Study plan raises concern / LJWorld.com

Archive for Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Proposal would add hurdles to retail projects

August 22, 2006

Reader poll

At first glance, it is just another city-mandated study.

But its supporters say it is the tool the city needs to protect downtown Lawrence. Its opponents say it is a device that will intimidate all types of retailers from doing business in the city.

City commissioners tonight will decide whether it becomes law.

Called a retail market impact analysis, the new study would require all new shopping areas of 50,000 square feet or more to meet a series of tests designed to determine whether Lawrence's economy and real estate market can support the new development.

But members of the development community are concerned that it really is designed to add complexity to the development process and give planners a built-in reason to deny a project.

"We're on the verge of adopting something that nobody in our community can clearly implement," said Mark Andersen, a Lawrence attorney who works on development projects. "The stated purpose of our new development code was to simplify and install certainty into the development process. This will do the complete opposite.

"This will have a dampening effect on new retail development. I don't think national retailers are going to be willing to go through this approval process."

But supporters of the proposed requirement argue that it will provide city commissioners the data they need to really determine if a new retail project will hurt downtown Lawrence. Protecting downtown is a stated goal of the community's comprehensive plan.

"What's being said here is a bunch of people don't want to defend downtown," said David Burress, a Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commissioner who helped create the idea for the new study. "You can't defend downtown without getting the data to do it."

Measuring vacancy

The proposed regulation would require developers to hire a consultant - picked by the city - to produce a market study for every retail project that is 50,000 square feet or more. The study will include:

¢ An overall vacancy rate for all retail properties in the city. If the new project pushes the total vacancy rate above 8 percent, the project must be denied under the current language of the proposed ordinance. Planning commissioners, though, have suggested changing that portion of the code to read that the development "may" be denied rather than stating it "shall" be denied.

6News video

Lawrence Planning Commissioner David Burress talks about development in Lawrence. Enlarge video

¢ A review of sales tax data to determine particular retail sectors - such as clothing, electronics and other types of retailing - that are underserved and those that are overserved.

"One of the concerns that I have is that there are sentences in the ordinance that make it sound like we're going to be deciding the type of businesses that are locating in town," Mayor Mike Amyx said. "I don't ever want to be in that situation."

Retail report

City Commissioner Boog Highberger said he also doesn't want a city policy that would get into "micromanaging" the types of retail businesses that are allowed to locate in a particular project. But he said he's not sure that's what this proposal would do.

6News video

Lawrence Mayor Mike Amyx talks about the impact development has on the community. Enlarge video

"I think the concept is good, but I want to look at the details more closely," Highberger said. "But I do think we want to avoid overbuilding retail. If that isn't controlled, it could lead to blight."

The proposal comes at a time when a study paid for by the city found that the community was lacking in retail options. A January study by Development Strategies Inc. estimated Lawrence was capturing only 59 percent of the retail spending that a city its size would be expected to capture. That ranked last among 13 other Midwestern university communities surveyed.

It also found a retail vacancy rate of just 3.9 percent. But the report did note a much higher vacancy rate of 10.4 percent for the downtown area, which the authors said was an area to keep under close watch.

Commissioners meet at 6:35 tonight at City Hall, Sixth and Massachusetts streets.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

22 August 2006
at 5:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

consider this a tax increase for all citizens of lawrence, because we are going to be paying higher prices as the result.

it doesn't take a brain surgeon as to why downtown has higher vacancies. it isn't too much competition elsewhere. the rents are too high! it used to be the cheapest place in town to open a business. now it is the highest priced area of town. has lawrence grown? last i checked, lawrence is shrinking. unfortunately, some mom and pops were convinced the place to be was the downtown, but they had to pay the rents that some national retailers are/were paying. not having the financial where with all, a lot of mom and pops went down the tubes creating vacancies. it also happened to some national franchises as well. the rents are too high to justify opening a business downtown.

gee….one more thing occurred to me - i wonder who the city will pick as the 'consultant?' surely cronyism won't play a role, you think?

….and after our fascist city leaders pass this one, consider it another feather in lawrence's business UNfriendly cap - they wouldn't have it any other way.
22 August 2006
at 5:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The retail market impact analysis is not a new idea. Taxpayers have been requesting this for years. Not only that it is a practical and prudent manner in which to help determine how new retail may or may not fit. This prevents too much retail thus insures each retail operation is able to produce a desired level of tax revenue.

An economic impact study might have prevented Riverfront Plaza Mall or the Tanger Outlet Mall. It could also prevent too many grocery stores in an area. Proper management of growth is essential to establish steady economic growth in any business community. Lawrence is a small town which makes a retail market impact analysis
ever more important in making sure the central business district remains alive and producing a healthy level of tax revenue.

