businesses and to get businesses to come to our area. He agreed with Longwell in that we need additional tools to use for economic development, as other communities have been competing successfully. We don’t have the same tools that other communities have, he said.

    Longwell suggested the city visit with the applicant about her financing. He made a motion to defer this item. Council member Williams asked about the impending completion of the project, since it’s scheduled to be completed at the end of December. The answer from the manager was that with regard to IRBs, the project would not be eligible after it’s complete. The motion passed with Council member and Vice-mayor Jim Skelton opposed.

    Analysis

    What’s striking about the discussion are these two things:

    First, many council members and some city staff believe that the city doesn’t have enough “tools in the toolbox” for shoveling incentives on companies for economic development purposes. Evidently the ability to grant exemptions from property taxation — and not only the city’s property tax levy, but also that of the county, school district, and state — along with the ability to make outright gifts of money is not enough.

    Second, many council members and some city staff believe that they can determine which companies are worthy of incentives.

    According to city manager Layton, the city is going to revisit its economic development policies soon. This would be a good time for Wichita to come up with ideas that would benefit all companies, not only those that fall within guidelines that the council or city staff creates. My suggestion, explained in Wichita universal tax exemption could propel growth, is to give all new capital investment a tax abatement for a period of five years.

    At the state level, there has been some discussion about the costs of tax abatements or exemptions. In a recent debate in Wichita, Kansas Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon used the term “tax expenditures” to describe these giveaways of the state’s income. The idea is that if the state (or other governmental body) didn’t create tax abatements or exemptions, revenue to the government would be higher. Her debate opponent Alan Cobb said it’s wrong to term these tax giveaways as “expenditures,” as the money belongs to the people first, a position I agree with.

    There is the related issue of these tax abatements or exemptions really being appropriations of money that, if processed through the normal process of legislative hearings, etc., would be noticed for what they are. In Wichita city government we don’t have hearings quite like the Kansas Legislature, but the idea is the same: if this company had asked for a grant from the city for $22,253 (that’s the value of the first year of the requested tax abatement, with a similar figure for the following nine years, less $2,500 a year to the city for administrative fees), citizens — news media too — would quite likely look at this matter differently. Presented as industrial revenue bonds — just what are those anyway? — and a tax abatement, well, it all seems so … so innocent, so municipal.

    A few more observations:

    Council member Jeff Longwell’s confession of being at fault for the lateness of this company’s application should be remembered by voters in the next election, should he decide to seek to retain his current post, or — as some have told me — he seeks the mayorship of the city.

    There’s also Longwell’s use of the term “reward,” in that the city should “reward some some of those companies that are very well managed and run smart.” I’d like to remind him and the rest of the council that the free enterprise system contains a very powerful reward mechanism for companies that do well: profit. That alone is sufficient.

    Coverage from the Wichita Eagle is at Wichita City Council puts off tax breaks for accounting firm.

  • Lord’s Diner debate focused on wrong issues

    At today’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, an item no longer on the agenda still caused some controversy.

    The Lord’s Diner, a charitable organization, had proposed buying a city-owned building at 21st and Grove and making a second site for their effort to feed Wichita’s poor.

    Opposition from community groups, however, drove the Lord’s Diner to withdraw its plans.

    In today’s meeting, council members Sue Schlapp and Paul Gray spoke in favor of the Lord’s Diner’s plans on the basis of its charitable and humanitarian activity.

    Council member Lavonta Williams, who represents the district where the proposed site exists, responded without mentioning the community’s real objection to the plan: they don’t want the type of people the Lord’s Diner serves congregating in the vicinity of the proposed location.

    Mayor Carl Brewer spoke of how this has been a complicated issue. Council members must do the right thing, he said, which may not be the same as what the community wants. He said he recognizes the need to feed everyone, and there are people all over town that need help: “These are people who cannot help themselves.”

    He said that people in key leadership positions said things that were “very bitter, very venomous,” and that citizens should “charge it to the mind and not the heart,” adding that “some people take desperate measures to be able to get what they want.” He asked that citizens not judge an entire community by the actions of a few.

