« Declaration of Independence - Descendants | Main | Baby Bathing Beauties »

July 13, 2017


That carrier is impressive! Glad your sciatica is better. My mother had a lot of problems with that nerve, too. Hope you're able to continue being able to enjoy more activity. Don't know why they'd want to tear down those structures but guess what I might think wouldn't matter either.

I'm beginning to think that the Wichita governing body just wants to vacate the land to sell off to developers. It was recently released that the 29 acres to the south enriched developers. The following is an excerpt from a posting on the Wichita Eagle website:

"By Dion Lefler: dlefler@wichitaeagle.com

"After 15 years and $41 million in taxpayer subsidies to the WaterWalk, the city of Wichita has gotten no money from a profit-sharing agreement attached to the development deal.

"And it probably never will, the way the deal is structured.

"City Hall didn’t get an explanation why until last week – or even know that it was due one until a few weeks ago.

"WaterWalk is a development on the banks of the Arkansas River between Waterman and the Kellogg freeway downtown. It has a Gander Mountain hunting and fishing store and a mix of business offices and residential units, some of which are owned and leased out by the developer and some of which have been sold.

"The contract that governs the partnership between the developer and the city specifies that the city should get 25 percent of WaterWalk’s “adjusted net cash flow,” and that the company must provide the city an annual report accounting for that.

"But WaterWalk decided it didn’t need to submit those reports because it didn’t owe the city any money, and the city didn’t ask for them until The Wichita Eagle asked for the data.

"When the report was prepared and provided to The Eagle, city officials blacked out every number in it except for $1.

"That $1 a year is the total rent that WaterWalk has paid the city each year since 2002.

"Under a 99-year lease, a dollar a year gives WaterWalk full development rights to about 29 acres of city-owned property. The lease continues until 2101.

"Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article160147944.html#storylink=cpy"


In general, I hate to see government exercise some of its rights; but, in this case, I would be tempted to re-possess the land using the right of eminent domain, bulldozing the buildings, and making the whole area a park for little kids. Of course, that would surely be illegal; but, I'm thinking that the lawyers who represented the city in the drawing up of the WaterWalk agreement should be sued for malfeasance. (Of course, I would expect those who voted for the agreement - if the city council members voted on it, that is - to have done a better job of reading what they were signing, too!)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Support Wikipedia