In July, a ban on smoking in most indoor public places was implemented by the city. Do you support the ban, and why or why not?
I support the ban. I don't think one can deny that second hand smoke is harmful. I am disappointed that federal and state agencies have not stepped forward from a regulatory standpoint. Instead, leaving the issue to cities. The lack of state or federal regulation has created a situation where there can be a negative effect on local businesses if a nearby community does not have a smoking ban. I think this would have been less divisive of an issue if there had been a referendum.
Yes, I do, because the ordinance appears to be a very popular one. As a smoker, I have had to make changes and I believe my changes are probably good for those around me. For businesses, I would support helping those with making changes to accommodate an outside smoking area. Some places have already done this and others will need the city to at site planning for help. Another concern I have is having business owners carrying out the policing of the ordinance. I say if an owner of a business has tried to take care of the problem and can't, the business owner should not be fined. The individual who broke the ordinance should be fined.
As a life-long nonsmoker I personally enjoy the smoke-free environment in all public facilities throughout Lawrence. In fact, I would not be opposed to the federal government raising the tax on cigarettes to $5.00 per pack to help pay for rising health care costs. However, at the local level I do believe that our restaurant and bar industry has had a tough adjustment period. Since the ban has been in effect now for over six months, I will support revisiting the issue to determine to what extent the smoking ban has hurt local business. I would only support allowing a business to seek a variance to the smoking ban if two conditions are met. First, the affected business must verify with an officially-certified accounting document or official tax receipts that revenue has decreased in the last six months in comparison with the same time the previous year. Second, if the business is able to show a substantial and serious detriment to its revenue, the business could propose and show its plan for an air exchanger which would quickly and efficiently exhaust the smoke from the building. Therefore, if a business meets these two conditions then the City should have a mechanism in place to allow smoking for those businesses which have invested thousands of dollars into their establishments. One should not forget that decreased revenue for local businesses is a decrease in city revenue.
I did not vote in support of the smoking ban as it was presented to the commission. My position is that there are alternatives that have not been completely explored, and there are local businesses that are suffering due to this particular ban. I think we owe it to all of our citizens and business operators that they be given a seat at the table when making these sorts of decisions.
In July a ban on smoking was passed by 5 city commissioners. I believe the people of Lawrence should have voted on the smoking ban. I believe in an agenda set by all the people after careful consideration of all facts. This is an issue that deserves a public vote.
I support the smoking ban as it is written for public health reasons and will take no action to modify it. However, we can learn from how the smoking ban issue was decided and implemented. Even by following accepted procedures with task force meetings and city commission meetings where the public could comment, many felt left out of the process. We should review existing procedures and modify them to prevent this feeling in the future, for example, by holding town-hall style meetings and assessing ways to minimize impacts on local businesses while still adopting the wider policy goal.
I support the indoor smoking ban. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that second hand smoke contributes to respiratory and cardiac illnesses and deaths. As a well known local physician wrote, "The City Commission saved more lives by implementing the smoking ban than I will save during my entire career in medicine." Smoking should be prohibited in public places not only for the health of patrons and customers but for those who work in those places.
I am a non-smoker and feel that the ban should have been handled differently. I am not in favor of a city dictating how a privately owned business should operate. If the citizens of Lawrence would like to readdress the situation then the proper way to handle it would be though a vote and that would have to be called for through a petition. I would highly recommend air quality test and proper air handling systems if it were overturned.
I understand the concept but do not support the way it came out. It seems to me that the City Commission should have more important issues than a ban on smoking. Quite frankly, was there really that much of a problem dining out in Lawrence. It is not like we are dealing with 5 star restaurants!
What's your opinion on how the city has managed and planned for growth during the past five years?
I believe the City had the appropriate procedures in place to ensure predictable and consistent growth over the last five years. The one problem that has been raised recently regarding growth is the apparent change of definitions in the zoning codes as made apparent in the litigation currently pending in Douglas County District Court. It appeared from news reports that the City simply got cold feet about allowing a big-box type development at 6th and Wakarusa when the public began to complain. As determined by Judge Malone, it appears the City did not follow its own procedures and had to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees as a result. If it is determined that the City willfully an purposely did not follow procedures due to pressure based on the desire to kill the project, those individuals should be dismissed from employment with the city as such decisions have caused a significant financial burden on the city and significant liability issues. The City of Lawrence is here to guide growth but it is up to the private sector to grow the community. The city cannot be an impediment to those who want to take the risks to grow this community.
Anytime the public hears the city talk about managed or planned growth, red flags always appear. The truth of the matter is we must manage and plan the growth of our city. Over the past five years, the economy, change in philosophy and the city's financial stream has had a great effect on growth. During slower times, it is the city's responsibility to plan for what I see as the growth of tomorrow,
I would say that the City Commission has mismanaged growth for the past 3 decades. Housing developments placed miles away from shopping. Poorly planned developments with absence of sidewalks. Arterial streets end up having houses face them only to have the residents years later claim that cars° are driving in front of their homes. Hit and miss° as the old saying goes.
The city has taken many positive steps in this direction. The new zoning code, the hiring of an area planner, progress with the south east area plan, and a greater concern for the wider impact on the city of any newly proposed development are all evidence of this.
I feel the past five years Lawrence has earned a reputation for being not as friendly to new growth as it had in the past. The growth has been therefore stunted as we can see with building permits at a low last month.
I believe that the city staff and elected officials have done a good job of managing and planning for growth internally as well as on the exterior of the city. The many tools that are in place for this process include Horizon 2020, Transportation 2025, area plans, floodplain regulations, and the city's annexation policy.
I think the city has done poorly in managing growth.. Horizon 2020 is a broken document. Horizon 2020 was completed at a much different time in Lawrence. The city has had a difficult time in determining if Horizon 2020 is a dynamic plan, one that changes with time, or if it is a document that is set in stone. It seems the rules of the game change often. The development process itself is bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy adding to the cost. Our current city commissioners (at least 4 of them) were elected on a Smart Growth agenda. I believe that Smart Growth principles are good when actually used and implemented. Our Commission, however, does not truly implement Smart Growth principles. Far too often, it is a roadblock to projects-most of which have met with local planning guidelines. We need to do a better job of designing, planning and implementing standards by which our city can grow. We need to be consistent in the application of our regulations and policies. With these ideas in mind, we can have a city that controls its growth in a way that benefits all citizens and works to make workforce housing a reality, not a dream. Horizon 2020 and development plans like it (Transportation 2025, Urban Growth Area, Area Plans, etc) need to be reviewed and updated on a continual basis. We should generally follow the plans once they are made but be open to change when it is appropriate.
