shadou (anonymous) says...

Excellent arguments! May I add that the issue of TIF has never been properly addressed and we, the People have not had an explanation of the tax flows inherent in the program and their negative impact upon the rest of the community.

As Mr. Bonnet suggests, money spent at local merchants stays in the community while that spent at foreign (out-of-town based) merchants leaves. Same hold true with our banking enterprizes. Locally invested banks tend to suppoort local investment, foreign banks ship the money elsewhere.

Regarding the argument about shopping out of town, folks are going to do that no matter what. We have good highways (better than our local streets) and satisfactory cars so why won't people be expected to take the trip to "shop" in Topeka, Kansas City or Wichita and Lawrence upon occasion? The occasion usually seems to be a bit of a family outing, entertainment if you will.

Sure, we could use a few more local restaurants but who is about to make the investment in them when the City and the Chamber and the RDA favor foreign ventures? This holds true for any number of other businesses. Perhaps it is time we seriously examined the motives of the Commissioners, the Chamber and the RDA. Are there perhaps some conflicts of interest involved? (When is the next election?)

October 25, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

It is funny how when something that people do not approve of is pushed into approval by the City Commissioners, etc., everyone who disapproves shouts "when is the next election or vote the bums out" !
The plain fact is that as long as the City of Emporia is controlled and run by a City Commission form of government, with the powers that be in Emporia continuing to seat whom they favor and want on the City Commission, now and in the past, things will not change, so unless the current Commission form of government is changed to a City Council form of government, which would be a much more fair and equitable form of government with all the citizens of the City of Emporia as a whole having basically equal representation in the decision making, you as ordinary citizens of Emporia will just have to suffer along as you are now and have in the past.
If you don't think I am right, just consider which areas of Emporia the current and past City Commissioners have come from and which areas and sections of Emporia they favor and represent most frequently in considering and favoring in their decision making.
Their is a saying that goes, " Money talks and Bull Sh_t walks."

October 25, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shadou (anonymous) says...

Good idea, Methusla. Any suggestions about how we can push the Council form?

October 25, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporiateacher (anonymous) says...

As a person, who left KC for Emporia State many years ago and decided to stay because I liked it, it is hard for me to understand why the people of Emporia don't want the community to grow and thrive. I understand that we want hometown businesses to stay open. It is my opinion that we need a little better competition in this town. My husband and I need to buy a new Washing Machine. The other night we tried to go to Hills after work...they close at 5:30. How do stores like this expect to keep business! The next day we had time to drive to Topeka after work and buy one. I am for developing Emporia. I don't think we need to become a huge city like KC or Wichita. We need to bring Emporia into this century. Shadou it is crazy to expect that anytime someone wants to shop they drive to another city! That is a waste of gas and money. I am really just tired of hearing the people of Emporia complain about EVERYTHING! First everyone is mad because the city wasted money on the economic study, then Emporia is mad because they are trying to bring more businesses to town. I think that people just need a reason to complain!

October 25, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eiggohp (anonymous) says...

It is good to know at least one person in Emporia has checked out the reputation of Christie! He does not keep his promises and only is interested in padding HIS pockets and not the interests of people in Emporia~~

October 25, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shadou (anonymous) says...

emporiateacher:

It is not growth to which many of us object, rather it is location of growth. Emporia just spent around $3 millions on a piece of ground just west of the Turnpike. The idea was sold to the community that the ground would be developed for retail. Fine. Use it for that. But why destroy the site north of 24th?

And if the Commission wants to sell us on the Peak property, why not be honest in the disclosure? TIF is not what needs to be used in this case but the authorities and the developer have completely skirted the issue. The developer is just that, a developer. He has no loyalty or consideration regarding Emoria, other than the money he gets from us.
The Commissioners should be protecting our long-term interests and the wishes of the community. They have painted themselves in a rather bad light.

I do not shop at WalMart and I try to stay strictly local. Oddly enough I have managed to meet my needs here. I've even been able to buy appliances and furniture here. Upon occasion I shop at Waters and I'll (ugh) get cheap coffee in the afternoon sometimes with friends at Mickie D's. But I dine at Jay;s and the Diner and other local establishments when we go out.

You and I have different priorities. Mine is the ultimate well-being of Emporia and her people and merchants. Yours?

October 25, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

shadou:
As I understand the process of changing the form of local government It would have to be put to a vote of the people.
I am not certain as to how this can be accomplished, but I suspect that it would take a referendum of some sort, such as a petition with enough interested people to sign it and present it to the City to be put on a special ballot for the citizens of Emporia to vote on it.
However I believe that with the entrenched powers that be in Emporia there would be an all out effort by some to defeat such a vote as a City Council form of Government would be a very big threat to their influence and power.
I will certainly try and do some research and feeling out to see how a change in the form of local government can be accomplished and if it will take a vote of the people to enact a change, then I will try and find out how to get it put to a vote of the people.

