Employment in large counties, including Sedgwick County and others of interest. (more…)
Tag: Wichita Downtown Development Corporation
Gross Domestic Product in Metropolitan Areas
Examining the economy of metropolitan areas in an interactive visualization. Wichita examples included. (more…)
Downtown Wichita Tax Base
There’s been much investment in downtown Wichita. But it isn’t evident in the assessed value of property, although the recent trend is positive. (more…)
GDP by metropolitan area and component
An interactive visualization of gross domestic product by metropolitan area and industry.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, gathers data about economic output, known as gross domestic product. The visualization I have created presents this data in tabular and graphic form. (more…)
Downtown Wichita population is up
New Census Bureau data shows the downtown Wichita population growing in 2019.
Data released today by the United States Census Bureau shows the estimated population for zip code 67202 in 2019 was 1,751, an increase of 80 from the prior year.
Zip code 67202 is greater downtown Wichita, from the Arkansas River east to Washington, and Kellogg north to Central, roughly.
The source of this data is U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This is not the Bureau’s estimate of the population in 2019. This is because for areas of population less than 65,000, the Bureau does not provide one-year estimates. Instead, the five-year estimates use data gathered over a longer time period in order to provide greater accuracy.
The Bureau cautions that the five-year estimates should not be used as the population of the year in the midpoint of the five-year period: “Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled ‘2013,’ even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.” (See below for more about these data.)
Additionally, the Bureau issues this advice: “However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years.” Downtown Wichita, I believe, qualifies as an area “experiencing major changes.” The five-year estimates must be considered in light of this advice.
Still, as shown in the nearby table and charts, the ACS population numbers are far below the population reported by the downtown Wichita development agency Downtown Wichita. (See my article Downtown Wichita population for more about this topic from a previous year.)
The 90 percent confidence interval for the 2019 estimate is plus or minus 256 persons. This means the Bureau is confident the population is between 1,495 and 2,007, with 90 percent probability.
Note that Downtown Wichita — the development agency — reports the downtown population as 2,778, which is 58.7 percent higher than the Census Bureau. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the Downtown Wichita numbers are anything near the actual population.
Click charts and tables for larger versions.
Following, excerpts from the Census Bureau publication Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know.
Understanding Period Estimates
Single-year and multiyear estimates from the ACS are all “period” estimates derived from a sample collected over a period of time, as opposed to “point-in-time” estimates such as those from past decennial censuses. For example, the 2000 Census “long form” sampled the resident U.S. population as of April 1, 2000.While an ACS 1-year estimate includes information collected over a 12-month period, an ACS 5-year estimate includes data collected over a 60-month period.
In the case of ACS 1-year estimates, the period is the calendar year (e.g., the 2015 ACS covers the period from January 2015 through December 2015). In the case of ACS multiyear estimates, the period is 5 calendar years (e.g., the 2011–2015 ACS estimates cover the period from January 2011 through December 2015). Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled “2013,” even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.
Multiyear estimates should be labeled to indicate clearly the full period of time (e.g., “The child poverty rate in 2011–2015 was X percent.”). They do not describe any specific day, month, or year within that time period.
Multiyear estimates require some considerations that single-year estimates do not. For example, multiyear estimates released in consecutive years consist mostly of overlapping years and shared data.
The primary advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability of the data compared with that of single-year estimates, particularly for small geographic areas and small population subgroups. Figure 3.2 shows the improved precision of an ACS 5-year estimate, compared with a 1-year estimate, for child poverty statistics in Rice County, Minnesota—a county with about 65,000 residents in 2015. The lines above and below the point estimates represent the confidence intervals, or ranges of uncertainty, around each estimate. The confidence interval for the 1-year child poverty estimate ranges from 1.4 percent to 9.4 percent (8 percentage points) while the interval for the 5-year estimate is narrower, ranging from 12.8 percent to 19.2 percent (6 percentage points). (Refer to the section on “Understanding Error and Determining Statistical Significance” for a detailed explanation of uncertainty in ACS data.)
