Why would KC Council even consider giving millions in tax subsidies during a pandemic?

In Kansas City, the thirst for public subsidies and incentives for private projects never ends.

Two such projects are winding their way back before the Kansas City Council. One involves a luxury hotel planned for a lot east of the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, and the other a construction firm in the West Bottoms.

Both are seeking millions in public subsidies and incentives.

Providing public help for private projects is usually a bad idea. In the current environment — major spending cuts are almost certainly coming to City Hall — it should be a complete nonstarter. Council members should postpone or reject both projects.

The luxury hotel project was once called the Bravo Hotel. Developers have changed the name to the Performing Arts Center Hotel but have not withdrawn the request for incentives for the 143-room building, now estimated to cost $65 million.

Roughly one-third of the cost of constructing and financing the hotel would come from new taxes generated by the project. Other public incentives have been built into the proposal.

At a news conference Friday, developers made much of the fact that the public won’t guarantee the financing for the hotel, or build parking or invest any money directly. Those are welcome commitments, but they evade the central question: Is it fair, or right, or necessary, to provide incentives for a luxury hotel, especially when those incentives aren’t available to ordinary taxpayers?

The answer is no.

There are other concerns. If the new hotel siphons visitors away from the Loews Hotel, for example, the drain on taxpayers could grow. That would be especially unfortunate for a community contending with the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on revenues.

The other proposal involves a company called BlueScope Construction, which employs more than 330 people in the West Bottoms. Those employees earn an average of more than $109,000 a year in salaries and bonuses.

Despite a healthy balance sheet, the company wants new incentives from Kansas City worth more than $8 million, including a sweeter parking deal and, eventually, another 13 years of tax abatements. If it doesn’t get the help, the firm may move to Kansas — or somewhere else.

Does this sound like a return of the Missouri-Kansas border war? Yes, it does. Didn’t we all agree that giving away tax goodies to lure companies across the state line was wasteful and counterproductive? Yes, we did.

And what of other taxing jurisdictions, inlcuding schools and mental health services? They’re being asked to forgo revenue they might get if the existing abatements ended. They get nothing from the earnings tax.

Shannon Jaax, with Kansas City Public Schools, suggested the plan is corporate welfare. She’s right.

“I don’t feel good about this,” City Council member Andrea Bough said. She’s right, too.

Kansas City is entering a period of extreme uncertainty. Tax revenue may fluctuate wildly while expenses grow. Anyone who says he or she knows what’s ahead for services such as fire protection and the police — or teachers or mental health services — isn’t telling the truth.

Voters just agreed to raise sales taxes, a move that disproportionately affects the poor.

Now is not the time to hand out incentives for risky private enterprises, or engage in a dangerous incentive war with other states. The City Council should postpone both decisions until the region’s economic outlook is clearer — or just say no.