October 25, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

emporiateacher, I couldn't agree with your more!

October 26, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shadou (anonymous) says...

LGO:

Perhaps we could just change to election from districts. That way the form of government wouldn't have to be changed. A local state Representative or Senator could recommend to the state that legislation be passed to make the change. I'm not sure that Senator Barnett, Representative Hill or Representative Mast would recommend that. Remember, they too are of the "establishment".

October 26, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporiateacher (anonymous) says...

Shadou--I would like to see Emporia thrive for many, many years to come. As I said, my husband and I relocated here and started a family. I think Emporia is a great place to raise a family. However, I don't think it has very much to draw people here. I just want to see Emporia grow. I am not bashing local establishment, they are part of the charm of this community. I just hate the constant complaining. Because I am from a large city, it is strange to me that people know about every development before it is even built. Where I am from, things pop up relatively overnight without much discussion. If people would stop complaining and look at this decision for what it really is...a business transaction to better Emporia...I think we would be a lot better off. It seems to me that people here have such backwards thinking. Clean air Emporia wants to better our community by making it a healthier place to live and everyone wants to complain about that, as well. I really just don't understand all of the whining!

October 26, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cheerup (anonymous) says...

Emporiateacher / lifeGoesOn--If noticed at the City Commision meeting , for the zoning change. The only ones, besides the retailers that had to compete with this developement, that spoke against the zoning change lived on Willow Lane and Apple Dr. Most of the rest of Emporia is for this new developement.

October 26, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

emporiateacher, perhaps if you looked at the issues from the point of view of those who are standing up against this development, who stand to lose much more than you will ever provide to this community, you'd possibly understand. The other controversial issues have arisen thanks to a few other transplants that want Emporia to be like the urban areas they fled from. This is a great place to raise a family because we are not a big city, with needless urabn sprawl and developments that pop up without much forethought. Standing up for what you believe in is whining? Backwards thinking? Wow, I feel better knowing you are teaching kids your big city logic.

October 27, 2008 at 6:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

I think there are individuals from throughout Emporia that oppose the development for a number of reasons, and that individuals against this particular development extend far beyond two streets and competing retailers. If people were simply complaining to complain, I could see the negativity charge sticking. However, most of the complaints I have heard are valid. This area does not meet the criteria for TIF (and is begging for an inevitable legal challenge). Our $70,000 study that certain city leaders had to have didn't recommend a Lowe’s, and warned of giving incentives to businesses that didn't meet our demographics and leakage. The development would go into an area where traffic is already problematic. And, although TIF would help offset the initial infrastructure improvements, it will be up to a shrinking population to maintain more infrastructure even as an area where planned development (and existing infrastructure) goes unused. Most of the individuals in this community I have spoken to aren't necessarily for a Lowe’s, but they are for "all the businesses that Lowe’s will bring in). A simple search of some of the other developments this particular developer has done in cities like Hays show a disturbing pattern. Over promise the effect a Lowe’s will have on luring businesses to town, and under produce.

Disagreements are not negative. To the contrary, allowing time for discussion and debate from all sides ensures that we as a community move forward in a well thought out manner. Something we aren't doing in regards to this development...

October 27, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

I have to agree with Emporiateacher, LGO & momus,

Although I don't think the location at 24th & Industrial is a very good choice (Americus & Hwy 50 would be a better location), we need to grow. I disagree that attracting a Lowes (and/or retail like Lowes & others) will "shift sales". It's called competition. It will encourage existing retail to find other means to attract customers. You'll never replace retailers like Blue Stem, Mark II, True Value, Country Mart, etc. because no-one will equal the quality of their service. You will, however, attract new customers from nearby counties (that previously stayed local, within their county or traveled to Topeka, KC or Wichita). I also find it difficult to shop locally at the "specialty" stores, because they are only open when I'm at work.

October 27, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Shadou--

Can you explain what the TIF is?

October 27, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck,

Tax Increment Financing. Try this link for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incr...

October 27, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shadou (anonymous) says...

Tax Increment Financing. Originally it was used to improve blighted areas out in California, I think about 40 or so years ago.

To induce an investor to build in a blighted area the municipality would agree to issue bonds from which money would be raised to improve the infrastructure of the designated area for the development. That would include streets, water, sewer, signage and the like. The bonds were to be retired by the development itself. In order to make it a palatable package and to avoid simply granting subsidies to the project, the new businesses created could designate a certain portion of the sales tax they collected to repayment of the bonds.

