Voice For Liberty

Tag: Janet Miller

Wichita City Council Member Janet Miller

  • Wichita Old Town TIF district illustrates cost and harm of subsidy

    At this week’s meeting of the Wichita City Council there was an item of good news: the closing of the Old Town tax increment financing, or TIF, district. But the expressed attitude of city council members towards TIF districts indicates that citizens must be concerned that the council will attempt to use this harmful form of developer and corporate welfare in the future.

    Citizens need to be made aware of the uninformed and misinformed views of council members, particularly Janet Miller, who was the primary speaker on this item Tuesday. Most of the other city council members, however, also share these views, even those who consider themselves conservative and opposed to intervention in the economy.

    While Miller expressed a correct view of the mechanics of TIF districts, she — and the other council members too — always miss the economic meaning of these districts.

    In her remarks, Miller disagreed with a citizen who said that the TIF district “helped out” the property owners in the district. Miller said: “In tax increment financing districts, it is the property owners’ taxes that they pay, that pay the cost of the public improvements in that area. … The taxes that they paid in on their increased valuations in property have paid for the improvements.”

    She also said that with careful planning the community benefits from TIF districts, and that we should look forward to “future great things that are going to come from this kind of initiative and creativity.”

    It’s quite easy to see the mistakes and fallacies in Miller’s remarks. Do TIF districts help out the favored developers? Of course they do. Why else would the city create them?

    A typical scenario is that a developer has an idea to build something, but claims a “gap” between the financial resources at their disposal and what the project costs. City staff checks the developer’s arithmetic and agrees. So the city creates a TIF district, and the project is able to proceed.

    So the TIF financing filled the gap. How can this be interpreted as doing anything but helping the developer?

    The city and council members like Jeff Longwell regularly claim that TIF districts don’t cost the city anything. We can easily see the errors in this thinking. Over the past 17 years, did Old Town require any attention from the police department? Of course it did. Old Town consumes vast police resources. In 2008 Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams was quoted in the pages of the Wichita Eagle: “Williams said that as Old Town changed from a warehouse district to an entertainment district, it has presented a ‘tremendous challenge’ to public safety.”

    As was brought forth in Tuesday’s city council meeting, Old Town does pay some property taxes that go into the city’s general fund and can be used to pay for the police protection that Old Town requires. The valuation before the TIF district was formed was said to be $1 million dollars. Now it’s $9 million. So the city’s general fund has received taxes on $1 million in property valuation to pay for all the services Old Town requires. The property taxes paid on the other $8 million in valuation are directed back to the district for the benefit of the property owners.

    So yes, TIF districts like Old Town do cost the city. Someone has to pay for the cost of police protection and other government services in Old Town. Its property taxes don’t even come close.

    That’s what the city council doesn’t understand (or maybe it does, see below): The entire purpose of TIF districts is to benefit the property in the district.

    How TIF districts benefit recipients

    Here’s how it works. When using tax increment financing, a geographic district is formed. The property taxes being paid by a property in the district at the time of formation is noted and called the base. Usually this property is not very valuable, so this base is a low value. In the case of Old Town, it was $1 million.

    Then a development plan is created. Based on that plan and the property taxes that the completed project will likely pay, the city will borrow money and give it to the developers. While cities like to say that TIF funds can be used only for things with a public purpose like infrastructure, this doesn’t make any difference. (If the expenditures had a truly public purpose, why wouldn’t the city pay for them without a TIF district?)

    After the project is completed, the tax appraiser notices that there’s something new and valuable where there wasn’t before, and he levies a higher tax bill on the property. The difference between the original taxes — the base — and the new taxes is called the increment.

    Under normal conditions when new property comes on the tax rolls, the tax revenue is used to provide public services such as police and fire protection. The school district is usually a recipient of a large portion of the new tax revenue, which might be used to pay for the schooling of residents of the new housing in the district, for example.

    But in a TIF district, what happens to this new tax revenue — the increment?

    Recall that the city borrowed money and gave it to the developers. The new property taxes — the increment — is used to pay off these bonds.

    So council member Miller is correct, in a way. Old Town property owners paid increased property taxes.

    But when these increased taxes are used to pay off bonds that exclusively benefit Old Town, how is this any different from not paying?

    Consider development not in a TIF district. Developers may borrow money to build something. Then they have to make loan payments and higher tax payments.

