Saturday, May 16, 2026

Fw: Kansas City vs. Topeka

I will track down that speech.


From: jbcarpet2@aol.com <jbcarpet2@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2026 5:29 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kansas City vs. Topeka


Henry part of my speech was on control.  (Mob) I have witness on many occasions that if you are not in the loop.  You have no say!  I believe that if we can get people to attend JEDO meetings so they see for themselves where the money is going they will be more in favor of removing Go Topeka.  Once Mr. Perez speaks about raising the  water rates by 6 percent will open the door to give people an alternative. To get rid of Go Topeka, Maybe those guys who ran for mayor will speak.  

On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 4:28 PM, Henry McClure
<mcre13@gmail.com> wrote:
Topeka vs. Kansas City: Two Approaches to Economic Development — One Welcomes Private Investment, the Other Often Blocks It
Topeka and Kansas City (the broader metro spanning Missouri and Kansas sides) are both in the same state ecosystem, yet they handle private-sector growth in strikingly different ways. This contrast is clearest in cases like the rejected Maverik project in Topeka versus Kansas City’s aggressive pursuit of large travel centers and logistics investments.
1. Scale, Ambition, and Results
  • Kansas City Metro: Actively courts and fast-tracks major private investments, especially along highways like I-70 and in logistics hubs. Examples include:
    KC leaders view these as catalytic: more traveler spending, tax base growth, and strengthened logistics (critical since trucking dominates U.S. freight).
    • Buc-ee’s in Kansas City, Kansas (Wyandotte County): A massive $95 million, 74,000 sq ft travel center with 120+ gas pumps, EV chargers, and hundreds of parking spots. Broke ground in late 2025 near Kansas Speedway after approvals and ~$13 million in tax incentives for infrastructure. Expected to create 200+ jobs and draw millions of travelers.
    • Wally’s Travel Center in Independence, MO: World’s largest planned Wally’s (54,000 sq ft, 84 pumps) on a former big-box site off I-70. Unanimous approvals, with the developer funding major road upgrades.
    • Broader successes: Logistics Park Kansas City (hundreds of millions in private investment, thousands of jobs), major expansions by companies like Americold, and ongoing TIF/Opportunity Zone projects that turn blighted land into revenue generators.
  • Topeka: Strong on stability (ranked #5 nationally for economic strength in some 2024 reports) but struggles with execution on market-driven projects. The Maverik proposal — private redevelopment of a long-vacant I-70 motel site into a modern convenience/truck stop — was approved by the Planning Commission (twice) but rejected 9-1 by City Council in August 2025 over traffic and school concerns. No similar large travel center wins on prime corridors.
2. How They Use (or Don’t Use) Incentives and Tools
  • Kansas City: Proactively deploys a full toolkit — Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Chapter 353 abatements, Opportunity Zones, sales tax incentives, and public-private partnerships. They invest in infrastructure (roads, utilities) to unlock private dollars, often requiring developers to contribute significantly (as with Wally’s and Buc-ee’s). The Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City (EDCKC) and Unified Government focus on maximizing private investment and blight removal.
  • Topeka: Relies heavily on the $5 million annual half-cent sales tax via JEDO/Go Topeka for incentives, marketing, and targeted deals (e.g., Magellan Financial expansion with $1.4M incentives for 175 jobs). This works for some expansions but creates the hypocrisy you’ve highlighted: taxpayer money chases deals while a zero-incentive, private Maverik project on a blighted site gets killed by NIMBY opposition.
3. Handling NIMBY Concerns and Process
  • Kansas City: Balances local input but prioritizes citywide benefits. Large travel centers get approved with mitigations (turn lanes, improvements funded by developers). Leadership frames them as economic wins that improve corridors long-term.
  • Topeka: Localized concerns (Fairlawn traffic, Landon Middle School safety) dominated the Maverik debate. Council sided with vocal residents over broader tax revenue, jobs (20–50+), and blight removal. The process allows emotional testimony to override data-driven Planning Commission recommendations.
4. Outcomes for Everyday Residents
  • Kansas City attracts more private capital, creates visible growth (new jobs, cleaner sites, stronger logistics), and generates sales/property taxes that support services. It’s not perfect — traffic and rapid change bring challenges — but the metro grows faster in diversified sectors (logistics, tech, health).
  • Topeka maintains lower costs of living and government stability but risks stagnation: vacant lots stay vacant, potential tax revenue is lost, and the $5M economic development spend yields fewer “walk-in” wins. Blight persists on key gateways like I-70.
The Core Difference: Kansas City treats economic development as a partnership with private markets — remove barriers, provide targeted help where needed, and say “yes” when a solid project shows up. Topeka’s bureaucracy and council politics often say “maybe… but no” to the very projects their $5M machine is supposed to celebrate.
This isn’t about one city being “better” overall. Topeka has advantages in affordability and stability. But on turning private investment into real growth — especially on underused commercial land along major highways — Kansas City’s proactive, pro-development mindset delivers results that Topeka’s approach currently does not.
Voters in Topeka should ask: Why are we paying millions to attract business while rejecting the ones that arrive ready to build? Kansas City shows a clearer path — one that welcomes shovel-ready projects like Maverik instead of sending them packing. Topeka can adopt that mindset without losing its character. It starts with leadership that prioritizes the broader economic good over the loudest neighborhood voices.



