Tuesday, March 20, 2007
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.
Note: LJWorld.
com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. For more information, see our .
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 4:43 a.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 5:25 a.
m. ( )
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
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 5:54 a.m.
( )
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
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 7:25 a.m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 8:09 a.
m. ( )
Oh, no, Bozo..
.it CAN T be that. That wouldn t make for good letters to the editor by growth-at-any-cost nuts!
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?
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 8:23 a.
m. ( )
The chamber will never be happy until business taxes are zero, taxpayers subsidize investments like plant expansions or store expansions, and all the profits remain with the owners of capital tax free.
Like Gecko says in Wall Street, Greed is good.
This is the Chamber theme.
And their candidates, Dever, Chestnut and Bush believe the same.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 10:42 a.
m. ( )
Mr. Peaslee apparently has never understood the story of migration.
Of folks immigrating and heading west and other points north, south and east for a better life. It is not a community s responsiblity to further Mr. Peaslee s occupation.
If he needs work, he goes where the work is. Does Peaslee care that the workers at Amaar Garage Door have had their hours cut? There employment is reduced not because of the city commission.
It is because of the housing industry. One would suppose that Peaslee supports a new library in hopes that the sub contractors will get some work. Public projects do not breathe life into a community.
.only more debt.
Sorry Peaslee,,,your chamber buddies should have promoted the Delaware Tribe with a Casino proposal.
Like it or not...
.there will be one coming to the area and then the JW will tout about how great it is.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 11:34 a.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. ( )
I quote from a planner from OPKS whatever lawrence does we put it on a list of things not to do.
end quote.
While I think Lawrence has a lot of work to do, I would say that the inverse of that quote is valid as well, seeings that OP SUCKS (I grew up there), and the last thing Lawrence wants to do is emulate OP.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at noon ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 12:06 p.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 12:08 p.
m. ( )
Posted by hawkperchedatriverfront (anonymous) on March 20, 2007 at 10:42 a.m.
Public projects do not breathe life into a community..only more debt.
*********************************************
Oops. There goes the looney left economic model of the New Deal they continue to cling to.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 12:11 p.
m. ( )
Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on March 20, 2007 at 11:43 a.m.
While I think Lawrence has a lot of work to do, I would say that the inverse of that quote is valid as well, seeings that OP SUCKS (I grew up there), and the last thing Lawrence wants to do is emulate OP.
*********************************************
Apparently not EVERYTHING Overland Park does sucks, seeing as how all three of the GR/PLC candidates think OP-style impact fees are just the ticket for the construction industry in town.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 12:17 p.
m. ( )
All of the commissioners state that the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce is primarily responsible for attracting new business and that the City in part pays for the LCC.
City Manager City Commiss are responsible for running the city for the citizens.
Job creation in the midst of a WAR, and in the midst of other parts of the country booming while we are here in between Johnson County
and elsewhere does not necessariy make it easy to lure business here.
The Chamber is better at this than anyone -- encourage them -- but i DO NOT want the commissioners to be in
charge of recruiting business developement !
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 12:45 p.
m. ( )
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?
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 1:10 p.
m. ( )
don t forget that the less growth occured during a WAR
and after losing over 6 MILLION jobs to China since 2000 !
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 1:25 p.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 1:40 p.m.
( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. ( )
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
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. ( )
What about the MERC wanting to grow and put the farmers market in the parking lot,PROFIT BEFORE PUBLIC SAFETY but thats ok
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 2:32 p.
m. ( )
Godot wrote: Considering that everyone you just listed lives on money provided by the taxpayers, the answer is: a paycheck.
Oh, yeah, that makes sense.
So, if Lawrence had stayed the same size as in 1987, all of those people who were employed then would have lost their jobs?
I just don t think you understand how ignorant you seem to the rest of us.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 3:11 p.
m. ( )
To hear those who don t see the value in tax abatements tell it, we are.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 3:14 p.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 5:19 p.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 6:02 p.m. ( )
Posted by merrill (anonymous) on March 20, 2007 at 5:19 p.
m.
VOTE IN Carey Maynard-Moody,Dennis Boog Highberger and David Schauner.
*********************************************
Hurry, April!
Adios, Three Stooges!
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 6:20 p.m.
( )
this whole letter is OFF.
part of our slow growth is because we are next door
to Johnson County which has plenty of money and corporate welfare and investment in SPRAWL.
they suck up all of the available investment money in other words.
Posted by ( ) on March 20, 2007 at 9:52 p.m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 9:12 a.m.
( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. ( )
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).
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 9:56 a.m.
( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 10:50 a.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 11:19 a.m.
( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 12:03 p.
m. ( )
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?
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. ( )
Pilgrim,,,read Keynesian theory.
Good material whilst you sit on the bathroom throne .
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 12:37 p.m.
( )
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.
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 12:41 p.m.
( )
The downward spiral does not have to happen if cities, and public entities put their budgets under control. Lawrence like many other cities need to go in for a stomach stapling job. WE NEED THE BRAIN back.
...
call Corliss about the REWARD...
.pray REVEREND Bush for the return of the brain. Please leave it a The Bird on Friday after the lunch buffet.
...
put it in the back of the beat up pickup truck with the bumper sticker...
reading...
I LOVE LAWRENCE .
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 12:43 p.m.
( )
Got any specifics that you would cut, Hawk?
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 1:05 p.m.
( )
Posted by hawkperchedatriverfront (anonymous) on March 21, 2007 at 12:24 p.m.
Pilgrim,,,read Keynesian theory.
Good material whilst you sit on the bathroom throne .
*********************************************
I started to, then found a better use for it while I was in there.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 1:08 p.
m. ( )
Posted by Pilgrim (anonymous) on March 20, 2007 at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by deec (anonymous) on March 20, 2007 at 1:57 p.m.
To hear those who don t see the value in tax abatements tell it, we are.
========================================
Posted by Meatwad (anonymous) on March 20, 2007 at 9:52 p.m.
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.
*********************************************
See what I mean?
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 1:11 p.m.
( )
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?
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 4:09 p.
m. ( )
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.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 4:18 p.
m. ( )
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 4:22 p.m.
( )
I d ask the same of you, 458, but your disability is pretty obvious.
Posted by ( ) on March 21, 2007 at 4:39 p.m.
( )
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.
(Requires free . Your account will also work, if you have one.)
Have you been affected by the recent pet food recall?
"Absolutely. I just picked my cat up from the vet. She was sick, so they checked her kidney functions and they were fine.
I checked the product code on the Web site and they matched, so I’m going to send it back.
News RSS