Too much turover and empty spaces within the central business district is not good for business in general. Empty buildings are not good for YOUR tax bills. New retail establishments do not necessarily = economic growth.

As has been said many times before there is a reason so many big name stores built downsized stores in Lawrence. They know the Lawrence retail market is severely limited.

If Lawrence wants a substantial increase in economic growth then the focus should be on bringing thousands of upscale jobs to Lawrence.
22 August 2006
at 5:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

i don't know any taxpayers who have been requesting a retail market impact analysis for years. name one taxpayer. we will be paying more for goods, and sales tax is a percentage of sales, so we will be paying higher taxes as a result.

“If Lawrence wants a substantial increase in economic growth then the focus should be on bringing thousands of upscale jobs to Lawrence.” what exactly has your progressive commissioners done to bring upscale jobs to lawrence? the 'living wage' law hasn't done squat.
22 August 2006
at 5:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

the rents are too high downtown, thus the higher vacancies.
22 August 2006
at 6:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

A retail market impact analysis has nothing to do with price increases. As was stated it is a tool to assist government officials in making proper business decisions.
Should have been done 10 years ago.

LD :”i don't know any taxpayers who have been requesting a retail market impact analysis for years. name one taxpayer”

Had you been paying attention to some city commission meetings before and after Boog,Rundle and Schauner you would know these things. This is not the first time Comm. Hack and Comm. Rundle have heard this and as long as Comm. Amyx has been fooling around in politics I would bet he has heard this prior to now.

As for new jobs I believe that is where the Chamber comes in which is why I believe the city should take over instead of giving the Chamber $90,000 a year…I believe that number is still correct. Having the city take over securing new jobs will provide transparency.

The downtown rents are determined by the property owners many of which have been purchased by JOCO metro business people and Doug Compton.
22 August 2006
at 6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Business Impact Analysis

A Business Impact Analysis (BIA) is an essential component for an organization's business continuity plan, it examines risks and assesses the impact of those risks. The two phases of a BIA include an exploratory component, to reveal any vulnerabilities and a planning component to develop strategies for minimizing risk.
22 August 2006
at 6:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

“The proposed regulation would require developers to hire a consultant - picked by the city - to produce a market study…”

So they mandate a business to follow their stupidtity of relying on consultants…IDIOTS.

Just keep making it harder for businesses to come to Lawrence. Yeah, that will work.

22 August 2006
at 7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Take a look:

http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/docum…
22 August 2006
at 7:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

lets see , I want to look into opening a biz in lawrence or get a root canal and hit my big toe with a hammer , which will be less painful ?
22 August 2006
at 7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

The City Kommissioners want to protect the rich downtown landlords by restricting competition for new retail space. Guess who will be paying the price for this with higher prices for goods (because of the lack of competition) and the highest sales taxes in the State (as soon as the three PLC amigos have won reelection)?

Do all the studies (waste our tax dollars), hire consultants (further waste tax dollars) you are not foolling anyone anymore. The only real question is how long the Citizens of Lawerence will put up with your failed Socialist Facist protectionism of your wealthy political contributors. My guess is not much longer.
22 August 2006
at 7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

How to decrease vacancies downtown? Lower rents. Done. How to create a database for sales tax data? Export data in CVS, import CVS to database. Done. How to educate the City Kommission on basic Economics? Give them extra time to attend Economic classes by electing new Commissioners. To do list.
22 August 2006
at 7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

merrill, you still haven't named one taxpayer who has requested a 'retail market impact analysis.' i bet most people have never uttered those words.

…and as for the city taking over the chamber of non-commerce - your people have been detrimental to businesses who would want to locate here. you have already cut off the cajones of the chamber by infiltrating non business people into that organization. i could tell when the chamber started embracing tax increases. what kind of incentives would the city offer? absolutely zero, just as today. it ain't just lawrence's quality of life anymore. our quality of life has been restricted by your people in power. your people would only make it worse for businesses. does lawrence have any enterprise zones?

i see the pendulum swinging. is it too little too late? i sure hope not.
22 August 2006
at 7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rhoen (Anonymous) says…

Why is it a given that “downtown” needs to be “defended” or “protected”? And what have been the consequences of that “protection” to date?

Several posters have accurately observed that this “protection” has simply produced high rents, high turnover, and high need for increasing police activity in the downtown area. It certainly hasn't kept national chains away … if that was ever one of the goals.
22 August 2006
at 7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

when i write of “what kind of incentives would the city offer? absolutely zero, just as today. it ain't just lawrence's quality of life anymore. our quality of life has been restricted by your people in power. your people would only make it worse for businesses. does lawrence have any enterprise zones?” i refer to manufacturing/industrial.

of course the city does NOT offer or is not supposed to offer (unless you're located downtown) any incentives for retail.
22 August 2006
at 7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

logrithmic, that was an unbiased study done and paid for by the taxpayers at the direction of the city commissioners. obviously the progressives didn't like the results so they'll get to pick someone more favorable to their mindset to do mini-studies on each and every retail development or tenant who wants to rent space over 50,000 sq. ft.

what exactly is considered new? anything that needs a building permit? if it is anything requiring a building permit, i wonder how long the Food-4-Less building will set empty - and after a few years the progressives can call THAT blight - even though they'd be the root cause of that blight. just as their predecessors were accepting of the riverfront mall and the tanger outlet mall. those same then accepting people call it blight today.