Thus, those taxes would not go into the general funds of the municipality. Police, fire, hospital and schools would not derive any benefit from those taxes earmarked for bond retirement, providing therfore an incentive to the investor. Not only did he get the utilities provided but he also got the means to pay the cost . Nice deal but of questionable benefit to the existing and older parts of the community.

I could see using TIF for certain parts of the community. But that program should be used only to benefit all of the community, not just a part of it. In this case the older parts of the city must muddle through with water lines that leak, streets that need serious repairs, storm sewer systems that are lacking and so on. Emporia did not use TIF to restore the Granada. Why use it to entice a big box store? Especially since we have already spent plenty of money on the project on the east side of the Americus road?

I am not anti-growth but I am against discriminatory projects such as the Lowe's deal. I would much rather see local investors doing the developments, using local labor and materials wherever and whenever. With large corporations based elsewhere Emporia and the County do not always have their best interests served. I have yet to see any evidence that this deal is the right one in the right place at the right time.

October 27, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

I support Lowes and I support our commissioners who voted to allow it in. I even support Julie Johnson who voted against it. I think she made a clear argument as to why she was voting against it. Just because I disagree with her does not mean she is a bad commissioner. The same goes for the others. I truly believe that they looked at what was best for Emporia and acted on it.

People can argue the location all they want but if Lowes was going to come in that was where they wanted. Besides, it doesn't matter if you think the area should stay as is, or if you think it should be a park, the fact of the matter is that the Peak's own it and can do with it as they please.

People can argue that Lowes will hurt our local businesses when all it truly does is provide competition. If the local businesses want to continue then they need to make sure they provide good service and find the areas that Lowes is lacking and beat them in that aspect. Basically, develop a smarter business plan.

People can argue the traffic idea but no one really knows what it is going to be like. Graphic Arts will be open soon and that will relieve some traffic. Plus, part of the plan is to improve those streets surrounding the building which will also help. However, as Dr. Lane pointed out, increasing the traffic is precisely the point.

People can argue that the developer's character is questionable, but he was the one who brought Lowes to us. They weren't knocking at our door before. And, as long as the commission doesn't approve any bond payouts the city has very little risk, if any.

So, you can whine if you want or you can get on board with the changes. Which way do you want to view the cup, half empty or half full?

October 27, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Well, I had an idea about what the TIF was but I wanted to see if your thoughts and mine were the same. I attended the meeting a couple of weeks ago and from what I understood, the property taxes that are paid on the property are taken out of the general fund and used to repay the city for the infastructure improvents that we make as well as to repay Christy becasue he would be fronting alot of the money himself. I was also under the impression that Christy would at some point, come before the city and ask for bonds to be issued after the development is finished in order to pay him back fully. Bobby Agler said that he would never approve such bonds as long as he is on the commission. So, what that means to me is that the whole development is self sufficient. The poperty taxes that Lowes pays along with their increased sales tax will pay for all the developments and for Christy's investment. All the city has to do is defer the property tax revenue that they would have gotten for approximately 20 years. The property taxes that the Peak's currently pay is about $12,000 a year, which, if I understood it right would still go to the city's general fund.

I may be wrong in some of my thoughts on this but please tell me why I am wrong and why this is a bad deal for Emporia dollars and cents wise.

October 27, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

I get tired of hearing things like “traffic is already problematic”
Give me a break, I drive that way everyday and have never had to wait more than 3 of 4 minutes to get through the area, Even with construction and school letting out!
So My opinion is traffic is not as bad as some make it seem, try going to KCMO a few times and get stuck in traffic!

Those are the kind of “complaints” I get tired of hearing, Just because one is inconvenianced for a few extra minutes during their trip to get somewhere does not make a good argument against bringing in business to that area. For crying out loud, leave your house 5 minutes sooner!

The TIF, I don’t understand all the ins and outs of it and I am sure there are those of you who are more than willing to fill me in, but save your time and energy, don’t really care that much, My opinion is that new business is good for Emporia, I know I know, you can quote study after study, Who Cares! The people who pay for studies are usally those who determine what the study finds. It like every TV commercial “ 3 out of 4 doctors say” Whatever….

Bring on Lowes and let the chips fall where they may.

October 27, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

Thank you Life,

It seems like we're banging our heads against the wall. We finally have an opportunity for the start of some long needed growth in Emporia, and all I hear is complaints. Emporia has so much potential, being centered between Topeka/KC and Wichita (the Turnpike and railroad are another plus), that's just going to waste. We need to start building revenue, to eventually attract the bigger businesses to Emporia (and keep those that haven't left already). It's going to take a long time, a lot of patience and positive thinking before we actually begin to realize the potential benefits (more reason to stop looking at the negative and focus on solutions/the positive). I'd like to retire in Emporia, however, I don't want to be paying taxes equivalent to my mortgage.

