Voice For Liberty

Tag: Downtown Wichita revitalization

Articles about the redevelopment of downtown Wichita and its impact on the economic freedom of Wichitans.

  • Wichita Eagle fact checks Ambassador Hotel campaigns

    As campaign chair for Tax Fairness for All Wichitans, I’m very concerned that the campaign is accurate and truthful in everything it does. I insist on adhering to that standard, starting with myself.

    Now that the Wichita Eagle has published its fact checking article (Fact-checking claims on the Ambassador Hotel vote), I can say that this goal has been met. While the Eagle took issue with one of my claims, upon closer examination, there really is no issue at all.

    But the same can’t be said for the claims made by the “Vote Yes” side. That side of the issue is championed by a group named “Moving Wichita Forward,” managed by Sheila Tigert. While the Eagle article said there were “three instances where semantic liberties have been taken with the facts surrounding the development,” the article finds four problems.

    Specifically, the jobs claim made by Moving Wichita forward “is a stretch,” according to the director of the Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research. The number claimed is grossly exaggerated.

    Second, Moving Wichita Forward’s claim of “No new taxes” is refuted by the two cents per dollar Community Improvement District tax created for the hotel’s exclusive benefit.

    Third, Moving Wichita Forward ignores the economic impact of the $7.3 million in tax credits the hotel is receiving. Taxpayers across Kansas ($3.8 million) and the entire country ($3.5 million) have to make up the missing tax revenue that was diverted to the hotel developer.

    Fourth, Moving Wichita Forward “incorrectly frames the project’s return on investment for the city of Wichita.”

    The Eagle took issue with my claim that Wichita’s Tourism and Convention fund is losing $2 million this year, and therefore needs revenue from hotel guest taxes.

    The Eagle consulted Wichita assistant finance director Rob Raine, who disputed the claim of the loss. But to believe what Raine contends, you would have to suspend belief in the economic reality of events. You would also have to come to the realization that Wichita city budget documents can’t be taken at face value.

    Dave Trabert, who is president of Kansas Policy Institute and has experience with accounting, left a comment to the Eagle article that explains. He wrote:

    A little fact-checking of the city’s claims about its budget might be in order. Page 328 of Wichita’s 2012/2013 Annual Budget shows the following for the Tourism and Convention Fund:

    2012 Adopted:
Budgeted Revenues            $5,977,210
Budgeted Expenses            $7,983,130
Budgeted Loss               ($2,005,919)

2012 Beginning Fund Balance  $2,400,664
2012 Budgeted Loss          ($2,005,919)
2012 Ending Fund Balance       $394,745

    The City also budgeted for a $379,042 loss in 2013, which would bring the fund balance down to just $15,703.

    The Vote No group is not misreading the budget as claimed by the city. If anything, the city is attempting to misguide the Eagle reporter. If the city isn’t going to lose money this year and next as budgeted, they should openly explain what costs are being eliminated or revenues added to make up the difference. Until then, citizens must reasonably conclude that the budget is accurate.

    In a later comment Trabert added: “The city is also falsely claiming that reserves are ‘appropriated,’ implying that reserves are part of the $8 million in expenditures. Page 328 of the budget very clearly identifies the $8 million in budgeted expenditures and reserves are not part of that total. The budgeted $2 million net loss is deducted from beginning reserves as explained in my earlier post.”

    The tourism and convention budget may be viewed on page 328 of this document: Wichita Adopted Supplemental Budget 2012-2013. An excerpt from the budget of the relevant page may be viewed at Wichita Tourism and Convention Fund Budget 2012 – 2013.

    Wichita voters should not be mislead by Moving Wichita Forward, a campaign that is now shown to have little concern for being truthful.

    More information about the election and its issues are at Wichita Ambassador Hotel information sheet and Fact checking the Wichita Ambassador Hotel campaign.

  • Wichita helps out the Ambassador Hotel campaign

    A page on the City of Wichita’s official, taxpayer-funded website provides information on the February 28th special election regarding a guest tax rebate for the Ambassador Hotel in downtown Wichita. While the page provides useful information, it makes a claim that is not accurate, and one which may persuade Wichita voters to vote Yes.

    Specifically, a page on the city’s website states: “Developers would be allowed to collect the rebate for 15 years for costs associated with redeveloping the hotel.”

    An informational sheet also on the city’s website says much the same, claiming that the purpose of the guest tax rebate is to “reimburse them for costs associated with redeveloping the hotel.”

    Many city programs, such as TIF and CID, have specified, allowable uses for the funds provided by these incentive programs. But this guest tax rebate program does not. When the city makes these claims regarding the use of the guest tax, it makes it sound almost benign. Voters might feel persuaded to vote in favor of the rebate program using a reason that doesn’t exist in fact or in contract.

