West Ridge Mall is next

Oh, sure, let's dive into this glorious saga of Topeka's "innovation" efforts, where public dollars vanish into the pockets of the well-connected faster than a bad idea in a boardroom. Because nothing says "fiscal responsibility" like pouring millions into Version 1.0, watching it flop spectacularly, and then doubling down on Version 2.0 with even more taxpayer cash handed over to chamber cronies. Follow the money, indeed—it's like a breadcrumb trail leading straight to the same old insiders' feast. But hey, who needs balanced budgets when you've got shiny hubs for "startups" that might employ a handful of people while the city scrambles for $15 million just to keep the lights on? Let's compare and contrast these two gems, shall we?

The Epic Fail: Innovation Center 1.0 at the Former Wolfe's Camera Building

Ah, the original ASTRA Innovation Center—announced with all the fanfare of a taxpayer-funded fireworks show back in 2021. GO Topeka swooped in on the historic Wolfe's Camera Shop at 635 S. Kansas Ave. (a beloved 97-year-old staple that shuttered just months before, because why not repurpose a local icon into a money pit?). They hyped it as a $14.5 million marvel, partnering with some California outfit called BioRealty to transform it and two adjacent buildings into a hub for innovators, complete with labs, co-working spaces, and dreams of attracting tech whiz kids to downtown Topeka.

But reality hit like a dropped camera lens. By 2022, they were giving "sneak peeks" of the renovations, but the whole thing never really took off. Plans "fell through" amid vague excuses—maybe low usage, maybe overambitious scope, or perhaps just the classic mismatch between hype and actual demand in a city where "innovation" often means repackaging the same old economic development schtick. Fast-forward to 2025, and the building's back on the market for $2.85 million, sitting empty like a forgotten film roll. Investment? A cool chunk of that $14.5 million evaporated into thin air, courtesy of JEDO sales tax funds. Outcomes? Minimal job creation, no game-changing startups, and a big fat "what was that all about?" from locals. It was small-scale (just a few buildings' worth of space), underutilized, and ultimately abandoned because, apparently, Topeka's entrepreneurial spirit couldn't fill even that modest footprint. A true testament to throwing good money after bad— or should I say, our money.

The Shiny Sequel: Innovation Center 2.0 (Link Innovation Labs) at the Former AT&T Building

Enter the "upgrade" in late 2024: GO Topeka pivots to the old AT&T call center at 220 SE 6th St., rebranded as the Link Innovation Center. Owned by AIM Strategies (those savvy developers co-founded by Cody Foster of Advisors Excel fame—because of course it's an inside job), this one's triple the size at around 18,000 square feet on the first floor alone, with wet and dry labs, pitch rooms, phone booths, and all the bells and whistles to make it sound like Silicon Valley's distant cousin. Groundbreaking in June 2025, grand opening in February 2026, and voilà—another $15 million project, including that infamous $9.5 million "gift" from GO Topeka's coffers (again, your sales taxes at work).

Supposedly, it's bigger and better to accommodate more "plug and play" accelerators, events, and talent attraction. They claim it'll create jobs and revitalize downtown, but let's be real: it's essentially subsidizing a private landlord with public funds while the city manager whines about a $15 million shortfall. Connections? Oh, plenty—AIM's ties to the Greater Topeka Partnership board scream favoritism, where chamber members and GO Topeka insiders pat each other on the back and pass around the JEDO pot like it's their personal slush fund. Stinks to high heaven? Absolutely, like a deal marinated in cronyism and sprinkled with excuses about "economic growth." Sure, it might host a few events or startups, but at what cost? More than the original flop, with less accountability.

Side-by-Side Smackdown: Compare and Contrast

• Size and Scope: 1.0 was a cozy, historic rehab—charming but cramped, meant for basic co-working and innovation vibes. 2.0? Supersized corporate makeover, with fancy labs and room to grow (or echo emptily, depending on turnout). Advantage: 2.0 for ambition, but 1.0 at least tried to preserve local history instead of just slapping "innovation" on a bland office building.
• Investment and Funding: Both sucked from the same sales tax teat via GO Topeka/JEDO, but 1.0's $14.5 million promise fizzled, while 2.0's $15 million (including $9.5M direct to AIM) feels like overkill. Sarcasm alert: How generous of our "leaders" to escalate the spending after the first failure—because if at first you don't succeed, throw more of our money at your buddies!
• Outcomes and "Success": 1.0 crashed and burned—plans collapsed, building sold off, minimal impact. 2.0 is too new to judge, but if history's any guide, it'll be hailed as a win by the chamber crowd while quietly underperforming. One's a proven dud; the other's a potential sequel flop in the making.
• Favoritism Factor: 1.0 involved out-of-town partners (BioRealty), but still smelled of insider dealing. 2.0 takes it up a notch with local heavy-hitters like AIM Strategies directly benefiting—oh, the sweet aroma of public-private "partnerships" where the public foots the bill and private pals reap the rewards. It's not corruption; it's just "business as usual" in Topeka, where board members gift each other our dough like it's Christmas every day.
• Why the Move?: Officially, for more space and better facilities after 1.0 didn't cut it. Unofficially? Because why fix a failure when you can abandon it and start fresh with even more largesse to the elite? It's like upgrading from a lemon car to a luxury SUV, all on the taxpayer's dime.

