Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city government

  • Remarks to Wichita City Council, April 1, 2008

    Following are remarks I delivered to the Wichita City Council, asking them to not approve tax increment financing (TIF) for a project in Wichita. The council approved the financing by a vote of six to one. Thank you to council member Paul Gray for his dissenting vote.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the Wichita City Council, I ask you to not approve this TIF financing request, and to cease this practice in the future.

    We need to allow markets to channel capital and investment to where people value it greatest. The profit and loss system provides that guidance.

    By asking for the TIF financing, developers are sending us a signal that without the special tax favor, their project would not be economically feasible. They evidently have judged that it would not be profitable. They must feel that they will not be able to sell or rent at prices that will cover their costs of developing this project.

    This means that proceeding with the project is investing capital somewhere other than its most-valued use. We know that because developers build other things in Wichita without receiving a subsidy, and they are able to earn a profit.

    Now this project may satisfy the political goals of some people who believe that not enough development is happening in their politically-desired part of town. But these people are not spending their own money to accomplish this goal.

    If these developers want to build something in this area, they need to figure out what will appeal to people, what will fill enough of a need, that the project is profitable on its own. That’s how we will know that this investment is wise. They won’t have to appear before governmental bodies seeking approval for their plans. They can just do it.

    That’s market entrepreneurship. It is the way that wealth is created. These developers, instead, are practicing political entrepreneurship, where they seek to please various governmental bodies, rather than satisfying consumers who express their desires through the mechanism of markets.

    This leads to a corrosive environment where nearly every week someone appears before this council requesting special treatment, that favor paid for by the rest of the the community. This is harmful.

    Supporters of TIF explain them in a way that makes it seem as though there is no cost involved in granting the subsidy. But there is. Why would these developers want them, and why would this council not grant them to everyone if there were no cost?

    I propose a pledge that this council could take that will help our community become aware of the cost of these subsidies, and will also alleviate some of the inequity. When the City of Wichita grants special tax treatment, it must reduce its spending by the same amount. By following this simple rule, the City can be reminded of the cost of granting special tax favors, and the rest of us won’t have to pay for them.

  • It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool

    In a column in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle (“Smoking ban issue not one to negotiate”), columnist Mark McCormick quotes Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of Tobacco Free Wichita, as equating a smoking section in a restaurant with “a urinating section in a swimming pool.”

    This is a ridiculous comparison. A person can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it. But people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking.

    Besides this, Mr. McCormick’s article seeks to explain how markets aren’t able to solve the smoking problem, and that there is no negotiating room, no middle ground. There must be a smoking ban, he concludes.

    As way of argument, McCormick claims, I think, that restaurants prepare food in sanitary kitchens only because of government regulation, not because of markets. We see, however, that food is still being prepared in unsanitary kitchens, and food recalls, even in meat processing plants where government inspectors are present every day, still manage to happen. So government regulation itself is not a failsafe measure.

    Markets — that is, consumers — do exert powerful forces on businesses. If a restaurant like McDonald’s serves food that makes people ill, which do you think the restaurant management fears most: a government fine, or the negative publicity? Even small local restaurants live and die by word of mouth. Those that serve poor quality food or food that makes people ill will suffer losses, not as much from government regulation as from the workings of markets.

    But I will grant that Mr. McCormick does have a small point here. Just by looking at food, you probably can’t tell if it’s going to make you ill to eat it. Someone’s probably going to need to get sick before the word gets out. But you easily can tell if someone’s smoking in the bar or restaurant you just entered. Or, if people are smoking but you can’t detect it, I would image that the danger to health from breathing secondhand smoke is either nonexistent or very small.

    The problem with a smoking ban written into law rather than reliance on markets, is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm, as is the case with laws against theft and murder. But it’s different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking. For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision.

    This is not a middle-ground position. It is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority — no matter how lop-sided — make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as Mr. Claycomb stated in another Wichita Eagle article, will “tick off everybody.” Who benefits from a law that does that?

    Other articles on this topic:

    Property Rights Should Control Kansas Smoking Decisions

    Testimony Opposing Kansas Smoking Ban

  • The harmful effects of Wichita’s special tax favors

    In the past few weeks a handful of companies in Wichita have asked to be exempted from paying property taxes on investments they have made. This week Wichita may decide to grant special tax treatment to a large development in downtown Wichita.

