Growth factors / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, June 29, 2007

Lawrence shouldn’t accept a future of stagnant growth and lost opportunities.

J-W Editorials

June 29, 2007

City officials should look seriously at U.S. Census figures that show a small decline in Lawrence's population but they shouldn't take action that turns that decline into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Census report released Wednesday showed 59 fewer people in Lawrence this year than last year. That's a decline of less than one tenth of one percent, but it gets the attention of local residents who are accustomed to the city's rapid growth in recent years.

As City Manager David Corliss said, the figures give the city a reason to look at major infrastructure projects like the new sewer plant south of the Wakarusa River, but the city should be careful not to overreact. The best way to assure that the city doesn't grow is to clamp down too hard on the expansion of utilities and other infrastructure that makes new residential and business development possible.

On the other hand, the stagnant population figures are a good reminder that Lawrence's future growth and prosperity are not guaranteed. Housing costs are high here and we are too dependent on residential property taxes to fund local government. Many Lawrence residents commute to other cities to work because they can't find suitable employment here and too many people who work in Lawrence choose to live other places primarily because they can find a lower cost of living.

The only way to counter that trend it to bring more business to Lawrence. New business development will provide jobs for local residents and help build the tax base to share the local property tax rate.

Lawrence is an attractive community and benefits greatly from the influence of Kansas University and the many entertainment and cultural activities the university brings to the city. But, as much as many people like Lawrence, other factors intervene. High gasoline costs may make it less feasible for some people to make a daily commute from Lawrence to their jobs in other cities. If wages in local jobs don't match up with the local cost of living, people have to make difficult choices.

It's not bad for city officials to view the small population decline seriously and with some urgency. Simply cutting back on plans for growth, however, means that we've accepted a future of decline rather than taking on the challenge of building the dynamic future we all want for Lawrence.

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.

29 June 2007
at 1 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

spywell, higher taxes if the city is allowed to stagnate and decline.

is blight the thing the past progressives were wanting? their policies have created blight for certain sectors of lawrence. hopefully it is only temporary.

the progressive mindset screams for better paying jobs, but at the same time they took away competitive incentives for industry.

now, the city wants more money because they're broke. is the farmland coop plant just a carryover from something the progressive commissioners started? why yes, it is. a broke city should not be bidding millions of dollars for something that might cost multi-millions to clean up. those dollars belong to the taxpayers.

is there anyone who has any vision anymore?

i hope someone shows some cajones real soon.
29 June 2007
at 5:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Isn't it odd people would always say if we placed a moratorium on housing construction because residential does not pay for itself the prices would sky rocket and so would our taxes. The real estate industry was allowed to control city government for 16-18 years and yes in spite of boom town 24/7 housing construction both residential pricing and personal property taxes increased with gusto at boom town economy rates. The property taxes still continue to increase. Will a saturated residential market create a decline in market value? This was not discussed if my memory serves me well.

After reading the above opinion I say make use of exisitng resources before adding more to the city's cost of community services. Who out there WANTS an increase in taxes aka user fees? If a genuine need arises Lawrence residents will step up. Until then let's step back and take a long hard look.

There is not a shotrage of housing within the county. The county commission has also been building homes along with Eudora,Desoto and Baldwin. Neither is there a shotrage of retail or light industrial property. There is a shortage in tenants. May I suggest looking into the green collar light industrial movement?

Now that the real estate industry is back running all levels of government it's time to grab your wallets. Past experience proves they are not well endowed with the ability to make the right choices for they completely forgot about the concept of a slow methodical plan of growth thus Lawrence is without the light industrial employment that creates a community that can support itself on a 4% annual increase of property taxes. When advised that the Lawrence market is saturated in retail and residential they simply say ” We do not believe that” and like George W. Bush stay the course yet today that attitude has about a 26% approval rate.

