Day after city's bid opening for recreation center, relief and a few questions

“If we can get these infrastructure costs to come in at $8.3 million or less, I think the talk of the town is going to be how much less this is costing us than what was expected,” Farmer said. “I don’t think there will be many people who care that we’re paying for a larger share.”

Um, I think the people in this town who aren't idiots will wonder why the city commission didn't negotiate for a more fair percentage of the infrastructure costs, thereby resulting in an even *LOWER* amount of tax revenue spent on the project. With the building being bid at around $10 million, it looks extremely likely that the city will get saddled with the entire infrastructure cost. A cost that the city allowed to go through a no-bid process and the developer has absolutely *ZERO* reason to build at a competitive price since the city has already basically written a blank check for it.

Considering that the majority of the infrastructure is for the KU portion of the project which is privately owned by the developer and will be used for private events benefiting only the developer... not negotiating a fair percentage of the infrastructure cost (or even using a reasonable method of ensuring the developer is price-competitive) results in a multi-million dollar handout to the developer. I think any non-stupid citizen of this town would like to see our city commission exercise some basic judgment and responsibility when spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money. The line of reasoning of "it will be less than we thought, who cares if it could and perhaps *SHOULD* be even less!" is frightening coming from our elected officials.

I wonder, is it incompetence and stupidity... or is it illegal behind-the-scenes graft?

May 16, 2013 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City estimates it may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to keep concealed weapons out of city buildings

Yes... the vast majority of the tens of thousands of gun deaths that occur in this country annually are *ACCIDENTS*. Maybe, just maybe, that is why people like me, don't want people like you needlessly carrying around firearms 24/7.

May 14, 2013 at 1:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City agrees to create resident-only parking zone on street near KU campus

Um... the same way as is currently available. It is called a tow truck.

May 7, 2013 at 11:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Brownback, Gray-Little say stable state funding important to KU's efforts to improve

Wow. You are nuts.

April 26, 2013 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City's Public Incentives Review Committee to consider Rock Chalk Park property tax abatement today; member raises questions about city's analysis

The only thing I know for a fact regarding this project is the city shouldn't be spending tax dollars when there are so many unresolved details.

This is beyond foolish. The general contractor at issue has a history of not living up to the spirit (if not out-right violating) the terms of his contracts. The contractor screwed a different municipality out of millions of dollars and still owes that city millions of dollars in taxes that he refuses to pay. The contractor has LIED about the details of this project from the start. Is that the kind of individual that you would want to TRUST.

The contractor claims the city is getting a building worth more than the city is paying. Besides ignoring the freaking obvious economic fact that if the city is getting something worth more than it is paying then that means the contractor is giving the city essentially a donation (and with this contractor's history that is not believable), instead focus on the fact that there is insufficient cost-benefit studies that actually prove this. In fact, the city doesn't have a clue what the building will even cost at this point! Yet the city is already planning on committing almost 3 million dollars to the project! The city is planning on handing out millions of dollars of taxpayer funds with ZERO idea of the benefit to the city, the end cost to the taxpayers or even the property rights the recipient of the handout will have with the taxpayer funded infrastructure when all is said and done.

With each passing day more details from this project come to light. Each detail makes it seem more and more shady. I don't feel like this project is above board and I believe it is something that the city will end up regretting. I smell legal action in the future.

March 5, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Medicaid equation

This editorial states what I wrote yesterday in the "Republicans push through resolution opposing expansion of Medicaid" article. Obviously, I am in agreement. :)

Comment yesterday:
"Just like the 50+ million dollar grant to set-up an exchange... take a stance! It doesn't matter how irrational. It isn't like expanding Medicaid with 90% (100% for the first 3 years and then scaling down to 90%) of the cost paid for by the federal government will help Kansas. It isn't like the money the state of Kansas gives up to take a "stance" against the ACA won't just go to another state.

The federal government will spend that money, but instead of it being spent to the advantage of Kansans, it will be spent to the advantage of everyone OTHER than Kansans. I don't know about anyone else, but I am really ecstatic that when the federal government offers a handout to help our state reduce its massive healthcare costs due to the majority of the population lacking coverage that our fine, upstanding state legislators can take the hard stance that they would rather Kansans not have health coverage, even when the state doesn't have to pay for almost any of it! After all, isn't it more important to thumb our noses at Obama then to provide our poor with health coverage (or to just reduce the expense incurred by the state in providing medical care).

All to take a "stance.""

February 27, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Republicans push through resolution opposing expansion of Medicaid

Just like the 50+ million dollar grant to set-up an exchange... take a stance! It doesn't matter how irrational. It isn't like expanding Medicaid with 90% (100% for the first 3 years and then scaling down to 90%) of the cost paid for by the federal government will help Kansas. It isn't like the money the state of Kansas gives up to take a "stance" against the ACA won't just go to another state.

The federal government will spend that money, but instead of it being spent to the advantage of Kansans, it will be spent to the advantage of everyone OTHER than Kansans. I don't know about anyone else, but I am really ecstatic that when the federal government offers a handout to help our state reduce its massive healthcare costs due to the majority of the population lacking coverage that our fine, upstanding state legislators can take the hard stance that they would rather Kansans not have health coverage, even when the state doesn't have to pay for almost any of it! After all, isn't it more important to thumb our noses at Obama then to provide our poor with health coverage (or to just reduce the expense incurred by the state in providing medical care).

All to take a "stance."

February 26, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Republicans push through resolution opposing expansion of Medicaid

Just like the 50+ million dollar grant to set-up an exchange... take a stance! It doesn't matter how irrational. It isn't like expanding Medicaid with 90% (100% for the first 3 years and then scaling down to 90%) of the cost paid for by the federal government will help Kansas. It isn't like the money the state of Kansas gives up to take a "stance" against the ACA won't just go to another state.

The federal government will spend that money, but instead of it being spent to the advantage of Kansans, it will be spent to the advantage of everyone OTHER than Kansans. I don't know about anyone else, but I am really ecstatic that when the federal government offers a handout to help our state reduce its massive healthcare costs due to the majority of the population lacking coverage that our fine, upstanding state legislators can take the hard stance that they would rather Kansans not have health coverage, even when the state doesn't have to pay for almost any of it! After all, isn't it more important to thumb our noses at Obama then to provide our poor with health coverage (or to just reduce the expense incurred by the state in providing medical care).

All to take a "stance."

February 26, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Revenue Secretary Jordan says Brownback cares about the poor

"However, Jordan said the state needs to remove "social engineering" from tax policy and fund specific programs to help the poor."

I would love Jordan to explain how eliminating the income tax on business owners while raising the sales tax is *NOT* social engineering? Business owners pay zero income tax, poor wage earners pay income tax AND a higher sales tax on their comparatively meager gross incomes. If Brownback loved poor people so much, I doubt he would be increasing their taxes to pay for an elimination of the income tax for business owners.

The real issue with the new tax policy is the asinine way it was structured. Almost any organization can be structured in a way that it can shield itself from Kansas income taxes. Eliminating the income tax will increase tax collections in the long run...? Riiiiggghhhttt. What we will probably end up seeing is a slight, if any, increase in business expansion and tax collections plummeting as every current organization in the state restructures to avoid paying the state income tax. In the end, only the wage earners will pay income taxes in this state.

Enjoy Kansas.

February 25, 2013 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

City releases draft agreement related to bidding of proposed recreation center; other agreements between Fritzel entity and KU not yet released

It is very common for an organization to form a new, separate organization when undertaking a major project.

There is nothing unusual about that...

February 13, 2013 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )