Voice For Liberty

Tag: Downtown Wichita arena

  • Bob Hanson of Greater Wichita Area Sports Commission Speaks to Sedgwick County Commissioners

    At the January 21, 2009 meeting of the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, Bob Hanson, President/CEO of the Greater Wichita Area Sports Commission addressed the commission.

    We have to step back and wonder why it’s necessary to occupy the time of the Sedgwick County Commissioners and the people of the county who pay attention to these meetings just so that Mr. Hanson can recite the history of his organization.

    Here’s something that Hanson said to the commissioners:

    “As you are well aware, we are certainly proud of what’s taken place in the development of the Intrust Bank arena. A big congratulations to all of you, past commissioners, and certainly the staff of Sedgwick county for the leadership you have provided for our community in development of this jewel and huge community project. I know you are aware of the important role the Sports Commission and all of our members played in bringing the arena campaign to fruition.”

    I wonder if Hanson is aware that several of the commission members who supported the downtown arena were defeated in their bids for re-election. Their support of the arena played a role in that.

    Further, the makeup of the current commission would hardly be favorable to passage of a project like the arena. For Hanson to thank the current members for their support of the arena is laughable.

    Mr. Hanson and his organization have agitated for government funding of projects that benefit their special interests. The most notable of these is the downtown Wichita arena. That arena is likely to turn out to be a huge ongoing liability for the taxpayers of Sedgwick County. But the GWASC nibbles at the taxpayer in little ways, too. This year Sedgwick County will contribute $5,000 to the GWASC, just as it has in years past.

    Tomorrow’s agenda for the Wichita City Council workshop contains an item titled “Greater Wichita Area Sports Commission 2008 Annual Report.” This will likely be a chance for city council members to be treated to the same presentation the county commissioners sat through. Looking at the city’s budget documents it isn’t possible to tell whether the city contributes to the GWASC. The “search” feature on the city’s website isn’t helpful, either. This lack of transparency is something we need to address.

    But I think it’s safe to assume that Mr. Hanson and his organization will be asking the Wichita city council for a contribution. His history of asking taxpayers to support his pet projects — rent seeking is the technical term — is known.

  • Kansas law requires Wichita to hold another public hearing

    Recently, the Wichita city council passed a resolution announcing a public hearing on a TIF district and its project plan. The city then, on the day before the hearing, substantially changed the plan. This change means that the city must hold another public hearing.

    Kansas statute 12-1772 says in paragraph (c)(3)(f) that substantial changes to the project plan require a new public hearing. The changes the Wichita city council made less than 24 hours before the public hearing nearly doubled the planned spending. Further, the new spending is of a different character. These are substantial changes that require a new public hearing.

    This post on my blog, which was printed as an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle, explains the situation: Wichita TIF Public Hearing Was Bait and Switch.

    Others agree that there were changes to the plan. Randy Brown argued for another public hearing (Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing). The Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman noticed the problems with the Wichita city council’s action (The Process Should Be Most Important). Interim Wichita City Manager Scott Moore acknowledges defects in the process (Wichita Public Hearing Action Not Evidence of Leadership).

    Citizens can’t have trust and confidence in government when business is conducted this way. This action, along with another high-profile breakdown in the processes at city hall (Wichita City Hall Confusion Leads to Evaporation of Confidence), should chasten the city to move cautiously and with due regard to process and respect for citizens. Holding another public hearing on the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district, would let the city start the process of regaining the trust of its citizens.

  • Wichita Public Hearing Action Not Evidence of Leadership

    In an op-ed piece in Sunday’s Wichita Eagle, Interim Wichita City Manager Scott Moore makes the case that “the [Wichita city] council’s Dec. 2 vote demonstrated leadership and an ability to respond decisively to urgent community matters after appropriate public deliberations.” (Scott Moore: TIF Parking Change Showed Leadership, December 15, 2008)

    Mr. Moore explains the problems with the public hearing that was held on December 2: “However, because of the holiday closure, the revisions did not reach council members until Monday afternoon, Dec. 1, the day before the public hearing. Better staff follow-up during the holiday break would have provided better public notification.”

    The revisions referred to are the addition of up to $10 million in TIF funding for parking. To add some precision to Mr. Moore’s accounting, these revisions appeared on the city’s website sometime after 4:30 p.m. This was on the same day that the first version appeared. If someone fetches a document at noon, should they also have to check again later that day to see if the document has been updated? I didn’t. It appears that Wichita Eagle reporters and other news media didn’t either. Why would they?

