The accompanying video, even at 1.5x speed, highlights the Wichita City Council’s extensive deliberation regarding the Crown Uptown. Over an hour of discussion culminated in a unanimous 7-0 vote to impose a 180-day moratorium on demolition, allowing preservation advocates to explore alternative outcomes.

I share the sentiment against the demolition of the Crown Uptown. As my favorite building in Wichita, its loss would irrevocably alter a prominent stretch of Douglas Avenue. I understand the emotional attachment many feel, as I experience it myself. However, the building is not publicly owned. The neighborhood does not own it, nor does the City of Wichita. A private owner owns it, and collective attachment does not confer an ownership interest.

Crucially, the historical significance of the Crown Uptown was not a recent discovery, coinciding with the current owner’s demolition application. The building, which opened in 1928, has stood for nearly a century. During this time, through multiple ownerships, the city, preservationists, and generations of residents had ample opportunity to pursue historic designation and establish the protections now urgently sought.

They did not take these actions.

Watch full councile meeting on the City of Wichita Youtube

Another Demolition Application, Another Governmental Intervention

The Crown Uptown, constructed in 1928, is recognized by Wichita as an undesignated historic resource. It does not currently appear on national, state, or Wichita registers of historic places. The current owner submitted a demolition permit application on July 27. Subsequently, Wichita’s preservation planner issued a 30-day interim control, preventing the permit’s issuance. The City Council possessed the authority to extend this restriction for up to 180 days.

Council Member Joseph Shepard proposed the full 180-day extension, and Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock seconded the motion. The council approved it unanimously, 7-0. This decision prevents the owner from proceeding with demolition until January 23, 2027, during which time city officials, preservation advocates, potential buyers, and other stakeholders will attempt to identify an alternative solution.

Precedent: Wichita’s 2025 Process

Mayor Lily Wu repeatedly posed the most critical question of the entire discussion: what do we expect to be different this time?

Wichita undertook a nearly identical process in 2025. Interim controls followed a demolition application, and the City Council extended them for 180 days while the city investigated formal protective measures for the Crown. Wichita’s City Council considered the historic designation of the Crown on July 15, 2025, following recommendations from a consultant, the Wichita Historic Preservation Board, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

Because the property owner did not consent to the designation, the seven-member council required five affirmative votes to place the Crown on the Wichita Register of Historic Places. Due to Mayor Lily Wu’s absence, only six council members were present. The vote resulted in a 3-3 tie, with three members supporting and three opposing the designation. This outcome meant the designation failed, as even a 4-2 vote in favor would not have met the five-vote threshold. Consequently, the 180-day restriction on the property eventually expired.

During a subsequent discussion, Planning Director Scott Wedel stated he could not guarantee a different outcome from another delay. He noted that the property and owner remain the same, and based on current communications, the owner’s position has not substantially changed.

The Failure to Protect the Crown Did Not Begin in 2025

The prevailing narrative surrounding the Crown’s situation often misframes the issue. The critical question should not be why the current owner declines to preserve a beloved Wichita building. Rather, a more pertinent inquiry is why Wichita delayed pursuing historic designation until an owner expressed intent to demolish it, thus necessitating an override of their wishes.

The Crown has existed for nearly a century under multiple owners. At any point, preservation advocates or the city could have initiated the process to place it on a historic register, thereby establishing stronger protections before demolition became an imminent threat. The historical significance of the Crown is not new information.If this building is sufficiently important for Wichita to consider government intervention to prevent its demolition, then it was equally important enough to protect decades ago.

Instead, the building remained an undesignated historic resource. Only after an owner exercised the rights associated with purchasing an unprotected property did Wichita attempt to impose a local historic designation without their consent.

Opportunities for Private Acquisition Also Existed

Historic designation was not the sole avenue for protecting the Crown. Before its acquisition by the current out-of-state owner, the property was publicly available for purchase for nearly a year. Any individual or group committed to preserving the Crown had the opportunity to acquire it. A preservation organization could have mobilized investors, local business owners could have formed a partnership, or community members could have raised funds. Someone dedicated to maintaining its operation as a theater could have stepped forward.

These actions did not occur. Ultimately, an out-of-state buyer acquired the property. It is difficult to accept the argument that the public should now have substantial control over the building’s future, especially given that the public had decades to pursue historic protections and ample opportunity to facilitate preservation-minded ownership.

Property rights cannot depend on whether others approve of what the owner ultimately decides to do with their purchase.

The City Does Not Own the Crown

Wu repeatedly highlighted a critical fact: The City of Wichita does not own this building and has no intention of buying it.

The city neither constructed the Crown nor owns it today, and it is not volunteering to assume the financial responsibility associated with its preservation and operation. When Wu raised the possibility of the city purchasing it, Shepard responded plainly: “That’s a no.” I agree with their assessment. Wichita taxpayers should not acquire the Crown simply because the public desires its preservation. If the government is unwilling to purchase a property, it should exercise extreme caution about behaving as though it possesses the rights of ownership.

If private investors, nonprofit organizations, or preservation advocates wish to save the Crown, I genuinely hope they succeed. Several speakers mentioned interested potential buyers, and private groups are actively exploring ways to preserve and operate the theater. That is where the solution lies: make an offer, raise the money, find investors, develop a viable operating plan, and reach an agreement with the owner.

However, the owner still has to agree to sell.

The Community Clearly Wants the Crown Saved

The public’s attachment to the building is unquestionable. Shepard noted that council members had received over 70 calls and emails supporting preservation, in addition to comments and messages through other platforms. David Bayouth, director of the newly organized Save the Crown Uptown campaign, stated that a petition had collected over 1,300 signatures in approximately seven days. Speakers shared memories of weddings, performances, childhood experiences, and decades of personal history tied to the Crown.

Shepard also referenced the College Hill Neighborhood Plan, where preserving historic housing and neighborhood character ranked first among resident priorities. He argued that the city has an obligation to take these priorities seriously after asking residents to invest their time in creating the plan. I understand that argument, and I understand why residents care. However, public opinion does not transfer ownership.

Even if every person in Wichita wanted the Crown preserved, that still would not make every person in Wichita a co-owner of the building.

The Shared Wall Is Different

One aspect of the Crown demolition gives government a legitimate role. The theater shares a wall with a neighboring property, and demolition could directly affect other property owners and businesses. MABCD informed the council that any demolition would necessitate plans for preserving the shared wall and protecting the neighboring structure. Staff also acknowledged that adjacent operations could experience temporary disruption during demolition.

Steven Holt, who, with his business partners, owns surrounding properties, informed the council that this uncertainty has already resulted in financial repercussions. He noted that prospective tenants have withdrawn from neighboring spaces due to the unresolved demolition issue, while existing tenants have expressed concerns regarding potential disruptions.

These property rights are paramount.

While the Crown’s owner possesses the right to control their property, that right does not extend to damaging an adjacent building. Ensuring safe demolition practices and protecting adjacent properties is a legitimate governmental function. However, preventing demolition solely based on public desire for a privately owned building to remain standing is a distinctly different matter.

Glasscock’s Appropriate Stance

Councilmember Glasscock acknowledged concern for the Crown and believed Wichita should seek an alternative to demolition. He supported the 180-day restriction as an opportunity for potential buyers, city staff, and private parties to assess preservation feasibility. However, Glasscock asserted that property rights are fundamental and the government should not indefinitely control private property due to public preference. He supported the 180-day period but would not endorse extending it merely due to public disapproval of the outcome. This aligns with my view, though I question the necessity of an additional six-month restriction given previous efforts.

Ultimately, a resolution is needed.

Proactive Historic Preservation is Essential

The Crown situation’s broader lesson should not be tied to the current owner. Historic preservation cannot involve waiting for a demolition proposal and then urgently attempting to revoke owner rights. If Wichita has indispensable buildings, we must identify them now. We should pursue historic designation before demolition is imminent. Preservation groups should organize before threats emerge. Private funds should be raised. We should identify preservation-committed buyers. We should acquire endangered properties when they enter the market. This work must be completed before demolition is even considered. The Crown has stood for nearly 100 years. Wichita had almost that entire period, across numerous ownerships, to establish stronger protections.

We failed.

That failure cannot transfer to the current owner.

An Additional 180-Day Restriction

The City Council voted 7-0 to prevent demolition for another 180 days, through January 23, 2027. Preservation advocates now have an additional six months to secure a buyer, financing, an operator, or another voluntary agreement for the Crown’s preservation. I sincerely hope for their success. I would be deeply saddened to see the Crown disappear. It is my favorite building in Wichita, and I would be thrilled if it could be acquired and sustained for another century.

However, my personal sentiments do not confer ownership. Neither do anyone else’s. Wichita had generations to pursue stronger historic protections. The community had opportunities to place it into preservation-minded ownership, including when it was on the market for nearly a year before its current owner purchased it. The City Council even attempted historic designation in 2025, but with Wu absent, the six participating council members split 3-3, falling short of the five affirmative votes required.

At some point, missed opportunities have consequences. Use these 180 days to pursue a voluntary solution, protect neighboring property owners, and ensure any eventual demolition meets every legitimate safety requirement. But if no buyer and seller reach an agreement and no other lawful solution emerges, Wichita cannot keep pretending everyone owns the property except the person who actually owns the building.

I desperately hope the Crown survives. But ultimately, it is his property, and Wichita had its chance to protect it.

Distinct circumstances shaped this discussion, immediately following the Taco Rio roof appeal. Both the citizen-based Delano Design Advisory Committee and the staff-based Delano Design Review Committee concurred that the proposed development failed to meet the neighborhood overlay standards.

However, this agreement does not signify a flawless process in Wichita. Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock observed that while the developer appeared amenable to modifications, staff primarily communicated what was impermissible without providing sufficient guidance on what would meet the standards. Given Wichita’s existing housing shortage, this distinction is crucial.

Ultimately, the Wichita City Council voted 7-0 to defer the appeal until September 1, offering the applicant an opportunity to revise the plans rather than approving or denying the project as submitted.

View full meeting on the City of Wichita Youtube.

Proposal for Three Duplexes Near Friends University

The proposal entails the construction of three duplexes on vacant lots located at 320 S. St. Clair Avenue, south of Maple and across the railroad tracks from Friends University. As the property lies within the Delano Neighborhood Overlay District, the development must adhere to additional design standards intended to preserve the neighborhood’s character.

Planning staff identified several deficiencies in the proposed design. These included the use of sliding picture windows instead of the prevalent double-hung windows in Delano, the absence of a front porch or stoop, the specification of 12-inch vinyl siding in lieu of narrower, traditional-looking siding, and an insufficient number of windows on certain portions of the front elevations.

Staff also noted a landscaping issue. The submitted documents lacked sufficient detail to ascertain whether the required live plant material would be incorporated along the street, though staff acknowledged this issue could be relatively straightforward to rectify.

The Delano Design Advisory Committee recommended denying the proposal with a 3-0 vote and one abstention. The Delano Design Review Committee similarly found the project non-compliant with the overlay and denied the application, leading the developer to appeal to the City Council.

Glasscock Emphasizes Need for Clearer Developer Guidance

Glasscock stated he had communicated with the applicant and believed the developer intended to comply with neighborhood standards. His concern centered on a process that seemed to highlight deficiencies without clearly articulating the changes required for project acceptance.

This represents a significant difference. If Wichita is to impose additional development requirements within neighborhood overlays, developers should not be compelled to navigate these requirements through guesswork or sequential rejections to understand staff expectations.

Glasscock noted the applicant’s apparent good faith willingness to modify the proposal and requested the council delay the case until September 1 to allow for these revisions. He later commented that, without the opportunity to collaborate with the developer, he likely would have voted to override the denial.

Citizen Committee Expresses Concerns

Christopher Parshall, a member of the Delano Design Advisory Committee, identified the lack of a landscaping plan as his primary concern. The development included an extended driveway to a rear unit despite a nearby alley, and he sought clarity on the applicant’s intentions for landscaping and green space before project approval.

Parshall also raised concerns regarding the process itself. He indicated that meeting records provided to the council appeared to contain errors concerning who made and seconded motions, and the Design Advisory Committee minutes were entirely absent.

This critique warrants attention irrespective of opinions on the duplex proposal. If an applicant appeals a decision to the City Council, council members should receive comprehensive and accurate documentation from the committees whose decisions they are asked to review.

Housing Shortage Versus Neighborhood Design Standards

Public commenter Faith Martin highlighted a broader issue: Wichita’s housing demand and the potential for unnecessary obstacles for small developers pursuing incremental housing due to relatively minor design details.

Martin questioned the city’s focus on debating elements like windows and shrubbery amidst a significant housing shortage. She argued that zoning originated primarily around health and safety concerns and questioned the extent to which government should control aesthetics when individuals are willing to build and purchase housing.

This perspective does not negate the issues with the specific application. Unlike the Taco Rio case, the developer had not provided enough information for the committees to even assess landscaping compliance. However, Martin’s overarching point remains critical, as Wichita cannot simultaneously declare a desperate need for housing while maintaining unnecessarily complex development processes.

Delano Residents Defend the Overlay

Vince Hancock defended Delano’s design standards, clarifying that he did not perceive the neighborhood overlay as an HOA with absolute control over every design decision. He argued its purpose is to preserve fundamental neighborhood characteristics rather than enforce identical aesthetics across all properties.

Hancock specifically cited the proposed 12-inch siding and the lack of information regarding green space allocation. From his perspective, the committee was not permanently rejecting the development but rather requesting the applicant return with improved drawings addressing these concerns.

He also questioned why the applicant appealed directly to the City Council instead of reverting to the Design Advisory Committee with revised plans. This reinforces the underlying problem identified by Glasscock from a different angle: the process should clearly define the next steps for all involved.

Mayor Wu Proposes Developer Checklist

Mayor Lily Wu utilized the discussion to propose a practical change that could preempt similar disputes. She requested staff consider developing a checklist clearly outlining the requirements developers must satisfy when building within Wichita’s neighborhood overlay districts.

Instead of applicants discovering post-submission that specific window counts, landscaping details, siding characteristics, or other design elements are required, staff could present these requirements transparently from the outset. Developers could then verify compliance with each requirement before submitting their plans.

Wu directly linked this to Wichita’s housing needs, noting the city’s demand for duplexes, apartments, single-family homes, townhomes, and other housing types. She stated that clearer requirements would particularly benefit smaller, “mom and pop” developers contributing to the community’s housing stock.

This initiative exemplifies the type of bureaucratic streamlining Wichita should pursue. Standards are considerably more defensible when those expected to adhere to them can comprehend them before investing time and resources in plan development.

Council Opts for Deferral Over Denial

Glasscock moved to defer the case until the September 1 City Council meeting, granting the developer additional time to address the issues and revise the proposal. Council Member JV Johnston seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 7-0.

This outcome was appropriate given the presented information. There were legitimate deficiencies in the application, particularly the missing landscaping data, and both Delano committees had reached essentially the same conclusion. Concurrently, there was little justification for permanently rejecting three proposed duplexes if the developer demonstrated a willingness to make reasonable adjustments.

The broader issue concerns whether Wichita’s compliance process is unnecessarily burdensome. If the city desires neighborhood overlays, applicants should receive clear standards, comprehensive checklists, and constructive guidance before reaching the point of project denial and appeal to the City Council.

Wichita requires more housing. Protecting fundamental neighborhood characteristics and encouraging new housing need not be conflicting objectives, but this necessitates a process designed to facilitate compliance rather than merely informing applicants of their errors after the fact.

In a rare turn of events, I agreed with Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock and Mayor Lily Wu’s comments during this discussion. I don’t care if every person in Wichita wanted Taco Rio to have a specific type of roof. They don’t own the property, they aren’t paying for the repairs, and they don’t bear the financial consequences when a portion of the restaurant is unusable due to a leaking roof.

As long as a replacement roof is safe and meets standard building requirements, government entities and citizens with no financial stake in the property need to mind their own business. Neighborhood character does not justify subjecting a private property owner to nearly three months of bureaucracy while an actively failing roof continues to damage the building.

Watch the full Wichita City Council meeting on the City of Wichita YouTube channel

Two Delano Committees, Two Different AnswersThe Taco Rio building is located near Douglas and Seneca in Wichita’s Delano neighborhood. The property owner acquired the building in 2024; the structure itself dates back to 1968 and features a terracotta-style roof that contributes to its Spanish Colonial Revival aesthetic.

When the roof began deteriorating, the property owner initiated the approval process in May, initially proposing to replace the failing tile with asphalt shingles. This was the least expensive option, with an estimated cost of approximately $15,000.

The proposal first went before the Delano Design Advisory Committee, composed of appointed community volunteers who provide neighborhood input on projects within the Delano overlay district. Four members were present, and they voted 4-0 to approve the shingle roof.

Three days later, the Delano Design Review Committee denied the application. This committee consists of city staff, including the zoning administrator, planning director, and preservation planner. Staff determined that shingles would not preserve the architectural character of the building.

The Property Owner Offered a Much More Expensive CompromiseInstead of continuing to advocate for the approximately $15,000 shingle roof, the property owner presented another option. They proposed a DaVinci composite slate product, which would cost roughly twice as much as the original shingles, placing the replacement cost around $30,000.

Even this option did not perfectly replicate the curved, barrel-style tile currently on the building. The roofing contractor explained that transitioning to a barrel-style composite product could add another $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost.

Matching the existing terracotta was also not as simple as finding another reddish tile. Members of the advisory committee and the roofing contractor explained that clay color can vary depending on the quarry and manufacturer, and the existing Luigi Imperial tile uses older attachment patterns that make mixing new and old tile difficult.

Attempting to integrate the existing tile with replacement materials could create installation and warranty problems, in addition to increasing the cost. All of this debate was taking place over a building not listed on any historic registry.

Meanwhile, the Roof Was Getting WorseThis was not a property owner attempting to change a perfectly functional roof due to aesthetic preference. The roof was failing, water was infiltrating the building, and portions of the original wooden structure beneath it were severely deteriorated.

The roofing contractor informed the council that the northeast and northwest corners were among the worst areas, with parts of the wooden mansard essentially rotted out. Tarps had been placed over sections of the roof while Taco Rio continued operations underneath.

The restaurant remained open out of necessity. The contractor explained that Taco Rio is a small business that could not afford to simply close while the process dragged on, even though parts of the restaurant could no longer be used for customer seating due to the damage.

Wu eventually asked the contractor directly if bureaucracy was hindering the repairs. His candid answer was, “Speaking plainly, absolutely.”

Glasscock Questioned Why the Council Was Debating Roof Tiles at AllGlasscock articulated the problem better than anyone else during the discussion. He stated that he did not sign up for the City Council expecting to become a tile expert and questioned why a private business had been forced through so much government bureaucracy over a roof on a building that is not historically designated.

He also highlighted the surroundings. Taco Rio is situated near a QuikTrip, McDonald’s, and Subway, yet the city was debating whether this particular privately owned building needed a specific roof style to maintain the area’s character.

Glasscock noted that the council had already spent roughly half an hour discussing roofing materials while preparing to debate an approximately $800 million city budget later that day. He asserted that this was not the kind of debate that should be happening in a top-50 American city, and I agree.

Council Member Becky Tuttle made a similar point, calling the situation a complete overreach of government. There is a legitimate role for building codes that require roofs to be structurally sound, properly installed, and made from safe materials, but that is distinctly different from government dictating what a private roof should look like.

Ballard Wanted More Neighborhood DiscussionCouncil Member Maggie Ballard disagreed, arguing that Delano’s design standards are important to District 6. She stated that residents had invested effort into creating protections for the neighborhood and that she would not be fulfilling her duties if she did not consider those concerns.

Council Member Joseph Shepard supported Ballard’s position, emphasizing the importance of trusting district representatives and hearing from residents who may not have been able to attend the meeting. He acknowledged the problems with government bureaucracy but contended that building trust with neighborhoods also matters.

I understand the value of listening to neighborhoods, but the neighborhood had not been excluded from this process. The citizen-based Delano Design Advisory Committee had already reviewed the project and unanimously approved the original roof.

Two members of that committee also attended the City Council meeting and defended their decision. One specifically stated he would have approved the more expensive composite slate compromise as well, which makes the argument for delaying the project for additional neighborhood discussion even harder to justify.

Eighty-Two Days of BureaucracyBy the time this issue reached the Wichita City Council, 82 days had passed since the property owner first submitted the application. During those 82 days, the roof continued deteriorating, part of Taco Rio’s seating area remained unusable, and the owner transitioned from a roughly $15,000 roofing option to an approximately $30,000 compromise in an effort to satisfy the process.

Wu called that delay unacceptable. She pointed out that a small business was operating with only part of its space available while everyone continued discussing what the replacement roof should look like.

She also asked city management to consider restructuring the Delano Design Review Committee and Delano Design Advisory Committee. The current system allowed the citizen advisory committee to unanimously support the project, only for the staff review committee to reject it just days later, ultimately sending the entire dispute to the City Council.

That process clearly needs to be fixed. If a community advisory committee can spend time reviewing an application and unanimously approve it, only for three city staff members to reject it, there is a legitimate question about what role the community committee is actually serving.

The City Council Finally Ended the DisputeBallard ultimately moved to uphold the Delano Design Review Committee’s decision and deny the application, with Shepard seconding her motion. Glasscock then offered a substitute motion to override the committee’s denial and approve the property owner’s proposed composite slate roof, which Wu seconded.

The substitute motion passed 4-3, finally allowing the property owner to move forward with the roof repair. The City Council did what the process should have allowed to happen much earlier by letting the owner fix a failing roof with the compromise material they had already agreed to use.

Neighborhood character can matter, and historic preservation can serve a legitimate purpose. However, neither should become an excuse for people with no ownership or financial stake in a property to dictate tens of thousands of dollars in additional spending while water continues to leak through the roof.

This should never have required 82 days, two Delano committees, multiple roofing proposals, and a City Council vote. Sometimes, government’s job is to ensure a roof is safe, meets building codes, and then get out of the property owner’s way.

.

Sara Cowling spoke before the Wichita City Council about losing her apartment and becoming unhoused again, using her own experience to explain how quickly someone can fall into homelessness even after trying to maintain housing.

Cowling said she had been one month behind on rent and fought to keep her apartment, but ultimately lost it. She described how difficult it can be to navigate eviction proceedings and other systems without reliable access to a phone, transportation, employment, or someone who understands the process.

She also connected her experience to Wichita’s broader response to homelessness. Cowling said people displaced from encampments often turn to friends or others who are housed, bringing their belongings with them or staying temporarily. That can then put those tenants at risk with their own landlords.

“We’re fighting a fight that just keeps going and going and going in circles,” Cowling told the council. She called for more preventive measures and greater advocacy for tenants before people lose their housing entirely.

Council Member Joseph Shepard thanked Cowling for sharing her experience and encouraged her to speak with the city’s housing director about available resources. Council Member Mike Hoheisel said state law limits some of what the city can do regarding landlord-tenant issues and said he wanted to hear more about what happened in Cowling’s case and continue advocating for changes at the state level.

Cowling ended by making clear that she intends to continue speaking about homelessness and the experiences of people living through it.

“I’m not the only one out here, and I’m not giving up.”

Watch the full Wichita City Council meeting on the City of Wichita YouTube channel.

Full Transcript:

[00:00:00] Sara Cowling: I hate this thing. Good, good morning

Good morning. Um, my name’s Sara Cowling, and once again, I am part of all of your guys’ districts. Um, I lost my apartment last week, and I’m here to speak with you as an example of how homeless- homelessness is a, a... I can’t ever read my writing. Anyways, it’s not exclusive. It doesn’t... It happens to anybody, and it can happen at any time, no matter how much we try to prepare.

I believe that I’m here more than anything this morning for a reason. Um, most of the organizations that were listed, I have spent the last year being part of a lot of their events. Um, I can’t even list all of them, but I... Even growing up, I was in Junior Achievement. Um, I have... I’m now learning to use my voice, and, like, for a lot of us out here, now I can say I’m back out here, and I hate to say that.

But I can also say that I can... Given you the last year of my life, you know where I stand before I’m here. Um, things happen, and not everything’s fair. And sometimes- We are... Sorry

I had all those planned, but, um, planning is not my strong suit, obviously. Um, the last year with grassroots, we did the housing, we did, um, we went to Chapin Park. We’ve done... You know, we got people where things were starting to be noticed. This year, I think that where I’m at right now is a perfect example of showing how people end up homeless.

Um, I, as many of you know, my last year I’ve had setback after setback, and we’ve had housing, and I... Like this last week, I fought for my apartment. I was one month behind, and sometimes systems aren’t fair, and sometimes just not knowing how to talk through those symptom- systems is how we have so many people on the street.

When I go to court and I miss court because I’m talking to Parks and Rec and call 30 minutes after court’s done and put in a motion to set aside an entry, adjur- And I go to that hearing, and I have everything loaded to, “Look, I was 14 days late on my rent. I was, um, my lease was not renewed because I had too much stuff in front of my apartment.”

But the stuff in front of my apartment comes from the people that are out on the streets when they have nowhere to put their stuff. They put it in front of my place. When we have people that are being evicted, because when we can’t have people in the encampment areas, they go to people’s houses. And then landlords terminate their leases because they have too many people staying there.

You know, we’re fighting a fight that just keeps going and going and going in circles. And until we start preventative measures, we’re not gonna get this un- nip it in the bud. You know, we need to have more advocacy also for the tenants. We need to have... When a judge tells me that all you have to do is be three min- or three days late and you can be evicted, and I have everything in my side of my argument to say that I was right, like I’ve...

a lease that wasn’t even re- wasn’t even changed from the city of Wichita to mine, and then make me responsible, I’m appealing that, and but a lot of people don’t know that. Like, uh, they, the only thing they care about is your rent. And if something happens, like you get hit by a car and you break both your legs and your wrist, and you don’t have a job because you’re trying to get one, but nobody wants to hire you without having a car and a phone, and you need a jo- a job to get both of those things, it’s just- Frustrating.

Last week I lost everything I owned again, and because of politics, when I go and put in a motion and I’m in the right, but I don’t have a phone to look it up, and they come and lock me out of my house, even though when the last time I was trespassed, they told me I had to be off the property. And the next day my landlord trespasses me again and says I had every right to be there until this process was...

I doesn’t get those two, two weeks back. And I don’t know where I’m going with this, but I just wanna say that I know that I’m trying to speak up for a lot of people, and I think I’m thankful for everybody that’s here. I’m thankful for the power that I’ve given myself that you guys have allowed me, and I wanna keep going with this.

And I need to speak with everybody on more of a level because, I mean, I’m not the only one out here, and I’m not giving up. And I’d like to see more people aware because I’m just... I’m not going away

[00:05:17] Joseph Shepard: i’m curious if there are any resources within our toolbox to help people like Sara. Sara, thank you so much for the courage, and I don’t know where you went, but the courage and strength that you continue to provide every single day. The vulnerability it takes and the courage that it takes to come and share your story in front of people who don’t even know you, um, kicks open doors of opportunity for other people.

So, uh, I see our director of housing back there. I’m sure you’ve met with her before, but, uh, I’m encouraging you to meet with our director of housing if-- to see if there’s anything that we can do for you, um, to make sure that we get you back on a pathway of hope and stability. Um, thank you, Mayor.

[00:05:56] Mike Hoheisal: Sara, I do appreciate you, and I’m sorry everything’s gone sideways there. Um, we tried to do a number of things surrounding property rights, um, landlord-tenant relationships here about a year ago. Um, there’s a lot of barriers in our way towards acting, uh, due to the state and the Tenant Landlord Act.

Um, so I would like to meet with you and hear your process and what happened there, and then also, um, maybe advocate on the state level for the changes that we need. I-I’ve been doing that for f-four and a half years now, but, um, we need to continue to keep our foot on the gas with that one, so we can make a lot of the appropriate changes that we need as well.

So thank you, and I’ll, I’ll be reaching out and setting up some meeting with you.

At the August 18th Wichita City Council meeting, council members discussed a new problem: two events, Somewhere Fest and the Wichita Chinese Association’s Mid-Autumn Festival, both want to use the St. Francis Street area at the same time. City workers said this is the first time two events have asked to use the same space in Wichita at once.

Event HistoriesSomewhere Fest is in its third year. It started as Elsewhere Fest & Conference on June 21–22, 2024, using St. Francis and Emporia streets. It changed its name to Somewhere Fest in 2025 and returned on June 13–14, focusing on St. Francis Street. The festival for 2026 is planned for September 25–26, and this date was announced to the public on October 29, 2025.

The Wichita Chinese Association started in 1995. Every year, it celebrates traditional Chinese holidays, including the Mid-Autumn Festival. Records show the association has held Mid-Autumn celebrations at Botanica for many years, with events recorded as far back as 2017. The planned downtown event means moving this cultural celebration to a new place.

The 2026 Permit TimelineIpei Chung, who owns The Farm Venue at 221 N. St. Francis, said the Wichita Chinese Association’s application for a 2026 community event had been with the city for more than eight weeks. This suggests they applied by late June. Chung confirmed that they submitted professional traffic maps, insurance papers, and plans for the event location.

Raffaele Fazio, the organizer for Somewhere Fest, told the council that his festival’s public announcement was made on October 29, 2025. However, the exact date Somewhere Fest applied for its 2026 city permit was not clear. Fazio mentioned meeting with Chung in May 2026 to ask about renting The Farm. When he learned about other events already booked, he suggested working together on access during the street closure. He sent a follow-up text in July. The two groups met again the Friday before the August 18 council meeting, with Council Member Maggie Ballard helping them talk.

The Street Closure at the Center of the ProblemThe City of Wichita’s online calendar currently shows that Somewhere Fest plans to close Emporia Avenue and Second Street from September 22 to September 27. St. Francis Avenue between First and Third streets is set to close from September 24 to September 27.

Chung argued that closing St. Francis for four days would cause big problems for nearby businesses and planned events. She also told council members that she had filed a formal complaint from local businesses about the street closure and questioned why the Somewhere Fest closure appeared on the city calendar so early.

Somewhere Fest representatives replied that St. Francis is a very important part of the festival’s Social Change Block Party. They said losing the street would create safety concerns and essentially remove that part of the festival. Fazio offered to include the Wichita Chinese Association in the block party as a possible solution.

City Officials Admit There’s No Clear RuleCouncil Member Joseph Shepard asked city officials about how they decide which application comes first, if both events could happen, and if there’s a “first application wins” rule.

City staff did not say there was a simple “first application wins” rule. Instead, staff said they were looking at things like whether an event had used the requested location before. This could be important because Somewhere Fest and its earlier version have used the St. Francis area since 2024, while the Wichita Chinese Association’s Mid-Autumn celebrations have always been held somewhere else.

City Manager Dennis Marstall said that the disagreement still needs to go through the city’s appeals process and that staff would keep trying to help the groups find a solution. However, he also admitted that the city might eventually have to choose and issue only one permit for that location.

No final decision has been made yet.

View full meeting on the City of Wichita Youtube Full Transcript:

[00:00:00] City Clerk: IPei Chung fairness and equity in the city’s event permitting process

[00:00:10] IPei Chung: Good morning, Mayor and City Council member. My name is IPei Chung. I own the Farm Venue at two two one North San Francis. I’m here today alongside the Wichita Chinese Association, protect our Mid-Autumn Asian cultural event and our downtown merchant from severe business interruption. Our community event application has been active with the city for more than eight weeks, establishing our timeline.

We are fully code compliant, and we have submitted our professional traffic maps, insurance documents, and site plans. While city staff is processing our single block event layout, there is a severe-- a serious conflict involving the surrounding street closure for Somewhere Fast. The festival organizers are planning a total blockade of San Francis Street from Thursday through Sunday, four full days of street closures.

Closing these commercial blocks during weekday and weekend, plus business hours, create, um, extreme financial hardship for our permanent businesses. It cuts off access for our clients and vendors, interferes with delivery trucks, blocks customer parking, and make it difficult for employee to access their properties.

To protect our livelihood, I formally file a statutory merchant prot-protest petition with the Park and Recreation staff, representing a majority block objection on San Francis Street. Under city code section three point eleven point one fifty, if more than one-third of the affected property owners or residents object to the street closure, the request must be set for a hearing before the city council for a final determinations.

However, yesterday afternoon, I discovered that the park staff have moved Somewhere Fast street blockade onto the official wichita.gov calendar despite our statutory protest We are simply asking the city manager and this council to follow the written code fully. Our proposed solution is simple. Move Somewhere Fast barricade one block west to a location that will not cause severe damage to a small business.

We are asking this council to support our grassroot organization, protect our local small business, and shield our downtown merchant from severe business interruption. Thank you.

[00:03:24] Lily Wu: Thank you, Ivy. Madam Clerk, please call the next individual.

[00:03:29] City Clerk: Rafael Fazio, support for Somewhere Festival

[00:03:36] Raffaele Fazio: Thank you, Mayor Wu, council members. My name is Raphael Fazio. I’m here on behalf of Movement Music, which hosts Somewhere Fest. Um, just a f- a few points to talk to you about what Somewhere Fest is. It’s being held September twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth. It’s our third year. It brings in approximately fifteen thousand people, attendees from thirty-one states and six countries.

But the music, frankly, is the Trojan horse. It’s really about social change and our social change block party. Last year, the social change block party was Change Starts Somewhere. This year it is Be the-

the people. There are over twenty nonprofits represented here today in support of that. And th- what is being requested is to shut down part, uh... Well, uh, St. Francis is exactly where our block party occurs, and the inability to shut that down not only creates a safety issue for our festival as a whole, but would essentially eliminate our block-- our Social Change Block Party.

Um, and that’s-- That would be the impact on that. We have tried multiple times to work with the Fun Venue. I met with them, um, in May of this year. Our festival was just, uh, go back for a moment. Our festival was announced October twenty-ninth of last year. It was, um, picked up by Wichita IB as well as our socials.

I did meet with the Fun Venue m- uh, owners on-- in May of this year. I asked them actually to rent the venue. We’d rented the venue last year. Um, Ms. Chung had informed me that they had a already, uh, rentals for those two days, a birthday party on Friday and a wedding on Saturday. And I said, “Okay, well, we-- like we did last year, we’d like to shut down that-- the St.

Francis, so we’d like to work with you on reasonable access.” And the response was, from Ms. Chung, that she was not interested in that. Um, in fact, I have a, a text. In July, I followed up with her because I never heard a response from her, so I texted her and asked her to as a follow-up. Because as we left that May meeting, she told me that her husband would contact me.

I never received the resp-- uh, contact, so in July, I contacted her, and I told her that we’d like to work with reasonable access, and her response, and this is a quote directly from her text: “Since our last meeting, I’ve been pursuing other avenues to address what I believe is an unfair situation. As a result, we have not reached a point where contact you-- contacting you was necessary.

As I mentioned previously, my husband will reach out to you if we determine that there are no other reasonable options to explore. If that becomes necessary, he will contact you directly.” That is the-- We have tried to cooperate them. We actually met with Ms. Chung on Friday with the help of Council Member Ballard, and, um, we, we would, we would incorporate-- we would be happy to incorporate a booth on St.

Francis for them, for the Wichita Chinese Association, which is also submitting a permit for their event. Um, I, I-- We’ve, we’ve tried what we can do to, to help work with them and help create, um, their-- help create a situation that is a win for everyone. Um, so that’s, that’s all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Raphael.

[00:05:33] City Clerk: Madam Clerk, please call the next individual

Joe Woodward in support of the Block Party at Summerfest

[00:05:41] Freddy Hutt: Good morning, council. Um, my is Freddy Hutt. I will be speaking today in stead of Joe. Is Joe not present today? He is present. Appreciate everybody’s time today. Um, I’m actually here, um, most people are familiar with me and my promotion regionally in the community for, uh, workforce development work. Um, I’m here as a stakeholder of the community and a, a community member who is incredibly passionate about what we do, um, as part of the Social Change Block Party.

I am a, a foster kid. I’m a long, longtime, I guess, a, a kid of two parents that have went through a number of, uh, addictions, and, uh, I’m, I’m incredibly passionate about the work that they do. Um, I’ve been volunteering my time, uh, to help with Summer Fest and, and to grow these last several months because, you know, I, I deeply find their mission to be aligned with what I believe in.

Um, I’m not alone in this. I’m joined today by over a dozen leaders from some of the most effective organizations empowering people across Wichita. We’re here together because we believe this event is good for our city and the people who call it home. Among those represented today, we have Boys and Girls Club.

We’ve got The Phoenix. Um, Phoenix uses power of community to help people rebuild their lives in recovery. We’ve got Hope For The Hood, addressing violence and helping people pursue greater opportunity and upward mobility. Lead Wichita, building a citywide movement of people committed to transforming our community.

The Kansas African American Museum, represented here, um, as a, as a, as a neighbor of Summer Fest and just a couple blocks away with their new facility. Care Portal, helping communities move upstream to strengthen families and help keep kids safe out of foster care. Gathered Strong, led by Jay Hedrick, bringing people together across the continuum of care to strengthen kids and families.

We’ve got Wichita Recovery Hub, helping people recovering from anything, finding community and resources that remove barriers to a better life. We’ve got Mark Arts and Learning Lab here, providing innovative educational experiences. Army of Normal Folks, which supports ordinary people taking extraordinary action in their communities.

We’ve got Hope Community Development Corporation, Hope CDC, it’s better known by, led by-- We got Asal Riven Harding over here. And, uh, they expand the opportunity for homeownership for exponentially more Northside families. They also do a lot in the area of financial literacy. These organizations work on different issues, but we all share a common belief.

The challenges our city faces, they’re bigger than any one organization can solve alone, and every person and every organization has a role to play. Essentially, Wichita faces, like, some real challenges, you know, not just, uh, some topical cosmetic things, but too many of our neighbors are affected by addiction.

I volunteer regularly in South Broadway. I’ve got a project on South Broadway. Um, too many kids and families are touched by foster care. Upward mobility is moving in the wrong direction. Our reading and math outcomes don’t reflect the incredible capability of Wichita’s kids. Behind many of these challenges is something even more fundamental, the breakdown in human relationships, addiction, isolation, mental health challenges, family breakdown, and violence.

Government and nonprofits have important roles to play, but none of us can manufacture the relationships that make a community strong. People and, and these organizations and the relationships that we build through events like this, that’s what makes the Social Change Party, the Social Change Block Party different.

I mean, there, there’s not another e-event that I go to, that I attend where we’ve got a reason such as music, where we’re bringing all of the people that this gentleman had spoke to from multiple states, fifteen thousand people that are coming together for ostensibly music, and we pull them in, and then we introduce, um, resources, and we tell them about what the, what the impacts of these multiple agencies in Wichita are doing.

Now, music has had a remarkable ability to bring people together. Summer Fest wants to harness that power for something bigger than entertainment. The Social Block Change-- Social Change Block Party, excuse me, will put a national spotlight on some of the extraordinary change-makers already at work right here in Wichita.

We don’t wanna just have people come here about problems. We want them to discover what they can do about them, and someone may care about helping a neighbor recover from addiction. Someone else might help, you know, a family stay together. Some people are passionate about foster care. But last month, we celebrated the American idea of the country, of the people, by the people, and for the people.

These words aren’t just something to celebrate once a year, they’re a responsibility. If we wanna live in that kind of country, then each of us has to be the people. That’s what this event is about, bringing people together and celebrating the people already doing the work and making it easier for all of Wichita to understand what’s happening in our community and how to be a part of it.

I appreciate your time, and, and I’m happy to support this event. Thank you.

[00:08:17] Jospeh Shepard: Thank you. I just, I don’t wanna ignore that we also have a, a situation that’s occurred here, and so what is the plan to reach a healthy compromise? Um, I know Council Member Ballard, it was mentioned that you met with, um, the two entities from the Fun Venue and then Summerfest. How do, how do we get to a healthy compromise?

I just, I’d like to believe that we, we can coexist in our city together, and we don’t have to do one over the other. Um, I like multiple events happening in the city of Wichita, and so how do we get to a healthy compromise, and what has been the standard operating procedure process when two entities apply for a permit or a grant in the same area, um, at the same time?

[00:08:59] Dennis Marstall: And I’ll take that. Um, thank you, Council Member Shepherd. Um, knowing that the, uh, I believe it’s the Asian Festival was held in a different location in prior years, and this is the first year their request to have it in this location, is my understanding. So there’s two things that we need to resolve. Uh, there is an appeals process, and so we will have to play that out with our parks and recreation staff.

But as you heard today, there has been some communication between the partners, and so we will continue to fa- facilitate that where we can on the, um, city side, but it may come to a point where we can only issue one permit for that particular location. But as was offered, there could be some ways to maybe coexist on some ways to promote both cultures and both events.

[00:09:45] Jospeh Shepard: Thank you, City Manager. I really appreciate that. And I just wanna make sure, uh, the appeals process is not gonna come at a cost to either entity. clarity to who has the first, um, application in and what the process has been. So then once we determine the right permit holder, how we can work together, then I think that brings some clarity about who can help frame that conversation and who can offer what to whom.

Okay, final question for you, city manager. Um, so given that the promotion of events are already taking place, and the outcome of this process could drastically impact both location and timeline, what is our timeline to get an answer to both of these entities on how we’re moving forward?

[00:10:35] Dennis Marstall: Well, we do have some information, and I’ll say there may be some more information, um, that we can share from the city as we’ve been down this path part way, so we do have a sense of the process underway. So we can share some more information with you.

[00:10:52] Lily Wu: Quick point of clarification. It’s not the Wichita Asian Festival. That is held at Century II. This is the Mid-Autumn Wichita Chinese Association event. M- madam, uh, sorry, Council Member Ballard.

[00:11:05] Maggie Ballard: Madam, I like that. Um, thank you, Mayor. Reggie, could you just give, like, a high-level overview?

Um, we’ve never had two, um, groups apply for the same spot on the same day, so this is a little bit new, but if you could just maybe share a little bit, I appreciate it. Thank you.

[00:11:33] Dennis Marstall: And as he comes forward, yeah, we’ll highlight that they’re involved in the appeals process and things. And so I think, yeah, just, uh, basic issues will be helpful, and then we’ll share with some follow-up information.

[00:11:42] Reggie Davidson: Sure. So as, uh, Council Member Ballard mentioned, this is the first time that we’ve had an event that has requested the same space at the same timeframe.

And typically, what we do once we have something like this, we’re looking at it to see if there’s a precedence before with the event being held at a particular location. As the manager mentioned before, uh, the other event was at a different location previously. So we’re trying to look at the best way that we can make compromise to see how we could potentially have both of them coexist.

