Voice For Liberty

Tag: Featured

  • Naftzger Park private use plans unsettled

    Naftzger Park private use plans unsettled

    An important detail regarding Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita is unsettled, and Wichitans have reason to be wary.

    In the developer agreement regarding Naftzger Park passed on December 19, 2017, there was this: “The City and the Board will cooperate with Developers, upon Developers’ request, to create an Annual Master Calendar of private and public events for the Park, with the expectation that the Developers will have the use of the Park for certain private events.” 1 (In this agreement, “Board” refers to the Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Wichita, Kansas.)

    Recently I asked the city if this master calendar had been created, or if there was a framework for determining how many private events can be held. According to the city, decisions are ongoing, and “According to Park & Recreation officials, what can be shared now is that the City will create and maintain a master calendar of events and programming. The developer will share in the programming responsibility and host several events throughout the year. Collaborating will ensure that the park is programmed well and active.”

    Wichitans should not take comfort in learning this. We can easily imagine where the developer will want to have private events often, especially if homeless people continue using the park as a gathering spot, as is their right. “TGIF kickoff, tonight at Naftzger Park! Drinks and hot hors d’oeuvre! $15 to enter, free to residents of Lofts at Spaghetti Works and partners at Martin Pringle.”

    Could this happen? How often could this happen? These are open questions, and we’re being asked to trust that city bureaucrats will negotiate a good deal for the entire city.

    A panoramic view of Naftzger Park at winter’s end. Click for larger.

    We shouldn’t trust the city to get a good deal for the average Wichitan. Even if the city strikes a deal that looks good, we should not trust the city to enforce the deal. Here’s an example to illustrate why.

    In 2012 the city negotiated a deal with a private developer regarding an apartment development. As part of the deal, the city negotiated a provision that requires the apartment developer to pay “Additional Annual Rent” if certain conditions were met. To the casual observer, that might seem like a magnanimous gesture by the apartment developer. It made it look like the city was been a tough negotiator, hammering out a good deal for the city, letting citizens profit along with the apartment developer.

    But the list of costs the developer could deduct before determining “additional annual rent” was broad, including the ability to contribute to reserve funds that would be owned by the developer. At the time, I observed, “We can be sure that if this project was ever in the position where it looked like it might have to remit ‘Additional Annual Rent’ to the city, contributions to these reserve funds would rise. Then, no funds paid to the city.” 2

    As it turns out, the city did not enforce this agreement. It didn’t even ask for the information needed. Last year I became aware that the city did not ask for, and the developers did not produce, annual reports. 3

    So might it happen that the private developments adjacent to Naftzger Park treat the park as their own? Recall that these developers have taken advantage of nearly every available program to fund their private developments. 4 Included in the list of benefits is a new benefit the city has offered only once before, to my knowledge: The city is paying the developer for parking spaces, on the theory they will be available to the public when the development does not need them.

    Many of these benefits to the developer appeared only after the Wichita city manager said the development would not proceed, as the Wichita Eagle reported: “Plans to tear up and rebuild Naftzger Park downtown have been shelved indefinitely, after developers who own neighboring property pulled out of working with the city, Wichita City Manager Robert Layton said Friday [November 17, 2017].” 5 Somehow the deal was quickly revived, with even more taxpayer-funded benefits to the developer.

    Should Wichitans trust the city to negotiate a good deal, and if it does, to enforce it? In my experience, the answer is no.

    —
    Notes

    1. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between the CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, SENECA PROPERTY, LLC, and SUNFLOWER WICHITA, LLC Dated as of January 19, 2018. Section 3.12. In the agenda packet for the December 19, 2017 Wichita city council meeting. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Wichita WaterWalk apartment deal not good for citizens. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-waterwalk-apartment-deal-not-good-for-citizens/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Wichita WaterWalk contract not followed, again. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-waterwalk-contract-not-followed/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Naftzger Park project details. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/naftzger-park-project-details/. ↩
    5. Lefler, Dion. Naftzger Park won’t be torn down, rebuilt after Spaghetti Works developer pulls out. Wichita Eagle, November 17, 2017. Available at http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article185304103.html. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Dr. Tom G. Palmer and the causes of wealth

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Dr. Tom G. Palmer and the causes of wealth

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Dr. Tom G. Palmer of Atlas Network joins Bob Weeks to explain why the usual approach to foreign aid isn’t working, and what Atlas Network is doing to change the lives of the poor across the world. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 189, broadcast March 24, 2018.