Lawrence does not NEED a second Wal-Mart and a good many tax paying citizen Wal-Mart shoppers concur but as past experience has proven the folks now in charge do not give a damn. Convenience and necessity are two very different animals. The developers are not going to be applying for food stamps anytime soon.
29 June 2007
at 5:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

458casul (Anonymous) says…

wow merrill still telling everyone the sky is falling,your crazys have not brought one job to lawrence because of there attitude welcome to lawrece ks the answer is no, now we have to get rid of that parasite and focus on the big picture and welcome all who want to add to the city by bringing jobs and commerce to the city
29 June 2007
at 6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

458casul (Anonymous) says…

merrill please tell us what and how many walmart shoppers concur with you give us all the three names you have
29 June 2007
at 6:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

10 million in Lawrence or bust? The sooner the better?

US population growth is .6 of a percent and falling. Kansas at .3 of a percent. It'd be damn near zero if we curtailed unskilled immigration (and I agree there are reasons to do so). The US will be joining Japan, Germany, and Italy on the list of mature steady-state populations soon.

To keep spending city resources like multi-percent growth is inevitable or even likely is ridiculous.
30 June 2007
at 11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bob031800 (Anonymous) says…

I only lived in Lawrence for a year back in the 90's. Since then I have moved to Topeka but I have always had an affection for the community. I was not surprised to see Lawrence's growth stall. I personally feel there are two reasons: cost of living, and an anti-business culture in the city leadership.

From the cost of living standpoint, I have watched over the years as home prices jump to ridiculous levels. I work at a major corporation in Topeka that has historically had a large number of Lawrence commuters. Over the last few years more and more of these people are leaving Lawerence for Topeka, Eudora, and WyandotteJohnson counties. Cost of living is a big factor in their decision. People are looking for quality of life.

I read a study online that showed the median household income in Lawrence was 40k, the median income in Topeka is 39.5k. Yet the cost of purchasing a home in Lawrence is at least 25-30% more. The same study reported that over 50% of Lawrencians rent, compared to 30% of Topekans.

Lawrence used to be a great bedroom community between Topeka and the KC metro area. Now they have priced themselves out of the market. If you work in KC, you may just choose to buy a home in Eudora, the Village West development in Wyandotte county, or in Johnson County. If you work in Topeka, chances are you are more likely to choose to save 50 grand and just move to one of the great areas around Topeka.

As for business, Topeka suffered for years with a stagnant city council. They are still not the best, but over the last five years there has been an aggressive pro-growth movement. Topeka is now developing in ways not seen since the 80's and early 90's. The retail and resteraunt district on Wanamaker has grown 30% in the last 3 years, and Topeka has landed businesses like the Target DC, the Sports Car Club of America, etc.

Here is an example that I think proves my point. A new barber came to my area in SW Topeka. As I talked to him, he said he had a place on Mass street for 20 years and lived in Lawrence for that time. Over the last 5 years he said that new environmental rules and business restrictions made it no longer profitable for him to operate. So he picked up and moved operations to Topeka.

I think these stories will continue until the Lawrence leadership wakes up and realizes that times are changing and if they don't change with them, the city will stall.
30 June 2007
at 11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

karensisson (Anonymous) says…

max1 wrote:
February 6, 2007
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb…
“I like problem-solving,” Chestnut said. “I like looking at things from a numbers standpoint.
Chestnut left Lawrence for much of the 1990s when he worked in Kansas City for several large companies including Butler Manufacturing, Sprint and Farmland Industries. He and his family returned to Lawrence in 2001.

Another conflict of interest in a city commissioner! Rob Chestnut worked for Farmland Industries. The city now wants to buy their toxic wasteland.

Does this commission do anything that they don't have some personal financial interest in, directly or indirectly? Let us count the ways.

Mayor Sue Hack's husband owns an insurance company that insures Doug Compton's many commercial properties. Doug Compton is one of the landowners at 6th/Wak who wants to put a Wal-Mart there. Mayor Hack is rumored to have told a constituent that she had to vote according to Doug Compton because he threatened her with taking his insurance business away from her husband. (Doug Compton is godfather to Wal-Mart grandchildren.) Sue Hack received the Wal-Mart teacher award (and money) one year.

