Archive for Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Economic blame
March 20, 2007
Advertisement
To the editor:
The City Commission forum story of March 6 portrays that present commissioners believe the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce is to blame for the lack of new jobs.
This is amazing. These commissioners built their reputation, which is well-known throughout the industry and business world, for delays and inconsistent demands. This is not bad enough; when the economic development group gets a business interested in Lawrence they are verbally attacked if the company asks for any consideration extended by other communities.
New jobs from existing business expansion also are challenged by the commission with delays and different rules. The Planning Commission also has been structured by city-county appointments at 5-5 so there is a deadlock on any action, with delays and hoops to jump through.
Small contractors have told me they have to work in Olathe, Kansas City or go west to try and keep their work force together. With this attitude toward business, more working people are unable to afford to live in Lawrence.
This is not the fault of the chamber. The commissioners should take credit where credit is due. If they are proud of their record, then tell the working person who is really responsible for the lack of jobs in Lawrence.
My community service spans over 40 years and includes the privilege of serving working men and women of Local No. 441, Plumbers and Pipefitters, as their business representative. Of all the years working and serving working men and women, I have not seen such a lack of work opportunity in our community since the late '50s and early '60s.
Dwayne Peaslee,
Lawrence
More like this
- Chamber role 23 comments / May 13, 2008
- Vision update given January 17, 2007
- PUBLIC INPUT DEFERRED ON CITY POLICE REPORT February 26, 1992
- BUSINESS PARK ATTRACTS PROSPECTS January 24, 1990
- Job forum looks at city’s strengths, weaknesses 23 comments / October 30, 2009
Top ads RSS
- Brandon Woods
- Occupational and Physical Therapy Staff Positions. Rehab Center seeking full, ...
- Googols of Learning Child Development Center is now hiring for ...
- Unarmed Security Officers FT/PT License Preferred $13/hr. + Benefits Application ...
- Live On Site Manager- Self storage complex in Kansas City ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 183 comments
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009 · 46 comments
- Commissioner wants street work to be done by local unemployed people, but federal regulations disagree November 9, 2009 · 19 comments
- On the street: How do you like your peanut butter sandwiches? November 9, 2009 · 59 comments
- Blog: Song Titles And Lyrics: Nonsensical Non Word Songs! November 9, 2009 · 93 comments
- Blog: I Am A Stripper. November 3, 2009 · 341 comments
- Lawrence aviation company ships plane to help protect endangered animals in Kenya November 9, 2009 · 20 comments
- Roeder confesses to shooting abortion doctor November 9, 2009 · 47 comments
- Four downtown Lawrence businesses report burglaries over the weekend November 9, 2009 · 17 comments
- Crumbling of Berlin Wall still worth celebrating November 8, 2009 · 40 comments
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- KU football's final three games will be on ABC November 9, 2009
- Algae’s energy potential blooms November 9, 2009
- New method makes meth more mobile November 9, 2009
- 50th anniversary of slayings memorialized by 'In Cold Blood' approaches November 9, 2009
- Donor wants to fund Free State soccer shelters November 9, 2009
- Four downtown Lawrence businesses report burglaries over the weekend November 9, 2009
- Statehouse Live: More jobless benefits available to Kansas; Commission draws line in sand on school funding November 9, 2009
- KU ’09 like ’07? Hardly November 9, 2009
- Agency offering free sessions on 'Coping with Holiday Grief' November 9, 2009
20 March 2007
at 4:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pelliott (Anonymous) says…
Another chamber apoligist, we are looking at tough economic times ahead and we are stuck with lets not work together with modern methods, lets toss the one liners out with the same tired songs. We can't vote on them but our taxes fuel their prejudices and follies. It has been a blame and hate game. There are strategies these people could do that would help this town and that goes for all sides. A little less hate and more intelligent step by step analysis and cautious actions could save this community from some of what is coming.
Maybe if it cost the chamber some of their financing, cost them some of their corporate welfare they might decide they are part of this town. I know it is herasay but economic costs don't have to come from other people, some economic endeavers can pay their own way.