Deciding Which ACS Estimate to Use
For data users interested in obtaining detailed ACS data for small geographic areas (areas with fewer than 65,000 residents), ACS 5-year estimates are the only option.The 5-year estimates for an area have larger samples and smaller margins of error than the 1-year estimates. However, they are less current because the larger samples include data that were collected in earlier years. The main advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability for smaller geographic areas and small population groups.
However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years. The single year and multiyear estimates will not be the same because they are based on data from two different time periods.
Naftzger Park on the web: Do we care?
A badly outdated portion of Wichita’s website makes me wonder: Does anyone care?
In the Naftzger Park Facebook group that I co-administer, someone recently posted this:
Hi! I’m [not] new to Wichita and a friend told me about a quaint and lovely Victorian style park set in the downtown area. I love little parks like these as they’re such an endearing surprise in the midst of old industrial buildings and warehouses. After seeing the pictures on your website, I can tell my friend understated the beauty of the park. I can’t wait to visit! One problem though, I can’t find the hours of park operation. Could you please tell me what time the park closes as I’d hate for people to think that I’m a bum just because I was visiting after 9:00 p.m.?
In the next paragraph, the author confessed that the post is “pure sarcasm laced with bitterness,” because, as most Wichitans know, the Victorian Naftzger Park has been replaced with something else. While opinions vary as to whether the new park is better than the old, there is one thing of which this author is correct: “Not even a whisper of the change.”
What hasn’t changed is the City of Wichita website, specifically the page devoted to Naftzger Park. 1 As of April 19, 2020, it shows photos of the old park and this description: “A mini-park located in the heart of downtown Wichita containing many beautiful flowers, trees and shrubs, and grass accenting the waterfall that flows into a pond. Park benches and a gazebo add to the park’s Victorian style as well as providing a quiet haven in the downtown area.”
Wichita.gov, captured April 19, 2020. Click for larger.
None of this, except for “mini-park located in the heart of downtown Wichita” has been true for a long time. Naftzger Park — the Victorian version — closed in May 2018, nearly two years ago, when construction started on the new version. The new version opened in March 2020.So the city’s website is nearly two years outdated regarding Naftzger Park, outdated in a very material manner. Does this matter? In the scenario from the start of this article, yes, it matters. For an enthusiast of these parks that might travel to Wichita for that reason: Yes, it matters. For those looking to the city’s website for current and accurate information: Yes, it matters.
It matters for more than just Naftzger Park. Glaring examples like this cast doubt on the reliability of the rest of the city’s website. That’s a shame, because in my experience, the information on the city’s website is usually good. It could be more thorough in some simple but important ways, such as including spending records and legal notices. The city also overlooks simple ways to be innovative, such as posting fulfilled records requests.
Outdated information like this is a symptom of someone not caring. It’s especially troubling in light of this week’s city council meeting, where many council members were effusive in their praise of the city manager during his annual performance evaluation. I imagine that the city manager doesn’t maintain the Park and Recreation section of the city’s website. Maybe the Director of Parks and Recreation doesn’t update the website. But someone does. Someone must be responsible for keeping things current.
Naftzger Park, July 31, 2018. When that responsible person doesn’t care, responsibility flows upwards. Hasn’t anyone at the city noticed this badly outdated information? Have any park board members or city council members noticed? Anyone at DowntownWichita.org, the agency that, in its own words, “amplifies the energy, capital, and growth of downtown by empowering residents, visitors, and businesses to explore the possibilities of our city’s core.” Or what about someone at Visit Wichita? (To its credit, its website showcases the new version of Naftzger Park.) Or have they noticed but not cared? Or did they report the outdated page, but no one cared to act?
It’s not the case that someone needs to spend hours creating a page for the new Naftzger Park. Just take the outdated stuff off the site.
—
Notes- Should the city update this page, here is a link to a recent archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20200416014239/https://www.wichita.gov/ParkandRec/CityParks/Pages/Naftzger.aspx#. ↩
Business improvement district on tap in Wichita
The Douglas Design District seeks to transform from a voluntary business organization to a tax-funded branch of government.