22 August 2006
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

More hurdles for new high paying companies to go through before they bring good jobs to town? I don't see the benefit to Lawrence. Maybe we are all blind.
22 August 2006
at 8:18 a.m.

Permalink

NotASquishHead (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2006
at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Dave Burress is just another “man with a beard expert” who knows better than everyone else, is willing to tell you so, then charge you out the arse to prove it. The beard is supposed to hide his smirk when when he does so.

All I can say is …. when is Whole Food Markets coming to Lawrence? I hate love their stores, I hate the Merc, and Lawrence sure could use some competition in that part of the market, regardless of what the database, studies, or the man with the beard says.

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/
22 August 2006
at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Correction!

Dave Burress is just another “man with a beard expert” who knows better than everyone else, is willing to tell you so, then charge you out the arse to prove it. The beard is supposed to hide his smirk when when he does so.

All I can say is …. when is Whole Food Markets coming to Lawrence? I love their stores, I hate the Merc, and Lawrence sure could use some competition in that part of the market, regardless of what the database, studies, or the man with the beard says.

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/
22 August 2006
at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

Reality I believe it has a lot to do with the history of this commission. They don't have a great track record so far.
22 August 2006
at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ranger73 (Anonymous) says…

Yes, we need to research this because everything in Lawrence needs a good thorough researching. Can't spend enough money on research-oh education? Well, we haven't researched that enough so we are just going to cut programs and funding, but those round-a-bouts and tree grates downtown and south lawrence bypass-those are the important things. We better throw a couple hundred thousand to someone's buddy to research this to tell us that Lawrence doesn't need any large retailers or competition in town because we can run out the small businesses just fine with high rent and taxes.
22 August 2006
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ranger73 (Anonymous) says…

Oh and yes Lawrence has a great selection of restaurants Craigers-Let's see, there's chinese, and mexican, and…chinese, and hmmm, does all the fast food count also? Good thing there is a large selection of restaurants in town-especially ones that a family with children can go to that is affordable.
22 August 2006
at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Sounds like something pulled directly from a Soviet economics textbook - a comment I mean less as a perjorative and more as a literal description.

Millions of dollars are not allocated by business managers to invest in business projects without considerable forethought. Anyone who has ever made such decisions would be aghast at the idea of asking, for example, whether the market for clothing was under/overserved, let alone having the egotism to believe that they could provide a definitive answer to such a complex issue, in advance nonetheless. What unmitigated arrogance.

We already have a mechanism to answer these questions: a free market. I know of little that would impede its efficient operation in a segment such as this.

Will consumers be “assigned” a “provider” for goods/services next so the Soviet can plan more effectively?

22 August 2006
at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

FatTony (Anonymous) says…

I love it, I knew this topic would get you guys all riled up.
22 August 2006
at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“The proposed regulation would require developers to hire a consultant - picked by the city - to produce a market study for every retail project that is 50,000 square feet or more.”

The sheer audacity of this is amazing to me - are Lawrence citizens such sheep that this sort of thing can just be floated out there as 'no big deal'? The continuing corruption of the Lawrence political-business scene continues unabated.
22 August 2006
at 9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Millions of dollars are not allocated by business managers to invest in business projects without considerable forethought.”

This forethought has absolutely nothing to do with the effects that over-saturation of retail markets will have on the city as a whole— specifically whether it might lead to business closures elsewhere, and eventual blight.

“We already have a mechanism to answer these questions: a free market.”

While I agree that this particular measure should not be approved, the reason that it's being considered is because the “free market” in fact doesn't solve the problem they are hoping to address.
22 August 2006
at 9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

ranger73, other restaurant types:

greek
italian
indian
spanish
all types of american
central american
non-greek mediteranian
japanese
indonesian
thai
and i'm sure i'm missing a few

all downtown too.

this study ordinance is a great idea. this is why we elected this commission, and i am very glad that they have taken a critical approach to development. it is absolutely necessary in an era of unbridled growth (aka cancer).
22 August 2006
at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

ranger, should we remind you of the huge failure on the sewer system? The huge failure on Wal-Mart? They had no legal grounds for telling Wal-Mart no, they just didn't want to let them build. The sewer system showed that they had a lack of planning. They went from approving everything to completely the opposite and needing studies for everything. They are not good leaders. A good leader would plan, but wouldn't be obsessive over it and study everything to death before they moved forward.
22 August 2006
at 9:19 a.m.

