Subject: Re: Sales Tax
Karen,
I appreciate the offer to sit down, but there’s a reason politicians prefer not to put things in writing — it creates a record and holds people accountable.
I’m happy to continue this conversation in writing so the residents of District 1 can see exactly where you stand on the misuse of existing sales tax revenue, the $125 million managed by Go Topeka, the repeated failures of their innovation center efforts, and your votes that affect the district.
If you’d rather not address these issues on the record, that’s your choice. But I won’t be doing private off-the-record chats while taxpayer dollars continue to be spent with little results.
Best regards, Henry McClure
From: Karen A. Hiller <khiller@Topeka.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2026 11:21 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sales Tax
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2026 11:21 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sales Tax
Hi, Henry -
Your facts are not totally straight in either one of your e-mails.. but you bring up some good points too. I'm not going to take you on in writing on either, but I'd be happy to sit down some time and chat with you about both.
Best regards,
Karen
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
Get Outlook for Android
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2026 20:48:31
To: Karen A. Hiller <khiller@topeka.org>
Subject: Sales Tax
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2026 20:48:31
To: Karen A. Hiller <khiller@topeka.org>
Subject: Sales Tax
Subject: A Few Business Realities on the Innovation Center Efforts
Dear Karen,
I know you care deeply about economic development in Topeka and are often one of the most vocal voices on these issues. Because of that, I wanted to share a few practical observations about the innovation center projects in the hope they might be helpful.
As you know, BioRealty spent over four years trying to deliver the ASTRA Innovation Center on Kansas Avenue. They purchased the buildings, invested their own time and money, worked with local partners, and repeatedly updated Go Topeka and JEDO. Despite that professional effort, the project did not move forward. That’s a clear sign that even an experienced developer struggled to make the numbers and the partnership work.
Now it appears we are preparing to launch a similar effort — sometimes referred to as “BioRealty 2.0” — this time in the Link Building, with a proposed $9.5 million commitment of sales tax dollars to another group. I’m genuinely curious how we expect this new attempt to succeed where the last one, led by professionals who actually bought the property, could not.
Go Topeka was unable to help BioRealty close the deal over four years. What exactly will be different this time that will allow success in the Link Building? Have the market conditions, leasing economics, construction costs, or partnership terms suddenly become much more favorable? Or are we simply hoping for a different outcome with the same approach?
These are not small dollars. Taxpayer money is finite, and downtown redevelopment projects are complex, expensive, and risky even under the best of circumstances. Before moving forward with another large commitment, it might be wise to take a hard look at why the first effort stalled and what concrete changes have been made to address those problems.
I’m happy to discuss the real estate and development side of these projects in more detail if it would be helpful. Sometimes the view from the development trenches is a little different than it appears from the meeting room.
Best regards,
Henry McClure MCRE, LLC Topeka, Kansas