Tomorrow the Wichita City Council will consider forming a business improvement district (BID) in east-central Wichita. Previously, city documents offered some explanation regarding the district: 1
First, there already exists a voluntary organization: “The Douglas Design District (DDD) is a voluntary organization of over 300 local businesses located near Douglas Avenue between Washington Avenue and Oliver Avenue. In 2017, the DDD established a five-year strategic plan to become a financially self-sustaining organization that is not reliant on elective membership.”
The purpose of a business improvement district: “A BID provides for the administration and financing of additional and extended services to businesses within the district and is funded by the City levying a mandatory service fee on the businesses within the district.”
Who will collect, and who will spend? “While the City levies the service fee, it can contract with a third-party organization such as the DDD to operate the BID. The approach is similar to that used by the City to contract with the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation in downtown.”
All this is repeated in the agenda packet for this week’s meeting. 2
The action on the agenda this week finalizes the district’s funding mechanism: “The annual fee ranges from $100 to $550 depending on the size of the business and is anticipated to generate approximately $50,000 a year.” By size, the city means the number of square feet. If a business or property owner does not pay, the city may start collection activity, although what that means is unspecified: “If any delinquent Fee or penalty is not paid within sixty (60) days from the date on which the Fee or penalty became delinquent, the City may give notice to the business of its intention to initiate a collection action.”Are BIDs a good idea? Most information about them is provided by their boosters, that is, those who directly benefit from the service fee, which is really a tax. But there are some doubters. The New Republic, by no means a conservative publication, printed a piece arguing against BIDs, stating: “But too often BIDs have turned against the businesses they were meant to serve, making the cost of entry into a new area even higher for local merchants, or lacking the transparency needed to instill trust from the community.” 3
A larger and more balanced look at BIDs comes from Washington Monthly in 2018:
The privatized structure of BIDs may raise liberals’ hackles, but it’s clear that BIDs can be a useful tool to remake neighborhoods into places where people actually want to spend their time. Many big-city mayors — who are overwhelmingly Democratic — have thrown their weight behind them. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser recently doled out grants totaling $300,000 to five neighborhoods thinking about forming their own BIDs. (One of the grantees, Dupont Circle, with the decaying park, will start collecting taxes from business owners in the fall.)
Still, there are real downsides to BIDs for renters and small business owners, who will not benefit from rising property values and may ultimately be pushed out of the area. Luckily, this isn’t a hugely difficult problem to remedy. The best, and easiest, way to revamp how BIDs are run is through city halls; they’re the ones who legislate what BIDs can and can’t do, while holding them accountable to the public. But too often, they renege on that responsibility. 4
From Canada, harsh criticism:
In this paper, we propose and develop the concept of “socio-economic hygiene” to denote the ways in which neoliberal Western urban space is spatially regulated and re-oriented towards consumption in a way that reinforces social exclusion. … We conclude by tracking how sociological strategies of “hygiene” have moved from racial and biological features to features of place and socioeconomic status, and how BIDs, resembling genocidal states in certain ways, use these strategies to continually justify their own existence. 5
Civil society, or government?
What should trouble everyone is the replacement of civil society with political society. Edward H. Crane explains: “There are basically only two ways to organize society: Coercively, through government mandates, or voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals and associations. … In a civil society, you make the choices about your life. In a political society, someone else makes those choices.”
Right now DDD is a voluntary organization. Civil society, in other words. But now it is proposed to replace it with political society.
Why trade voluntary cooperation for the force of government? The annual report of the DDD (included in the city council agenda packet in 2018) explains: “Approximately 1/3 of businesses in DDD’s project area are DDD members yet ALL businesses benefit from DDD’s efforts. A BID eliminates this ‘free rider’ problem and, if implemented, would allow DDD to have a singular focus on implementing the BID business plan rather than always chasing membership.” For emphasis, the report notes: “THE PAYMENT OF THE BID ASSESSMENT WILL REPLACE MEMBERSHIP DUES.”
Another term for chasing membership is selling your product by showing how it creates value. If the formation of the BID is successful, the Douglas Design District will be relieved of this necessity. Will having a guaranteed source of revenue make DDD more or less responsive to its members?
Also, the DDD annual report states: “A BID assessment is not a tax.” But for those who decide to skip paying this tax? After a few years, they will experience the blunt power of government tax collection.