    Shownotes

  • Kansas personal income

    Kansas personal income

    Personal income in Kansas rose in 2017 at a rate one-third that of the nation.

    Personal income in Kansas for 2017 was $138,673 million, according to preliminary estimates released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce.

    Change in personal income, 2016 to 2017. Click for a larger version and the BEA press release.
    That is an increase of 1.0 percent from 2016, when personal income was $137,305 million. These are current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 1

    The growth for Kansas — 1.0 percent — ranked 47th among the states. For the nation, personal income rose by 3.1 percent, and for the Plains states, it rose by 1.7 percent.

    BEA gives the population of Kansas as 2,913,000, with per capita personal income at $47,603. That ranks 24th among the states, and is 94 percent of the value of personal income for the entire nation, which is $50,392.

    Personal income, according to BEA, is “the income received by, or on behalf of, all persons from all sources: from participation as laborers in production, from owning a home or business, from the ownership of financial assets, and from government and business in the form of transfers. It includes income from domestic sources as well as the rest of world. It does not include realized or unrealized capital gains or losses.” 2

    For Kansas, there were these notable changes in earnings:
    Farm: Down by 0.66 percent
    Non-durable goods manufacturing: Up by 0.23 percent
    Wholesale trade: Up by 0.11 percent
    Transportation and warehousing: Up by 0.15 percent
    Management of companies and enterprise: Up by 0.15 percent
    Health care and social assistance: Up by 0.23 percent
    State and local government: Up by 0.21 percent

    —
    Notes

    1. Bureau of Economic Analysis. State Personal Income: 2017. Available at https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/sqpi_newsrelease.htm. ↩
    2. Ibid. ↩
  • Wichita city council public agenda needs reform

    Wichita city council public agenda needs reform

    Recent use of the Wichita City Council public agenda has highlighted the need for reform.

    At meetings of the Wichita city council, non-council members generally have two opportunities to address the council members. One is as each agenda item is considered. There is (usually) an opportunity to speak only on that topic. If you want to speak about something else, there is also an opportunity near the start of the meeting called the public agenda.

    The council has policies regarding the public agenda, particularly the need to sign up before the meeting, and far in advance: “Members of the public desiring to present matters to the council on the public agenda must submit a request in writing to the office of the city manager prior to twelve noon on the Tuesday preceding the council meeting.” 1

    The practical problem is this: If the council takes action on Tuesday that inspires someone to address the council on the public agenda, that probably can’t happen at the next council meeting, if the policy is followed as stated. For one thing, the council might not take action until after noon, so the deadline for speaking at the next meeting has passed by then. But more likely and most importantly, many people are not able to watch the council meeting live. Instead, they may view a delayed broadcast on cable television, watch the meeting through the city’s website, or read news reporting. By the time any of these happen, the deadline for the next meeting’s public agenda has passed.

    Why is this important? In Kansas cities of the first class, a law is not “officially passed” until it has passed on “second reading.” 2 This is a procedure whereby an ordinance that has passed “first reading” is voted upon again, and if it passes, it then may become law. Often second reading happens at the next council meeting, one week later. (“First reading” is what people see in meetings and is reported in news stories. A proposed ordinance is explained, usually by city staff. Then there may be discussion from the public and among council members, and then a vote.)

    So if a person has a problem with an ordinance that passed first reading and wants to speak to the council before the second reading of the ordinance, that probably won’t be possible, for timing reasons explained above.

    There’s the related issue that the second reading is placed on the consent agenda. A consent agenda is a group of items — perhaps as many as two dozen or so — that are voted on in bulk with a single vote. An item on a consent agenda will be discussed only if a council member requests the item to be “pulled.” If that is done, the item will be discussed. Then it might be withdrawn, voted on by itself, or folded back into the consent agenda with the other items. Generally, consent agenda items are considered by the city to be routine and non-controversial, but that is not always the case.

    It is very rare for the second reading of an ordinance to be “pulled” from a consent agenda for discussion and separate vote. It may have happened, and if so, I can’t recall when. So even if you spoke on the public agenda regarding an ordinance at the meeting where that same ordinance appears on second reading, your speech might not mean much unless a council member “pulls” the item from the consent agenda for discussion and possibly, an individual vote.

    By the way, one speaker said that the council’s policies meant there could be only 20 speakers per month. I think the arithmetic behind this comes from the council’s policy of five speakers per meeting and four meetings per month. It’s actually less than that. As explained on the council’s web site, the fourth meeting of a month is a “workshop” meeting. At these meetings the council considers consent agenda items only, along with information presentations (the workshop). There is no public agenda at these fourth Tuesday meetings, and the council doesn’t meet on fifth Tuesdays.

    (You may be wondering: Does second reading ever happen in the fourth Tuesday meetings where there is no public agenda? Yes. It happened on January 23, 2018, for example.)

    Would reform of the council’s public agenda make a difference? Do council members listen to and consider the opinions of speakers on the public agenda?

    That’s a good question!

    —
    Notes

    1. Wichita City Council. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC AGENDA REQUEST FORMS. Accessed March 20, 2018. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Council/CityCouncilDocument/PUBLIC%20AGENDA%20REQUEST%20FORM.pdf. ↩
    2. Myers, Bob. Drafting of City Ordinances and Resolutions In Kansas. Available at http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/hugowall/Outline%20-%20Res%20and%20Ord%20Drafting.pdf. ↩
  • Employment in metropolitan areas

    Employment in metropolitan areas

    An interactive visualization of labor force, employment, and unemployment rate for all metropolitan areas in the United States.

    The example from the visualization shown below shows the Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area and All Metro Areas. Data is through January 2018. Of note regarding Wichita:

    • Since the Great Recession ended, the unemployment rate in Wichita has fallen, as it has nationwide.
    • At the same time, employment (the number of people working) in Wichita, has been steady or rising slightly. Nationwide, employment has been growing.
    • At the same time, the civilian labor force in Wichita has been mostly falling, while rising nationwide.

    When using the visualization you can adjust the date range to focus on recent years, or any other time period.

    To learn about the data included and to use the visualization, click on Civilian labor force and unemployment by metropolitan area.

    Example from the visualization., showing Wichita and All metro areas Click for larger.
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: John Todd and the fight against blight

    WichitaLiberty.TV: John Todd and the fight against blight

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: John Todd explains how cities in Kansas are seeking additional power to seize property, and tells us why we should oppose this legislation. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 188, broadcast March 17, 2018.

    Shownotes

  • Wichita employment down, year-over-year

    Wichita employment down, year-over-year

    At a time Wichita leaders promote forward momentum in the Wichita economy, year-over-year employment has fallen.

    Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics released employment statistics through January 2018. 1

    One of the tables released is “Over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for metropolitan areas, not seasonally adjusted,” which shows changes in jobs from January 2017 to January 2018. 2 For this time period for the Wichita metropolitan area, the number of nonfarm jobs fell from 292.1 thousand to 291.1 thousand, a decline of 1,000 jobs or 0.3 percent.

    Of 382 metropolitan areas, 57 performed worse than did Wichita. For these metro areas, the average growth in jobs was 1.15 percent.

    Over the same period the unemployment rate in the Wichita MSA fell from 4.6 percent to 3.7 percent.

    —
    Notes

    1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment Summary. Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.nr0.htm. ↩
    2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for metropolitan areas, not seasonally adjusted. Available at https://www.bls.gov/web/metro/metro_oty_change.htm. ↩
  • Employment in the states

    Employment in the states

    An interactive visualization of the civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment, for each state.

    In the example from the visualization shown below, which shows indexed employment growth, you can see that Kansas (the highlighted line) is not faring well. There aren’t many states whose lines are below that of Kansas.

    This data is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a division of the United States Department of Labor. It is current through January 2018.

    Click here to use the visualization and to learn about the meaning of the data series. There are four views of the data, accessible through the tabs along the top. You may select a time frame and any combination of states. By clicking on the color legend, you can emphasize the lines for one or more states. (Ctrl+click to add more than one line.)

    Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, example showing Kansas highlighted. Click for larger.
  • Sedgwick County’s David Dennis on economic development

    Sedgwick County’s David Dennis on economic development

    Following the Wichita Mayor, the Chair of the Sedgwick County Commission speaks on economic development.

    Last week Sedgwick County Commissioner David Dennis penned a column for the Wichita Eagle praising the county’s efforts in economic development. 1 Dennis is also chair of the commission this year.

    In his column, the commissioner wrote: “Economic development is a key topic for the Board of County Commissioners and for me in particular. Right now we have a lot of momentum to make our community a more attractive place for people and businesses.”

    This emphasis on the word “momentum” seems to be a fad among Wichita’s government leaders. More about this later.

    Dennis also wrote: “Traditional governmental incentives are a thing of the past. There are no more blank checks from Sedgwick County for businesses.”

    Except: The county participates in incentive programs that allow companies like Spirit to escape paying taxes, and when you don’t have to pay taxes, that’s the same economic effect as someone giving you cash to pay those taxes. Spirit Aerosystems will receive Industrial Revenue Bonds, which are not a loan of money to Spirit, but allow the company to avoid paying property taxes and sales taxes. 2 3 These incentives are a cost to the county and other units of government, and are as good as cash to Spirit. (For this and many other projects the county is not involved in the approval of the IRB program, but it doesn’t object, and it sees its tacit approval as part of its partnership with the City of Wichita.)

    Besides this, the county engages in traditional incentives — almost like a blank check — but disguises them. In this case, for example, the county is contributing $7 million towards the construction of a building exclusively for Spirit’s use. How will the county pay for that? The memorandum that the county agreed to states: “The county participation of $7 million US is anticipated to be available cash.” 4

    You might be wondering if the county is treating this contribution as an investment that a business would make, where it would earn back its investment plus a profit by collecting rent from Spirit. After all, county leaders tell us they want to operate government like a business.

    But, you’d be wrong if you thought that. The memorandum specifies the rent as $1 per year. Not $1 per square foot per year, but $1 per year for the entire building. Furthermore, at the end of 20 years, Spirit will have the option to purchase the property for $1.

    There’s really no way to characterize this transaction other than as a multi-million giveaway to Spirit. Not directly as a blank check or cash, but in a roundabout way that costs the county and benefits Spirit in the same way as cash.

    I can understand how Dennis and others like Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell want to convince the public that they are no longer dishing out cash. Often, the public doesn’t like that. So instead they do the same thing in roundabout ways like leasing a building for $1 per year or paying millions in cash for a “parking easement” for which the city has no real use. 5 Chairman Dennis and others hope you won’t notice, but these leaders would be more credible if they didn’t try to obfuscate the truth.

    Sedgwick County jobs. Click for larger.
    Sedgwick County jobs, change from prior year. Click for larger.
    At the end of his column, Dennis wrote: “There is a lot of momentum and forward movement in our community right now and I’m encouraged to see what we can achieve as a team.”

    There’s that word again: momentum. Coincidently, shortly after this column was published, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published an update to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. It shows the number of jobs in Sedgwick County declining. This update was released after Dennis wrote his column, but as can be seen from the nearby charts, the slowdown in Sedgwick County jobs and the Wichita-area economy is not a new trend.

    If Dennis really believes our economy has “momentum and forward movement,” it is my sincere hope that he is simply uninformed or misinformed about these statistics. Because if he is aware, we can only conclude that he is something else that is worse than being merely ignorant.

    —
    Notes

    1. David Dennis. Sedgwick County part of drive to strengthen area workforce. Wichita Eagle, March 5, 2018. Available at http://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article203559734.html. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Industrial revenue bonds in Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/industrial-revenue-bonds-kansas/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Spirit expands in Wichita. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/spirit-expands-wichita/. ↩
    4. Sedgwick County. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF WICHITA AND SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC. RELATING TO PROJECT ECLIPSE. Available at https://sedgwickcounty.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3290907&GUID=E732A9A2-C01A-4ACE-B134-C15E551F989F. ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. More Cargill incentives from Wichita detailed. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/cargill-incentives-from-wichita-detailed/. ↩