October 27, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporiateacher (anonymous) says...

neighbor--I was not trying to rattle your cage! I simply hate to hear all of this complaining. Look back through the Gazette from the last few months. Every time anything is presented that could actually make a positive difference in our community...there is a following of people who have to voice their whines and complaints! As far as you attacking me personally, obviously you have nothing to offer this forum! I am an excellent teacher and parent, church member, community member, etc and my opinion is as valid as yours and anyone else's who posts here! Can we not keep the personal attacks out of the argument...after all you have never met me. You assume a lot about me from reading just a few sentences

I am not looking for an urban area. I am just looking to see that Emporia's economy will not crumble. Over the last year, we have lost jobs. We need to create more. Many of the businesses here are wonderful but need competition. I am all for small business ownership, but you cannot have a healthy economy without jobs or competition.

October 27, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

nutsaboutools, emporiateacher and slvrnblck, you all seem to be making many of the same kind of comments I made on an eariler story
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...

I find it funny how users like "Create" and "Netloafer" have NOTHING to say Now that other users besides myself are making the same points. Even Momus is not quite a vocal as they were on the other forum, I guess when they cant gang up on just One other user, they dont have much to say.

October 28, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

Not Netloafer or Create, but I'll bite...

1. TIF is used on blighted property. How exactly is this property blighted?

2. Two studies have now stated that our leakage for the Emporia trade area in the categories carried by Lowe's is between 4-5.7 million. A Lowe's has to generate between 22-30 million dollars. Please tell me which trade area (Topeka, Wichita, Salina, KC, etc.) we will get the remaining 16.3-26 million in sales from?

3. If the Lowe's does end up putting others out of business, what will happen to the corridors in which those businesses exist, and what will happen to the assessed value of their buildings?

4. Once infrastructure is built with the aid of TIF funds, who pays to maintain it? Are we able to maintain the infrastructure we have now?

5. If the mall looses anchors like Sutherlands and Sears (both reasonable assumptions), and Mr. Christie seeks to recruit stores out of the mall (as he's done in other developments), what do you propose we do with that property?

6. How is this development going to cause a NET job gain?

7. Isn't this really about just wanting something new with a recognizable brand name regardless of the lasting effect on the community, tax base, infrastructure and existing local businesses?

8. Would we be jumping through these hoops for a local business, and if not, what does that say about our community values?

9. How does this move fit in to a strategy of luring people from outside our trade area into Emporia?

10. Do people realize their is a difference in the economic effect of a industrial, tech or service job that supplies new capital to a local economy, versus a national retailer that seeks to remove said capital from our local economy?

October 28, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Momus, you nailed it! Please print this off and send it to each commish. Responses would be interesting

October 28, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Momus--

1) If you would have attended the meeting you would understand that blighted can also be economic blight. There are 9 things that can be used to determine if a property is blighted and the property has to meet most of them. They went through them one at a time and explained thier beliefs.

2) Home Depot has reported 15 million in sales from our local zip codes. So I would say that the study is a little off.

3) The only reason Lowes would put others out of business is if they fail to compete. If the existing businesses have a solid business plan they will not fail.

4) The city would obviously be in charge of maintaining it, and they already do. The only things that are going to happen is adding in a stop light and widening roads. I can't imagine a scenario where the cost on the city goes up a significant amount. You could make the same argument for any residential development as well.

5. My suggestion, actually my wifes, would be to tear it down and build a "legends" type mall. Obviously we don't have the pull like KC does but I think it would be a neat enviornment. Also, it is not like the Mall is doing very well anyway, how long has the Food 4 Less building been vacant. The Mall's current marketing strategy is weak at best.

6. If you bring in a Lowes that will hire 100 people and 2 restaurants and a couple of other stores, how can it not...by Suthelands closing...please. They don't hire all that many people and I believe they are strong enough to survive.

7. No, it isn't just about wanting that but that does play a part in it. Lowe's will keep some of the money that is going out to Topeka, KC and Wichita here in Emporia. I think a lot of people want something new because the old isn't servicing all the needs.

8. I don't know of any local business that has asked for any assistance like this. And what hoops are we really jumping through? They are paying for all of it.

9. Because now people from smaller communities (Americus, Olpe, Strong City, Cottonwood, Lebo etc etc etc) will have the option to come to Emporia to shop at Lowes as opposed to Topeka.

10. I think everyone understands that, but last I checked one of those companies wasn't knocking at the door.

October 28, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

1. I know the difference between the two types of blight. I also know that TIF statutes specifically prohibit use in "Greenfield" sites both on a state and federal level. Evidently, there is a lack of understanding that will lead to another legal challenge (can anyone say "sales tax fiasco deja vu").

