The Kansas Chamber and Kansas Retail Council (KRC) recently testified before the Kansas House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development in support of House Bill 2447.
The bill was initially written in response to the City of Wichita attempting to ban the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores as part of a push from animal rights advocates. The Kansas Chamber and KRC see this as unnecessary overreach from municipalities threatening legally operated businesses. They hold that it should be left up to the states or federal government to determine whether something should or should not be illegal, not cities and counties.
According to Kansas Chamber Vice President of Government Affairs Eric Stafford, the bill will prevent the formation of a patchwork of laws causing inconsistent and unfair standards for businesses throughout the state.
“In recent years, we have seen cities across the country take the extreme approach to regulate consumer activity by banning items such as gas-powered lawnmowers and fur clothing,” Stafford explained in his testimony to the committee. “…We could have a situation where pet stores would be forced to close their doors in Wichita but could, with great expense, move to Andover and sell these pets to families without problem.”
Staci Williams, chair of the KRC and owner of Petland Topeka also testified in support of HB 2447. She said bans of legal merchandise by municipalities are “detrimental” for businesses in Kansas as well as the state’s community and economy.
“The loss of functioning, profitable businesses due to municipality limitations causes a tax burden both locally and on a state level due to the loss of sales tax revenues,” Williams explained in her testimony. The loss of this income would directly impact the quality of streets and infrastructure, public services like police and fire departments and community outreach.”
Williams went on to argue that, in addition to the loss of sales tax, closures of businesses due to municipality bans impact communities by eliminating jobs. She said this increases poverty and defaults on loan payments, resulting in issues of transportation, housing and dependance on government assistance programs.
Opponents of the bill argued that the Kansas Constitution empowers local governments to prohibit the sale of products or services that the state allows. They said the impact of the bill is too broad and limitations to local control would result in cities being required to ask permission from the legislature to address local problems.
“Cities are charged with taking action to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public,” John Goodyear, General Counsel for the League of Municipalities said in his testimony to the committee. “Sometimes they do this by passing ordinances prohibiting the sale or possession of certain products that are otherwise allowed in the state but have been banned in local communities as a response to an outcry of the public or as a more general effort to fulfill this policing role.”
Williams pointed out the importance of protecting small businesses from government overreach, saying they are an “essential monetary cornerstone in any local economy,” providing paychecks and taxes and reducing burdens on the state to provide tax-funded resources.
“There is no sensible reason that a lucrative, maintained and regulated business that is meeting its state’s standards of operation should be banned from conducting business on a municipality level,” Williams said.
On March 16, the Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development submitted a report recommending the bill be passed with amendments. However, KansasBizNews.com was recently informed the bill has been sent back to the House Committee for additional review next legislative session.