I believe the city has been in a reactive mode to city growth during the past five years. This is not necessarily the fault of the planning staff or planning commission. The fact that planning philosophy can change with a new commission is contrary to what is desired in a long range planning document. My goal is to develop a long range planning process that will be consistent yet flexible enough to be truly long range. This will involve a "buy in" from the commission, staff and public.
The City has not planned well for growth during the past five years. The waste water treatment plant built in the last five years will not able to handle the growth that is expected during the next 10. This means a new treatment plant will need to be built at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. Though much work has been done to modernize our zoning code and development regulations, much remains to be done. We must listen more and plan better.
Do you believe that residential growth pays for itself or costs existing taxpayers additional dollars? If you believe it does not pay for itself, how would you address that issue?
The answer to this question will be determined by the study which is due for completion in the fall of this year. I do believe that the city is at a crossroads. A city cannot thrive on the tax base of residences alone. Commercial properties are taxed at double the rate of residences. The best way for growth to pay for itself is to foster growth within the business and industrial communities. It is also important to accept the fact that we have some serious problems with our aging infrastructure in the older parts of town as well as ever changing regulations at the federal and state level. A growing community will have the opportunity to fund these improvements as well.
The city commission has hired Tischler & Associates to perform a study to address the issue of whether or not growth pays for itself. I am anxious to see the results of this study. If I were a commissioner when the study was completed I would make sure the study is objective and addresses the benefits of growth as well as the costs. I think we could look at growth in a different way than costs vs. benefits. Currently to build a house a home builder is required to pay $525.00 for a water meter and a tap to the water line, $3,130.00 for water system development charges, and $770.00 for wastewater system development charges. That is a total of $4,425.00 per home in impact fees. All of the costs of infrastructure improvements are paid for by the developer. Sewers, Water lines, utilities, streets, storm water impact studies, and land for storm water retainage are all paid for by developers. Those costs are ultimately passed on to home buyers. These type of costs make having workforce housing more difficult.
I am concerned that the City Commission needs another study to study the obvious. Residential development needs to have a return of specials for sewer, sidewalks and streets and paid for thru specials on the property tax as it were 30 years ago. If not, there are ways to work with the developers to include the expense in the price of the house. Those I will discuss later if elected.
Growth pays for itself.
There is no question in my mind that the city's residential and commercial growth pays for itself. The explosion in growth has occurred in south and west Lawrence. The added property valuation added to the tax rolls because of these developments over the last five years should have more than paid for the additional services required as a result of such development. If the added revenue did not provided the necessary revenue, one need not look further than the current commission as it was in control of approving the fiscal budget during this period of time.
I thought that is why we are paying for the study to be completed. A commissioner needs to keep an open mind about issues and use all available data and tools to make a good decision.
I believe growth is beneficial to the community as a whole. A community that is growing does have to provide additional services but it also realizes an increase in the tax revenues. School funding is based on a per pupil amount. If a city is not growing there are no new pupils (revenues) coming into the school district. Without new revenues school budgets are cut, buildings are closed neighborhoods suffer, etc.
Most communities that have conducted similar studies have found that residential growth does not pay for itself. There is evidence of that in Lawrence right now in , for example, bills for sewer services. Lawrence property owners are being billed for the future construction of a new sewage treatment plant to service development that has not yet begun as well as to pay for our existing plant. The city needs to explore options to have new development pay for the increased cost of infrastructure that it generates. In effect, new development must buy into the partnership already existing for the rest of the property owners in Lawrence and share the costs already assigned the rest of us.
We must find a fair method of paying for growth. The city recently hired Paul Tischler and Associates to study the question of whether growth pays for itself. That study isn't complete. But as the city grows, so do needs for police and fire protection, as well as infrastructure. The taxpayer pays too much of the burden. I think those who profit the most from development should pay more of the related expense. We need a common-sense plan for paying these costs.
Do you believe roundabouts and traffic circles are effective and a good use of city funds?
The devices are certainly effective! They definitely slow down traffic. I think the better question is should we install roundabouts in existing neighborhoods? Installing roundabouts in existing traffic applications is too expensive. Roundabouts installed on existing streets, for example, Monterrey Way & Harvard, and 19 th & Louisiana also makes it very difficult for fire trucks and school buses to safely maneuver. Perhaps speed cushions and gateway treatments are a safer alternative to roundabouts.
Short answer: roundabouts and traffic calming devices are proven solutions to slow traffic and reduce impact points at intersections. However, I will not support the policy of constructing roundabouts in neighborhoods which were not designed for such public improvements, e.g. 19th & Louisiana. I also will not support the placing of other non-aesthetically pleasing traffic calming devices, e.g. Harvard Street, such as lane constrictors which cause the curb appeal of homes to deteriorate. It is interesting that the current commission came up with this solution which is a direct result of its failure to properly review and approve proper development plans. An example of the Commission's failure is Harvard Street in west Lawrence. In this area west of Monterey Way, Harvard Street is a collector/arterial street which is designed to move traffic quickly and efficiently between Monterey Way and Wakarusa. However, the problem is poor design, e.g. excessive driveway accesses, not fast drivers. The road is doing what it was designed to do. Worse yet, the Commission did not have the experience or training to understand the future problems associated with such design errors. Solution, the houses along Harvard should have been built facing away from this arterial street and reverse frontage roads should have been designed to direct traffic to properly designed intersections. This design flaw was allowed to proceed unchecked before both the Planning Commission and the City Commission.
Despite my opposition to roundabouts in older neighborhoods, I will support the construction of roundabouts and other traffic calming devices in areas of new development since such design engineering will have been incorporated from the initial design phase.
I do not believe roundabouts are good use of the cities funds. They are a safety hazard for busses, and fire trucks. I feel that money could be spent improving the streets and increasing funding for the police to calm the traffic.