    The guest tax is mentioned on pages 22, 25, 27, 81, 82, 95, and 98 of the agenda packet for the September 13, 2001 city council meeting. The packet includes the actual agreement between the city and the Ambassador Hotel development team.

    None of the references to the guest tax rebate say anything about how the money may be used.

    I asked the city about this, as to whether the city was adding extra meaning to the guest tax rebate that was not specified in the contract between the city and the hotel developers.

    A response from city attorney Gary Rebenstorf disagreed with my contention. Rebenstorf wrote “The explanation you question is a factual statement and accurately reflects the purpose of the rebated taxes to help with costs associated with redeveloping the hotel. The development agreement, which details the development project, provides for the incentive. The guest tax rebates will provide operating cost relief with added cash flow to increase the developer’s capacity to carry more private debt and/or equity and thus cover costs associated with redevelopment of the hotel.”

    But you be the judge. Is the guest tax rebate necessary, and will it be used for the purposes mentioned in city attorney Rebenstorf’s statement?

    There’s no contract that requires the hotel developers to do so.

    Furthermore, the hotel developers have said the hotel will open even if the guest tax rebate measure does not pass in the February 28th election.

    The guest tax measure is more properly viewed as a ninth potential layer of taxpayer-funded government subsidy provided for this hotel. Eight layers are already in place and will not be affected by the outcome of the election.

    It is only the ninth layer that is in question — a ninth layer that is unnecessary, and that goes directly to the developer’s pockets, despite the claims of the city’s attorney.

    I believe there’s a technical business and legal term for that: gravy.

  • Wichita Intrust Bank Arena profit, in perspective

    Last week the Sedgwick County Commission heard a report from county managers regarding the financial performance of the Intrust Bank Arena. The arena, located in downtown Wichita, is owned by the county.

    The main facts are that revenue and profits are down. A Wichita Eagle article holds more details about the numbers.

    What citizens need to know is this: The honeymoon is over. The promised boost to downtown that arena backers promised has yet to materialize in any broad sense. When it does poke through — an example being the Ambassador Hotel — it requires many millions of taxpayer subsidy.

    But perhaps most important is the realization that county leaders are not being honest with its citizens. The “profit” shown by the arena is not reckoned using anything like businesses use, or even most branches of government, for that matter. As explained in the following article from last August, Sedgwick County doesn’t recognize the large capital investment made by citizens to build the arena. Instead, it treats that sacrifice as having no relevance to the economics underlying the arena.

    On top of that, the profit statement presented to commissioners is accompanied by this qualification, which the county does not explain to citizens: “[These statements are] not intended to be a complete presentation of INTRUST Bank Arena’s financial position and results of operations and are not intended to be a presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.”

    Intrust Bank Arena depreciation expense ignored

    By Bob Weeks

    Reports that income earned by the Intrust Bank Arena is down sharply has brought the arena’s finances back into the news. The arena, located in downtown Wichita and owned by Sedgwick County, is deemed to be a success by the county and arena boosters based on “profit” figures generated during its first year of operations. But these numbers are not an honest assessment of the arena’s financial performance.

    When the numbers were presented to Sedgwick County commissioners this week, commission chair Dave Unruh said that he is “pleased that we we still are showing black ink.”

    He then made remarks that show the severe misunderstanding that he and almost everyone labor under regarding the nature of the spending on the arena: “I want to underscore the fact that the citizens of Sedgwick County voted to pay for this facility in advance. And so not having debt service on it is just a huge benefit to our government and to the citizens, so we can go forward without having to having to worry about making those payments and still show positive cash flow. So it’s still a great benefit to our community and I’m still pleased with this report.”

    The contention of Unruh and other arena boosters is that the capital investment of $183,625,241 (not including an operating and maintenance reserve) on the arena is merely a historical artifact, something that happened in the past and that has no bearing today. This attitude, however, disrespects the sacrifices of the people of Sedgwick County and its visitors to raise those funds.

    Since it is only one year old, presumably the arena could be sold for something near its building cost, less an allowance for wear and tear. If not, then the county has a lot of explaining to do as to why it built an asset that has no market value.

    But even if the arena has no market value — and I suspect that in reality it has very little value — it still has an economic cost that must be recognized, that cost being the sales tax collected to pay for it. While arena boosters dismiss this as past history, the county recognizes this cost each year, and will continue to do so for many years.

    The county, however, doesn’t go out of its way to present the complete and accurate accounting of the arena’s cost. Instead, the county and arena boosters trumpet the “profit” earned by the arena for the county according to an operating and management agreement between the county and SMG, a company that operates the arena.

    This agreement specifies a revenue sharing mechanism between the county and SMG. Based on the terms of the agreement, Sedgwick County received payment of $1,116,442 for the 2010 year. While described as profit by many — and there was much crowing over the seemingly large amount — this payment does not represent any sort of “profit” or “earnings” in the usual sense. In fact, the introductory letter that accompanies these calculations warns readers that these are “not intended to be a complete presentation of INTRUST Bank Arena’s financial position and results of operations and are not intended to be a presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.”