    Is it wise for the City of Wichita to grant these special tax favors?

    Because capital for investment is in short supply, it is important that our economy allocate it where it does the most good, where it is valued most. Markets do a very good job of this when they operate free of government meddling. When government intervenes, however, decisions about how to allocate investment capital will be made for all sorts of non-economic reasons.

    Here in Wichita, for example, there are some who believe that downtown Wichita suffers from underinvestment when compared to some of the city’s outlying areas. These people — many of them holding political office or a quasi-governmental position — seek to use government and its ability to tax (or not to tax) to achieve their goals. They have passed measures like the sales tax to fund the downtown Wichita arena. Downtown developers and businesses are given tax breaks, tax abatements, and they may obtain low-interest loans backed by the credit of the City of Wichita. A special tax district overlays downtown, with the proceeds being used to promote downtown’s interest in receiving more governmental largesse. Downtown is also filled with special tax increment financing or TIF districts, where property tax revenues that would normally be used to fund the general operations of government are instead diverted to enhance the profitability of the developer’s project.

    All this favorable treatment means that projects that would not be feasible on their own merits are undertaken because they satisfy a political agenda. This results in misallocation of scare capital. It’s also not fair to those who risk their own capital without receiving special government favor, meaning that we may have less investment overall in Wichita because of reluctance to compete with tax-favored investors.

    This interventionism is also harmful in that it creates a special class of firms: those firms who have asked for and received government favor. They gain a competitive advantage over their direct competitors. As Karl Peterjohn of the Kansas Taxpayers Network has taught me, these firms also have a competitive advantage over other firms of all types in Wichita. That’s because firms of all types that don’t receive special tax favors have higher overhead, and therefore may not be able to compete with the tax-favored firms in paying attractive wages to obtain employees.

    This interventionism is harmful again because it creates a class of political entrepreneurs rather than market entrepreneurs. Instead of seeking to create products and services that please customers, they seek to please politicians and bureaucrats. This behavior, called rent-seeking, produces nothing of value to the economy as a whole.

    Furthermore, if what those who seek special tax treatment say is true, that is, that the projects they propose would not be feasible if they had to pay their taxes, we have a serious problem: we have taxes that are so high that they inhibit private investment.

    Finally, when government reduces someone’s tax and doesn’t reduce its own spending, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference.

    I propose a partial solution to this problem that will help our leaders become aware of the cost of this problem, and will also alleviate some of the inequity. When the City of Wichita (or any other taxing authority) grants special tax treatment, it must reduce its spending by the same amount. By following this simple rule, the City can be reminded of the cost of granting special tax favors, and the rest of us won’t have to pay for them.

  • Testimony on the Wichita New Communities initiative

    From John Todd.

    City of Wichita Mayor and Council Members
    455 N. Main
    Wichita, Kansas 67203

    Subject: Testimony in Opposition to Funding for the current New Communities Initiative Area (tract known as 67214 Target Area) or New Urban Renewal Target Area.

    Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,

    My name is John Todd. I am a Wichita area real estate broker and developer, and I am here to speak as a private citizen. I speak in opposition to the city’s $250,000 Funding proposal for the current New Communities Initiative Area, because I believe this program in reality, represents the resurrection of the failed government Urban Renewal housing programs of the 1960-70’s.

    Several months ago I attended a public “kick-off” meeting for the New Communities Initiative program at the Hughes Metroplex Center (Wichita State University) presented by Mr. Richard Baron (McCormack Baron Salazar). Mr. Baron delivered a power point presentation touting his firm’s expertise in replacing failed government Urban Renewal “Public Housing” projects of the past like the one shown in the attachment market Exhibit “A”.

    Please take a close look at Exhibit “A”. When these types of Government housing projects of the past as shown on Exhibit “A” were built, they no doubt were sold to the taxpaying citizens by well meaning local public officials who saw a future vision (emphasis added) as to how their communities could solve their city’s blight problems, and at the same time provide “affordable housing” for the economically challenged people in their communities, and that the “collective good” (emphasis added) to be gained by projects such as these were worth the sacrifice of the individual property owners who were forced out of their homes or businesses to make way for these projects through the local government’s use of its eminent domain power. I believe the picture of the Public Housing project shown in Exhibit “A” speaks for itself regarding the failure of government in it’s attempt to socially-manipulate peoples lives by believing they knew what was best for people and by then mandating this view. The economic and social costs of these projects both private and public I suspect were staggering.

