February 2002

Feb. 28, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Feb. 25, 2002)

An affordable housing idea

Every now and again, someone--yes, even someone in the Kansas Legislature--comes up with an idea that just sounds right and doable and that will provide three or four pretty good spin-off benefits.

Now, remember, it's not often that we get an idea like that floating around, and sometimes those ideas come at a time when the Legislature isn't ankle-deep in extra money to spend, but it's still a good idea, anyway, and probably ought to be given some hard thought.

The idea? It came from Rep. Bonnie Sharp, D-Kansas City, and it is a convict-built housing program.

Here's the concept: convicts build prefabricated small homes that are then trucked to lots where people, who are not as spry as they used to be, have them assembled into one-story, pretty-low-cost homes, with wide hallways, grab rails in the bathrooms, washers and dryers on the main living level, convenient kitchens and no steps anywhere.

Sound like something that you or a parent or grandparent who is using a walker, or a wheelchair or is just a little anxious about hauling laundry to the basement might be interested in?

We're talking little houses here, the 750- to 800-square foot homes that nobody's building anymore, just the right size for a couple of empty nesters or widows or widowers who find themselves supporting the old four- and five-bedroom homes that they needed when kids were underfoot, but which now are expensive to operate, not very convenient and, yes, split by stairways that look taller and steeper than they did when everyone was younger.

Here's Sharp's idea: That empty nesters who don't need those big houses anymore probably ought to consider selling them--most are owned outright by now, anyway--and putting the money into these smaller homes that are easier to live in. Her concept is that family-sized houses are for families, and by selling houses with the extra bedrooms, it would free up housing stock for young people starting families who need family-sized homes.

We'd never thought of it as recycling, but, probably it is: Selling a family-sized home to a family, and providing new, clean, conveniently sized homes to folks who don't have kids running up and down the halls.

Sharp's idea is that with the money from the home sale, folks needing smaller, more convenient homes could buy the little prisoner-made homes for around $27,500 or so, and probably wind up with a paid-for home and some money to spare.

How does she get the cost down to $27,500 or thereabouts? By taking the vast majority of the labor cost out of the home. She's figuring that prisoners are going to draw only enough pay to keep them in candy bars from the prison canteen and they'll be learning skills that might land them jobs when they are out of prison--and virtually all Kansas prisoners get out sometime.

What are the other positives of the plan? Well, these little houses sound like just what we need for infill housing, providing new housing in already-developed areas where there are gaps along a block, two or three abandoned homes, burned-out hulks, or empty lots that just weren't possible to build on again.

Where do they need low-cost housing? Virtually everywhere. This isn't just a Kansas City problem. Little towns out west have real affordable housing problems that are keeping families from moving into the older, larger houses because there is no place for people who don't need big family houses anymore to move. People get frozen in whatever house they live in.

Sharp also notes that if older Kansans can get, and afford, smaller, more manageable homes, they'll be able to live on their own safely, conveniently...and longer. That sounds like a pretty good idea right there.

Now, isn't this government stepping into something that private business can do? Well, maybe. Except that if you've ever tried to interest a contractor in building a $30,000 home, well, you were out of luck.

Aren't there mobile homes in that price range? Yes, but it's tough getting the OK to put them on lots inside a city, or even a small town.

And, we're figuring, if at some point private businesses step up and want to get into the marketplace for these small homes, what's the problem? Oh, they won't have convicts to build the houses. Once a market gets going, don't worry about the contractors. The market for these homes will expand because the no-labor-cost prison-built homes will simply be limited to the bottom end of the market, where low income guidelines for buyers can be put in place to make sure that no commercial contractor loses work.

Good idea, tough times, we'll see how this one turns out.

Feb. 21, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Feb. 18, 2002)

Somebody thought it was a good idea

Well, the deadline has come and gone for those bills that maybe only just one person in the Legislature thought was a good idea.

And some of those bills, well, you sorta wonder whether even the person who introduced them thought through the concept.
But, they're legally elected legislators and they're here to make a difference, and so they get to introduce nearly any bill they can think up.

Take State Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City, who lives about an hour east of the State Capitol on the Kansas Turnpike

What's his idea? Allowing the Kansas Turnpike Authority to figure out a sliding scale of tolls for turnpike users. What's the scale? What's the slide? Well, it's not family income, or age or even height or weight. In Haley's bill, the scale slides depending on how fast you drive on the Turnpike.

Running late? Got a few extra bucks to spend? Then just tell the toll-taker you'd like to drive 85 mph. New car? Power to spare? How about pushing the cruise control to an even 100 mph. if you've got the cash.