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2006
at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

sorry, ranger I didn't completely read your post, please disregard my comments from above. Knee-jerk reaction, my bad.
22 August 2006
at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

firebird27 (Anonymous) says…

The proposed impact analysis is akin to understanding the costs and benefits of a developed action that it may have on the city of Lawrence. Has the city benefited from the building of the Tanger Mall? Have other cities benefited from the building of large Wal-Marts? If we allow a big commercial development to be built, who loses and who wins? Impact analysis is an attempt to help steady growth.

Part of the city's policies is to preserve the downtown's historic character. People who want the free market to run untethered only need to visit Topeka's downtown to see the outcome of that public policy.

22 August 2006
at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ranger73 (Anonymous) says…

actually Craiger-I think we are on the same side of the coin-I agree the kommission doesn't have a very good track record-as long as the same good old boy network is in charge, I really don't think there will be any noticible improvement unless it directly profits them.
22 August 2006
at 10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“as long as the same good old boy network is in charge”

What network is that?
22 August 2006
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Who is Dave Burress? Not as compelling as who is John Galt, but I'll give it a go.

National ACLU Board Member and Associate Scientist At the Policy Research Center.

Past Board Member Kansas Citizens for Science.

On Lawrence local dollars; “David Burress, research economist at the University of Kansas's Policy Research Institute, says he doubts the program will have significant impact. “The goals—to hold money in the region and to create a preference for spending money locally—make some sense. If you get a large number of people doing that, it could increase local welfare,” Burress says. “The greatest benefit is probably awareness. But it's possible that the cost to the merchants outweighs the benefits to the community.”

Just 'possible' that the cost to merchants outweighs the benefit? Come on Dave, really?

On roads; “If someone's gonna build a new factory someplace, one of the first question he asks is 'How am I gonna get my goods to market? How good are those highways?' When he's trying to decide where to build, for an awful lot of businesses, he wants to be near a really good road, an interstate road or interstate quality road. And we've gotta build those roads and keep them up if we're going to be competitive in that.” OK Dave, can I assume you're for the SLT?

An examination of the PRI staff directory finds that the first four names listed—Steven Maynard-Moody, David Burress, Sharon Ashworth and Dietrich Earnhart—also show up on a list of contributors to the Progressive Lawrence Campaign (PLC) during 2002.
…
Burress, a research economist/associate scientist with PRI's Center for Economic and Business Analysis, contributed $200 to PLC and is also a contributor to LCPJ. He helped LCPJ raise funds on January 20 by hosting a “Sorry-Ass State of the Union” house party. In addition, Burress wrote an analysis of the Kansas Living Wage Report for the League of Women Voters/Lawrence-Douglas County's (LWV/L-DC) newsletter, and is a representative in the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods (LAN). Both LWV/L-DC and LAN are member groups of KVLWA. Burress, representing LAN, in November 2001 spoke in favor of the living wage at a city commission meeting. On August 19, 2003, Burress again spoke in favor of the living-wage ordinance before the city commission.

Like I said, “man with a beard expert”.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Burres…
22 August 2006
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jsicilian (Anonymous) says…

I am puzzled by the notion that if we don't change the way we do things in Lawrence we will end up like Topeka. I would think that if we don't change the way we do things in Lawrence we will end up like Lawrence.
I am also puzzled by the statements that the experience of some failed busniesses in Lawrence indicates the need for increased government management. Is it suggested that this government management will result in 100% business success? There have also been many successful businesses in Lawrence. City government has no particular expertise in forecasting the success of a business.
Sales tax data will not indicate the desirability of a new business to Lawrence. Please ask those who suggest otherwise to give some examples of how this works in other cities or how it would have worked in Lawrence in the past to create a better city.
22 August 2006
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

admills (Anonymous) says…

Hey all you complainers. Could you maybe put your negative heads together and come up with some positive alternative ideas that don't involve whining? I know, you COULD just try and get elected into a position to do something about it…. or you could continue to throw an adult version of a temper tantrum.
22 August 2006
at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

That application would have made Tanger exempt–-and you know that it was a failure. Would someone listen to Lunacy!!! This was done years ago when they refused to open up south Iowa for development and it hurt the city for many,many years. Until new businesses were allowed to come in Lawrence lost money and more. Let Downtown stand on its own and get out of business management and focus on new industry with jobs and more people who spend those dollars. Fix streets and sewage problems for new development first, that will insure Lawrence has a chance to survive the implosion of collasping in on itself.
22 August 2006
at 10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Who is Dave Burress?”

