Voice For Liberty

Tag: Jim Skelton

Sedgwick County Commissioner and former Wichita City Council Member Jim Skelton

  • Wichita Pachyderm speaker lineup set

    The Wichita Pachyderm Club has released its lineup of speakers for the upcoming month. Everyone is welcome to attend Wichita Pachyderm Club meetings. The club meets on Friday at noon at the Wichita Petroleum Club on the top floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway). The cost for the meetings is $10, which includes a buffet lunch.

    For more information, contact President John Stevens at at enersigns@sbcglobal.net or Vice President John Todd at john@johntodd.net.

    September 10, 2010
    Honorable Eric F. Melgren, U.S. District Judge in the District of Kansas.

    September 17, 2010
    A panel discussion, “How you can become involved in the process of defending liberty between now and the November 6th general election?”

    Panelists:
    Susan Estes, citizen activist
    Lynda Tyler, founder of Kansans for Liberty
    Craig Gabel, local conservative activist
    Fourth panelist to be determined

    September 24, 2010
    South Central Kansas Republican Candidates for the Kansas House of Representatives:
    John Stevens, District 86
    Leslie Osterman, District 97
    James Clendenin, District 98
    Joseph Scapa, District 87

    October 1, 2010
    Republican Candidates for the Sedgwick County Commission:
    Dave Unruh, District 1
    Richard Ranzau, District 4
    Jim Skelton, District 5

    October 8, 2010
    South Central Kansas Republican Candidates for the Kansas House of Representatives:
    Benny Boman, District 95
    James Woomack, District 92
    Dan Heflin, District 84
    Jim Howell, District 82

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wichita city council discusses economic development incentives, again

    At this week’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, underperforming companies that have received economic incentives was at issue.

    Wichita grants incentives — usually in the form of an escape from paying property taxes — to companies. Usually there are conditions attached to the incentives, such as a certain amount of capital investment or employment targets. Recently — and in the past two or so years — several companies that received incentives have not met employment goals. Should the city rescind the tax breaks in these cases? Or should there be recognition that there’s a tough economy at the moment, and should the company be excused from meeting the goals it pledged?

    During a period of questions from the bench, council member Sue Schlapp remarked: “We have to be flexible, don’t we? … Especially in today’s economy, we need to be very careful that we’re not too rigid in what we’re doing.”

    Council member Jeff Longwell said he’d like to see something that rewards companies that bring in business from outside our community. Economic development head Allen Bell answered that the policy is limited to companies that bring in wealth from outside. Businesses that are here because their customers are here are not eligible for economic incentives, he said.

    Longwell also expressed concern about companies that use temporary employees. Should that increase in payroll be included as a benefit, even if the employees are only temps? Bell said yes, even though these jobs are not as good as direct hire placements. Wichita City Manager Bob Layton interjected that we shouldn’t count seasonal peak employee ramp-up in benefit calculations.

    Longwell added that we ought to include the fact that some companies drive up hotel occupancy rates due to the nature of their business. Bell said that this is a factor in the WSU analysis.

    Vice-mayor Jim Skelton inquired about details of the model that WSU uses to calculate the economic benefit of incentives. These calculations, Bell said, are required by the Kansas Legislature. The model presently used is unique to WSU. It focuses on the fiscal impact that an economic development project has on cities, counties, school districts, and the state. It takes into account jobs created, capital that is invested, and other factors. It includes such factors as the need for additional police and other government services, additional sales and bed tax, and other revenue sources. It then performs a present value calculation and produces a ratio. A value greater than one means the benefits exceed the costs.

    City manager Layton said that these incentives represent a contract between the business and the city. The business promises to grow the economy, and the city makes an investment in the company. The council presently is struggling with how to judge the performance of companies that have received incentives in a down economy. The WSU index makes sense, he said. If economic conditions are poor, we now have a tool to judge the performance of the companies that received incentives. There are now extenuating circumstances, he said.

    Mayor Carl Brewer said that we recognize there are challenges, and that in an ideal world we shouldn’t have to provide incentives. But he said we have several options: Be competitive and provide incentives and fight to keep what we have, or don’t provide incentives and see what happens. He said we know what would happen in that case. Businesses will go where they can get these incentives, he said, and we can’t argue that. There will always be incentives, he said, and we have to be competitive.

    The council unanimously approved a revision to the policy that recognizes down periods of economic activity. Then, it approved the extension of tax breaks to three companies that had not met all their performance goals. Passage was not unanimous in two cases, with some council members voting against the extension of the incentives. Dion Lefler’s reporting in the Wichita Eagle is at Wichita City Council eases rules on tax abatements.

    Analysis

    Contrary to the belief of the mayor, council members, and city hall bureaucrats, economic development incentives aren’t all they’re promoted to be. The state of Kansas spent some $1.3 billion on incentives over five years. In a recent report produced by the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit, one of the summary points is this: “Most studies of economic development incentives suggest these incentives don’t have a significant impact on economic growth.” See In Wichita, let’s have economic development for all for more on this report and a link to the document.

    There is an interesting academic paper titled The Failures of Economic Development Incentives, published in Journal of the American Planning Association. A few quotes from the study, with emphasis added:

    Given the weak effects of incentives on the location choices of businesses at the interstate level, state governments and their local governments in the aggregate probably lose far more revenue, by cutting taxes to firms that would have located in that state anyway than they gain from the few firms induced to change location.

    On the three major questions — Do economic development incentives create new jobs? Are those jobs taken by targeted populations in targeted places? Are incentives, at worst, only moderately revenue negative? — traditional economic development incentives do not fare well. It is possible that incentives do induce significant new growth, that the beneficiaries of that growth are mainly those who have greatest difficulty in the labor market, and that both states and local governments benefit fiscally from that growth. But after decades of policy experimentation and literally hundreds of scholarly studies, none of these claims is clearly substantiated. Indeed, as we have argued in this article, there is a good chance that all of these claims are false.

    The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state or local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering their expectations about their ability to micromanage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing the foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.

    On the surface of things, to the average person, it would seem that spending (or granting tax breaks, it’s the same thing) to attract new businesses makes a lot of sense. It’s a win-win deal, backers say. Everyone benefits. This is why it is so appealing to politicians. It lets them trumpet their achievements doing something that no one should reasonably disagree with. After all, who could be against jobs and prosperity? But the evidence that these schemes work is lacking, as this legislative audit and article show.

    I have suggested to the city council that a broad-based tax abatement on new capital investment could propel economic growth in Wichita. See Wichita universal tax exemption could propel growth.

    But a plan like this doesn’t give bureaucrats much to do, and gives politicians little to crow about to their constituents at election time. All it’s good for is the people who want economic growth.

  • Goody Clancy proposal for Downtown Wichita revitalization master plan

    Last Friday a selection committee selected one company from four finalists to lead the planning effort for the revitalization of downtown Wichita. If some city leaders and a few citizen elites had their way, citizens of Wichita wouldn’t be able to see the company’s proposal document until after the city council makes a decision to follow — or not — the recommendation of the selection committee. But thanks to city manager Robert Layton’s decision, this document is now available for all to read. (Thanks also go to council member Jim Skelton, for his unsuccessful effort to release the documents.)

    This proposal is available because I requested it (and paid for it) under the provisions of the Kansas Open Records Act. The Wichita Eagle requested it too, and as of the time I received my copy, only that newspaper and I had requested it (along with the other three proposals from the finalists).

    I didn’t scan all the pages, leaving out a section about the personnel involved and an appendix of related articles. Still, there’s 109 pages to read — but there are a lot of pictures. Click on
    Goody Clancy Proposal for Downtown Wichita Revitalization Master Plan     to view or print the document.

    (Update: The Wichita Eagle has obtained and posted a much better version of the proposal. It’s complete and in color. Click here and here.)

    There are danger signs all over this document. Under the heading “Fiscal Responsibility,” for example, we see “Know the full range of effective public-private finance tools at hand.” Which means, of course, that developers will have their hands in the pockets of taxpayers through devices such as TIF districts, grants, tax credits, abatements, and other forms of subsidy.

    Another sign: as a challenge to downtown, the document cites “The impact of relatively low development costs (inexpensive land, tenant-borne special assessment districts for infrastructure) at Wichita’s perimeter have a direct impact on Downtown land value and infrastructure economics.” (emphasis added)

    What’s wrong with this statement? First, inexpensive land is a good thing. It means more people can afford what they want.

    Second, note that people developing on the perimeter pay their own infrastructure costs. This statement hints that downtown developments won’t be expected to pay theirs.