This isn't the first time Haley's tried this bill. The Kansas Turnpike Authority, respectful of its employees who don't like to scrape cars and their drivers off bridge abutments and dig them out of ditches, typically responds: "Go ahead pass the bill, and, well, we'll get back to you later on this sliding toll scale after we've worked out the details." The turnpike authority never will.

In another example, if you elect a computer-type, you gotta figure that she's going to want everyone to have a computer, a bigger, better, faster, prettier one.

Well, they elected Rep. Mary Pilcher Cook, R-Shawnee, to the Legislature, and she's a computer expert and while she can't close the "digital divide" all by herself, and the state doesn't have the money to just issue everyone with access to electricity and an Internet connection a computer, she has an idea that might help.

The concept: for two weeks of the year, Aug. 5-12 of 2002, and Feb. 17-24, 2003, there is no sales tax on computers, peripheral devices or Internet access devices for non-business use. Depending on where you live, she's hoping to pare 4.9 percent to nearly 7 percent off the purchase price of the zoomiest computer system you can buy at retail.

Slyly, she says that all of us who want computers, or want new computers or new gadgets for our computers, tend to put off the purchase until, well, until the next new thing comes along. Cook says the sales tax-free weeks might just push us to make that buying decision and not wait and wait and wait...

Oh, and it took a whole committee to think up a little bill that just might be a good idea, but we'll probably never know because it likely isn't going anywhere. The E-commerce Committee of the House (no, we still don't know what that means), has gotten the idea that when a nonprofit organization gets a tax credit that it can't really do anything with because, well, it's nonprofit and doesn't pay any taxes, that nonprofit ought to be able to sell or trade its tax credit to someone who does get to pay taxes.

It turns what was a good idea that didn't cost the state anything into a good idea that will all of a sudden start costing the state something in the way of lost tax revenues. It's sorta the difference between offering someone a glass of water from the water fountain--essentially a free transaction--and offering someone one of those fancy $1 a bottle waters. Same product, but one has a cost kicker.

And, then someone had an idea that if young people ought not to smoke, well, then let's make 'em wait not just until they are 18, but let them season a little more, and not be allowed to cadge, borrow, buy or smoke cigarettes until they're a full 21 years old.

Makes sense probably from a public health aspect but isn't this the year that we're trying to raise taxes on cigarettes to save the state budget?

Seems that somewhere, someone's going to strike a balance between raising taxes and raising the age for smoking so high that the tax increase will still have some earning power for the state general fund.

We figure that there's going to be a compromise there somewhere.

Feb. 14, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Feb. 11, 2002)

Turning Demo Indians into chiefs

Kansas Democrats this weekend are going to consider a new tack in growing their party's numbers so that they are more competitive with the political clout that the state's majority Republican Party enjoys.

There are several suggestions on how to do it, but the concept comes down to something very logical, relatively simple, and which might just jump-start the party that now depends to a large degree on Republican mistakes to grow its numbers in the Kansas Legislature.

The idea: Turn Democratic Indians into chiefs.

How do Democrats accomplish that? By expanding the number of members of the party's central committee, the big policymaking group for the party that is the cadre of "insiders" who are kept in the know, privy to plans and dreams and hopes, and a major source of tips on Democrats, or even just cultivating nonpartisan Kansans who would be good in public office.

In theory, the state central committee is made up of Democrats who are the party's eyes and ears on the street in communities across the state. They are the Democrats who talk at all those community group breakfasts and lunches and dinners and who are active in the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and in business groups and other clubs and organizations.

There's some level of pride in being on the central committee, some responsibility and some satisfaction when central committee members call in names of potential candidates or campaign workers to the state party headquarters in Topeka.

Expanding the party's core will be a topic of the Washington Days Weekend events in Topeka this weekend, with proposals that could yield hundreds, but more likely, dozens, of new state committee members.

The concepts range from designating 50 to 100 new committee members from each of the state's four congressional districts (gain 200 to 400 new members) to designating every Democrat in the Legislature a member of the state committee (picking up about 50 new members) to making the No. 2 and No. 3 officers of the party's specific interest group caucuses state committee members (gaining 18 or more new members).

Add those possible new members to the 139 current members of the Democratic State Committee and there are more ideas, more prospectors, more possible candidates and more possible campaign workers--and contributors--for Democrats to work with.

Now, that's the serious party-building part of the annual Washington Days Weekend. There are also some more mundane--but newsworthy--party-building plans afoot for the political love-fest.

The party is going to consider adding at least two special-focus caucuses to the standard groups of minorities, veterans, local elected officials, youth and other party groups. This weekend, the organized labor caucus and likely the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual caucus will be folded into the party's big tent. And there's a chance that a growing umbrella group, for Kansans with disabilities, will also be added.