    That bears repeating: This is not a reckoning of profit and loss in any recognized sense. It is simply an agreement between Sedgwick County and SMG as to how SMG is to be paid.

    Commissioner Karl Peterjohn has warned that these figures — and the monthly “profit” figures presented to commissioners — do not include depreciation expense. That expense is a method of recognizing and accounting for the large capital cost of the arena — the cost that arena boosters dismiss.

    In April Sedgwick County released that depreciation number in its 2010 Comprehensive Annual Report. The number is pretty big: $4.4 million, some four times the purported “earnings” of the arena.

    Any honest accounting or reckoning of the performance of Intrust Bank Arena must take this number into account. Unruh is correct in that this depreciation expense is not a cash expense that affects cash flow. That cash was spent during the construction phase of the arena.

    But depreciation expense provides a way to recognize and account for the cost of long-lived assets like buildings over their lifespan. It recognizes and respects the investment of those who paid the sales tax. When we follow standard practices like recognizing the cost of capital assets through depreciation expense, we’re forced to recognize that there’s a $4.4 million gorilla in the room that arena boosters don’t want to talk about.

    Using information about arena operations contained in the operations report, we can construct what an actual income statement for the arena would look like, following generally accepted business principles. According to the statement, total operating income for 2010 was $7,005,224. Operating expenses were $4,994,488. Subtracting gives a figure of $2,010,736. This number, however, is not labeled a profit in the report. Instead, the report calls it “Increase in Net Assets Arising from Operating Activities Managed by SMG.”

    An accounting of profit would have to subtract the $4.4 million in depreciation expense. Doing that results in a loss of $2,389,264. This — or something like it — is the number we should be discussing when assessing the financial performance of Intrust Bank Arena.

    Fiscal conservatives — and sometimes even liberals — often speak of “running government like a business.” But here’s an example of conservative government leaders ignoring a basic business principle in order to paint a rosy picture of a government spending project.

    Without honest discussion of numbers like these, we make decisions based on incomplete and false information. This is especially important as civic leaders agitate for another sales tax or other taxes to pay for more public investment. The sales pitch is that once the tax is collected and the assets paid for, we don’t need to consider the cost. They contend, as is the attitude of Unruh and arena boosters, that we can just sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist. This is a false line of reasoning, and citizens ought not to be fooled.

  • Wichita convention business

    One of the reasons Wichita city leaders say we need to provide subsidy to the Ambassador Hotel in downtown Wichita is that the hotel rooms are needed to support the city’s effort in pursuing convention business.

    On its face, this pursuit of convention business seems like a noble effort by city leaders. Vast streams of economic development will follow if they are successful, they say. Providing subsidy to hotels in support of this effort, they conclude, should be a simple decision. Especially when supporters tell us that much of the subsidy to the hotel will be paid by visitors to Wichita. But this claim is true for only a narrow part of the Ambassador Hotel’s $15 million subsidy package. Most of the cost is paid for by taxpayers in Wichita, to a lesser extent in the entire state of Kansas, and to a smaller extent, the U.S. federal taxpayer.

    But I’ve not seen discussion in Wichita on whether this pursuit of convention business is wise. Heywood T. Sanders, who is professor in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio, is a noted critic of public efforts to chase convention business for economic development. His report 2005 Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy was published by the left-leaning think tank The Brookings Institution. It provides a look at the realities of the convention trade.

    Heywood writes that convention center business has been on the decline, and it started well before the terrorist attacks in 2001. In a section titled “Trends: Portrait of a Faltering Industry” we can read that attendance is down, exhibit space demand is down, and hotel room demand in cities has fallen too.

    The author notes that the decline in convention business is a structural decline: “[Reasons for decline] are the product of industry consolidation, particularly in the hardware and home improvement industry, reductions in business travel in the face of increasing cost and difficulty, and alternative means of conveying and gathering information.” These are not cyclical trends that are likely to reverse in the future.

    Despite shrinking demand, cities are building more convention space: “Despite diminishing demand, the last few years have seen a remarkable boom in the volume of exhibit space in U. S. convention centers.” The building of larger convention centers in many cities means that more cities are able to host the larger events, or, cities can now host several smaller events simultaneously. The result, says the author, is fierce competition for both large and small events.

    Then, what about the costs? The author introduces a section on costs with: “The studies that justify both the new center space and the publicly-owned hotels paint a picture of tens of thousands of new out-of-town visitors and millions of dollars in economic impact. Despite that rhetoric, these projects carry real risks and larger potential costs, particularly in an uncertain and highly competitive environment.”