In the end, this whole charade highlights how Topeka's government bends over backward for the chamber elite while the rest of us deal with crumbling infrastructure and budget woes. If this deal doesn't reek of favoritism gone wild, I don't know what does—maybe they should rename it the "Crony Capital Center." Got more dirt on this, Henry, or want to rant about the next "innovation" boondoggle?

This is where you insert the Hotel Topeka article.

 

Chas.

The first brewery in what is now the United States was established around 1612 or 1632 by Dutch explorers and the Dutch West India Company on the southern tip of Manhattan Island (New Amsterdam). It was located near what is now Battery Park or on Brewer Street (modern-day Stone Street). [1, 2, 3, 4]  

Key details regarding early American breweries: 

• Earliest Known: Adrian Block and Hans Christiansen set up a brew-house on Manhattan around 1612 to supply traders. 

• Commercial Operation: The Dutch West India Company built a more formalized, large-scale brewery in 1632, also in New Amsterdam. 

• Oldest Operating: While not the first, Yuengling (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/celebrate-national-beer-day-visiting-oldest-breweries-america-180954894/) in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, is the oldest operating brewery in the US, founded in 1829. 

• Other Early Sites: Boston (1637) and Philadelphia (1685) followed with their own breweries. [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]  

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

[1] https://www.bucketlistbars.com/news-articles/173-what-was-the-first-brewery-in-america

[2] https://www.alcoholprofessor.com/blog-posts/a-brief-history-of-beer-in-america

[3] https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/101/history_american_beer/

[4] https://www.facebook.com/BeerGoals/posts/the-first-american-brewery-established-by-the-dutch-west-india-company-opened-in/461881263120782/

[5] https://www.yuengling.com/our-history/

[6] https://washingtonbeerblog.com/fourth-of-july-celebrate-early-american-beer-history/

[7] https://www.dummies.com/article/home-auto-hobbies/food-drink/beverages/beer/american-beer-history-through-the-19th-century-178651/

[8] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/celebrate-national-beer-day-visiting-oldest-breweries-america-180954894/

Henry McClure

785.383.9994 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

Beer

The most unique aspect of beer brewing is the reliance on spontaneous fermentation (or using specific, cultured yeast) combined with the use of female hop flowers for preservation and aroma, a process dating back thousands of years. This ancient, yet highly scientific, process creates a unique, complex beverage from just four key ingredients: water, malt, hops, and yeast. [1, 2, 3, 4]  

Unique Aspects & Examples 

• Spontaneous Fermentation (Lambic/Sour Beer): Instead of adding cultured yeast, brewers expose the wort to open air, allowing wild yeast and bacteria to create complex, sour, and earthy flavors. 

• Female Hop Flowers: Only the female component of the hop plant is used for brewing, acting as a natural preservative and adding bitterness. 

• Historical Recipes: Ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, and European "groot" (herbal mix) brews used ingredients like mugwort and yarrow. 

• Extreme Alcohol Content: Modern techniques, such as the 67.5% ABV "Snake Venom," show how brewing science can create extreme, high-proof products, notes West Sixth Brewing (https://www.westsixth.com/westsixthblog/2024/10/brewed-in-history-fascinating-amp-fearsome-facts-about-beer-for-spooky-season). [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7]  

Synonyms for Unique Brewing Aspects 

• Fermentation process: Brewing, mashing, boiling, lautering, or brewing science. 

• Hop component: Humulus lupulus, female flowers, bittering agents. 

• Spontaneous fermentation: Wild fermentation, open-air brewing, souring. 

