PLANNING ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION:
Leadership Patterns and Impacts of Growth in Garden City, Kansas

Angela Donelson
Copyright 1997
Many small town leaders have actively promoted growth with economic development incentives. Garden City, Kansas is one such town where local officials used substantial tax incentives, such as property tax relief, industrial revenue bonds, and tax-financed facilities, to attract new industry.

This paper examines economic development policymaking in a small town of 25,000 residents. This study explores the impacts that new industry created in a small town. Impacts are analyzed in two contexts: 1) in terms of socioeconomic impacts measured through U.S. Census data, and 2) in terms of perceived impacts, generated through a survey of former community leaders. This study attempts to answer several questions: Who made key decisions as it related to industrial economic development in a small town? Do local leaders believe their decisions to accept industrial development led to an improved quality of life?

Why Study Economic Development Policy In Garden City?

Many nonmetropolitan communities in twentieth-century America face steadily declining populations as the farm economy has become less important throughout the process of industrialization. Some smaller communities that have survived have developed rural-based industries in order to maintain economic growth in an increasingly competitive and global marketplace. The economic stresses affecting nonmetropolitan areas include a lack of employment opportunities, deteriorating infrastructures, inadequate housing, health services and public facilities (Isberg 1981:15). Community leaders in economically-stressed areas often have pursued business subsidies in hopes of revitalizing the local economy (Rubin and Rubin 1987: 56).

Garden City, a growing southwest Kansas community of approximately 25,000, is one prime example of an agriculturally-dependent town where leaders used business subsidies to promote growth. In 1979, Garden City attracted IBP, the world's largest meat-processing facility, offering the company $3.5 million in property tax relief and $100 million in industrial revenue bonds for construction of a 70,000 square-foot manufacturing facility. The decision to attract IBP was particularly attractive to community leaders because it built upon the community's agricultural base, offering increased employment at the local level (Broadway Stull and Podraza 1994:24). Garden City, already the largest exporter of beef in southwest Kansas, was a prime locational choice for a beef-packing plant. In a two-decade time frame, Garden City grew 87 percent, from 14,790 residents in 1970 to approximately 25,000 residents in 1990.

Furthermore, Garden City is an ideal candidate for studying small-town economic development decisionmaking because the city conducted an in-depth, year-long study in 1980, a year before IBP arrived. The study, conducted by the Battelle Institute, assessed community attitudes of leaders and residents as it related to expected impacts of new industry and community growth. Sociologists also have conducted extensive studies of this community, therefore providing a good research base with which to evaluate the impacts of growth.

Socio-Economic Impacts: Before and After IBP

Throughout its history, Garden City has witnessed relatively slow and steady population growth, until the population boom in the 1970s. Figure 1 illustrates the population growth in Garden City and the surrounding county.

Figure 1

Originally, Garden City was dependent on the sugar beet industry, until the local factory closed in 1955 because of outdated machinery and the declining demand for sugar beets (Finney County Historic Tour Guide 1994). Since the development of new innovations in irrigation technology, Garden City's economy grew. In the mid-1960s, farmers began to use the new technology of center-pivot irrigation to cultivate cattle feed grains, an industry which has since grown into the surrounding counties (Broadway 1994: 33). The innovation of boxed beef, first developed and marketed by IBP in 1967, allowed meatpacking plants to relocate from urban centers to less expensive rural places, such as Garden City (Broadway 1985: 5).

Meat-packing employment has brought rapid change to the community since the 1970s. Changes in income, education, and occupation -- three indicators of socioeconomic status -- convey a greater understanding of the social homogeneity or diversity of a small town (Swanson 1979: 199-200). An analysis of these three socioeconomic indicators in Garden City indicate that growth have not been altogether favorable.