    The convention center is just the start of costs: “A new [convention] center is thus often followed by a subsidized or fully publicly-owned hotel.” Wichita, of course, has a fully publicly-owned hotel, the large 303-room Hyatt. Now Wichita has been providing, and seeks to expand, subsidy programs to other downtown hotels. None of the hotels alone provide as many rooms as Wichita convention planners say the city needs, so we are likely to see proposals for a subsidies to hotels continue.

    In fact, until Wichita has as many hotel rooms as our nation’s largest convention cities have, there is always a larger goal — a next step on the ladder. Can you imagine our city leaders ever proclaiming that we have enough hotel rooms in downtown Wichita?

    Other things Heywood says that are likely to be proposed are a sports arena. Wichita, of course, just opened a taxpayer-financed and government-owned facility, the Intrust Bank Arena. After a brief honeymoon fling with good financial performance, the arena has settled down to a less-acceptable level of revenue production. Residents of Sedgwick County, which owns the arena, should be cautioned that the financial results hailed by the county don’t include depreciation costs, so the true financial picture is not anywhere near complete.

    Entertainment, retail, and cultural attractions are often proposed, he writes, and Wichita downtown planners have indicated their desire for these. Downtown boosters are likely to propose a sales tax to support these efforts.

    The conclusion to this paper describes Wichita’s current situation and foreshadows what is likely for the future of Wichita:

    But if taxing, spending, and building have been successful, the performance and results of that investment have been decidedly less so. Existing convention centers have seen their business evaporate, while new centers and expansions are delivering remarkably little in terms of attendance and activity.

    What is even more striking, in city after city, is that the new private investment and development that these centers were supposed to spur — and the associated thousands of new visitors — has simply not occurred. Rather, city and convention bureau officials now argue that cities need more space, and more convenience, to lure those promised conventions. And so underperforming convention centers now must be redeemed by public investment and ownership of big new hotels. When those hotels fail to deliver the promises, then the excuse is that more attractions, or more retail shops, or even more convention center space will be needed to achieve the goal of thousands of new visitors.

    We already see some of this excuse-making taking place: Private investment in downtown Wichita has been weak, it is said, because there’s not yet a critical mass of development. It is promised by downtown boosters that given enough public money, critical mass will be achieved, and private investment will rush in. But since there is no definition of what constitutes critical mass, this excuse is always available to justify failure.

    Listen to an interview with Sanders from 2009. A transcript of an interview with Sanders from 2004 is at “A Lot of Hooey”: Heywood Sanders on Convention Center Economics.

  • No-bid contracts a problem in Wichita

    Wichita Eagle reporting by Bill Wilson uncovers a problem with no-bid contracts for construction projects in Wichita. Fortunately, the city manager recognizes the problem and will propose a partial solution.

    Wilson reports on two past Key Construction garage projects that were completed with costs well over their budgets. Key Construction was scheduled to be the no-bid contractor on the upcoming Douglas Place garage, being built largely to provide parking to the Wichita Ambassador Hotel. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent passed by the Wichita City Council.

    But when competitively bid, the cost will be almost $1.3 million less. This is a direct savings to taxpayers of the same amount. All members of the council except for Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) voted for the no-bid contract to Key Construction, although Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer was absent. It is certain that he would have voted with the majority, however, as he voted in favor of the letter of intent.

    Because of the perverse economic incentives of tax increment financing (TIF) — one of the two financing sources for the garage — it was actually to the benefit of hotel developers and Key Construction to spend as much as possible on the parking garage. See Wichita TIF: Taxpayer-funded benefits to political players for more on this topic.

    By the way, Key Construction is part of the Ambassador Hotel development team. Further, the owners and principle executives of Key Construction are generous campaign financiers for both liberal and conservative members of the Wichita City Council. See Wichita City Council campaign contributions and Douglas Place for details on Key Construction political contributions.

    This episode illustrates these things: a Wichita City Council almost totally captured by special interests and opportunists, crony capitalism on steroids, and another example of why Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws.

    Wichita city manager proposes eliminating no-bid construction projects

    By Bill Wilson

    The days of awarding construction projects without taking competitive bids might be numbered at City Hall if City Manager Robert Layton has his way, especially with public projects such as parking garages that are part of private commercial development.

    Layton said last week that he intends to ask the City Council for a policy change against those no-bid contracts. The contracts became an issue after council members Michael O’Donnell and Pete Meitzner forced the city to take bids on the city-financed 300-stall parking garage adjacent to the privately financed Ambassador Hotel Wichita at Douglas and Broadway. Bids for the garage came in almost $1.3 million under some project estimates, the first publicly financed downtown parking garage in almost 20 years to come in under budget, according to figures from the city’s office of urban development.

    Continue reading at The Wichita Eagle.

  • Wichita turns taxation over to private interests

    In a free society with a limited government, taxation should be restricted to being a way for government to raise funds to pay for services that all people benefit from. But in the city of Wichita, taxation for private gain is overtaking our city.