    Please take a close look at Exhibit “B” that is also attached that shows a modern day “Communities” (Urban Renewal?) project that I believe Mr. Baron’s company is developing in another city. The painted rendering of the project is beautiful, but how does a project of this nature fit in with the proposed New Communities Initiative Area known as the “67214 Target Area”? Here is my interpretation of the information that I gathered from Mr. Baron’s presentation at the Wichita State University meeting. Of course I would suggest the need for the City Council to verify this information for them selves before making a decision to endorse a project of this magnitude. I am of the opinion that projects of this nature involve a mixture of privately owned town homes with Section 8 rental subsidized units with a common area owned by some sort of non-profit organization with ties to city government and other groups, but safely outside the control of a policy making City Council. Financing of these types of projects relied heavily on (I suspect tax deductible) private gifts, and other government grants and subsidies (Or money which many groups view as “free money”.). I did not pick up on who paid and how much development fees or management fees would be, if any, or how much financial exposure the city might have since public money would be involved. Mr. Baron suggested that projects of this nature take considerable tract sizes and suggested that tract acquisition many times required the use of eminent domain.

    Before you consider promoting any public housing project(s) for the New Communities Initiative Area tract known as the 67214 Target Area, please take time to consider the following.

    Currently, there are approximately 41 homes listed in the South Central Kansas Multiple Listing Service as available for sale in the 67214 Target Area. Exhibit “C” shows pictures of four of those homes. All four homes exhibit pride of ownership signs, and with current financing options, could be purchased with estimated monthly payments ranging from around $250 to just over $500 per month with minimal buyer costs needed to close the transaction. I continually hear government and quasi-government housing connected staff people continually crying out about the need for “Affordable Housing”. Well folks, we have it!!! I hear about the need to clear “Blight”. Item #29 Repair or Removal of Dangerous & Unsafe Structures on today’s City Council Agenda lists several houses that are scheduled for upgrade or demolition some of which appear to be in the Target Area under discussion today. And, with the recent upgrade of the housing code, you have given city officials all the tools they need to deal with blight. The attached Exhibit “D” shows some of the new and newer homes in the 67214 Target Area. Perhaps the money spent upgrading the 21st Street Corridor and the new grocery store on 13th are beginning to pay off. And we absolutely don’t need for the people currently living in their “Affordable Housing” units in the Target Area worrying whether or not they are safe from the hand of eminent domain.

    The 67214 Target Area represents opportunity. There are vacant treed lots all over the area. In the early 1990’s I was personally involved in the building and marketing of new “Affordable” homes on approximately 175 vacant “in-fill” lots in Park City. I believe that this privately driven economic activity represents part of what everyone recognizes today as the Park City success story.

    I believe that people all across our great city want to participate in the American Dream of home ownership by owning their own home rather than ending up in their retirement years with a handful of rent receipts from a Section 8 program.

    Sincerely,

    John Todd

  • In Central-Northeast Wichita, government is cause of problem, not solution

    An article in The Wichita Eagle “Plan offers hope for city’s troubled heart” (November 14, 2007) reports on the development of a plan named New Communities Initiative, its goal being the revitalizing of a depressed neighborhood in Wichita. The saddest thing in this article is the realization that there is consideration of a plan for large-scale government intervention to solve problems that are, to a large extent, caused by government itself.

    The article laments low high school graduation rates and the low proficiency in math and reading. We should make sure we remember that almost all these children have gone to public schools, that is, schools owned and run by government. Plans to improve public schools almost always call for more spending. While education bureaucrats do not like to admit this, spending on government schools in Kansas has been increasing rapidly in recent years. The results of these huge spending increases are just being learned, but it is unlikely that it will produce the dramatic results that are needed.

    There is a simple solution to improving schools that won’t cost more than what is already spent, and should cost even less: school choice. In parts of our country where there is school choice through vouchers — or better, through tax credits — it is low-income parents who are most appreciative of the chance for their children to escape the terrible public schools. Further, there is persuasive evidence that when faced with viable competition, the public schools themselves improve.

    In Kansas, however, there is little hope that meaningful school choice will be implemented soon. Although Winston Brooks, superintendent of Wichita schools, says he is open to competition and accountability, it is a false bravado. The political climate in Kansas is such that it is nearly impossible to get even a charter school application approved, much less any form of school choice with real teeth. (See “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” January 3, 2007 Wall Street Journal.) As the government schools consume increasing resources, parents find it even harder to pay taxes and private school tuition. So the government schools, responsible for graduates who can’t read and calculate, extend their monopoly.

    A continual problem in depressed areas of cities is low employment. Government again contributes to this problem by creating barriers to employment, most prominently through the minimum wage law. People have jobs because their employers value the work the employees perform more than what they pay them in wages and benefits. When government says you must pay a higher wage than what the potential employees can contribute through their labors, these low-productivity workers won’t be hired. As the minimum wage rises, which it is on the federal level, it becomes even more difficult for the least productive workers to find jobs.

    The reason that some young people find it difficult to get jobs is that they don’t have the education, training, or experience to be very productive at a job. While no one likes to work for only, say $3 or $4 per hour, working for that wage is preferable to being unemployed when the minimum wage is $6 per hour. While working for $4 per hour the worker gains experience at a specific job, and experience at holding any job in general. Soon, as workers become more productive, their wages will rise. Sitting on the sidelines not working or wasting time in a government job-training program does the workers no good.

    The article mentions the plight of children whose parents are in prison. More generally, this neighborhood is plagued by crime and gangs. While I do not know the proportion of these people that are in prison for crimes related to drugs, it most surely is high. Gangs exist almost solely because of the trade in illegal drugs. The government’s prohibition of drugs, then, plays a huge role in the problem of crime.

    The solution is to legalize drugs. Legalize all drugs, without exception. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of drug use, as drug abuse is a serious health problem for many people. The health problems that drug abuse causes might even increase after legalization. But the crime problem would cease to exist. No longer would people be in prison simply because they are drug addicts. With legalization, the price of drugs would rapidly decline to perhaps the cost of a pack of cigarettes or a few cocktails each day. No longer would drug addicts have to raise several hundred dollars per day through crime. No longer would gangs find selling drugs profitable, and they would likely disappear. Do the owners of liquor stores shoot each other over turf wars, and do their customers engage in crime each day to pay for their fix of cheap alcohol?

    The alternative to legalization of drugs is more law enforcement aimed at decreasing the supply of illegal drugs. This government action, if successful, has this consequence: by reducing the supply of drugs, it increases their price, thereby making it even more lucrative to deal in illegal drugs.

    Then there is the government’s war on poverty. The economist Walter Williams recently wrote this:

    Since President Johnson’s War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year’s U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty — dependency and self-destructive behavior.

    In the same article:

    There’s one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There’s another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks? … The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage — lower poverty in married-couple families.

    In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today’s black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

    Williams and Thomas Sowell, who have studied the issue extensively, conclude that it is government anti-poverty programs that are the cause of a permanent underclass. These programs should be canceled.

    We see that government — through its poor schools, the raising of barriers to employment through minimum wage laws, the prohibition of drugs, and the culture of dependency and family disintegration supported by welfare — has been a contributing factor, probably the most important factor, in the decline of this neighborhood. It is foolhardy to believe that more government programs can reverse the damage already done by past and present government programs. While I’m sure that the intent of the New Communities Initiative and its coordinating members is noble, the reality is that government intervention is dangerous to the future of Wichita and to this neighborhood.

  • Let property rights rule Wichita smoking decisions

    A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking, as it is with all issues. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property.

    Not everyone agrees with this simple truth. Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of the Tobacco Free Wichita coalition, asks in The Wichita Eagle why clean air is not a right when smoking is a right. The answer is that both clean air and smoking are rights that people may enjoy, as they wish, on their own property. When on the property of others, you may enjoy the rights that the property owner has decided on.

    It’s not like the supposed right to breathe clean air while dining or drinking on someone else’s property is being violated surreptitiously. Most people can quickly sense upon entering a bar or restaurant whether people are smoking. If you do not want to be around cigarette smoke, all you have to do is leave. That’s what I do. It is that simple. No government regulation is needed: just leave. If you wish, tell the manager or owner why you are leaving. That may persuade the owner of the property to make a decision in your favor.

    Employees may make the same decision. There are plenty of smoke-free places for people to work if they don’t want to be around smoke.