    There are just a few hopeful signs: “Indeed, WaterWalk might be struggling to fill its space because it has, simply put, hit a ceiling: it is focusing on food and fun, and perhaps there is room for only one such district (Old Town) in Downtown Wichita. The Arena could help in this regard, but until the publicly subsidized WaterWalk is a rousing success, it might not make sense to split the pie still further.”

    Indeed. While we’re at it, let’s etch the names of the developers of WaterWalk on a large monument somewhere downtown, so that they are properly excluded from any further consideration as beneficiaries of the taxpayer. (Here’s the list, in case this monument isn’t built.)

    But if there’s not demand for another food and fun district in Wichita, what about the promise of all the food and fun surrounding the Intrust Bank Arena? (A campaign piece from that election reads “It [the arena] will enrich our quality of life as new restaurants, shops and clubs spring up in the area …”)

    It’s unknown how seriously the city council will take the steering committee’s recommendation. The council plans to vote on October 13.

  • Janet Miller’s junket follow-up

    At Tuesday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, I asked a question about council member Janet Miller and her travel and got a bigger response — from the mayor, the Wichita Eagle and other news media, and the public — than I expected. Some issues are still unresolved, however.

    First, I was surprised that this matter was reported on so prominently by the Wichita Eagle, as it turned into a front page story. It involves, as I noted in my testimony to the Wichita City Council, a relatively small amount of money. Furthermore, it wasn’t the most important matter I testified about that day. The secrecy surrounding the downtown redevelopment proposals is, I believe, a more important issue, as are things like TIF districts, special assessment financing, and other issues I’ve brought up before the council.

    But those matters are more difficult to comprehend. Junkets are easy to understand.

    Second: the behavior of council member Miller is an issue that citizens need to know about. The approval of this travel appeared on the August 18 city council agenda. I wrote to Miller on August 15, asking for the cost of the trip. Over the next several weeks, I left several telephone messages and sent at least one other email message. It was Van Williams, the city’s public information office, who promptly responded to my requests and supplied me with the figures.

    Miller didn’t respond to my inquiries until I received an email message at 8:11 the morning of the council meeting. And you know what? There are some mitigating factors, such as the host organizations providing many meals and covering other expenses.

    So why didn’t Miller respond to my requests earlier? I don’t live in her district, so maybe that’s a reason why. I endorsed her opponent earlier this year, so maybe that’s why.

    A more cynical explanation that has been suggested to me is this: She wanted me to make my case in public, and then let Mayor Carl Brewer tell me all the ways I’m wrong — using information that I asked for, but was not given (at least not until right before the meeting). This strategy — if in fact it was used here — has been used against myself and other activists by a variety of governmental bodies.

    Another observation is the bizarre analogy the mayor used, that one doesn’t get a divorce to save money just because a marriage is having trouble. Besides not making sense on any level, the mayor made these remarks as he was sitting next to Vice-Mayor Jim Skelton, who is in the process of divorce. As the mayor spoke about this, Skelton expressed astonishment. Eventually the mayor looked at Skelton and smiled. I made a motion towards my microphone, wanting to ask why he was looking at the vice-mayor. But as the mayor reminded me, he had given me my time to speak, and I could not speak again.

    (I might remind the mayor that he is not a benevolent dictator who “gives” time to citizens to speak. City statute does that. He doesn’t have a choice or say in the matter.)

    There are still some questions to be asked:

    First, why is the city paying some expenses for Kelly Harper, president of the Wichita Sister Cities? The mayor forgot to address this.

    Second, why isn’t the mayor — instead of Miller — attending the International Cities Conference?

    Third: The mayor said that these conferences are important for the city’s economic development. If so, why are we sending the most junior council member, in office for just five months, on such an allegedly important mission?

    Finally, the most important question I asked was not addressed at all by the mayor: why can’t citizens see the downtown redevelopment proposals? Vice-Mayor Skelton intervened on my behalf, but was not successful.

    (In the video below, I didn’t include Vice-Mayor Skelton’s brief remarks due to YouTube’s ten minute length limitation.)

  • Wichita election results equal status quo, worse

    The result of yesterday’s elections in Wichita is an endorsement for the status quo. For those interested in liberty, free markets, and education in Wichita, the election was a total disaster.

    On the Wichita city council, the two incumbents running for re-election won. For the open seat, Janet Miller won. While her website talks of fiscal responsibility, it’s a safe bet that Miller is on the side of increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of city government.

    The election of Miller doesn’t signal a huge shift on the council, as Sharon Fearey, her predecessor, favored an expansionary city government.