• Ingredient blend: "Groot" (historic), Mash, Wort. [2, 3, 5, 8, 9]  

Other unique elements include using specialized yeast for Viking brew sticks, and the creation of "small beer" as a low-alcohol daily staple. [2, 5]  

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNysuc3n_gc

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3oeSLsOh-s

[3] https://stanleyparkbrewing.com/blogs/news/secrets-of-beer-brewery

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-brewing-in-a-beer-is-startling-complexity/

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5gryMFtf4o

[6] https://synergybrew.com/10-facts-you-probably-didnt-know-about-beer/

[7] https://www.westsixth.com/westsixthblog/2024/10/brewed-in-history-fascinating-amp-fearsome-facts-about-beer-for-spooky-season

[8] https://miamibrewing.com/15-fun-facts-about-craft-beer-and-miami-brewing-companys-special-artisanal-beer/

[9] https://blog.homebrewing.org/10-fun-facts-about-beer-and-homebrewing/

Henry McClure

785.383.9994 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

In a city like Topeka, where infrastructure spending is vital for growth, Dobler's arrangements undermine accountability.

Neil Dobler: A Career Marked by Public Service, Private Profit, and Questionable Overlaps

Neil Dobler, a civil engineer by training, has built a long career straddling the public and private sectors in Topeka, Kansas. With degrees from Kansas State University (B.S. in Civil Engineering) and the University of Kansas (Master's in Public Administration), Dobler's professional path reflects a classic Midwestern ascent through municipal bureaucracy and engineering consulting. However, his trajectory—particularly his seamless transitions between city government roles and a lucrative position at Bartlett & West—raises serious red flags about conflicts of interest, insider cronyism, and the erosion of public trust in local governance. While Dobler has been lauded for his expertise in infrastructure and community involvement, including inductions into the Topeka Business Hall of Fame in 2016 and service on boards like the Capper Foundation, his dual roles have often blurred the lines between serving the public and advancing personal and corporate interests. This deep dive examines his career progression, city council tenure, relationships with colleagues, and the troubling nexus with Bartlett & West's city contracts.

Early Career and Rise in Topeka City Government

Dobler's entry into Topeka's public sector began in 1989, shortly after relocating to the city despite initial reluctance—he once admitted in a 2021 interview that he "really didn't have any desire to be here 33 years ago" but stayed after a job opportunity shifted from Kansas City. Hired as a project engineer in the City of Topeka's Public Works Department, he focused on transportation and stormwater projects. His early work included managing stormwater modeling efforts and contributing to high-profile initiatives like the formation of a stormwater utility for the city. By 1995, Dobler had left municipal employment for a stint in the private sector with an unnamed engineering firm, a move that allowed him to gain broader industry experience before returning to public service.

In 2001, Dobler rejoined the City of Topeka as Director of Public Works, a promotion that placed him at the helm of critical infrastructure operations. In this role, he oversaw projects such as the I-70/I-470 Interchange and the Oakland Expressway, demonstrating his technical prowess in urban planning and engineering. His leadership extended to collaborations with entities like the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and Shawnee County, as evidenced by his testimony in 2003 legislative committee meetings on water supply and public works issues.

Dobler's ascent peaked in 2005 when he was appointed as Topeka's first interim city manager, a position he held until March 2006. This role involved overseeing the city's entire administrative operations during a transitional period, giving him intimate knowledge of municipal budgeting, contracting, and decision-making processes. Critics might argue this period solidified his insider status, equipping him with insights that would later benefit his private-sector endeavors. Indeed, just months after stepping down, Dobler jumped ship to Bartlett & West, an employee-owned engineering firm headquartered in Topeka, where he became Senior Vice President overseeing the public works division. This revolving-door move exemplifies how public officials can leverage government experience for private gain, often at the expense of transparent governance.

City Council Tenure: Appointment, Elections, and Length of Service

Dobler's return to public office came in November 2019, when he was appointed to the Topeka City Council for District 7 by a 7-2 vote of the governing body. He filled a vacancy left by Aaron Mays, who resigned to join the Shawnee County Commission (Mays had replaced Bob Archer after his resignation). Topeka City Council terms are four years, with elections staggered between odd- and even-numbered districts. Dobler's initial appointment covered the remainder of the term, amounting to about two years.

In 2021, he sought and won a full term, defeating challenger Joel Campbell in the November general election. Campaigning on priorities like infrastructure, public safety, and community development, Dobler emphasized his engineering background and prior city experience. He indicated this might be his last term, aiming to "institute meaningful change" over six total years of service.

Dobler chose not to seek reelection in 2025, with Michelle Bradberry winning the District 7 seat in November and assuming office in January 2026. Thus, his total council tenure spanned from November 2019 to January 2026—approximately six years and two months. During this time, he served as Deputy Mayor for one-year terms in 2023 and possibly parts of adjacent years, a rotating position elected by council peers. As Deputy Mayor, he often read proclamations on topics like Constitution Week, BIPOC Mental Health Awareness Month, and the Americans with Disabilities Act anniversary, projecting an image of community-focused leadership.