    But TIF developers pay only higher taxes. There are no loan payments, as their increased property tax payments are used to pay off the loan.

    Public choice in action

    I wrote earlier that the city council doesn’t understand this. It may be possible that council member Miller, the mayor, and others do understand this, but they decide to go ahead and create TIF districts and other forms of developer subsidy and welfare nonetheless.

    That’s entirely possible, as TIF districts and other corporate welfare illustrate the worst aspects of public choice theory in action. In this case, we have a situation where a small group of people — the subsidized developers — have a huge and powerful motive to obtain TIF financing and other forms of subsidy. Politicians and bureaucrats want to see these things happen too, as they feel a need to justify themselves and increase their spheres of influence and power.

    Average citizens may realize that these things cost them, but it’s a relatively small amount of money — certainly in contrast to the millions that subsidized developers received — so their motive to oppose them is small. This is a reason why many people don’t bother to vote.

    Don’t forget that politicians want to receive campaign contributions, too. Developers who seek subsidy from city hall generally contribute to all city council members. It’s difficult to see how someone who has a political ideology — say fiscal conservatism — could contribute to all city council members. But they do.

    Miller has received large amounts of campaign contributions from those who have benefited from TIF financing and other corporate welfare in the past, and who plan to benefit again in the future. She’s not alone in this regard.

  • Eminent domain reserved for use in Wichita

    As part of the plan for the future of downtown Wichita, the city council was asked to formally disavow the use of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of economic development. The council would not agree to this restriction.

    Susan Estes noted that the legislative agenda that the city council passed earlier in the meeting supported “home rule and local control as the most valid solution for recurring legislative issues.” High on the list of these issues is eminent domain.

    Estes asked that the city adopt a statement that the city will not use eminent domain to take property for someone else’s use.

    Answering her, Mayor Carl Brewer said it is the council’s record not to use eminent domain. “But,” he said, the city needs that opportunity and flexibility. He said that the city has been asked by developers to use eminent domain, but they’ve resisted. Nonetheless, he described it as one of the tools that is available to the city.

    Council member Janet Miller said that the Kansas legislature has placed restrictions on eminent domain, which she characterized as a prohibition.

    While Miller is correct — the Kansas legislature would have to pass a statute authorizing specific use of eminent domain, and the law is now more in favor of property owners than in the past — that protection, in my opinion, is weak.

    We can easily imagine a scenario where a developer — promising a grand development — wants a large tract of land, perhaps a city block or more. The mayor and others will travel to Topeka and testify that the city desperately needs the jobs and tax revenue the development will create. (Forgetting the fact that the development will probably be in a tax increment financing district and therefore not contributing increased tax revenue to the city’s general government.) The city’s lobbyist will work the halls, a case of a taxpayer-paid lobbyist working against the interest of taxpayers. The case will be made to other lawmakers that if they ever want to use eminent domain in their home towns, they’d better vote for Wichita’s request. Other forms of legislative logrolling will be in full behind-the-scenes use.

    So now property owners, instead of having to contest the city’s lawyers before a judge, have to lobby the entire legislature. The case — instead of being heard in a forum where the rule of law is respected — will be contested in a political body which in many cases has shown us that it cares little for private property rights.

    This was a moment in time where the city council could have taken leadership in protecting property owners from eminent domain abuse. The city — particularly Mayor Brewer and Council Member Miller — failed to grasp the importance of protecting this form of liberty and economic freedom.

  • Wichita trash cooperative: gateway to mandatory recycling?

    Opposition to a proposed trash pickup cooperative in Wichita focuses mostly on two issues: the free market, and specific problems with the program.

    Conservative city council members — Paul Gray and Sue Schlapp in this case — advocate for a free market in trash collection. I appreciate that. But it is confusing to hear them advocate for a free market in trash collection when at the same time they vote for big-spending economic development programs that don’t work.

    Brent Wistrom’s Wichita Eagle article Questions pile up as Wichita eyes trash plan does a fine job of laying out the unanswered questions and issues left to be resolved — if they can be solved.

    These issues are important. But here’s the biggest reason to oppose this plan: it’s a gateway to mandatory recycling in Wichita.

    Recycling, while held up by its supporters as a moral imperative if we care anything about the planet, is a gigantic waste of resources. There are only a few settings in which recycling makes any sense at all. Automobiles and commercial cardboard are two such situations.