Income

While the beefpacking industry has created new jobs, the effect on per-capita incomes has been disappointing. Wages for meat-packing are low, with starting pay for production workers approaching a maximum of $6.60 per hour (Broadway Stull and Podraza 1994: 25). As indicated in figure 2, Garden City incomes have not kept pace with those of the state or the nation. Family incomes have become increasingly stratified, and unemployment has climbed slightly, from 3.3 percent in 1979 to 4.7 percent in 1995. The influx of low-income families, therefore, has contributed to more employment problems than the community faced before the arrival of beefpacking. Figure 2

Note: All family income data is adjusted to 1982 dollars, using the Consumer Price Index.

Education

Educational attainment in Garden City has not kept pace with the rising levels of education in Kansas and the United States (see figure 3). In 1970, Garden City had a high percentage of persons with four or more years of college compared to the state and nation. However, that proportion has since fallen behind the state and nation. In 1990, of Garden City residents aged 25 and older, 13.5 percent had less than a ninth grade education and 28.2 percent lacked a high school diploma (Marketview Comparison Report, 1993). Figure 3

Occupation

The level of persons with high occupational statuses (professional and managerial) declined in Garden City from 1970 to 1990, while this proportion rose in both Kansas and the United States. As figure 4 illustrates, Garden City has lost nearly two percent of its managerial/professional class. The community has in turn gained a higher percentage of protective service workers (such as police and firefighters), presumably in response to demand for greater police and private service protection, as well as persons employed in service, sales professions, and trades/crafts (U.S. Census, 1970, 1990). Figure 4

Socioeconomic Decline and the Nature of Growth

Most of the change in socioeconomic status is due to rapid population growth resulting from the influx of unskilled minorities seeking beef processing employment in the area. Since the meat-packing jobs require few skills and little English, the plant disproportionately attracted Mexican immigrant workers and Southest Asian refugees (Broadway, Stull and Podraza 1994: 25). Figure 5 illustrates the rapid increase in minorities. In 1970, before beekpacking, the town was 98 percent white. By 1990, the minority population had grown to 22 percent. Figure 5

The introduction of meatpacking resulted in a dramatic demographic alteration in Garden City, forcing community officials to deal with a host of problems. Some of the most serious problems include increases in crime, strains on the health care system, increases in minority workers, language and cultural differences, increases in demand for low-cost housing, strains in infrastructure and increases in low-paying jobs (Broadway Stull and Podraza 1994: 24-28). The socioeconomic impacts of beefpacking were large. The following section explores who made the decisions to attract this industry, and how these leaders evaluate their decisions today.

The Perceived Impacts of Growth Among Decision Makers

This study employed a survey of former community leaders to answer several questions about rapid community growth in Garden City. First, who made small town policy decisions to attract industrial development? Second, how do former community leaders (identified in the 1980 Batelle Study) evaluate the impacts of growth today?

The survey relied upon a list of 79 persons identified by the Battelle Institute in 1980 as community leaders. Although the Battelle Institute report did not indicate how the list was compiled, the researchers stated that the list represented "influential community leaders" knowledgable about Garden City in state and local government, education, business and other private and public sector functions. I surveyed as many of these former community leaders as I could locate, asking them to name the top influentials in selected sectors of community leadership. Of the 51 persons whom I could locate, 13 individuals completed and returned the mail survey. The survey response rate is 25 percent.

Who Made Policy To Attract Growth?

The survey produced two interesting conclusions. First, business leaders who also served as part-time elected officials were named as the top influentials. Specifically, the vice president of the chamber of commerce/city commissioner was listed as the top leader across three sectors of leadership. This individual was named the top project initiator, the most influential in improving the quality of life, and the most influential in industrial development. Top leaders also included an attorney/city commissioner, a realtor/city commissioner, the city manager, and two business owners. This pattern of leadership is consistent with the expectations set forth in small town literature. Much of the literature predicts that business leaders will be eminently important because small towns cannot support full-time, well-paid elected officials (Keller and Wamsley 1978 282; Rossi 1960: 395).