Thanks for posting that, Sigmund. We should have known by the beard that he's a regular axe murderer.
22 August 2006
at 10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

How about this as an idea/platform:

1. Quit protecting rich downtown landlords by keeping businesses from adding new retail space.

2. Stop talking about the living wage, it hasn't worked anywhere its been tried.

3. Quit wasting money on roundabouts and allow the SLT to be built.

4. Hire a City Manager and not a Business Czar.

5. Stop raising taxes and live within your budget.

6. Stop hiring and paying men with a beard consultants and experts.

7. Stop opposing new residential housing and rental projects, our rents and costs for housing are too high already.

22 August 2006
at 11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

“Could you maybe put your negative heads together and come up with some positive alternative ideas that don't involve whining?” admills

That's just not how things work around here.
22 August 2006
at 11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

8. Stop implementing the same failed policies of the three PLC Amigos, soon to be the four PLC Musketeers.

I wonder what a study by a bearded man expert of the living wage success in other communities would show? I wonder if Dave continues to support this idiotic failed policy?
22 August 2006
at 11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

“At first glance, it is just another city-mandated study.

But its supporters say it is the tool the city needs to protect downtown Lawrence. Its opponents say it is a device that will intimidate all types of retailers from doing business in the city.”

Kudo's to the LJW. Perhaps the best opening of an article I've seen in ages. Clearly defines the and fairly represents both sides of the issue.
22 August 2006
at 12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

Thanks TOB for telling admills how it is around here. This is our place to complain and you should count it a blessing when we all actually offer an explanation. Which does happen once in awhile.
22 August 2006
at 12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Quint2724 (Anonymous) says…

I stand by the comments I made under the article - Virtual school boosts district enrollment - go there and read it.
It goes to the laws of supply and demand. Without a good supply of new developable land opportunities - which will help reduce the cost of raw developable land in Lawrence, there will be little inrease in future retail sales. Instead of limiting the amount of retail space to be built in town - why not focus in on looking at the amount of land that is avalible for new homes - thus increasing the total number of shoppers in town. Retail growth follows housing growth seeking shoppers. Without a good balanced growth of the housing stock in town, total retail sales will be flat if not decline - much like the population trend of the town has be of late.
22 August 2006
at 12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

Just look at the city as a business.

no new customers this year-stagnant

competitiors , other cities growing at double the rate of lawrence

competitiors can deliver product , i.e. plan approvals , licenses , street repairs , parks , in less than half the time it takes lawrence

competitiors have 15000+ professional jobs that lawrence residents commute to

competitors have created an environ that assists new businesses that want to locate in thier community , lawrence looks for ways to keep you out

competitors have 40% of lawrence spending in thier communities giving them revenue and denying the city coffers this revenue

Competitors welcome highway improvements realizing the industrial development and jobs that it will naturally create

competitors dont have dadism days

competitors have not passed no smoking laws

competitors have a chamber of commerce that actually does something other than collect paychecks

competitors look for ways to control spending in line with revenues and take care of infrastructure

competitors don't think of the homeless as a new business opportunity.

competitors have a commission or mayor that makes decisions and does not allow a bunch of non-elected commissions filled with wannabes drivng the direction of the community.
22 August 2006
at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

And I am sure when the the real story gets out how the PLC is trying to hire one of their contributors, campaign fundraiser, and proponent of the failed socialistic living wage as Lawrence Business Czar there will be no PLC Commissioners!

Mayor
Mike Amyx mikeamyx515@hotmail.com
Home (785) 843-3089
Work (785) 842-9425
Term: 2009

Vice-Mayor
Sue Hack suehack@sunflower.com
Home (785) 842-6608
Term: 2009

Commissioner
Boog Highberger boog@lawrence.ixks.com
Home (785) 843-0995
Term: 2007

Commissioner
Mike Rundle mike@mikerundle.org
Home (785) 841-7817
Term: 2007

Commissioner
David Schauner dschauner@sunflower.com
Home (785) 842-7459
Term: 2007
22 August 2006
at 1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

logrithmic , i made a reservation for you , luckily u-haul is having a pompous donkey special so you'll save some dough !

22 August 2006
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prioress (Anonymous) says…

“And I'm with Marion. Quit 'protecting' downtown. If it really wants to survive, let it compete with the rest of the retail world straight up.”
++++++
For once, I agree with Marion and Pilgrim. If they charge too much rent for folks to make a living downtown, it will get partially boarded up or turn into another Westport or Aggieville…….booze and sex still sell!
22 August 2006
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Quint2724— A perfect description of a pyramid scheme, which is how this city was run for decades, and why we have many of the problems people like to bitch about on this forum.