Democrats have gotten the idea that political parties are all about numbers...all about voters, all about turnout and all about finding the right candidates for the right districts and finding natural financial and manpower support groups for those stripes of members.

Will this growing the party from the inside and near-inside work? We're not going to know for at least one election cycle. It might be possible for those new Democratic officials to quickly mobilize and present not only candidates but new issues that existing candidates can use to be more attractive to voters in November.

It's sure to mean bigger, noisier, more diverse crowds for party activities.

And, now that we think about it, that's what these big political party weekend events are all about.

***

Oh, while we're talking politics, take a look at the pared-down budget plan proposed by Gov. Bill Graves for the upcoming fiscal year.

Now, you'd expect that a guy who needs at least 21 votes in the Senate and 63 votes in the House to accomplish anything of substance would take special care of the people who are in the Legislature and who make those votes, wouldn't you?

Well, look again. Graves' budget for the Legislature actually pares lawmakers' daily pay next session. How much? Well, the daily pay drops from the current $78.75 a day to $74.96.

Think that legislators who already complain about poor pay are going to be enthused about a $3.79 a day pay cut?

We'll see...

Feb. 7, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Feb. 4, 2002)

Demos vs. GOP or rural vs. urban?

Maybe Gov. Bill Graves is right, maybe the numbers of the state budget haven't really sunk in yet, or maybe it's just that the numbers are getting worse every time someone checks.

Or, Railsters surmise--correctly--that most of the Kansas Legislature can't...multitask.

But right now, outside of a handful of numbers-oriented legislators, the hottest talk in the hallways is on reapportionment of their districts with the hope that they'll wind up with a district that they can win again.

That's the focus. Ever point to, say, a bone in the yard that you want your dog to notice, and then feel a little disappointed when you look down and see that the dog is looking at your hand? Welcome to the reapportionment, election year Legislature.

The real trick of reapportionment, of course, is to come up with districts that require incumbents to make the absolute minimum number of new friends to get reelected. Remember, reapportionment isn't just about dividing the state up evenly so every person out there has the same representation, but it is also about the political parties of incumbent legislators being able to increase their numbers.

Republicans want maps that make it easy for them to be reelected and to disadvantage Democrats. Oh, and Democrats want the same thing, of course, but because in both the House and Senate there are fewer of them to start with, they can cloak the exact same mission in loftier, more noble-sounding terms like patriotism and equality and fairness.

And because there are more Republicans than Democrats everywhere in Kansas, for Democrats to get the reapportionment maps the way they want them, Demos have added so far relatively successfully (we won't know how successfully until there are votes in the House and Senate) a third category of legislator: those with agricultural inclinations.

In the House of Representatives, where because of the larger numbers--125 members--there are always going to be 40 or 50 rural districts, the urban-rural coalition is less predominant.

But in the Senate with just 40 members, rural legislators are starting to look a little sparse. And canny Democrats have picked up on that disparity and are working on it fulltime. Under the banner of saving rural districts, they will be able to save at least one, maybe two Democratic Senate seats.

Not a large number, but critical when there are just 10 mostly urban Democrat-held seats in the Senate and some pretty well-established Democrat seats in rural areas that need protecting.

Now, to make the Democrat-led effort to preserve rural senatorial districts work, it can't be called a Democratic plan. It has to be a "rural Kansas" or "Kansas agriculture" plan. And so far, that rural-tilted plan that Democrats want appears to be working far better than observers would have thought.

The plan--still under tight wraps--has picked up some Republican support. Rural Republican support, that is, but primarily from rural Republican senators who are able to multitask. That is, look not only at what is best for Republicans but what is best for rural Kansas that just happens to be mostly represented by Republicans.

The real question may be how quickly rural Kansas reacts to what is admittedly a complicated legislative issue. The reaction isn't going to have to be extremely specific, but rural legislators would probably like to know whether their constituents are more interested in having a bunch more Republicans represent them, or whether they want as many rural legislators representing them as possible--regardless of party affiliation.

There's a difference there, not a big one, but a difference that is likely to show up in the future when legislators are voting on...say, water appropriation, or the tack they want land grant universities to take with their agricultural research.

So, what happens with reapportionment, where Democrats in the House are trying to save districts, and in the Senate, where the issue has been framed as Republican/Democrat, farm/town? The next few weeks should tell.

The House hopes to have a final reapportionment map voted on by Valentine's Day. In the Senate, it will be a little later, giving Democrats more time to build support for their still-under-wraps plan.

Chances for Democrats in either chamber to entice enough Republicans to support them to succeed?

Well, the last time I pointed to a bone in the yard, my dog just looked at my hand.