Legislators say Lawrence’s living wage could hurt state

? Lawrence’s “living wage” movement should be stopped before it spreads to the rest of the state, a Kansas legislator said Tuesday.

“This is a movement I suggest we ought to pre-empt in Kansas,” said Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Overland Park, sponsor of a bill to outlaw living wage ordinances — including one already on the books in Lawrence.

Yoder said living wage ordinances could hurt economic development by driving businesses out of state.

But under questioning during a House committee hearing, living wage opponents conceded they had no information the Lawrence ordinance was causing any problems.

And some conservatives said local governments should make living wage decisions.

“Why should we not allow Lawrence to hurt its local economy?” said Rep. Mike Kiegerl, R-Olathe. “We all know that Marxism is alive and well only in academia.”

Lawrence living wage supporters were angered Tuesday by the action in Topeka.

“It seems highly undemocratic to me,” said David Smith, a member of the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance that pushed for the Lawrence law. “The people who are proposing this are willing to ride roughshod over the expressed will of the Lawrence community, and we hope it won’t fly.”

Only city

In 2003, Lawrence city commissioners approved an ordinance requiring businesses that receive a city tax abatement to pay the living wage — 130 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of three, about $9.53 an hour.

The federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, while Kansas’ minimum wage is $2.65 per hour. That’s the lowest in the nation and lower than the minimum wage in the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Lawrence remains the only city in Kansas with a living wage requirement, though the Living Wage Resource Center says campaigns are under way in Wichita and Manhattan.

Only one Lawrence business has come under the requirements — Amarr Garage Doors, which in 2003 received an abatement on a $17.39 million expansion at East Hills Business Park. That expansion created 80 new jobs, all subject to the wage law.

Yoder, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and several city chambers of commerce testified for the bill. They said that living wage ordinances drive away economic development because they force businesses to pay higher wages. Lawrence chamber officials didn’t testify and said they weren’t that familiar with the bill.

But Yoder admitted he had not talked to any Lawrence officials about the effects of the local law.

Likewise, Hal Hudson, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said living wage ordinances had caused economic disruption, but when asked for an example, he said, “I have not researched that.”

‘Not dead yet’

Several lawmakers said the state should allow cities and counties to decide whether to pass such ordinances.

“Are you afraid the experiment in Lawrence will work?’ asked Rep. Dale Swenson, R-Wichita.

The Kansas AFL-CIO and League of Kansas Municipalities testified against the bill. They said the measure could jeopardize state and federal grants to local governments that require higher wages be paid.

Committee Chairman Donald Dahl, R-Hillsboro, said Yoder’s bill needed work.

“We might have another session of discussion on it,” Dahl said. “It’s not dead yet, but we may have to revisit it next year.”

David Corliss, Lawrence assistant city manager, said he knew of no instances of businesses leaving or rejecting Lawrence because of the wage requirement.

Corliss said the ordinance ensured that businesses that receive tax breaks return the favor to the community by providing better-paying jobs.

“We didn’t want to subsidize minimum wage positions,” he said.

Smith said the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance was considering joining the opposition to Yoder’s bill.

“I guess they’re trying to take it out of the hands of the city,” Smith said of legislators. “We’re hoping the community will make it clear how they feel.”