2. Once again, can I see the study with the $15 million lost? I've heard $15, $16, $26... Zip codes vary depending on who you talk to, but I haven't found one person who claims to have actually seen this report outside of Christie, and if they aren't willing to make the information public, how can we see if it's accurate? Don't you think that it's strange that our unbiased sources have a number significantly different than a biased one?

3. Might a business fail to compete because the market isn't large enough to support all the businesses we currently have PLUS another business that must generate between 22 and 30 million dollars per year? Who survives that fight, the multi-billion dollar corporation or the mom and pop? It's like throwing a pit bull in with a Boston terrier and then saying it's the terrier’s fault getting ripped up because it didn't fight hard enough or smart enough.

4. Widening roads, sewers, electrical, etc... We will be responsible for maintaining the area, notice how the question of "Are we able to maintain the infrastructure we have now?" was avoided.

5. Legends??? Really??? I don't think something is doing well, so let’s do what we can to kill it. Great development policy.

6. I will quote Stacy Mitchell who has studied Lowes, Home Depot and others for over a decade on this point "ultimately the number of jobs created is offset by at least an equal number of job losses at other stores. The reason is fairly simple: retail development does not represent real growth. It does not generate new economic activity. Opening a Target superstore will not increase the amount of milk people drink or how many rolls of paper towels they use in a year."

7. Why not encourage existing businesses to fill needs instead of throwing them out?

8. Braums asked for zoning changes several years ago. The city wouldn't accommodate. We could have a national chain headquarters here, but nope. We give preference to national chains.

9. So the strategy is to retain 100% of our trade area without penetrating others? Is that realistic?

10. How would we know who is knocking, when our RDA is tasked with retail development?

October 28, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

1) Like I said they went over all 9 parts of the "blighted" area at the meeting which you apparently did not attend.

2) No, I can not say that I personally have seen it. Have you personally seen the report that said only 5-6 million left Emporia. Would you not at least want to recuperate that amount? Plus you have to believe that Lowe's would not even consider coming here unless they thought it was economically feasible for them to be here.

3) Once again, if the business plan is solid they will not lose. Competition is good for society. It drives down prices and improves customer service. Why should Emporians stand by and be charged higher prices and receive poorer customer service just because it is a local business?

4) Yes, I already said that we would be responsible for maintaining the roads. It is irrelevant if we are able to do it now because, as I eluded to, the fact that added infastructure was minor when you look at the grand scheme of things. The street is already there, so is the sewer, we are just making them bigger.

5) You asked what "I" would do with the property. I gave you my answer. You don't have to like it. I think an overhaul is long overdue for that property. I believe a Dillons was supposed to go in there but pulled out due to the building needing major repairs. I can only assume if that part does so does the rest of it. A "Legends' type area might allow the mall to better market itself to potential businesses. It is obviously having trouble doing that now, so why not try something new.

6) I understand your argument. I am still choosing to believe that their is a lot of money leaving Emporia that goes elsewhere that could be retained. If my belief is correct it will only increase the job load of the town.

October 28, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

7) This idea was brought to us. The existing business owners can bring their proposals to the city if they feel a need. No one is saying that they can not. Maybe they are the ones who need to be proactive and go out and ask for what they want. Do you really want the city commissioners to start knocking on doors and ask the businesses can we give you some money to help you out?

8) That is a ridiculous argument because you are talking about something that was well over 20 years ago. The current commission had nothing to do with that decision. And at that time they weren't letting anyone in.

9) Yes, I think that should be the strategy. Why wouldn't that be the goal? It is not realistic to expect that but the goal should be to retain as much as possible.

10) It businesses wanted to come here they would be asking. We have to give them a reason to come. Is a Lowes going to bring industry here? Probably not, but it sure isn't going to hurt. The mere fact that we are allowing this development in will show other businesses that would maybe consider us that we are willing to at least take a look at it. Historically, we don't have a real good track record with welcoming new business.

October 28, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

according to momus we need to read the studies, they are the gospel. My question to momus would be, is it true then that all studies should be relied upon as "fact"?
I ask because I read one the other day that said certain chemicals caused cancer in lab rats, turned out the Scientists injecting the rats with chemicals was the real cause.

you can almost always predict what conclusions a study will come to by knowing just one key fact: "who funded the study." The person who funded the study will always get the conclusion they want.

who funded these studies momus?

Maybe you can change my position on this topic with the right answers....

October 29, 2008 at 6:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

One study was funded by the state; the other two were funded by the city. I have been citing the first study (Kaplan) and the last study (Buxton) because the second study was never finalized. Data collection is a fairly straight forward process that is standardized per trade area using data collected from retailers, the state and a host of economic data collection agencies. It's funny, but both studies were done specifically to identify retailers and retail categories we should bring to the community so we could mount a recruiting effort. So, although the state version was funded primarily through a grant, and the Buxton study was primarily funded through local taxes, both studies were encouraging the collection of data for the express purpose of both identifying leakage and recruiting retail that met the market leakage. That may be why a Lowes or Home Depot was never identified in either study; both home improvement category leakage surveys fell well below the sales threshold of a Lowes or Home Depot.