I have doubts about the workablilty of the proposal described in this article, but returning to the pyramid schemes of the past is an even worse idea.
22 August 2006
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…

Best place to live in the state of kansas….Yep it's the bronze medal of the special olympics allright.
22 August 2006
at 1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

I like living here. I like downtown, too bad it is increasingly empty. I like locally owned business, too bad fewer and fewer can afford rents in our protected downtown. I like the university setting, all those tax dollars from the rest of the state and incomes from rich mommies and daddies who send their kiddies here to be educated. I like the school system, too bad they don't have the funding that Johnson County has. I like the progressive members of the City Kommission except the only progress they make is rasing the cost of living in Lawrence. For me Lawrence is so close to being paradise on Earth if only we could have the benefits of both small towns and larger cities instead the problems of both.

The kitchen isn't nearly hot enough. It's time for the old guard of the failed socialist facist PLC to move over, gracefully or not. Lawrence deserves much much better.
22 August 2006
at 1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Lawrence deserves much much better.”

I guess that excludes your mostly baseless, ad hominem whining.
22 August 2006
at 1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The fundamental lie underpinning economic rationalism is that oligopoly is a competitive market, and can deliver all the theoretical benefits of a competitive market (1). Building on that false premise, economic rationalism then employs free market principles and terms, but they produce quite different results from those originally intended. One such principle is 'deregulation'.

Genuine free market theory held that to be competitive, a market had to be free from government regulation. The reason for that has been obscured: such regulation distorted the price mechanism, the means by which information is carried to the market, and which is therefore crucial to the operation of the competitive forces. Milton Friedman says: 'Anything that prevents prices from expressing freely the conditions of demand or supply interferes with the transmission of accurate information', thereby negativing the competitive forces of the market (2).

What the economic rationalist does not tell you is that government regulation is not the only thing that can distort the price mechanism. Big business, through its ability to control markets and manipulate prices does precisely that (which is why oligopoly was not, is not, and can never be a competitive market).

Governments at the turn of the century were aware of this, and reasoned that if an unregulated market led to oligopoly, which distorted the price mechanism anyway, there was no point in outlawing government regulation. Quite the contrary: government regulation could be used to counteract the effects of oligopoly. The result would be a mixture of market forces, oligopoly, and government controls, but it would operate for the public benefit. And it did. This was the principle underlying the Mixed Economy, which built the wealth of the developed world. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, no developed economy has ever been built on an unregulated market. Those that have tried have ended up 'basket cases' (3).

The Mixed Economy was a mixture of controls on big business which curbed the effects of oligopoly and outright monopoly, and measures that helped small/medium sized businesses compete with big business. Those measures included tariffs and subsidies, and exemptions under anti-monopoly legislation which enabled small businesses to form buying and selling cooperatives, and to build up what J.K.Galbraith called countervailing power, power which countervailed (counterbalanced) that of the oligopolists. Writing in 1958 Galbraith went so far as to say, '….the support of countervailing power has become in modern times perhaps the major domestic peace time function of the federal government' (4).

more food for thought:
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/econom…

“Tax abatements eliminate a true free market”
22 August 2006
at 1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

rednekbuddha - thank you for that comment. I think that needs to be a bumper sticker.
22 August 2006
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

is this a done deal already? why have a vote anyway? it's been decided already hasn't it?

surely someone is keeping a running tally on all the anti-business moves the progressives have made since they got elected. there's so many, i can't keep count.

22 August 2006
at 2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Kansas City has more jobs with higher wages. There are probably fewer than 10 companies in Lawrence that have more than 500 workers with good wages? Then when you cut out the ones that have periodic layoffs those people are spending to beef up that sales tax. No bragging rights here.
22 August 2006
at 3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

I think the people who are complaining about this from a “tax increase” view (lunacy etc.) are missing the point. The problem isn't the marginal increase in the cost of doing business. The problem is that any consultant whose job is to “determine whether [we] can support new development” has a natural bias against new development. Now it might give us more ammunition in a legal fight against Walmart, but this sort of law is much more likely to cause us to miss out on an exciting new opportunity, in favor of Topeka of Kansas City, which is bad for those of us who want Lawrence to be something more than a bedroom community.
22 August 2006
at 3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

I don't think I could pick a better apologist for the PLC than logrithmic. Put's all the other Bozo's to shame. So Lawrence, there is your clear choice. Live under logrithmic's (it's cheaper than San Fransico you pinhead) and Merrill's (Noam Chomsky is my hero) PLC driven City Kommission.

Just ask yourself one question, “Is Lawrence better off today than before the PLC?”
22 August 2006
at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fletch (Anonymous) says…

I. Complaint Thesis
II. Illogical Reason 1
III. Illogical Reason 2
IV. Ad Hominem Attack on a City Commissioner
V. Personal Diatribe
VI. Summary

There, I saved everybody some time.
22 August 2006
at 4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“And free market? There is no free market.”