I was on the city's traffic safety commission when the city began discussing the use of roundabouts so I am very familiar with the traffic engineering philosophy behind them. I believe roundabouts are an effective traffic calming device for some existing situations. I don't believe they are necessary for future neighborhoods if they are planned and developed correctly. I have concerns regarding pedestrian use of a roundabout at 19th and Louisiana during peak traffic volumes. I believe there will be insufficient gaps for pedestrians to cross leading to a dangerous situation. I do not like traffic circles as they allow for left turns increasing the risk of head on collisions.
Roundabouts and traffic circles are not the only answer to increasing traffic congestion. They should be used only in those areas where new intersections are being constructed or where intersections can be retrofitted for their successful use. Experience shows that well placed roundabouts do move traffic and save lives.
Each intersection must be viewed individually. Roundabouts or traffic calming devices that will work in one location might be inappropriate in another. Retrofitting existing intersections will always cost more than construction in a new area, but this should not rule out the use of a particular traffic-calming device. When the Barker Neighborhood was presented with the option of either a roundabout or a traffic light with left turn lanes in all four directions, the neighbors opted for a roundabout because it would take less property from the homeowners and preserve the laundromat. Overall, the results have been positive. Placement of new roundabouts requires a careful analysis of the traffic and pedestrian use of the intersection, safety issues, a comparison to the cost of widening the street and increasing lanes with lights, impact on surrounding intersections and properties, and available city funding to make a proper decision.
The roundabouts I have used and observed are aesthetically unattractive, poorly designed and J.C. Nichols would be laughing himself silly if he were alive. Can you image the County Club Plaza with junk we have on our streets. Furthermore, they have been placed in older neighborhoods in which the residents babble about the character of their homes. Tell me how the roundabout at 19th and Barker fits the "character" of the Barker neighborhood. I often wonder if the commissioners and city staff ever travel outside of Lawrence. They should and they should carry a camera to capture what other parts of the world and the United States have. Believe me, they don't have what we have had forced upon us. The money should have been spent on new curbing, sidewalks and some street lights that work would help also.
These kinds of traffic calming devices are very common in our newer neighborhoods and serve two purposes. They slow traffic while at the same time, they keep the traffic moving. The concerns that I hear are in the area of retro-fitting these devices in older, existing areas. It is for that reason, that there is always extensive study as to whether or not these are appropriate for some of our aging and, in some cases, failing intersections.
I do not support the use of roundabouts.
Do you support construction of a new multimillion dollar library in downtown, or the expansion of the current facility at 707 Vt.?
Such a tremendous expenditure will have to be examined in great detail. I support the local library and its role in the community; however the multimillion dollar cost must make one pause to consider the benefit to the community as a whole. If such a huge expenditure is to be made, would it be better to renovate the current location and construct a satellite location for those in the southern or western parts of the city? Another aspect of the library system as a whole must be studied. Is the current library system going to be in place in the next 25 years? With the advances in technology and the ability for the average computer user to acquire much of his or her research information via the internet, is it economically prudent to invest such a tremendous amount of tax money into a system which may give way to technological advances within the next two decades?
I strongly support moving forward with this project. Based on library use patterns, especially during the summer months, the current location is highly desirable. Whether the current building can be expanded safely, in a cost-effective manner, or replaced has not yet been determined. The current study will identify all of these factors. Then begins the process of deciding what the new facility will be and what funds are available to pay for it. We should remain open to creative partnerships with other agencies and/or governmental units when exploring the final design and payment options for our new library facility.
The current commission has already moved to the next step. Once that work is completed, I would be able to respond to whether or not we should move forward. I will say one thing: I am a big supporter of the Lawrence Public Library. The library is a very highly used service of the city and the staff does a great job.
I would like to see the library expanded I think our library is adequate but could be improved for the betterment of our city.
Yes. The current library was built when I was a child growing up here in Lawrence. It has been too small for many, many years. Access and parking are problems that need to be addressed through an expansion or new construction.
I would support a modest expansion of the Library at its present location only. It would consist of 3 stories at the west side with the reading rooms on the west side overlooking the park and pool. This town is so small in population that there is no way I would vote for a 25 million dollar Library unless Mr. Carnegie comes back from the dead to build it. About Mr. Carnegie, that find building provided by Carnegie needs to become a Historical Research Library with all documents from the Watkins museum placed in it and all genealogy material from the Public Library there as well. The two facilities should complement each other. Also the Carnegie Building could have space for traveling exhibits. The real problem with any expansion is maintenance. I am baffled that no one at the Public Library can take a broom and sweep the entrances twice a day and some soap and water in the building wouldn't hurt either. Anyone can build a building but what is the plan afterwards?
The Lawrence Public Library must be brought into the 21st century. Construction of a new library should take place in downtown. I support moving forward with the construction of an expanded and modernized library.
I completely support moving forward on this project with a budget of $12-15 million, not $25 million. If I were on the city commission I would ask an official from Tischler& Associates if they could do a library impact study to see if library expansion pays for itself.
Absolutely. The New Directions Task Force is moving ahead with the plans to hire a coordinator and I have supported that. We have the opportunity to create a destination library that will serve this community for years and years to come. Our library is a center piece of our downtown and needs these improvements to make sure it stays that way.
What's your philosophy on whether or how the city should provide services to the homeless?
I think we should continue to help the social service agencies that we are already funding. I don't believe the city should ever take over what various agencies are doing. I would support the present help the city is providing financially. The current city funding should be for overnight housing to protect people from the elements. We should, as a community, work to help people who want to help themselves, but it should never be a handout to those who wish to take advantage of the system.
The City Commission has wrangled over the issue of homelessness and needs to focus on those in their home. Soon, they too will become transients. They will move. It appears that those on the Commission and the Task Force are writing their obituaries. Serving on this committee and that committee. The social service agencies and churches need to get a plan and get it soon. If they can't then the City Commission needs to cut all funding presently in place for homeless programs. Funding ranging from rent for shelters, subsidized housing and emergency shelters. It is as if there is no end!