    In almost any other area, recycling uses more resources than it saves, despite the claims of its proponents.

    We need to look no farther than economics to learn the true value of an activity or a resource. In the case of recycling — except for the narrow examples mentioned above — most people have to pay to have their recycled goods hauled away. Or, they must incur costs themselves in hauling them somewhere that will accept them.

    Yes, Waste Connections in Wichita has a recycling program that pays people to recycle. Or does it? The program works this way: First, people pay $3.75 per month for recycling bins and their pickup twice monthly. By filling the recycling bin people can earn points which they may redeem for rewards.

    The roundabout approach to paying people to recycle only highlights the unfavorable economics of recycling. Why doesn’t Waste Management simply pay people for their recycled goods? Or why don’t they pick them up for free?

    The fact that Waste Management won’t engage in a straightforward transaction with its recycling customers allows the company to appear to be politically correct towards recycling, while at the same time escaping the fact that household recycling simply does not pay. Here’s Daniel K. Benjamin explaining the economics of curbside recycling in Eight Great Myths of Recycling:

    The numbers I have presented here avoid these problems and make clear that, far from saving resources, curbside recycling typically wastes resources — resources that could be used productively elsewhere in society.

    Indeed, a moment’s reflection will suggest why this finding must be true. In the ordinary course of everyday living, we reuse (and sometimes recycle) almost everything that plays a role in our daily consumption activities. The only things that intentionally end up in municipal solid waste — the trash — are both low in value and costly to reuse or recycle. Yet these are the items that municipal recycling programs are targeting, the very things that people have already decided are too worthless or too costly to deal with further. This simple fact that means that the vast bulk of all curbside recycling programs must waste resources: All of the profitable, socially productive, wealth-enhancing opportunities for recycling were long ago co-opted by the private sector.

    Commercial and industrial recycling is a vibrant, profitable market that turns discards and scraps into marketable products. But collecting from consumers is far more costly, and it results in the collection of items that are far less valuable. Only disguised subsidies and accounting tricks can prevent the municipal systems from looking as bad as they are.

    That’s right: The sober assessment of the price system is that in the context of households, recycling is a waste of resources. Although if people want to pursue it as a pastime or hobby, I have no objection.

    Nonetheless, supporters of recycling such as Wichita City Council member Janet Miller still believe in the false moral imperative of recycling. At last week’s workshop on Wichita trash, she said “There is only a finite amount of space on earth to bury stuff. At some point there’s not going to be any more room to bury stuff.”

    The fact is that landfills occupy a minuscule fraction of available space. We have plenty of space for trash.

    But the misinformed or uninformed attitude of Miller and a few others on the council — and maybe some bureaucrats too — is that recycling activity by Wichitans must increase, no matter how much of a waste of time it is.

    Answer this question: once Wichita has a mandatory, city-controlled and city-regulated trash pickup process in place, what’s to stop city hall from mandating that we recycle?

    Nothing, as far as I can tell.

    That’s the best reason for opposing takeover of our trash system by the city.

  • For downtown Wichita, Mayor Brewer has a vision

    In Sunday’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer penned a piece that states his belief in the importance of downtown and prepares the people of Wichita for the start of a prescriptive planning process, with accompanying subsidy to politically-favored developers willing to fulfill the plan.

    The mayor used the word “vibrant” twice. Asking citizens a question like “Would you like to have a vibrant downtown?” is meaningless. Who doesn’t? It’s only when the question is accompanied by context that citizens can start to understand how they should answer.

    For example, in the mayor’s article, he mentions the use of special assessment financing that funded suburban infrastructure, and that this is not sufficient for downtown needs. This statement reveals a misunderstanding by the mayor about the various forms of financing that might be used to help development.

    Special assessment financing means that the city spends money to build something, like the new street to serve a site where someone wants to build a house or a shopping center. The cost of this street, plus interest, is added to the property’s tax bill over a period of years. The property owner doesn’t get anything for free.

    But in the forms of financing that the mayor and city hall planners favor for downtown, developers do get something for free. Under tax increment financing (TIF), developers get to use their property taxes to pay for the same infrastructure that everyone else has to pay for. That’s because in TIF, the increment in property taxes are used to pay off bonds that were issued for the exclusive benefit of a development. Or, as in the case with a new form of TIF called pay-as-you-go, the increment in property taxes are simply given back to the developer. (Which leads to the question: why even pay at all?)

