For months, mayoral candidate Spencer Duncan has tried to take what he described as the “high road” in his campaign, focusing on policy discussions and city finances rather than personal attacks. That approach shifted this week when Duncan turned his attention squarely on his opponent, Henry McClure, and the legacy of one of McClure’s most high-profile projects: College Hill.
Duncan posted on Facebook that McClure’s proudest example of “getting deals done” for Topeka was in fact a cautionary tale of taxpayer losses, broken promises, and out-of-state control. According to Duncan, the $4.2 million taxpayers have lost on College Hill is money that will never be recouped.
A Promised Revival That Fell Short
College Hill was originally pitched as a transformative mixed-use development in the heart of Topeka, funded in part through a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) scheme. McClure, the lead developer, promised retail growth, vibrant housing, and a long-term neighborhood anchor. The city even exercised eminent domain to clear the way for the project, displacing local homeowners.
But much of the retail never materialized. The bonds tied to retail revenue failed to cover their costs, leaving taxpayers to fill the gap. Today, Duncan argues, Topeka is left paying more than half the project’s total development cost while developers walked away with profits.
Enter Lew McGinnis
Adding fuel to Duncan’s critique is the fact that local ownership — once a central selling point of College Hill — has given way to outside control. The complex is now managed by C Hill Apartments, a company tied to Arizona developer Lew McGinnis, a name that still raises eyebrows in Topeka. McGinnis has long been a controversial figure in the city’s real estate scene, with past entanglements that left scars in neighborhoods and city ledgers alike.
For Duncan, the connection is clear: Topeka was promised community-centered redevelopment, and instead wound up with McGinnis in the picture once again.
A Shift in Tone
The post represents one of Duncan’s sharpest attacks to date. While he had previously avoided direct jabs at McClure, Duncan is now painting his opponent as a developer whose deals consistently put personal profit over community benefit.
“When a candidate tells you their No. 1 priority is to ‘make deals,’ you should ask: What deals and who are those deals for?” Duncan wrote.
The message is unmistakable: Duncan wants voters to see College Hill not as a model of McClure’s leadership, but as a warning of what happens when City Hall aligns too closely with private developers at taxpayer expense.