    The mayor said he sees an opportunity, and he urged everyone to work together.

    What hasn’t been mentioned in the debate over this matter is that the proposal by the Lord’s Diner is a lawful use of the property. If we want to have a system that respects private property rights, that’s the only thing that matters.

    Wichita Eagle reporting is at City takes Lord’s Diner proposal off table after diner pulls its offer. An informative blog post by Brent Wistrom is at Council members vent as Lord’s Diner plan sinks.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Wichita planning firm hopefuls make pitch

    This past Tuesday and Wednesday, the four planning firms that were selected as finalists for the master plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita made their public presentations. I was able to attend three of the presentations.

    In his opening remarks to the Tuesday session, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer said that tonight is an important night for our community. He said that the revitalization effort is about more than just downtown, but about all of us. “Downtown is our front porch.” We must come together as a community in this effort.

    Studies of other cities, he said, show that downtown revitalization leads to more jobs, tourism, increased property values, and increased satisfaction and pride in our city.

    “Feet on the street,” the mayor said, means that everything people want can be provided in a walkable area.

    The planning firms and their representatives are all immensely confident in their capabilities and proud of their past achievements. Most use grand language — “dynamic,” “bold plan, “innovative,” “forward-looking.”

    Community engagement is important, all firms said. So is the public-private partnership. Leveraging public investment with private investment was always mentioned.

    Transit — including public transit — was emphasized by the firms. One firm promoted “bicycle-oriented development.” In a nod to the green revolution — whether that’s a good idea or not — “sustainability” was often mentioned, with one firm having an expert in just that on its panel of presenters.

    There was actually some distinction between the presenting forms. One makes use of a charrette, which is a period of intense design activity. Another firm said it doesn’t use this practice.

    For one firm, the presenter said that the firm had been in Wichita for three months gathering information and meeting with Wichitans.

    The presentations and the printed proposals are full of grand and attractive images of the firms’ projects in other cities. One firm, in its presentation, showed several images of parts of downtown Wichita where there was a vacant lot or other empty space. Then, said the presenter, imagine if it looked like this! And the empty space would be filled in with attractive buildings of immense size and scale.

    Sometimes the presenters said things that made me wonder about their actual knowledge of Wichita. One said that because Wichita has such a stable economy, it is attractive to outside investors. While it’s true that our housing market has been relatively stable — we never had the huge run-up in prices and then a crash — it a common compliant that Wichita is too dependent on aviation, and that we need to diversify our local economy.

    Another presenter, and I am not kidding, praised the WaterWalk development as an example of a Wichita success. I also learned that we must prepare — at least according to one firm — for the return of passenger rail service to Wichita.

    I was surprised that most of the planning firms used a variety of experts in different fields — economics and economic development, transit, planning, architecture, sustainability, civil engineering, traffic, and transit are some of the examples. One firm had partnered with local experts.

    Each firm presented for about an hour, with time for just a few questions from the selection committee.

    Going forward, the selection committee will select one firm to recommend to the Wichita city council. The target date for this is tomorrow. Then, it’s thought that on October 13 the city council will make the selection — or maybe choose none of the firms.

    Since the city council has the final say, I was surprised that only council member Lavonta Williams attended, besides, of course, Mayor Brewer.

    After the steering committee makes its recommendation, I plan to examine that firm’s proposal more closely. We also need to take a look at the results of their previous projects. For example, were they financed through tax increment financing (TIF) districts, and how are those districts performing? What other type of public subsidy was necessary to make the projects work (or not)? Was eminent domain used to transfer property from one person to another, just because the new owner would pay more in taxes? If there was rezoning, was it done with overlays that respected existing property use rights?

    These are some of the questions that we’ll want to get answers to. These are the important things I learned about during my trip to Anaheim’s Platinum Triangle development. Will Wichita pursue a freedom-friendly planning process as used there?

    In addition, we need to decide whether we want to plan at all, at least in the comprehensive way that the planning firms are promoting. A book I recently read, The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future, presents evidence of the harm that centralized government planning causes. Listening to the presentations, I recognized the firms were planning to use many of the dangerous practices and beliefs mentioned in this book.