As a former Lawrence Police Officer, I have observed first hand the results of the City's efforts to assist the homeless. I clearly recall a bitterly cold February night when a crack addict told me as I transported him to the LMH emergency to warm up that he chose Lawrence as his home because he could get his SSI government checks at a mail box provided by a local agency. As a commissioner, I will only support those private and public organizations which have implemented as its mission statement the philosophy to provide a hand-up and not a hand-out. Furthermore, I will also only support those organizations which subscribe to demanding accountability for those receiving aid. Simple fact is that the citizens of Lawrence are not being told the truth regarding the homeless issue. Lawrence is and will continue to be a target by out-of-state homeless individuals because it well known that Lawrence is a great place to "call home" due to the outstanding services provided to them.
I believe there should be services provided to all of the less fortunate. I also subscribe to the philosophy of "a hand up not just a hand out". Homeless service must be tied to connecting the homeless with agencies that can help them find a permanent place to live and get the help they need to get off and stay off the streets.
There is certainly some level of moral and social obligation to help homeless people. Determining the level for which the city or the community at large is responsible is very difficult. First, since this issue is so difficult to answer, even for the homeless service providers, I would like to see the report from the Homeless Taskforce. I would be very disappointed if I were a downtown merchant or a neighbor and the report came back without a real enforcement policy for the inappropriate public behavior. Secondly, Lawrence, Kansas, is not the best place to get someone back on their feet whether or not they are homeless. The cost of living in Lawrence is very high. Perhaps this is a reason we have a homeless issue? We should be looking at the possibility of consolidating services among agencies.
I support the use of limited city funds to assist in providing services to homeless residents. They are part of our community. Common decency requires that we care for those who can't care for themselves. The city should work in conjunction with Lawrence Memorial Hospital and Bert Nash to provide appropriate mental health services for those individuals in need of it and work toward the goal of assisting homeless individuals to learn job skills and find gainful employment. The current programs aren't working. We must encourage a greater financial role for the private sector as we rethink our approach.
How we as a community respond to the needs of the least fortunate among us is a true reflection of who we are. The draft recommendations of the Task Force provide a valuable starting point for coordinating and allocating services to homeless people. It recognizes the various ways that individuals become homeless which should lead us to flexibility in meeting various needs. City budgeting priorities will of course have an impact on what final recommendations are adopted. Most will agree, however, that funding to reopen the inpatient mental health facilities at Lawrence Memorial Hospital ought to be a very high priority and the next City Commission must take all steps possible to fund this much needed community service.
Lawrence is a compassionate community and I am in favor of the financial support that the city has given to the Salvation Army and the Community Drop In Center. The philosophy of both of these agencies that include strategies for helping individuals move out of their current situation is one I certainly support.
I feel that a program that would help the homeless get back on their feet would be appropriate but with the goal to get the homeless into mainstream society
Do you support requiring homeless individuals to show a city-issued I.D./service card before receiving certain services, such as food and shelter?
A badge system will not work. I can see it now, a Director of Badges and Identification with a staff and rented space in a new privately owned building. What needs to be done is very simple. The agencies involved need to ask a recipient for an ID card, social security number and take a fingerprint. No different than cashing a check at the bank. If no ID photo card, then the individual can be driven to the Motor Vehicle Department and one can be obtained.
No. The Task Force on Homeless Services formed a subcommittee to explore this very idea and rejected it based on its overly punitive nature. Agencies serving the needs of the homeless and other disadvantaged individuals already have behavioral guidelines. If individuals, whether homeless or not, are violating the law, they should be dealt with accordingly. Denial of food or shelter will not make the problem go away, in fact, it could have just the opposite effect.
I believe there needs to be a way to make sure that people who are on the streets are getting the services they need to be getting to help them get off the streets. Be that mental health help, job training or assistance, etc. An I.D. card is one way. I am interested in seeing what the report recommends or if there are alternatives to an I.D. system.
I will only support those programs which make accountability part of its mission statement. I fully subscribe to the social philosophy of a hand-up, not a hand-out. For over a decade now, the city of Lawrence has become a destination for homeless from around the country and a commissioner I will not continue to support any cause which "invites" the homeless to populate our town.
I have to show I.D. to get goods and services all the time. I do not feel it would be an invasion of privacy.
The city should help provide needed services such as food and shelter to those among us who are truly homeless. People do not live on the streets because they like the open air or the sun on their faces. Many are there because of life-changing events beyond their control. Some are there because of mental and emotional illness. Developing a program that effectively and efficiently delivers appropriate services to those who cannot help themselves should be our goal. Our humanity demands that. Those who deliver services and programs to our homeless people need to buy into the service delivery model. Then we will succeed. I do not support requiring our homeless population to wear badges.
Downtown Lawrence is a vital part of our community. There are numerous small businesses located downtown that I believe are trying to protect their interests, and I value their opinion. The homeless community is also a part of Lawrence. Implementing an ID system will help the providers of services for the homeless and allow for some accountability within this segment of our population.
No
The I.D./service card issue would have to be addressed by each individual service provider. If the city is going to provide homeless services then this may be a question for the new city commission to answer. It would be useful to know if this system has been successful in other communities and how the homeless population responded to it.
Do you believe Lawrence has an affordable housing problem, and, if so, how would you address it?
Lawrence remains an attractive town. Housing costs have increased in the past ten years and a reversal isn't likely. City government has little ability to control housing prices but it can take advantage of private sector and federal government programs that encourage economic security and promote good-paying jobs. I have helped adopt new zoning rules that will allow lower cost housing to be built in the city. Good jobs for fair pay are also essential. All housing is more affordable if our residents earn a decent wage.
All housing in Lawrence is affordable to someone. What we lack are homes affordable to those with low and middle incomes. While housing prices continue to rise in Lawrence, wages do not. Simply building more houses will not solve this problem. There is always someone willing to pay for the higher priced, more profitable house. To alleviate this problem, the city must take action. Other communities have responded with grant or loan programs and, multi-use zoning districts to distribute the cost of constructing lower income housing among higher income housing, We need to take a serious look at these and other possibilities when determining the best course for Lawrence to follow.