I have a hard time buying Christie's numbers, just because they lay so far outside a standard statistical deviation. And, I know the easiest way to manipulate one of these studies (it happened in the second version, which is one of the primary reasons it was never finalized) is to add zip codes outside the trade area, and call them part of the trade area; thus inflating population, median income and sales potential. Again, if Christie made the study public, or at least made access to portions of the study public so that I could at least determine the methodology used to come up with his numbers (specifically, which zip codes were used) I would feel much better.

October 29, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slipandslide (anonymous) says...

Only time will tell how well Lowes will do here. If the study was manipulated, then Lowes wont do well here.

October 29, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

I have a hard time believing that Lowes or Home Depot or whomever would rely on Christie solely . I am sure that they would do their own study and would already have alot of their own data that would be needed to justify building here. I would also assume that Christie is just reciting #'s that were given to him from one or both of those companies. In the big business world Lowes would not just take some guys word for it.

October 29, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

Thank you slvrnblck and LifeGoesOn,

I bought my first house in a small "city" about the size of Emporia. To my north there was nothing but open fields and a highway like Rt 35. Within 5 years, there was a new mall (anchored at one end by Sears, the other end was Walmart, with JCPenny in the middle), followed shortly by 3 new developments (over 200 homes), a new Elementary & Middle School.

By the time we moved here (Emporia), roughly 10 years later, there was a Home Depot, Target, Sam's Club, BJ's Wholesale, Alcan (aluminum can factory), New Process Gear (transmissions), a furniture retailer (can't remember the name, like Nebraska Furniture Mart).

Although it was nice to have the Home Depot, I still went to my favorite hardware store first and/or to get advice (or for servicing). There was always a long line at the register when I went (and yet they knew practically everyone by name).

I traveled out that way last summer, to visit family, and I didn't recognize the place. The downside was that they underestimated the growth, so that the main roads were very congested. Now there's also a Lowes, a couple of large "office" buildings (not sure about the "occupants") and another larger mall under construction.

Now I'm not saying that this will happen in Emporia, nor am I saying that the specific listed retailers would locate here, but I am saying that we (Emporia consumers & taxpayers) would only benefit with even a small sample of such growth.

People like momus should also read last week's article from Pittsburg (I believe), which is a little closer to home.

October 29, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

I have read the Pittsburg article, but as I said before, my contacts in that area that I would use to independently verify the information contained within the article are not as good as the contacts I have in the Hays and Manhattan/Junction City area. In those areas, I'm hearing negativity, specifically in regards to what was promised versus what was actually developed.

I want to be clear, I'm not anti-growth. But, my definition of growth is that which is sustainable. In other words, if we have a market leakage that needs addressed, by all means let’s address that leakage. However, the information I have seen indicates that there is not a market leakage equal to or approaching the amount of sales required by a Lowes. Call me a skeptic, but I’m just not a “take their word for it” kind of guy. Make the study everyone is quoting (has anyone actually seen the study?) public, and I may change my mind. However, right now we trust someone providing numbers that we cannot verify who has something to gain from this process. When those numbers directly contradict two studies we have in hand, that makes me wary.

I support the development of industrial/service/technical jobs, which in-turn creates more customers and disposable income. That increase in population and spending power creates a market for more retailers. In that particular scenario, there is no need for incentives because companies that don't move into our market simply miss out on dollars spent. That scenario is sustainable for both pre-existing retailers AND new development because it contains ACTUAL growth, not simply a shift in sales from one store (or one group of stores) to another. I know, "no one is beating down our door right now". My question is, whose door are we beating down? What are we doing in an attempt to expand our existing industries and lure new ones to the area? We all want Emporia to grow and prosper, but it seams that we have very different definitions of what growth is and how to attain it.

October 29, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

momus--

How do you propose we go out and get this industrial growth? Is there an individual who has that job description that is not fulfilling their duties?

I could understand your point if our commissioners were allowing Lowes in and not allowing another industry job in, but that is not the case. They have accepted an offer of a strong company to build a new store in our town. Like I said before, I do not believe that Lowes themselves would be doing this unless they think it can be profitable for them. Do you really think they are going to spend $5 million to open a business that they think will fail?

And as far as your studies go....have you actually seen them? Are they posted somewhere that the public can see them? Last thing I heard was that someone had opted to not have them be released to the public.

October 29, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

If you go to any stakeholder in the study process: the city, chamber, RDA, Main Street, et al, they can show you copies of the studies.