Mike Dever owns an environmental consulting firm. Any chance this one will do the work to clean up the toxis waste dump that used to be Farmland Industries, that Hack is hot for the city to buy?

Rob Chestnut worked for Farmland Industries.

It's all too cozy for me. We need city commissioners who will work for the good of Lawrence - not their own financial interests and the financial interests of a few of their “friends.”

30 June 2007
at 3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bob031800 (Anonymous) says…

max1 (Anonymous) says:

“A new barber came to my area in SW Topeka. As I talked to him, he said he had a place on Mass street for 20 years and lived in Lawrence for that time. Over the last 5 years he said that new environmental rules and business restrictions made it no longer profitable for him to operate. So he picked up and moved operations to Topeka.” -Bobo

Huh?
I think you've been duped, but only your hairdresser knows for sure.

=) It's true, he just started up here in Topeka about 4 months ago. We were talking about why he left and his take is that a lot of the small business community in Lawrence is getting very frustrated with the city management. He pointed to a time when he wanted to paint the facade of his location on Mass with a power sprayer. He was told that that was not permitted because the spray could contaminate the groundwater and hurt the Kansas river. His point is that the city Leadership in Lawrence is dominated by elites on “the Hill” who are out of touch with mainstream Lawrence.

Another example is a good friend of mine at work. She loves Lawrence, but after her and husband had kids they realized they could not afford to live in Lawrence. She was getting ticked at what homes were available for the money, so they moved to Eudora,. They now spend alot of their recreation time in the KC metro area, and no longer in Lawrence.

Lawrence is a beautiful community, but times have changed. My wife and I used to go to Mass street when we wanted to get out and walk around, now we drive right past Lawrence and head to the Legends retail district, which is only 15 minutes further. Not because we don't enjoy Lawrence, but there are more options now than there were a few years ago. My point is that things are changing and living in denial will not effect that.
30 June 2007
at 6:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

karensisson (Anonymous) says…

Bob031800 said:
My wife and I used to go to Mass street when we wanted to get out and walk around, now we drive right past Lawrence and head to the Legends retail district, which is only 15 minutes further. Not because we don't enjoy Lawrence, but there are more options now than there were a few years ago.

I cannot begin to imagine what a person who would prefer the Legends to Mass Street ever saw in Lawrence. This is not your kind of town. This never was your kind of town.

This posting doesn't even seem real.
30 June 2007
at 7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EmJones (Anonymous) says…

Bob031800 said
She loves Lawrence, but after her and husband had kids they realized they could not afford to live in Lawrence. She was getting ticked at what homes were available for the money, so they moved to Eudora.

Eudora is hardly cheaper.

If she lived here and owned a house before 2006, she made money on it.

And a barber who moved to Topeka rather than roll their paint on?
i don't believe it.

I agree, posting does not ring true.
30 June 2007
at 7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

The city lossed population? Great, that is some of the best news I heard all day.
30 June 2007
at 7:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EmJones (Anonymous) says…

I hope the city losing 50 people or so means that the commuters have stopped moving to Lawrence. They drive up housing prices and don't spend their money here, plus I don't think they really care about Lawrence.
30 June 2007
at 8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EmJones (Anonymous) says…

Bob031800 says,
I work at a major corporation in Topeka that has historically had a large number of Lawrence commuters. Over the last few years more and more of these people are leaving Lawerence for Topeka, Eudora, and WyandotteJohnson counties. Cost of living is a big factor in their decision. People are looking for quality of life.