    Some think that if they leave a restaurant or bar because it is smoky, then they have lost their “right” to be in that establishment. But no one has an absolute right to be on someone else’s private property, much less to be on that property under conditions that they — not the property owner — dictate.

    Property rights, then, are the way to solve disputes over smoking vs. clean air in a way that respects individual freedom and liberty. Under property rights, owners will decide to allow or prohibit smoking as they best see fit, to meet the needs of their current customers, or the customers they want to attract.

    A property rights-based system is greatly preferable to government mandate. Without property rights, decisions are made for spurious reasons. For example, debate often includes statements such as “I’m a non-smoker and I think that …” or “I’m a smoker and …” These statements presuppose that the personal habits or preferences of the speaker make their argument persuasive.

    Decision-making based on personal characteristics, preferences, or group-membership happens often in politics. Wichita City Council member Jim Skelton, evidently once a smoker and opposed to smoking bans, is now receptive to bans since he quit smoking. Mr. Skelton, I ask you for this courtesy: would you please publish a list of the things you now take pleasure in, so that if you decide to quit them in the future, I shall have time to prepare myself for their banning?

    Lack of respect for property rights allows decisions to be made by people other than the owners of the property. In the case of a smoking ban, the decision can severely harm the value of property like bars or restaurants that caters to smokers. This matters little to smoking ban supporters like Wichita Vice Mayor Sharon Fearey. But we should not be surprised, as her record indicates she has little respect for private property.

    By respecting property rights, we can have smoking and non-smoking establishments. Property owners will decide what is in their own and their customers’ interests. Both groups, smokers and nonsmokers, can have what they want. With a government mandate, one group wins at the expense of the rights of many others.

  • City of Wichita acknowledges taxes are not good for business

    On November 6, 2007, the Wichita City Council considered and approved a request by Learjet for industrial revenue bonds. One of the benefits of IRBs such as these is that the property purchased with the proceeds is usually exempt from property tax. In this case, the period of tax abatement is ten years.

    In the minutes of the meeting, under the heading “Economic Vitality and Affordable Living” we can read: “Granting an ad valorem property tax exemption and sales tax exemption will encourage the business to create new job opportunities and stimulate economic growth for the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County.”

    Wow! Someone in city hall realizes that a reduction in taxes is good for business, and is reducing taxes in response to that revelation.

    Now if all businesses and individuals could have lower taxes — instead of only those who lobby government for special favor — think how nice that would be. The economic benefit that this tax reduction will bring to Learjet could be felt across our entire city.

  • Consider the alternative to a public library in Wichita

    Listen to this article in audio by clicking here.

    As Wichita considers the need for a new public library, a more central and fundamental question goes unconsidered: what is the role of the public library today, and do we really want one?

    Consider the difference between public and private institutions. The public institution has to satisfy only a small group of people, namely the politicians that fund it. Yes, once in a while voters get to select the politicians, but issues such as a library are usually far down the list of important topics, notwithstanding a recent Wichita Eagle editorial promoting a public library as “one of the most important cultural institutions in a community. It’s an investment in our future, a symbol of our values and aspirations.”

    Private institutions, or businesses, on the other hand, are voted on every day by customers, who choose one over the other for their own personal reasons. This is the idea of “consumer sovereignty.”

    Public institutions, open to all, appeal to few in the end. The problem caused by unwanted “customers” at the central library is well known, and must serve to decrease its usage by some large amount.

    Reading the 2006 annual report of the library, it appears that 34% of the loans made at the central branch were art, music, and video. (Due to the way the library presented the figures, I couldn’t determine this number for the branches.) Disregarding the presumably small number of artworks loaned (in comparison to the number of DVDs), the library is competing with services provided by the free market, namely video rental stores.

    Even the loaning of books competes with bookstores. The library reports tells us that the value of the books the library circulated — that is, what it would cost if each person who borrowed a book had bought the book instead — is $29,068,288. I am tempted to ask what the City of Wichita has against local bookstore owners. But the reality is that the library competes rather poorly with bookstores. It has been many years since I relied on the library for timely books in my field, computers and software engineering. I found the shelves filled with titles referring to software and computers long out of date.

    Today, if you want to borrow a recently-released book, especially a bestseller, you are likely to find yourself waiting in line behind dozens of borrowers, each with up to two weeks to use the book. This makes buying the book an attractive alternative, which is often what I do.