    Some deny that TIF directly enriches the developer. They’ll make arguments such as “it’s only used for infrastructure and eligible expenses” or “it’s not lending, it’s bonding” or “it wouldn’t happen but for TIF” or the biggest lie: TIF doesn’t have any cost. But despite these claims, TIF has a cost, and it does directly enrich the developer. That’s its entire purpose; its reason for being. If TIF didn’t enrich the developer, how does it change something that is claimed to be not economically feasible into something that is?

    While city leaders say that public participation in the revitalization of downtown is to be limited, we should be cautious and skeptical. Goody Clancy planners have said that public participation will be limited to TIF. This is bad in its own right and should be opposed on its merits.

    We need to be skeptical of the mayor and downtown planners because there isn’t enough TIF money available to do what they want to do. I fully expect a citywide sales tax, probably in the amount of one cent per dollar, to be proposed for the benefit of downtown subsidized developers. City leaders speak fondly of such a tax that Oklahoma City has used for many years.

    City leaders have already shown themselves to be not averse to imposing additional sales taxes in Wichitans and our visitors, having granted several Community Improvement Districts the ability to charge up to an additional two cents per dollar sales tax. This means that when visitors check out of the Fairfield Inn in downtown Wichita, they’ll be faced with a sales tax rate of 9.3 percent. That’s in addition to the six percent guest tax, which in the case of this hotel is collected for the exclusive benefit of itself, rather than funding general government and tourism activities.

    More community improvement districts are in the works. Wichita may soon be peppered with them.

    No faith in free markets means no faith in people

    The unwillingness of Wichita city leaders to let Wichitans freely decide where they live, and Wichita businesses freely decide where to locate, is a sign of lack of confidence in free markets and the people of Wichita. Because Wichitans do not choose to live and locate their business firms where politicians like Carl Brewer and Janet Miller — to name just two — and city hall bureaucrats like Wichita city manager Bob Layton and Wichita economic development director Allen Bell want them to, they deliver a slap in the face. It appears in the form of a vision backed up by planning, regulation, and the power to dish out favorable tax treatment, as outlined above.

    Once formed, a vision is a powerful force. Randal O’Toole, author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future has written about visionaries and government planning:

    The worst thing about having a vision is that it confers upon the visionary a moral absolutism: only highly prescriptive regulation can ensure that the vision overcomes an uncaring populace responding to a free market that planners do not really trust. But the more prescriptive the plan, the more likely it is that the plan will be wrong, and such errors will prove extremely costly for the city or region that tries to implement the plan.

    An example of planning that many see as having gone wrong is the government planning that led to growth on the city’s fringes. An example that helped make this possible is the government’s decision to build the northeast expressway also known as K-96. Acts of government like this are claimed to have caused the demise of downtown, the very situation that planners now want to correct.

    With government making “mistakes” (their claim, not mine) like this on a grand scale, why are we willing to trust that politicians and bureaucrats are making correct decisions now? Especially when you look at the campaign finance reports of most city council members and see the same names giving repeatedly to all council members, with these same names appearing repeatedly before the council asking for their subsidy. This is not a decision making process that gives citizens confidence.

    It bears repeating: the existence of the downtown planning process tells Wichitans they’ve made a mistake in where they chose to buy a home or build a business. Not only will Wichitans have to pay for what they freely chose, they’re going to be asked to pay again so that those with purportedly superior vision can have their way.

  • Wichita Bowllagio hearing produces only delay

    Yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council featured a lengthy public hearing for a proposed west-side entertainment development known as Bowllagio. Bowllagio is planned to have a bowling and entertainment center, a boutique hotel, and a restaurant owned by a celebrity television chef.

    The developers of this project propose to make use of $13 million in STAR bond financing. STAR bonds are issued for the immediate benefit of the developers, with the sales tax collected in the district used to pay off the bonds. The project also proposes to be a Community Improvement District, which allows an additional two cents per dollar to be collected in sales tax, again for the benefit of the district.

    The Kansas STAR bond process calls for several steps: First, a local governing body, like the City of Wichita, must approve the concept and set boundaries for the project. This is what yesterday’s agenda item called for. If approved by the council, the Kansas Secretary of Commerce would examine the project to see if it meets statutory criteria. If the Secretary approves the project, the city is then required to prepare a project plan and hold another public hearing concerning whether to adopt the project plan. The project plan must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority of the council.