Yes, we do have a problem with affordable housing. We are fortunate to have a very strong market, but this certainly doesn't help anyone trying to buy a first home in Lawrence. Another thing that causes housing prices to go up is the availability of building lots. A lack of building lots will cause existing housing costs to rise even faster. One way the city may be of help is to look at the project and 24th and Haskell, where, the city became involved in the development for the purpose of providing a more affordable home. The city should also continue to work with Tenants to Homeowners and Habitat for Humanity to encourage and assist their efforts.
There is a false perception that housing is not affordable. The real truth is that the expectations are inflated of those wanting to start out. I have seen condos for sale in Lawrence, small homes for sale, and both are affordable. The reality is that Lawrence has never had much housing stock. One only has to look at the neighborhoods built before World War II and those after the Korean War. Not many houses were built. There was no need for them. The fourplexes on Tennessee and Kentucky could easily be converted to condos and a community developed and affordable ownership could take place. Property taxes play a large role in the cost of housing as the taxes are part of the monthly payment. There are ways to have affordable housing but those starting out may have to make concessions.
Lawrence has an affordable housing problem. We must stabilize our existing housing stock in the older neighborhoods and try to prevent so much of it from becoming rental property. I will work to develop a plan to encourage young families to move into and revitalize areas of our community that are "graying out" and turning into rental areas. This should be done with private investment and must not involve the destruction of the existing neighborhood character.
I believe Lawrence has a housing affordability issue. Homes appreciate on average 5-7% per year, while on the other hand we do not have that kind of growth in jobs and salaries. The Housing Trust Fund has already put forth a plan that could play a key role in addressing this problem. This plan will allow for the City of Lawrence to retain ownership of the land, allowing for low to moderate income people to purchase the home, reducing the cost of the home by approximately 20%. This program has proven to be very successful in other cities, and Lawrence can be the first to implement this in the State of Kansas.
What is affordable to one individual is not affordable to another. So what is the definition of affordable housing. Is this housing which a person can purchase with the "living wage" of less than $10.00 per hour. If this affordable housing, then Lawrence does in fact have housing shortage. I believe in market economics and the market place will set the price. If housing is considered expensive, then it is because Lawrence is a desirable community in which to live. I do not believe that local government should become involved in the housing market and attempt to alter the price set by the market. I will not support tax increases to subsidize housing. However, I would support local government studying ways to provide low interest loans to those who would use the money to purchase and renovate houses in the city's older neighborhoods. The loans would be guaranteed by the city and repaid to the city over a twenty-year period. The money could be used for downpayments and renovations.
I hesitate to use the term "affordable housing" because "affordable housing" is hard to define. What may not be affordable to one person may be affordable to another. Lawrence has a workforce housing problem. Workforce housing is housing that is affordable to low to moderate income workers such as school teachers, retail workers, plumbers, electricians, policemen, and firemen. Many workers in Lawrence can only find affordable housing by living outside of Lawrence creating the need for long commutes to work. Besides denying these valuable workers the American Dream of owning their own home, lack of workforce housing has other economic effects on a community. Since workers are living in other communities Lawrence is losing out on a great deal of consumer spending. Secondly, it is very difficult for small businesses to recruit employees because of the high cost of housing in Lawrence. Many times businesses have to turn away opportunities because of a lack of workforce. One way to provide for workplace housing is for the city to set aside specific parcels of land designated for workplace housing. A perfect example in Lawrence is the land east of O'Connell Road that is being considered under the Southeast Area Plan. The planning Commission has designated 680 acres of land for industrial uses in the Southeast Area Plan. The city of Lawrence could not develop 680 acres of industrial land in the next 20 years. This parcel of land would be perfect for workforce housing. In fact, there were 2 private citizens that were willing to develop this land for moderately priced homes and pay for the public improvements. We need to eliminate exclusionary zoning. Eliminating exclusionary zoning should not be mistaken for uncontrolled growth or lack of oversight by the city. Because the city has designated an area for workforce housing does not mean the area will be developed without smart growth principles. Work force housing and smart growth development can co-exist. Infill development is an excellent way to create workforce housing. The new project on the southwest corner of 15 th & Haskell is a good example of infill development that creates workforce housing. Infill development is always hampered by the Not in my Backyard issue. Creative partnerships between the city, county, neighborhood associations, homebuilders, and developers will help facilitate workforce housing.
I know there is a problem with affordable housing and feel the city needs to address the situation. We can look to other cities that have had success in rehabbing areas with tax credits for those families that partake in the program.
Would you envision the need to raise taxes during your term on the commission?
It has been my intention since the first budget cycle that I participated in, to maintain city services for our population without the need to raise taxes. We have done a very good job of maintaining the mill levy and keeping tax increases to a minimum. It is not possible to say that taxes will absolutely not be raised due to many unforeseen circumstances. We do not know what implications the state and federal budgets will have on Lawrence and those will always have an impact on our budget.
My goal would be to not raise taxes on the citizens of Lawrence.
No I see no reason to raise taxes. Marion Johnson, the appraiser, will do that by raising the valuations. The staff at the City Hall needs an overhaul. I am not suggesting firing anyone, but if I were on the City Commission, I would make a motion to ask for some resignations and create early retirement for some and then implement a hiring freeze. The City and the School District can no longer be the WPA project of the 21st century.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative. In that spirit I strongly encouraged the city manager to develop a budget for 2005 that required no tax increases. In fact, the tax mill levy was reduced for 2005. Nevertheless, demand for services is increasing and this requires additional revenue. It also requires increased efficiency in city government and an analysis of who is creating these increased costs so their burden is fairly and reasonably borne. Local government should operate more like the private sector and be more accountable to all taxpayers as it delivers the services that we all expect.
I believe in a tight fiscal policy. Managing from the bottom line. As a small business operator I understand that costs for goods and services and payroll generally increase. The increase in our property value should cover those types of increases in cost. No new taxes. However, I would support a tax to help out our school district.
For the past 4 years I have had to cut the budget of my department at Lawrence Public Schools because of a declining overall district budget. During these 4 years my department has saved over 1 million dollars from staff reductions and from efficiencies in the way we do business. In addition, we implemented an energy management program which saved over $300,000 the first year. I'd say my fiscal philosophy is conservative. I don't envision a need to raise taxes my first term.