    If you want to read a classic, good luck to you. I wanted to read Capitalism and Freedom, one of Time Magazine’s 100 most important books published since World War II. But, the library didn’t own it.

    Could a privately-owned library be what Wichita needs? Could it do a better job? How would such a library work?

    As it turns out, I can’t find an example of a city with a private library. That alone doesn’t mean a private library couldn’t work. It is, I believe, more a symptom of our increasing reliance on government instead of private solutions.

    There are many ways a private library could work. Patrons might be charged a small admission fee. Patrons might buy monthly or annual memberships for unlimited use. There might be a fee for checking out items, perhaps based on the newness or popularity of the item and the length of the loan period. Items might carry advertising. Meeting rooms and other services could carry rental fees.

    The point is that the library would be directly accountable to its customers who use the library, instead of a governing board, the city council, and the “public,” whoever that is. The library, wishing to earn a profit for its owners, would have strong motivation to provide services that people are willing to actually pay for. It would be free to act on its own to raise capital and provide these services, instead of complaining about the lack of funding, which is the case with the current library, as with nearly all other cultural institutions, too.

    Plans for new libraries call for coffee shops in the mode of Starbucks. Will the refreshments served be free? Of course not. So charging for some services is okay, it seems.

    What about people who can’t afford even the small fees a private library might charge? We are all already paying these fees now in the form of taxes. We are already paying for a library, both those who use it and those who don’t. Spreading out the costs over everyone doesn’t make it more affordable for the town as a whole. As Thomas Sowell recently wrote: “This was all before politicians gave us the idea that the things we could not afford individually we could somehow afford collectively through the magic of government.”

    I wish that the Wichta Eagle editorial board would consider the alternative to government provision of things like libraries, entertainment facilities, airports, arts and culture, schools, and many other aspects of life. Relying on coercive government action over individual and voluntary group initiative makes us less free as a country and city.

  • Wichita’s payday lenders

    Payday loans are expensive, a recent Wichita Eagle articles tells us. If someone needs to borrow money and has access to a loan from almost any other source, they should avoid payday lenders. But the reality is that there are people who have poor credit and are not able to obtain credit through the usual channels such as banks, credit unions, credit cards, and family and friends. These people may have but one source for loans: the maligned payday lenders.

    Why can’t these people borrow from traditional, “legitimate” lenders? The answer is that making small loans to people who have a history of credit problems is expensive. Wishing it weren’t so and imposing government regulation won’t change this fact.

    Community activists call for existing banks and financial institutions to offer small loans at reasonable interest rates. One institution in Wichita, Communities United Credit Union, did just that. But earlier this year it failed after suffering losses from bad loans, providing more evidence that it is costly to offer small loans to credit-challenged customers.

    If existing financial institutions are to make small loans to credit-challenged borrowers, they should do so only with the reasonable expectation of earning profits from these loans. To do otherwise is to abandon their responsibility to their investors, and, should I learn that my bank or a bank I had invested in was making risky loans without being compensated for the risk, I would withdraw my investment in that bank.

    An irony is that existing government regulation may be a contributing factor as to why payday loans are so prevalent. In an Wichita Eagle article from earlier this year, we read “Some bankers are reluctant to offer them [small loans] because their industry is so tightly regulated …” These regulations either prohibit or add to the cost of making small loans, bankers say.

    Furthermore, usury laws, which limit the interest that banks and other traditional lenders may charge, are perhaps too restrictive. If traditional banks and credit unions could charge, say 25%, 40%, or even 50% for small loans, they might find it profitable to do so. An interest rate of 50%, while high, is certainly preferable to the several hundred percent rates that payday loan borrowers who roll over their loans pay.

    Those who call for a limit on the interest rate that payday lenders can charge may very well drive these lenders out of business. I suspect that is their unstated goal. If they are successful, where will credit-challenged borrowers go for loans? As shown above, traditional lenders are not serving these borrowers.

    A group named Sunflower Community Action says that payday lenders prey on poor people who have few financial options. I believe this group is misinformed on two points. First, the transaction between the borrower and lender is voluntary. Neither party is coerced, so there is no “preying.” Second, it is true that poor people have few options. Eliminating payday loans removes one more option, an option that evidently some people use. To its credit, this group promotes financial education and literacy, which is the best weapon to fight the cycle of poverty that some find themselves stuck in.