Why is this KC Council member pushing a confusing, conflicting tax incentive plan?

This week, Kansas City Councilwoman Teresa Loar offered a confusing ballot proposal that could derail efforts to rein in costly development incentives at City Hall.

She should withdraw the plan. On Tuesday, Loar said she would take her proposal off the docket “for now,” which is encouraging.

The background: Earlier this year, a citizens’ committee submitted signatures to force a vote on broadly limiting development incentives such as tax abatements and subsidies to 50% of a project’s potential property tax bill. That citywide election is June 18.

Loar’s plan would place a second question on the June 18 ballot. It would suspend additional incentive caps until four counties in Kansas have enacted a “like cap” on their goodies for developers.

First, the obvious: Two contradictory incentive questions on the ballot will unnecessarily confuse voters. If Kansas Citians want to keep the current incentives policy, they can simply vote against the 50% proposal. Done.

There are other concerns. What would a “like cap” on Kansas incentives look like? What would happen if a Kansas county passed such a cap, then violated it? The plan could provoke several legal challenges, while doing little to stop the counterproductive economic “border war” in the region.

Loar’s plan to require incentive caps in Kansas counties but not in Missouri is puzzling. Cities in Jackson County and cities north of the river compete with Kansas City for projects as well.

Finally, even if you accept Loar’s argument that an incentive cap could put Kansas City at a disadvantage, there’s a remedy. If voters approve the 50% cap in June, and it doesn’t work as intended, the full City Council can repeal the ordinance. It takes nine council votes in the first year and seven after that.

Of course, repealing a voter-approved ordinance is always a political headache. Loar’s plan tries to have it both ways: She wants to block incentive reform while sparing the council the tough votes to do it. That’s unacceptable.

“The 50% cap is a blunt instrument that makes no distinction for distressed areas,” Loar said Tuesday. “This is unilateral disarmament at its worst.”

Her concerns should be discussed. But they should be discussed in a campaign for the cap proposal — muddying the waters by offering a conflicting plan is not a winning strategy.

Loar says developers and builders have told her they’re worried about the cap. Let them come out of the shadows and say so in public before the June 18 vote. Make the case against the 50% cap, and let the voters decide.

Kansas City’s incentive game often plays out in the darkness, in secret meetings with highly-paid lawyers and lobbyists. That’s why voters are so frustrated. It has to end.

Voters can make up their own minds, and they will in June. They should have the opportunity to weigh in on a single, clear question about capping incentives.

This story was originally published April 9, 2019 at 4:24 PM.