Tag: politics

Fredonia, Kansas and American Oil

Ninety miles east of Wichita, 100 miles north of Tulsa you find Fredonia, Kansas. Fredonia, Kansas was named after the Fredonia we find in New York State. Fredonia, Kansas was incorporated in 1871.

Eleven years after the first European settlers set foot in this Kansas community located at the southeast tip of the state alongside the Fall River, Fredonia was organized and a name for the town was chosen – Fredonia Town Company. That year was 1868. 

Following the discovery of oil and gas in nearby Neodesha in 1892, the regional oil business ramped up in southeast Kansas. By 1900, Fredonia evolved into a regional energy center, a position Fredonia maintains to this day. Last year, seventy-two Fredonia oil wells produced 1,703,238 cumulative barrels of oil.

Since 1900, oil production in Fredonia has steadily increased, while industry efficiencies resulted in a streamlined exploration processes.

In the oil business, production bbls (barrels of oil) represents the volume of oil produced, annually. Whereas cumulative bbls (barrels of oil) represents the running total for all oil produced from a well, a field or a lease since the well, field or lease began production. 

The highest count for Fredonia oil wells was registered in 2012, when the town had 212 wells. Those 212 wells produced 1,599,095 cumulative barrels of oil that year.

There were seven per cent fewer barrels of oil produced in Fredonia in 2012 than were produced last year, in 2026. Even though the number of active Fredonia oil wells in 2026 – 72 oil wells – represents only 33% of the number of Fredonia wells in 2012, when there were 212 wells.

The first time Fredonia produced in excess of one million cumulative barrels of oil was 1987 – 1,016,872 bbls. The 1,016,872 bbls were extracted through 120 wells.

Fredonia’s cumulative oil production hit the 1.5-million mark for the first time in 2006 – 1,508,415 bbls. There were 195 wells pumping oil in Fredonia that year.

Of Kansas’s 105 counties, Wilson County (Fredonia is located in Wilson County) is ranked #54 in terms of cumulative oil production.

The oil business has a strong foothold in Fredonia. Cherokee Wells, Viking Production and E and E Holdings are each based in Fredonia.

Social Costs are Seen, Financial Costs are Felt



Question: Why should we focus on reducing the number of vacant homes in cities?


One answer: Vacant homes become a financial drain on that city’s resources.

For example, the cost to demolish one vacant home could reach up to $20,000. Sometimes more.


There are social costs as well…


Neighborhoods with high concentrations of vacant homes become breeding grounds for crime: social costs.


Yet social costs are not always correlated to dollars and cents. Social costs are sometimes deemed to be someone else’s problem.


But are social costs really someone else’s problem?


Social costs attributed to vacant homes lead to financial costs incurred by a city, by that city’s stakeholders and by that city’s taxpayers.


Social costs do affect those who may (at first) believe one vacant home in another part of town is not their problem.


A New Yorker living in Tribeca or on the Upper East Side is part of the New York City family. As such, they pay New York City taxes.


So, while there may be no vacant homes in Tribeca or the Upper East Side, Tribeca and the Upper East Side are still linked to the poorest neighborhoods in New York City. To the Morrisania neighborhood or the Crotona neighborhood in the Bronx, where just about 4-out-of-10 live below the poverty line.


Be it Morrisania or be it Tribeca. Be it Crotona or be it the Upper East Side. Each neighborhood – all four of them – is still part of the New York City family.


Let’s say there is a foreclosure in Crotona. And let’s say that foreclosure in Crotona becomes a vacant home.


Increased police patrolling in Crotona might be enacted. So as to avert utilization of that vacant home for illegal purposes.

More police cars driving through Crotona becomes a financial cost which addresses the social cost. That financial cost is a New York City cost: a cost bourne by Crotona, a cost bourne by the Upper East Side, a cost bourne by Tribeca.


The cost of the vacant home to Crotona is obvious: Lower home values. An overgrown yard. Broken windows. Possible break-ins. More police cars driving by.


The cost of that vacant home to the Upper East Side or to Tribeca? Less obvious. Yet real, nonetheless.


Homeowners on the Upper East Side and Tribeca contribute to New York City police officer salaries too.

Trenton: a case study in the relationship between de-industrialization and housing


Trenton’s population peaked in the mid-1950’s. While at the same time, socioeconomic challenges were gripping Trenton. And industrial cities like Trenton. Throughout the United States.

Trenton, like countless mid-Century manufacturing hubs, encountered substantial problems resulting from a national movement towards de-industrialization. Akron. Detroit. St. Louis. Cleveland. Trenton. To name but a few. Each, once an industrial powerhouse. Each, sadly brought to their knees by globalization. By de-industrialization. By an economy which moved away from manufacturing.


Problems accompanying de-industrialization can be seen in circumstances which overtook labor. Decimating workers. Shuttering factories.

The platform for this problem…


As northern industrial cities grew, workers migrated from southern states to northern cities which possessed strong manufacturing bases. Workers pursued higher paying jobs found in factories.
Workers went north to attain higher wages and good weekly paychecks. They found what they were looking for in northern manufacturing cities.

Yet the economy was changing…


A notable portion of mid-century workers who came to Trenton lacked the skill sets required to retain wages which were sufficient enough to support the purchase of (and the upkeep of) homes as the economy changed. As factory jobs were shed. As the United States de-industrialized.


Lacking the incomes needed to update their homes and pay property taxes, over time, more and more Trenton homes fell into a state of disrepair.


An inability to afford the upkeep of homes, combined with (arguably, by some) a trend towards lax oversight by the City in regard to enforcing housing maintenance standards led to the deterioration of Trenton’s housing stock. Which, when combined with White flight, redlining by lenders and suburbanization, led to a decrease in center city Trenton home values. A problem which was then compounded by a newfound ease in the commute by workers into (and out of) Trenton.


Easy commutes exacerbated center city housing challenges. The ability to commute to and from jobs in cities such as Trenton was made possible by the construction of roads and highways.

One could buy a home in the suburbs. Then drive to their job in Trenton. Leading to a decrease in demand for center city Trenton homes. A perfect elixir for urban blight.

Today upwards of 60% of those who live in Trenton rent. Whereas in Mercer County – as well as in New Jersey overall – the rental rate is between 30% to 40%. A disproportionately high percentage of Trenton residents rent.


The consequence? Lack of homeownership.

In Trenton one will see hundreds of vacant lots, vacant buildings and vacant homes. The result of a hollowing out of Trenton’s industrial base. Redlining. And easy commutes. Each contributing in their own unique way to a deterioration of Trenton’s center city housing stock.


This one time industrial powerhouse certainly owns its share of economic and housing challenges. Yet, with thousands of vacant lots, vacant buildings and vacant homes, this former Mid-Atlantic industrial heavyweight also possesses the ingredients to establish processes to transition now non-performing properties to affordable homes.

The construction of new homes. Older homes renovated. Repurposed center city made available to those who would like call Trenton “home.” As homeowners. Not as renters. While at the same time, increasing the city’s property tax base. Decreasing blight.


The solution?


A comprehensive land bank in Trenton. Or, a commitment made by City officials to the issuance of RFP’s. RFP’s which real estate developers could submit Responses to.

They headed west…

During the latter part of the 19th Century, the Homestead Act enabled settlers to become landowners. The Homestead Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on May 20, 1862.


Through the Homestead Act, after living on and improving their homestead for five years, a homesteader would then receive their deed by paying a $18 filing fee.


Leading up to the Civil War, southern states seceded from the Union. One year before the Homestead Act went into effect.
Southern states intended to advance the institution of slavery. Members of Congress representing the South recognized that land added to the Union which would be owned slave owners could point the country in a pro-slavery direction. Their goal being, for slavery to be established as the foundation for rural economies in the West.


In the 1860’s there was a tug of war over the institution of slavery. It was slave owners versus free-staters. As the United States pushed west, land totaling just about 10% of the country would be conveyed to homesteaders. One million homesteaders. Representing a voting block which would be integrated into the Union. One which would influence policy.

Prior to the Homestead Act, the Preemption Act of 1841 was used by settlers – those age 21 or older, and head of a household – to acquire up to 160 acres. The price? $1.25 per acre.


Through the Preemption Act, a homesteader was required to make improvements to their homestead and to live on their homestead for a minimum of five years.


Opposition to the Homestead Act – and to the Preemption Act beforehand – had largely been anchored in plantation owners of the South. Their concern? Land acquired in the West would go to stakeholders who would not be advocates of slavery. While slavery was the bedrock on which the southern economy was based.


Representing a barrier to southern interests, the Homestead Act prohibited conveyances of land to those fought against the United States in the Civil War. Which meant, land conveyed through the Homestead Act was not available to former Confederate soldiers.


Homesteading continued on as federal policy through the 1970’s. In 1976 President Gerald Ford signed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act into law. Effectively ending homesteading at the federal level.


The Federal Land Policy and Management Act governs how federal land is administered by the Bureau of Land Management.


By the end of the Civil War, some 15,000 homesteaders acquired land through the Homestead Act. Establishing their homes in what today we know to be Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana and Wyoming. Nearly 80 million United States acres, conveyed to homesteaders.

Alexander Hamilton, coupled to his frustration with trade barriers, foretold of the rise of this industrial city.


We owe our beginning for Paterson, New Jersey to Alexander Hamilton. To Hamilton’s pursuit of American manufacturing independence. To Hamilton’s interest in battling prohibitions placed upon free trade.

Paterson was established in 1791. And it was in 1791 that Alexander Hamilton – then, Secretary of the Treasury – set up the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures (SUM). Proceeding to acquire 700 acres which would be developed as a catalyst for the growth of American manufacturing.

Those 700 Paterson acres are located close to a power source which is native to Paterson – the Great Falls.

Here we have our catalyst – the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures – and our footprint – those 700 acres – for the 18th Century emergence of an American industrial center.

Hamilton’s vision for the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures was anchored in his goal to transform Paterson into a major industrial hub.

Cotton emerged as an early product manufactured in Paterson. Soon giving way to textiles.

In time, silk would become the preeminent manufacture of Paterson. Paterson would go on to become “Silk City.”

The Great Falls of Paterson provided the power needed in “Silk City” to operate industrial sites. Industrial sites built around benefits flowing from the Falls.

Recognizing the potential in the Great Falls, Alexander Hamilton’s idea for an industrial site – and for an industrial city – could be realized through the construction of canals. Hamilton knew that canals would be able to deliver water power to industrial sites. Providing the power source – water – Paterson manufacturers could come to rely on.

A private-public corporation, the initial plan for the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures was for the corporation to build, own and operate Paterson’s industrial sites – owner-operators.

That first strategy thought up for the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures as an owner-operator changed. This early-day premise for the Society for Establishing Manufactures as owner-operator of industrial sites gave way to an amended blueprint. This amended blueprint being, for the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures to become freeholder to Paterson industrial sites.

The Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures leased industrial sites around the Falls to private manufacturers. While retaining control over the power source manufacturers relied upon – the Great Falls.

The Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures transitioned from manufacturing into real estate development. Becoming a prominent real estate developer in Paterson through the early part of the 20th Century.

Paterson becoming an industrial hub was a late-18th Century goal arising from the importance Alexander Hamilton placed on manufacturing independence.

Manufacturing independence. Economic independence. Industrial independence. 

The 700-acre site acquired by the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures around the Great Falls was a foundation upon which the emergence of an American manufacturing empire could be begin. The birth of Paterson.

The American Colonies gained their independence from Great Britain in 1783. With the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Two years after General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.

The Treaty of Paris was signed. The Colonies were no longer subjects of the King. Yet these new Colonies were still reliant upon Great Britain. Hence, Hamilton’s idea for the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures. Hence, our backdrop for the emergence of Paterson.

The year of the Treaty of Paris – 1783 – Colonial imports from Great Britain totaled just about $300,000, in 18th Century dollars.

The year after the Treaty of Paris – 1784 – Colonial imports from Great Britain totaled just about $600,000, in 18th Century dollars.

Imports from Great Britain doubled the first year of America’s independence. America did gain its independence from Great Britain. While at the same time, increasing their dependence on Great Britain. For imports.

Exports from Great Britain to the Colonies increased substantially after the Colonies’ independence. While Parliament was placing “tariffs” on manufactured goods the Colonies intended to export to Great Britain.

These British “tariffs” were called Duties. Duties represented constraints pushed onto Colonists, serving as barriers to Colonial exports to Great Britain. And this problem of duties was compounded by a stranglehold-of-a-requirement imposed on the Colonies through Parliament.

Great Britain commingled their imposition of Duties on American exports with an additional constraint. An additional constraint meant to further restrict American exports to Great Britain. This additional restriction being, American exports to Great Britain were required to be transported by British vessels only. Confiscatory trade policy enacted through Parliament which dampened manufacturing in the Colonies.

Trade restrictions placed upon Great Britain’s newly-independent “trade partner” did not stop at duties and a ship-British mandate.

Parliament permitted only the importation of non-manufactured American goods. It was non-manufactured goods only. Great Britain, as the world’s largest economy, placed restrictions on imported American manufactured products to protect manufactures at home.

In 1783, as a newly-independent country, the Colonies were “free” to export to Great Britain. So long as the Colonies did not export manufactures.

This protected British manufacturers from newfound Colonial competition. While at the same time, preventing the emergence of well-trained, English-speaking competitors to British manufacturers – American manufacturers.

Furthermore, Great Britain – through their Colonies, when they were Colonies of Great Britain – enjoyed prosperous trade with the British West Indies. A different outpost within the same British Empire.

Yes, the Colonies gained their independence from Great Britain. In 1783. The Colonies gained their independence while at the same time increasing their dependence upon Great Britain in different sort of way. This, a dependence found in reliance upon British manufactures. Manufacturers in Great Britain who exported their finished products to the Colonies. The inverse for which was highly restricted. Through Parliament.

The British West Indies remained, the British West Indies.

Britain enacted protectionist policies when dealing with the Colonies. Prohibiting free trade for the Colonies within the Empire. Which included the British West Indies.

The Colonies were “free” to trade with the British West Indies. So long as that trade was in non-manufactured goods. And so long as trade with the British West Indies involved the transportation of non-manufactured goods to the British West Indies (and to Great Britain, for that matter) on British vessels. 

American livestock? The trade of American livestock was fine…trade away. So long as American livestock was shipped within the British Empire on British vessels.

American lumber? The trade of American lumber was fine…trade away. So long as American lumber was shipped within the British Empire on British vessels.

American flour? The trade of American flour was fine…trade away. So long as American flour was shipped within the British Empire on British vessels.

The trade of American manufactures? Of American finished goods? No deal. No trade. There was to be no shipment of American manufactures to Great Britain, nor to the British West Indies. Not on British vessels. Not on American vessels.

Great Britain was protecting their global manufacturing dominance. While in the Colonies, the Secretary of the Treasury recognized challenges arising from the unfair British trade restrictions. The Secretary of the Treasury in the Colonies intended to alter an unfavorable outcome. Alexander Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Hence, our catalyst for Alexander Hamilton’s focus on developing the American Colonies into a manufacturing power that could one day compete with Great Britain. 

Hence, our catalyst for the emergence of American industrial cities. 

Hence, our emergence of Paterson as an industrial hub.

It had been those trade restrictions – enacted by Great Britain through Parliament after the Colonies gained their independence – which led Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, to create a framework necessary for the growth of American manufacturing. Then, so too, for the growth of American industrial cities. Cities such as Paterson.

Kansas City’s Troost Avenue

Troost Avenue, a 10-mile corridor in Kansas City running from 4th to Bannister.

Among the Kansas City neighborhoods bordering Troost Avenue are Beacon Hill, Longfellow, Squier Park, Rockhill and Hyde Park.

Troost Avenue was named after a doctor. Benoist Troost. Dr. Troost, a prominent Kansas City physician, was also a civic leader.


Troost Avenue was once home to “Millionaire’s Row.” Early in the 20th Century, “Millionaire’s Row” had been a strip of stunning mansions constructed along Troost Avenue. Those mansions adorned Troost from 31st Street to 34th Street.

Today, Troost Avenue is experiencing redevelopment interest. And a tasteful renaissance.


In times past, Troost Avenue experienced a sad history written with the underpinnings of disinvestment. Leading to decline. Leading to decreased home values. This, before Troost’s renaissance.


So what led to Troost’s decline?

Disinvestment. But real estate disinvestment was not the primary catalyst which led to Troost’s mid-20th Century decline. Real estate disinvestment certainly was one catalyst. But real estate disinvestment was not the primary catalyst.

Disinvestment in public schools east of Troost was the primary catalyst which led to Troost’s decline.


Starting off in the late ‘60’s, the School Board in Kansas City, Missouri consistently requested increases in education funding for Kansas City, Missouri schools which were located east of Troost Avenue. There were in the range of twenty such education funding requests made by the Board during this time. Funding requests made throughout the ‘60’s and ‘70’s.

Those funds – if approved – would have gone to Kansas City, Missouri public schools east of Troost Avenue. Funding requests were voted down. The result? Disinvestment in schools. Culminating in “White flight.”

Families, those having the means, that is – predominantly White families – moved. White families moved out of neighborhoods which were adversely affected by the undercutting of school funding.

White flight. Neighborhood home values decreased. One prominent Kansas City mayor once referred to Troost Avenue as, “…the demarcation line in a war zone.”

The problem, east of Troost, wasn’t the legal segregation of schools. Nor was the problem segregation of schools. The problem, east of Troost, was funding for education. Or a lack thereof.


Long before round after round after round after round of failed requests to secure funding for Kansas City, Missouri public schools east of Troost were submitted, those same public schools were desegregated. Yet school desegregation didn’t really solve this problem in Kansas City east of Troost.

Because while the desegregation of schools, based upon race, was the national mandate after Brown v. the Board of Education, decisions which were made affecting education funding were made at the local level. Therein we find the problem. For why public schools east of Troost declined.


In 1954, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. Prior to Brown v. The Board of Education, in Kansas City, east of Troost, Lincoln High School had been the only high school providing post-elementary education to Black students. One high school.


In 1955, one year after Brown v. The Board of Education, the Kansas City School Board enacted a “segregation” of public schools in a different way. This was a “de-facto segregation.” Not based upon race. But rather, this was a segregation based upon attendance zones.

Revisiting “White flight” east of Troost, the “White flight” which occurred as round after round of school funding requests were voted down led to the “panic selling” of homes. Leading to block busting. As White families relocated out of the Kansas City, Missouri school district. Real estate values declined.


No, Kansas City, Missouri public schools east of Troost were not segregated based upon race after the 1954 Supreme Court decision. But yet, in a practical sense, they were still segregated.


Kansas City, Missouri public schools east of Troost remained overcrowded. And underfunded. The city’s expansion just made it worse.


In real estate, developers often utilize – and benefit from – tax abatements. On Troost Avenue, and east of Troost, there is a real estate renaissance taking place.


While panic selling and block busting were factors which contributed to neighborhood destabilization east of Troost in years past, neighborhoods east of Troost today are likely to not experience the same type of disruptions as the pendulum swings the other way. Through redevelopment.


What we may see is, not decreasing property values east of Troost. We’ll likely see increasing property values east of Troost.

We likely won’t see panic selling east of Troost. We’ll likely see home sellers fetching ever-increasing prices for their homes, east of Troost.


We won’t see blockbusting, east of Troost. We’ll see continued interest in homes, east of Troost.


What we’ll also likely see, east of Troost, is community members priced out of their neighborhoods. We’ll likely see gentrification. We’ll see investment. Not disinvestment. We’ll see tax abatements.

Accompanying such, we’ll also see hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance incurred by Kansas City, Missouri public schools.


We’ll likely see challenges in education. Different education challenges. But challenges, nonetheless. Not segregation. Not the same challenges as before. But challenges.


If redevelopment on Troost Avenue and east of Troost is the #1 goal, all good. If there are other concerns to consider, maybe one should revisit Kansas City history? Focusing on this topic: public schools east of Troost.

Rumson, New Jersey…in the very beginning.


The Borough of Rumson is a charming seven square mile bedroom community of New York City. With two of those seven square miles, consisting of water.

Rumson is home to a tad more than 7,000. Long, long before Rumson became Rumson, Rumson was Navarumsunk. Or, Narumsum. 

Today’s Rumson was once Navarumsunk. This, when territory including the 7 square miles which would one day become Rumson was purchased by English settlers. English settlers who migrated to the area from New England. And from Long Island. English sellers purchased Navarumsunk from the Lenape Indians.

Negotiations for the sale of Navarumsunk to English settlers began in 1663. Two years later, Governor Richard Nicholls confirmed the land purchase. By way of the Monmouth Patent. The year was 1665.

Through attrition, over time, due to, in a nutshell, shall we say, convenience, the longer Indian denomination of Navarumsunk was shortened. Shortened, to Rumson. 

The origin for the borough’s name – Rumson – is seen in naming assigned by Native Americans. Navarumsunk. Navarumsum. Rumson.

Today’s Rumson resulted from this 17th Century land purchase. A sprawling acquisition of land, this sale by the Lenape, certainly was. Land sold consisted of one tract of land nestled in between the Navesink River and the Shrewsbury River.