Relationships with City Council Colleagues

Dobler's council relationships appear collegial, rooted in shared committee work and public appearances. He served on the Public Works Infrastructure Committee alongside members like Sylvia Ortiz and David Banks, where he frequently praised collaborations with KDOT and other entities. His engineering expertise likely fostered respect among peers, as seen in joint events like ribbon cuttings (e.g., with Councilwoman Michelle Hoferer at a childcare center opening). Dobler worked closely with Mayor Michael Padilla, who presented him with recognitions upon leaving the Deputy Mayor role.

He also maintained ties to broader Topeka leadership, serving on boards like the Greater Topeka Partnership and JEDO (Joint Economic Development Organization), where he interacted with figures like Shawnee County Commissioner Kevin Cook and other council members. Recent X posts highlight his alignment with colleagues like Spencer Duncan on issues like city annexation, emphasizing purposeful growth and resource focus. However, these relationships often intersected with his Bartlett & West role, potentially influencing decisions in ways that favored his employer.

Critical Analysis: Insider Involvement with Bartlett & West and City Contracts

Neil Dobler's entanglement with Bartlett & West and Topeka's municipal contracts is nothing short of a glaring conflict of interest, emblematic of the cronyism that plagues small-city politics. Joining the firm in 2006 immediately after his interim city manager stint, Dobler brought invaluable insider knowledge—details on city needs, bidding processes, and key decision-makers—that gave Bartlett & West an unfair competitive edge. As Senior VP, he directly oversaw public works projects, many of which looped back to his former employer: the City of Topeka.

Over the years, Bartlett & West has secured numerous lucrative contracts with the city, often in areas Dobler once managed. For instance, in 2025, the firm was involved as a consultant on the California Bridge over I-70 replacement (Project No. 70-89 KA-6808-01), where Dobler, as a committee member, effusively praised the KDOT partnership during an October meeting—conveniently overlooking his firm's role. This project, set to begin in January 2026, includes design, traffic management, and aesthetic enhancements, with Bartlett & West's Brian Armstrong presenting details alongside KDOT.

Other examples abound: Bartlett & West facilitated a 2016 GO Topeka board meeting on signage and landscaping, with Dobler leading the discussion. In April 2025, the city approved a professional engineering contract with the firm for design and construction documents on unspecified projects. A November 2024 governing body agenda referenced a standard agreement for engineering services with Bartlett & West. These contracts, while competitively bid in theory, benefit from Dobler's influence—his committee roles and relationships allow him to shape discussions that could steer work toward his employer.

Dobler's 2020 advocacy in NSPE's PE Magazine for "staff augmentation"—outsourcing city work to private firms like Bartlett & West amid staffing shortages—further exposes his bias. This isn't neutral advice; it's self-serving promotion that funnels taxpayer dollars to his company, potentially inflating costs and sidelining competitors. Even if he recuses himself from direct votes on Bartlett & West contracts, his pervasive presence in infrastructure committees and endorsements create an environment ripe for favoritism.

In a city like Topeka, where infrastructure spending is vital for growth, Dobler's arrangements undermine accountability. His decision not to run in 2025 might stem from growing scrutiny, but it doesn't erase years of blurred lines. Taxpayers deserve better: mandatory cooling-off periods for former officials, stricter ethics rules, and transparent bidding to prevent such insider deals. Dobler's legacy? A cautionary tale of how personal networks can prioritize profit over public good.

More about Neil

Bartlett & West is a prominent employee-owned engineering firm headquartered in Topeka, Kansas. Founded in 1951 by Charlie West and Harry "Bus" Bartlett as a small, entrepreneurial partnership, the company began with land development projects, including contributions to the Kansas Turnpike. Over the decades, it has grown steadily into a nationally recognized multi-disciplinary leader, celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2026.

Today, Bartlett & West employs more than 475 employee-owners and operates offices across the Midwest and beyond. As a 100% employee-owned company (ESOP), it emphasizes a client-focused culture, community involvement, and innovative solutions. The firm has earned accolades such as repeated rankings among the nation's Top 500 Design Firms by Engineering News-Record (ENR)—most recently for an 18th consecutive year—and recognition as one of the best places to work.

Specializing in building stronger, smarter, more connected infrastructure, Bartlett & West offers a wide range of services, including:

• Civil and structural engineering
• Transportation (roads, highways, rail)
• Water supply, wastewater, and stormwater management
• Energy and renewable energy solutions (including biogas)
• Site development, landscape architecture
• Surveying, construction management, and GIS
• Strategic planning and asset management

The firm's work supports communities and industries nationwide, from rural water systems to transmission lines and industrial parks. With a commitment to sustainability, technology integration, and giving back through volunteerism and philanthropy, Bartlett & West continues to lead communities toward a better tomorrow.

(Word count: 248)