    The Ambassador Hotel, part of a project known as Douglas Place, makes use of several of these private tax policy strategies. By private tax policy, I mean that the proceeds of a tax are used for the exclusive benefit of one person (or business firm), instead of used for the benefit of all. In one example related to this hotel, the Wichita City Council is allowing private parties to determine the city’s tax policy at their discretion, not the city’s.

    The tax in question is Wichita’s hotel guest tax. According to a description of the Tourism and Convention Fund in the city’s budget document, the goal of the guest tax is to “support tourism and convention, infrastructure, and promotion of the City.” Its priorities are to be “Fund priorities are: 1) debt service for tourism and convention facilities, 2) operational deficit subsidies and 3) care and maintenance of Century II.”

    But in the case of the Ambassador Hotel project, the city passed a charter ordinance that would route 75 percent of this tax directly back to the hotel owners for their own use. That’s not the proclaimed purpose of the guest tax.

    Instead, this is public taxation for private enrichment.

    Those who benefit from things like this and tax increment financing (TIF) districts say they aren’t really benefiting, as they are, in fact, paying taxes.

    But when taxes you must pay are routed back to you for your own exclusive use, what else can you call it except capture of a public function for your own personal use?

    Failure of Wichita city leadership

    If you need further evidence that Wichita is turning over taxation to private hands, consider this: The charter ordinance is subject to a protest petition. In the normal case, if sufficient signatures are gathered, the city council would have to either a) overturn the ordinance, or b) hold an election to let voters decide whether the ordinance takes effect. An effort that I have been involved with expects to turn in enough signatures this week to force this decision.

    Now, if this tax policy regarding the Ambassador Hotel is truly in the public interest, we would expect that the city council would decide whether to hold such an election and bear its costs itself. But that’s not the case. In the agreement between the city and the Douglas Place developers, we see this: “If Developer requests a special election solely for the purpose of passing the charter ordinance in the event a sufficient protest petition is submitted, Developer shall reimburse the City for the actual out of pocket costs and expenses of conducting such election.”

    In other words, the city is turning over to private interests the decision as to whether to have such an election, and also the responsibility for paying for it. This is a failure of Wichita city leadership to do the things that government, not private interests, should do.

    Private taxation funds political entrepreneurship

    In Wichita, especially in downtown, we see the rise of private tax policy, that is, the taxing power of government being used for private purposes. The above example is just one example. This private tax policy is pushed by Wichita’s political entrepreneurs. These are the people who would rather compete in the realm of politics rather than in the market.

    Examples of Wichita’s political entrepreneurs include the developers the Ambassador Hotel: David Burk of Marketplace Properties, and the principals of Key Construction.

    Competing in the political arena is easier than competing in the market. To win in the political arena, you only have to convince a majority of the legislative body that controls your situation. Once you’ve convinced them the power of government takes over, and the people at large are forced to transfer money to the political entrepreneurs. In other words, they must engage in transactions they would not elect to perform, if left to their own free will.

    In the free marketplace, however, entrepreneurs have to compete by offering products or services that people are willing to buy, free of coercion. That’s hard to do. But it’s the only way to gauge whether people really want what the entrepreneurs are selling. It’s also the way that wealth and prosperity are created. Government spending on business does not have this effect.

    One of the ways that political entrepreneurs compete is by making campaign contributions, and the developers of Douglas Place have mastered this technique. Key Construction principles contributed $13,500 to Mayor Carl Brewer and four city council members during their most recent campaigns. Council Member Jeff Longwell alone received $4,000 of that sum, and he also accepted another $2,000 from managing member David Burk and his wife.

    All told, Burk and his wife contributed at least $7,500 to city council candidates who will be voting whether to give Burk money. Burk and others routinely make the maximum contribution to all — or nearly all — candidates, even those with widely varying political stances. How can someone explain Burk’s (and his wife’s) contributions to liberals like Miller and Williams, and also to conservatives like Longwell, Meitzner, and former council member Sue Schlapp?

    The answer is: Burk will be asking these people for money.

    Wichitans need to rise against these political entrepreneurs and their usurpation of a public function — taxation — for their own benefit. The politicians and bureaucrats who enable this should realize they should be serving the public interest, not the narrow and private enrichment of the few at the cost of many.

  • Wichita petition drive nears end

    It’s been a lot of work. Wichita city leaders ought to take notice that citizens are so opposed to their actions that they will venture out in winter to gather signatures in opposition.

    The issue is the Ambassador Hotel, part of the Douglas Place project, in downtown Wichita. This project received a multi-layer cake of subsidies from the City of Wichita, State of Kansas, and even the U.S. federal government. One of these layers is subject to a protest petition that will force an election so that citizens may decide the matter. That’s what is coming to an end.

    Petition organizers and volunteers have collected many signatures, but more are needed. This weekend is the final push, as signatures are due Tuesday December 6th. Following is an invitation to a party this Sunday where circulators can turn in signatures they have gathered, and where citizens may sign.