Taxation without transparency
The agenda packet states this about the relationship between the city and the district: “While the City levies the service fee, it can contract with a third-party organization such as the DDD to operate the BID.”
Wichita has similar organizations. One is the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, now known as Downtown Wichita. This organization is funded nearly entirely by tax revenue from an improvement district. Yet, it refuses to make its spending records public, and the city supports that decision. 6
Another similar taxpayer-funded organization is the city’s convention and tourism bureau, which has gone by several names over the years. Regarding it, in 2012 I wrote:
We’ve learned that city council members rely on — as Randy Brown told the council last year — facile legal reasoning to avoid oversight: “It may not be the obligation of the City of Wichita to enforce the Kansas Open Records Act legally, but certainly morally you guys have that obligation. To keep something cloudy when it should be transparent I think is foolishness on the part of any public body, and a slap in the face of the citizens of Kansas. By every definition that we’ve discovered, organizations such as Go Wichita are subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.” 7
Of interest is a segment from the KAKE Television public affairs program “This Week in Kansas” where the failure of the Wichita City Council, especially council member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita), to recognize the value of open records and open government is discussed. Video is here.
Since this time, the city has formed a business improvement district known as a TBID. It covers all hotels in the city and imposes an additional 2.75 percent tax to hotel bills, although the city and hotels call it a “City Tourism Fee.” 8 I’ve not asked for records of this spending, but I am sure the request would be rejected.
Will the Douglas Design District follow the standard set by Wichita’s other improvement districts and evade accountability and transparency?
Results from current improvement districts
The Washington Monthly piece mentions that city halls can hold BIDs accountable. But lack of transparency works against oversight and accountability.
Then, if anyone wonders what about the results of Wichita’s improvement districts, here are a few findings:
- For the past decade business activity in downtown Wichita has been on a downhill trend. The data for 2017 (the most recent year for data) holds good news, with business activity rising. It isn’t the vibrant growth we’ve been told is happening in downtown Wichita, but at least things are not getting worse. 9
- Truthfulness is in short supply. The Downtown Wichita organization has been caught in either a huge lie or gross incompetence regarding its claim of the number of people working in downtown Wichita. After brought to its attention, the number is no longer used. 10
- Wichita economic development officials use a circuitous method of estimating the population of downtown Wichita, producing a number much higher than Census Bureau estimates. 11
- Looking at hotel guest tax receipts, which are a surrogate for total hotel room revenue, we observe that of the largest markets in Kansas, Wichita has experienced nearly the least growth in hotel guest tax collections since 2010. 12
Despite this record, Wichita City Hall seems satisfied with these results.
—
Notes- City of Wichita. Agenda for August 21, 2018, Item IV-1. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/08-21-2018%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
- City of Wichita. Agenda for January 14, 2020, Item V-4. Available at https://wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/01-14-2020%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
- Max Rivlin-Nadler. Business Improvement Districts Ruin Neighborhoods. The New Republic, February 19, 2016. Available at https://newrepublic.com/article/130188/business-improvement-districts-ruin-neighborhoods. ↩
- Saahil Desai. One Landlord, One Vote. Available at https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july-august-2018/one-landlord-one-vote/. ↩
- Sanscartier, Matthew D.; Gacek, James. Out, Damned Spot: Socio-economic Hygienic Practices of Business Improvement Districts. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. Winter 2016, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p73-85. ↩
- Weeks, Bob. Wichita’s open records policy is contrary to the interests of citizens. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-open-records-policy-contrary-interests-citizens/. ↩
- Weeks, Bob. Wichita, again, fails at open government. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/open-records/wichita-again-fails-at-open-government/. ↩
- Weeks, Bob. Wichita seeks to add more tax to hotel bills. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-seeks-add-tax-hotel-bills/. ↩
- Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita jobs rise Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/downtown-wichita-jobs-rise/. ↩
- Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita jobs, sort of. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-jobs/. ↩
- Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita population is up Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-population-is-up-2018/. ↩
- Weeks, Bob. Updated: Kansas hotel guest tax collections Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/updated-kansas-hotel-guest-tax-collections/. ↩