People looking for “quality of life” wouldn't put the size of their house so high on their priority list that they would choose Topeka over Lawrence. Topeka is a sinkhole, and you couldn't get me to live there if you gave me a mansion for free. There is more to quality of life than how much house you can get for your money. Everyone knows location is the #1 factor in the price of a house - and there is a reason for that.
30 June 2007
at 11:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

here is a suggestion: divide lawrence. since all the progressive mindset is so dead against businesses, let them keep massachusetts street and everything south to 22nd street, and everything west to the east side of iowa street, and of course KU. let the “New Lawrence” have 23rd street and parts south, and everything west of iowa.

hmmmm. i wonder what part of lawrence would have some nice infrastructure? i wonder who would be paying for the replacement costs of the old infrastructure in the older parts of lawrence, and could they afford it? no way in hell.

yes, max1, not everybody is infallible. the “progressives” started the farmland p*ssing match. why don't you go back to the very beginning. nice deflection, though. i think people are smart enough to know it, too….and i stand by my statement the progressives were fascists as well, and voting for the pro-business people was a vote for freedom.
1 July 2007
at 11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

hey Max1, since YOU are all knowing.

Is there someone from Lawrence that has family relations with someone who works with Placemakers?

1 July 2007
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

that should be “works for”
1 July 2007
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Merrill:: “…if we placed a moratorium on housing construction because residential does not pay for itself the prices would sky rocket and so would our taxes. The real estate industry was allowed to control city government for 16-18 years and yes in spite of boom town 24/7 housing construction….”

Maybe you should get out of Lawrence more often.

There's was a boom in housing construction nationwide over the last decade or so. (Globally, really - interest rates were low everywhere making housing more affordable than it otherwise would be.) Lawrence's continued development is actually considerably less than many places in the U.S. Heck, it doesn't even measure up to JoCo.

When I visit somewhere I haven't been in a long time - Las Vegas, Flagstaff, Ariz., Coral Gables, Fla., Atlanta, Boise, Colorado's Front Range - I'm continually astounded at how much growth there's been. (More than once I've asked myself, “Where do they all come from”? Of course, visiting Buffalo I ask, “Where'd everybody go”?)

The fact is the 'red tape,' indifference by city staff, and incompetence in clarifying building and zoning codes in Lawrence to develop land is infamous. While its not a “moratorium” it has similar effects by strangling the availability of land for development. Just because development occurs eventually doesn't mean that there isn't a cost to this city's incompetence and hostility to virtually every development plan presented.

Sorry, but if I could buy a vast tract of land on the edge of the city with no more complication than paying the current owner and proceed immediately to build housing upon it without any interference from the City, I could deliver a house that sells now for, say, $200k for much, much less - maybe as low as $100k. (If we didn't void all regulation but adopted merely adopted the regulatory rules of a less restrictive municipality, say, Topeka, the cost might be more like $150k.) By doing so, I would undercut the entire market and lower housing costs for everyone.

However, I'd also take away significant value from those who already own those houses - and that's why I'd never be allowed to do something like that in this small burg. Those that are already here will insist that the drawbridge be brought up and the 'walls' be used to keep out the peasantry.
2 July 2007
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bob031800 (Anonymous) says…

EmJones says,
People looking for “quality of life” wouldn't put the size of their house so high on their priority list that they would choose Topeka over Lawrence. Topeka is a sinkhole, and you couldn't get me to live there if you gave me a mansion for free. There is more to quality of life than how much house you can get for your money. Everyone knows location is the #1 factor in the price of a house - and there is a reason for that.

Well I am not sure why you are being so mean spirited. As I have said, I enjoy what Lawrence has to offer. That said, Topeka, is also a very wonderful community with great schools, parks, theatres, museums, shopping, and resteraunts. I am surprised at how elitist some people can be. We need to be pulling together for the communities that make up our region. That's why I posted here to begin with. Because I want Lawrence to grow and prosper, and I do feel that the city is stumbling.

Lawrence is blessed because of the jobs that Topeka and KC offers. And Topeka and KC are blessed to have a community so close that offers something different. But to just deride Topeka as a sink hole is a sad comment that is not based on reality. I've lived and spent a lot of time in both communities, and each community has wonderful people and provides a great quality of life.