So just as a point of reference, uh, any of our events that we have, uh, from Open Streets, the other events that we have that’s in place, we normally, uh, have those annually, and they’re reoccurring events, and we typically don’t schedule something else during that same timeframe because it would be difficult to manage if there’s, uh, the same space that’s there that’s being requested.

Public discussions about homelessness usually center on the people who are easiest to see. That leaves a much larger population almost entirely absent from the conversation: adults moving between temporary living arrangements, sleeping on couches, staying with relatives, or depending on friends because permanent housing is financially out of reach.

These situations are often treated as personal failures rather than evidence of a larger economic and social crisis. Wages have not kept pace with housing costs, many jobs do not provide enough income to live independently, and support systems frequently offer only temporary relief. A person can work for decades, raise a family, earn an education, and still reach a point where one major setback leaves them without stable housing.

The public also tends to assume that any available program must be a reasonable solution. That ignores the limitations placed on people who enter shelters or subsidized programs. Safety matters, but so do privacy, independence, family relationships, pets, and the ability to make ordinary choices without constant supervision. People who reject a particular program are not necessarily rejecting support. The available option may simply be incompatible with their lives.

Wichita’s response cannot remain focused on complaints, appearances, and removing visible poverty from public spaces. Relocating someone does not address the conditions that placed them there. Neither does repeating broad assumptions about addiction, employment, criminal activity, or personal responsibility.

This issue also requires elected officials to consider how their language shapes public behavior. When government leaders speak carelessly about vulnerable residents, harsher statements and actions become easier for others to justify. Public policy should be grounded in accurate information and basic respect, not frustration, stereotypes, or the desire to make suffering less visible.

Wichita does not need another strategy built around relocation, surveillance, punishment, or public appearances. It needs permanent, affordable housing and policies that respect the people those policies are supposed to serve.

“You have my commitment that I’ll be there.”

This is Wichita City Council Member Joseph Shepard’s full response after Cynthia Fitz and Daysha “Day” Hill addressed the council about DeAundre Hill on August 4, 2026.

Shepard asked City Attorney Jennifer McGaw whether he could meet privately with DeAundre’s family. McGaw advised against a private meeting because of possible litigation, but confirmed that he was free to attend the family’s monthly protest.

Shepard then publicly committed to attending.

He told Cynthia and Day that he saw his own mother and sister in them, heard their pain, and did not view them as another number or statistic.

“I want you to know that I see you,” Shepard said. “I want you to know I hear you.”

Shepard did not reach a conclusion about the shooting. He did, however, acknowledge the family publicly, apologize if they felt he had not done enough, and promise to show up.

That was more than DeAundre’s family had received publicly from Wichita’s elected leadership, period.

Read more about DeAundre Hill, the circumstances surrounding his death, and his family’s fight for justice:

https://kansashelen.substack.com/s/justice-for-deaundre-hill

Listen to DeAundre’s music and learn more about his creative work:

https://linktr.ee/edgedtheartist

The complete video featuring Cynthia Fitz, Daysha Hill, and Council Member Joseph Shepard is available on the Kansas Helen YouTube channel and through the Exposing Wichita podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

#justicefordeaundre #justiceforwichita #wichitaks #Policeshooting #sayhisname

“Where is your voice?”

This is Daysha “Day” Hill’s full statement before the Wichita City Council on August 4, 2026.

Day spoke as the sister of DeAundre Hill, who was shot and killed by members of the Wichita Police Department. She told council members she is tired of watching Wichita families bury their loved ones, tired of press conferences being held before families receive answers, and tired of elected leaders acting as though silence is leadership.

“We shouldn’t have to fight this hard just to understand what happened to someone that we love,” she said.

Day asked why families must fight for every piece of information, why public-records requests are denied when the community is demanding transparency, and why officers remain on duty while families are left grieving and searching for answers.

She addressed Mayor Lily Wu and Council Member Joseph Shepard directly:

“Where is your voice?”

Day also made it clear that demanding accountability is not anti-police.

“Accountability is exactly what builds the community and public trust.”

Before leaving the podium, she asked Wichita’s elected leaders one final question:

“What are you afraid of?”

Read more about DeAundre Hill, the circumstances surrounding his death, and his family’s fight for justice:

https://kansashelen.substack.com/s/justice-for-deaundre-hill

Listen to DeAundre’s music and learn more about his creative work:

https://linktr.ee/edgedtheartist

The complete video featuring Cynthia Fitz, Daysha Hill, and Council Member Joseph Shepard is available on the Kansas Helen YouTube channel and through the Exposing Wichita podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

#justicefordeaundre #justiceforwichita #wichitaks #Policeshooting #sayhisname

“No parent should lose their child in the way that I have lost mine.”

This is Cynthia Fitz’s full statement before the Wichita City Council on August 4, 2026.

Cynthia spoke as the mother of DeAundre Hill, who was shot and killed by members of the Wichita Police Department. She told council members that a narrative about her son had already formed before she had the opportunity to review all the available evidence.

What she later learned, Cynthia said, raised serious questions and did not match what she had initially been led to believe. She believes DeAundre died because officers failed to follow their training and established protocols.

“A badge should never be allowed to hide the truth or excuse dishonesty,” she told the council. “My son, DeAundre Hill, should still be here.”

Cynthia called for officer-involved shootings to be reviewed independently and for conclusions to be based on evidence rather than assumptions.

She also reminded Wichita that DeAundre was more than a name in a police statement. He was a Black business owner, an artist, a music producer, a Planet Fitness employee, and a deeply loved son and brother.

“Justice for DeAundre is justice for everyone.”

Read more about DeAundre Hill, the circumstances surrounding his death, and his family’s fight for justice:

https://kansashelen.substack.com/s/justice-for-deaundre-hill

Listen to DeAundre’s music and learn more about his creative work:

https://linktr.ee/edgedtheartist

The complete video featuring Cynthia Fitz, Daysha Hill, and Council Member Joseph Shepard is available on the Kansas Helen YouTube channel and through the Exposing Wichita podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

#justicefordeaundre #justiceforwichita #wichitaks #Policeshooting #sayhisname

There are moments when a city reveals its true values, not through official slogans, public-relations statements, or carefully prepared plans, but through what happens when grieving people stand before their government and demand to be seen.

On August 4, 2026, Cynthia Fitz and Daysha “Day” Hill, DeAundre Hill’s mother and sister, addressed the Wichita City Council. They spoke about the unanswered questions surrounding DeAundre’s death, the public narrative that formed before the family received the available evidence, and the silence they have experienced from Wichita’s elected leadership.

To learn more about DeAundre Hill and his family’s fight for justice, along with his amazing music and creative work, visit: Edgetheartist

To learn more about the case and the circumstances surrounding his death, visit the Justice for DeAundre Hill Substack

Cynthia Fitz: “My son should still be here”

Cynthia Fitz introduced herself as a Wichita resident and as the mother of DeAundre Hill, whom members of the Wichita Police Department shot and killed.

“No parent should lose their child in the way that I have lost mine,” she told the council.