Extending from today’s Sea Bright, to the east. Flowing west, to tributaries emptying into the Shrewsbury River. Today’s Rumson. 

Held by the English, Navarumsunk became Ramson’s Neck.

Ramson’s Neck was never a township. Ramson’s Neck was never a settlement. Ramson’s Neck included what would go on to become Rumson. 

The catalyst for our 1665 land purchase which became Ramson’s Neck, a section of which, later becoming Rumson, was found across “the Pond” – English colonial expansion.

A land conveyance by royalty in Great Britain can be pointed to as the reason there was a Ramson’s Neck. This same royal land conveyance also led to the establishment of Monmouth County. This was a conveyance of land in what was then Dutch territory – New Netherlands.

England’s king at the time was King Charles II. Charles II granted land in New Netherlands to his brother, James. The Duke of York.

The king granted to the duke a tract of unsettled land inclusive of today’s Monmouth County.

At the time of conveyance – from king, to Duke – New Netherlands was controlled by the Dutch. The English had their sight on taking this Dutch region for themselves. This, a land mass extending from what today would be Connecticut, going due south, to today what would be Delaware.

Charles II granted this entire Mid-Atlantic region – from Connecticut to Delaware – to his brother. James. The Duke of York. 

Upon receiving this land from his brother, the King of England, Duke of York authorized Governor Richard Nicholls to commence settlements. Settlements in what was still the Dutch’s New Netherlands.

Underpinnings for English settlements in Dutch territory emanated from the Monmouth Patent. 


The Monmouth Patent, understood best, within our context, was the assumption by Governor Richard Nicholls of a responsibility. A responsibility bestowed upon Governor Nicholls by the Duke of York.

The responsibility? To attract one hundred families to settle in this Mid-Atlantic Dutch territory. By 1668. Three years to accomplish the settlement threshold. Which led to, the Nicholls grant. With Governor Nicholls providing land grants for settlement.


The Nicholls grant was for land in Monmouth County, Ocean County and Middlesex County. Monmouth County, in which our Borough of Rumson resides.

Establishment of one hundred new English settlements within three years, aligned with the Monmouth Patent, included a prerequisite. A condition.

A condition was attached by Great Britain to Governor Nicholls’ land grants.

In order for what today is Monmouth County, Ocean County and Middlesex County to not revert back to the Duke of York from Governor Nicholls one hundred settlements were to take hold within the three year allotment.

The very first English settlers to arrive by way of Nicholls grants went in Shrewsbury village.

The Nicholls grant bestowed upon settlers a broad discretion. This, to govern themselves.

The “carrot” of self governance. An enticement to settle. These settlers were called, Patentees. Aptly named, because at the very core, these settlements came through the Monmouth Patent.

The Monmouth Patent, the Nicholls grant and Patentees. Emanating from Great Britain. The colonial goal? To establish one hundred new English settlements over three years. In Dutch territory. The expansionist colonial mindset of the British Empire.

The Monmouth Patent hit a bump in the road. British expansion, struck, and removed from uninterrupted accord. 

In 1674, the Dutch recaptured their New Netherlands territory. Taken back. From the English. 

While Dutch governance of New Netherlands (once again) proved to be a short lived reign, previous English grants – the Nicholls grant, the Monmouth Patent – were nullified. Through the change in imperial governance. From Great Britain. To Holland. 

Nullified, technically. Yet English settlements were not as alterable as would be flying a Vlag van Nederland (flag of the Netherlands) rather than the Union Jack over settlements.

By 1675, the English wrestled control of the Mid-Atlantic from the Dutch. 

Seven years later, the duke’s goal for Governor Nicholls to establish one hundred settlements was far surpassed. By 1682, four settlements were established in Ramson’s Neck and in surrounding land. Encompassing thousands of acres of plantations. Precursors to numerous cuter boroughs and townships. One of which being, Rumson.

Through the Revolutionary War times, Ramson’s Neck – today’s Rumson, Fair Haven, Red Bank, Little Silver and Shrewsbury – were sections within Shrewsbury Township.

Rumson was part of Shrewsbury for the next hundred years. Rumson became an independent borough in 1907. Rumson’s birthday is March 15, 1907. 

Kansas City


As a city, Kansas City trails only Paris with regard to each’s fountains count. The City of Fountains, as Kansas City is lovingly known to be, has over 200 fountains.

Some of those beautiful fountains in KC can be found near Kansas City’s majestic Union Station. From Union Station, take The Link over Grand Boulevard, and you arrive in the very heart of Crown Center.

At Christmastime, the beauty we find in Crown Center’s collection of fountains is accentuated by a special, special scene. Christmastime skaters.

For over fifty years Crown Center has been home to Kansas City’s original ice skating rink, Crown Center Ice Terrace. A staple for all who enjoy a Paris of the Plains Christmas.

Crown Center…

One of Kansas City’s true crown jewels would indeed be Crown Center. Another of Kansas City’s crown jewels would be the iconic corporation to which the fortunes of Crown Center Ice Terrace – as well as Crown Center itself – are owed. Hallmark. 

Each of our two Kansas City treasures – Crown Center and Hallmark – find their histories’ foundations in J.C. Hall. 

J.C. Hall…

As Kansas City continues to redevelop its downtown into one of the very finest downtowns in all of America, the wave of downtown redevelopment we see in Kansas City today also adopts into the club of downtown redevelopment leaders our forefather to Crown Center and to Hallmark, J.C. Hall.

While the focus of this article is not “redevelopment,” today’s Crown Center is very much emblematic of what can happen for a city when a corporate leader – in this case, J.C. Hall – opts to remain within a city’s downtown. Rather than follow (at that time) a trend of abandoning one’s center city roots by relocating to the suburbs.

The very beginning for Kansas City’s Crown Center goes back to a late 1960’s redevelopment plan. A redevelopment plan anchored through J.C Hall’s Crown Center businesses. A redevelopment plan which also received contributions from another iconic Kansas Citian, Walt Disney.

J.C. Hall. The one time door-to-door Avon salesman from Norfolk, Nebraska. Our Crown Center forefather.

J.C. Hall’s career evolved. From selling makeup, door-to-door. To selling postcards. And it was those postcards that J.C. Hall sold early on in his career that would bring J.C. Hall from his Cornhusker youth to Kansas City. And to forefather of Crown Center.

Yet, before we arrive at the company for which J.C. Hall’s “American signature” is forever most commonly linked, a prior step in his Kansas City business sequence…

From postcards. To store. From store, to a grand department store. A grand department store in Crown Center.

Halls Department Store…

J.C. Hall began his career in Kansas City by selling his postcards. Later, adding greeting cards to his product offering. In time, J.C. Hall would go on to open that first store in Kansas City. The store from which he could sell his postcards. And his greeting cards too. This store that J.C. Hall opened in Kansas City would go on to become Halls Department Store.

Halls Department Store started out as a specialty store. With J.C. Halls offering much more of a retail collection than simply postcards and greeting cards. Yet those postcards and those greeting cards would certainly prove to be stalwarts to a J.C. Hall Crown Center icon. An icon that would go on to become a global brand. Hallmark.


At its origin, Halls Department Store stocked expensive, high-quality items. Favorites for upper echelon Kansas City patrons. In time, Halls Department Store had themselves a prime Country Club Plaza storefront.

Halls Department Store arrived in The Plaza in 1965. Later migrating from The Plaza to the hub of J.C.Hall’s enterprises. To where we find Halls Department Store today. Crown Center. 

Shoppers who visit Halls Department Store – Halls Department Store is owned by Hallmark – are heading over to Grand Boulevard. Halls Department Store. Grand Boulevard. Level 3. In Crown Center.

Crown Center, which also houses the headquarters for the centerpiece to J.C. Hall’s collection. That centerpiece, the “Crown Center nucleus” which benefitted from the experience J.C. Hall attained early on by selling his postcards? And his greeting cards? That centerpiece, is Hallmark.

J.C. Halls founded Hallmark Cards in 1910. 

Hallmark Cards has the same origin as does that of its founder, J.C. Hall. Greeting cards. Postcards.

Hallmark did not start out as Hallmark. Hallmark did not start out in Kansas City.

Hallmark Cards began in 1907 in Norfolk, Nebraska. Originally, as Norfolk Postcard Company.

The iconic Hallmark label was introduced as a stand-alone Norfolk Postcard Company brand eighteen years after J.C. Halls founded his Norfolk Postcard Company in Nebraska. Use of the Hallmark name began in 1928. 

In 1954, the original Norfolk Postcard Company – the company whose origin was the sale of those postcards in Nebraska by J.C.Hall – changed its company name. From its name at that time – Hall Brothers – to Hallmark. 

With Hallmark’s headquarters in Crown Center, with Halls Department Store in Crown Center, with J.C. Hall opting to keep his company in center city Kansas City rather than relocate to the suburbs, the underpinnings for Crown Center’s late-‘60’s redevelopment had been established. Redevelopment for Crown Center officially began in 1968. 

The beginning phase for the redevelopment of Crown Center involved construction of underground parking. As well as the central square. The central square in Crown Center, which is where we find our skaters.

Through redevelopment, Crown Center went on to become a truly unique mixed-use district. Offices. Retail. Theatres. Hotels… Crown Center opened to the public in 1971. Three years after redevelopment commenced.


Today, Crown Center encompasses 85 acres in Kansas City. Union Station. Our National World War I Museum and Memorial. Halls Department Store. Hallmark. Each, located in Crown Center.

Yet, at Christmastime, for so many, the Crown Center experience is best brought home by the ice skating. Ice skating made possible, that is, because one American corporate chief in Kansas City chose benefits bestowed upon his companies through redevelopment. Over a move out of Kansas City, to the suburbs.


So those happy skaters in Kansas City can thank a former door-to-door Avon salesman from Nebraska for their ice time fun.

They can thank J.C. Hall. Forefather of Crown Center.

Emporia, Kansas


In east central Kansas, at the junction of the Cottonwood River and the Neosho River, you’ll find the foothills of the Flint Hills. Emporia, Kansas. The very beginning for Emporia…a $1,800 land purchase.

This original land purchase encompassed an area within Emporia which stretches from what today is Emporia’s 6th Street to 18th Avenue. Due northwest, of this article’s topic.

Founded in 1857 as a trading post along the Santa Fe Trail, one can hypothecate that “DNA” for the Emporia one sees today took hold during the 1960’s. 

In 1969, the Tyson plant in Emporia opened. Opening after a two-year period of thorough plant modernization, and expansion. That Emporia Tyson plant which opened in 1969 was not yet Tyson. This plant, at that time, had been IBP – Iowa Beef Processing. 

The decade of the ‘60’s brought with it notable innovation in the American beef business. Leading to increases in investment in America’s beef industry. Which significantly reshaped the economy for the Great Plains. In which, Emporia resides. 

IBP’s plant in Emporia opened in 1969. And it was the sale of this plant to IBP two years prior to the plant’s opening – the sale of the plant to IBP taking place in 1967 – which foretold of innovation in America’s beef processing industry.

In 1967 Armour and Company sold their Emporia-based beef processing operation to IBP. IBP’s plant modernization – completed two years later – was emblematic of this decade of innovation.

Emporia is nestled within the Great Plains along I-35. Between Wichita and Kansas City. For this piece, I’d like to cite one unique 19th Century paradigm which, one can argue, led to Emporia’s evolution as a beef processing hub. And then, so too, to the emergence of major Midwest beef processing centers situated throughout the Midwest.


One hundred years prior to the sale of that Armour and Company Emporia plant to IBP, the British Empire made up just about one quarter of the world’s GDP. In the 1860’s, a severe plague broke out in Great Britain. Curtailing Britain’s domestic beef industry. Reducing the total number of heads of cattle which could be brought to market within the British Empire.

While over half of all revenues in 1860 for the British Empire flowed to London through Great Britain’s expansive “outposts,” those living on the British Isles themselves back home loved their beef.


England. Scotland. Wales. Ireland. As well as thousands of smaller islands. The British Isles. Enter a beef shortage. Coupled to, no let-up in the demand for beef within Great Britain. 

As this epidemic ravaged Great Britain, domestically raised cattle – cattle which could have been brought to market in Great Britain – took a hit. Less cattle. Less cattle going to market in Great Britain. The beef shortage.

At this same time, across The Pond in the United States, the Great Plains was opening up to commercial interests.

Great Britain recognized this confluence of events: a) a beef shortage in Great Britain, plus b) the opening up of thousands of acres of prime cattle-grazing land in the United States.


With the beef shortage taking hold in the world’s largest economy, the price of beef shot up. Elevated beef prices lead to investment opportunities. Then. And now.

Prior to an increase in beef prices, American businessmen were already deploying capital to develop the United States cattle industry. Deployed capital which led to modernization for, and the growth of, American cattle business on the Great Plains. Enter additional capital. From London.


Increased demand. Higher prices. Investment. The build-out of the cattle industry on the Great Plains. Yet still, in 1860, transportation lines for Midwest cattle had yet to be modernized. Inhibiting efficiency for the market.

While grazing land in the Great Plains further opened up to American ranchers, a notable degree of capital was flowing to the Plains from across The Pond. Coming from British financiers. This capital infusion fueled the growth of – as well as modernization for – the American cattle industry. As investments made by Great Britain to facilitate the transportation of cattle led to investment in railroads, the very means by which the shipment of cattle took place incurred new efficiency.

While buyers of beef were (and are) concentrated in urban centers – and for Great Britain, across The Pond – United States stockyards were (and are) located in America’s Midwest. So too, is Emporia.

Investment in railroads – by the United States government, and by British financiers – connected urban centers – I.e.: buyers of beef – to beef supply – I.e.: stockyards. In fact, many early stockyards evolved through partnerships struck between railroads and the cattle industry itself.

Timing…

Emporia was founded in 1857. Thirteen years later, in 1870, Emporia was incorporated.

Emporia was founded not long before the aforementioned bout of anthrax gripped the domestic British cattle industry. Leading to…Britain’s shortage of beef.

This beef shortage checked the world’s largest economy. Driving down the number of heads of cattle which came to market in Great Britain. While at the same time, driving up the price of beef. As demand for beef remained constant.

The curtailing of production of domestic beef in Great Britain – the anthrax – coincided with the opening up of the Great Plains to ranchers in the United States. Fueling investment. Leading to improvements made in the transportation of cattle by rail. Leading to the prioritization of investments in railroads. And in beef processing centers. 

By 1870, two railroads reached Emporia. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. And the Union Pacific Railway. Emporia became a booming railroad hub. As well as a cattle industry center, at that.

Railroads’ have unique American relationship to our cattle industry. And to Emporia.

Driving through Emporia today, one can’t help but recognize our correlative railroad-to-cattle industry linkage.


Cattle sales are held in Emporia every Wednesday. Held at Emporia Livestock Sales on Albert Street.


The Emporia Livestock Sales building is nearby train tracks. Tracks which are owned by BNSF. These BNSF train tracks in Emporia enable freight to be transported from California to Chicago.


Standing in front of the Emporia Livestock Sales building, looking to the south, you’ll see the Tyson plant.

That old Tyson plant in Emporia – where my aunt Rita worked for over 30 years – is, just like the Emporia Livestock Sales Building, located alongside Emporia’s BNSF train tracks. BNSF’s Southern Transcon line. 

This Midwest connection of stockyards to urban centers. The railroad and the cattle industry…

Stand atop the Prairie Street Bridge in Emporia. Look down. BNSF’s Transcon tracks. Look to the north. Emporia Livestock Sales. Look to the west. The former Armour plant. Which became the IBP plant. Which then became the Tyson plant…where Aunt Rita worked for over 30 years.


We can attribute this Emporia story to the opening of the Great Plains to ranchers. Yet there was also was that epidemic in Great Britain to think about.

As such, Great Britain, some may argue, is an unseen hand, contributing to the history for Midwest beef processing plants. Beginning in 1860’s.

Then, so too, Great Britain would be a catslyst, an oft overlooked forefather, one may say, which added their own special contributions…collectively making up Emporia’s unique and rich American story.

Manhattan, Kansas


In 1854, when President Franklin Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act into law, a new Kansas Territory was opened for settlement. That same year, seeds were planted for one such riverside settlement within this new Kansas Territory. A settlement that would go on to become “The Little Apple.”


Steps taken by pioneers to establish what would go on to become “The Little Apple” -aka, Manhattan, Kansas – should be thought about with the Kansas-Nebraska Act also in mind. This is so due to the relationship the Kansas-Nebraska Act had to the institution of slavery. To how the Act served as a catalyst for Kansas’ formation. To how the Act fueled the antislavery movement in Kansas. Then too, to how the Act served as the precipice for the early organizers of a townsite which would evolve into “The Little Apple.”


So how do we connect Manhattan’s formation to the Kansas-Nebraska Act? Then too, to the antislavery movement? This connection really begins, with a Senator from Illinois…

In 1854, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas introduced a bill to Congress. This bill that Senator Douglas introduced to Congress was the Kansas-Nebraska Act.


Senator Douglas’ bill – which President Pierce signed into law the same year the bill was introduced – ended the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise banned slavery in states north of an established latitudinal designation. Minus, one state, Missouri. Missouri’s exclusion from the ban of slavery, being, the “Compromise.”

While doing away with the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act also organized two new territories for the United States. These two new U.S. territories being, one, the Kansas Territory, and, two, the Nebraska Territory.

Two new U.S. territories were organized. The Missouri Compromise was ended. Without the Missouri Compromise, the two new U.S.territories would be free to enact “popular sovereignty.” And this popular sovereignty, within Douglas’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, related to whether slavery would become an institutional pillar within each of the two new U.S. territories.

So, with President Pierce’s signing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the race was then on to settle these two new territories. And, to settle the territories with positions on slavery which would thus, in turn, be representative of the viewpoints pertaining to the institution of slavery espoused by the early framers of the territories.  

Popular sovereignty was in. The Missouri Compromise was out. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was in. What remained to be either in or out, was, the institution of slavery.

The same year the Kansas-Nebraska Act was signed into law by President Pierce, a settlement took hold in the Kansas Territory at the junction of the Kansas River and the Big Blue River. This, a riverside settlement founded by Colonel George Park. Colonel Park named his settlement, Poleska.

As Colonel Park founded Poleska, another group of pioneers heading into the new Kansas Territory – this group, cattlemen from Illinois, led by Samuel Houston – founded a neighboring settlement. Their neighboring settlement, Canton.

Popular sovereignty. No Missouri Compromise. And two new settlements in the Kansas Territory.

One year after Colonel Park founded Poleska, one year after Samuel Houston founded Canton, we find the structural framework for what would go on to become, “The Little Apple.” Manhattan.

Our framework for Manhattan, inspired by the popular sovereignty which came to be in the Kansas Territory. As the Missouri Compromise, was no more.


One year after the settlements of Poleska and Canton were founded, in 1855, a group of New England abolitionists traveled to this new Kansas Territory. From Boston. With popular sovereignty in mind, these New Englanders wanted to establish a Free State for this new Kansas Territory. They realized that they could do so. By increasing the number of antislavery voters in the Kansas Territory. Thus, with a majority of antislavery voters, ensuring that when Kansas did become a United States state, Kansas would enter the Union, as a free state. 


These abolitionists from Boston – the New England Emigrant Aid Company – selected the contiguous Poleska-Canton settlements as their new Free-State home. Their new Kansas Territory home, located alongside those two Kansas rivers. The Big Blue River. And the Kansas River. 

Recognizing how their settlement could develop reliable channels for commerce as a result of the settlement’s strategic position alongside two rivers, a river landing was built. With a river landing, then, ferries were built. Means of waterway commerce was established. A town constitution was adopted. The pioneers from Boston proceeded to acquire acreage. With their land acquisitions, the footprint of this new antislavery settlement, had been enhanced.

Yet, this antislavery settlement, was not yet a town. This settlement was not yet, Manhattan. 

Manhattan was once, Boston…

This townsite, nestled alongside the Kansas River and the Big Blue River was still known as – just as this townsite had been known to be, since its founding by Boston settlers – Boston.

The name Manhattan would indeed come…not long after.

The same year the New England Emigrant Aid Company arrived at the Poleska-Canton settlements, another group – this group, with their origin being, Cincinnati, Ohio – also arrived. And it was this second group, from which, our Manhattan name, came to be.

This second group was the Cincinnati and Kansas Land Company. The Cincinnati and Kansas Land Company arrived at the Poleska-Canton settlements, also in 1855. Making their journey to the new Kansas Territory, on a steamship.

Upon arrival, ready to put up buildings. And houses. To further develop the commerce which was still in its infancy – in year one – within the Poleska-Canton settlements.


As an inducement to advance commerce, the New Englanders offered the Cincinnati and Kansas Land Company half of their Kansas Territory townsite of Boston. 

Our new Kansas Territory group from Cincinnati accepted the stake holding offer. With one condition. This condition being, the townsite name would need to be changed. From Boston. To Manhattan.

A deal was struck. 

Manhattan, Kansas was founded in 1855. Two years later, Manhattan, Kansas was incorporated. 

The Little Apple.