20 March 2007
at 5:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
458casul (Anonymous) says…
Dwayne Peaslee very well said and right on the money.This town is a joke to all towns around us, and I quote from a planner from OPKS whatever lawrence does we put it on a list of things not to do. end quote.pelliott you must have got that email from Burress about the sky is falling
20 March 2007
at 5:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
458casul (Anonymous) says…
Schauner,Boog,Rundle bundle gangs slogan,Welcome to lawrence kansas the answer is NO,and we will make it so hard to afford to live here you leave
20 March 2007
at 7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Of course, the problems with the construction industry can't possibly be that nationwide the housing bubble has burst. It can't possibly be that the decades-old, chamber-sponsored economic development plan of bedroom-community sprawl has finally saturated the market, and driven up everybody's taxes in the process.
No, all of you infallible bidness types know that it's all someone else's fault, and if you can just can put some rubberstamps back on the city commission, the good ole boys will bring back the good ole days, and all will be well again.
20 March 2007
at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…
The Lawrence Homebuilder's Association, including Mr. Peaslee, have had 25 years of policy-making control to make Lawrence a bedroom community. They succeeded specacularly, bringing Lawrence closer to being a single-source economy based on the construction industry. Now that the nation-wide housing bubble has broken, they jump to blame the very people who have started to reverse that trend.
The only way for Lawrence to get out of the economic quagmire that took 25 years to create is to continue to elect people who do not place their own economic self-interest above that of the taxpayers.
20 March 2007
at noon
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
I think last year sometime the city commission was against having an industrial company come to Lawrence, because the wages the company offered employees was too low. As I recall the acceptance of this company would have benefitted the school district and created modest factory jobs with decent benefits. I think they made the wrong call on this because bringinging more employers into Lawrence should eventualy lead to wage & benefit growth, lack of employers tends to create the opposite.
20 March 2007
at 12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I think last year sometime the city commission was against having an industrial company come to Lawrence, because the wages the company offered employees was too low.”
There was no opposition to any company of any kind coming here. The opposition is to giving any company a tax break if they don't meet certain conditions.
Clarity of language is important— opposing corporate welfare that provides no clear benefits to the taxpayers who will be asked to pick up the tab is not being “anti-business” as the many Newspeakers on this forum (and running for city commission) would have you believe.
20 March 2007
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Opposing the tax break was just another way of teling the company that they were not wanted in Lawrence. There were several studies done on this proposal and the tax revenue created by these jobs would have created more school funding. It was a win-win for the work force and the school district. Does this provide more clarity bozo?
20 March 2007
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
moderationman (Anonymous) says…
The additional school funding typically does not offset the lost opportunity cost on corporate welfare (fewer potholes, better parks, stable tax levies). At some point commissioners and the public must ask themselves whether the company wants to move here because of what we are, or do they want to move here because of tax incentives? If its the latter, we are better off without them as they will always be able to find another community foolish enough to grant them corporate welfare when the incentives run out.
20 March 2007
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
reality_check wrote: “I say we hear from some people who don't have a financial stake in continued growth…like my 80 year old Mom. Or the janitor at LHS. Or the 5,000 KU employees, or….most of the rest of us. What's in it for US?”
Considering that everyone you just listed lives on money provided by the taxpayers, the answer is: a paycheck.
20 March 2007
at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
So…without housing and private corporate growth, none of those people would have jobs? KU would cease to exist? Social Security would go bankrupt? There would be no need for school janitors if Lawrence were, say, the size of Tongie?
I didn't realize Lawrence was the nexus of the universe
20 March 2007
at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
458casul (Anonymous) says…
What about the MERC wanting to grow and put the farmers market in the parking lot,profit before public safety but thats ok
20 March 2007
at 3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tony88 (Anonymous) says…
“Posted by 458casul (anonymous) on March 20, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What about the MERC wanting to grow and put the farmers market in the parking lot,profit before public safety but thats ok”
What in tarnation does this have to do with anything? You contribute nothing.
