Good Times for Lawrence and a Sister Boomtown
But Not Everyone’s So Thrilled With Expansion Plans
This is a tale of two cities: two Kansas boomtowns situated just 40 miles apart from one another. Both communities are expanding at a terrific pace, but therein lie the questions. How much growth is healthy for a town and its residents? Is a town’s expansion necessarily a good thing?
Case in point: on one side of K-10 Highway sits Overland Park in southern Johnson County. Have you seen “Opie” lately? seems to buzz with a constant flow of activity. Suburban homes are packed tightly, comprising a crazy quilt of neighborhoods. New restaurants, strip malls and shopping centers pop up these days like Kansas wheatfields line the major streets in southern Johnson County. Traffic hums along the major thoroughfares. Any way you look at it, Overland Park is on a roll.
Just down the road 40 miles to the west, Lawrence is prospering is in full growth mode as well. From bars to restaurants to boutiques, local businesses crowd Massachusetts Street. Historic neighborhoods weave throughout the town with the shadow of the University of Kansas in the background. The Kansas Jayhawks’ recent ascent in the college football standings helped shine the national spotlight on a mid-America college town proud of its humble heritage.
Robin Taylor has had a first-hand look at the tremendous expansion of both cities. She was raised in Lawrence and moved to OP in the mid-80s.
“Overland Park and Lawrence are two totally different cities,” said Taylor. “I have grown up watching both expand and prosper in their own separate ways.”
With both cities, as in life, success isn’t always unfettered: it can bring with it controversy and difficulty. Even though expansion has been on the horizon for both Overland Park and Lawrence, not everyone is so happy about the cities’ plans to take on any new territory.
In recent months, expansion has been on the horizon for both cities resulting in fierce opposition from residents on both sides of the K-10.
Lawrence Developer Eyes Farm Land
Tucked in the Kansas River valley just north of Lawrence lies Grant Township. The small, quiet community is the home of the Lawrence Municipal Airport and hundreds of acres of privately owned farmland. Resident Jerry Jost grows corn and soybeans on the fertile land.
“I moved out here 17 years ago because I always wanted to live in an area where I can grow my own foods in peace and quiet,” Jost said. Where some residents like Jerry Jost might see peaceful farm land, others see a potential for growth and profit.
Lawrence business developer Jes Santaularia saw that potential. He wants to expand Lawrence’s city limits and build an industrial business park on 140 acres of the farmland. The property owned by the Roger Pine family would be transformed into a business “lifestyle” park with lots for warehouse and office space and a small section for retail use. In June, the development group proposed the plan to county and city planners.
An annexation of the 140-acre plot, which is near the intersection of U.S. Highways 24/40 and North Seventh Street, is crucial to development. The site would need to become part of the city of Lawrence in order to get the city services needed to sustain a large business park.
Map of proposed annexation area outside of LawrencePhoto: Lawrenceks.org
“Right now Lawrence gets most of its money from property and commercial taxes, yet they receive very little revenue from industry taxes,”said Justin Marlowe, assistant professor for public budgeting and financial management at KU. “Approving the industrial business park would show that the city is trying fill that void.”
In the proposal to the city, Santaularia estimated that the development will generate 1,600 jobs, and produce $54 million in taxes and other revenue for the community during a 20-year period.
Residents Wary of Flood Risk
While the developers and city officials claim the new business park would benefit the Lawrence area, local residents are skeptical of the development.
The city is asking for public assistance to fund the infrastructure needed to support new city services. Generally, the developer pays for the infrastructure to be built. However, an exception has been made for the business park upsetting some residents.
“My taxes are going to increase in order to pay for it to be built and the thing is not even guaranteed to be successful,” said current Lawrence resident, Betty Nicols said. “I’d want the city to do more research before I felt comfortable paying for it.”
The new business park would be built in a flood prone area, residents like Barbara Clark are worried that so much industrial growth in such a condensed area could lead to more frequent flooding.
“It’s like dropping stones in a bathtub,” Clark explained said of the flood risk. “Eventually the tub will overflow.” Clark, who lives just one mile away from the proposed annexation area, is a member of the Citizens for Responsible Planning Coalition. The coalition was established by Nancy Thellman in order to unite the voice of residents opposed to the new development.
However experts say that while the issue should not be overlooked, it is not substantial enough to impact development.
“It’s not hard to assume “dooms’s day” scenarios, anything could potentially happen at any time,” said Marlowe. “Tornados, floods, earthquakes. We must assume the risks every time we do a new development.”