    One of the elements of the project plan, according to the 2010 Kansas Legislator Briefing Book, is a “marketing study conducted to examine the impact of the special bond project on similar businesses in the projected market area.” The effect of Bowllagio on existing Wichita-area businesses was a major source of concern for both council members and citizens speaking at the public hearing.

    Speaking during the public hearing, Ray Baty, who is manager of a Wichita bowling center, said Bowllagio is not a new concept, but rather one that would compete with existing programs already in Wichita. The C.A.T.S. system, a training system promoted by Bowllagio developers, is actually a portable system, Baty said.

    He contended that introduction of Bowllagio to the market will not grow the market for bowling, but will further divide the existing market, resulting in a loss of revenue and profit for existing bowling centers. He said that bowling centers lose six percent of their customers each year, a trend that he said is national.

    Frank DeSocio, owner of several bowling centers in Wichita, told the council that the bowling training promoted by Bowllagio developers already happens in Wichita at the present. He mentioned five full-time bowling teachers and coaches already working in Wichita bowling centers.

    He added that Wichita does very well in obtaining and hosting tournaments, mentioning 17 PBA live televised tournaments that took place in Wichita, 10 regional events, a BPA womens’ open, six intercollegiate championships that were televised live, and numerous Kansas state high school championships.

    “Everything the Maxwell Group [developer of Bowllagio] claims they want to do is already being done in Wichita by the current bowling centers,” qualifying that he’s speaking only of the bowling side of the Bowllagio proposal, not the restaurants.

    In my remarks to the council, I mentioned that Wichita has had examples of restaurants or other establishments being announced — sometimes by the mayor in his annual state of the city address — but then the development failed to materialize. I expressed concern that we might commit to a large amount of STAR bond financing based on big plans that never advance beyond some small initial stage.

    Susan Estes told the council that “this is an extremely profound day” for the City of Wichita. She asked will the city help one business owner over another business owner in the same industry? She said that Bowllagio has some unique aspects, but it is a bowling alley. Its other entertainment features are also available in Wichita. We are using tax money to compete against existing businesses, she said.

    In response to a question by a homeowner in the project area, the mayor, indicating he believed he speaks for the council, said the council would not support using eminent domain to remove the homeowner from his home.

    During discussion by council members, a subject of controversy was whether approving project boundaries and forwarding the application to the Secretary of Commerce constitutes an endorsement of the project by the City of Wichita. Some council members wanted to pass an ordinance that would establish the boundaries of the district, and then have the Secretary decide whether the project meets the statutory requirements for a STAR bond project. Wichita economic development director Allen Bell mentioned that the council’s endorsement of the project might be a factor the Secretary would consider in determining whether to approve the project.

    A question from Council Member Lavonta Williams elicited Bell’s further opinion that the Secretary is “looking for a signal from the council” regarding its support for the project. Lack of local support, he added, would be taken in a “negative way.” Council Member Paul Gray agreed with this assessment.

    Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell disagreed, saying that all the Secretary needs is a geographic boundary for the proposed project. He contended that the process starts with setting the boundaries, and that other questions are difficult or impossible to answer without doing this. There are too many unknowns, he added, to give this project a formal endorsement at this time.

    Longwell also mentioned a report that showed that the south-central region of Kansas, which includes Wichita, receives fewer state economic development funds, relative to population, than the northeast Kansas region. He said we needed to “equal the playing field.”

    Longwell said he didn’t want to put together a package that would harm existing businesses, saying he wouldn’t vote for the project if an independent study showed that result would happen.

    Council Member Jim Skelton asked about the property taxes the development would pay. Bell replied that the property taxes should increase by a large amount, as the land is vacant now and is planned to receive $95 million of development. He said that while STAR bonds and Community Improvement District financing is proposed for this development, the plan does not include property tax abatements, industrial revenue bonds, tax increment financing, or any other diversion of property taxes.

    Council Member Janet Miller asked if the Kansas STAR bond statutes prohibited adding these other types of incentives to the project. The answer, according to Bell, is that these programs could be added on to this development, as has been done in some Kansas STAR bond districts.