I have encouraged the publication of a synopsis of the Buxton study, but I'm not the one in charge of that.

As far as the profitability of Lowes is concerned, they could be profitable while capturing existing retail sales from other retailers. Just because the market leakage doesn't equal their sales requirements does not preclude a profitable store. They would simply have to attain their sales from the customers of other retailers. Addressing leakage and achieving profitability are two different things, and Lowes is only concerned with one of them. I'm saying, based on the data available, it is unrealistic to assume BOTH a profitable Lowes and the continued existance of competing retailers.

October 29, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

momus--

Yes you are right, Lowes COULD be profitable by capturing other businesses sales. Is that your justification for not letting them in? Because they COULD capture other sales. If they capture other sales it is not because they are Lowes it is because other companies have failed Emporians with either poor service, high prices or poor selection.

So, with your line of thinking, we should not provide competition for any existing local business until the local businesses can no longer handle the demand in Emporia. How exactly does that promote the growth that you say you are for? And how exactly is that good for Emporians as a whole and not just the local businesses that we currently have?

October 29, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

I'm not saying don't let them in, but I am saying that we should not have augmented the comprehensive plan, nor should we have applied TIF in this particular instance. If our data is correct, either the Lowes will fail (unlikely) or we will loose local businesses (more likely). In either instance, the TIF creates the opposite effect for which it was intended. If they want to develop and come on their own dime in an area planned for that type of development, fine. But to use a blight fighting mechanism in such a way that, according to our best data, will almost certainly create blight is irresponsible.

What is best for Emporia is creating businesses that have the ability to expand beyond our city, while maintaining a headquarters here. What is best for Emporia is encouraging a business environment that multiplies the effect of dollars spent by local businesses doing business with other local businesses. The upside to this proposed development is fleeting in nature. The downside is more long term.

So, are you saying that it is OK to offer incentives to businesses for the express purpose of killing existing businesses? I am saying that we "provide competition" by allowing competition to come to Emporia in areas planned for development without incentives. That's still growth, just of a more sustainable variety. Your plan leaves us potentially with less net shopping options and a diminished magnification effect within the local economy.

October 29, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

How about including all of Emporia in a TIF district?

October 29, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Exactly what "incentive" does Lowes get? The TIF or TDD?

How is that an incentive for Lowes? They have to pay for a building. They have to pay all their property taxes. They have to pay all regular sales taxes and they have to pay an INCREASED sales tax.

If I am not mistaken there was already money set aside to improve 24th Ave, we just haven't used it yet because it was not deemed a huge need at this time, however, the money is there.

Anyway, the TIF benefits the citizens of Emporia, not Lowes. The people of Emporia get a better street and sewer system today rather than when it is absolutely needed. All Lowes gets is a place to put a multi million dollar building but to do so they have to pay higher taxes. I am not saying boohoo for Lowes but I sure don't see the incentive that they are getting by coming here, if anything they are paying to come here.

October 30, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

City government refered to the TIF and TDD and an incentive. The developer refered to TIF as an incentive. The Buxton representative called a TIF package an incentive. Christie stated that Lowes may not come to that area without the TIF incentive. I guess you could call a duck a winged thing that quacks, but it's still a duck.

October 30, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

I want to know why you think it is an incentive and furthermore why that "incentive" outweighs the "costs" that Lowes will have to incur to come here.

IMO the only incentive Lowes gets is that they get to build where they want.

Also, the TIF is an incentive for the citizens of Emporia. By approving the TIF, we get to bring in a development to the city that will be anchored by a nice home improvement store, we get better roads etc, we get to have competition which should bring down prices and create better service, and we get to keep alot of money that is leaking from our city. That is a great incentive for our city. I want to know how you think this incentive applies to Lowes.

October 30, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

It's an incentive because the people in my previous post called it an incentive. It's an incentive because the city designated TIF specifically to lure more retail to Emporia. It's an incentive because Mr. Christie stated that he would not complete the project if not for TIF. We are giving someone something so that they will do something. That is the definition of an "incentive". If it's not an incentive, what would you call it?

I will also remind you that our Buxton rep, you know the "expert" that we paid $70,000 to, specifically said that both TIF's and TDD's as retail incentives were counterproductive. Either a retailer can afford to come here or they can't. If they can, they can pay their own development fees (just like our locally owned businesses do). If they can't, then the development will eventually blow up in our faces. By the way, if not for the Lowes, we would not need the "improvements" you cite, so who really benefits? The people that live in the immediate area of the development are some of the people fighting the hardest against it. They would use the infrastructure you cite every day, yet it seems that they don't see it as a "benefit".

October 30, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

incentive: A benefit or consideration, financial or otherwise, given to induce specific action.

