Kansas Citians stepped forward recently to support the city we’ve built. By voting to raise our property taxes, we are taking on the responsibility for fixing our leaking pipes, deteriorating roads and broken sidewalks.
It’s a big step, and the impact could be anywhere from significant to a drop in the bucket.
The amount of new funding will definitely make a difference, but $800 million is only a fraction of the funding needed to adequately maintain the massive network of infrastructure we’ve developed. Our city leaders told us as much during the recent campaign.
Even with these additional taxes, the total property tax we pay to maintain our infrastructure is at least five times short of what is needed when you account for the estimated $4 billion price tag to fix the aged combined sewer and stormwater system. It could easily be 10 times short, perhaps much more. On balance, our streets, sidewalks and utilities are going to continue to deteriorate faster than we can afford to repair them.
We’re not likely ever to increase our taxes to the amount necessary to maintain the infrastructure we’ve built. The cost is unreasonable. Perhaps had we known 70 years ago the implications of maintaining the expansive development we have since built, we would have reconsidered. Kansas City is not alone. Every major city in the country is upside down, with commitments and liabilities exceeding the resources needed.
Still, we can make a significant impact with this new infrastructure funding if we are strategic.
Every city has areas that can be considered productive, where private properties generate more tax revenue than it costs to provide and maintain the public infrastructure that supports those areas. The Country Club Plaza, parts of downtown, and many of our core neighborhoods are examples in Kansas City.
As you might expect, cities also have areas that are effectively money pits, where the cost to construct and maintain streets, utilities and public services exceeds the tax revenue those areas generate. Traditionally these have been lower density residential areas, but over the past 70 years, most of what has been built, including residential and commercial, has been at the lowest densities in the history of city building. This is a primary reason why we’re so upside down in our ability to fund our public infrastructure.
In light of that, how can Kansas City be strategic with our use of these new infrastructure funds?
Let’s do the math. Let’s invest the $800 million in ways that maximize value. In other words, let’s focus on infrastructure improvement dollars in the productive areas of our city. The math will show the lower density money pits and will highlight the productive areas, which are more likely than not to be primarily in parts of the city developed more than 70 years ago.
This is a simple matter of infrastructure efficiency. Before cars allowed us to spread out, cities were more compact, and the intensity of private investment per square foot of infrastructure was much greater. As a result, the productivity (the value of those parts of the city) was much greater.
Strategic investing of the $800 million will be a challenge politically, but it is more necessary now than ever. By maximizing the return on our infrastructure investments, we can use the value generated by productive areas of the city to underwrite the under-producing areas. And moving forward, we need to be much smarter about what we build.
If we do the math and keep doing the math, we can rebuild and continue building a great Kansas City.
Dennis Strait is a landscape architect, architect and the principal in charge of the Kansas City Planning Studio of Gould Evans.