Joseph Shepard embraces bad ideas in debate on Margarita’s tax district | Opinion
Wichita City Council member Joseph Shepard said some very disturbing things as the council moved to create a special district that will tax Wichitans to pay about a fourth of the cost for owners of the former Margarita’s Cantina building to renovate their business.
Here’s a sampling of some of the things Shepard said during the discussion of the plan, his words in boldface, my response in ordinary print:
“I’ve sent an email out to my colleagues, and I’ve shared my door is always open, and even offered to connect them directly with the agent, because I think that that’s critical as well. If they have questions to speak directly to the agent, take their word for it.”
Taking an agent’s word for it has gotten the city into more trouble than I can possibly quantify. The WaterWalk, the four-acre land giveaway next to Equity Bank Park, and the Ken-Mar shopping center are just three examples that spring immediately to mind.
“I become extremely concerned in 2026 about misinformation and not having the opportunity to clarify and acknowledge when something is accurate and when something maybe needs a little bit more context, and I’ve now gotten to the point where I think the city needs to combat this head-on.”
“When we choose to allow nonprofit organizations or individuals to put information out that is not accurate, it harms the work of our staff.”
First off, since when does City Hall get to “choose to allow” what people can or cannot say — or for that matter, dictate what is accurate or inaccurate? We are not your employees and we are not your subjects.
Harming the work of your staff? That’s a laugh. The work of your staff, and their secret handshake deal to undercharge favored businesses for parking for the last 25 years, is the reason we have to pay for downtown parking today. If you would set a tone where your staff works for the people instead of a handful of wealthy business friends of City Hall, you wouldn’t have these problems.
“I feel like a lot of this comes from the perception, unfortunately, that people have about the way the city does business.”
It’s not “perception” that’s the problem here. The problem is the public actually understands the way the city does business.
Eighty percent of them voted down the proposed citywide sales tax in March, precisely because they didn’t trust City Hall not to backroom-deal the money to the local business nobility. Pro tip: Raising sales taxes one business at a time to pad developers’ pockets does not make you look any more trustworthy.
Johnston calls it a ‘kickback.’ He’s right.
Maybe it’s time council member Shepard, and most of his colleagues, learn that as a community, we’re getting sick and tired of paying extra taxes to build other people’s lemonade stands.
The Margarita’s deal is a classic, but by no means unique, example.
On Tuesday, the council gave final approval to transform this single restaurant building into a “community improvement district.”
Under the plan, the city will charge a 1% sales tax on purchases made at whatever business or businesses move into the building, and give $223,000 of the tax proceeds back to the developers to help pay the cost of whatever renovations they make to accommodate their new tenants.
The city will collect an additional 10% for its own coffers as a “CID origination fee” — about $22,300. The city will also get a $5,000 “application fee,” and, as far as I can tell from the documentation, an unspecified amount to cover the administrative cost of transferring the tax money from the pockets of the public to the pocket of the developer.
The staff report proclaims “The CID petition is signed by 100% of the landowners that compose the proposed district” — like that means anything.
To be clear, there’s only one “landowner” in the district.
It’s a limited liability company — run by brothers Brian and Paul Suellentrop — who bought the building at auction last year and will get to collect $223,000 of tax money to remodel it.
I find myself in agreement with council member J.V. Johnston, who, during last week’s debate on the plan, called it a “kickback” and was the only council member to vote “no.”
Council member Becky Tuttle objected to that: “I don’t think that that’s the word you probably meant to use,” she lectured Johnston. “But I certainly would not vote for anything that was considered a kickback.”
Sorry Becky, but you did. Calling this “a tool that we have in our tool belt for economic development” doesn’t make it any less stinky.
The council has promised to hold meetings in September to reform the economic development process. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve heard that before.
The only thing that ever changes is who’s getting their turn at the trough.