How much more stupid can some people be, Vladmir? Does the City honestly believe it can “capture” consumers within the city limits? That if the City says “no” the people of Lawrence have to obey?

The City does not need “to study” a subject that is (a) not a problem, and (b) none of their business.

Didn't we just have some weapy story in the last month about how desperate the City was to capture sales taxes? And so, they turn around and say to the FORUM where those sales occur: “sorry, we're full.”

It is not possible to provide a picture of “retail sectors” when the market is fluid and changeable, especially so by this very approach. What would make, for example, the electronics “sector” (or for that matter, the 36-72 inch flat-screen plaza television “sector”!!) overserved? How would it take account of trade outside the city limits? If the “sector” is starved of competition within the city limits, won't the trade simply go outside to KC, Topeka, the internet?

Query: is the market for “books and periodicals” over- or under-served in Lawrence? And how would one document their answer if, say, Barnes & Noble were wanting to build a 50,000 s.f. store?
22 August 2006
at 4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…

Nobody wants “walmart jobs”….but they are better than the alternative of “no jobs”…..and let's talk ku….Why do they not have any vocational classes? Would it sully their name to actually have some programs for people who just want a skilled labor job so they can afford to tend their own garden?
22 August 2006
at 4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? - Squealer
22 August 2006
at 5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

binford21 (Anonymous) says…

Personnally, I think beards are sexy and those who own them are not axe murderers…you people obviously have too much time on your hands.

22 August 2006
at 5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Test Number 1: Does the new business plan to compete with the Merc? I'll let you guess how that answer will affect a developers chance of being approved!

Did the new Business Czar contribute or hold fund rasiers for the PLC Kommissioners? I think we all know how that answer will affect the outcome of Comrade Burress's appointment.

Will Lawrence Sales Tax be the highest in the State after the next election? Will the City Kommission continue to protect downtown landlords so that they can charge whatever they want for rents? Will Lawrence become as expensive to live in as San Francisco? Stay tuned all you pinheads and wackos, that is yet to be determined.
22 August 2006
at 5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

Mr. Lunacydetector, you sure detected some this time! We decided to move to Topeka, rather than Lawrence, because these liberals would keep me too upset all the time. I need to enjoy my retirement, not be constantly stressed out by such nonsense. This is actually lunacy, just as you detected. Thank you, Lynn
22 August 2006
at 6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

classclown (Anonymous) says…

I'm curious. Is logrithmic a case of too many drugs or not enough?
22 August 2006
at 7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“It appears the voters have chosen time and time again to have a quality downtown.”

Then why do we not have one?
22 August 2006
at 7:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“There are three PLC commissioners on the commission. Get used to it.”

Not for long. And when the balance goes back toward the elected officials who realize they are elected to represent all of Lawrence, not just the fringe elements and downtown property owners, then your ridiculous codes and laws and bans and pronunciations, those meant to hinder growth and stymie economic progress, to make us all cowtow to the will of the privileged few appointed to city boards, those will be reversed.

You and yours had best dig in for some major balking at, and “tabling” and delaying of, your pet projects….the next election beckons….
22 August 2006
at 7:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I'll repeat again that I think this proposal should not be approved because it appears very unworkable, but it's utter, simplistic crap to assert that the goal of this proposed ordinance is to force consumers to shop at any particular retailer(s).

The intent is not to tell anyone where to spend their money, but rather to lessen pointless sprawl that eventually WILL lead to blight, and resulting in tax increases to pay for it (along with the rather sizable cut the development sector will have got from the froth of unnecessary and poorly planned growth.)

At any rate, what's necessary is to make sure that we have city and planning commissions that will make sensible zoning regulations that will limit the amount of retail space to what the city needs as it grows. We have to make sure that corrupt commissioners like the ones that ignored H2020 to allow a Wal-Mart at 6th and Wakarusa never get seated again.

Beyond that, the types of retail operations that choose to set up shop will be largely out of their control, but as long as the city desires to keep downtown alive, it will stay that way.
22 August 2006
at 8:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Bozo wrote, “I'll repeat again that I think this proposal should not be approved because it appears very unworkable, but it's utter, simplistic crap to assert that the goal of this proposed ordinance is to force consumers to shop at any particular retailer(s).”

Well, that is not what Burress said in the article above. You jokers need to get your stories straight.
22 August 2006
at 8:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

logrythmic , is this a strange mutation of rundle on meth or something ?

22 August 2006
at 8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Sybil, the downtown you knew 20 years ago has been replaced 20 times over. The turnover in retail businesses is apalling. Somehow there does not seem to be a lasting future in tatoo shops, t shirt stores, ball cap stores, avante garde (aka home-made) furniture, and fortune telling, although, I must say, the sooth-sayers seem to have more staying power than most.