Second, the survey found that several leaders named as key influentials -- a cattleman and a farmer -- were not surveyed in the original Battelle study. These leaders may have been overlooked, yet they may have been extremely influential. Perhaps the Battelle Institute failed to conduct in-depth analysis of all those who made policy before conducting the study.

How Do Former Community Leaders Assess Growth?

Survey respondents were asked to rate as excellent, good, fair or poor nine "quality of life" categories in the Garden City area. The nine quality of life factors were grouped into three categories of indicators: business factors (the business environment, the quality of fire protection and the quality of medical facilities); amenity factors (the environmental quality of air and water, the availability of recreational/cultural activities, and the presence of a small town atmosphere); and institutional factors (the quality of education, housing availability and quality, and safety). Respondents were asked to rate the quality of life before the arrival of IBP and the quality of life a decade later.

Table 1 depicts the respondents' perceptions of whether the community's business quality of life factors have improved since the arrival of IBP. I expected the respondents to rate the business environment as better than before IBP arrived, given the opportunities for more business and more clients. Although respondents favorably perceive community factors relating to business, statistical analysis indicates this relationship is weak (see table 1). Former leaders apparently share little consensus that the quality of business factors have improved.
Table 1
Perceived Improvement In the Quality of Life (Business Indicators)
Business Factors Poor/Fair Good/Excellent
Pre-IBP 5 28
Post-IBP 1 32
The perceived relationship between the introduction of the IBP plant and the quality of amenity factors is even less conclusive. Table 2 illustrates respondents' perceptions of this quality of life indicator before and after the arrival of IBP.

I expected respondents to indicate that amenities have declined, given that rapid growth likely has contributed to environmental degradation and loss of a homogeneous, small town atmosphere. However, the statistical test of this relationship is inconclusive, as table 2 indicates. Former community leaders appear to share no consensus as to whether economic growth affected the overall quality of community amenities.
Table 2
Perceived Improvement In the Quality of Life (Amenity Indicators)
Amenity Factors Poor/Fair Good/Excellent
Pre-IBP 9 24
Post-IBP 12 21
Chi square = 0.629; D.F.=1; Statistically insignificant <0.1

Finally, Table 3 illustrates the respondents' perceptions of whether the community institutional factors changed since the arrival of IBP. I expected respondents to indicate that intitutional factors have declined, given the influx of unskilled, indigent migrants and their impacts on the educational system, the housing market and public safety. However, statistical analysis shows that a positive relationship exists: respondents rated institutional factors as having increased slightly. The statistical analysis, nevertheless, shows that the relationship is weak.
Table 3
Perceived Improvement In the Quality of Life (Institutional Indicators)
Amenity Factors Poor/Fair Good/Excellent
Pre-IBP 9 24
Post-IBP 19 14
Chi square = Statistically Significant at the 0.025 Level; Cramers V=0.3067

From the sample survey, one can only conclude there is no consensus as to whether the quality of life has changed. Respondents to the survey indicate they perceive approximately half (56%) of all quality of life factors to have remained the same over the last decade. As indicated in table 4, respondents are nearly divided as to whether the overall quality of life has improved or declined since IBP arrived. This is indicative of an increasingly pluralist society, where former leaders share no consensus as to whether the quality of life is becoming better or worse.
Table 4
Perception of Quality of Life In Garden City: Before & After IBP
Pre-Beefpacking; Perception of Growth in Garden City (1980)
Positive Negative Don't Know
57% 20% 23%
Post-Beefpacking; Perception of Growth in Garden City (1990-92)
Improved Declined Same
22% 22% 56%
Source: Battelle Institute (1981:156) and 1996 Survey of Former Community Leaders

Before IBP arrived, community leaders had high expectations for new industry in Garden City. Yet, this post-industry analysis indicates that former community leaders do not agree the benefits have been clearly positive. Apparently, consensus has eroded among former decisionmakers. Consensus may have eroded because former leaders may feel ambivalent about the changes that have overtaken Garden City. This potential ambivalence may be a consequence of Garden City becoming more pluralistic.

Conclusion

Garden City, like many small communities, appears to have placed inordinate confidence in new industry as a means of bringing economic vitality to Garden City. While it is true that IBP may have offset potential economic decline that might have occured, Garden City has paid a rather high price for growth.

Apparently, Garden City is becoming more pluralistic due to the influx of rapid growth and diverse populations. Former opinion-makers no longer agree that the quality of life in Garden City is becoming better, despite new industry and the growth in employment.

Small Town Leadership and the Role of Planners

As noted above, former leaders in Garden City were largely part-time officials and businessmen. These leaders had high expectations for new business opportunities, yet many expectations fell short of being met. Former leaders appear to have overlooked the potential social impacts of change brought about by new industry. Clearly, population growth is not a magic bullet that will solve rural needs; new industry may bring more costs to the community in the long run.

Planners must anticipate and plan for more than the simple "hard infrastructure" costs of growing and diversifying communities; they must be willing to take additional information on larger social impacts to business leaders and discuss the implications of community growth. Planners must be willing to investigate the intangible impacts of community needs, such as those for bilingual education, low-income housing, and new types of social services to serve diverse, multicultural populations.

As guardians of the public good, planners also should give weight to the opinions of the residents at large, undertaking focus group surveys to measure the perceived impacts of certain types of economic growth that likely will emerge in the community. As planners coordinate community projects that may have large social impacts, they must seek out a greater array of citizens. To merely survey community leaders is to invite social disruption.

When planning for change, small communities such as Garden City should visit and consult with similar communities that have absorbed diverse populations. For example, when IBP announced it was opening a plant in Lexington, Nebraska, community leaders created a Community Impact Study Team to determine the impact of the packing plant upon the town. Members of the Nebraska team convinced IBP to provide some financial assistance to furnish coaches for a mobile home park and create a day-care center at the meat-packing plant (Broadway Stull and Podraza 1994: 27).

Garden City has become a more vibrant, ethnically-diverse and interesting community since the arrival of beefpacking. Yet, as Garden City moves into the 21st century, local planners must seek to help the local leadership improve the socioeconomic status of new members of the community. This can only come about if community leaders are willing to establish some consensus on this issue, clearly a difficult, but necessary process. Without agreement on this issue, the community may risk eventual decline or extinction.

REFERENCES

Battelle. 1980 and 1981. "Clarifying Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Measures Related to the Economic Development of Finney County, Kansas." Ohio: Battelle Columbus Division.

Broadway, Michael. 1985. "The Characteristics of Southeast Asian Refugees Residing in Garden City, Kansas." The Kansas Geographer. 19: 5-18.

Broadway, Michael, Stull, Donald and Podraza, Bill. 1994. "What Happens When the Meat Packers Come to Town?" Small Town Journal: Vol. 25 (1): 24-28.

Finney County Historic Tour Guide 1994 (brochure)

Isberg, Gunnar. 1981. "Toward a Rural Planning Approach for Evolving Communities." Small Town Journal 12: 15-18.

Keller, Lawrence F. and Wamsley, Gary L. 1978 " Small Government as an Interorganizational Governance Network," Southern Review of Public Administration. 2 (3): 277-300.

Marketview Survey. 1993. Garden City.

Rossi, Peter H. 1960. "Power and Community Structure." Midwest Journal of Political Science. 4: 390-401.

Rubin, Irene and Rubin, Hebert. 1987. "Economic Development Incentives: The Poor (Cities) Pay More," Urban Affairs Quarterly. 23(1): 37-62.

Swanson, Bert; Cohen, Richard and Swanson, Edith. 1979. Small Towns and Small Towners: A Framework for Survival and Growth. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.

Angela Donelson
Analyst, Department of Development Services
City of Sierra Vista
1011 N. Coronado Drive
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
(520)458-3315