Living wage ordinance divides city candidates

In the early weeks of the Lawrence City Commission race, it has been hard to get the candidates to disagree on much of anything.

Floodplains? Probably shouldn’t develop there, they all say.

City rental inspections? Give the program a chance to work, but maybe the inspections are too invasive.

Commissioner David Dunfield as the next mayor? Not even a question.

Here are two words, however, that don’t inspire unanimity: living wage.

You’re either for a living wage ordinance, or you’re against it, it seems; there’s precious little middle ground, and city candidates are no exception.

With three spots open on the five-member commission, it appears this City Commission election could decide the immediate future of the issue.

“Absolutely,” said Mark Horowitz, a staff member for Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance. “We’re hoping we get the critical mass necessary within the City Commission to get a living wage ordinance.”

Skeptics say the marketplace already is providing better wages than an ordinance would. There’s no reason, they say, to mandate something that’s taking care of itself.

“I can’t understand why it’s such a hot issue,” said Kelvin Heck, chairman of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce.

But it’s not just a hot issue with proponents. A recent chamber survey found 80 percent of members were greatly concerned by the prospect of a living-wage requirement.

$9.53 an hour

More than 100 communities have adopted living wage ordinances. The version offered in Lawrence would require companies that receive tax breaks to pay a living wage of 130 percent the poverty level for a family of three — $9.53 an hour plus benefits under the federal government’s 2003 poverty guidelines.

The movement in Lawrence gained momentum after the city approved an 80 percent tax abatement for an American Eagle Outfitters warehouse that would have employed 250 people at average starting wages from $7.50 to $8 an hour. The company eventually chose to locate in Ottawa.

That controversy spurred creation of then-Mayor Jim Henry’s Tax Abatement Tax Force, which revamped the city’s abatement policy.

Members of the task force declined to include a living wage requirement in the new policy, instead settling on an objective that new companies should meet or exceed average wages in the community for their industry. But the policy makes clear that objective, like any other, can be ignored if the City Commission deems it proper.

Two sitting commissioners — Dunfield and Mike Rundle — expressed support for a living wage when the policy was adopted. They were in the minority.

Wages weren’t an issue in January, however, when the city approved an 80 percent tax break for Serologicals, a biotech company promising average salaries of $47,000 annually.

City Commission candidates in favor of a living wage ordinance are Zach Bassin, Dennis “Boog” Highberger, August “Gus” Huber IV, Eddie Lehman, G. Wayne Parks, Mike Rundle and David Schauner.Candidates against are Greg DiVilbiss, Lee Gerhard, Lynn Goodell and Ken McRae.

Heck said the chamber, in charge of luring companies to town, probably won’t try to bring a low-paying firm to town.

“You never heard living wage in that discussion at all,” he said of discussion on Serologicals. “It’s incumbent upon us to bring the best companies forward.”

Red herring?

Living wage proponents in the commission race are skeptical.

“It would be great if every company they brought to town was Serologicals,” said David Schauner, who has made support for the issue part of his platform. “But historically, that isn’t the case.”

Dennis “Boog” Highberger, another candidate, called the living wage a “moderate” proposal. He disputes the contention that the marketplace should set wage rates where tax abatements are involved.

“If the marketplace was handling it, we wouldn’t be giving tax abatements. That’s a red herring, I think,” he said. “I think most people making the argument haven’t tried to feed a family on $6 an hour.”

Candidate Eddie Lehman agreed.

“A tax abatement is supposed to be an economic development tool for the city, not for (businesses),” he said. “Since we’re giving them something, they should give us something.”

So did G. Wayne Parks.

“Without the property taxes that we’re abating, the only way (businesses) do us any good is if they bring good jobs and bring business to town,” he said.

Other candidates in favor of a living wage ordinance: Zach Bassin, August “Gus” Huber IV, and Rundle, the lone incumbent in the race.

Artificial wages

Living wage opponents in the commission race have two main arguments against the measure. They say it would inflate wages across the city and hurt small local businesses, and it would send an unfriendly message to other businesses that may be considering Lawrence as a location.

“It sends a subliminal message of ‘command and control’ and I really prefer an incentive-based form of economic development,” said candidate Lee Gerhard.

Candidate Greg DiVilbiss said the words “living wage” were too charged for the city to adopt such an ordinance. A “fair wage” should be a factor in analyzing tax abatements, he said.

“If the perception gets out … that Lawrence is a difficult place to do business because of restrictive ordinances, they won’t even look at us,” he said.

Lynn Goodell said he worried an ordinance would drive up the wage scale for older businesses that can’t afford the cost.

“We have a model now in the tax abatement plan that seems to work fairly well,” he said. “But if you put in something artificial … you start hurting local businesses that already exist.”

All opponents of a living wage say they favor good jobs at good wages.

“I don’t know anybody who’s opposed to folks earning a good wage,” candidate Ken McRae said. “But it’s a question of how we get there.”

The primary election for City Commission is Tuesday, Feb. 25. The general election is Tuesday, April 1.