Roger Pine believes that because of the close proximity to the Lawrence city limits and the Lawrence airport, industrialization of the area is imminent.
“We wanted to be proactive in how the land was used and how it was developed,” Pine said. “Rather than just selling it to someone else and having them do whatever they want with it.”
OP “Moo”ves To Expand
As in Lawrence, City Council members in Overland Park saw see an opportunity for growth as well. The city is proposing to annex 15 square miles, which would extend the city’s boundaries along Lackman Road on the west and U.S. Highway 69 on the east.
Included in that area is the slow-paced farm town of Bucyrus. From raising cattle to growing corn, lifestyles of Bucyrus residents are much different from their neighbors to the north.
“When I used to live in Overland Park I could’ve hopped from my neighbor’s deck to my own,” said Norman Pishney, Co-Chairman of the “NO” coalition against the annexation. “I had great neighbors but I didn’t really want them in my shower.”
Now Pishney lives on 40 acres in proposed expansion area.
“I run every morning. I can fish, garden and play tennis, all on my own property,” Pishney said.
Pishney is one of 1,600 residents who would be affected by the annexation. If it passes, homeowners would see several changes. Services that were once provided by the county would be provided by the city, a sewage system would be put in place. In addition, a $10,000-an-acre excise tax would be placed on developable land, which is designed to help pay for new streets and other public infrastructure.
By expanding into the Bucyrus area, Overland Park aims to grow by 23 percent and extend its borders nearly to Miami County. This would be the largest annexation in the city’s 47-year history.
City leaders estimate that they can handle inevitable growth in the area better than the county could. Projections indicate that population south of Overland Park’s current boundaries will grow 376 percent between 2000 and 2020 and 610 percent through 2030.
Stretched Too Thin?
In both farm towns, the annexation proposals face strong opposition from local residents. The “NO” coalition in Bucyrus was started by Lynne Matile: their argument is that they do not need the city services offered by Overland Park.
Currently residents receive full public services from the county with the exception of a sewer system.
“We are very satisfied with our current services,” said Matile. “We don’t need the help of a city that is already stretched too thin.”
Matile and other members of the coalition argue that agricultural land needs specialized services. Such as sheriffs who know how to herd lost livestock, something they do not believe Overland Park can provide.
For Norman Pishney, the problem with the annexation goes deeper than just sewage lines and increased taxes.
“If you want to annex an area, you should sit down with key players in the community and we could get a lot done,” Pishney said. “But they way they have been going about it is really distasteful. They just came in and told us what is good for us and what we need to do.”
According to the city of Overland Park Web site, city council members are following full procedure in the involuntary annexation.
The Cost/ and Benefit Balance
The cost of both annexations may seem steep to tax payers. The Airport Business Park is estimated to cost Lawrence taxpayers approximately $8 million develop the infrastructure for the necessary city services. If the annexation proposal passes, all Lawrence residents will be included in the tax.
Newly annexed Overland Park taxpayers will have to pay a yearly ad valorem tax mill levy. One mill represents one dollar of every $1,000 of assessed valuation of property.
Former Mayor and CEO of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/ Kansas City, Kansas., Carol Marinovich , can’t blame Lawrence residents for being upset about annexation plans. She knows a thing or two about annexations. As mayor, Marinovich led the annexation of hundreds of Wyandotte County homes to make way for the Kansas Speedway, home to NASCAR and Indy Racing league events. She stresses to residents that, on balance, annexations are usually in the betterment of the usually end up improving a community.
“Sometimes the best interests of a city in a community may not be in the best interest for the property owner,” explains Marinovich. “The city looks at the bigger picture.”
Decisions Loom in 2008
For both cities, decisions on the annexations will come after the start of the year. For Overland Park, the open comment period was extended to February 15 so that more questions could be answered about the planning of the project.
Lawrence’s City Commission met on December 4. The Commission discussed the protest petitions that had been received by the city. The Commission will meet again after the holiday season. There is no date set as to when the final decision will be made.
Until then, the public in both cities is urged to continue voicing their opinions to city commissioners. Normally, the state statue allows 14 days after the initial commission meeting for the public to write letters expressing their opinions but the deadline in both cities has been extended until the first of the year.
“It is vital for the city commissioners to know how the public feels about the topic before they vote because if the opposition is strong they might consider taking more time additional analysis,” said Sheila Stogsdill, assistant director of planning for the city of Lawrence.
In the state of Kansas, city commissioners have the final vote whether or not an annexation will pass.