20 March 2007
at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Dever,Bush and Chestnut are backed by developers and their special interest money yet claim they will bring more jobs to the city. All they really propose is to deregulate developers, which has little to do with job growth but a lot to do with further increases in our taxes.
This rather large sum of special interest money is compromising the integrity of Lawrence so I say vote out Chestnut,Dever&Bush for unacceptable behavior in politics
and establishing a blatant conflict of interest. Dever and Bush are members of the same church so I wonder what their god thinks of this behavior. Equal rights issues obviously will not stand a chance.
vote in Carey Maynard-Moody,Dennis”Boog” Highberger and David Schauner.
Perhaps Lawrence is establishing a reputation for building
cheap crummy new homes for high dollar. Sooner or later
what goes around comes around.
20 March 2007
at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Meatwad (Anonymous) says…
We should watch what OP does and put THAT on a list of things not to do. Peaslee and his construction industry unions obviously benefit financially if Lawrence grows into a big sprawling suburbia like OP. That's fine for him to feel that way. I personally like Lawrence the way it is. If it's to attract more jobs (I mean good jobs, not Wal-mart jobs), Lawrence needs to NOT be a big ugly sprawling metropolis. Why would a company want to settle here? Because they LIKE Lawrence. I wish people who so desire to live in a big sprawling metropolis would just leave Lawrence alone and go move to JoCo.
21 March 2007
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Noweigh (Anonymous) says…
Duane Peaslee speaks for working people. People who raise families, buy clothing, food, cars, movie tickets and on an on. There are plenty who need real jobs that pay basic bills. These are people that actually work 40 hours a week at jobs where they are held accountable–no tenure, no 3 month summer vacations. This town has turned its back on companies bringing good jobs to this town for far too long. Its time to put people on the city commission who know what its like to pay a mortgage, raise a family and pay an electric bill.
21 March 2007
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
It is precisely the desire to make sure that the new jobs will be good ones which motivates the commission's involvement (ie. with tax abatements/living wages).
21 March 2007
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
conservative (Anonymous) says…
Companies don't make decisions on what town to go to based on the quaintness factor. They look at lawrence from the prospect of proximity to their other factories, proximity to their customers or suppliers, ability to find and maintain a stable workforce, infrastructure concerns such as railroad or highway access, and yes what it will cost them to build here versus other areas.
Lawrence should look quite sweet with being on I70, close to I35, a large workforce that currently commutes long distances, etc. However the bureaucratic obstacles that this city puts in the way of anyone coming here has made new ventures few and far between.
Study after study has shown that even 90% + tax abatements still provide so many extra revenues to the city that it is a good deal to the taxpayers.
21 March 2007
at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Interesting comments. As I remember the last tax abatement issue, the proposed salaries were modest, but salary + benefits were far better than Wal Mart for instance. I believe it would have been a start atleast to get more employers into Lawrence…and help to drive wages up a little.
21 March 2007
at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Study after study has shown that even 90% + tax abatements still provide so many extra revenues to the city that it is a good deal to the taxpayers.”
Hmm, seems to me that more often than not “study after study” says the exact opposite.
21 March 2007
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
conservative (Anonymous) says…
Well bozo, I'll stand by the information put out in the article last week concerning the potential foil factory abatements. Where are your studies?
21 March 2007
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Well bozo, I'll stand by the information put out in the article last week concerning the potential foil factory abatements.”
Studies? You cite one study on one abatement request.
Most businesses requesting abatements don't offer anywhere near the salary and benefits that API Foils did, and with a 90% abatement, even that one becomes a pretty close call. A 55% abatement is plenty adequate enough, and if they don't accept that and locate here, it's more than likely because they are going to set up in a third-world location, and even a 90% abatement wouldn't compete with that.
“Where are your studies?”
Cities depend on tax collections from business and industry to fund their operation. If they don't collect, it's a downward spiral, and there is no shortage of studies illustrating the obvious.
21 March 2007
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Got any specifics that you would cut, Hawk?