I do not consider the TIF to be a benefit to Lowes. I consider it a benefit to the people of Emporia and to the developer. Obviously, if we approve a place for the developer to bring in potential businesses then he has a better chance at getting paid. Like I said, the only benefit that Lowes gets is that they get to build in what they deem "the most desireable location" available.

As you said earlier, the city designated the TIF to lure more retail to Emporia...which is true but it is done so, so that businesses will come to town and not have to worry about fixing the streets etc in order to run their business. That is the businesses benefit. The people are the ones that get the real benefit. They now have money specifically allocated to make the needed repairs and they get the new business in town, which creates jobs and alternative places to shop or eat or get service from.

Can you tell me what businesses paid their own development fees? The businesses who have been the most outspoken so far are Sutherlands and Hills. All Sutherlands had to do was remodel an existing building. The didn't have to create roads or widen streets for their location...it already existed. Same with Hill's they took over a building and remodeled it to fit their needs, but the infastructure was in place. Lowes will still pay for their whole building just like Sutherlands. They will still pay their property taxes, just like Hills. They will still pay sales tax just like everyone else, except they will pay an additional 1% more in order to pay back the city for the infastructure costs.

And btw, I live in that area. Something desparately needs done with 24th Ave. It is not a safe road IMO. The city, as I pointed out earlier, has already set aside money to pay for this however, we now get that money repaid to us....what a benefit for the city. I wonder what we will do with this new "found " money.

October 30, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

treetrunk (anonymous) says...

Let's get one thing right! The CONSUMER will be paying the 1% increase in taxes not Lowe's.

October 30, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

OK, once again, if the TIF isn't passed then Lowes doesn't come, right? So, the TIF isn't for the city, it isn't for the developer, it is for Lowes. You may not "consider" it for Lowes, but Lowes requested that the developer use a TIF to make changes to the greenfield area (per the developer) so the TIF is an incentive for Lowes requested by Lowes with income funding the TIF collected from the customers of Lowes.

Your Sutherlands and Hills references are making my case for me. We have areas that contain pre-existing infrastructure for retail. Lowes chose not to locate in those areas. They chose to instead locate in an undeveloped (yet not “blighted”) area, and because there are other alternatives available that were more in line with the city's growth strategy and comprehensive plan, they can pay for their own development IMO. If they chose to go to another area where infrastructure already existed, they would not have to pay for certain infrastructure costs, and costs would not be passed on to customers in the form of a tax increment.

We built infrastructure in a plan for growth to benefit future retail. The taxpayers already have made that investment. We have empty or underdeveloped areas that could house a larger business like a Lowes. Under this plan, empty buildings remain empty and areas that taxpayers built in anticipation of future growth remain unused. All this while a business that severely overwhelms any market leakage we have in their particular category asks for concession after concession to go into an area not planned for their specific kind of development. The TIF's and TDD's used are incentives. Our incentive strategy is contrary to what our own hired experts advised us to do as a community. And, according to the best unbiased data we have available, this development could have additional dire consequences for a community with a shrinking population and declining median income. We gave the TIF to induce the action of a Lowes development. By your own definition, this is an incentive, and it gives Lowes an unfair and unecessary business advantage.

October 30, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

momus---

I still do not see how Lowes gets and unfair and unnecessary business advantage. They have to pay the same things that everyone else does so I do not see their advantage.

The infastructure in a plan for growth to benefit future retail that you speak of, I assume, is the land on Graphic Arts Rd. The same problems with the Peak property would still be had with the other property. You would still have to put in the access ways and widen roads etc. So it's not like we are costing the city any more and actually becasue there is money allocated for 24th already we are actually saving money because we will be reimbursed for that.

And, lets also be clear that Lowes didn't ask for the TIF, the developer did. The developer is the one who benefits from the TIF. Lowes may not even come into Emporia, it might be Home Depot or someone else. That is still TBD. Lowes has shown the most interest though.

You misunderstood my Sutherland and Hills references. My point is that they could have asked for TIF/TDD if they wanted but they made the choice to remodel existing builidings. Lowes does not believe that the existing buildings available are either worth remodeling or they believe that the location is poor. So, instead of spending 1-2 million in renovations on Big Lots and being in a poor location, the are going to spend 5 million to be where they believe they can be the most successful. (I am completely making those #'s up to illustrate a point)

October 31, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

treetrunk--

You are absolutely correct that the consumer will pay the additional sales tax which will then be passed on. I misspoke or mistyped rather.

The point is still that having the higher taxes in their store is a DISadvantage not an ADvantage.

October 31, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smith_ron (anonymous) says...

Paying a little more in taxes is worth it IF (and that is a big IF) you gain a lot. It will be interesting to see what comes in once Lowe's is up and running.

October 31, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )