Spencer Duncan = please review

 Here are five reasons why every part of the sale of a publicly owned asset, like Hotel Topeka, should be transparent and public:

1. Accountability to Taxpayers: Public assets are funded by taxpayer money, so residents have a right to know how their resources are managed. Full transparency in the sale process, including bids, negotiations, and final decisions, ensures officials are held accountable for securing the best value and avoiding favoritism or mismanagement.
2. Prevention of Corruption: Open processes reduce the risk of under-the-table deals or conflicts of interest. By making every step public, including bidder qualifications and evaluation criteria, the city can deter potential corruption and ensure decisions prioritize community interests over private gain.
3. Community Trust and Engagement: Transparency fosters trust between the city government and residents. Public access to sale details, such as proposed uses for the property or financial terms, allows citizens to provide input and feel confident that decisions align with Topeka’s economic and social goals, like preserving the hotel’s role in tourism.
4. Fair Competition Among Bidders: A fully public process ensures all potential buyers have equal access to information and opportunities. Disclosing bid requirements, timelines, and selection criteria prevents unfair advantages, encouraging competitive offers that maximize the asset’s value for the city.
5. Long-Term Economic Impact Clarity: The sale of a significant asset like a hotel affects local jobs, tourism, and development. Publicizing every aspect, from buyer plans to reinvestment commitments, helps residents understand the long-term implications and ensures the sale supports broader community priorities, such as economic revitalization.

These reasons align with principles of good governance and were reflected in concerns raised about transparency in Topeka’s hotel purchase and management discussions, as seen in public debates and council actions (Topeka's city government's purchase of Hotel Topeka).

Put all the money in the street [potholes 1st]

Using tax dollars earmarked for economic development to fund charities is misguided for several reasons, as it diverges from the core purpose of economic development, which is to stimulate sustainable growth, job creation, and infrastructure improvement in a community. Below are four reasons why this practice is problematic, along with an explanation of why it does not constitute economic development:

1. Misalignment with Economic Goals: Economic development funds are intended to invest in projects that directly boost local economies, such as infrastructure upgrades, business incentives, or workforce training programs. Charities, while valuable for social good, often focus on immediate relief or services (e.g., food banks, shelters) that don’t inherently generate long-term economic activity, such as new businesses or jobs. Diverting funds to charities undermines investments that create measurable economic returns, like tax revenue or employment opportunities.
2. Lack of Economic Multiplier Effect: Economic development initiatives prioritize projects with a multiplier effect, where each dollar spent generates additional economic activity (e.g., a new factory creates jobs, which increases local spending). Charitable giving, while addressing urgent needs, typically lacks this ripple effect. For example, funding a charity’s operational costs may provide short-term aid but doesn’t build infrastructure or attract investment that sustains economic growth over time.
3. Erosion of Public Trust and Accountability: Taxpayers expect economic development funds to be used transparently for projects with clear, measurable outcomes, like job creation metrics or GDP growth. Allocating these funds to charities, which may have less tangible or immediate economic impacts, risks eroding public trust. Unlike economic development projects, which are often subject to rigorous oversight and performance benchmarks, charitable donations may lack equivalent scrutiny, making it harder to justify their use to taxpayers.
4. Crowding Out Private Philanthropy: Government funding of charities with economic development dollars can reduce the incentive for private donors to contribute, as they may assume public funds are sufficient. This crowds out private philanthropy, which is better suited for supporting charitable causes, while economic development funds should focus on public goods like transportation networks or industrial parks that the private sector cannot fully finance. This misallocation distorts both charitable and economic ecosystems.

Why It’s Not Economic Development

Economic development is defined by strategic investments that enhance a region’s economic capacity, such as improving infrastructure, fostering entrepreneurship, or attracting businesses that create jobs and tax revenue. Charitable giving, while socially beneficial, primarily addresses immediate humanitarian or social needs rather than building the structural foundations for long-term economic growth. For instance, funding a charity to provide meals alleviates hunger but doesn’t create new industries or improve a city’s economic competitiveness. Economic development requires a focus on scalability and sustainability, which most charitable activities do not prioritize. By diverting funds to charities, governments dilute their ability to achieve the structural economic improvements that these tax dollars are meant to deliver.