My fiscal philosophy is simple. I believe in strong fiscal management and will only approve those expenditures which are clearly justified. I do not believe there would be a need to raise taxes. The growth the city has experienced over the last decade along with the annual raise in tax valuation of real property should have been sufficient to keep pace with additional services. I will not vote to raise the mill levy on real property if elected commissioner.
As a small business owner, I have to manage my finances and budget on a day-to-day basis. I will bring that experience and business background to the commission. As a former Lawrence City Commissioner, I understand the budget process and what it takes to make the hard decisions during preparation of the budget. It is my fervent hope to not have to raise taxes during my term, but sometimes emergencies may occur.
I don't enjoy paying taxes any more than my neighbor does. I also don't want to cut necessary or vital services provided by the city to its citizens. Governments role is to serve the multiple needs of the community as defined by its citizens. Taxes should never be raised except for very clearly defined and supported goals. Streamlining and eliminating duplicate city services can only take us so far. The real challenge is to grow local based businesses, or to attract outside businesses to Lawrence that fit into our community vision of Lawrence, businesses that will bring outside money into Lawrence and keep it here. Better long-range planning that makes more efficient use of the existing infrastructure can also help prevent the need to increase individual property taxes.
Do you believe the city's public transportation system, the T, has been successful and is an effective use of city funds?
. I support continued funding for the T. The T must merge with KU on Wheels to generate the kind of revenue and ridership it is capable of. I have spoken to the city manager and the Chancellor regarding this issue and will pursue discussions with the KU student senate if elected.
The T was never designed to be self-supporting, but it is offering alternative transportation to many individuals. My biggest concern regarding the T is not allowing it to become a larger burden on the tax base. The city should encourage the use of the T in order to make it a more cost-effective use of the tax dollar. The decision has already been made but I would have supported a merger with the KU on Wheels system operated by a private entity.
I think the T is a successful program and know first hand from my work on the "Jayhawks on Parade" that they work very hard at making it user friendly and are constantly trying to improve and increase riders.
Public transportation is vital to any city to reduce dependence on individual automobiles, traffic congestion and pollution. The T has shown increased ridership throughout its existence and is on its way to being a successful system. Coordinating routes with the KU bus system, being open to changing existing routes for the T, and finding methods to increase ridership will ensure the future success of the T. I would like to explore an example I observed in Gainesville, Florida, where a K through 12 student ID served as a free bus pass. This could have a long-term impact assuring future paying riders who understand the value and usefulness of mass transport.
From the onset I wrote in letters to the paper that the City Bus and the KU bus system should be merged. There was no plan in the beginning and there is still no plan. The bus is needed, I know people who use it and I also know many who would if the routes made sense. I keep looking at the bus stops and wonder how anyone would even know where the bus goes. A map might be nice on the wall inside the stop. What I would do is issue SCRIP to every taxpayer of record and that SCRIP would be used to raise the bus. The Journal World reported that a $150,000 home pays $23.52 in taxes for the bus. So, the taxpayer of the property would get $23.50 in coupons, each worth 50 cents, to ride the bus. If a business got them, they could give them to customers and employees. Why should a taxpayer who is already paying $23.52 pay anymore to ride the bus. Yes, it would be integrated with KU but the City bus would not go on Campus, it would stop at 11th and Mississippi, 15th and Iowa, 19th and Naismith, and 14th and Tennessee for starters. I would be happy to map out the plan I have.
During its initial months of operation the T was substantially underused but the system continues to gain ridership. The city should continue to encourage its use by local commuters and KU students. Working closely with the public schools and KU, it is possible to increase T ridership and revenues, thus reducing its reliance on city financial support.
First, I have lived overseas in Europe where public transportation is common place and a joy to use. I support the idea of public transportation; however, I do not believe in its current format the T will succeed. Currently, the "T" is receiving about 1.5 million in city subsidies and an increase in ridership plus a reduction in ticket price is not going to close the gap, thus the "T" will always be a tax burden to the taxpayers of Lawrence. It is my opinion the only way for the "T" to successful in Lawrence is to attack the problem on two fronts. First, the policy of allowing urban / residential sprawl to continue will only further exacerbate the problem by allowing people to become even more detached from the urban center. Thus, the city and citizens would have to come together to promote a build "up" and not a continuing build "out" development philosophy. I am not sure that Lawrence or even the rest of society is ready for such a commitment. Second, if the philosophy cannot be changed then the "T" cannot continue to be a small scale operation. As stated above, I lived in Europe and loved to use public transportation, but I only had to walk approximately 50 meters to catch either a trolley or a bus which could then take me anywhere around the city or to anywhere in Europe if I chose to travel to the main train station. If the "T' is to truly become a partner in developing the city, the system must be convenient for the citizens to use. Stops must be convenient to where people live. If citizens are to use the "T" they must be able to get to the bus stop in under a couple of blocks or they will not ride. Further, the "T" must be available about every 7-12 minutes so that people do not have to stand in the weather for long periods of time. If the citizens will not support such an expansion, i.e. additional expenditures, then the continued subsidies will simply be used to support a system which will never fully become a partner in city development.
I think it is very important for us as citizens of Lawrence to look forward and not back. Lets find ways to decrease our maintenance costs for the buses. Lets find ways to increase the number of riders and increase revenue. Lets find ways to save on fuel costs for the buses. Lets find other places in the budget to cut or eliminate expenses.
Due to the very professional staff in our Mass Transit Department, the ridership of the T has increased consistently since its beginning. One of the most successful ventures has been the purchase of passes by KU students and their increased use of the T. We should continue to monitor the ridership in various parts of town to determine the effectiveness of the system.
The city currently operates a municipal golf course, Eagle Bend, which has been operating at a loss during the last several years. Do you believe the golf course is an effective use of city funds?
As a member of the city's parks and rec. advisory board, I know that city recreation projects do not typically pay for themselves. This is true of the indoor aquatic center, Holcomb sports complex, etc. The commission must decide if they want to subsidize recreation activities for the public. I believe they should and that includes Eagle Bend. There may come a time when the subsidy becomes too great to justify it but that time is not here yet.