    Later Miller referred to the “lack of information to make an education decision about the project.” She wondered why the developers would not spend “one-tenth of one percent of their $50 million dollar investment” ($50,000) to produce the studies that would give the council the information it needs to decide whether to send the project to the Secretary of Commerce with its support.

    When City Manager Bob Layton suggested a delay to gather more information from the developers, council members readily agreed. Layton said that city staff will visit with the developers, looking for an approach that will make council members comfortable with proceeding, addressing some of the information needs expressed today.

    Due to scheduling, Layton said that this matter would need to appear on next week’s agenda, or there would be a one month delay before it could be considered at a council meeting.

    The council voted unanimously to defer the item for one week, and to keep open the public hearing.

    Analysis

    An important issue to many council members is the potential harmful affect of Bowllagio on existing businesses, particularly bowling centers. Miller’s suggestion that the developers spend the money to have an independent assessment of this performed is entirely sensible.

    But I don’t think a study of that scope can be performed in one week. As it is now, the city will probably rely on information provided by the developers. It must be recognized that they have a $13 million incentive to produce information favorable to their cause. In his remarks, Gray recognized that proof that Bowllagio will not harm existing businesses will not come from “somebody advocating for the project.” It would require a third-party, independent analysis, he said.

    As of now, it is difficult to see how information that will satisfy council members can be produced by next week’s meeting.

    In my opinion, the local bowling center operators are justifiably concerned that a subsidized competitor will harm their business. They were able to show that many of the purportedly unique aspects of the Bowllagio concept are already available in Wichita, and have been for some time.

    Further, it’s not only direct competitors such as bowling centers that we need to be concerned for. Since the development is proposed to include a Mexican restaurant, what will its impact be on existing Mexican restaurants? And not only restaurants offering that cuisine, but all other restaurants?

    In a broader sense, a subsidized business competes with all other businesses in the market for employees and other goods and services that all business firms purchase.

    Longwell’s contention that we can still “kill” the project at a later date if reports come back showing negative impact on local businesses is, in my opinion, an empty promise. If the Kansas Secretary of Commerce approves this project, it would be very difficult for the council to vote against Wichita receiving $13 million in state tax dollars, especially in light of Longwell’s argument that the Wichita area doesn’t receive nearly enough of this economic development money.

    While council members such as Schlapp say they’re in favor of free markets, she and the other council members nearly always vote in favor of intervention in markets. The fact that the city council members have so many questions about the proposal tells us that this plan is, in fact, a form of centralized planning by government.

    As I remarked to the council, developments such as this are portrayed as a success story, in that someone has confidence in Wichita because they’re investing here. But I wonder why these people won’t invest in Wichita unless they receive millions in payments or tax forgiveness from the city, county, school board, and/or state.

    Aren’t the real heroes in Wichita the people — many of them small business owners — who invest in Wichita without the benefit of TIF districts, tax abatements, STAR bonds, or other forms of subsidy or incentive?

    These people, besides facing subsidized competition, additionally have to pay the taxes that make the subsidies to others possible.

    Regarding the mayor’s statement that eminent domain will not be supported for this project: Kansas law does not prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire property in a STAR bond district (K.S.A. 12-17,172).

    If the city wants to assure property owners that their property will not be subject to seizure by eminent domain, the city can add language to that effect in the ordinance. With four city council positions — including the mayorship — up for election next spring, it’s possible that a future city council might not be opposed to the use of eminent domain. This change could take place during the time Bowllagio developers are acquiring property. An ordinance would help prevent this from happening.

    Similarly, if it is not the intent of the developers to seek additional forms of subsidy such as tax increment financing or property tax abatements, appropriate language could be added to the authorizing ordinance.

  • North Dakota TIF video informative, reminiscent of Wichita

    The North Dakota Policy Council has a video on YouTube that explains the mechanics of tax increment financing (TIF) districts and the public policy problems associated with TIF.

    The video is presented in three sections. The material in the first section is different from the way TIF districts work in Kansas, but the other two sections are very similar to the way the law works in Kansas.

    At the start of part 3 (“Problems with TIFs”) the narrator states the problem succinctly: “Tax increment financing negatively affects everybody’s property tax bill by taking the tax revenue from increased taxable valuations on the properties in the TIF areas and putting that into TIF accounts.”