From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2026 4:17 PM
To: dbanks8487@yahoo.com <dbanks8487@yahoo.com>; sduncan@topeka.org <sduncan@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; molly.howey@topekapartnership.com <molly.howey@topekapartnership.com>; tquinn@cjonline.com <tquinn@cjonline.com>; Victoria Calhoun <victoria.calhoun@ksnt.com>; Melissa Brunner <melissa.brunner@wibw.com>; MCRE Media <mcre1.9999@blogger.com>; James L. Bolden Jr. <jbcarpet2@aol.com>; Charles Baylor <cbaylor1@hotmail.com>
Subject: Real News - But it starts with calling out the hypocrisy.

Topeka’s Economic Development Hypocrisy: We Pay Millions to Attract Business — Then Slam the Door in Its Face
By Henry McClure
Topeka, we have a problem.
Every year, Shawnee County taxpayers hand over roughly $5 million from our half-cent sales tax to the Joint Economic Development Organization (JEDO) and Go Topeka. That money pays for incentives, marketing campaigns, workforce programs, and glossy pitches telling the world we’re “open for business.” Officials celebrate every deal that brings a handful of jobs or a few million in private investment, bragging about return on investment and economic multipliers.
Then a real, private-sector company walks in the door — no taxpayer handouts required — and we send it packing.
That’s exactly what happened last August with Maverik, the fast-growing, trucker-friendly convenience and fuel chain. Maverik wanted to redevelop the long-vacant former Ramada West/Holidome property at 605 SW Fairlawn — prime real estate right off I-70. Their plan: a modern ~6,000-square-foot store with fresh food, 10 car fueling islands, dedicated truck lanes, and a scale. It was exactly the kind of high-volume travel center that fits perfectly on a major interstate corridor.
The Topeka Planning Commission reviewed it thoroughly. They approved it — twice. First the full truck-friendly version, then a scaled-back proposal with just the convenience store and car pumps after neighbors raised concerns. Traffic studies were done. Mitigations were offered.
On August 12, 2025, the City Council voted 9-1 to reject the entire project. Only Councilman David Banks had the courage to vote yes. The rest cited traffic on Fairlawn and safety fears for students at nearby Landon Middle School. One more eyesore stays empty. One more private investment that required zero city dollars is gone.
Think about that for a second.
We spend $5 million a year of your sales tax money to chase economic development. We offer tax breaks and grants to companies that want public assistance. Yet when a business shows up with its own money, sees market demand on I-70, and is ready to turn a blighted, tax-producing-nothing vacant lot into jobs, property taxes, sales taxes, and fuel taxes, we kill it over neighborhood complaints that could have been addressed.
This isn’t just bad policy. It’s hypocrisy on a grand scale.
Maverik wasn’t asking for millions in incentives. They weren’t demanding special treatment. They simply wanted to operate where travelers and truckers already stop — the backbone of America’s economy. Trucking moves over 70% of domestic freight. A quality fuel-and-food stop like Maverik strengthens logistics, supports local jobs (20–50 positions per site with benefits), clears blight, and generates ongoing tax revenue from a site that has contributed exactly zero for years.
Instead, we get to keep looking at weeds and cracked pavement while Go Topeka keeps spending your money on the next PowerPoint presentation.
The average voter gets this. You work hard, pay your taxes, and watch your city struggle with vacant properties, stagnant growth, and budget pressures. Then you hear officials talk endlessly about “attracting investment” while the same officials — responding to organized neighborhood pressure and emotional testimony — block the investment that actually showed up.
This isn’t about being anti-neighbor or anti-safety. Traffic and school zones matter. But so does the bigger picture: a stronger tax base that funds better roads, schools, and services for everyone — including the families on Fairlawn. Rejecting shovel-ready private development on a blighted site doesn’t make the corridor safer or quieter. It just guarantees the problems of vacancy and lost opportunity continue.
Topeka deserves better. We deserve leaders who understand that economic development isn’t just about the deals we chase with taxpayer dollars. It’s also about not killing the ones that arrive on their own.
The next time Go Topeka or JEDO asks for another round of your half-cent sales tax money, remember the Maverik site. Remember the 9-1 vote. Remember that while they’re busy “creating” development with your cash, real development got shown the door.
Voters, it’s time to hold them accountable. Demand that economic development means saying yes to private investment that actually builds Topeka — not just funding another bureaucracy that talks a good game.
The vacant lot at Fairlawn and 6th is still waiting. So are the jobs, the taxes, and the progress that could have been there today.
It’s not too late to change course. But it starts with calling out the hypocrisy.




Time Kills Deals 
785.383.9994
H
444
on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)