21 March 2007
at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grimpeur (Anonymous) says…
From the Chamber of Commerce's Dec. 06 report:
“Compared to the same quarter in 2005, the unemployment rate has declined by 1.7 percent and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been for this quarter since the 2001. Lawrence's unemployment rate in the third quarter continues to be lower than all the other major metropolitan areas in Kansas as well as the state and nation.”
But I'm sure the author is aware of this. After all, he has 40 years in the business.
Of course total building permits declined from 2001, even though 2006 should show a rebound from 2005. But a closer look at the numbers reveals that almost all of the decline from 2001-2005 was before 2003. What explains this? Perhaps the irrational exuberance of residential construction (especially in 2001) could only lead to a decline. When the rate of construction (supply) far outpaces demand (as it certainly did in the years leading up to and including 2001), a subsequent decline in new construction, permits, and employment in the construction sector is natural. The current rate of vacancy in residential housing stock is further proof of this simple economic fact. But I'm sure the author is aware of this. After all, he's a businessman.
So, while there may certainly be an employment problem in the AUTHOR's line of work, he may look in the mirror for the real reasons for his industry's problems, instead of trying to blame it on folks who weren't even in charge during the time he and his fellows overbuilt this city's residential stock, leaving numerous families to look elsewhere for gainful employment while housing sits empty.
Supply and demand, sir. Do you understand it?
21 March 2007
at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
The above post presents a favorable portrait of employment. I wonder if it is possible to determine the median income of workers who live in Lawrence & who's workplace is also in Lawrence. If this is not possible, you might just look at the classified section to guage the level of opportunity in Lawrence. Not much going on.
21 March 2007
at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
458casul (Anonymous) says…
bozo do you have a job or are you on disability
21 March 2007
at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I'd ask the same of you, 458, but your disability is pretty obvious.
21 March 2007
at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fletch (Anonymous) says…
Blue collar jobs are disappearing everywhere. It's not the commission's fault. We need to be recruiting the jobs of the future, not the jobs of the past.
21 March 2007
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
458casul (Anonymous) says…
308 a month that what you and you glass collect and put in shall we go farther, glass nephew
21 March 2007
at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Your last post was downright dada-esque, 458. Good work!!
21 March 2007
at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
458casul (Anonymous) says…
your welcome
21 March 2007
at 7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” the husband, the wife and the son all employed by the City of Lawrence.”
Well, I might agree, but that would depend on what the jobs are, how they got them, and how well they are performing.
22 March 2007
at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
I agree that Corliss's raise was ill-timed - most folks have to work for an entire year before getting a performance-related raise.
There are some more interesting pie charts available from the budget department of the City Manager's office showing expenditures.
I'd be interested in debate about those after people look at them - you can get them by calling that office.
24 March 2007
at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…
why is dunfield's letter to the editor missing? Here it is:
Job growth
Thursday, March 22, 2007
To the editor:
Misinformation blossoms like spring dandelions during election season. Unfortunately, once erroneous ideas take hold, they become very hard to uproot. Let me try.
In recent letters, Deb Passig and Dwayne Peaslee have both suggested that the current City Commission has stymied job growth, among other alleged failings. Some commission candidates have been making the same assertion.
The fact is exactly the opposite. According to the city's partner in economic development efforts, jobs in Lawrence have grown steadily over the last four years when compared to the years immediately preceding them. Let me quote from an article in the most recent (March 2007) Chamber Newsletter, titled, “And the Progress Continues”: “The Kansas Department of Labor indicates even stronger economic development performance for the community during 2006. Civilian job growth in Douglas County/ Lawrence has outstripped Topeka, Kansas City, Johnson County and the state's employment growth rate.”
Let's review: According to the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, under the current City Commission, job growth has shown steady and strong progress and produced a better performance in 2006 than even our famously pro-growth Johnson County neighbors.
Can we agree to pluck this “unfriendly-to-employers” weed and decide the election on the basis of real issues?
David Dunfield,
Lawrence