    Petition Party Invitation

    Thank you for adding your name and support to the hotel guest tax petition! Thanks to your efforts, it is likely Wichita voters will get to decide if one hotel should get a better tax break than the rest.

    We’d like to show our appreciation by making our last petition collection effort a thank you party.

    PLEASE JOIN US

    Sunday, December 4, 2011
    12:30 pm to 2:30 pm
    at the Corporate Hills Marriott
    9100 Corporate Hills Drive
    (West of Webb Road just north of Kellogg. Click here for a map.)

    Cake, coffee, and punch will be served. Free notaries will be on hand to receive your final petitions.

    Bring friends and family who want to sign.

    If you can’t attend but have a petition you would like a free notary to pick up, call John Todd at 316-312-7335.

    PLEASE RSVP
    infoks@afphq.org or 316-681-4415

    QUESTIONS
    Call Susan 316-681-4415

  • Wichita economic development: And then what will happen?

    Critics of the economic development policies in use by the City of Wichita are often portrayed as not being able to see and appreciate the good things these policies are producing, even though they are unfolding right before our very eyes. The difference is that some look beyond the immediate — what is seen — and ask “And then what will happen?” — looking for the unseen.

    Thomas Sowell explains the problem in a passage from the first chapter of Applied economics: thinking beyond stage one:

    When we are talking about applied economic policies, we are no longer talking about pure economic principles, but about the interactions of politics and economics. The principles of economics remain the same, but the likelihood of those principles being applied unchanged is considerably reduced, because politics has its own principles and imperatives. It is not just that politicians’ top priority is getting elected and re-elected, or that their time horizon seldom extends beyond the next election. The general public as well behaves differently when making political decisions rather than economic decisions. Virtually no one puts as much time and close attention into deciding whether to vote for one candidate rather than another as is usually put into deciding whether to buy one house rather than another — or perhaps even one car rather than another.

    The voter’s political decisions involve having a minute influence on policies which affect many other people, while economic decision-making is about having a major effect on one’s own personal well-being. It should not be surprising that the quantity and quality of thinking going into these very different kinds of decisions differ correspondingly. One of the ways in which these decisions differ is in not thinking through political decisions beyond the immediate consequences. When most voters do not think beyond stage one, many elected officials have no incentive to weigh what the consequences will be in later stages — and considerable incentives to avoid getting beyond what their constituents think and understand, for fear that rival politicians can drive a wedge between them and their constituents by catering to public misconceptions.

    The economic decisions made by governing bodies like the Wichita City Council have a large impact on the lives of Wichitans. But as Sowell explains, these decisions are made by politicians for political reasons.

    Sowell goes on to explain the danger of stopping the thinking process at stage one:

    When I was an undergraduate studying economics under Professor Arthur Smithies of Harvard, he asked me in class one day what policy I favored on a particular issue of the times. Since I had strong feelings on that issue, I proceeded to answer him with enthusiasm, explaining what beneficial consequences I expected from the policy I advocated.

    “And then what will happen?” he asked.

    The question caught me off guard. However, as I thought about it, it became clear that the situation I described would lead to other economic consequences, which I then began to consider and to spell out.

    “And what will happen after that?” Professor Smithies asked.

    As I analyzed how the further economic reactions to the policy would unfold, I began to realize that these reactions would lead to consequences much less desirable than those at the first stage, and I began to waver somewhat.

    “And then what will happen?” Smithies persisted.

    By now I was beginning to see that the economic reverberations of the policy I advocated were likely to be pretty disastrous — and, in fact, much worse than the initial situation that it was designed to improve.

    Simple as this little exercise may sound, it goes further than most economic discussions about policies on a wide range of issues. Most thinking stops at stage one.

    We see stage one thinking all the time when looking at government. In Wichita, for example, a favorite question of city council members seeking to justify their support for government intervention such as a tax increment financing (TIF) district or some other form of subsidy is “How much more tax does the building pay now?” Or perhaps “How many jobs will (or did) the project create?”

    These questions, and the answers to them, are examples of stage one thinking. The answers are easily obtained and cited as evidence of the success of the government program.

    But driving by a store or hotel in a TIF district and noticing a building or people working at jobs does not tell the entire story. Using the existence of a building, or the payment of taxes, or jobs created, is stage one thinking, and no more than that.

    Fortunately, there are people who have thought beyond stage one, and some concerning local economic development and TIF districts. And what they’ve found should spur politicians and bureaucrats to find ways to move beyond stage one in their thinking.

    An example are economists Richard F. Dye and David F. Merriman, who have studied tax increment financing extensively. Their article Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development states in its conclusion:

    TIF districts grow much faster than other areas in their host municipalities. TIF boosters or naive analysts might point to this as evidence of the success of tax increment financing, but they would be wrong. Observing high growth in an area targeted for development is unremarkable.