Fitz said nothing could bring DeAundre back, but his family still deserved what every family should receive after a police shooting: truth, transparency, and accountability. She told council members that a narrative about her son had already formed before she reviewed all the available evidence. What she has learned since his death, she said, raised serious questions and did not match what she initially believed.

Fitz believes DeAundre died because officers failed to follow their training and established protocols. She told the council that a badge should never hide the truth or excuse dishonesty, adding plainly, “My son, DeAundre Hill, should still be here.”

She also raised broader concerns about accountability within the local justice system. Fitz specifically mentioned Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett, saying that, in her view, meaningful accountability has not occurred when serious questions have arisen in officer-involved shooting cases. She asked the council to ensure that police shootings are reviewed independently and that evidence, rather than assumptions, determines what happened.

“Public trust cannot exist if conclusions are reached before all the evidence is examined,” she said.

Fitz also reminded the council that DeAundre was more than a name in a police statement or a person seen briefly in footage the City released. He was a Black business owner who operated several businesses, an artist and music producer, and an employee at Planet Fitness. She said the facility closed for 48 hours following his death because of the impact his loss had on the people who knew and worked with him.

She asked members of the council and the wider Wichita community to share DeAundre’s story and stand with the family as they continue demanding accountability. “Justice for DeAundre is justice for everyone,” she concluded.

Daysha Hill: “Where is your voice?”

Daysha Hill spoke after her mother, introducing herself not only as a Wichita citizen but as DeAundre’s sister. She told the council that she was tired of watching Wichita families bury their loved ones, tired of hearing about another officer-involved shooting, and tired of seeing police press conferences take place before grieving families receive answers.

She was also tired, she said, of watching leaders act as though silence were leadership.

Since DeAundre’s death, Day said, her family has had to fight for answers, transparency, and accountability. They should not have to fight this hard, she told the council, simply to understand what happened to someone they loved.

Day reminded the council members that they were elected to represent Wichita residents, not to protect the comfort of City Hall or the reputation of the Wichita Police Department. She asked why Wichita has experienced so many officer-involved shootings, why families must fight for every piece of information, and why records requests are denied when the public asks for transparency.

She also questioned why officers remain on duty while families grieve and search for answers, and why people carrying badges do not appear to face the same expectations of accountability imposed on everyone else.

Day addressed Mayor Lily Wu and Council Member Joseph Shepard by name and asked, “Where is your voice?”

She told the council that leadership is not measured by how comfortable elected officials remain when everything is going well. “Leadership is measured by what you’re willing to say when saying it is difficult,” she said.

Day also rejected the idea that questioning police conduct or demanding accountability is automatically anti-police. Accountability, she argued, is exactly what builds public trust. Wichita residents fund the police department through their tax dollars, and they therefore have every right to expect professionalism, transparency, and accountability from it.

She also discussed the National Day of Protest held annually on October 22 and the local protests DeAundre’s family and supporters hold on the 20th of every month. The August gathering will be the seventh monthly protest since DeAundre was killed.

Before leaving the podium, Day asked Wichita’s elected leaders one final question: “What are you afraid of?”

Joseph Shepard: “You have my commitment that I’ll be there”

After Cynthia and Day spoke, Council Member Joseph Shepard addressed them publicly. He said he felt an obligation to acknowledge the family, both as a council member and as a Black man.

Shepard then asked City Attorney Jennifer McGaw whether, because of possible pending litigation, he had the freedom and autonomy to meet privately with DeAundre’s family. McGaw told him that the City would advise against such a meeting due to the potential for litigation.

She did not say that meeting with the family would be illegal, and she did not order Shepard to stay away from them. Her answer was legal advice intended to limit the risks created when an elected City official privately discusses facts that may later become part of a lawsuit.

Shepard then asked whether he was permitted to attend the family’s monthly protest. When McGaw said yes, Shepard answered, “You have my commitment that I’ll be there.”

He then spoke directly to Cynthia and Day, telling them that when they approached the podium, he saw his own mother and sister in them. He apologized for the pain they were experiencing and said he heard the pain in their voices. He also told them he did not view them as another number or statistic.

Shepard was careful not to reach a conclusion about the shooting itself. He said he did not know all the details of the case, but he did know that Cynthia had lost her son and Day had lost her brother.

He said he felt an obligation to be vulnerable, practice what he preached, and refuse to remain silent merely because the moment was uncomfortable. Shepard told Cynthia and Day that he saw them, heard them, and would try to support them in any way that did not violate his responsibilities as a council member.

He also apologized if the family believed he had not done enough or had failed to perform the due diligence they expected from him. Shepard spoke about the racial disparities he sees in Wichita and the burden he personally carries as a Black elected official, including the microaggressions, stereotypes, and pain he experiences even when members of the public see him smiling.

Shepard emphasized that he was not attempting to debate the evidence or decide the merits of the case. He was responding to Cynthia and Day as another human being.

That public acknowledgment and commitment were more than DeAundre’s family had received publicly from Wichita’s elected leadership, period.

Advisement of the City Attorney

City Attorney Jennifer McGaw advised Shepard against privately meeting with DeAundre’s family due to potential litigation against the City. While not illegal, such a meeting could have repercussions for both Shepard and the family.

Shepard could face a subpoena, attorneys could question him under oath, or they could require him to disclose communications. Attorneys might inquire about information exchanged and whether shared details contradicted testimony or public statements. His comments could also support or undermine claims in the case.

He could inadvertently harm the family by revealing private information, contradicting their stance, characterizing the shooting as justified, or disclosing details City attorneys could use against them. Furthermore, he could complicate the City’s defense by divulging confidential information, implying official awareness of misconduct, or making statements attorneys might interpret as an admission by a City policymaker.

The most probable consequences for Shepard would not involve the City suing him for expressing an opinion. More realistic outcomes could include him becoming a witness, attorneys subjecting his records to discovery, him facing an ethics complaint, him losing access to confidential briefings, him creating conflict with the City’s attorneys, or him experiencing political pressure from other officials and the police department. More severe consequences could arise if he knowingly disclosed protected information, interfered with witnesses or evidence, attempted to influence personnel decisions, or made false factual accusations.

Shepard can still advocate for transparency, question City policy, support an independent investigation, attend protests, and assert that the family deserves answers. The legal risk stems from discussing disputed facts, confidential information, personnel decisions, or litigation strategy, not from publicly demonstrating compassion.

A Promise Has Been Made

For months, Cynthia Fitz and Daysha Hill have carried their grief into public spaces. They have protested, asked questions, challenged the narrative surrounding DeAundre’s death, and demanded that the people elected to represent Wichita acknowledge them.

On August 4, someone finally did.

Shepard did not answer every question Cynthia and Day raised. He did not publicly declare that the shooting was unjustified, demand the immediate release of all footage, or promise that the officers involved would be disciplined or prosecuted.

He did, however, look at DeAundre’s mother and sister, acknowledge their pain, and promise to show up. That matters, particularly after months in which the family received no comparable public response from Wichita’s elected leadership.

I have criticized Joseph Shepard before, and I will continue to do so when his conduct deserves criticism. Accountability means telling the truth when an elected official falls short, but it also means telling the truth when one takes a meaningful step forward.

Shepard made his commitment before the family, the council, and the public. The next protest will be held on August 20. Join the Facebook group Justice for DeAundre Hill or follow Exposing Wichita to get time and location information.