KCRag Forum

Still more jobs.

Maybe KC should have waited a couple years and offered C. H. Robinson incentives to move from Minneapolis to KC. That would have been the proper use of tax incentives

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... 07828.html

But Russ Welsh, the head of Polsinelli, one of Kansas City’s largest law firms, is unhappy that the Kansas City Area Development Council has recruited two West Coast-based law firms to move their administrative operations — about 375 jobs — to Kansas City

In protest he said he’s withholding Polsinelli’s 2015 development council dues, at least for the time being
...

“Any time we attract new businesses — unless the new employer will hire only unemployed people — there may be adverse effect on existing businesses, but the alternative is almost guaranteeing a stagnating economy,” John Murphy, chairman of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, said in a telephone interview Monday. “Our position is that, obviously, we’re in favor of continuing economic growth in the Kansas City region.”
...

He likened the situation to “raiding each other” to induce companies to move across the state line between Kansas and Missouri, which fails to create net job gains for the area.

Is this guy for real??? What a frickin' whining baby. He is going to say we should not recruit outside agencies because the local companies will have to work harder to higher/retain people? This guy makes no sense.

The fact that Welsh was at one time the chairperson of the Chamber makes me think of a situation in KCK. Currently they are looking to consolidate their Chamber and Economic Development entity (and actually their convention and tourism board as well) into one organization. This is a clear example of why those two should not be joined. The Chamber is a homer organization that is looking to defend turf- while the EDC type entity is looking to attract new businesses. Why would a local law firm EVER want to attract competitors?

.

You scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

pash wrote:Local firms have representation at the eco-deco agencies? Well, that helps explain the bonehead policies that amount to handing out money for nothing.

You should volunteer to assist on a board, or commission. Someone has to do these things and it's done by those who step up and give the time needed. You can impact policies by taking part.

Per the KC Star productivity is down in Kansas City.

"A Brookings report to be released today ranks Kansas City’s recovery from the recession a dismal 73rd out of 80 cities studied."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... rylink=cpy

The state line tug-of-war for jobs is cited as among the contributing factors.

While the overall growth last 2 years has been below US avg, the Brookings report is wrong about KC's GDP shrinking in 2013. At least according to the Feds, it did grow by over $1.4B...

KC (in millions $)
2012 2013
$108,800 $110,278

And KC's per capita GDP is still higher than US avg. I've noticed a lot of errors/conflicts with Brookings reports over the years. But the stateline battle could be why growth is below US avg lately.

Here's the Fed report on GDP...
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?re ... 93=levels4

loftguy wrote: The state line tug-of-war for jobs is cited as among the contributing factors.

Which was, after all, a very predicatble outcome. If you employ all your capital on cosmetic growth, you have nothing less to spend on real opportunities. I hope this message isn't lost on the economic development groups on either side of the state line and the politicians they must please.

KS side of metro employment growth last two years (up to Nov, seasonally adjusted). Started out OK but puttered out through 2014...


MO side of metro employment growth, same period. Started mild then took off end of 2014, more growth than KS overall, especially 2014...


December data may not come out until end of Fed...
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=sm

In Kansas, STAR bonds are becoming a development slush fund

But they are, if the ordinance before the UG committee on Tuesday passes the full UG Commission later this week. UG proposes pulling that $1 million in STAR bonds from the Schlitterbahn project, to cover a portion of DFA's $20 million expense in building a new headquarters.

The Pitch posed the same question to Mike Taylor, UG's public affairs director.

"The STAR Bond District in which DFA will build its world headquarters has access to STAR Bonds because of the Schlitterbahn Waterpark that is a destination attraction and was the catalyst for this District. As with other STAR Bond Districts in the State of Kansas, the STAR Bond revenues in this District will be used to pay for site work, infrastructure and other eligible improvements that benefit both destination and non-destination uses," Taylor wrote in an email. "In this case, the DFA headquarters facility is not itself a retail destination (though it is projected that significant visitation and overnight stays will result from business travelers who come to the DFA headquarters)."

So STAR bonds are meant for destination projects, except when they're not.

I found the Pitch columnists tweet today saying he's tried to get the AMC incentives from the state of KS since 2011 and still can't get response.

.

pash wrote:How is that possible? It is the Pitch, so I might actually beIieve that they don't know how to file a request under the Kansas Open Records Act. ...

No idea...I think Steve is pretty good at digging into political issues. I think states are good at finding ways around sunshine laws.

Steve Vockrodt @st_vockrodt · 6h 6 hours ago
I asked the Kansas Commerce Department AGAIN yesterday about AMC incentives. Radio silence.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Steve Vockrodt @st_vockrodt · 6h 6 hours ago
Kansas Commerce Department has been saying that about the AMC move to Leawood since 2011 in order to keep the level of incentive obscured.

They conducted the whole deal via text message on burner phones, Marlo Stanfield-style.

If this wasn't Kansas we were talking about I'd guess that there's a great chance that someone connected to the STAR bonds program eventually goes to jail.

.

pash wrote:How is that possible? It is the Pitch, so I might actually beIieve that they don't know how to file a request under the Kansas Open Records Act. ...

Maybe there aren't good records being kept at the Dept of Commerce.

I recall hearing somewhere--perhaps one of the reporters on the local TV talk shows--that Kansas really has no good compilations of data on their incentive programs.

The point made was that it's not only hard to get information from the state, but that in many cases it just doesn't exist. I came away with the impression that no studies are being done about the use of incentives or measures of results.

I wouldn't be at all surprised that at some point in the future, probably after Brownback leaves office, there is going to be a big scandal over tax incentives in Kansas. By then, he will have gotten the legislature to enact some new law protecting all government officials from prosecution.

I predict in the future we are going to learn that a lot of these incentives being given in Kansas where some political backdealing to help developers build properties, lure companies as tenants, sell the buildings to some out of state owner, or insurance/union retirement plans. Then once they have unloaded the properties and pocketed their profits, the companies jump back across the border to take advantage of Missouri incentives, and the buildings in Kansas will then have sudden vacancies. The new headquarters building on the Missouri side will be built by some of the same developers that did it in Kansas. Repeat.

there's already been conflict over one KS incentive program, I forget which one or the exact details (maybe it's in a thread here, if I knew the name I would search)

one claim was the amount in the law was the total available. the department said that was yearly or something like that. the difference between the two numbers was huge.