    So TIFs are good for the favored development that receives the subsidy — not a surprising finding. What about the rest of the city? Continuing from the same study:

    If the use of tax increment financing stimulates economic development, there should be a positive relationship between TIF adoption and overall growth in municipalities. This did not occur. If, on the other hand, TIF merely moves capital around within a municipality, there should be no relationship between TIF adoption and growth. What we find, however, is a negative relationship. Municipalities that use TIF do worse.

    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.

    In a different paper (The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development), the same economists wrote “We find clear and consistent evidence that municipalities that adopt TIF grow more slowly after adoption than those that do not. … These findings suggest that TIF trades off higher growth in the TIF district for lower growth elsewhere. This hypothesis is bolstered by other empirical findings.”

    Here we have an example of thinking beyond stage one. The results are opposite of what one-stage thinking produces.

    Some city council members are concerned about creating jobs, and are swayed by the promises of developers that their establishments will employ a certain number of workers. Again, this thinking stops at stage one. But others have looked farther, as has Paul F. Byrne of Washburn University. The title of his recent report is Does Tax Increment Financing Deliver on Its Promise of Jobs? The Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Municipal Employment Growth, and in its abstract we find this conclusion regarding the impact of TIF on jobs:

    Increasingly, municipal leaders justify their use of tax increment financing (TIF) by touting its role in improving municipal employment. However, empirical studies on TIF have primarily examined TIF’s impact on property values, ignoring the claim that serves as the primary justification for its use. This article addresses the claim by examining the impact of TIF adoption on municipal employment growth in Illinois, looking for both general impact and impact specific to the type of development supported. Results find no general impact of TIF use on employment. However, findings suggest that TIF districts supporting industrial development may have a positive effect on municipal employment, whereas TIF districts supporting retail development have a negative effect on municipal employment. These results are consistent with industrial TIF districts capturing employment that would have otherwise occurred outside of the adopting municipality and retail TIF districts shifting employment within the municipality to more labor-efficient retailers within the TIF district.

    While this research might be used to support a TIF district for industrial development, TIF in Wichita is primarily used for retail development. And, when thinking beyond stage one, the effect on employment — considering the entire city — is negative.

    It’s hard to think beyond stage one. It requires considering not only the seen, but also the unseen, as Frederic Bastiat taught us in his famous parable of the broken window. But over and over we see how politicians at all levels of government stop thinking at stage one. This is one of the many reasons why we need to return as much decision-making as possible to the private sector, and drastically limit the powers of politicians and governments.

  • The Wichita Eagle on naysayers: a disservice to Wichita

    Yesterday’s op-ed by Rhonda Holman in The Wichita Eagle reveals a crucial need for a newspaper with at least one conservative voice on its editorial board (Say ‘no’ to naysayers, October 9, 2011). Here are a few ways in which Holman and her newspaper’s editorial section are wrong about downtown Wichita development and a few other issues, and how the op-ed is a disservice to the people of Wichita:

    The real world, according to Holman

    While Holman cites the “real world” as the need to pour massive subsidy into downtown Wichita, I might ask this question: Why is downtown Wichita such an unattractive investment that lavish subsidy must be heaped upon those who invest there?

    Actually, the broader question needs to be asked, as the city often subsidizes development all over town. An example is the new Cabela’s store, an example of “greenfield” development that supposedly sucks away all the money from downtown, and which the elitists despise. In that case the city lent its taxing authority to Cabela’s to be used for its own purposes. A more direct example was when the city granted, through a forgivable loan, $48,000 to The Golf Warehouse, located in a suburban office park.

    So what is it about Wichita? Won’t anyone invest in Wichita without subsidy?

    It turns out, fortunately, that many do.

    In the “real world,” there’s a lot of development going on. It just isn’t always taking place where Holman and other elites think it should be taking place.

    Interestingly, when the elites advocate for public funding of their goals, their own actions often belie their true preferences. For example, a lot of development in Wichita is taking place near Holman’s suburban home. Many other supporters of subsidized downtown development don’t live anywhere near downtown — or even in Wichita, in at least two examples.

    Why this building?

    There’s much more in Holman’s article that deserves discussion. For example, Holman writes: “The Union National Bank building is a prime example: If it could be developed without the use of public tools, it wouldn’t still be empty after 12 years.” Underlying this statement is the assumption that this property should be developed. I don’t know where she and the supporters of subsidized downtown development get these ideas. What is it about this property that gives it priority over other properties in the city or downtown?

    If Holman makes the case that this small piece of land deserves massive public spending to support its development, can’t the same argument be made for every other vacant building or empty plot of land in downtown Wichita? We can anticipate that it will be.

    Scrutiny, by cheerleaders only

    Holman praises the scrutiny that the project has undergone, writing that the project has been “vetted by a public-private evaluation team.” By my reckoning, the committee that performs this function doesn’t have a single member who is skeptical of subsidies for downtown development. Can’t these people tolerate even one person who might voice dissent?