What made downtown viable two decades ago were the stable shops geared toward real life needs: wedding shops, mens clothing stores, adult women's clothing, jewelry stores, reasonably priced shoes, toys and children's clothing, and enough of them to provide competition and variety.

The mix of shops downtown today is geared toward students and tourists.

Life changes, even for downtowns. The planning commission's effort to guarantee the survival of downtown by forcing potential non-downtown competitors to meet impossible, moving standards, is not good for Lawrence, and it will not work.
22 August 2006
at 8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

KsTwister cycled that “That application would have made Tanger exempt–-and you know that it was a failure.” Failure, however, is in the eyes of the beholder. Given that Mr. Tanger made a bundle of money off the place before selling it, I doubt that he would view it as a failure….
22 August 2006
at 8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…

Merrill is smoking something…I've lived here 17 years and never heard a single taxpayer asking the city to “Please! Cost us more money and require rediculous anti-business studies for every new store that wants to open!” There is already a neat business system that address the economic feasability of new businesses…it's called the free market.

“it is a tool to assist government officials in making proper business decisions” It is NOT the government's job to make business decisions!!! Unless the government is a socialist one, that controls all business…welcome to Lawrence! One more reason to get the hell out of here.
22 August 2006
at 9:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“I certainly don't recall the city promoting any retailer, downtown or otherwise”

Guess you forgot about the $50,000+ advertising campaign, funded by the city, to help the downtown during the sewer repairs, and the proposed free hookup to the sewer line; and the $50,000 spent on flowers for downtown; and the bonus money offered to the contractors for completing their work early (as opposed to a FINE for late completion); and, no doubt, soon to come, free sprinklers for all downtown buildings, and, of course, who can forget the taxpayer funded $75,000,000 yesterday, and $150,000,000 tomorrow library downtown redevelopment extravaganza?

When has the city done this for any business west of Iowa? Name it.

Lawrence planners are calculating the benefits of annexing nearly the entire county; yet my guess is the majority of us would rather see a split - leave the county alone, and divide Lawrence into two, separate entities: New West Lawrence and Old Progressive Lawrence. NWL vs OPL. The dividing line would be Iowa. Let Old Progressive Lawrence continue in its protectionist ways; let New West Lawrence grow; and let each keep their respective tax base. That would suit me fine.
22 August 2006
at 10:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“And guess what. People have voted in a commission that at this point wants retail development on the fringe of Lawrence to pay for itself. No more subsidies. No more hurting the businesses of our neighbors. No more.”

Excuse me, I did not see that particular plank in the published PLC platform. You fringeiacs knew what you meant, you just didn't want the rest of the public to know what you were about because, if we really knew, we would have not only not voted for you, we would have organized to vote against you. I call your campaign the Stealth PLC.

The subsidies in Lawrence are all about downtown and KU and that is it. Businesses that pay for themselves are vilified by the “hate private business” PLC proponents. After all, if private businesses succeed, then what need is there for PLC government to intervene?……..unless is it to make sure that private business does not succeed.

Losers.
22 August 2006
at 10:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Well, that is not what Burress said in the article above.”

Although a major intent of this proposal is to maintain the viability of downtown as the “center” of Lawrence, any studies taken under this ordinance would look at retail in all parts of Lawrence, not just downtown. The ordinance would protect businesses on S. Iowa (and anywhere else in Lawrence) every bit as much as it would businesses on Mass.

“You jokers need to get your stories straight.”

I've never talked to him in my life, so this is as “straight” as “our stories” can be.
23 August 2006
at 1:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says…

Logrithmic has obviously never taken an econ class…or at least passed one. You can ignorantly assume a definition is based on a literal translation of a word (which really just goes to show how little the people wanting to control our micro economy in Lawrence really understand how it works), or you can understand the true meaning based on context and linguistics. A free market does not mean it is without cost. It means it is FREE of influence and control of government. The U.S. doesn't truly have a free market economy (much like we don't really have a democracy) because the Federal Reserve keeps a tight control on fiscal policy in an attempt to control otherwise “free” aspects of our economy…ie. inflation, unemployment, borrowing, etc.

A free market, with as little control and “tinkering” by governmental entities, as possible, is the ideal. A good example of why is the Fed, itself. Almost every attempt they have made, at any time in history, to curtail inflation through rate increases has ultimately resulted in a “rebound” effect leading to the opposite problem than the one they were trying to prevent. It's just a nasty cycle when the government decides it knows better than business owners about what products to sell and how to sell them.

I don't trust anyone who thinks they “know better” than a freely-running natural economy, but I'd certainly trust a well-educated economist more than a group of anti-business, anti-progress, and anti-democratic aging hippies in their vain attempt to turn Lawrence into their failed Utopia.
23 August 2006
at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“a freely-running natural economy”

You got your religion, too.