    She then presents an illustration showing how the property taxes for non-TIF properties have to rise to make up for the fact that taxes from TIF properties do not go towards paying for city, county, or school district services. While Wichita doesn’t use the term “TIF accounts” as used in this video, the economic effect is the same.

    The video also mentions politically-favored developers being the beneficiaries of TIF districts, specifically mentioning “a friend of the city who might own property that is struggling.” I wonder: is the North Dakota Policy Council aware of the situation in Wichita, where many feel that the city is bailing out Real Development (also known as the “Minnesota Guys”) by not only granting TIF financing to them, but increasing the amount of TIF financing against the recommendation of its independent consultant?

    When you add the fact that our city manager’s girlfriend has the Minnesota Guys as a client and the city — specifically Mayor Carl Brewer — will not forthrightly explain this situation and the city’s response to citizens, we have a problem in Wichita.

    Compounding the problem is the obvious lack of understanding of the economic effects of TIF districts by members of the Wichita City Council, and possibly by city hall bureaucrats, too. Wichita vice mayor Jeff Longwell has complained to the Wichita Eagle that the public doesn’t understand tax increment financing. We should be questioning Longwell’s own understanding, and that of council member Janet Miller, too.

    Longwell and Miller — the rest of the council too, for that matter — are aided by newspaper reporters like the Wichita Eagle’s Bill Wilson, who is dismissive and hostile towards free markets and those who advocate for them, calling reliance on markets “intellectually shallow” and a “thin ideological argument.”

  • On Wichita’s Exchange Place TIF, Janet Miller speaks

    Last week’s meeting of the Wichita City Council featured a message from Council Member Janet Miller that illustrated her firm belief in centralized government planning for the purposes of economic development. It also contained a material mistake in the understanding of the facts of the project.

    In her remarks from the bench, Miller disagreed with those who testify at council meetings against tax increment financing (TIF). She said there is much information that says this type of economic development incentive is effective.

    She said “Sometimes I wonder what city folks are living in when they talk about the negative, or the lack of results from TIFs.” She then named several Wichita TIF districts that she said performed well.

    If her remarks were aimed at me and some of the other people who have testified at city council meetings against the formation of TIF districts, council member Miller may not have been listening very carefully. We do not deny that TIF districts produce results — within the district itself. Things get built, buildings get renovated. It is the effect of TIF on the city as a whole that we are concerned with.

    It’s the observed effects of TIF, as economists Dye and Merriman have found and I have mentioned to the city council, including Miller, several times: “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.”

    It’s also the unobserved effects — the things that don’t happen because Wichita props up developers in politically-favored areas such as downtown. This form of centralized planning from Wichita city hall overrides the decisions that the citizens of Wichita make with their own pocketbooks, and concentrates power in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians.

    As Randal O’Toole has written: “TIF today is often part of a social engineering agenda that Americans should reject.”

    Miller praised the amount of office space Real Development has brought online in downtown Wichita. To the extent that this has been done without government assistance, this should be praised.

    She agreed with Vice Mayor Longwell’s assessment of this project, saying “This is not a tax abatement project.” She is just as wrong as is Longwell and other council members who believe this.

    In discussing the risk involved in this project, Miller told of how the disbursements from a HUD-guaranteed loan that will finance much of this project will made directly to contractors, not to Real Development. City of Wichita documents indicate that the City’s payments will be made in the same way. This is a quite peculiar arrangement: we are placing a huge bet of the success of downtown Wichita redevelopment in the hands of the principals behind Real Development, but evidently we don’t trust them enough to write them a check and be confident they will pay their bills.

    Miller also spoke of the jobs that will be created by this project. Implicit in her argument is that this project, or something similar, would not occur without the city’s subsidy. Her argument also ignores what economists tell us — that TIF districts simply transfer development from one part of town to another.

    What Wichitans should be most concerned about, however, is a misstatement by Miller that other council members may have relied on in making their decision on how to vote. Miller said: “The property tax increases, the increment that’s being calculated in this project, includes only the buildings in this project.”

    This statement directly contradicts the facts. In the Longhofer study, other properties owned by Real Development — the Petroleum Building, Sutton Place, 105 S. Broadway, and others — are used to support the TIF loan for the Exchange Place project. In response to my question, Wichita’s urban development director Allen Bell confirmed the same.

    In her message from the bench, Miller said that city staff and council members have had enough time to go over this proposal. Her mistaken remarks indicate, however, that the project is still not understood very well by the council, neither its mechanics or its economic effect.