    Further, that committee decided to approve the project despite the involvement of David Burk of Marketplace Properties. Holman’s own newspaper reported this last year: “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. … Officials in the city legal department said that while Burk was within his rights to appeal taxes on another city-supported building in the Cinema Plaza, he did not have authorization to file an appeal on the city-owned parking/retail space he leases. … As for Burk signing documents as the city’s representative, ‘I do have a problem with it,’ said City Attorney Gary Rebenstorf, adding that he intends to investigate further.”

    The development agreement for the current project contains restrictions on the type of behavior that Burk has exhibited in the past. Call it the “Burk clause.”

    Election as referendum?

    Holman claims that the recent spring city elections were a referendum on downtown, and that subsidized downtown development won. (Here again Holman doesn’t make a distinction between “development” and “subsidized development.”)

    But elections are a decidedly poor way to make these decisions. For one thing, policy regarding subsidized downtown development is just one issue that candidates ran on. Voters have to vote for the entire package. They can’t pick and choose among issues, and it’s a reason why we need to leave more economic activity in the realm of markets — where people can pick and choose what they want — rather than turning it over to politics.

    Then, there’s the low turnout for these elections. In the past, Holman described the turnout for the spring primary as “depressingly low.” But now — since the results largely fit her ideology — she describes the election is a “referendum.”

    Then, there’s this: A recent Rasmussen poll carried the headline: “Just 6% Think Most Politicians Keep Their Campaign Promises.” Elaborating, the pollster explained: “Voters remain overwhelmingly convinced that most politicians won’t keep their campaign promises, but they’re a little less convinced that their elected officials deliberately lie.”

    As shown in my reporting of one of the first times two new city council members faced a test, they didn’t fare well at all (Wichita forgivable loan action raises and illustrates issues):

    Politically, Wichitans learned today the value of promises or statements made by most candidates while campaigning. Most candidates’ promises along with $3.75 will get you a small cappuccino at Starbucks — if you don’t ask for whipped cream.

    Particularly interesting is the inability of politicians to admit they were wrong, or that they made a mistake, or that they were simply uninformed or misinformed when they made a campaign promise or statement. … City council members Clendenin and Meitzner could not bring themselves to admit that their votes today were at odds with their statements made while campaigning. This lack of honesty is one of the reasons that citizens tune out politics, why they have such a cynical attitude towards politicians, and perhaps why voter turnout in city elections is so low.

    As one young Wichitan said on her Facebook page after sharing video of the three new council members today, obviously referring to city council district 2’s Pete Meitzner: “How to use your mouth: 1. Campaign under the guise that you are a fiscal conservative. 2. Insert foot.

    Finally, there are the out-sized campaign contributions made by those who ask the city council for money. See Wichita City Council campaign contributions and Douglas Place for details on the campaign contributions made by these developers.

    One more thing: If Holman is advocating using the results of elections as a measure of city sentiment, why oppose this election, where the ballot question addresses one issue, and there can be no confusion as to what the voters mean?

    The naysayers

    Holman, as do many downtown supporters, falsely frames the issue. She writes: “To oppose the Ambassador project is, in effect, to oppose downtown redevelopment.” She uses, as does Mayor Carl Brewer, the term “naysayer.” They don’t mean it as a compliment.

    What I — and the people I ally myself with — oppose is subsidized development. We oppose this whether it is downtown, suburban, or elsewhere. As it turns out, we can’t even have an honest assessment of the level of public involvement in the current project under consideration. While the City of Wichita employs a very narrow definition of public involvement, a more realistic look shows that the hotel benefits from $15,470,000 in public money to get started, and then $321,499 per year for the first five years, with smaller amounts for 22 years.

    Saying no to government intervention doesn’t mean saying no to progress. It does mean saying “no” to the self-serving plans of politicians and bureaucrats and the crony capitalists who seek to profit from political entrepreneurship.

    It means saying “no” to Wichita’s political entrepreneurs, who seek to earn profits through government coercion rather than meeting the needs of customers in the marketplace. It means saying “no” to the public-private partnership, where all too often it is the risk that is public and the profit that is private.

    So yes, I guess I and Wichita’s other naysayers are saying “no” to a lot of things.

    But what we’re saying “yes” to is liberty and freedom. We’re saying “yes” to a civil society that respects the rich diversity of human individuality instead of government planning and bureaucracy. We’re saying “yes” to free people cooperating voluntarily through free markets rather than forced government transfers from taxpayers to politically-favored individuals and programs.

    We’re saying “yes” to consumers choosing which businesses in Wichita thrive, rather than politicians on the city council — and their elitist sycophants — choosing. We’re saying “yes” to people making their own choices, rather than government “incentivizing” the behavior it desires through TIF districts and tax abatements, those incentives being paid for by taxpayers.