    As Mr. Moore explains earlier in his piece: “Nonetheless, city staff should have revised all documents appropriately so that the correct items could have been submitted to the council and the media and posted at the Web site www.wichita.gov for the public.” Also: “Although the process could have been conducted more openly …”

    Mr. Moore and Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman agree that there were defects in the public hearing. (See The Process Should Be Most Important for analysis.) But Mr. Moore goes farther and actually praises Wichita city leaders for their leadership.

    This is not leadership. Leaders own their mistakes and accept their consequences. Mr. Moore acknowledges city officials made mistakes, but he and other city officials and council members will not accept ownership. They will not accept the consequences of their mistakes.

    Leadership at the December 2, 2008 meeting would have meant city staff or council members apologizing to the public for the last-minute changes to the plan and the defective notice. Leadership would have required a council member making a motion to delay the public hearing until citizens receive proper notice of the actual contents of the plan. Leadership would have required unanimous consent to this motion.

    Except for council member Jim Skelton’s questioning, none of these leadership actions took place. Therefore, I must disagree with Mr. Moore’s characterization of city staff and council members as leaders.

  • Problems with Open Government in Wichita

    On the KPTS television public affairs program Kansas Week yesterday, I spoke about some problems with a public hearing regarding a controversial matter in Wichita.

    Related:
    Wichita TIF Public Hearing Was Bait and Switch
    Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing
    Letters to Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission Regarding Downtown Wichita TIF District

  • Jeff Fluhr’s Decision

    At the December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, Jeff Fluhr, the new president of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, spoke on behalf of the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district.

    Attending the meeting with him were several members of that organization’s board of directors, headed by Joe Johnson of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. This board, emblematic of the “good ol’ boy” network, is stocked with those who seek to profit in the halls of government power rather than in the marketplace where consumers rule. It’s easier that way — no pesky consumers with their varied wants and desires.

    The problem Mr. Fluhr faces is that in order to lure developers to downtown Wichita, incentives must be offered. Now some on the Wichita city council act as though incentives come at no cost. The proceeds from TIF financing, they say, are used only for infrastructure, as though this is something the city is obliged to provide. But as I show in my post Many Wichita Developers Pay for Infrastructure, market-based developers pay for their infrastructure. The city doesn’t give away much to them.

    The TIF developers, they being the political entrepreneurs, are privileged to use their own property taxes to pay for their infrastructure, and for other things, too. This sets up a situation where the city, through its attempts at centralized planning, thwarts the will of the people by forcing Wichitans to subsidize developers who are lured — “incentivized,” as one city council member put it — to develop where politicians want them to.

    This sets up a tension. Citizens are starting to realize the reality of the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the political entrepreneurs, and they don’t like it. They’re starting to realize that public/private partnerships mean the public takes the risk, and the “privates” earn the profits. This is far removed from capitalism, which is what we need to build the wealth of our city. “Crony capitalism” is a better term for the relationship between the TIF district developers and local government officials.

    Then there’s the defect in the process surrounding the public hearing before the Wichita city council. As Randy Brown wrote about this meeting: “Among other transgressions, we had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue.” Mr. Fluhr needs to decide if he’s on the side of open and transparent government, or whether he’s in favor of crony capitalism and the good ol’ boy network. If he would request that the City of Wichita withdraw this TIF district until a proper public hearing is held, we’d get a good indication of his thinking. Of course, if he doesn’t make such a request, we’ll know just as well.

    Finally, Mr. Fluhr stated in his presentation to the Wichita city council: “[The TIF district] will greatly contribute to Wichita’s development as a destination river city, which will in turn enhance the economic vitality of downtown and the community at large.” (emphasis added)

    I would ask that Mr. Fluhr and the citizens of Wichita familiarize themselves with the research to the contrary. A number of studies tell us that TIF districts, while good for the subsidized developers, are not a good deal for the city as a whole. As economists Dye and Merriman (see below) found out: “We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.”

    Kenneth A. Kriz: Tax Increment Financing: Its Effect on Local Government Finances
    Dye, Richard and David Merriman: Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development
    Dye, Richard and David Merriman: The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development
    Danny Santivasci: Tax Increment Financing: Private Investment at the Expense of Local Community

  • Letters to Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission Regarding Downtown Wichita TIF District

    John Todd has prepared letters that we hope will influence local governments regarding the downtown Wichita TIF district. One, to the Wichita City Council, asks them to conduct a proper public hearing. A second letter to the Sedgwick County Commissioners asks them to not consider passing this TIF district until Wichita conducts a proper public hearing. A third is a letter to the Wichita Eagle explaining citizens’ concerns.

    If you’d like to sign these letters, please contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net. Here’s the one to the Wichita City Council:

    Mayor Carl Brewer
    Wichita City Council Members
    Wichita City Hall
    Wichita, Kansas

    Subject: Citizens request for a new and open City Council public hearing before implementing the Center City South Redevelopment TIF District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district.