Same theme as the T. Lets look forward. 5% of the operating budget for the T comes from bus fares. 95% of the operating budget for the golf course comes from green fees. So on a percentage and real dollar basis the golf course carries much more of it own weight. Also considering the declining golf market over the past 3 or 4 years the golf course is performing well.
The truth of the matter is that the City has several more years to pay on the bonds that were used to construct Eagle Bend and it is not reasonable or fiscally prudent to close the course. We need to look at alternative ways of supporting and operating Eagle Bend including securing a private operator.
I have doubts about the golf course. I am not sure that enough people use it to justify the ongoing expense. It does not contribute to any other public goal such as pollution reduction, but in facts contributes to our environmental problems through the use of increased herbicides, pesticides and water use. I would be willing to consider privatization of the golf course to free up park funds for the purchase of additional greenspace throughout the city
Eagle Bend Golf Course is a great asset to this Lawrence community. The course offers a place for our citizens to play golf without the additional cost of a private club. It is also necessary to remember that like our outdoor aquatic center, the golf course is very weather dependent, but we should always continue to monitor the costs and benefits of the facility.
I believe the concept of a municipal golf course is a good one. However, if the course becomes continuous tax burden the city must look for ways to remove itself from such a failing enterprise. Though not an avid golfer, I have played golf at Eagle Bend and it seems to be a very nice course; however, if it continues to be a drain on tax payers then the city should seek out private investors and see if the course can be sold. Since the course is below Clinton Dam and may be on Corps of Engineer property this may not be an option. If not, the per round fees will have to adjusted to make the course more self sufficient.
This is another example of hindsight governance. The decision for Eagle Bend has already been made and now the city must pay its obligation. The commission should work with city staff to find ways to increase the use of Eagle Bend and lower the impact of the operation of the golf course on the budget and the taxpayer.
The golf course is an amenity just as Brook Creek Center, Senior Center, Community Center, Holcom Park, Dad Perry Park just as the fairgrounds are. Buildings at the Fairgrounds really don't pay their way either. I highly suspect the management of the course could have some purse strings tightened.
I feel that a golf course attracts people to the city. I also feel that it should be run in a fiscally sound way, if it is not currently. The city should not have to continue to fund the course for years to come.
The city currently is involved in litigation to stop Wal-Mart from building a new store at the corner of Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive. Do you believe that corner is appropriate for a big box retail development such as Wal-Mart has proposed?
I fully support the city's position in the current litigation involving the attempt to build a big box store at Sixth and Wakarusa. That corner is an inappropriate location for such a retail development. Streets in that area can't handle the increased traffic volume. Protecting neighbors and neighborhood property values near that intersection must be a high priority. Unfettered commercial or retail development will harm surrounding neighborhoods and tax even the latest street improvements in the area. Current projections suggest that within a few years there will be more than 100,000 car trips per day on West Sixth between the south Lawrence trafficway and Wakarusa. Many drivers will seek to avoid traffic congestion by traveling on shortcuts through the surrounding neighborhoods. Despite current plans to improve our surface street system, experts predict that many of our major streets will operate at failing levels and may crumble because of lack of maintenance within the next few years.
The question is not whether I believe the corner is suited for such development but whether city code and zoning allows such development. Judge Malone has already determined the city erred during the process and ordered the city to pay for the litigants' attorney fees. The city then had to back and do the process according to city rules and found a Wal-Mart type store did not meet the requirements for the zoning. I believe that the city was unprepared for such large development and hesitated at allowing such a large development after numerous complaints from citizens. Such change of heart decisions are unfair to developers who have expended tremendous amounts of financial resources to develop these areas and then have the carpet pulled from under them. If the city does not want such developments in certain areas of the city, the city must make these decisions prior to development. A long answer to say that I support development which conforms to the city's codes and zoning.
The city has fought this Wal-Mart for 2 years now. It is the fault of our city for not zoning properly in the past. I would have been in favor of the school district purchasing the land, but we cannot turn back the clock. The courts will now have to decide. I hope the city commission can identify new areas of concern and react appropriately before it becomes too late.
Well, the school board was remiss not to acquire the land in front of Free State. That is again another example of hit and miss development. There are two options as I see it. 1. Build the Walmart. Nieman Marcus is not coming, Nordstrom is not coming. Dillards is not coming. Simple as that. Option 2. The school district can get rid of the consulting/management firm and save the taxpayers 6 million dollars and buy the land for practice fields. Of course the land will be off the tax rolls and cost more money for a project for the school. In 20 years those complaining about Walmart will not live here or if they do, they will be glad to have a store as they will need Depends and Denture cleaner.
Numerous studies and experiences have shown that big-box stores drive out local businesses that contribute to the health and character of a community. Most can remember the loss of several local bookstores when the first big-box bookseller came to town. Horizon 2020 suggests a method to measure the impact of new retail development on existing development. Prior commissions have ignored this economic impact approach suggested by the citizens of Lawrence who worked on Horizon 2020. I would work to make this economic impact analysis part of our planning process. In this way we may be able to prevent further problems such as that currently existing at 6th and Wakarusa.
The City Commission has approved an area plan for 6th and Wakarusa that restricts the largest store at that intersection to 80,000 square feet.
I don't think the citizens of Lawrence want a Wal-Mart at 6 th& Wakarusa and neither do I. The real issue is not whether or not I think it is appropriate for big box development The issue is did the zoning and development codes say it was appropriate for big box development? Perhaps our planning document is not clear or the city is trying to hard to please special interest groups.
No. When the current site for LFSHS was chosen 10 odd years ago, the planning for that area should have been changed to reflect that. The existing litigation is a result of that.
It would be inappropriate to comment directly about the litigation involving Wal-Mart. I will say, though, that I believe it is imperative that we have a W. 6th Street plan in effect, outlining what is and is not appropriate along this corridor entrance into our city. The plan should take into consideration proximity to schools and existing neighborhoods, and impact of increased traffic.
The city currently has a ban that prohibits the use of most fireworks within the city limits during the Fourth of July holiday. Do you support the fireworks ban?