    For the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, all four incumbents won. This is terrible news for Wichita schoolchildren and taxpayers. As outlined in my post Wichita school board members should not be re-elected, the Wichita school district is moving exactly in the wrong direction on many issues.

    The board members have a bad attitude, too. Walt Chappell, a member of the Kansas State Board of Education, recently experienced the overbearing arrogance of this board. My post Wichita school board video shows why members should not be re-elected holds the video that exposes these attitudes.

    But as reported in the Wichita Eagle, board members are pleased. Connie Dietz actually said “This wasn’t time for new people to be on the board.”

    When people like Dietz believe that they — and only they — have the ability to successfully run the Wichita schools, we’re in a lot of trouble. Wichita schoolchildren now face great danger, as any possibility of meaningful reform in the Wichita school district is becoming less likely.

  • Wichita City Arts tech studio proposed

    Randy Roebuck, in a presentation at the Wichita city council workshop, promoted the idea of a “digital oasis” in Wichita. It would be a place where people can go to get free help with technologies such as cell phones and computers.

    He told of how an Apple Genius Bar does things like this. Council member Jim Skelton asked who runs an Apple Genius Bar? Apple Computer Corporation, of course.

    Later council member Paul Gray continued with questions based on Skelton’s. Why not an Apple Genius Bar in Wichita? Why is the city competing with private business? City officials insist they are not trying to compete with private business. Instead, it’s a resource for training and education.

    Council member Jeff Longwell said this idea is “on the right path,” as long as it doesn’t cost a lot.

    Lavonta Williams said this will attract a different group of people to downtown Wichita. She said it’s something we need.

    Mayor Carl Brewer mentioned that not everyone who would want to use a facility like this might not be able to afford its cost. He didn’t mention that someone else should pay for them, but that’s what this program will do.

    “It’s part of creating an environment where we have everything that anybody could possibly want. … If the private sector’s really wanting to get out there and they’re willing to invest their dollars and they want to start their business, we should let them.”

    This illustrates the mayor’s — and several other council members’ — vision of an expansive city government, providing for citizen needs all the way through arts, entertainment, and now computer tech support.

    Then there’s the mayor’s language that we (Wichita city government) should let the private sector do something. I really hope the mayor misspoke here.

    This is a bad idea. It seems to me that there may be people in Wichita city hall with too much time on their hands if they have time to come up with ideas like this.

    View the video of the portion of the city council workshop where this presentation was made by clicking on Wichita city council workshop, March 24, 2009.

    The slides shown to the council members aren’t available on the city’s website, to my knowledge. I captured them from video, and they may be viewed by clicking on Wichita City Arts tech studio presentation.

    Read Wichita Eagle reporting by clicking on Cyber Alliance plans to offer free technical training. reporting on KWCH is at Wichita Considers “Digital Oasis”.

  • Wichita’s Faulty Due Diligence

    In the Wichita city council meeting on December 2, 2008, council member Jim Skelton questioned Allen Bell, Wichita’s director of urban development, about developers the city is considering working with on a TIF district. Specifically, Skelton asked if there was anything in the backgound of the developers that the council should be concerned about. Bell referred specifically to Grant Gaudreau, naming him as the “principal developer.” He said that the matters in Gaudreau’s past had been “resolved,” and had “no bearing” on this project. Video is available below.

    According to Wichita Eagle reporting in the story 35 suits in developer’s past, Gaudreau’s past problems include bankruptcy and lawsuits regarding bounced checks and nonpaid bills. The bankruptcy is not troubling to me, as many entrepreneurs suffer through this as part of their acceptance of risk. Bounced checks at the grocery store and pet clinic, plus a recent auto repossession, are troubling. If someone won’t make good the checks they write at the grocery store, that’s a problem. The city should not partner with such a person.

    Further, the Eagle story reports that the developer has an outstanding warrant for unpaid taxes in a neighboring county. That would contradict Mr. Bell’s claim that matters have been resolved.

    Here’s the problem I have, and I think many citizens share this concern: Either Allen Bell and city staff didn’t know of all these things in Gaudreau’s past, or they knew about them but didn’t think they were a problem. The first case tells us that Mr. Bell’s office is not doing a thorough job. The second case tells us that Mr. Bell’s judgment does not reflect the concerns of the citizens of Wichita. In either case, there’s a problem at city hall.