    The December 2, 2008 public hearing as conducted by the Wichita City Council concerning the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment TIF District was not a true and meaningful public hearing. Therefore, we ask that you withdraw the proposal until a proper public hearing can be held before the City Council. This issue needs to be sent to the District Advisory Boards (DAB) for their review. Wichita citizens in general and DAB boards both need all the details and a complete cost analysis for this TIF district scheme.

    Let me refer you to Randy Brown’s letter in the Eagle (see “Reopen TIF issue” Dec. 7), referring to Bob Weeks’ letter in the Eagle (see “TIF public hearing was bait and switch” Dec. 5) that hit the nail on the head by saying, “conducting the public’s business in secret causes citizens to lose respect for government officials and corrupts the process of democracy.” Brown further states, “… we (the people) had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue. The Wichita officials involved should publicly apologize, and the issue should be reopened. And this time, the public should be properly notified.”

    The citizens of this community deserve open, honest, and transparent government. The Wichita City Council needs to hold a new and open public hearing on this issue before proceeding with the implementation of this project.

  • The Process Should Be Most Important

    Rhonda Holman’s editorial from yesterday’s Wichita Eagle (Parking plan finally coming together) contains this paragraph:

    A confusing move last week by the Wichita City Council didn’t help build public trust, unfortunately. Without time for public consideration, city leaders added up to $10 million for parking structures to the proposed tax-increment financing plan for the 16-block area around the arena; the council unanimously approved the plan Tuesday. There are good reasons for the council’s action, which simply puts parking in the mix of things that up to $10 million in TIF money can fund in the future along with street improvements, sidewalks, lighting, signage and other basics. But the last-minute handling left much of the public out of the public hearing, raising suspicions that the council sought to slide in the parking dollars under the radar.

    Look at the language here: “confusing move … didn’t help build public trust, unfortunately.” “left much of the public out of the public hearing,” “raising suspicions,” “under the radar.”

    This type of action is corrosive to the democratic process. I think that Ms. Holman realizes that, but she won’t call for the city council to take the proper action, which would be to hold a proper public hearing. No parking facility — indeed, nothing the city could ever build — is so important that it should be approved through this type of process.

  • Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing

    In a letter in yesterday’s Wichita Eagle, Randy Brown comments on my recent op-ed piece in the same newspaper. He is senior fellow at the Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University, and also the executive director of the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government. He’s done a lot to promote openness and transparency in government. His experience as an editorial writer for the Wichita Eagle shows in his use of vividly descriptive language like “under cover of Monday evening’s darkness” and “aggravated assault on its spirit.” I wish I could write like that.

    Here’s Randy’s letter:

    Reopen TIF issue

    I’m fairly well acquainted with Bob Weeks, our extraconservative government watchdog. It’s fair to say that I agree with Weeks no more than one time in every 20 issues. But that one time is crucial to our democracy.

    Weeks is dead-on target when he says that conducting the public’s business in secret causes citizens to lose respect for government officials and corrupts the process of democracy (“TIF public hearing was bait and switch,” Dec. 5 Opinion). And that’s what happened when significant 11th-hour changes to the already controversial and questionable tax-increment financing plan for the downtown arena neighborhood were sneaked onto the Wichita City Council’s Tuesday agenda, essentially under cover of Monday evening’s darkness.

    This may not have been a technical violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, but it was an aggravated assault on its spirit. Among other transgressions, we had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue.

    The Wichita officials involved should publicly apologize, and the issue should be reopened. And this time, the public should be properly notified.

    Randy Brown
    Executive director
    Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government
    Wichita

  • Wichita TIF District Reveals Lack of Confidence

    Yesterday, the Wichita Eagle’s Bill Wilson misses the point in his reporting and blogging on business issues.

    In his blog post Seed money for downtown’s future, he wrote this: “The Wichita City Council’s decision to approve tax increment financing for the arena neighborhood’s redevelopment was a welcome vote of confidence in the neighborhood’s future.”

    In his news story Arena TIF seen as ‘a vote of confidence’, we read the remarks of Jeff Fluhr, the new president of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation: “It’s most definitely a vote of confidence in the future of the neighborhood.”

    Tell me, if real estate developers require an incentive to do something, what does that tell us about their level of confidence?

    It tells me that they have no confidence. They’d rather invest their capital elsewhere, and they’re doing that. It’s only when the city votes to give them money — and that’s what TIF districts do, contrary to Mr. Wilson’s misinformation — can they be “incentivized” to do what they won’t do with their own money.