  • Wichita’s Jeff Longwell on TIF districts, tax abatements

    Is a tax increment financing (TIF) district a tax abatement? Wichita city council member Jeff Longwell, now Wichita’s vice mayor, doesn’t think so. During this week’s city council meeting, Longwell said this in explaining his support of a TIF district created for the benefit of Real Development: “One of the things that people I think need to understand is that this is not a tax abatement.”

    He said tax revenues will increase from $28,000 to half a million dollars, repeating that it is not a tax abatement.

    So is it true that TIF is not a tax abatement?

    A little background: The Wichita City council grants property tax abatements regularly as part of its Industrial Revenue Bond program. In the IRB program, the city is not the lender of funds, and it does not guarantee that the bonds will be repaid. Instead, the benefit of the IRB program is that the applicant won’t have to pay property tax on property purchased with the bond money. This abatement is generally granted for a period of ten years, although it is reviewed after five years to see if the company is fulfilling the promises it made to justify the tax abatement. In addition, a sales tax exemption may be granted on the property purchased with the bond money.

    Confused? Many people are. A few weeks ago the city issued IRBs to a Wichita movie theater operator. Comments left at various online forums often argued that the city should not be lending money to the theater and its controversial ownership group. But as we’ve seen, the city is not making a loan. Instead, the IRB program is simply a vehicle that is used to grant relief from paying property taxes to the city, county, and school district.

    So the IRB program, despite its name, is a tax abatement program. What about tax increment financing, then?

    Under TIF, a district is formed. The property taxes being paid by a property in the district at the time of formation is noted and called the base. Usually this property is blighted or run-down, so this base is a very low value.

    Then a development plan is created, perhaps to build apartments or a shopping center. Based on that plan and the property taxes that the completed project will likely pay, the city will borrow money and give it to the developers.

    After the project is completed, the tax appraiser notices that there’s something new and valuable where there wasn’t before, and he levies a higher tax bill on the property. The difference between the original taxes — the base — and the new taxes is called the increment.

    Under normal conditions when new property comes on the tax rolls, the tax revenue is used to provide public services such as police and fire protection. The school district is usually a recipient of a large portion of the new tax revenue, which might be used to pay for the schooling of residents of the new apartments, for example.

    But in a TIF district, what happens to this new tax revenue — the increment?

    Recall that the city borrowed money and gave it to the developers. The new property taxes — the increment — is used to pay off these bonds.

    So council member Longwell is correct, in a way. Real Development will pay increased property taxes.

    But when these increased taxes are used to pay off bonds that exclusively benefit Real Development, how is this any different from not paying property taxes?

    Consider development not in a TIF district. Developers generally borrow money. Then they have to make loan payments and higher tax payments.

    But TIF developers pay only higher taxes. There are no loan payments, as their increased property tax payments are used to pay off the loan.

    So when considering the total economic reality, council member Longwell is wrong. Several other council members have the same mistaken belief.

    Tax increment financing is a tax abatement in disguise. Actually, it’s worse than that. Tax abatements granted in the IRB program don’t require the city to be on the hook for a loan. But in a TIF district, the city is the lender, and city taxpayers are liable if the TIF district doesn’t perform up to projections. This has happened in Wichita, and taxpayers had to pay in one way or another.

    Why is Longwell, now Wichita’s vice mayor, unable to grasp these facts? Perhaps he does but chooses to ignore them. He has a reason to do so. Downtown Wichita real estate developers — let’s be clear: developers who seek public subsidy instead of working to meet market demand — are generous with campaign contributions, funding both political liberals like Wichita city council member Janet Miller and self-styled fiscal conservatives such as Longwell.

    Longwell’s term expires next spring, and he may choose to run for his same office or even the mayor’s office, as some political observers have speculated.

    Longwell has already drawn one challenger for his city council position, tea party activist Lynda Tyler. While lacking experience holding elective office, Tyler has well-established conservative credentials and can be expected to run a vigorous and well-funded campaign.

    Longwell, who along with Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer complains that Wichita doesn’t have enough “tools in the toolbox” for dishing out economic development incentives to politically-connected city hall insiders, will have to explain his actions to voters in his largely conservative west-side district.

    Someone should ask him if he really understands the economic reality of tax increment financing districts.

  • 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.