I did not support the enactment of the fireworks ban. I've personally enjoyed setting off fireworks from a young age. However, this issue was decided after due deliberation by a prior Commission and passed for reasons of public safety. Absent evidence that the community has suffered some large harm from this ban, or a substantial citizen demand to revisit the issue, I would be hard-pressed to find reason to modify or overturn it, even if I would like to shoot off fireworks in my own yard on the Fourth of July
"Listening to Lawrence" That is my theme. Who voted on the ban for fireworks? Not the people of Lawrence. The agenda came from City Staff and isolated individuals. I believe that representative government is essential in our democracy; however, isperhaps, even, a vote.
I understand that the ban of Fireworks is in place as a safety measure. Perhaps some designated areas for Fireworks could be set up and monitored.
I do not support the fireworks ban. If elected and if the issue is brought back before the commission I will vote to overturn the ban. Scare tactics about safety will not dissuade me from this issue. Should the city ban electric heaters, cigarette lighters, wood stoves, fireplaces, etc.? Basically, the issue for me is that older commissioners must not be able to remember the fun they had as children and young adults when they were able to participate in such activities. I would support 1-2 days set aside for fireworks prior to the 4th of July.
I support the fireworks ban. The City should do more to provide community events to celebrate the holiday and work with the business community to have public displays of fireworks.
I have been a member of the city's fire code review board for 6 years and am aware of the LFD's concerns regarding fireworks. I have no intention of overturning the current ban.
The fireworks ban is like the smoking ban. Something to do without addressing real issues of substance within the community. The majority of the residents had no voice in either. If the fireworks ban was a safety issue and a fire issue, how come our insurance rates didn't drop? If it was noise and litter, those could have been addressed with ordinances on hand. You know, those ordinances previous Mayors signed so they could be signing something.
As a child growing up in Lawrence, I enjoyed the Independence Day celebrations, especially the fireworks. But I can't in good conscience agree to change to ban at this time.
I did support the ban when it came before the Commission.
If elected, what would be the top three issues you would seek to address during your term?
Increasing government accountability will be my top priority. With state and federal support declining, the city has to take a commonsense approach to delivering services. We must respect the competing voices in the community. Neighborhoods are our lifeblood and we must protect and improve them. Growing responsibly while maintaining our livability must be our city's goal. My commitment is to build a livable city that honors diversity and helps to make available high-quality jobs that enable all those who live in Lawrence to work in Lawrence. My compass for decision making will be the good of the entire community not just a favored few.
1. Look for every possible way to decrease taxes. 2. Demand a sensible fiscally prudent budget. 3. Provide the necessary support for the improvement of the city's infrastructure, i.e. roads, sewers, storm water, waste water treatment.
Planning, job creation and a joint city/school district/university multi-sport competition athletic facility.
1. I will continue to work with our established partners in economic development to allow our existing business to reach their fullest potential and to attract new business to this community that will serve a wide range of citizens. We must also be the state leader in the area of bio-sciences.
2. I will continue to work with city staff as we prepare budgets that keep taxes down, but at the same time deliver city services in an effective and efficient manner. Our citizens expect and deserve that.
3. I remain committed to the process of bringing stakeholders to the table to talk with each other to solve problems. Our vision for Lawrence must include a civil approach to problem solving as well as an understanding and acceptance of differences
-- Create opportunities for workplace housing for low and moderate income workers so they can live in the community in which they work.
-- Bring those players to the table from opposing sides that truly wish to solve problems, not just create rhetoric.
-- Support those policies and procedures that will create opportunities for local small businesses.
Safety and upkeep of our roads, attracting new diverse jobs and helping tourism to for Lawrence (and keeping the jobs we have in Lawrence) work on plans for affordable housing in Lawrence.
a. Bringing city codes in line with the provisions of Horizon 2020 including the adoption of the recommendation to conduct economic impact studies of newly proposed commercial development on existing local businesses.
b. Protecting and strengthening existing neighborhoods and assuring that as we construct new homes we are building neighborhoods and not houses.
c. Regional, long-term planning cooperation between the city, county, school districts and surrounding communities to insure that Lawrence and Douglas County remain a desirable place to live
The three issues I would address:
1. Spending neighborhood monies for what they were intended for. I quote from the Journal World, November 21, 1974:
"Long range planner Marth Soler-Munczek gave a brief discussion of the Monday night meeting on the Housing and Community Development Act. She said it replaces numerous federal programs including NDP, Model Cities and Urban Renewal, and added the emphasis is on physical improvements, not social programs, although social programs can be considered "as long as they help low and moderate income families."
Here we are 30 years later and we still have "target" neighborhoods by default, supposedly low income. Oread is low income because of the predominance of students with limited income. With housing stock costing $200,000 and upwards, it is hardly a poor residential area. Blighted no doubt, but then the neighborhood money could be addressing that with street lighting, sidewalks, alley improvements. Brook Creek is substantially low income due to the excessive amount of public housing in the area. That area too needs a massive infrastructure overhaul.
But the money has gone into social programs such as Hearthstone House at 745 Ohio which no one has stepped forward to claim ownership. Old West Lawrence is not a target neighborhood but 745 Ohio has been rehabbed at the expense of the "target" neighborhood.
After 30 years, one should ask: How can this be? Who has allowed this to take place and why?
2. I would like to see South Jr. High not torn down but used as a Senior Center for Lawrence. It has a kitchen, library, gym, classroom space that could be converted to activity centers. It has a auditorium. There is private money available to assist in the conversion. The new Jr. High should be built adjacent to Prairie Park Grade School.
3. A complete overhaul at City Hall. It is time to re-organize. If it were a private business, it would be filing Chapter 13. Would you buy stock in 6 E. 6th?
1. Jobs - We need to encourage the continued growth and success of our local businesses. At the same time, we need to bring more jobs to Lawrence, albeit retail, industrial, or service oriented. We need to assure that there will be ample opportunities for our children and grandchildren to stay in this community we love so much.
2. The Budget We have a responsibility to assure that our tax dollars are used efficiently and effectively. You can classify me as a fiscal conservative, but I take seriously the job of conscientiously spending your money.
3. Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvement Equally important as good managed growth is the emphasis on infrastructure maintenance and improvement. We must assure that our city does not rot from the inside out. The long-established neighborhoods of our city have many needs in terms of street, water, sewer and stormwater improvements. These must not be overlooked at the expense of new growth.
